I just came back from a trip to Venice; even in with high tide, Venice is still safe from flooding. The only thing that would flood it would be a tsunamy. And there were plenty of other witnesses. Not a denial, a fact, I even have pictures.
The fact that Venice was not flooded when you were there does not mean that flooding does not happen. Look at http://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2015/jun/16/history-flooding-sinking-city-venice-in-pictures. A world exists outside of your personal experience. Also look up the spelling of tsunami.
As usual, people are spreading the myth of climate change.
Venice has NEVER flooded, ever, under any circumstances..http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/9648997/Venice-under-water-during-high-tide-flooding.html?frame=2385888
Huge amounts have been spent to reduce (it still floods) flooding in Venice, Italy. Venice California is facing problems as well, not to mention Florida.
Interesting that one of the biggest problems Egypt has is the Aswan Dam preventing flooding, which is leading to loss of agricultural lands that were dependent on the flooding of the Nile, for millennia. Denial ain’t just a river.
No, actually I used CONSERVATIVE measures. 97% of peer-reviewed, published climate papers with a position on human-caused global warming agree that it is happening and it is caused by humans.Virtually every major science association on the planet agrees that human-caused global warming is real and a problem.And you misread the article I linked to, as regards “contribution.” The item says, and I quote, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor [emphasis mine] in changing mean global temperatures?” 98.2% of those who thought temperatures were rising (or, as they note IN THE ARTICLE, 91.9% of polled scientists total) agree with that.
Forgot the link to my first note on the 97%: http://theconsensusproject.comBottom line: scientists agree: anthropogenic global warming is happening. Increasingly, we see that the only opposition is funded by oil companies. E.g., the Exxon story lately, which notes that they were fully aware of AGW in 1977 and chose to spread misinformation deliberately. (e.g., http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxonmobil-denies-lying-about-global-warming/)
Read my later messages. I’ll repeat: Other research indicates 97% of peer-reviewed, published climate scientists agree. That’s science.And if you really think a difference of one-tenth of one percent out of 92% really matters to this, you are really stretching, don’t you think?
You’re a few links behind me, I think. The one to which you refer, if I am correct (since you did not specify which of five I posted), you are interpreting that incorrectly.A significant percentage did not MENTION Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), one way or the another. That did not mean that they did not support AGW, it means it wasn’t mentioned. On occasions when it was referred to, 97% of the time it was explicitly stated that AGW was supported.One reason for this is that AGW is now so fully accepted that it is assumed to be the norm. Had any of those other papers found data contradicting AGW, there is no doubt they would have proclaimed it to the heaven, as finding reliable data that changes the scientific consensus is every scientist’s dream.So: When mentioned, it is almost always supporting AGW.
Thanks Gresch, your comments provided rebuttals from motivemagus & Baslim, educating me, too. Please keep up the good work! As they cure your ignorance, my enlightenment grows in equal measure.
kaffekup over 8 years ago
More of a fool.
canFunny over 8 years ago
I just came back from a trip to Venice; even in with high tide, Venice is still safe from flooding. The only thing that would flood it would be a tsunamy. And there were plenty of other witnesses. Not a denial, a fact, I even have pictures.
Spyderred over 8 years ago
The fact that Venice was not flooded when you were there does not mean that flooding does not happen. Look at http://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2015/jun/16/history-flooding-sinking-city-venice-in-pictures. A world exists outside of your personal experience. Also look up the spelling of tsunami.
Mickey and Delia over 8 years ago
As usual, people are spreading the myth of climate change.
Venice has NEVER flooded, ever, under any circumstances..http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/9648997/Venice-under-water-during-high-tide-flooding.html?frame=2385888
echoraven over 8 years ago
Sooooo there’s more oil with climate change?
Dtroutma over 8 years ago
Huge amounts have been spent to reduce (it still floods) flooding in Venice, Italy. Venice California is facing problems as well, not to mention Florida.
Interesting that one of the biggest problems Egypt has is the Aswan Dam preventing flooding, which is leading to loss of agricultural lands that were dependent on the flooding of the Nile, for millennia. Denial ain’t just a river.
Motivemagus over 8 years ago
No, actually I used CONSERVATIVE measures. 97% of peer-reviewed, published climate papers with a position on human-caused global warming agree that it is happening and it is caused by humans.Virtually every major science association on the planet agrees that human-caused global warming is real and a problem.And you misread the article I linked to, as regards “contribution.” The item says, and I quote, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor [emphasis mine] in changing mean global temperatures?” 98.2% of those who thought temperatures were rising (or, as they note IN THE ARTICLE, 91.9% of polled scientists total) agree with that.
Motivemagus over 8 years ago
Forgot the link to my first note on the 97%: http://theconsensusproject.comBottom line: scientists agree: anthropogenic global warming is happening. Increasingly, we see that the only opposition is funded by oil companies. E.g., the Exxon story lately, which notes that they were fully aware of AGW in 1977 and chose to spread misinformation deliberately. (e.g., http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxonmobil-denies-lying-about-global-warming/)
Motivemagus over 8 years ago
Read my later messages. I’ll repeat: Other research indicates 97% of peer-reviewed, published climate scientists agree. That’s science.And if you really think a difference of one-tenth of one percent out of 92% really matters to this, you are really stretching, don’t you think?
Motivemagus over 8 years ago
You’re a few links behind me, I think. The one to which you refer, if I am correct (since you did not specify which of five I posted), you are interpreting that incorrectly.A significant percentage did not MENTION Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), one way or the another. That did not mean that they did not support AGW, it means it wasn’t mentioned. On occasions when it was referred to, 97% of the time it was explicitly stated that AGW was supported.One reason for this is that AGW is now so fully accepted that it is assumed to be the norm. Had any of those other papers found data contradicting AGW, there is no doubt they would have proclaimed it to the heaven, as finding reliable data that changes the scientific consensus is every scientist’s dream.So: When mentioned, it is almost always supporting AGW.
OmqR-IV.0 over 8 years ago
Thanks Gresch, your comments provided rebuttals from motivemagus & Baslim, educating me, too. Please keep up the good work! As they cure your ignorance, my enlightenment grows in equal measure.