Comments on: Going up

By: Andrew W

Andrew W — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:43:14 +0000

“You canâ€™t go through life basing decisions on a â€˜what ifâ€™ scenario.”

Presumably you don’t insure your house.

By: gareth

gareth — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:32:57 +0000

OK, in that case, I’ve got a very nice piece of beachfront real estate I can sell you.

By: batnv

batnv — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:01:06 +0000

Gareth I read all the time and sorry but I’m not buying into the ‘pre-emptive’ way of thinking. You can’t go through life basing decisions on a ‘what if’ scenario. Where does that stop ? It could be used in so many inappropiate ways.

By: gareth

gareth — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:19:53 +0000

I was dealing with uncertainty. With sea level rise, we don’t know how much there will be, but the danger is that we’ll get more than we thought, not less.

There’s plenty of information out there, bat. All you have to do is read it. And understand it.

By: batnv

batnv — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:19:56 +0000

Yes very sad how people have become unable to think for themselves. Many peoples lives are already too complicated so these people will just either go along with something or totally ignore it so as not to add more stress to their lives. Phsycologists have given a name to this but I can’t remember what it was.

Gareth, you yourself used the term speculation in the above article. Admit it, there is no science to predict if where or when sea levels will rise and by what amount. And why, because there are too many uncertanties.

And you can’t ignore something that doesn’t exist Gareth. )

By: gareth

gareth — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:36:16 +0000

Interesting to see your view of the general population expressed so succinctly, bat.

“Just” speculation? Only if you ignore the science completely. But you’re good at that…

By: batnv

batnv — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:28:22 +0000

Unfortunately sensationlism is the name of the game over here at Hot-Topic. Without it you would less likely be able to scare the sheeple into submission.

Sad considering that this is all just speculation.

By: gareth

gareth — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:18:47 +0000

[Note for readers: William (aka Stoat) works for the British Antarctic Survey.]

Yes, I though the structure of the Telegraph quote didn’t ring true. Any scientist talking about 3m would have made it clear that it was very much towards the top end of the possible. And if he had really said that it should have been headline news. The new earth-friendly Torygraph strikes again.

In the context of a piece about uncertainty, however, it was fair game – and when it comes to choosing what to cover, I’m the decider…

By: william

william — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:12:25 +0000

Needless to say, DGV didn’t actually say it, and you really shouldn’t be reporting sensationalist stuff like that.

He said (pers comm) the usual stuff, which wasn’t exceiting enough for the reporter, who asked, well whats the absolute max SLR; which got the response: the biggest we’ve seen in the past is 3m/century. Somehow, and absolute max has morhped into a prediction. Sigh.