Tim the Plumber wrote:
I, as a citizen of a democracy, am intitled to hold my own views.
Yes, but that neither makes your views logical nor appropriate for anyone other than yourself and are clearly negated by the views of any other individual
That I can justify these ideas from reported scientific numbers means that I am reasonably informed about the subject.
No, it just means that you know where the numbers are not that you are informed past that point, reasonably or otherwise.
Because I am a plumber/builder by profession I am able to understand the amount of work that would be needed to add 2 feet to a sea defence or create a new 2 foot high sea defence. Although anyone who has ever watched a mechanical digger at work will have a fair idea.
Really? So if I watch a digger I will somehow know what the pressure would be on an enclosure with 2 feet of seawater behind it? I would know much additional force it would have to withstand at average storm conditions, what the maximum force to expect would be, and how large the defense would have to be in order to withstand it? To think people go to school for years to learn these fine engineering points that can be learned by simple observation of trades at work. It is implied the defenses will be of soil, where are these inventories of soil to be obtained as there is generally not a lot of excess soil along the coast.
It is not unreasonable for me to hold such views.
No, but it does not make the views reasonable either. The fact is they do not seem to be reasonable understandings of either the science or the data.
That you are angry because I can sustain them in an interlectual argument is not my problem and suggests that you, deep down, know that your position of great worry about any extreem difficulties due to GW is not valid.
I am not angry that you think you can sustain an intellectual argument, but I am merely pointing out repeating inaccurate and ignorant statements do not make them true. It is your problem when you do so.