Also when you using him for literally every single argument you make, you are parroting, not thinking.

Potholer54 didn't make any claim in his series of response videos, he was merely refuting the claims AA was making

He made a claim that AA had more things wrong than right. Yet potholder only looked as some of his arguments and pulled up the study and read it.

Because AA didn't even read the study, he only read the titles of news articles

You say "the study" except there has been multiple arguments between them.

But the argument about the Maldives was what started it all

There was three responses.

AA made a video called "The Maldives Mystery" where he looked at the titles of some media stories and concluded that the academia are making false predictions about the sea rise concerning the Maldives and Potholer responsed

Then AA admitted he was wrong about the Maldives claim and shifted to claiming about AOC's infamous "the world will end in 12 years" remark

Well they obviously are for political reasons alone.

Also rising sea level does not necessarily mean uncontrollable rising temperatures.

It's local water temperature that's more important.

And second besides, the rising sea level is not nearly as fast as it was stated only 10 years ago.

But both rising sea levels and rising temperatures are provable by observations, also the main driver of sea level growth is the melting ice sheets

It was to create floodplains in California by now.

Third besides, the temperature rise is not linear or constant.

And yes sea level doesn't have to be constant, it gets influenced by a lot of weather phenomena such as the El Nino, but these happen and affect the rise short term, long term we still observe a rise in the sea level

Rise yes but severe rise remains to be seen.

And severe as in actually creating problems

For all coasts

To expect the models now, we should see it decay exponentially.

Also I am quite sure that no scientific paper has claimed that by now California was supposed to experience devastating flood patterns, what they have been claiming, though, is that weather phenomena (which are driven by temperature) will become more unpredictable and flood and drought pattern will become more unpredictable too, with more areas experiencing floods and more areas experiencing droughts

Which frankly we don't. We see a more linear rise.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-rise-will-threaten-thousands-of-california-homes/

This is the same with Australia and the weather phenomena which drive its cycles of droughts and floods, the long term rise in temperature has led to more droughts and also more rainfall

Not even more unstable waterways and tsunamis and stuff, literal flooding

The Scientific American article says California should be experiencing more floods by 2035, not now, again it's because of the long term rise in temperature

(floodplains)

If we're talking about short term predictions a lot of factors come into place which can influence weather phenomena and temperature

Do you realisticly believe that not only will it rise exponentially (which we don't see) and that it will literally flood California lowlands in 15 years?

Short term predictions are not the problem

It's the long term predictions. And the Cult effect it has as if it's cast in stone and not a (prediction)

The article talks about how the San Francisco Bay Area will be more exposed to floods in the future, it doesn't claik that the entirety of it will be under water by 2035

I didn't say that, but it also didn't say "susceptible" it said will.

Will as in confirmed as in certain.

That's fearmongering.

It just talks about the risk of property damage such floods will cause, no one is claiming that the entirety of San Francisco will be under water, what is being claimed, however, is that a lot of properties close to the beaches of the SF Bay Area are at risk of getting damaged by floods by 2035

I just said I didn't say that.

It's not fearmongering if it's bringing up an actual legitimate concern

This right here is what I'm talking about, they make predictions by assuming variables instead of current data.

If it was exponential we would have seen it by now.