More Than 400 U.S. Cities May Be 'Past The Point Of No Return' With Sea Level Threats

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Compromise in this situation is a dirty word, THE dirty word. When it comes to protecting an asset like a city, any, every, all measures to safeguard such a thing must not only be considered, but enacted. Cost is irrelevant, difficulty is irrelevant, popularity of the consequences is irrelevant.

Reducing carbon emissions, while at the same time delivering an immediately effective long term solution to the problem of water ingress into these cities by way of building massive sea defences, defences so vast that to see the sea from within those cities would require one to be stood on the wall itself, and for that matter putting into action any and all alternatives which MIGHT work alongside those first two... That is the level of commitment which is required, and damned well ought to be applied to this situation.

No matter what happens, a city should never be lost, until every possible attempt has been made to save it, every resource expended, every material asset depleted, every labour hour consumed.

We human beings have a long history of spitting in the face of entropy. We die, of course, which is a failing when doing battle with such universal forces. But in terms of the wider species as a whole, we tend toward conquering the forces of entropy, day after day, year after year, and decade after decade. It is a war of attrition, but if cities simply disappear, claimed by nothing but an unfortunate side effect of a change in the variables of the hydrological cycle and nothing is done to stop it, I fear that would be an indicator that our species has started to take up apathy of world ending depth.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
So I am back after a long absence, and I find it amusing that this climate warming change nonsense still gets traction here.

Maybe because it's real...

Let us know where it is real, I live on a coastline and not a millimeter rise has been recorded in 20 years that we have been hearing things.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: DBCowboy

I will say that you do follow very well.

And you don't - so - go live with everyone else who doesn't want to do their share, and do it in South Florida.

I'm a month away from 57 years old, and I've been concerned about environment issues all my life.

This crap is happening. Whether humans are 'causing it' or merely 'contributing to it' MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

If we can do SOMETHING to slow it down - ANYTHING - (and we have identified how to do at least something) then why should we not?

Why would we want to slow it down ?

You think things are great as they were ?

Why are you so afraid of an EVOLVING EARTH.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know. We are just expected to believe anything you provide from your masters because you have been conditioned to obey.

And here's a serious question for you...how do you or we know that you haven't been conditioned to obey by your fossil fuel/talk radio masters?

It is the most funny that you people do not realize the fossil fuel guys are behind BOTH sides of this argument, but of course you cannot imagine or even BEGIN to think that could possibly happen.

What with the separation of church and state being so real too, yaknow.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

And you are in the third group, a group that believes only 2 groups exist when actually 5 or more are at work.

And they work to maintain the illusion of 2 groups, so that you can think you are CLEAR on any subject, CONFUSION.

a reply to: amazing

Do you not understand how stupid that sounds ?

It is entirely the reason humanity is at odds all of the time, and why people blindly believe anything.

I can guarantee you, in 100 years not a dam thing "science" is saying will have been accurate at all.

Good luck with your beliefs that the scientific method actually works in these scenarios, and has not been prodded and STIFLED at the core to narrate certain beliefs that are broadcast for the time.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

So your response is that since we can't get the whole world on board, we should do nothing?

Well, necessity is the mother of invention. I have faith in human innovation and technology. Of course that means we need to have an efficient energy sector in place.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Did you not read the final half of the OP? It clearly says that while those cities are effectively doomed, we CAN act to stop more cities from being doomed.

what happens when they're not underwater?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No one can predict that. Sorry. I believe that man made climate change is real, but my science says no on this. No one knows what the consequences of climate change will be until it happens as the amount of variables makes things unpredictable. Because man made climate change is unprecedented it also means that a dramatic and rapid reduction of carbon in the atmosphere due to human response is also unprecedented. We just don't know.

CO2 affects the climate only 1/10th of what global warming , oh, I mean climate change tax scammers have been saying.
according to a guy with six degrees in applied mathematics has found. (He used to be a climate modeler for the Australian government.)
Climate expert

albedo modulation drives climate change, not carbon dioxide. CO2 affects it, bit it doesn't drive it. The Sun does, just like what has been said for a long time.
But oh, that doesn't help the carbon credit scam.. What a shame. Al Gore knew that, that's why he never reduces his own carbon footprint, nor does any of the other big carbon bigfoots. Sasquatches of Carbon! Carbon Yetis!
more

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: ~Lucidity

And you are in the third group, a group that believes only 2 groups exist when actually 5 or more are at work.

And they work to maintain the illusion of 2 groups, so that you can think you are CLEAR on any subject, CONFUSION.

What in my post even alluded to two groups? What is clear about this subject? Sorry you had to reach so hard for that one. Hope you didn't strain anything.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I wouldn't bet the farm on it. This person presented a theory. You state it like it is fact. Sounds like you know more about this engineers own work than he does. Enlighten me with your data.

And who is this Miranda Devine? I'd love to have some discussions with her about her research over dinner.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know. We are just expected to believe anything you provide from your masters because you have been conditioned to obey.

And here's a serious question for you...how do you or we know that you haven't been conditioned to obey by your fossil fuel/talk radio masters?

It is the most funny that you people do not realize the fossil fuel guys are behind BOTH sides of this argument, but of course you cannot imagine or even BEGIN to think that could possibly happen.

What with the separation of church and state being so real too, yaknow.

"Arguments" can only have two sides? Well that explains who's fixated on two.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So, when exactly should I sell off my coastal properties? Ugh, aren't 1%er problems the worst??

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
In every scenario in the study except the two most extreme ones, Florida contains at least 40 percent of the people living on potentially affected land.

To go Michele Bachmann for a moment. This flood in Florida is God's punishment for their heathenish ways. Their Christians don't act like true Christians, in 2000 they destroyed the noble tradition of voting, they all have rampant prescription drug addictions, they give no tax to the state, and their education system has been determined to be worse than that of 3rd world nations.

The incoming flood is Gods way of sorting the whole mess out.

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So, when exactly should I sell off my coastal properties? Ugh, aren't 1%er problems the worst??

Never. Turn the property into an art museum, pump up the insurance rates. Use the entry fees from the museum to cover your insurance premium, and enjoy your payout when it ends up under water.

When it's under water, demolish it to make it a natural reef and turn it into a private fishing area.

Where I live, there was 2,000 meters of ice less than 10,000 years ago. When the ice retreated, it left building sized boulders called "Glacial Erratics". It gets bloody cold and snowy here still and there is Glacier National Park (First International Park)...

Sorry Florida, but I am willing to let you go if my winters get a bit milder. Let's be honest, who doesn't think America will be at least a little better off without Florida? (kidding?)

The Mediterranean and the North Sea were also land before the most recent Ice Age. Humankind survived the inundation of those inhabited lands, just like it will survive the loss of low-lying coastal cities in this era.

If it is "too late" and "irreversible", then we should working on strategies to relocate those areas over the coming decades.

I'm afraid that the deniers will not concede to the issue until they either drown in those cities, are forced to move, or even then may still deny.

It will be quite an interesting lifetime, regardless if such events occur or not.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I'm afraid that the deniers will not concede to the issue until they either drown in those cities, are forced to move, or even then may still deny.

It will be quite an interesting lifetime, regardless if such events occur or not.

I would love to know what any of that matters? Even if you convince all the civilians, (which is the target audience of those who create this scam). Why would governments target those who can't do anything about stopping this? Only governments have the power to shut down fossil fuel burning industries. Has the US attempted to stop China from burning coal?

Or is this after all, just about milking the public for more taxes that will never be used to stop these, or even address these issues?
My last question is how in the world can people be so gullible and buy into this scam, when the government is so transparently targeting civilians for convincing, rather than targeting the culprits who emit carbon into the atmosphere?

And when scientists with 6 degrees and credentials show up and show clear evidence that carbon emissions do not affect climate change like what proven buffoons like Al Gore claim, and the media ignores the science and supports those with their beggar hands out hoping for huge donations that will magically stop all the continents from sinking into the sea like Atlantis, can anyone even take the whole thing seriously?

The political theater being presented is so obviously a sham to shake the money tree by how governments aren't even calling for other countries to stop polluting and emitting fossil fuel exhaust, but instead, people like Obama get faux support for alternative energy and give 2 billion dollars to a few friends who go bankrupt right after the checks clear the bank.

This is what should be making you angry, not the anger and frustration you might feel because regular people aren't buying into the fallacies.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I wouldn't bet the farm on it. This person presented a theory. You state it like it is fact. Sounds like you know more about this engineers own work than he does. Enlighten me with your data.

And who is this Miranda Devine? I'd love to have some discussions with her about her research over dinner.

Before Clinton ended his last term, Al Gore was given the microphone for a farewell speech, but mostly he began making his case for global warming. It was the first time that large an audience was being "informed" about it, with such fever.

Before that, it was widely accepted that Albedo modulation, the waxing and waning of the suns cycles were driving a warming and a cooling cycle. And this is still true. Not falsified data about a warming trend. Then they got caught with faking data to support global warming. Remember the leaked emails? After this was exposed, they renamed it climate change. Guess what? The climate has been changing for thousands of years!

You should know this is a sham by how they keep going after civilians rather than actually getting governments on board with stopping emitting carbon. Why haven't they? Because they already know that carbon emissions don't drive climate change. The Sun does. If it didn't, why ignore doing anything to stop carbon, and instead just trying to convince the masses to cough up more cash?