Ever hear the story of the boy who refused to read science research?
Please post your video of the fisherman.
If your side hadn’t made so many false predictions, issued one fake warning after another and had so many alarmists falsifying data, than maybe we might take you seriously.
Fact is these “studies” are mostly government funded and the researchers know-winkwink-who is buttering their bread.
Poor people live in flood plains, when they relocate do their jobs relocate with them?
Oh really? Show me that.
Show me how thousands of scientists from around the world, came to the same conclusions, however it’s all just a conspiracy to make money.
Or shut the hell up.
Maybe the fisherman wasn’t counting on the melting of the Arctic and Antartica…this melting will certainly raise sea level quickly.
The only good thing? Wall St. will REALLY be underwater, literally and figuratively---- and oh the irony. : )
So will earthquakes. There is a known higher incidence of them along the San Andreas fault than in New Bern NC
No home has ever received FEMA grants twice for earthquakes or tornadoes - compared to 35,000 mentioned in the article for floods. There might be a good number for fires as well - but I don’t think you can really put earthquakes and tornadoes in the same category.
I wouldn’t belittle the poor fisherman here. Keep in mind that sea levels have only been going up about a centimeter every three years so far - so it would be very hard for a fisherman to notice as it is happening. It’s just the kind of information that is trotted out to dupe those that believe in some weird scientific conspiracy.
That’s not the only place its head is at!
The jury’s still out on that one, TJ.
Well exactly, but why use this fisherman video as some sort of expert witness?
I never saw the sea rising therefore all the climate data is incorrect?
That’s the kind of thinking that brought up Trump.
People don’t know what they don’t know. In a 100 yr. floodplain the chances of it flooding is 10% every year ( not 1% ). Doing the extrapolation shows you why these odds are horrible for building in.
Any increases in risk ( from verifiable data ) decreases the reasons for rebuilding in these places. They should be used as barriers to stop erosion, nothing more. These flood-prone areas are actually every where, and growing, in the U.S.
Until development takes a back seat to good data and common sense, we are all at financial risk. Besides, geo-engineering your way out of massive climate disruptions is reactionary thinking. It means you will always be a day late and probably more than a few dollars short. Not developing is actually the cheaper and better way to go. But then, the rich don’t get richer, poor dears. That gives me such a sad.
Yep- the same macho types who need to fight nature. Insanity!
Reminds me of the swamp properties that were sold to senior citizens site unseen in FL in the 1950s and 60s!
The locals probably have lived there for generations while the yuppies are just taking advantage of non stop building just for them. They are very selfish and do not deserve to be bailed out.
Yes, I have heard that. Building where some structure should not be or re routing a river so that massive development takes place for the idiots.
Same here- limited to no sympathy for the new McMansion owners- they should know better.
And people die or get injured
I’m not putting tornadoes in the same category. Those truly are random. But I have some qualms about including any multiple claims in earthquake zones - I’d apply the same rules I proposed for hurricane zones. In effect, you get one bite at the apple.