Quote:Black Aeronaut wrote:Bad reporting, not so much. Heavily slanted reporting certainly. Do i personally believe that the climate is shifting, yes, but i do have yet to see anything that conclusively links it to man's technological advancements as being the cause. The East Anglia data has been refuted as cherry picked as per their own emails, and all i've heard otherwise has been scare tactics and lawyerese double talk that the speaker was later quoted as saying he didn't believe himself but was perfectly willing to make money off what he felt was the "masses stupidity".Quote:Rajvik wrote:You're gonna honestly tell me that NPR makes a habit of bad reporting? Cite please.
Its an NPR story, I take it with a splash of salt, a lick of lime and a shot of tequila.
Also, more on topic... Okay, I can see that if it was just a sudden thing. 100-year and 500-year floods happen. But this is permanent... or at least as close enough to 'permanent' for government work. You know what, let's just say 'indefinite' so we're all PC here.
So, that water is gonna flood the town... in about two years. And it's not gonna recede. At least, not anytime soon. And the ACoE says this is a definite thing that's gonna happen - and these guys have many decades of dealing with these things.
So, where's your concrete proof that this has nothing to do with climate change? Because seasonal ice-melts do not permanently change maps like that, let alone so quickly. Really, for that to happen there has to be something else involved... like a soft bed of water soluble minerals that was heretofore unknown.
And yes, permafrost thaw happens. But that's NOT A GOOD THING. You think we release a lot of carbon now? If the permafrost in Alaska thaws, it will release four times as much carbon as the entire human race currently produces.
I get what you're saying. Shit happens. Deal with it.
Now, get what I'm saying: we've evolved in a ridiculously short amount of time on this planet. And while part of our evolution deals in the curveballs that our world's climate shifts would throw at us, this was at a time where migration would be an easy enough thing. But that was then, this is now. We've settled just about every corner of this planet and everyone has got a political stake somewhere. If entire tracts of land suddenly become uninhabitable, it is going to hurt so bad that, in the right conditions, a war could possibly start over it. I know that's a little hysterical, but look at what Russia is doing right now in Crimea.
It behooves us to mitigate climate change as much as possible, or else the costs of dealing with it are going to far outweigh the costs of mitigation.
As for the situation, the US government has a very bad habit, (and has since its inception so its not either sides fault alone) of telling indigenous migratory tribes that they have to settle in one single spot and it be a very bad spot. As for the town going under the river as i stated the meandering of the Mississippi has put more than one town under the waves, New Orleans was up for the same treatment when the ACoE was called in to install the concrete dikes that channeled the river through the city. They are constantly re-dredging the section of the river where the two meet to keep the river on course. You want to argue that this is going to lead to loss of cropland in the future, i think if that was the case we would have never recovered from the dustbowl, you know that series of bad drought years in the midwest during the 30's that after a few years reversed itself.
the long and short of my argument is this is natural, it happens. we are 150 years out of the deepest part of the the little ice age so the world climate warming is going to be normal and considering that the world climate hasn't warmed in the last 10 years seems to back this up. the following is a link to a website debunking the myths of global warming.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3