Loki, on 06 June 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:
Centzon Totochtin, on 06 June 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:
There is science based off emperical/historical data and then there is science based off guesstimation and possibility.
I like how the argument against the bill in the comments involves the whole 'when their buildings get swallowed by the ocean they won't be so quick to dismiss global warming'. Because you know it'll happen so quickly that things will be swallowed and yet only using historical data from after 1900 is unreasonable because the changes aren't linear and it isn't occuring at a fast enough rate for it to be well documented from just the 1900's onwards.
Sure it may mean that by 2100 certain buildings may need to be knocked down and/relocated but why not make the most of the land we have while we still have it. Compromise - don't allow hospitals, nursing homehomes and the like to be built on the lower oceanfront areas. If people want to invest in property that might one day fall to the ocean then let them.
Because that bill is a governmental body saying 'we are going to ignore science because we don't like it' If the oceans rise 39 inches in the next 90 years, that is a huge issue for those counties. But instead they want to say 'you cant tell anyone and we refuse to plan for it because we want money now'.
If the law stipulated that 'no state or federal buildings will be built within this danger zone, but anyone else is free to, even though we don't agree with this other governmental body who are the actual experts', then I really wouldn't care.
Loki, you seem to be treating it as if in 2099 the Ocean is suddenly going to increase by 30-something inches, after negligent growth before that. Nearly all studies indicate that the ocean is covering more land, and due to global warming and the melting of polar ice, it is going to continue in a non-linear pace. It is going to speed up.
This post has been edited by Obdigore: 06 June 2012 - 04:26 AM