Our Rising Oceans: VICE on HBO

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: liejunkie01

WHY DO PEOPLE LIVE ON THE COAST,

Where are the ports?

I guess you could have everything flown in nowadays, but coastal areas sprouted up for good reasons. That is basic history if you ever look into it.

I guess in the rush to sound intellectually superior, you must have missed the part of the sentence right before the comma that states

"But my main question is other than ports, which can be built farther inland, "

Since you are all about looking into history, look into the many ancient port cities that are now under water.

It has happened before, why would someone think it shouldn't happen again?

a reply to: liejunkie01

"But my main question is other than ports, which can be built farther inland, "

Really that is interesting. Can you give some examples of landlocked ports?



Communities have always grown around commerce and ports have always been a point of commerce.

You will not find many examples of fishing communities in the desert either.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Really that is interesting. Can you give some examples of landlocked ports?

I think the issue would be more height above existing sea levels. There are a number of ports on the Great Lakes. Rising sea levels would make them more easily accessible.

a reply to: RickinVa

They are not rising erosion is pulling land under water sand grain by sand grain.

a reply to: metalholic
What about rocky cliffs? Water is not rising against them? They're just falling down?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: liejunkie01

"But my main question is other than ports, which can be built farther inland, "

Really that is interesting. Can you give some examples of landlocked ports?



Communities have always grown around commerce and ports have always been a point of commerce.

You will not find many examples of fishing communities in the desert either.

I thought that anyone would understand that if ocean levels rise, then obviously you have to move the docks further inland, or raise the level of the docks.

I completely understand how commerce works. Thank you for the tutorial.

From the looks of your comprehensive abilities, I might would suggest taking a break from the climate change arena and go out and get some fresh air, or get some rest.

I'm just saying that you are trying to argue with me on points that I am already aware of and/or stated already.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grimpachi

Really that is interesting. Can you give some examples of landlocked ports?

I think the issue would be more height above existing sea levels. There are a number of ports on the Great Lakes. Rising sea levels would make them more easily accessible.

That's true but most existing ones as well as the communities that sprung up around them will be screwed.

Facts of life is wherever there is commerce there will be communities that is kind of basic yet people still go on asking questions like "why did they build buy they sea".


It is almost as if people think the only reason to live by the sea is to surf and play. I used to work at the port and I lied by the port. That is where the work was.

a reply to: liejunkie01

From the looks of your comprehensive abilities, I might would suggest taking a break from the climate change arena and go out and get some fresh air, or get some rest.

No thanks I am fine. I just had a hard time comprehending why you would ask such a dumb question like.

WHY DO PEOPLE LIVE ON THE COAST, THEN CRY WHEN THE EARTH CHANGES?

You may as well ask "why are people upset that their lively hood and homes will be destroyed" while you have the wise men which nowadays would be the scientists saying it is happening because of crap we did and the chieftains which are what we call politicians now are denying theirs a problem and lining their pockets.


Sure history shows us that coastal areas have been subject to change but when was the last time in recorded history that every coastal area in the world had an impending demise over the next 100 years.

All evidence points to the fact that the ice loss is now completely unstoppable...

LMAO, I would hope so.

That's what makes the climate baiters lose so much credibility to rationale, logical, and grounded human beings.

Ice loss, and ice gain, has always been completely unstoppable.

These climate change deniers truly are an egotistically driven bunch.

The climate changes. Before man. During man. After man.

Three thousand years ago, after listening to the village shaman, RickinVa's great ancestor said the following:

All evidence points to the fact that the volcano is now completely unstable and will erupt... we should have listened to the shaman Mal Gore Who Walks Rigid and sacrificed more virgins decades ago. Now is too late, your villages will burn because you failed to sacrifice.

Evolve already, you're STILL falling for the oldest con job in the history of the world.

Stop denying that the climate changes all on its own; you're placing yourself into an enslavement driven by human ego.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Really that is interesting. Can you give some examples of landlocked ports?

Oddly enough, they do exist.

There's even one in utterly landlocked Oklahoma.

e: I forgot that there's a second port.

a reply to: GenerationGap

Also...

Since "All evidence points to the fact that the ice loss is now completely unstoppable..." I suppose you are moving to Denver. I mean, since it's now unstoppable, we might as well party like it's 3099 AD and freely burn coal, petro, and farts to our heart's own content! It's unstoppable, so additional taxes paid by the poorest of the poor are no longer needed since it's now an inevitability that mankind can not change the fact sea levels are rising.

Woot! Woot!

Finally, we are free of the environmental tyrants.

I'd rather the oceans rise and drown us all than to have to hear or read yet another sermon by yet another one of these climate change deniers. Seriously, they're worse than the Saturday morning Mormons at this point. But, I guess it's good, that like the Mormons, at least they have faith in something.

Me, I prefer putting my faith in my own individual sense. The earth has been warming, cooling, warming, cooling, warming cooling for millennia upon millenia. Sometimes it changed faster, some times slower. In fact, I would dare say that even the rate of warming then cooling back to warming has it's very own cycle.

Even if man is responsible, which I doubt as much as I doubt virgins in volcanoes staves droughts, it doesn't change the fact that the Earth's climate will change. Maybe more ocean water will lead to more rain and thus less droughts! Maybe it will lead to more droughts but make previously largely inhabitable regions of the world the new Bali's and Hawaii's! Maybe we all die, but hell that could happen from a rock from space or an unpredictable combustion on our solar system's life giving and life taking star.

I got a question to the climate change deniers, do you tithe? I mean donate to the church, errr cause?

I would say the climate is supposed to change and the politics of money are making suckers out of some of you who want to believe we are doing this. Did anyone notice the Magnetic poles are moving? There has to be a reason for these cycles. There are Sun cycles in play here folks and if you feel like the coast is sinking, you must be smart enough to move and let some other person spend their money for that land. Remember, mankind did not create these cycles.

I have repeatedly pointed out that the very people who politicize this for us all are making a ton of money and IGNORING the alternatives. EVEN allowing criminal behavior with our money in a way that makes people think it is not financially a good idea to put up solar panels to split Water for H2. Keep drinking their Kool-aide and see who makes the money. Oil is controlling the planet and even the shills for "man made CO2 is killing us are in on it". Meanwhile the scientist who were in the IPCC are saying the IPCC have been misrepresenting the truth to us.

Here i will send this link to you guys again. Please, see who is against the IPCC conclusions folks and UNDERSTAND you are being played like a violin.

www.youtube.com...
here is what your types did when given the data firsthand with those IPCC Scientist being in the movie stating the facts, it is a religion for some.
aninconsistenttruth.blogspot.com...

a reply to: Phage

I tried to watch it but the first 5 min is too political. If you are going to run scientific evidence that's fine but don't start one out by saying how persecuted the cause is followed by attacking an opposing view. I'm all for science, I actually have a couple degrees in it. The problem is that there's is so much money behind the climate change movement and too many "crying wolf" events for me.

a reply to: DuckforcoveRThe shingles on your garage are what is heating up. They get hot no matter what the outside temp is. On a 90 degree day they will get hot enough to fry an egg.

originally posted by: jlafleur02
a reply to: DuckforcoveRThe shingles on your garage are what is heating up. They get hot no matter what the outside temp is. On a 90 degree day they will get hot enough to fry an egg.

Good point. Antarctica will be hard to de-ice at that temperature unless Volcano's are doing it. Minus whatever degrees F do that to Minnesota and points north till the warm temps arrive.


Oceana was the name of the Nation that Orwell described where you weren't supposed to parrot the truth or risk more than ridicule. Believe the lie or die. It would be a good time for people to re-read that story.

Science is taking a back seat even if there IS less ice, Man made climate change did not affect that ice. We affect our drinking water worldwide with poison, and our forests in some country's but the US is doing it's best to plant trees and remove poison from our air and water. Going after CO2 will ruin our progress we have made with the attitude of willingness from the public to help us. The zealous few are threatening to run off the common man.

One can't be ignoring the natural cycles to prove man is altering the climate so much. It is and obvious fact that it is helping the political crooks to gain power, pure and simple. The Nuclear winter option would and that seems more likely as a means to an end for them.

Even if man is responsible

If it was just one man, there'd be no problem. It's when you have approximately 3.5 billion of them, most of whom want to mate with the other half of the populace and produce even more rug-rats, that you start seeing the effects.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Flatfish

Good, you are walking back the claims a bit.

I am confident that the ocean floor is not any warmer due to human activity. I don't know how much frozen methane is actually in tundra, I haven't investigated that yet.

Your confidence is going to let you down on this one.

There are enormous amounts of methane trapped in the frozen tundra and I've seen documentaries where they're lighting flames, (some quite large) from leaking methane coming out of thawing tundra.

Furthermore, as the oceans surface warms causing variations and at times cessation of normal currents, it also warms the oceans depths. Not a lot, but it only takes a minor change at depth to disrupt the balance, melting and releasing vast amounts of frozen methane hydrates.

I absolutely agree that natural methane releases may very well end up being a larger "immediate" threat. But that's only because we ignored the CO2 problem to the point that the resulting warmer global temp. Is now causing the methane releases.

That's why I said it's like a snow ball going down a hill, the farther it's allowed to go unchecked, the bigger and faster it gets.

On one hand you say it is unchecked on the other hand claims are made that humans barely account for a lot of the threat.

Just what do you propose is going to CHECK something that is not only caused by humans.

I get irritated by the incredible amount of LACK in the logic of these people.... THINGS CHANGE, what you gonna DO about it.

I don't now, nor have I ever, claimed to know exactly what degree humans are responsible for global warming and the resulting climate change. I do know that I've never used the word "barely" to describe it.

On the other hand, common sense dictates that we do indeed have an affect and while the effects that an individual human causes may be minuscule, when you scale that number up to 7,000,000,000 it's hard to deny that we are playing a significant role and not in a positive aspect.

I also don't believe that anyone is denying that there are other factors playing a role as well. This really isn't an "either/or" situation.

Now, I have to ask; Why wouldn't we make every effort to minimize the adverse affects caused by humans?

I mean, even if we had absolutely no affect on climate, why would we want to continue breathing & drinking these pollutants when technology is providing us with newer/cleaner and in the long run cheaper, energy sources?

I think I read a statement of yours in another post claiming that we are doing more and more all the time to limit air & water pollution and I have to say; "Really?"

In recent years, the GOP has given the oil & gas industry immunity from anti-pollution requirements in the clean air & water acts, (allowing them to even deny disclosure of what chemicals they're pumping into the ground) and on top of that they even propose complete elimination of the EPA.

Now those are some earnest efforts to limit pollution if I ever heard any!

The only advancements that have been made, have only been accomplished after lengthy battles with those who deny our impact on this planet.

Remember acid rain? While I'm sure there are some natural causes, the problem has been greatly reduced just by addressing the human causes.

That's kinda why they put brakes on soap-box derby cars. They may not have any control over gravity, but they can slow down or minimize it's affects.

I don't really care what I'm used to doing or how successful it's been to date. When I find out that in the long run, my current methods are hurting my health or the environment and new technology is providing cleaner, safer and in the long run cheaper alternatives, it's time to change.

Not to even mention the fact that, in the clean energy arena, we don't have to fight endless wars to insure a steady supply of fuel.

It's really pretty simple logic, if you ask me.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: liejunkie01

WHY DO PEOPLE LIVE ON THE COAST,

Where are the ports?

I guess you could have everything flown in nowadays, but coastal areas sprouted up for good reasons. That is basic history if you ever look into it.

I think air - travel and freight is number 2 on the global warming (human caused) list of baddies.

Can you guess number 1 - yeppers - WAR. (on all pollution fronts)