Climate change denail is about to get expensive.

[DMC]

What is a "denail"?

[Winehole23]

thread les can't be edited.

but sure, ding people for haste.

[Chris]

How much money do we need to give Al Gore to make the hurricanes go away?

[Winehole23]

zero.

next?

[spurraider21]

zero.

next?

Chris:

[RandomGuy]

zero.

next?

How many people's homes will be destroyed because of failed Republican policies? Thousands.

[CosmicCowboy]

How many people's homes will be destroyed because of failed Republican policies? Thousands.

hyperbole

[RandomGuy]

hyperbole

They have allowed unrestricted building of home on the coast for years, with literally no regard for changing ocean levels, and/or potential storm surges.

That is a direct consequence of the deregulatory at ude wherein an easily foreseeable problem is actively ignored by a party that is actively hostile to science, and coupled this hostility to reality and facts to unfounded faith in the infallibility of free markets.

This is neither hyperbole, nor a post hoc rationalization. Good policies do not come out of piss poor understanding of reality. They just... don't, however much you may wish it to be otherwise, because "team red rah rah rah".

[CosmicCowboy]

They have allowed unrestricted building of home on the coast for years, with literally no regard for changing ocean levels, and/or potential storm surges.

That is a direct consequence of the deregulatory at ude wherein an easily foreseeable problem is actively ignored by a party that is actively hostile to science, and coupled this hostility to reality and facts to unfounded faith in the infallibility of free markets.

This is neither hyperbole, nor a post hoc rationalization. Good policies do not come out of piss poor understanding of reality. They just... don't, however much you may wish it to be otherwise, because "team red rah rah rah".

Where could you have possibly gotten that from the article? "Unrestricted building"? I call bull .

[RandomGuy]

Where could you have possibly gotten that from the article? "Unrestricted building"? I call bull .

Ok, you got me there. THAT was hyperbole. "unrestricted" was hyperbole. They had some minor things in play for "setbacks" from the ocean and so forth.

And I did some background reading in looking for the article's source bill, which I read, and posted, as well as some extra stuff, because it was interesting.

Already posted the bill previously. The big thing was for close to 6 years during the housing recovery, they did very little to hold back development along the coast. They recently started hammering out compromises to reign this in, and man people are ING.
South Carolina beach-building line still in legislative snarls
https://www.postandcourier.com/news/...ee4535c3c.html

I googled and skimmed a few articles in the "news" and "all" segment of google using the terms:

south Carolina building along the coast

to better inform myself on what the impact of the bill was, and how things have changed, or not, since the bill was passed.

Feel free to do the same, and find a hole in my assessment.

Here is a good one:

Rising seas put brakes on developers’ march toward the ocean
https://www.thestate.com/news/local/...e81141222.html

You called bull , which is good. I have now provided you with supporting evidence for my assessment. Either you will be lazy and dismiss it, as most conservatives are, or not, and maybe you will address it meaningfully.

Your call.

[RandomGuy]

... and no I didn't get that from just ONE article in the OP. That is factually incorrect. FWIW.

[RandomGuy]

NOAA's data and predictions would strongly disagree with the "Coastal Resource Commissions" 39" finding and indeed it looks like they just pulled that number out of thin air. At NOAA's estimate of 1/8" per year it would be more like 12" in 100 years. Not saying that it is insignificant but a lot of the resistance to climate change predictions are caused by common sense reactions to massively exaggerated claims by proponents.

http://www.climatechange.nc.gov/Clim...ent_Future.pdf

This report from 2012 pretty much is spot on what is happening now. It is a bit eerie.

Here is the report, where they said no such thing as "it will be 39 inches"
https://www.sealevel.info/NC_Sea-Lev...ence_Panel.pdf

The most likely scenario for 2100 AD is a rise of 0.4 meter to 1.4 meters (15 inches to 55 inches) above present.

39 inches was the average, with a wide range and a lot of noise, based on what they knew at the time.

That didn't stop the morons in the Republican party from latching on to that one thing so that they could get an easily accessible talking point for people like you to parrot endlessly "HOW RIDICULOUS THAT IS FOR A HUNDRED YEAR PROJECTION!!!"

So they told people to ignore the and build away while they ordered a study.

Six years later, the scientists were right, and the Republicans were wrong. AGAIN.

[DMC]

thread les can't be edited.

but sure, ding people for haste.

What? RG in a haste to puke out another hack article?

[DMC]

http://www.climatechange.nc.gov/Clim...ent_Future.pdf

This report from 2012 pretty much is spot on what is happening now. It is a bit eerie.

Here is the report, where they said no such thing as "it will be 39 inches"
https://www.sealevel.info/NC_Sea-Lev...ence_Panel.pdf




39 inches was the average, with a wide range and a lot of noise, based on what they knew at the time.

That didn't stop the morons in the Republican party from latching on to that one thing so that they could get an easily accessible talking point for people like you to parrot endlessly "HOW RIDICULOUS THAT IS FOR A HUNDRED YEAR PROJECTION!!!"

So they told people to ignore the and build away while they ordered a study.

Six years later, the scientists were right, and the Republicans were wrong. AGAIN.

Too bad the scientists weren't hired to run Hillary's campaign and do the polling, eh?

[RandomGuy]

[cheap personal attack]

[indifference]

[RandomGuy]

Hillary

[mild pity, bemusement]

[DMC]

[stupid 13 year old emo response that required an edit]

[A Slob's Slob]

In 2012, North Carolina legislators passed a bill that barred policymakers and developers from using up-to-date climate science to plan for rising sea levels on the state’s coast. Now Hurricane Florence threatens to cause a devastating storm surge that could put thousands of lives in danger and cost the state billions of dollars worth of damage.

The hurricane, which is expected to make landfall on Friday, is shaping up to be one of the worst storms to hit the East Coast. Residents of North Carolina’s Outer Banks and mainland coasts have already been ordered to evacuate. President Donald Trump declared a state of emergency in both North and South Carolina, and a Federal Emergency Management Agency administrator said that the Category 4 hurricane will likely cause “massive damage to our country.”

And the rise in sea levels, experts say, is making the storm surge worse.

Sea level rise is a direct consequence of global warming; the warming of the ocean has resulted in thermal expansion and melted ice sheets and glaciers that are causing the oceans to rise. Since 1950, the sea level has risen 6.5 inches ― a number that sounds small but has actually had major consequences across the country.

“Sea level rising, simply put, makes every coastal flood deeper and more destructive,” said Ben Strauss, CEO of Climate Central, a climate change research organization that has published dozens of studies about rising sea levels and the risks of ignoring the problem. “Ignoring it is incredibly dangerous.”

“It only takes a few extra inches of water depth to be the difference between a ruined floor and no damage, or a ruined electrical system and just a ruined floor,” Strauss said. “Floods tend to be a great deal more destructive and costly than homeowners anticipate.”

Sea level rise can also affect the severity of hurricanes, said William Sweet, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “If you compared storm surge heights from the same storm at the same location over several decades, the surge would be higher ― assuming no change in flood defenses ― because of sea level rise,” Sweet said.

But in North Carolina, lawmakers chose to ignore the threats. A panel of scientists on the state Coastal Resources Commission issued a dire warning in March 2010, estimating that the sea levels along the state’s coast would rise 39 inches over the next century. Conservative lawmakers and business interest groups feared the report would hurt lucrative real estate development on the state’s coast and sought to undermine it. A lobbying group committed to economic development on the coast accused the panel of “pulling data out of their hip pocket.”

--------------------------------

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0162f4731da0e

I know, right?

[RandomGuy]

[more vitriol]

You couldn't go a week posting here without using the word "Hillary".

It's just... sad.

[RandomGuy]

hyperbole

You know what else was "hyperbole"?

The Republicans pushing the bill to quit regarding the science used some pretty misleading language to describe what the science said.

Why do you think they did that?

[DMC]

You know what else was "hyperbole"?

The Republicans pushing the bill to quit regarding the science used some pretty misleading language to describe what the science said.

Why do you think they did that?

I'm not going to let you forget, though you'd love to. Nuh uh. Reap it.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not going to let you forget, though you'd love to. Nuh uh. Reap it.

Dude, you aren't even making sense at this point. I'm sure it made sense in your head, but this just looks... muddled.