Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, July 13, 2014

Miami has little land that rises higher than 6 feet above sea level. One of Miami's main roads is routinely flooded and reduced to one lane. Store owners now keep plastic baggies with them to wrap around their feet when they venture outside during rainstorms because drainage no longer works. Homeowners have come to realize that parking their cars in first floor parking spaces invites ruin as the corrosive sea water rots their vehicles. Florida's Republican politicians, some of whom are potential presidential aspirants, Senator Marco Rubio, former governor Jeb Bush and current governor Rick Scott, all climate-change deniers -- have refused to act because denying anthropogenic global warming is their surest way to the hearts and wallets of the GOP's sugar daddies.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

censored

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Sea water has risen 10 inches since the 19th century and is expected to rise another 1.5 to 4.5 feet by 2100. A rise of even one foot, which is conservatively expected to occur in the next 70 years and may occur as soon as 20 years from now, will render the sewage and fresh water system in South Florida non-functional.Yet construction goes on unabated, cranes towering over new shopping malls and condominium complexes.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

If you live in an area that is consistently flooded, why wouldn't you move somewhere else? Why is this the government's problem?

I basically feel the same way about New Orleans. Rather than people moving they made it the government's problem to solve. Look at what a mess that was/is.

Same with rivers, why would people live in a flood plain?

I live close to Lake Michigan. In the 80's when the lake was up houses were falling into the lake. Insurance companies would not insure houses close to the lake. People stopped building houses close to the lake. Now that the lake is down houses are being built/sold.

#1 | Posted by sawdust at 2014-07-12 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Same with rivers, why would people live in a flood plain?" - Sawdust

Even a better point would be why would the government allow it?

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-12 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

" why would the government allow it?"

#2 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Are you proposing that "the government" tells us where to live?

#3 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-07-12 10:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Andrea is a big proponent of Big, nose-all-up-in-yer-business government.

#4 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-07-12 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

When downtown Miami starts to look like the everglades, folks will slowly move inland to higher ground, creating another building boom.

The free market always wins in the end.

#5 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-07-12 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess people in Miami aren't falling for the scare mongering.

#6 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2014-07-12 07:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

I guess people in Miami aren't falling for the scare mongering.
#6 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2014-07-12 07:54 PM

No, they are just watching sea levels rise and wash away their roads and render their water and sewer systems inoperable. Whoever knew that group delusion could have such concrete results?

#7 | Posted by censored at 2014-07-12 09:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

The free market always wins in the end.

Nobody would win this calamity. There's a massive economy in Miami that will take an enormous hit as rising sea levels inundate the coastline there. That would cascade to all of Florida and have a regional and national impact -- leaving out the fact that other low-lying areas all over the U.S. would be having the same problem at the same time. Katrina was the costliest disaster in U.S. history. It would be a picnic compared to the cost of the sea levels rising significantly in some of our major cities.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-12 09:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Katrina happened in a few days. This is happening over years. No real comparison.

People need to decide are they going to stay or leave. They have plenty of time to decide.

#9 | Posted by sawdust at 2014-07-13 12:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

People need to decide are they going to stay or leave.

Skyscrapers can't leave. Business districts don't pick up and move. Billions in coastal real estate value will wash away. Yes, people can go, and they will, but a lot of wealth will be lost and the economic upheaval will be enormous.

#10 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-13 09:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Six months ago I visited all my friends in the Florida Keys and saw no change in the tidal waterlines in Boot Key Harbor where I lived aboard from 91 to 02. When one lives aboard a sailboat with a 4' draft ones pays attention to water depth as the Keys are shallow.

That being said, the water levels are the same as when I arrived in 91. So tell me how the level in the Keys have not noticeably risen in 23 years, yet they claim that it has in Miami which is only about 115 miles away? There are places in Miami which floods when there are heavy rains yet somehow this is equates to [supposedly] rising ocean waters.

Simply put, this article is is fallacious.

#11 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-07-13 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

When one lives aboard a sailboat with a 4' draft ones pays attention to water depth as the Keys are shallow.

You don't pay as much attention as measuring stations.

The mean sea level in Miami rose at a rate equivalent of 0.78 feet per 100 years from 1931 to 1981. The rate of increase since 1991 has been higher than that, regardless of what your eyes are telling you.

tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-13 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

#11 | POSTED BY MSGT

No offense but visual determination based on a high tide mark from years ago memories are about as accurate as measuring a fart's volume and methane content based on how long the fart lasted.

The odd thing is that you complain that the scientific method is flawed from the ones that say it's happening yet make a comment like that and say it's not.

Personally I'm on the fence. The models have flaws and maybe it is volcano's and nature, but what we are dumping into the atmosphere certainly isn't helping it any.

#13 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-13 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

if I don't believe it, it ain't true. Now get off my lawn!!

~MSGT.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-07-13 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

well, the waters will ebb and flow with time, people will have to adjust and stop fighting the inevitable; but then again that is what humans do best.

#15 | Posted by danv at 2014-07-13 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Personally I'm on the fence. The models have flaws and maybe it is volcano's and nature, but what we are dumping into the atmosphere certainly isn't helping it any."

So let's hold off doing anything until ever skeptic is convinced and then just live aboard boats in a Waterworld scenario.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-13 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#16 | POSTED BY DANNI

And I said that where in my comment?

#17 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-13 05:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

And I said that where in my comment?

#17 | Posted by Lohocla

To Democrats "I'm on the fence" = ExxonMobil-loving climate change denier. There can be no middle ground.

#18 | Posted by mariosanchez at 2014-07-13 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#18 | POSTED BY MARIOSANCHEZ

Yeah, that's what I figured as well, but was hoping to hear her say it so I could have had some fun with my reply.


#19 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-14 12:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Meanwhile, Texas faces a problem. Should they revise their history textbooks to state that Miami was a mythical city like Atlantis or destroyed by God like Saddam and Gamora?

#23 | Posted by squinch at 2014-07-14 06:33 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

Miami, the city too dumb to do what Belgians have done for over 500 years.

#24 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-14 08:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

To Democrats "I'm on the fence" = ExxonMobil-loving climate change denier.

When it comes to climate change, "I'm on the fence" means that half the people you're listening to are stupid. If you think climate change might be caused by volcanoes and nature, read about the carbon cycle. Think about how it kept the system in equilibrium for thousands of years despite fluctuations in how much CO2 was produced by natural processes, and ask yourself what happens when a system is thrown out of equilibrium.

#25 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-14 08:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

I guess these folks didn't get the memo of Miami's pending doom: www.youtube.com

nor these guys: www.youtube.com

I've lived here for 3 years, 100 meters from the coast, and we are NOT constantly flooded. Sure, the summer season brings rain, but the drainage is outstanding. In fact, the past few years, the North East has been hit harder by bad weather.

#26 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2014-07-14 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

#25 | POSTED BY RCADE

True enough if you want to narrowly focus on the first four words in that last part of the comment, but had anyone continued past those four words, you would see that while I may be on the fence of the cause, I go on to state that what we're dumping certainly isn't helping.

Everyone is divided left/right on whether the cause is man or nature with the real argument being that it is happening and the amount of crap we're dumping makes it worse.

Focusing on the reason for it isn't productive as it forces both sides to just dig in and stick to their arguments while the problem escalates. Which you did by basically calling me a "denier" trying to marginalize my comment when I actually agree with you that something should be done about it regarding our contribution to it.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

#28 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-14 09:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

... while I may be on the fence of the cause, I go on to state that what we're dumping certainly isn't helping. ... Which you did by basically calling me a "denier" trying to marginalize my comment when I actually agree with you that something should be done about it regarding our contribution to it.

I didn't call you a denier. I said you were giving them too much credibility. They deserve no credibility.

Because of how far the problem has progressed, we don't have time for "on the fence" approaches. People need to educate themselves on the science and support strong measures to mitigate the problem, both inside and outside of government.

#30 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-14 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

#30 | POSTED BY RCADE

Maybe not directly, but indirectly your whole comment was that I haven't looked at the problem when in fact, I have. Maybe not to the extent that you have, but enough to realize that regardless of the reason the equilibrium is in fact out of balance and we're making it worse.

But does it really matter in the long run if I'm on the fence regarding the cause? Isn't it more important that I'm willing to address the issue regardless of the cause? Why focus on the former and not the latter? Is it that you don't feel I'm not committed enough because I question the models regarding the cause?

I do see you're point about the hardcore deniers based in politics interfering with progress though, the misinformation is laughable in it's absurdity, like MSGT's visual assurance that because he didn't notice a change in the high tide mark from memories 15-20 years ago that it can't possibly be true.

#31 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-14 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Is it that you don't feel I'm not committed enough because I question the models regarding the cause?

I was trying to address why Danni and others, such as myself, don't have patience. I should have expressed the thought better, because I wasn't trying to lump you in with climate deniers.

In any area of science, there's room for some doubt. But unfortunately, a sustained disinformation campaign from big energy-funded groups like the Heartland Institute and right-wing politicization of the issue has made a large chunk of the American people think that any questions asked about climate change models mean that climate change isn't happening at all.

If the debate wasn't poisoned, I'd be glad to have support from anyone who wants to address climate change -- even if they're on the fence about whether it is caused by human activities. But we need to convince the fence sitters to come all the way over to this side.

#32 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-14 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the debate wasn't poisoned, I'd be glad to have support from anyone who wants to address climate change -- even if they're on the fence about whether it is caused by human activities. But we need to convince the fence sitters to come all the way over to this side.

#32 | POSTED BY RCADE

True enough, but why do all the fence sitters need to "come all the way over to this side" if they're willing to address the issue?

#33 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-14 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

#33

I think it's because his problem isn't necessarily with the Heartland Institute but rather it's with the deniers.

It's sort of funny to watch folks who demand this issue be political but then whine that it's been too politicized.

The debate HAS been poisoned, but you can add it to the list of issues where politics has taken over.

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-14 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"To Democrats "I'm on the fence" = ExxonMobil-loving climate change denier. There can be no middle ground."

Perhaps their beliefs aren't in sync with ExxonMobil but the effects of their being "on the fence" has pretty much the same effect; i.e. a delay in doing anything significant to actually try and prevent disaster. We should already have made much more significant progress to get off fossil fuels. Think about if we spent the money we wasted on a war for oil on alternative energy instead where we would be today.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-14 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

True enough, but why do all the fence sitters need to "come all the way over to this side" if they're willing to address the issue?

Because some people see the fence sitters and think the human role in changing the climate is not yet established so any action would be unnecessary.

#36 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-14 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

and right on cue, Danni shows up to admit that a person who is skeptical of both sides of this issue is a "denier" and needs to be treated as such.

being objective and open minded still gets you thrown in the same tent with pure "deniers".

No middle ground and no respect for an opinion that differs in the least from their own.

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-14 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Think about if we spent the money we wasted on a war for oil on alternative energy instead where we would be today.

You would either be speaking German or wearing a Burka..

#38 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-14 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

#37 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Hate to say it but yeah, that's about it.

Doesn't matter that I think we should do something about it, but more important that I have to be 100% in agreement to be acknowledged in spite of my support for measures to be taken.

It's an absurd cookie cutter argument that if your not 100% with us, your against us.

#39 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-14 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

But we need to convince the fence sitters to come all the way over to this side.

#32 | POSTED BY RCADE

Cal them 'stupid.' Or 'deniers.' Or mock their regard for your 'science.'

Or maybe point to a model that has consistently explained what is happening.

#41 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-07-14 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

#40 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I wouldn't go so far as that on this subject..at least not with RCade. I think he's pretty sincere about it even though he's stuck in the political aspect of the argument.

#42 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-14 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Or, point out a solution that works. Base it on your science. Implement it in your own life.

#43 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-07-14 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Don't forget to include India and China in your solution.

#44 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-07-14 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I think that's because neither Danni nor RCADE really care as much about global warming as much as the politics that surround it. "

That's utter nonsense. I think about the world we are leaving to my grandchildren all the time.

"Doesn't matter that I think we should do something about it, but more important that I have to be 100% in agreement to be acknowledged in spite of my support for measures to be taken."

If you are in favor of actual action, doing something significant right away then I don't care if you believe in the concept of global climate change 100% or not. I don't believe I will have a bad car accident today on my way home from work but I still carry car insurance.

#45 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-14 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Don't forget to include India and China in your solution."

The Chinese have already said they are going to begin taking steps to reduce their carbon foot print. If they refuse to take significant steps towards a common goal then we should stop letting them ship their products to the U.S. or EU.

#46 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-14 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

A tax won't fix this. Sometimes you have to adapt.

#47 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2014-07-14 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I wouldn't go so far as that on this subject..at least not with RCade. I think he's pretty sincere about it even though he's stuck in the political aspect of the argument.

Thank you. It is hogwash for Eberly to claim my only interest in this is political. Climate science is not political. The scientists who work in the field are making legitimate, unbiased, peer-reviewed study of what is happening to the Earth, and when they assess the work of other scientists to determine its validity, that isn't a political process.

The premise that liberals or Democrats gain anything by climate change being accepted as real is ridiculous. Just because Al Gore popularized the problem with a cool Powerpoint presentation does not mean this is some big party for liberals. We'd prefer just as much as anybody else that it not be happening.

Deciding what to do about climate change is where things get political, because it requires the thing all politicians want to avoid -- hard choices.

#48 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-14 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#45 | POSTED BY DANNI

I'm so glad I finally stated my position clearly enough that I could have your approval, condescending as it is.

At least it's a better reply than your #16 post where you assumed a position I don't have. One, I might add, that should have been apparent if you hadn't focused on the "I'm on the fence" about the cause portion.

Hell, I was mocking MSGT in the first two mini paragraphs and even turned it into a fart joke to point out the absurdity of his argument, which while admittedly childish, I think was pretty funny.


#49 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-14 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

If they refuse to take significant steps towards a common goal then we should stop letting them ship their products to the U.S. or EU.

#46 | Posted by danni

I'm pretty sure that we'd opt for losing Miami.

#50 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-07-14 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Deciding what to do about climate change is where things get political, because it requires the thing all politicians want to avoid -- hard choices.

#48 | POSTED BY RCADE

Nail on the head there.

#51 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-14 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sorry....I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings on this.

But there is political gain/loss on this issue otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it....period. Climate Science, by itself, may not be political but we don't really know as we aren't climate scientists.

The complexity of climate science and how, as a planet, we combat it is beyond what any of us even pretend to know about it, so the politics is what are left with.

Don't get me wrong....I think the political polarization being attempted does not mean that Danni/RCADE don't care about their kids or grandkids and what kind of planet they'll live in.....I'm quite sure they do.

But politics is all they can discuss anyway.

#52 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-14 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I'm done with this issue. It can't be discussed anyway.

Too many thin skinned people participate in it. So, add it to gun control, abortion, and 9/11 conspiracy theorist threads.

#53 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-14 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

It seems this many people should not live in area that is just 6-10 feet above sea level. Over periods of time, sea leves rise and fall we have no idea what sea levels were 200,300 or 1000 years ago, by that fact alone millions of people should not be living in an area bound, either by man, nature, or both to be taken back by the sea?

How is it climatologists can predict what will happen in 2100 but not 2015, 2016, or 2017? Why can't they even predict a single hurricane or an average number of hurricanes in a season? So could it be that the models they are using have an incredible poor spatial and temporal resolution?

And yet we want to damage our economy based soley on these models by scientistists that have a compelling financial and professional motivation to be alarmist's.

#54 | Posted by danv at 2014-07-14 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It can't be discussed anyway.

Too many thin skinned people participate in it. So, add it to gun control, abortion, and 9/11 conspiracy theorist threads.

#53 | Posted by eberly

Because this is America?

The Land of Nothing Can be Done.

#55 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-14 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

How is it climatologists can predict what will happen in 2100 but not 2015, 2016, or 2017? Why can't they even predict a single hurricane or an average number of hurricanes in a season?

Because they're climatologists, not meteorologists. They're not studying a phenomenon as short term as next week's weather.

As for predicting hurricanes, they are predicted with strong accuracy days before they hit the United States. The models for their paths are extremely accurate.

#56 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-14 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"we have no idea what sea levels were 200,300 or 1000 years ago"

That is utter nonsense. We can accurately say what sea levels were for much farther back than that.

#57 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-14 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And yet we want to damage our economy based soley on these models by scientistists that have a compelling financial and professional motivation to be alarmist's."

I believe there is much more money to be made in climate change denial if that is really their primary motivation.

#58 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-14 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#55

I have no idea what you mean there.

#59 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-14 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

we have no idea what sea levels were 200,300 or 1000 years ago

#54 | Posted by danv

You mean that YOU have no idea. Science seems to have a pretty clear idea where sea levels were for at least the last 20,000 years.

www.fws.gov

#60 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-14 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Just turn Miami into the Venice of the Western Hemisphere. Instant tourism boom would follow to cover the conversion costs.

#61 | Posted by gavaster at 2014-07-14 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

We should invade China and India and force them to stop putting so much CO2 in the air. After all, why should they have the benefits of cheap energy sources?

This issue is about # 11 on Top 10 list of priorities for the American people. In order to get more people on board, those who are Climate Change mongers should lead by example. Al Gore can sell his 10,000 Sq. Ft mansion, eliminate his investments in Green Energy Companies & fly commercial. The executives at Greenpeace can stop flying a crony 250 miles to work (see below). Climatologists can downsize their homes, ride their bikes to work and document how they are reducing their footprint. Once these actions start to become more common, maybe others will follow suit.

www.telegraph.co.uk

#62 | Posted by CaseyJones at 2014-07-14 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

.....what ...... climate change ...... #48 | POSTED BY RCADE

Obvious climate change denier. Please delete.

#63 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2014-07-14 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Well played, Crisis.

#64 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-14 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Climate science is not political. The scientists who work in the field are making legitimate, unbiased, peer-reviewed study of what is happening to the Earth, and when they assess the work of other scientists to determine its validity, that isn't a political process."

So is it a political act if one takes into account the last 540 million years when considering climate change, as opposed to the last 100?

About 20 thousand years ago the earth started warming up. Glaciers started melting and sea levels began to rise. Since then, they have risen by more than 360 feet. Presumably, this was due to something other than the usual suspects when it comes to climate change. It wasn't cars, or airplanes, or whatever. So it's a safe bet that, even in the absence of human activity, the climate will change. Meaning that places such as Miami, or NoLa, or Kiribati, or any of the thousands of outlying islands will soon be underwater. At least until the next period of global cooling goes into effect.

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-14 05:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Climate science is not political. The scientists who work in the field are making legitimate, unbiased, peer-reviewed study of what is happening to the Earth, and when they assess the work of other scientists to determine its validity, that isn't a political process."

(1) Scientists can very biased towards certain scientific beliefs and understanding within there own field. When one studies any scientific field in-depth, one begins to see that our understanding of physicals laws and mechanisms are not cut and dry. Approximations, assumptions, and general uncertainty rule the day. ("If I knew what I was doing it wouldn't be called research")

(2)the peer-review process does not asses the legitimacy of a given article. In my field, 3 experts read your article and decide if it is of scientific merit. That is not the same as validity, validity comes after someone repeats your experiment, often adding to it. Peer-review helps, but does not guarantee that someone is just bs'ing.

Validity takes time, and more important accurate predictions. The MMGW hypothesis has done neither.

#66 | Posted by danv at 2014-07-14 07:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Are you proposing that "the government" tells us where to live?

#3 | POSTED BY HARRY_POWELL

Governments do that all the time, i.e. zoning laws, protected lands, etc

#67 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2014-07-14 10:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort