On 6/2/2012 10:18 PM, Earl wrote:
*e#c wrote:
On Jun 2, 2:08 pm, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
...southern dumb:

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand
A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to
ignore sea level predictions based on global warming

Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North Carolina's
state legislature is considering a bill that would require the
government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and predictions of
ocean and climate scientists.

*Business interests* along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to
include language in a law that would require future sea level estimates
to be based only on data from past years. New evidence, especially on
sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be
factored into the state's development plans for the coast.

"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson,
chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the
state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be
tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but
computers and speculation."

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state’s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the
commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.

"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the commission
chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback from
coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt their
ability to develop in their communities."

The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up
controversy states:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these
data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates
of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly…"

The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow, linear
sea-level rise—not the faster increases associated with global
warming—have drawn the most ire from scientists.

"Cleary they don't understand science at all – (sea level rise) hasn't
been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina University
who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on and just
say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely
criminal."

"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are all on
board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the status quo.
They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.

- - -

Ignorance and stupidity, backed up by commercial greed. Here's an
idea...let the business owners who want to build in the future flood
zone pay for their own infrastructure *and* force them to self insure so
taxpayers and policy holders elsewhere don't end up paying for their
folly.
Mans greed will be his downfall......
Reported as dumb spam.

They must have started the pre meds on him.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:32:43 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , s says...

On 6/2/2012 2:08 PM, X ` Man wrote:
...southern dumb:

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand
A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to
ignore sea level predictions based on global warming


Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North Carolina's
state legislature is considering a bill that would require the
government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and predictions of
ocean and climate scientists.

*Business interests* along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to
include language in a law that would require future sea level estimates
to be based only on data from past years. New evidence, especially on
sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be
factored into the state's development plans for the coast.

"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson,
chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the
state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be
tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but
computers and speculation."

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state?s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the
commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.

"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the commission
chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback from
coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt their
ability to develop in their communities."

The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up
controversy states:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these
data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates
of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly?"

The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow, linear
sea-level rise?not the faster increases associated with global
warming?have drawn the most ire from scientists.

"Cleary they don't understand science at all ? (sea level rise) hasn't
been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina University
who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on and just
say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely criminal."

"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are all on
board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the status quo.
They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.

- - -

Ignorance and stupidity, backed up by commercial greed. Here's an ,
idea...let the business owners who want to build in the future flood
zone pay for their own infrastructure *and* force them to self insure so
taxpayers and policy holders elsewhere don't end up paying for their folly.
Under Bush Developers started building in flood plains and FLOOD WAYS,
in addition they are now permitted to fill in flood plains at least
around here. All of this means higher insurance premiums and forcing
flooding onto people who would otherwise not be at risk of flooding.

You must not be familiar with the several thousand years when people
built their homes near rivers and farmed land near rivers. You also need
to do some reading up on irrigation on how that works.

You need to get a grip on how dikes, levees, bridges, and waterside
buildings act as dams.

http://citizensvoice.com/news/west-p...-dam-1.1202046

I live near a big river and I know how structures act as dams.

Stupid rich people buying government and getting laws twisted so that
they can build enormously expensive structures in harms way for the
sake of a "view" runs insurance prices through the roof for everybody.
You also didn't address the OP's original question. How does passing a
law against natural forces prevent nature from taking its own course?

People build where the money is. The good farm land is along rivers. The
rivers are a method of transporting crops to markets. People have always
been building, farming and living along rivers.

Follow the Nile river through Egypt and you will see that all of the
cities are along the river. All of the people live along the river. All
of the food is produced along the river.

Where is Paris? Where is London. Where is Rome? Where is Moscow? Where
is Berlin? Where is Baghdad?

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:32:43 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , s says...

On 6/2/2012 2:08 PM, X ` Man wrote:
...southern dumb:

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand
A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to
ignore sea level predictions based on global warming


Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North Carolina's
state legislature is considering a bill that would require the
government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and predictions of
ocean and climate scientists.

*Business interests* along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to
include language in a law that would require future sea level estimates
to be based only on data from past years. New evidence, especially on
sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be
factored into the state's development plans for the coast.

"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson,
chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the
state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be
tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but
computers and speculation."

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state?s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the
commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.

"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the commission
chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback from
coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt their
ability to develop in their communities."

The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up
controversy states:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these
data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates
of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly?"

The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow, linear
sea-level rise?not the faster increases associated with global
warming?have drawn the most ire from scientists.

"Cleary they don't understand science at all ? (sea level rise) hasn't
been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina University
who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on and just
say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely criminal."

"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are all on
board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the status quo.
They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.

- - -

Ignorance and stupidity, backed up by commercial greed. Here's an ,
idea...let the business owners who want to build in the future flood
zone pay for their own infrastructure *and* force them to self insure so
taxpayers and policy holders elsewhere don't end up paying for their folly.
Under Bush Developers started building in flood plains and FLOOD WAYS,
in addition they are now permitted to fill in flood plains at least
around here. All of this means higher insurance premiums and forcing
flooding onto people who would otherwise not be at risk of flooding.

You must not be familiar with the several thousand years when people
built their homes near rivers and farmed land near rivers. You also need
to do some reading up on irrigation on how that works.

You need to get a grip on how dikes, levees, bridges, and waterside
buildings act as dams.

http://citizensvoice.com/news/west-p...-dam-1.1202046

Stupid rich people buying government and getting laws twisted so that
they can build enormously expensive structures in harms way for the
sake of a "view" runs insurance prices through the roof for everybody.
You also didn't address the OP's original question. How does passing a
law against natural forces prevent nature from taking its own course?

Yes! And those on the far right want the same old same old.

On 6/3/2012 10:59 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:32:43 -0400, wrote:

In , s says...

On 6/2/2012 2:08 PM, X ` Man wrote:
...southern dumb:

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand
A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to
ignore sea level predictions based on global warming


Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North Carolina's
state legislature is considering a bill that would require the
government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and predictions of
ocean and climate scientists.

*Business interests* along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to
include language in a law that would require future sea level estimates
to be based only on data from past years. New evidence, especially on
sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be
factored into the state's development plans for the coast.

"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson,
chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the
state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be
tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but
computers and speculation."

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state?s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the
commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.

"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the commission
chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback from
coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt their
ability to develop in their communities."

The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up
controversy states:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these
data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates
of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly?"

The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow, linear
sea-level rise?not the faster increases associated with global
warming?have drawn the most ire from scientists.

"Cleary they don't understand science at all ? (sea level rise) hasn't
been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina University
who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on and just
say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely criminal."

"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are all on
board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the status quo.
They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.

- - -

Ignorance and stupidity, backed up by commercial greed. Here's an ,
idea...let the business owners who want to build in the future flood
zone pay for their own infrastructure *and* force them to self insure so
taxpayers and policy holders elsewhere don't end up paying for their folly.
Under Bush Developers started building in flood plains and FLOOD WAYS,
in addition they are now permitted to fill in flood plains at least
around here. All of this means higher insurance premiums and forcing
flooding onto people who would otherwise not be at risk of flooding.

You must not be familiar with the several thousand years when people
built their homes near rivers and farmed land near rivers. You also need
to do some reading up on irrigation on how that works.

You need to get a grip on how dikes, levees, bridges, and waterside
buildings act as dams.

http://citizensvoice.com/news/west-p...-dam-1.1202046

I live near a big river and I know how structures act as dams.

Stupid rich people buying government and getting laws twisted so that
they can build enormously expensive structures in harms way for the
sake of a "view" runs insurance prices through the roof for everybody.
You also didn't address the OP's original question. How does passing a
law against natural forces prevent nature from taking its own course?

People build where the money is. The good farm land is along rivers. The
rivers are a method of transporting crops to markets. People have always
been building, farming and living along rivers.

Follow the Nile river through Egypt and you will see that all of the
cities are along the river. All of the people live along the river. All
of the food is produced along the river.

Where is Paris? Where is London. Where is Rome? Where is Moscow? Where
is Berlin? Where is Baghdad?

Where is Venice? Where is Holland? Where is The Big Easy.

On 6/4/12 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:59:50 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:32:43 -0400, wrote:

In , s says...

On 6/2/2012 2:08 PM, X ` Man wrote:
...southern dumb:

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand
A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to
ignore sea level predictions based on global warming


Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North Carolina's
state legislature is considering a bill that would require the
government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and predictions of
ocean and climate scientists.

*Business interests* along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to
include language in a law that would require future sea level estimates
to be based only on data from past years. New evidence, especially on
sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be
factored into the state's development plans for the coast.

"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson,
chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the
state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be
tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but
computers and speculation."

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state?s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the
commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.

"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the commission
chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback from
coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt their
ability to develop in their communities."

The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up
controversy states:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these
data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates
of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly?"

The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow, linear
sea-level rise?not the faster increases associated with global
warming?have drawn the most ire from scientists.

"Cleary they don't understand science at all ? (sea level rise) hasn't
been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina University
who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on and just
say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely criminal."

"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are all on
board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the status quo.
They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.

- - -

Ignorance and stupidity, backed up by commercial greed. Here's an ,
idea...let the business owners who want to build in the future flood
zone pay for their own infrastructure *and* force them to self insure so
taxpayers and policy holders elsewhere don't end up paying for their folly.
Under Bush Developers started building in flood plains and FLOOD WAYS,
in addition they are now permitted to fill in flood plains at least
around here. All of this means higher insurance premiums and forcing
flooding onto people who would otherwise not be at risk of flooding.

You must not be familiar with the several thousand years when people
built their homes near rivers and farmed land near rivers. You also need
to do some reading up on irrigation on how that works.

You need to get a grip on how dikes, levees, bridges, and waterside
buildings act as dams.

http://citizensvoice.com/news/west-p...-dam-1.1202046

I live near a big river and I know how structures act as dams.

Stupid rich people buying government and getting laws twisted so that
they can build enormously expensive structures in harms way for the
sake of a "view" runs insurance prices through the roof for everybody.
You also didn't address the OP's original question. How does passing a
law against natural forces prevent nature from taking its own course?

People build where the money is. The good farm land is along rivers. The
rivers are a method of transporting crops to markets. People have always
been building, farming and living along rivers.

Follow the Nile river through Egypt and you will see that all of the
cities are along the river. All of the people live along the river. All
of the food is produced along the river.

Where is Paris? Where is London. Where is Rome? Where is Moscow? Where
is Berlin? Where is Baghdad?

So according to your logic Paris, London, Rome, Moscow, Berlin,
Baghdad are good farm lands and that's where the money is! Awesome.

You always reach so hard that your logic gets tangled beyond belief.

There isn't any "money" (or common sense) in having the entire
commercial infrastructure wash away every few years. It is even more
incredibly stupid when manmade structures cause this to happen.


The compassionless who have no feelings for society or their fellow man
are driven by the idea that the only good in the world comes what
whatever has to be done to make a buck, or that if a buck can't be made
from it, it is worthless.

At some point, some lowly researcher in a lab may discover something
that wipes out a number of really virulent cancers. People with humanity
will think, "Wow...what a wonderful development for the people of this
planet." The BARs will say, "Screw that, how can we make a buck off of
this?"

If that have been the driving force behind the experiments of Jonas
Salk, we'd still be losing children and young adults to polio.

I was a grade school kid when the Salk vaccine came out. Every kid in
New Haven lined up at the elementary schools on a given day for
inoculations. I remember that the city bought the vaccine on behalf of
its children. Salk and his team had made sure that the vaccine would be
available at very very low cost to the nation's children.

BAR and his buddies would have thought them foolish.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 20:44:12 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:12:10 -0400, Oscar wrote:

Follow the Nile river through Egypt and you will see that all of the
cities are along the river. All of the people live along the river. All
of the food is produced along the river.

Where is Paris? Where is London. Where is Rome? Where is Moscow? Where
is Berlin? Where is Baghdad?

Where is Venice? Where is Holland? Where is The Big Easy.

I will take "what is the difference?" for $2000 Alex.

My question is "what are hurricanes?"

Then, for $5000, name the last major hurricane to hit Venice and
Holland.

Water is life.

On 6/4/2012 8:46 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 6/4/12 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:59:50 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:32:43 -0400, wrote:

In , s says...

On 6/2/2012 2:08 PM, X ` Man wrote:
...southern dumb:

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in
the Sand
A bill moving through the state legislature would allow
developers to
ignore sea level predictions based on global warming


Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North
Carolina's
state legislature is considering a bill that would require the
government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and
predictions of
ocean and climate scientists.

*Business interests* along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to
include language in a law that would require future sea level
estimates
to be based only on data from past years. New evidence,
especially on
sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be
factored into the state's development plans for the coast.

"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom
Thompson,
chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the
state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy
could be
tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but
computers and speculation."

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state?s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the
commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.

"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the
commission
chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the
North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback
from
coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt
their
ability to develop in their communities."

The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up
controversy states:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and
these
data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900.
Rates
of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly?"

The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow,
linear
sea-level rise?not the faster increases associated with global
warming?have drawn the most ire from scientists.

"Cleary they don't understand science at all ? (sea level rise)
hasn't
been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina
University
who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on
and just
say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely
criminal."

"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are
all on
board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the
status quo.
They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.

- - -

Ignorance and stupidity, backed up by commercial greed. Here's an ,
idea...let the business owners who want to build in the future flood
zone pay for their own infrastructure *and* force them to self
insure so
taxpayers and policy holders elsewhere don't end up paying for
their folly.
Under Bush Developers started building in flood plains and FLOOD
WAYS,
in addition they are now permitted to fill in flood plains at least
around here. All of this means higher insurance premiums and forcing
flooding onto people who would otherwise not be at risk of flooding.

You must not be familiar with the several thousand years when people
built their homes near rivers and farmed land near rivers. You also
need
to do some reading up on irrigation on how that works.

You need to get a grip on how dikes, levees, bridges, and waterside
buildings act as dams.

http://citizensvoice.com/news/west-p...-dam-1.1202046


I live near a big river and I know how structures act as dams.

Stupid rich people buying government and getting laws twisted so that
they can build enormously expensive structures in harms way for the
sake of a "view" runs insurance prices through the roof for everybody.
You also didn't address the OP's original question. How does passing a
law against natural forces prevent nature from taking its own course?

People build where the money is. The good farm land is along rivers. The
rivers are a method of transporting crops to markets. People have always
been building, farming and living along rivers.

Follow the Nile river through Egypt and you will see that all of the
cities are along the river. All of the people live along the river. All
of the food is produced along the river.

Where is Paris? Where is London. Where is Rome? Where is Moscow? Where
is Berlin? Where is Baghdad?

So according to your logic Paris, London, Rome, Moscow, Berlin,
Baghdad are good farm lands and that's where the money is! Awesome.

You always reach so hard that your logic gets tangled beyond belief.

There isn't any "money" (or common sense) in having the entire
commercial infrastructure wash away every few years. It is even more
incredibly stupid when manmade structures cause this to happen.


The compassionless who have no feelings for society or their fellow man
are driven by the idea that the only good in the world comes what
whatever has to be done to make a buck, or that if a buck can't be made
from it, it is worthless.

At some point, some lowly researcher in a lab may discover something
that wipes out a number of really virulent cancers. People with humanity
will think, "Wow...what a wonderful development for the people of this
planet." The BARs will say, "Screw that, how can we make a buck off of
this?"

If that have been the driving force behind the experiments of Jonas
Salk, we'd still be losing children and young adults to polio.

I was a grade school kid when the Salk vaccine came out. Every kid in
New Haven lined up at the elementary schools on a given day for
inoculations. I remember that the city bought the vaccine on behalf of
its children. Salk and his team had made sure that the vaccine would be
available at very very low cost to the nation's children.

BAR and his buddies would have thought them foolish.

You pretend to read minds but you are only proving yourself to be a moron.

wrote in message ...

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:32:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 20:44:12 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:12:10 -0400, Oscar wrote:

Follow the Nile river through Egypt and you will see that all of the
cities are along the river. All of the people live along the river. All
of the food is produced along the river.

Where is Paris? Where is London. Where is Rome? Where is Moscow? Where
is Berlin? Where is Baghdad?

Where is Venice? Where is Holland? Where is The Big Easy.

I will take "what is the difference?" for $2000 Alex.

My question is "what are hurricanes?"

Then, for $5000, name the last major hurricane to hit Venice and
Holland.

Did you notice the "what is the difference" part?

NOLA is not Holland or Venice, although they are losing Venice.

------------------------------------------------
Venice was founded because there were a bunch if islands that were barely
above sea level with available fresh water that a bunch of free traders
could create a base upon. Worked well for a lot of years. Left them free
of the political giants of Italy. They got there fresh water from
underground aquifers. Unfortunately they pumped and the shore side people
pumped way too much water, so the land subsided. Except for the fact that
it is a beautiful tourist attraction the city would be abandoned. Just like
most of NOLA should be abandoned.