More evidence that rising sea levels are a conspiracy theory

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
frankv said:
Part of the problem is the catastrophisation that is projected by CC deniers aa a strawman. No-one is demanding that people quit driving, stop eating meat, etc. What they are saying is that those things have consequences. If you're in rural America you can't live without a car, so drive. If you live in a city with good public transport, use it. Likewise if you have a G4. Wasteful consumption should be avoided.
Click to expand...

I'm not a climate change denier, and I'm not catastrophising. I've been through climate disasters personally. I lost my home as the direct result of one of them. But people have called for all of these things and more at a federal or international policy level, and some draconian rules have already been implemented which were not on the level or well thought-out (from the perspective of ordinary citizens) and thus triggered a backlash. That's been my observation over the last several decades.

To be absolutely clear, I personally definitely do believe in climate change, and I believe human activity is the most likely cause of it.

I also believe that we live in a world in which the ultra rich and giant multinational corporations barely pay taxes and don't follow the laws that govern the vast majority of people, and already have undue influence over our political leaders. There are a range of possible solutions to all of these problems, but the devil is always in the details. Under our current political situation in aggregate around the world, I don't believe that whatever measures which do need to be taken are going to be structured fairly to all levels of society, to put it mildly, especially if they are handed down from above at a national or regional policy level. I don't trust the authoritarian paternalistic fixes cooked up by think tanks and disseminated by mass (and social) media which work for and are owned by these same people who as I just pointed out, are still starting and fighting wars over oil.

All I'm saying is let the voting public have an active say in how measures to deal with this phenomena are implemented. Allow voters and local political leaders to take measures on a local level which have an immediate and clear local impact, and that will help build momentum for broader more regional measures. A way to get the ball rolling, in other words.

The debate about causes and action to alleviate the problems which are clearly emerging are not mutually exclusive.

But it's treated as if it is. I think a big part of the problem with this whole debate is the absolutism of both sides. Each side demands adherence to exactly their narrative of what is going on and exactly their list of what to do about it - with no deviation tolerated.

The result of the ongoing conflict and 'winner take all' basis is a kind of paralysis in which very little is currently happening, either on the global emissions level or the local preparedness level, at least in places that I've been - the latter is a little better in Europe than in the US but I don't think enough is being done anywhere.
 
MiTasol said:
It was more likely that it was less corruption than advice from their legal team that the water company would win the case and get considerable compensation or that even if they won the case the cost would be unacceptable to the voting public. Given Aus has compulsory voting they know that voter apathy is far less here than in countries like the US where the voting is sporadic at best.

It affects national climate policy in that many councils sold their water supply, and other assets, to get a small cash injection. Most of the sold assets were actually profitable which is why they sold so easily. This same situation will apply to many other councils and will prevent them from allowing and/or encouraging rainwater tanks.
Click to expand...

I think that kind of privatization boils down to malfeasance and corruption. And I think ANZAC countries and the UK have many of the same problems as the US, just manifested in different ways.

MiTasol said:
Worse still, again in Melbourne, they sold the public transport rail network to "investors" who owned it a relatively short time, doing little or no maintenance etc, and when it became unreliable and lost considerable customers selling the remains back to the government for $1.00. The bill to return it to reliability was way in excess of the original sale price and the whole process not only ripped off the city rate (tax) payers but drove a large percentage of former patrons back to their cars for an extended period.
Click to expand...

This is again, exactly the kind of privatization which has had devastating results in the US, it seems like you are following the same path. Where I live when I was a kid, we used to have good public transit system, an efficient and affordable electric power, a well run drainage and water system. The first two have been privatized and are already deteriorating, the third has become part of a political machine and allowed to rot as well. If we don't force reform as voters we will see the city become unlivable. Fortunately we just elected a reform mayor and city council in my city so for the moment there is some optimism, but the overall trend is very bad, and privatization schemes are one of the first steps toward disaster. It puts the assets in the hands of corporate systems which have no interest in the public good, and the overall effect is deterioration of conditions, and with things like water and drainage in an era of climate change, this can destroy a community if it's mismanaged for long enough.
 
I totally agree with privatisation being a total disaster.

Two examples, one of which international members may find interesting.

Most everyone has seen blue CHEP pallets laying around. CHEP invented the shipping pallet and patented it very thoroughly.

CHEP stood for Commonwealth Handling Equipment Pool and was a wholly owned Australian government enterprise. It was sold soon after WW2 for peanuts.

Queensland used to have the very best medical services in Australia. This was fully funded by the Golden Casket lottery. Golden casket provided 18% of the total government income and all of that was spent on medical services. The government sold it for peanuts and immediately after the next election doubled all fees like stamp duty (the tax you pay on selling your house etc), drivers and other licences, vehicle registration, etc, etc, to make up the shortfall in income.

Like you I consider asset sales corruption at best.
 
MiTasol said:
Yeah - that kind of a buzz is always memorable. My favourite was the TBM.
Click to expand...

👍🏻

But, the ultimate buzz would be....

IMG_20260114_053327.jpg


😌(Daydreaming)
 
This is a sad consequence of modern neoliberalism. Profits are private property, losses are shared. No longer is a government to concern itself just with the best thing for its citizens; it must also look after their corporations. In the past coping with changes made by governments was a normal risk for companies to manage; nowadays increasingly governments are expected to recompense corporations for adverse effects of the government's decisions.
 
In Aus those recompenses are far more likely to be granted by the parties on the right of centre.

As an example - individuals who "stole" $1,000 were prosecuted but companies that "stole" millions ($35,000,000 in one case) were not because "they had made an honest mistake". One of those prosecuted was legally blind and had ticked one wrong box in his application.
 
frankv said:
This is a sad consequence of modern neoliberalism. Profits are private property, losses are shared. No longer is a government to concern itself just with the best thing for its citizens; it must also look after their corporations. In the past coping with changes made by governments was a normal risk for companies to manage; nowadays increasingly governments are expected to recompense corporations for adverse effects of the government's decisions.
Click to expand...
Sad but very true. And the bigger the corporation (whether it is even really part of that country or a multinational or foreign corporation) the more sway they have, and the more benefits they get at the expense of the citizens.
 
I live about 180 feet above sea level, a nice gentle rising towards the piedmont up the James River watershed from Hampton Roads . . . just short of the bluffs below the fall line. If the family keeps the property long enough later, rather than sooner, it will be beach front property . . . again . . . the top soil level is defined as "Norfolk Sandy Loam" so sometime in the distant, distant past it was water front. I do believe it will happen again.
 
Last edited:
It is very frustrating seeing that so many still choose ignorance in the age of practically unlimited access to human knowledge and the most access to the scientific community of all time. Man made global climate change is not a conspiracy theory, it's not a hoax, If you believe it is, I need to make it incredibly clear; You are being duped. In J. Farrell's Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement, he showed how the Climate change denier movement is being directly funded and is connected to Exxon Mobile and the Koch Foundation. You are being duped by people trying to use your own ignorance or misunderstanding of science to continue to fill their wallets at your expense, and the expense of your descendants. The idea that it is just "something that happens, ignores the fact that we can measure how quickly the changes happened in the past, and it was not happening at the rate we are experiencing.

Science and the scientific community is not some evil ivory tower, you just can't read.


Referenced Document full Citation: Farrell, J. Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement. Nature Clim Change 6, 370–374 (2016). Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement - Nature Climate Change
 
MiTasol said:
Take off speed 90
Landing speed 90
Climbing speed 90
Stall speed 90
Cruising speed 90
Economy cruise 90
Diving speed 90
METO power speed 90

Regardless of power setting the only variable was fuel consumption.
Click to expand...
I was friendly with the official Russian gliding club when they made a visit to Britain, and we swapped sailplane rides (I had a restored TG-4A). After a night of vodka, I mentioned my towing and dusting with a Stearman, and expressed interest in their PO-2 towplane. They urged me to show up at dawn the next day to fly theirs.
With great effort, I was at Cranbrook with the sunrise, only then realizing their PO-2 only had a single seat .... and all my friends waiting were either glider pilots or officials. Sitting in the cockpit, I was faced with an odd assortment of controls, switches and gauges, all metric of course. I was being urged to get on with it but pressed for at least a cockpit check.
While I trial and errored my way through most controls, finally a bleary and grumpy tow pilot showed up ... not even a pidgin English speaker!
With difficulty, I managed to suss out the unfamiliar items ... apparently many disabled or useless (I hoped!) Finally, I pointed to the Airspeed Indicator, shrugging in a plea for speeds.
Using universal aviator hand gestures, he inclined upward, saying, "Ondred Kilometre," then leveled his hand with, "Ondred Kilometre," and finally downward insisting "Ondred Kilometre," .... finishing with "You fly!" command ... his only English.
I did!

btw - first flying in 1928, over 30,000 PO-2/U-2s have been "officially" built, many in small production numbers all over Soviet and client nations. Supposedly out of production years before, I saw them being bult from scratch in school/club shops in Bulgaria in the late '80s, and in this millinea, saw an organized production in a Czech Republic shop. Like the late '20s Taylor Cub, still being produced to order in this country and Brazil that I know of, these may be in production for over a century .... and the C-130 is not far behind!
Polikarpov PO-2.jpg
 
Millions of people have lived for decades at sea level waterfront, on waters that directly connect to the oceans, like my parents have, and call bullcrap on the Fake Science claims that sea level is rising, when they can see for themselves that on seawalls and dock pilings that the water level has not risen in the almost 50 years that they have lived there.

None of the nautical charts have revised the vertical navigational clearance on bridges downward, in the last 60+ years.
 
ThomasP said:
About 8" since around 1880, only about 4" in the las 60 years or so, 3" since 1993, etc.
Click to expand...
No. 19cm since 1993 in some places. For various reasons it is different in different locations.

See here for more information:

www.climate.gov

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

Global average sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating thanks to glacier and ice sheet melt.
www.climate.gov www.climate.gov

Again though, the key point is what I said about just because some people don't see something where they live doesn't mean it won't be devastating for others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

MiTasol
This needs a LOT more research
Replies
0
Views
311
MiTasol
MiTasol
MiTasol
Proof that stereotypes are often massively wrong
Replies
18
Views
3K
Admiral Beez
A
M
AH-64 Crew Rescued By Sea Drone
Replies
1
Views
355
GTX
GTX
MiTasol
Bomb(s) found on active NZ aerodrome where Mosquitoes are restored to flying
Replies
11
Views
1K
special ed
S
fubar57
Nuremberg Trial Files are Now Online for Download
Replies
6
Views
1K
MiTasol
MiTasol
Back