Mayor B knows climate change is a hoax....that is the reason "he" is allowing building.runrussellrun wrote:a fan wrote:You keep saying this, like the logic is unassailable. It's like saying because people get into their cars, accidents or death is impossible. Or that because people live next to the Mississippi, that means that river will never flood. You're not making any sense.runrussellrun wrote:Well, sea levels rising.....that is why ocean front condo's in Miami are selling for millions confused2
ZONING laws. Building requirements.
Your example of a car is poor, to say the least....if you continued to risk death after a recall on a car you are upping your chances, yes. But your example is so flawed....where to begin. What is the REWARD for building on property that will be underwater?
I have an acquaintance that works for the city of Miami in permitting. (historic mostly ) and he was a strong believer in the new religion. Not really understanding how you are confused by the illogical government that tells you to reduce your footprint of carbon and takes seriously the issue of sea level rizing. (nick saban's house is on a LAKE, mr
staying at a hotel 8)....but yet, they allow you to build on CURRENT floodzones, forget about years from now.
Why not build on a dump landfill or superfund site?
Regarding building along the Mississippi. Again, just the lack of reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yROpRU35aYY
Ever been to Natchez, MI? Most of the town built on the bluff. Across the river, Valdelia, LA is built on lower elevations. uttOh. Lots of levees on the Mississippi. You know what is lacking on the banks of a fresh water river? Million dollar homes. Go to a real estate website like zillow. mouse up the Mississippi river. You will find that there are barely any homes built on the flood plain. Been to Vicksburg? Cool town. Another bluff.
But, you are telling me to TRUST the believers.....trust that the seas will rize (this is the catastrophic outcome, yes? )
And then, you turn abound and MOCK ME b/c I am not understanding why real estate that will be under water is so valuable. or even allowed to be built.
Clearly, you could never support a political candidate like Bloomberg, who bans sugary sodas for the good of the people. Another believer in the new religion, Mayor B. allowed re-development. Lots of low lying HIGH rizers with tRumps name on the mid-upper west side. Henry Hudson raised in this location. Basement at the Riverside tRump built complex have water pumps ?
What is this poor soul going to do when this home is under water.... It must have taken the buyer years to scrape together the down payment. Probably had to buy PMI too! The government needs to protect folks like this. Probably walked up here from El Salvadorrunrussellrun wrote:So, just to confirm. It's a good idea to purchase this NEW home b/c it won't be subject to sea level rize?
https://www.zillow.com/homes/new_homes/ ... _zm/0_mmm/
Why the F would a home in Miami have a heating system?
Over 500 NEW homes for sale. Most on or near salt water.
Thought liberals pretended to care about consumer protection. Why not just allow lead paint to be used....again ?
You're assuming that zoning is logical. You're assuming that people are logical. You're trying to connect global warming to zoning laws...which is patently absurd.runrussellrun wrote: Your example of a car is poor, to say the least....if you continued to risk death after a recall on a car you are upping your chances, yes. But your example is so flawed....where to begin. What is the REWARD for building on property that will be underwater?
runrussellrun wrote:Good for you. Guess NOT declaring ref income is paying off and you can afford a new car..........but read this please.dislaxxic wrote:Some people think micro, some think macro.MDlaxfan76 wrote:I spell better, ramble less, but, like the old joke about the girl and the poop, "there must be a pony in there somewhere".
I think it's quite reasonable to recognize that there's lots of hypocrisy out there.
But that doesn't mean that the issues aren't real nor that many small decisions don't add up.
On the other hand, like any such matter, some decisions and regulations make a heck of a lot more sense than others.
"Ramble" sure is a nice way to put it...
Both my cars get over 39 mpg...hip, hip, hoorra...oh, never mind...
..
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ofriendly/
Now for a personnel question. What is your homes kWh's usage, per month? Do YOU have solar panels? Most home owner ASSociations in Maryland do NOT allow them. I am sure mdlax and jhu72 are aghast at that.
my primary thought on all of this, is let's focus on the things we KNOW we can control and impact: less solid waste, actually repair the damage done by mining, not wipe out virgin forest or jungle. You know, clean up after ourselves.foreverlax wrote:We would love all science to be precise and accurate, but it doesn't always work out that way. Assumptions are made to test theories.
For me, this is a simple issue -
1. Man has changed nature over the past few centuries, via "pollution". That is a fact.
2. Pollution is bad - also a fact
3. Some portion of that impact is measurable and comparisons came be drawn - fact
When I look at all the arguments, for and against, it's clear to me that humans are having a negative impact on the environment.
Free markets will not solve this issue, but incremental steps taken by individuals, along with some common sense measures by global .gov is the only way forward, imo.
For those who are convinced this is all a hoax, there is nothing to discuss. My Aunt was convinced that OJ was innocent....no point in trying to suggest otherwise.
)
https://www.smeco.coop/about/smeco-solarNot a pretend?runrussellrun wrote:jhu72
couldn't agree more.
So tell us, what part of global warming is catostrophic, if NOT oceans rizing?
Is google maps up to date? I see the solar panels installed on Hopkins parking garage, just like the ones installed at the local HS (you can't spell LoSer without LS
Just wondering why I don't see them in Mt. Airy, Lutherville, Columbia, Annapolis, Bethesda, Potomac, Damascus, Urbana, Hagerstown .....not even in Hagerstown? All the pretend liberals in Maryland, just can't seem to install them. Any junk land near NSA, BWI airport, Dundalk or Sparrows Point?
exactly
The "chicken little brigades" hard at work again I see.Typical Lax Dad wrote:
Jay Leno is laughing because he bought this spot cheap when all the other buyers ran away due to concerns with climate change! Worst case scenario for Jay is that he can become a greeter at Walmart when his property is flooded! He bought this place cheap enough.
We do care. But we don't control the gubmint in Miami. If we did, we would change the zoning laws to prevent this.runrussellrun wrote:Thought liberals pretended to care about consumer protection?
Don't you know the period that Haystack Calhoun is referencing was when Noah built his ark!runrussellrun wrote:There's more of us than you think.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jVZKw521HU
or dont'
Gov. Jesse's girl for threadAncy Pres
Moreover, the team reports in the 1 February issue of Quaternary Science Reviews, even though humans and megafauna continued to coexist for about 1000 years before the animals finally went extinct, the animals were already on their way out: Between 75% and 90% of the northeastern megafauna were gone before humans ever came on the scene. Yet even during the millennium of human and animal overlap, the team argues, there is no evidence for hunting: Neither megafaunal nor Paleoindian sites in the northeast contained animal bones that were butchered or otherwise modified.
Seems like they are just pointing out what the data reflects: This was in the article:youthathletics wrote:From your 2nd link...
Overall, the data are consistent with the conclusion that humans acted as efficient hunters selecting for the most abundant species. Our study supports the idea that the late Pleistocene extinctions were environmentally driven by climatic changes that triggered habitat fragmentation, species range reduction, and population decrease, after which human interference either by direct hunting or via indirect activities probably became critical.
Seems like they wanted to cover all their bases in their closing statement. Hell, you and I could've come up with that.
