How do you move the New York subway system or the Big Dig in Boston to higher ground?
Cheers: Axil On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>wrote: > Ed stated:**** > > “The discussion now must be how do we respond to the loss of land > presently occupied by millions of people and important infrastructure.”*** > * > > ** ** > > There is NO emergency… Sell the house or start moving important > infrastructure to higher ground.**** > > ** ** > > **IF** the oceans do rise significantly, it won’t happen overnight… it > will take years and more likely, decades. **** > > For important infrastructure, planning needs to be done to determine how > much time would be needed to relocate to higher ground.**** > > ** ** > > For homeowners, pack up your stuff and MOVE! It is that simple for them…* > *** > > If you’re smart, sell the place now while beachfront property is valuable… > when your house is underwater it won’t be worth much!**** > > And if all this does happen, it wouldn’t surprise me if those homeowners > think they are entitled to govt aid when they were too stupid to just move. > **** > > ** ** > > -Mark**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:22 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Cc:* Edmund Storms > > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100**** > > ** ** > > Dave, I hate to get involved in another debate war, but the climate change > issue is too important to ignore. The ice is melting world-wide and the > average temperature is increasing. The glaciers are melting and the Arctic > regon is losing ice. This fact is acknowledged by all sides in the debate. > The question is only about the cause. Is the cause part of the natural > cycle or is it caused by man? Either way, the ocean is and will continue > to rise and people had better plan to move if they are in the affected > areas. **** > > ** ** > > I believe, like many other people, that if the main caused is CO2 > production, we are too late to stop the process or even to slow it down. > Therefore, the discussion about CO2 is irrelevant. The discussion now must > be how do we respond to the loss of land presently occupied by millions of > people and important infrastructure. If you want to discuss something > important, I suggest you focus on this question.**** > > ** ** > > Ed**** > > On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:03 PM, David Roberson wrote:**** > > > > **** > > I have not claimed to be an expert in climate change and merely have an > interest. I also have an interest in the well being of the other people > on the earth that we share. You can be assured that I would be very vocal > about climate change affecting us if I felt that it was a serious risk to > mankind and the remainder of the environment and that now was the only time > to react. So far I have only heard strong sounds emitted by the groups > seeking immediate action who conveniently leave out information that runs > counter to their beliefs. This is unbalanced and dangerous for those that > will be left out of progress due to wasted actions. **** > > ** ** > > It is obvious that every time a storm hits, or a dry spell occurs, etc. > that it becomes blamed upon climate change. This is sheer nonsense and > even the climatologists try to distance their predictions to some degree > from immediate weather effects.**** > > ** ** > > Are you convinced that there are not going to be many positive effects due > to future climate variations, whether caused by man or not? Would you have > the same beliefs if you were living toward the end of the last ice age? > The fear of change is an easy one to acquire, but should not dominate ones > thinking. I make an attempt to not panic in this case and have faith that > we will find a way to solve any major problems which occur and take > advantage of the good things that happen.**** > > ** ** > > Have you given the Danish scientist Henrick Svensmark's theory about > cosmic rays being a major climate driver equal time? There is remarkable > correlation between what he has theorized and the climate of the earlier > Earth. Anyone who would strongly jump at the suggestion that the ocean > levels will rise 9 meters due to a theory of a couple of guys should be > willing to analyze what might be a better explanation.**** > > ** ** > > My personal opinion is that now is the time to perform the needed research > and figure out what really is happening. The science is not settled as > some would like us to believe and the cost of immediate action is much too > great unless a truly catastrophic future is looming. I detect a mixed bag > of future effects that we have a significant amount of time to optimize. > Furthermore, as time progresses our sciences and technology will improve > and any mitigation will become that much easier to achieve. All of us need > to have a little more faith in future generations.**** > > ** ** > > Jed, it makes little difference whether or not you believe me. We each > have our opinions that differ. I have given you a name to follow up upon > of a scientist that does have hand's on experience that I lack and who is > well respected. You can choose not to give consideration to the other side > of this discussion, but I know that you would be ahead to open your mind > just a tiny bit.**** > > ** ** > > Dave > > **** > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 2:16 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100**** > > David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:**** > > **** > > So, when will we begin to see these effects to such a degree that it will > become obvious?**** > > ** ** > > Most experts say the changes are obvious now. And irrefutable. Perhaps you > disagree. I tend to believe experts who have done hands-on research, based > on my experience with cold fusion. Let me put it this way: If you have > published a paper on this subject I will take your views a lot more > seriously.**** > > ** ** > > - Jed**** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
