It seems apprent that climate disaster is inevitable. Might as well experience coastal life before flooding makes the central/inner state areas the "new coast" haha
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_...
Isn’t the right answer “build as much housing/infrastructure in ‘safe’ areas as possible and do as little investment as possible on the ‘unsafe’ areas?”
People moving to Florida are doing the exact opposite of that.
I do wonder tho, like … the Netherlands exist. Is it not possible to do that in Florida (in theory?)
People always say “well Florida is under sea level you doofuses” but loads of cities build stuff below sea level or just raise the ground outright.
They already have problems where sea water infiltrates some neighborhoods. It basically creates salt water springs.
> The Floridian peninsula is a porous plateau of karst limestone
The science does not support that. Your particular corner of the planet is not indicative of the world's changing climate:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global...
But science is now religion I guess.
I moved to warmer country to save on energy bills. Our politicians say hot shower is a luxury now!
https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/resources/what-is-scient...
>It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist (15). Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.
There are also those who advance the premise that mathematics is empirical, but for the context of the discussion I'm not sure that either is relevant.
Mathematical "testing" can be described as deduction.
We can present math axioms, but can we present scientific axioms?
Science as a religion or science as an all encompassing worldview is unscientific. This is better described as scientism.
If you examine the premises of climate doom, you'll find unscientific presuppositions. There are also necessarily moral implications to the goals of regulating consumption and population size. It becomes even less scientific for cynics who question if the climate scientist's "experiments" and models are incentivized to necessitate certain conclusions.
These are items which are best disputed in their respective arenas. "Believe the science" doesn't tell us anything about morality or the ideological progenitors of the climate movement. It narrows the issue while mischaracterizing science as a system of belief which can inform us on moral matters or the historical record of climate doom ideologues.
Or do you disagree that the level of the sea is rising as frozen water at the poles is putting more water into the sea? These are things that are reality. It doesn't matter if you think I have impure motives about something, am I stating things that are reality? You have prevented no information that these things are not reality, you are just arguing about mysterious dark motivations of people who are pointing out things that are really happening.
There are limitations to science.
The thing you linked seems completely irrelevant to this discussion.
The glacial transitions are somewhat predictable as they are triggered by favorable isolation conditions due to the eccentricity, obliquity and precession of the Earth. That's why we can have high confidence it won't happen in the next few hundred years.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/24/nature-unbound-i-the-glac...