(03-28-2019 12:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 11:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Quote:Future-proofing is the term that has started to be floated around once climate change became a political third rail. It accounts for mitigating issues associated with climate change, sea level rise, changes in migration patterns, water scarcity, etc.

Hitting on sea level rise, since you brought it up, future-proofing isn't about halting sea level rise, it's about attempting to mitigate its affects. You can see an example of a potential solution in the Galveston sea wall, which was constructed to deal with elevated sea levels due to storm surge. New York is a high profile case that is planning to build a sea wall at its harbor to mitigate both storm surge and sea level rise.

I have always said we should spend our time and money on preparing to meet changes, not spending it on efforts to turn back the clock. Glad to see you are finally coming around to my position.

But most of your side, when I talk about how most of the change is natural and not man-caused, just call me a climate denier.

I literally can not roll my eyes enough at that statement. I gotta say, what an epic troll comment.

\
I actually said that as a reprise on a statement you made to me that was similar, and which you vigorously defended as just fine. You can look it up - it wasn't that long ago. I asked for an apology, and you said none was needed.

(03-28-2019 12:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I presume Tanq is a partner

Sole proprietor (some non-legal ventures through an LLC, some LLCs with others outside the 'family').

I am sure that some might tie this in to a 'doesnt play well with others' thingy....

The issue is that lad *doesnt* note an acceptable rate. He only opines that 'good god everything I have seen wont starve the goose.'

I find it odd that others seem to make it their calling to determine *how* much of *how* much I earn *they* deign proper for me to retain.

And, when those others who deign that "good lord *why not* more, it *obviously wont starve the goose" have never traveled in the shoes of an investor/entrepreneur/partner/venture builder, I find it extremely irritating.

Especially when those who deign that position opine in their surfical-expert opinion of what it *should be* for those of us in that path. And I tend, for those that take that sort of position and deign that outcome *and* have never done that path, to call that out.

So here is a question to lad, how much of the next 90k I pull in is 'decent enough' for him to say it should be sent elsewhere? Of the next 150k? Of the next 300k?

OO, you hit it spot on. I tend to actually reinvest those proceeds. I think that out of my net last year, I have dropped (this year) about 75 per cent into another venture.

A rough calculation of the outflows to date on that venture is abut 1/2 man year direct employment, and by the end of the year will be about 8 man years of employment in building the venture, with another 1.5 man years employment in continued operation.

So lad, where is this magic 'line that wont starve the goose' thingy that you speak so highly of, that I should feel proud to fork over more of the return? What is the magic line on a return where I should expect 40 per cent taxes? How about 60 per cent? Please, since you are so eloquent about these things in the real world, where should I feel 'comfortable enough' to be glad to pay 70+ per cent marginal rates in your book? Truly, when you speak in even the broad terms of 'starving the goose', you are inherently opining about these things. So in your deep experience and expert opinion, where are these magical lines?

Yeah, Tanq, glad to see that things are going well for you. what happens to that new venture if your taxes go up 30%. does it kill it or just slow it. It sure as hell won't accelerate it, will it?

I didn't open my import business with 5 domestic and one foreign office all at once. I expanded into new markets when I could. To expand entailed an outlay of capital - for personnel, offices, bonds, phones, advertising - everything from paper clips to autos. I always tried to finance out of retained earnings, which, from the very name, is what I had available after taxes.

I need some help from somebody in how to search for a particular post. IIRC, Lad told me something like he was glad that I was finally caring about racism, or something like that, implying that I had been racist and was finally moving away from that. I asked for an apology, and he laughed it off. Kind of like when I took Hillary's "deplorables" speech personally, and somebody here told me it only about me if I was a racist.

Sorry to be such a Luddite.



In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

Yeah, Tanq, glad to see that things are going well for you. what happens to that new venture if your taxes go up 30%. does it kill it or just slow it. It sure as hell won't accelerate it, will it?

I didn't open my import business with 5 domestic and one foreign office all at once. I expanded into new markets when I could. To expand entailed an outlay of capital - for personnel, offices, bonds, phones, advertising - everything from paper clips to autos. I always tried to finance out of retained earnings, which, from the very name, is what I had available after taxes.

I need some help from somebody in how to search for a particular post. IIRC, Lad told me something like he was glad that I was finally caring about racism, or something like that, implying that I had been racist and was finally moving away from that. I asked for an apology, and he laughed it off. Kind of like when I took Hillary's "deplorables" speech personally, and somebody here told me it only about me if I was a racist.

Sorry to be such a Luddite.



In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

(03-28-2019 02:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, Tanq, glad to see that things are going well for you. what happens to that new venture if your taxes go up 30%. does it kill it or just slow it. It sure as hell won't accelerate it, will it?

I didn't open my import business with 5 domestic and one foreign office all at once. I expanded into new markets when I could. To expand entailed an outlay of capital - for personnel, offices, bonds, phones, advertising - everything from paper clips to autos. I always tried to finance out of retained earnings, which, from the very name, is what I had available after taxes.

I need some help from somebody in how to search for a particular post. IIRC, Lad told me something like he was glad that I was finally caring about racism, or something like that, implying that I had been racist and was finally moving away from that. I asked for an apology, and he laughed it off. Kind of like when I took Hillary's "deplorables" speech personally, and somebody here told me it only about me if I was a racist.

Sorry to be such a Luddite.



In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

Sea level rise isn't just going to affect people in Miami and NY. It's going to affect everyone along the entire Atlantic and Pacific seaboards and the Gulf Coast. Those areas include: Texas, Louisiana, both Carolinas, Georgia, etc. I can't imagine you haven't been to any other coastal areas in your life - there are countless small, medium, and large towns full of an amalgam of people of all different means.

Why try and frame sea level rise as an issue that only affects people in big cities like NYC and Miami?

(03-28-2019 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 02:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, Tanq, glad to see that things are going well for you. what happens to that new venture if your taxes go up 30%. does it kill it or just slow it. It sure as hell won't accelerate it, will it?

I didn't open my import business with 5 domestic and one foreign office all at once. I expanded into new markets when I could. To expand entailed an outlay of capital - for personnel, offices, bonds, phones, advertising - everything from paper clips to autos. I always tried to finance out of retained earnings, which, from the very name, is what I had available after taxes.

I need some help from somebody in how to search for a particular post. IIRC, Lad told me something like he was glad that I was finally caring about racism, or something like that, implying that I had been racist and was finally moving away from that. I asked for an apology, and he laughed it off. Kind of like when I took Hillary's "deplorables" speech personally, and somebody here told me it only about me if I was a racist.

Sorry to be such a Luddite.



In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

Sea level rise isn't just going to affect people in Miami and NY. It's going to affect everyone along the entire Atlantic and Pacific seaboards and the Gulf Coast. Those areas include: Texas, Louisiana, both Carolinas, Georgia, etc. I can't imagine you haven't been to any other coastal areas in your life - there are countless small, medium, and large towns full of an amalgam of people of all different means.

Why try and frame sea level rise as an issue that only affects people in big cities like NYC and Miami?

If you really think OO was *exclusively* referring to NYC and Miami, I think I now understand why you believe with all your being that Trump was truly calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's server.

Do you understand the term 'rhetorical flourish'?

(03-28-2019 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 02:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, Tanq, glad to see that things are going well for you. what happens to that new venture if your taxes go up 30%. does it kill it or just slow it. It sure as hell won't accelerate it, will it?

I didn't open my import business with 5 domestic and one foreign office all at once. I expanded into new markets when I could. To expand entailed an outlay of capital - for personnel, offices, bonds, phones, advertising - everything from paper clips to autos. I always tried to finance out of retained earnings, which, from the very name, is what I had available after taxes.

I need some help from somebody in how to search for a particular post. IIRC, Lad told me something like he was glad that I was finally caring about racism, or something like that, implying that I had been racist and was finally moving away from that. I asked for an apology, and he laughed it off. Kind of like when I took Hillary's "deplorables" speech personally, and somebody here told me it only about me if I was a racist.

Sorry to be such a Luddite.



In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

Sea level rise isn't just going to affect people in Miami and NY. It's going to affect everyone along the entire Atlantic and Pacific seaboards and the Gulf Coast. Those areas include: Texas, Louisiana, both Carolinas, Georgia, etc. I can't imagine you haven't been to any other coastal areas in your life - there are countless small, medium, and large towns full of an amalgam of people of all different means.

Why try and frame sea level rise as an issue that only affects people in big cities like NYC and Miami?

If you really think OO was *exclusively* referring to NYC and Miami, I think I now understand why you believe with all your being that Trump was truly calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's server.

Do you understand the term 'rhetorical flourish'?

I'd like OO to explain why he chose New York and Miami as his two examples when there are countless other cities, towns, areas that will be affected by sea level rise.

I don't think OO thinks NYC and Miami will exclusively be affected, but I do think he grossly underestimates the number and types of people that will be affected. Sea level rise has the chance to effect significantly more people than just those that have beach front property. Heck, it has the chance to impact more than just those that have waterfront property or even live off water on barrier islands. So regardless of the exact cities he chose to reference, the remainder of his response, which only picks a fight with people who own beachfront property, indicates that he needs to do a bit more research on the issues of sea level rise due to climate change.

For example, sea level rise will exacerbate storm surge. Which means areas that shouldn't even have to think about the effects of sea level rise will now need to. The Houston Ship Channel is a prime example of an area that combines vital commercial assets with residential areas that will be made more vulnerable as sea levels rise. And those residential areas certainly aren't beach front properties that a bunch of rich people live in.

(03-28-2019 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 02:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, Tanq, glad to see that things are going well for you. what happens to that new venture if your taxes go up 30%. does it kill it or just slow it. It sure as hell won't accelerate it, will it?

I didn't open my import business with 5 domestic and one foreign office all at once. I expanded into new markets when I could. To expand entailed an outlay of capital - for personnel, offices, bonds, phones, advertising - everything from paper clips to autos. I always tried to finance out of retained earnings, which, from the very name, is what I had available after taxes.

I need some help from somebody in how to search for a particular post. IIRC, Lad told me something like he was glad that I was finally caring about racism, or something like that, implying that I had been racist and was finally moving away from that. I asked for an apology, and he laughed it off. Kind of like when I took Hillary's "deplorables" speech personally, and somebody here told me it only about me if I was a racist.

Sorry to be such a Luddite.



In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

Sea level rise isn't just going to affect people in Miami and NY. It's going to affect everyone along the entire Atlantic and Pacific seaboards and the Gulf Coast. Those areas include: Texas, Louisiana, both Carolinas, Georgia, etc. I can't imagine you haven't been to any other coastal areas in your life - there are countless small, medium, and large towns full of an amalgam of people of all different means.

Why try and frame sea level rise as an issue that only affects people in big cities like NYC and Miami?

I know how water works. Where did you see the word "only"?

(03-28-2019 04:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 02:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, Tanq, glad to see that things are going well for you. what happens to that new venture if your taxes go up 30%. does it kill it or just slow it. It sure as hell won't accelerate it, will it?

I didn't open my import business with 5 domestic and one foreign office all at once. I expanded into new markets when I could. To expand entailed an outlay of capital - for personnel, offices, bonds, phones, advertising - everything from paper clips to autos. I always tried to finance out of retained earnings, which, from the very name, is what I had available after taxes.

I need some help from somebody in how to search for a particular post. IIRC, Lad told me something like he was glad that I was finally caring about racism, or something like that, implying that I had been racist and was finally moving away from that. I asked for an apology, and he laughed it off. Kind of like when I took Hillary's "deplorables" speech personally, and somebody here told me it only about me if I was a racist.

Sorry to be such a Luddite.



In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

Sea level rise isn't just going to affect people in Miami and NY. It's going to affect everyone along the entire Atlantic and Pacific seaboards and the Gulf Coast. Those areas include: Texas, Louisiana, both Carolinas, Georgia, etc. I can't imagine you haven't been to any other coastal areas in your life - there are countless small, medium, and large towns full of an amalgam of people of all different means.

Why try and frame sea level rise as an issue that only affects people in big cities like NYC and Miami?

I know how water works. Where did you see the word "only"?

You didn’t state those were just examples. If they were examples, why choose them? As I said in response to Tanq, rising sea levels affect far more than just beach front property. You didn’t indicate that you were saying that was an example of some property affected.

(03-28-2019 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 02:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, Tanq, glad to see that things are going well for you. what happens to that new venture if your taxes go up 30%. does it kill it or just slow it. It sure as hell won't accelerate it, will it?

I didn't open my import business with 5 domestic and one foreign office all at once. I expanded into new markets when I could. To expand entailed an outlay of capital - for personnel, offices, bonds, phones, advertising - everything from paper clips to autos. I always tried to finance out of retained earnings, which, from the very name, is what I had available after taxes.

I need some help from somebody in how to search for a particular post. IIRC, Lad told me something like he was glad that I was finally caring about racism, or something like that, implying that I had been racist and was finally moving away from that. I asked for an apology, and he laughed it off. Kind of like when I took Hillary's "deplorables" speech personally, and somebody here told me it only about me if I was a racist.

Sorry to be such a Luddite.



In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

Sea level rise isn't just going to affect people in Miami and NY. It's going to affect everyone along the entire Atlantic and Pacific seaboards and the Gulf Coast. Those areas include: Texas, Louisiana, both Carolinas, Georgia, etc. I can't imagine you haven't been to any other coastal areas in your life - there are countless small, medium, and large towns full of an amalgam of people of all different means.

Why try and frame sea level rise as an issue that only affects people in big cities like NYC and Miami?

If you really think OO was *exclusively* referring to NYC and Miami, I think I now understand why you believe with all your being that Trump was truly calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's server.

Do you understand the term 'rhetorical flourish'?

I guess I needed to list every place in the world that is close to the sea. I left out Japan, Iceland, Australia, Easter Island, South Padre, Pelosi's home, kerry's yacht anchorage, Anchorage, Seattle, ...et al.

I made a larger point, which he is ignoring - for the first time in history, global warming/global cooling/climate change is affecting built up places. When we had global warming/global cooling/climate change before, it was not a big problem to people. They moved, they changed their crops, they hunted different animals in different places. But we have had climate changes before. Just ask the Viking colonists in Greenland. We will have it again. It was just so easy to move the village 1,000 years ago, and it is hard to move port facilities now. And who owns port facilities? Not poor people.

(03-28-2019 04:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 02:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, Tanq, glad to see that things are going well for you. what happens to that new venture if your taxes go up 30%. does it kill it or just slow it. It sure as hell won't accelerate it, will it?

I didn't open my import business with 5 domestic and one foreign office all at once. I expanded into new markets when I could. To expand entailed an outlay of capital - for personnel, offices, bonds, phones, advertising - everything from paper clips to autos. I always tried to finance out of retained earnings, which, from the very name, is what I had available after taxes.

I need some help from somebody in how to search for a particular post. IIRC, Lad told me something like he was glad that I was finally caring about racism, or something like that, implying that I had been racist and was finally moving away from that. I asked for an apology, and he laughed it off. Kind of like when I took Hillary's "deplorables" speech personally, and somebody here told me it only about me if I was a racist.

Sorry to be such a Luddite.



In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

Sea level rise isn't just going to affect people in Miami and NY. It's going to affect everyone along the entire Atlantic and Pacific seaboards and the Gulf Coast. Those areas include: Texas, Louisiana, both Carolinas, Georgia, etc. I can't imagine you haven't been to any other coastal areas in your life - there are countless small, medium, and large towns full of an amalgam of people of all different means.

Why try and frame sea level rise as an issue that only affects people in big cities like NYC and Miami?

If you really think OO was *exclusively* referring to NYC and Miami, I think I now understand why you believe with all your being that Trump was truly calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's server.

Do you understand the term 'rhetorical flourish'?

I guess I needed to list every place in the world that is close to the sea. I left out Japan, Iceland, Australia, Easter Island, South Padre, Pelosi's home, kerry's yacht anchorage, Anchorage, Seattle, ...et al.

I made a larger point, which he is ignoring - for the first time in history, global warming/global cooling/climate change is affecting built up places. When we had global warming/global cooling/climate change before, it was not a big problem to people. They moved, they changed their crops, they hunted different animals in different places. But we have had climate changes before. Just ask the Viking colonists in Greenland. We will have it again. It was just so easy to move the viallage 1,000 years ago, and it is hard to move port facilities now. And who owns port facilities? Not poor people.

Well, generally when you use examples, you use phrases like "like" or "for example."

And you're dead wrong if you think climate change only affects the wealthy - have you been to the portions of Louisiana that are already washing into the Gulf? Or what about parts of west Florida, like Pine Island, where people try and make a living clam farming? Those are two perfect examples of coastal areas where people barely making ends meet live, that will eventually be inundated.

I'm only ignoring your larger point because it isn't germane and it's pointless. Who cares if we've done it before? The issue now is that there are wide swaths of the world's populations that live in coastal communities, river deltas, etc. that will be affected by sea level rise and its adverse effects. And since we know that this will happen, we need to be doing all we can to adapt and mitigate the impacts. Those adaptations and mitigation activities will be expensive, and right now we are not adequately preparing for the change, because people don't quite understand the severity of the situation and want to complain about how high their taxes are right now.

Quite frankly, my generation is going to have to deal with this mess, and it would be nice to try and get as much of a head start as we possibly can.

(03-28-2019 04:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 04:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 02:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, Tanq, glad to see that things are going well for you. what happens to that new venture if your taxes go up 30%. does it kill it or just slow it. It sure as hell won't accelerate it, will it?

I didn't open my import business with 5 domestic and one foreign office all at once. I expanded into new markets when I could. To expand entailed an outlay of capital - for personnel, offices, bonds, phones, advertising - everything from paper clips to autos. I always tried to finance out of retained earnings, which, from the very name, is what I had available after taxes.

I need some help from somebody in how to search for a particular post. IIRC, Lad told me something like he was glad that I was finally caring about racism, or something like that, implying that I had been racist and was finally moving away from that. I asked for an apology, and he laughed it off. Kind of like when I took Hillary's "deplorables" speech personally, and somebody here told me it only about me if I was a racist.

Sorry to be such a Luddite.



In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

Sea level rise isn't just going to affect people in Miami and NY. It's going to affect everyone along the entire Atlantic and Pacific seaboards and the Gulf Coast. Those areas include: Texas, Louisiana, both Carolinas, Georgia, etc. I can't imagine you haven't been to any other coastal areas in your life - there are countless small, medium, and large towns full of an amalgam of people of all different means.

Why try and frame sea level rise as an issue that only affects people in big cities like NYC and Miami?

If you really think OO was *exclusively* referring to NYC and Miami, I think I now understand why you believe with all your being that Trump was truly calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's server.

Do you understand the term 'rhetorical flourish'?

I guess I needed to list every place in the world that is close to the sea. I left out Japan, Iceland, Australia, Easter Island, South Padre, Pelosi's home, kerry's yacht anchorage, Anchorage, Seattle, ...et al.

I made a larger point, which he is ignoring - for the first time in history, global warming/global cooling/climate change is affecting built up places. When we had global warming/global cooling/climate change before, it was not a big problem to people. They moved, they changed their crops, they hunted different animals in different places. But we have had climate changes before. Just ask the Viking colonists in Greenland. We will have it again. It was just so easy to move the viallage 1,000 years ago, and it is hard to move port facilities now. And who owns port facilities? Not poor people.

Well, generally when you use examples, you use phrases like "like" or "for example."

And you're dead wrong if you think climate change only affects the wealthy - have you been to the portions of Louisiana that are already washing into the Gulf? Or what about parts of west Florida, like Pine Island, where people try and make a living clam farming? Those are two perfect examples of coastal areas where people barely making ends meet live, that will eventually be inundated.

I'm only ignoring your larger point because it isn't germane and it's pointless. Who cares if we've done it before? The issue now is that there are wide swaths of the world's populations that live in coastal communities, river deltas, etc. that will be affected by sea level rise and its adverse effects. And since we know that this will happen, we need to be doing all we can to adapt and mitigate the impacts. Those adaptations and mitigation activities will be expensive, and right now we are not adequately preparing for the change, because people don't quite understand the severity of the situation and want to complain about how high their taxes are right now.

Quite frankly, my generation is going to have to deal with this mess, and it would be nice to try and get as much of a head start as we possibly can.

You found the world "only" again!!! Do you have special glasses that let you see the word "only"?

I didn't use "for example' because I thought it obvious to anybody that the sea levels would not rise in only two cities. Apparently I overestimated my audience. After all, you do miss the significance of the "larger point".

I mention the moneyed interests because they are the ones who can - and have - get action from politicians.

Yep, your generation - and your grandchildren's generation - and their grandchildren - like people since Adam and Eve (Lucy, if you prefer) -will have to deal with a changing world. Best to recognize that and start dealing with it, instead of trying to turn the clock back to some undefined date in 6% of the world.

(03-28-2019 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 02:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, Tanq, glad to see that things are going well for you. what happens to that new venture if your taxes go up 30%. does it kill it or just slow it. It sure as hell won't accelerate it, will it?

I didn't open my import business with 5 domestic and one foreign office all at once. I expanded into new markets when I could. To expand entailed an outlay of capital - for personnel, offices, bonds, phones, advertising - everything from paper clips to autos. I always tried to finance out of retained earnings, which, from the very name, is what I had available after taxes.

I need some help from somebody in how to search for a particular post. IIRC, Lad told me something like he was glad that I was finally caring about racism, or something like that, implying that I had been racist and was finally moving away from that. I asked for an apology, and he laughed it off. Kind of like when I took Hillary's "deplorables" speech personally, and somebody here told me it only about me if I was a racist.

Sorry to be such a Luddite.



In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

Sea level rise isn't just going to affect people in Miami and NY. It's going to affect everyone along the entire Atlantic and Pacific seaboards and the Gulf Coast. Those areas include: Texas, Louisiana, both Carolinas, Georgia, etc. I can't imagine you haven't been to any other coastal areas in your life - there are countless small, medium, and large towns full of an amalgam of people of all different means.

Why try and frame sea level rise as an issue that only affects people in big cities like NYC and Miami?

If you really think OO was *exclusively* referring to NYC and Miami, I think I now understand why you believe with all your being that Trump was truly calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's server.

Do you understand the term 'rhetorical flourish'?

I'd like OO to explain why he chose New York and Miami as his two examples when there are countless other cities, towns, areas that will be affected by sea level rise.

I don't think OO thinks NYC and Miami will exclusively be affected, but I do think he grossly underestimates the number and types of people that will be affected. Sea level rise has the chance to effect significantly more people than just those that have beach front property. Heck, it has the chance to impact more than just those that have waterfront property or even live off water on barrier islands. So regardless of the exact cities he chose to reference, the remainder of his response, which only picks a fight with people who own beachfront property, indicates that he needs to do a bit more research on the issues of sea level rise due to climate change.

For example, sea level rise will exacerbate storm surge. Which means areas that shouldn't even have to think about the effects of sea level rise will now need to. The Houston Ship Channel is a prime example of an area that combines vital commercial assets with residential areas that will be made more vulnerable as sea levels rise. And those residential areas certainly aren't beach front properties that a bunch of rich people live in.

So the answer is that you dont like OO's position overall, know that OO doesnt mean two cities overall, yet choose to 'lecture' him over using two cities. And you choose to 'lecture' him over using two cities in the 'how dare you only mention two cities'-style of class and/or social distinction chastisement of 'this affects all walks of life' indignation. Do I have that straight?

Quote:And those residential areas certainly aren't beach front properties that a bunch of rich people live in.

I believe I do have that straight.

Good god, I do believe I have seen 'high water' (pun ) 'make everything is about class distinction' progressive reasoning and argument.

[Darth Vader mode on] The SJW is strong with this one [/Darth Vader mode].

(03-28-2019 07:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 02:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, Tanq, glad to see that things are going well for you. what happens to that new venture if your taxes go up 30%. does it kill it or just slow it. It sure as hell won't accelerate it, will it?

I didn't open my import business with 5 domestic and one foreign office all at once. I expanded into new markets when I could. To expand entailed an outlay of capital - for personnel, offices, bonds, phones, advertising - everything from paper clips to autos. I always tried to finance out of retained earnings, which, from the very name, is what I had available after taxes.

I need some help from somebody in how to search for a particular post. IIRC, Lad told me something like he was glad that I was finally caring about racism, or something like that, implying that I had been racist and was finally moving away from that. I asked for an apology, and he laughed it off. Kind of like when I took Hillary's "deplorables" speech personally, and somebody here told me it only about me if I was a racist.

Sorry to be such a Luddite.



In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

Sea level rise isn't just going to affect people in Miami and NY. It's going to affect everyone along the entire Atlantic and Pacific seaboards and the Gulf Coast. Those areas include: Texas, Louisiana, both Carolinas, Georgia, etc. I can't imagine you haven't been to any other coastal areas in your life - there are countless small, medium, and large towns full of an amalgam of people of all different means.

Why try and frame sea level rise as an issue that only affects people in big cities like NYC and Miami?

If you really think OO was *exclusively* referring to NYC and Miami, I think I now understand why you believe with all your being that Trump was truly calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's server.

Do you understand the term 'rhetorical flourish'?

I'd like OO to explain why he chose New York and Miami as his two examples when there are countless other cities, towns, areas that will be affected by sea level rise.

I don't think OO thinks NYC and Miami will exclusively be affected, but I do think he grossly underestimates the number and types of people that will be affected. Sea level rise has the chance to effect significantly more people than just those that have beach front property. Heck, it has the chance to impact more than just those that have waterfront property or even live off water on barrier islands. So regardless of the exact cities he chose to reference, the remainder of his response, which only picks a fight with people who own beachfront property, indicates that he needs to do a bit more research on the issues of sea level rise due to climate change.

For example, sea level rise will exacerbate storm surge. Which means areas that shouldn't even have to think about the effects of sea level rise will now need to. The Houston Ship Channel is a prime example of an area that combines vital commercial assets with residential areas that will be made more vulnerable as sea levels rise. And those residential areas certainly aren't beach front properties that a bunch of rich people live in.

So the answer is that you dont like OO's position overall, know that OO doesnt mean two cities overall, yet choose to 'lecture' him over using two cities. And you choose to 'lecture' him over using two cities in the 'how dare you only mention two cities'-style of class and/or social distinction chastisement of 'this affects all walks of life' indignation. Do I have that straight?

Quote:And those residential areas certainly aren't beach front properties that a bunch of rich people live in.

I believe I do have that straight.

Good god, I do believe I have seen 'high water' (pun ) 'make everything is about class distinction' progressive reasoning and argument.

[Darth Vader mode on] The SJW is strong with this one [/Darth Vader mode].

If a SJW is someone who clearly states that climate change will have an adverse affect on both rich and poor - then call me a SJW all you want. I’ll definitely wear it with pride.

But I don’t understand - what about OO’s position don’t I like? Can you explain that to me?

(03-28-2019 07:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 07:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sea level rise isn't just going to affect people in Miami and NY. It's going to affect everyone along the entire Atlantic and Pacific seaboards and the Gulf Coast. Those areas include: Texas, Louisiana, both Carolinas, Georgia, etc. I can't imagine you haven't been to any other coastal areas in your life - there are countless small, medium, and large towns full of an amalgam of people of all different means.

Why try and frame sea level rise as an issue that only affects people in big cities like NYC and Miami?

If you really think OO was *exclusively* referring to NYC and Miami, I think I now understand why you believe with all your being that Trump was truly calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's server.

Do you understand the term 'rhetorical flourish'?

I'd like OO to explain why he chose New York and Miami as his two examples when there are countless other cities, towns, areas that will be affected by sea level rise.

I don't think OO thinks NYC and Miami will exclusively be affected, but I do think he grossly underestimates the number and types of people that will be affected. Sea level rise has the chance to effect significantly more people than just those that have beach front property. Heck, it has the chance to impact more than just those that have waterfront property or even live off water on barrier islands. So regardless of the exact cities he chose to reference, the remainder of his response, which only picks a fight with people who own beachfront property, indicates that he needs to do a bit more research on the issues of sea level rise due to climate change.

For example, sea level rise will exacerbate storm surge. Which means areas that shouldn't even have to think about the effects of sea level rise will now need to. The Houston Ship Channel is a prime example of an area that combines vital commercial assets with residential areas that will be made more vulnerable as sea levels rise. And those residential areas certainly aren't beach front properties that a bunch of rich people live in.

So the answer is that you dont like OO's position overall, know that OO doesnt mean two cities overall, yet choose to 'lecture' him over using two cities. And you choose to 'lecture' him over using two cities in the 'how dare you only mention two cities'-style of class and/or social distinction chastisement of 'this affects all walks of life' indignation. Do I have that straight?

Quote:And those residential areas certainly aren't beach front properties that a bunch of rich people live in.

I believe I do have that straight.

Good god, I do believe I have seen 'high water' (pun ) 'make everything is about class distinction' progressive reasoning and argument.

[Darth Vader mode on] The SJW is strong with this one [/Darth Vader mode].

If a SJW is someone who clearly states that climate change will have an adverse affect on both rich and poor - then call me a SJW all you want. I’ll definitely wear it with pride.

But I don’t understand - what about OO’s position don’t I like? Can you explain that to me?

The fact that you are combining your umbrage over climate change with an additional chance to spark umbrage over class distinction must make you 'extra special good' today.

Cmon man, I think that if you put your mind to it you could find a racial distinction avenue to add to it...... make it a trifecta.....

I would *pay* to see that turn come in this line..... lolz.

I am still chuckling that the moral preening of 'only two cities' (combined with the preaching of 'a bunch of rich people', to boot) found its way into your response.

(03-28-2019 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 07:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 07:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you really think OO was *exclusively* referring to NYC and Miami, I think I now understand why you believe with all your being that Trump was truly calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's server.

Do you understand the term 'rhetorical flourish'?

I'd like OO to explain why he chose New York and Miami as his two examples when there are countless other cities, towns, areas that will be affected by sea level rise.

I don't think OO thinks NYC and Miami will exclusively be affected, but I do think he grossly underestimates the number and types of people that will be affected. Sea level rise has the chance to effect significantly more people than just those that have beach front property. Heck, it has the chance to impact more than just those that have waterfront property or even live off water on barrier islands. So regardless of the exact cities he chose to reference, the remainder of his response, which only picks a fight with people who own beachfront property, indicates that he needs to do a bit more research on the issues of sea level rise due to climate change.

For example, sea level rise will exacerbate storm surge. Which means areas that shouldn't even have to think about the effects of sea level rise will now need to. The Houston Ship Channel is a prime example of an area that combines vital commercial assets with residential areas that will be made more vulnerable as sea levels rise. And those residential areas certainly aren't beach front properties that a bunch of rich people live in.

So the answer is that you dont like OO's position overall, know that OO doesnt mean two cities overall, yet choose to 'lecture' him over using two cities. And you choose to 'lecture' him over using two cities in the 'how dare you only mention two cities'-style of class and/or social distinction chastisement of 'this affects all walks of life' indignation. Do I have that straight?

Quote:And those residential areas certainly aren't beach front properties that a bunch of rich people live in.

I believe I do have that straight.

Good god, I do believe I have seen 'high water' (pun ) 'make everything is about class distinction' progressive reasoning and argument.

[Darth Vader mode on] The SJW is strong with this one [/Darth Vader mode].

If a SJW is someone who clearly states that climate change will have an adverse affect on both rich and poor - then call me a SJW all you want. I’ll definitely wear it with pride.

But I don’t understand - what about OO’s position don’t I like? Can you explain that to me?

The fact that you are combining your umbrage over climate change with an additional chance to spark umbrage over class distinction must make you 'extra special good' today.

Cmon man, I think that if you put your mind to it you could find a racial distinction avenue to add to it...... make it a trifecta.....

I would *pay* to see that turn come in this line..... lolz.

I am still chuckling that the moral preening of 'only two cities' (combined with the preaching of 'a bunch of rich people', to boot) found its way into your response.

My entire point was that OO was seemingly trying to make this an issue that only affected liberal elites. I wanted to make it clear that climate change will affect liberals, conservatives, rich, poor, black, white. It isn’t an issue that just two cities should care about.

(03-28-2019 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

From NASA's website: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

OO... where do you fall on your GW not being 100% man-caused? Like mostly man-caused or mostly not-man-caused? I'm genuinely curious. It's hard to for me to fathom fighting the massive tide of climate scientists' near-consensus opinion.

(03-28-2019 09:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

From NASA's website: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

OO... where do you fall on your GW not being 100% man-caused? Like mostly man-caused or mostly not-man-caused? I'm genuinely curious. It's hard to for me to fathom fighting the massive tide of climate scientists' near-consensus opinion.

Doesn't really matter.

I fall on the side of it not being 100% man-caused. Because if it is less than 100% man-caused it cannot be fully reversed by correcting men's actions. In any case, we cannot correct every human contribution anyway. So if, just picking a number out of the air, if GW is 80% man-caused, and we can correct/reverse 80% of that, ,8 x .8 = .64 corrected, then we are still going to get a warmer globe, just not as fast as if we did less. AND, if the globe is going to continue to warm despite our best efforts, best to prepare for a warmer globe.

So for percentages of man-cause AND man-correctable less than 100%, we are going to continue to warm.

I do not disagree that Earth is warming, as it has done many times in the past. I just do not believe there is any good reason to assume that man is 100% responsible. Even if that was so, I also do not think man can coorect 100% of his influence.

So, IMO, the Earth will continue to warm, despite our best efforts. let's get ready.

97%

glacial and interglacial periods

Glacial periods are caused by global cooling. Interglacial periods are caused by global warming. Duh. Been happening for eons. Maybe you and/or the 97% can present the evidence that it is NOT happening now. Because a determination that it is 100% due to man is also a determination that it is 0% nature.

(03-28-2019 09:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 07:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 07:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'd like OO to explain why he chose New York and Miami as his two examples when there are countless other cities, towns, areas that will be affected by sea level rise.

I don't think OO thinks NYC and Miami will exclusively be affected, but I do think he grossly underestimates the number and types of people that will be affected. Sea level rise has the chance to effect significantly more people than just those that have beach front property. Heck, it has the chance to impact more than just those that have waterfront property or even live off water on barrier islands. So regardless of the exact cities he chose to reference, the remainder of his response, which only picks a fight with people who own beachfront property, indicates that he needs to do a bit more research on the issues of sea level rise due to climate change.

For example, sea level rise will exacerbate storm surge. Which means areas that shouldn't even have to think about the effects of sea level rise will now need to. The Houston Ship Channel is a prime example of an area that combines vital commercial assets with residential areas that will be made more vulnerable as sea levels rise. And those residential areas certainly aren't beach front properties that a bunch of rich people live in.

So the answer is that you dont like OO's position overall, know that OO doesnt mean two cities overall, yet choose to 'lecture' him over using two cities. And you choose to 'lecture' him over using two cities in the 'how dare you only mention two cities'-style of class and/or social distinction chastisement of 'this affects all walks of life' indignation. Do I have that straight?

Quote:And those residential areas certainly aren't beach front properties that a bunch of rich people live in.

I believe I do have that straight.

Good god, I do believe I have seen 'high water' (pun ) 'make everything is about class distinction' progressive reasoning and argument.

[Darth Vader mode on] The SJW is strong with this one [/Darth Vader mode].

If a SJW is someone who clearly states that climate change will have an adverse affect on both rich and poor - then call me a SJW all you want. I’ll definitely wear it with pride.

But I don’t understand - what about OO’s position don’t I like? Can you explain that to me?

The fact that you are combining your umbrage over climate change with an additional chance to spark umbrage over class distinction must make you 'extra special good' today.

Cmon man, I think that if you put your mind to it you could find a racial distinction avenue to add to it...... make it a trifecta.....

I would *pay* to see that turn come in this line..... lolz.

I am still chuckling that the moral preening of 'only two cities' (combined with the preaching of 'a bunch of rich people', to boot) found its way into your response.

My entire point was that OO was seemingly trying to make this an issue that only affected liberal elites. I wanted to make it clear that climate change will affect liberals, conservatives, rich, poor, black, white. It isn’t an issue that just two cities should care about.

I see you found another "only" I didn't say. You are blaming me for your misperception and lack of understanding.

Why did I choose those two? Came to mind first. I guess I could have chosen Kennebunkport, ME, and Cancun. Or Sydney and Anchorage. Or all of them. Then you would be upset and demanding to ask why I chose those six, and not others.

I was not saying poor people would be unaffected. I was saying that rich people with a lot at stake can get action from politicians where poor people cannot. when a six or seven figure donor calls, they listen. The people who own the facilities in ports are not poor.

You have to make a lot of assumptions to point the fingers at me that you are pointing. You have to assume that I do not know that sea levels will rise everywhere. How stupid you must consider me to think that. You have to assume I don't know that all sorts of people will be affected, from Aleuts in Alaska to people on StMaarten and in South Africa.. How ignorant you must think of me to assume i don't know that. You have to assume I don't know that affected people will range from the very poorest to the very richest. I think you are making these assumptions to create a straw man that you can argue against. I cannot believe you would think I don't know the behavior of water. So you have to invent somebody who doesn't understand the nature of water and doesn't know that not all people on the coast are rich. I guess you think I need custodial care. You just cannot keep from insulting me. Liberal use of the "only" vision you possess must help.

(03-28-2019 10:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 09:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 07:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 07:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the answer is that you dont like OO's position overall, know that OO doesnt mean two cities overall, yet choose to 'lecture' him over using two cities. And you choose to 'lecture' him over using two cities in the 'how dare you only mention two cities'-style of class and/or social distinction chastisement of 'this affects all walks of life' indignation. Do I have that straight?


I believe I do have that straight.

Good god, I do believe I have seen 'high water' (pun ) 'make everything is about class distinction' progressive reasoning and argument.

[Darth Vader mode on] The SJW is strong with this one [/Darth Vader mode].

If a SJW is someone who clearly states that climate change will have an adverse affect on both rich and poor - then call me a SJW all you want. I’ll definitely wear it with pride.

But I don’t understand - what about OO’s position don’t I like? Can you explain that to me?

The fact that you are combining your umbrage over climate change with an additional chance to spark umbrage over class distinction must make you 'extra special good' today.

Cmon man, I think that if you put your mind to it you could find a racial distinction avenue to add to it...... make it a trifecta.....

I would *pay* to see that turn come in this line..... lolz.

I am still chuckling that the moral preening of 'only two cities' (combined with the preaching of 'a bunch of rich people', to boot) found its way into your response.

My entire point was that OO was seemingly trying to make this an issue that only affected liberal elites. I wanted to make it clear that climate change will affect liberals, conservatives, rich, poor, black, white. It isn’t an issue that just two cities should care about.

I see you found another "only" I didn't say. You are blaming me for your misperception and lack of understanding.

Why did I choose those two? Came to mind first. I guess I could have chosen Kennebunkport, ME, and Cancun. Or Sydney and Anchorage. Or all of them. Then you would be upset and demanding to ask why I chose those six, and not others.

I was not saying poor people would be unaffected. I was saying that rich people with a lot at stake can get action from politicians where poor people cannot. when a six or seven figure donor calls, they listen. The people who own the facilities in ports are not poor.

You have to make a lot of assumptions to point the fingers at me that you are pointing. You have to assume that I do not know that sea levels will rise everywhere. How stupid you must consider me to think that. You have to assume I don't know that all sorts of people will be affected, from Aleuts in Alaska to people on StMaarten and in South Africa.. How ignorant you must think of me to assume i don't know that. You have to assume I don't know that affected people will range from the very poorest to the very richest. I think you are making these assumptions to create a straw man that you can argue against. I cannot believe you would think I don't know the behavior of water. So you have to invent somebody who doesn't understand the nature of water and doesn't know that not all people on the coast are rich. I guess you think I need custodial care. You just cannot keep from insulting me. Liberal use of the "only" vision you possess must help.

Well heck, this is the first time I’ve heard you articulate this viewpoint. I didn’t realize we both were on the same page regarding the impact of sea level rise and how serious of an issue it will be in the future.

And I’m sorry if I underestimated your experience and understanding of hydrology/hydraulics, global climate change modeling, and coastal risk. These are fairly complex topics that lots of people struggle with understanding, so when it appeared as if you were only focusing on the idea that sea level rise was going to affect wealthy beach front property owners, I didn’t think you had a good grasp on the severity of the situation. It is not just as simple as “knowing how water works,” but mea culpa.

Since we both agree that sea level rise will be a significant threat in the future, what are your thoughts on mitigating the threat? Do you envision private industry leading the charge? Or do you believe that government entities will play the largest role in developing actionable plans?