Jen Sorensen for March 31, 2015

Attached is the link to an article in the February 2015 National Geographic:.http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/climate-change-economics/parker-text.A quote from it:.“Florida is a good place to see the costs—and potential profits—of climate change emerging into sharper view. Many coastal places are at risk, but Florida is one of the most vulnerable. While government leaders around the world, in Washington, and even in Florida’s statehouse in Tallahassee dither over climate change, here on Florida’s southern tip more than a few civic leaders are preparing. Florida’s future will be defined by a noisy, contentious public debate over taxes, zoning, public works projects, and property rights—a debate forced by rising waters.”

I wish Texas , except Austin, would follow up on their threat of secession.

Or, we could work together to find the best solution to the problem instead of blaming or ignoring.

Sucks to live in a swamp

OBSERVED current impact around the world in lowland areas dependent on non-saline, or proper “mix” of fresh/salt waters, have already been devastated in many areas. That to Americans and “city folk”, the natural areas that are most productive for wildlife, and life, don’t matter, cause they’re just “swamplands”. Rice and fish support the largest majority of the people population around the world, and much of that production IS NOW damaged, or threatened with immediate, and longer-term damage, and loss. Yes, the signs are already here, but the ignorant can’t read them, or just don’t care. Posterity has done nothing for THEM!

That was the strangest argument to your post that I’ve ever seen. I wonder if that is the current fad for deniers: Science studies that include qualifiers or statistical probabilities less than 100 percent are disdained. And yet, if a study expresses certainty in any way it is also disdained. Heads I win, tails you lose. At the risk of seeming to rely on only one source of information, I submit the link to another National Geographic article that I was gratified to see and read, as I hope you will, too:.http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text.In today’s world, spokespersons on the side of valid science should of necessity know professional debating principles as well as the tricks of shamans, magicians, confidence operators, and others that use flim-flam in pursuit of fame and profit, or even mere amusement. Superstition and mistrust of non-mystical and therefore non-conclusive answers must be part of the human psyche. At this stage of humanity’s existence, it’s not a survival characteristic.

^Using synergism in an argument with those who can’t figure out the relationship between the Doublemint twins, as the science and biology is too complex, makes discussing climate change difficult.

accusation without information. Do you have so little understanding?

mdavis: “Churchie” might disagree on that south Florida thing.

mdavis4183 makes a fool of itself, as Jen Sorenson is a she.By the way, the seas are rising, but it would probably be too much trouble to find and read the relevant information, right?