There's dumb and then there's...
 

....southern dumb:

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand
A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to
ignore sea level predictions based on global warming


Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North Carolina's
state legislature is considering a bill that would require the
government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and predictions of
ocean and climate scientists.

*Business interests* along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to
include language in a law that would require future sea level estimates
to be based only on data from past years. New evidence, especially on
sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be
factored into the state's development plans for the coast.

"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson,
chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the
state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be
tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but
computers and speculation."

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state’s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the
commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.

"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the commission
chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback from
coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt their
ability to develop in their communities."

The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up
controversy states:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these
data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates
of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly…"

The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow, linear
sea-level rise—not the faster increases associated with global
warming—have drawn the most ire from scientists.

"Cleary they don't understand science at all – (sea level rise) hasn't
been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina University
who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on and just
say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely criminal."

"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are all on
board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the status quo.
They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.

- - -

Ignorance and stupidity, backed up by commercial greed. Here's an
idea...let the business owners who want to build in the future flood
zone pay for their own infrastructure *and* force them to self insure so
taxpayers and policy holders elsewhere don't end up paying for their folly.

There's dumb and then there's...
 

On Jun 2, 2:08*pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
...southern dumb:

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand
A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to
ignore sea level predictions based on global warming

Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North Carolina's
state legislature is considering a bill that would require the
government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and predictions of
ocean and climate scientists.

*Business interests* along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to
include language in a law that would require future sea level estimates
to be based only on data from past years. New evidence, especially on
sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be
factored into the state's development plans for the coast.

"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson,
chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the
state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be
tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but
computers and speculation."

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state’s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the
commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.

"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the commission
chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback from
coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt their
ability to develop in their communities."

The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up
controversy states:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these
data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates
of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly…"

The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow, linear
sea-level rise—not the faster increases associated with global
warming—have drawn the most ire from scientists.

"Cleary they don't understand science at all – (sea level rise) hasn't
been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina University
who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on and just
say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely criminal."

"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are all on
board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the status quo.
They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.

- - -

Ignorance and stupidity, backed up by commercial greed. *Here's an
idea...let the business owners who want to build in the future flood
zone pay for their own infrastructure *and* force them to self insure so
taxpayers and policy holders elsewhere don't end up paying for their folly.

Mans greed will be his downfall......

There's dumb and then there's...
 

On 6/2/12 5:48 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:08:57 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state’s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100

I think they are right to question that number since there have been
estimates that vary widely from a few inches to several feet.

I think the real question is how long the federal government is going
to sell flood insurance to people who build on barrier islands. That
is the stupid thing. If someone wants to take the chance, let them.
Just don't palm the risk off on the taxpayers. The same goes for flood
plains next to rivers and swamps.
We should have condemned most of New Orleans the last time it flooded
and made them barge in fill to bring it up to FEMA levels before they
built back. That would be a stimulus project that could have employed
people all the way up the Mississippi river and out through the Ohio
river basin. The net cost to the tax payer would be zero, based on
what it is going to cost the next time they flood.

Regarding the flood insurance, I agree and said so at the bottom of my
post. I see no reason for taxpayers to subsidize insurance for those who
build in flood zones. If those property owners want insurance, let them
pay the full premium for it.

There's dumb and then there's...
 

On 6/2/2012 2:08 PM, X ` Man wrote:
...southern dumb:

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand
A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to
ignore sea level predictions based on global warming


Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North Carolina's
state legislature is considering a bill that would require the
government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and predictions of
ocean and climate scientists.

*Business interests* along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to
include language in a law that would require future sea level estimates
to be based only on data from past years. New evidence, especially on
sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be
factored into the state's development plans for the coast.

"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson,
chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the
state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be
tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but
computers and speculation."

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state’s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the
commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.

"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the commission
chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback from
coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt their
ability to develop in their communities."

The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up
controversy states:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these
data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates
of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly…"

The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow, linear
sea-level rise—not the faster increases associated with global
warming—have drawn the most ire from scientists.

"Cleary they don't understand science at all – (sea level rise) hasn't
been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina University
who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on and just
say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely criminal."

"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are all on
board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the status quo.
They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.

- - -

Ignorance and stupidity, backed up by commercial greed. Here's an ,
idea...let the business owners who want to build in the future flood
zone pay for their own infrastructure *and* force them to self insure so
taxpayers and policy holders elsewhere don't end up paying for their folly.
Under Bush Developers started building in flood plains and FLOOD WAYS,
in addition they are now permitted to fill in flood plains at least
around here. All of this means higher insurance premiums and forcing
flooding onto people who would otherwise not be at risk of flooding.

There's dumb and then there's...
 

X ` Man wrote:
...southern dumb:

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand
A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to
ignore sea level predictions based on global warming


Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North Carolina's
state legislature is considering a bill that would require the
government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and predictions
of ocean and climate scientists.

*Business interests* along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to
include language in a law that would require future sea level
estimates to be based only on data from past years. New evidence,
especially on sea level rise that could be tied to global warming,
would not be factored into the state's development plans for the coast.

"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson,
chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the
state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be
tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but
computers and speculation."

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state’s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the
commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.

"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the commission
chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback from
coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt
their ability to develop in their communities."

The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up
controversy states:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these
data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900.
Rates of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly…"

The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow, linear
sea-level rise—not the faster increases associated with global
warming—have drawn the most ire from scientists.

"Cleary they don't understand science at all – (sea level rise) hasn't
been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina University
who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on and
just say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely
criminal."

"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are all on
board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the status
quo. They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.

- - -

Ignorance and stupidity, backed up by commercial greed. Here's an
idea...let the business owners who want to build in the future flood
zone pay for their own infrastructure *and* force them to self insure
so taxpayers and policy holders elsewhere don't end up paying for
their folly.

At least it can't tip over!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

There's dumb and then there's...
 

*e#c wrote:
On Jun 2, 2:08 pm, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
...southern dumb:

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand
A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to
ignore sea level predictions based on global warming

Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North Carolina's
state legislature is considering a bill that would require the
government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and predictions of
ocean and climate scientists.

*Business interests* along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to
include language in a law that would require future sea level estimates
to be based only on data from past years. New evidence, especially on
sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be
factored into the state's development plans for the coast.

"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson,
chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the
state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be
tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but
computers and speculation."

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state’s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the
commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.

"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the commission
chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback from
coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt their
ability to develop in their communities."

The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up
controversy states:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these
data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates
of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly…"

The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow, linear
sea-level rise—not the faster increases associated with global
warming—have drawn the most ire from scientists.

"Cleary they don't understand science at all – (sea level rise) hasn't
been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina University
who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on and just
say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely criminal."

"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are all on
board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the status quo.
They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.

- - -

Ignorance and stupidity, backed up by commercial greed. Here's an
idea...let the business owners who want to build in the future flood
zone pay for their own infrastructure *and* force them to self insure so
taxpayers and policy holders elsewhere don't end up paying for their folly.
Mans greed will be his downfall......
Reported as dumb spam.

There's dumb and then there's...
 

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 19:32:30 -0400, wrote:

I am several miles
inland.

===

But you are only several feet from the mighty Estero River. :-)

There's dumb and then there's...
 

In article , dump-on-
says...

...southern dumb:

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand
A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to
ignore sea level predictions based on global warming


Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North Carolina's
state legislature is considering a bill that would require the
government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and predictions of
ocean and climate scientists.

*Business interests* along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to
include language in a law that would require future sea level estimates
to be based only on data from past years. New evidence, especially on
sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be
factored into the state's development plans for the coast.

"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson,
chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the
state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be
tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but
computers and speculation."

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state?s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the
commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.

"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the commission
chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback from
coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt their
ability to develop in their communities."

The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up
controversy states:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these
data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates
of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly?"

The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow, linear
sea-level rise?not the faster increases associated with global
warming?have drawn the most ire from scientists.

"Cleary they don't understand science at all ? (sea level rise) hasn't
been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina University
who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on and just
say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely criminal."

"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are all on
board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the status quo.
They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.

- - -

Ignorance and stupidity, backed up by commercial greed. Here's an
idea...let the business owners who want to build in the future flood
zone pay for their own infrastructure *and* force them to self insure so
taxpayers and policy holders elsewhere don't end up paying for their folly.

The key word here is "predictions". Should developers be able to go see
a psychic to see if his/her "prediction" is any different than someone
else's?

There's dumb and then there's...
 

In article , s says...

On 6/2/2012 2:08 PM, X ` Man wrote:
...southern dumb:

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand
A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to
ignore sea level predictions based on global warming


Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North Carolina's
state legislature is considering a bill that would require the
government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and predictions of
ocean and climate scientists.

*Business interests* along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to
include language in a law that would require future sea level estimates
to be based only on data from past years. New evidence, especially on
sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be
factored into the state's development plans for the coast.

"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson,
chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the
state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be
tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but
computers and speculation."

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state?s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the
commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.

"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the commission
chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback from
coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt their
ability to develop in their communities."

The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up
controversy states:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these
data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates
of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly?"

The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow, linear
sea-level rise?not the faster increases associated with global
warming?have drawn the most ire from scientists.

"Cleary they don't understand science at all ? (sea level rise) hasn't
been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina University
who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on and just
say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely criminal."

"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are all on
board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the status quo.
They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.

- - -

Ignorance and stupidity, backed up by commercial greed. Here's an ,
idea...let the business owners who want to build in the future flood
zone pay for their own infrastructure *and* force them to self insure so
taxpayers and policy holders elsewhere don't end up paying for their folly.
Under Bush Developers started building in flood plains and FLOOD WAYS,
in addition they are now permitted to fill in flood plains at least
around here. All of this means higher insurance premiums and forcing
flooding onto people who would otherwise not be at risk of flooding.

You must not be familiar with the several thousand years when people
built their homes near rivers and farmed land near rivers. You also need
to do some reading up on irrigation on how that works.

There's dumb and then there's...
 

On 6/3/12 8:32 AM, BAR wrote:
In , s says...

On 6/2/2012 2:08 PM, X ` Man wrote:
...southern dumb:

Sea Level Bill Would Allow North Carolina to Stick Its Head in the Sand
A bill moving through the state legislature would allow developers to
ignore sea level predictions based on global warming


Wading into the turbulent debate over global warming, North Carolina's
state legislature is considering a bill that would require the
government to ignore new reports of rising sea levels and predictions of
ocean and climate scientists.

*Business interests* along the state's coastline pushed lawmakers to
include language in a law that would require future sea level estimates
to be based only on data from past years. New evidence, especially on
sea level rise that could be tied to global warming, would not be
factored into the state's development plans for the coast.

"We're skeptical of the rising sea level science," says Tom Thompson,
chairman of NC-20, an economic development group representing the
state's 20 coastal counties. "Our concern is that the economy could be
tremendously impacted by a hypothetical number with nothing but
computers and speculation."

That 'hypothetical number' came from the state?s Coastal Resources
Commission, which recommended planning around a 39-inch rise in sea
level by 2100. At the behest of NC-20 and coastal governments, the
commission decided to remove the number from its policy entirely.

"Originally we did have the 39-inch recommendation, but the commission
chose to remove that," says Michele Walker, spokeswoman for the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. "We got a lot of pushback from
coastal governments and groups who were concerned that would hurt their
ability to develop in their communities."

The bill is still in its early stages, but the section stirring up
controversy states:

"These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these
data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates
of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly?"

The parts about using only historical data, which shows a slow, linear
sea-level rise?not the faster increases associated with global
warming?have drawn the most ire from scientists.

"Cleary they don't understand science at all ? (sea level rise) hasn't
been linear," says Stan Riggs, a professor at East Carolina University
who is an expert on the state's coastline. "To put blinders on and just
say we don't accept what's happening on our coast is absolutely criminal."

"But the people that live out there that aren't developers are all on
board. It's the managers and developers who want to keep the status quo.
They're making a lot of money off of it," Riggs added.

- - -

Ignorance and stupidity, backed up by commercial greed. Here's an ,
idea...let the business owners who want to build in the future flood
zone pay for their own infrastructure *and* force them to self insure so
taxpayers and policy holders elsewhere don't end up paying for their folly.
Under Bush Developers started building in flood plains and FLOOD WAYS,
in addition they are now permitted to fill in flood plains at least
around here. All of this means higher insurance premiums and forcing
flooding onto people who would otherwise not be at risk of flooding.

You must not be familiar with the several thousand years when people
built their homes near rivers and farmed land near rivers. You also need
to do some reading up on irrigation on how that works.


The subject here is flooding of commercial property and houses built too
close to potential flooding/surge waters and insurance coverage for same.