• #1
    I know this holds true in my area. I live in a coastal region, and the Army Corps of Engineers have been doing all kinds of infrastructure projects for large industrial corporations that have caused massive flooding in neighborhoods that have never flooded in a 100+ years... Why do we call ALL building and development "progress"? Sometimes I think they are simply fixing things that aren't broken so they can generate more need for their services...
  • #26
    There is a lot to think about when the Corps of Engineers begins a project near your home or business. I can point to the "diversion canal" near the Amite River outside of Baton Rouge, LA. Or the "relief" canals below New Orleans. All these things are done with good intentions, but when storms hit the effects are not always what is expected.
    Then you can see the big dam projects such as Sam Rayburn Dam in Texas and Toledo Bend Dam on the Texas-Louisiana border. There are many more such projects...and they are great successes for flood control.
  • #34
    @DogLady_1 That is not a problem caused by the dams. That is an industry problem that must be addressed separately. I don't know what your point is by posting this.
    But, you are absolutely wrong with your "might have helped some flooding" comment. As someone who has hunted, fished, and enjoyed this area for many years, I know the effect it has had on flooding and water conservation. And, I worked in industry that was dependent upon these water resources and enjoyed seafood from the estuaries at the mouth of the rivers. I also know the economic impact these lakes have had on the area. During hard economic times the tourism and recreation on these lakes is helping keep the area afloat and economically viable.
    You are evidently bent on nothing more than attacking the Corps of Engineers. IMHO, your environmental claims are more argument than debate.
  • #35
    Well, according to the report I linked to, the pollution drainage into the reservoir was not a problem until the dam was built... just sayin'...
  • #4
    Who wrote the headline for this piece? The headline totally misstates the points made in the body of the article.

    Building in INCREASINGLY flood prone along coast line areas should be discouraged as well as making adaptions to currently established population centers is the point of the article.

    I couldn't agree more with the message stated in the body of the article. The headline is just plain wrong and misleading.
  • #15
    For much of the world, they don't have a lot of choices.

    Population growth is a problem that nobody wants to talk about.

    Population growth is going to make life a lot harder in the next few decades.
  • #2
    Great article! Houses on the Jersey Coast that are below the stormwater surge are currently being hit with a sizeable insurance premium. Most owners are pursuing the installation of timber piles to elevate their house living space to a more appropriate elevation in order to reduce their premium.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #31
    Climate Blame believers claim a crisis WILL happen while the world of science has NEVER said anything past "could be" and has NEVER said any crisis WILL happen. Who is the evil fear monger here? Did Bush condemn your kids to the greenhouse gas ovens?
  • #27
    These are the same bunch of ass clowns that put the fix in on global warming. Why would anybody believe anything these fine folks say about it. Just some more "P.C. ASS CLOWNS" I believe them as much as I believe what our President has to say.
  • #25
    I have something to say. Coastal flooding during a major hurricane has little to do with coastal development. This development does, however, retain water once it is inland. The wave height and storm surge will cover the coastal development just as it does the coastal areas further inland. Just google "hurricane Ike."
  • #23
    Let people who choose to live where the risk is greatest pay for the necessary insurance by a non government insurance company.
  • #22
    Consensus Facts:

    After 28 years of research lots of scientists agree climate change "won't be" a deadly crisis.

    Even more scientists agree climate change "could be" a deadly crisis.

    Not one single scientist has ever said climate change "WILL be" an "eventual" or "inevitable" deadly crisis.

    Deny that!
  • #17
    What you are getting is the places that floods year in and year out are the places that are not prepared for floods, so it will always flood there. You will notice these areas flood every time to. China, Philippines, India, Bangladesh etc... Even my Taiwan floods to. Hell Typhoon Trami just left today and is battering China. It was flooding and we get our usual mudslide.

    Another component is infrastructure too.
  • #13
    Why would I say that a crisis WILL happen when science has never said it WILL happen?

    We deniers and former believers now accept the words of the scientists who have never agreed or said that a crisis was 'inevitable", they have only agreed that their own crisis is "possible" and "likely" and "maybe" and..........

    Science never said it WILL be a crisi so why should anyone else say it WILL be a crisis, science never did?
  • #10
    Did you read the article? The article is all about AGW and the threat of coastal flooding as the oceans continue to rise. Building along that coastline in disregard of what the science is telling us is going to happen is foolish.
    The headline misrepresents the content of the article.
  • #5
    Well duh on Christie. Anyone who builds near the ocean, rivers, creeks, streams, and in canyons and at foot of mountains, or in high storm areas, welcomes a higher than normal risk of nature wiping them out.

    The scientists got on the right track with the warming "phenomenon due to a combination of natural weather variations and such factors as an increase in volcanic ash", but then allege temporary conditions. Look at time over millions of years and we see the phenomenon is not temporary. At one time the continents were joined. At one time our highest mountains were under water. The natural process is for earths water levels to drop and rise. We had a land bridge in North America used by Indians to come to the lands we now call America that eventually became covered with water.

    The important thing to note about natural phenomenon of course is that for millions of years these changes in climate and weather have changed and there were few if any people to influence the changes, but now with nature continuing to be nature and act as it does and has always behaved, it is being claimed that humans are a significant cause of the changes. It is nothing but pure poppycock and the gross arrogance of humans to believe humans can have a significant effect on climate change. Voo Doo science. Ain't buying it. The best advice for those living near water like those in South Florida is for them to get up and out of there. The sooner the better, because there is NOTHING humans can do to stop the ocean from rising and taking their property. Well maybe a system of locks, dams, and canals might give some relief from the ocean. But they need to get started.
  • #8
    You have a lot to learn about how climate changes before you solidity your opinion. You state many truths, but you have large gaps in your understanding, not unlike most people.
  • #16
    Then I'm in good company. There are large gaps in the scientific theories claiming global warming is significantly caused by humans.
  • #21
    Depends who you listen to. You are not listening to the scientists involved. You are not listening to the National Academy of Science, NASA, NOAA etc.

    The physics behind AGW is rock solid. The uncertainties lie in the area of feedback to the Planck warming forced by the addition of greenhouse gases to Earth's atmosphere. I guarantee you don't understand enough of the science...most of which you have likely never hold a scientific opinion on the subject. Neither have most scientists who don't involve themselves in the physics of radiative forcing in determining Earth's temperature both by solar radiation and from Earth's own atmosphere. Uncertainty resides in the feedback process with the best estimate for an equilibrium climate sensitivity to a radiative forcing produced by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 or it's equivalent by any other source at between 2C and 4.5C increase in global temperature. Despite the uncertainty in the range of probable outcomes, which is obviously not our friend, as past climates which have involved that degree of change demonstrate, the world would be a very different place from what it is today. It's has happened countless times in the past yet there is no scientifically understood reason why we are head in that direction as we speak. We know we are headed in that direction because of a positive energy imbalance as measured at the top of atmosphere. That imbalance must be equilibrated with a warming of Earth's surface to increase the energy emitted to space and thus reestablish radiative balance at the TOA.

    Are you stuck in your belief or would you welcome more?
  • R Load more replies