Billhook wrote:How's that for an official response to the rising impacts of climate destabilization ?
Ignore the climate destabilization component of the problem,
get a photo op where a new scheme is announced,
and call it problem solved !
Some of these bastards-in-office deserve to drown ". .pour encourager les autres . . ."
Regards,
Lewis
It's probably about fairness and balance. Introduce a policy that makes an effort to deal with climate change, but also consider the views of people who don't believe in climate change, and come up with a compromise. As well as the cheap as possible photo op, and being bastards, of course .
flooding that is far worse than its oldest residents can recall or since records began.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
That means 25 years ago the floods were at least as bad.
Not necessary, Fukushima is regularly described as the world nuclear incident since Chernobyl. Does that mean Chernobyl is was worse? They are both rated 'seven'.
flooding that is far worse than its oldest residents can recall or since records began.
Russia’s Far East has fallen victim to unprecedented flooding that is far worse than its oldest residents can recall or since records began. The afflicted area covers 400,000 square miles — the equivalent of Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico combined.
Blimey. It's hard to imagine what 400,000 square miles is. Can someone convert American to British Units please. How many Waleses is that?
That means 25 years ago the floods were at least as bad.
Not necessary, Fukushima is regularly described as the world nuclear incident since Chernobyl. Does that mean Chernobyl is was worse? They are both rated 'seven'.
Nuclear power station explosions are rare, so it's possible to have one,then another one and compare the two. If they were both 7 that proves my point.
As for floods, there have been quite a lot in the past 25 years, so it's reasonable to assume that 25 years ago the floods were at least as bad.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
No. Imagine floods are rated on a scale of 1-10. 25 years ago there was a magnitude 6 flood. Ever since there have been various floods of magnitudes 2-5. Now we have, say, a magnitude 8. It's the worst for 25 years, but that doesn't mean the one 25 years ago was this bad.
It is not surprising, given the ~0.8 degrees of average surface global warming we've had, that floods are more frequent and more severe than they used to be.
Besides, it only takes a small shift in the average - the distribution curve moving slightly to the right - to give you considerably more really bad ones.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
.
