Conquer Club

So riddle me this. With the exception of one fringe candidate, almost all the major supporters of global warming are locating to the shoreline. CNN is moving to Hudson Yards. Obama is moving to Martha's Vineyards. Are they insane or do they totally don't believe the bullshit they are selling people?

most rich people have personal aircraft, tzor...

tzor wrote:So riddle me this. With the exception of one fringe candidate, almost all the major supporters of global warming are locating to the shoreline. CNN is moving to Hudson Yards. Obama is moving to Martha's Vineyards. Are they insane or do they totally don't believe the bullshit they are selling people?

Well, pretty much everybody is a "supporter of global warming" (unless that means Republicans creating policies to promote global warming) so, this basically means that people like waterfront property?

I like the Sea Wall they are building around New York City to Save it from rising Ocean Levels...

oh .. wait. they aren't..

tzor wrote:So riddle me this. With the exception of one fringe candidate, almost all the major supporters of global warming are locating to the shoreline. CNN is moving to Hudson Yards. Obama is moving to Martha's Vineyards. Are they insane or do they totally don't believe the bullshit they are selling people?

By "supporter of global warming" I usually mean companies like Exxon that continue pushing fossil fuel dependence.

I think the term you're searching for is "opponents of global warming". Then you mention two examples. Do you think two examples are sufficient to establish a trend?

good point OP.

this is the kind of evidence we need to come up with accurate conclusions.

full of scientific rigor as well.

riskllama wrote:most rich people have personal aircraft, tzor...

But only a few have seaplanes.

Dukasaur wrote:By "supporter of global warming" I usually mean companies like Exxon that continue pushing fossil fuel dependence.

BY supporter of global warming, I mean those people who actively support the concept of the problem of global warming.
I would generally put Exxon as a "causer" of global warming.

NomadPatriot wrote:I like the Sea Wall they are building around New York City to Save it from rising Ocean Levels...

Well first of all, remember that "New York City" is an association of five distinct Burroughs. Each one has to be considered separately.

Let's consider Manhattan (I just pulled a topographic map for reference). Central Park is 50' above sea level and the great hill is over 100'. The upper parts of Manhattan is well over 50' throughout and has places over 200'

People get the impression that 10' of sea rise is going to sink the whole island; it's not true.

tzor wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:I like the Sea Wall they are building around New York City to Save it from rising Ocean Levels...

Well first of all, remember that "New York City" is an association of five distinct Burroughs. Each one has to be considered separately.

Let's consider Manhattan (I just pulled a topographic map for reference). Central Park is 50' above sea level and the great hill is over 100'. The upper parts of Manhattan is well over 50' throughout and has places over 200'

People get the impression that 10' of sea rise is going to sink the whole island; it's not true.

it's a hard number to actually find but it seems the lowest point in Manhattan is only 8 feet above sea level. not sure where thst is though..

tzor wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:By "supporter of global warming" I usually mean companies like Exxon that continue pushing fossil fuel dependence.

BY supporter of global warming, I mean those people who actively support the concept of the problem of global warming.
I would generally put Exxon as a "causer" of global warming.

I understand what you meant. I posit that you're using the language incorrectly.

You wouldn't refer to your Public Health nurse as "campaigning for syphilis." You would say she's "campaigning against syphilis."

People trying to do something about a problem shouldn't be listed as supporters of a problem.

tzor wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:I like the Sea Wall they are building around New York City to Save it from rising Ocean Levels...

Well first of all, remember that "New York City" is an association of five distinct Burroughs. Each one has to be considered separately.

Let's consider Manhattan (I just pulled a topographic map for reference). Central Park is 50' above sea level and the great hill is over 100'. The upper parts of Manhattan is well over 50' throughout and has places over 200'

People get the impression that 10' of sea rise is going to sink the whole island; it's not true.

Uhh... you remember a 3.4 meter rise from Hurricane Sandy, right? And that was a temporary surge, which will happen more and more as ocean levels rise. Nobody says that all of NYC will be under water, it'll just be a catastrophe.

would a NYC Sea Wall be considered Racist...?