Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#8,101
#8,101
LouderVol said:
they are still the same. some are anyway. thankfully in big cities you can find good ones with the bad.

also the building codes aren't set by the government. the industry has written them and the state just makes them part of the law. there are always amendments and redaction's but I would say the states are typically removing more lines than adding. Cali and Florida are probably big exceptions. oh and NC, they wrote a whole new code, but from my understanding it is actually pretty good.
Click to expand...

Good that the industry is writing the codes. If an industry can police itself, it is almost always superior to governmental policing.
 
#8,102
#8,102
PeterNincompoop said:
McD, while I see the point you're trying to make, did they not already have that leeway under the current free market that has overseen the destruction of nearly 25,000 acres (about 10,000 hectares) of natural wetland infrastructure, mostly in Harris County (Houston) between 1992 and 2010, costing the region the ability to handle nearly four billion gallons (15 billion liters) of storm water?

Also, did either of you read the article? It's not about the government being in the insurance business, it's about how unchecked development has radically worsened the problem they are currently facing. Are you guys against building codes in earthquake prone areas too? Having preventative plans puts cost upfront to help with keeping disaster assistance cost lower when a situation like this arises. Having no zoning laws or not requiring companies who destroy public wetlands to mitigate the ecological effects, by creating new wetlands elsewhere, is exactly what is putting the federal government in the insurance business right now.
Click to expand...

Believe me, development would be put in check quickly if insurance wasn't available or was priced exorbitantly. No need for zoning laws then.
 
#8,103
#8,103
McDad said:
Good that the industry is writing the codes. If an industry can police itself, it is almost always superior to governmental policing.
Click to expand...

the industry is not writing the zoning codes as much, hopefully I didn't confuse that part. Its just the building code that "we" write, but the city/county/state is still the one that upholds it. And yes there are plenty that don't actually know the code or just go by what they like. but for the most part the code makes allowances for that by saying "the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) has the final say" quiet often.
 
#8,104
#8,104
hog88 said:
Believe me, development would be put in check quickly if insurance wasn't available or was priced exorbitantly. No need for zoning laws then.
Click to expand...

So who failed Houston*? Was it the local government for not enforcing penalties on developers who were not fully compliant with the Clean Water Act for decades? The developers in the industry who were not policing themselves for decades? The insurance companies who for decades, kept issuing plans to areas in flood zones because only US homeowners in the “100-year floodplain”—areas that have a 1% chance of flooding in any given year—have to buy flood insurance, and then only if they’re taking out a federal mortgage loan or their private lender specifically requires it**? Or is it the feds fault for ever getting involved with things like the CWA 45 years ago, or regulation of newer and safer building codes that are supposed to be a guideline for all states?

*Obviously this is a rhetorical question, a storm this size is devastating in a magnitude that it would be a disaster regardless. I'm just trying to find the grey area in a black and white world.

**here's a link to where I found this info...
https://qz.com/1063985/hurricane-ha...in-houston-dont-have-federal-flood-insurance/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,106
#8,106
McDad said:
2 high pressure systems forcing Harvey to stall and dump a biblical amount of rain in one area after coming ashore.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to have a rational discussion. You've shown, and even stated that you are unwilling to read anything that will make you think. You're more than welcome to stop replying to my post.

Go Vols.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#8,107
#8,107
PeterNincompoop said:
I'm trying to have a rational discussion. You've shown, and even stated that you are unwilling to read anything that will make you think, you're more than welcome to stop replying to my post.

Go Vols.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the offer. But, i will reply to any post i choose.

Also, to be acuurate, I didn't say i am "not interested in anything", I said i wasnt interested in yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#8,108
#8,108
PeterNincompoop said:
So who failed Houston*? Was it the local government for not enforcing penalties on developers who were not fully compliant with the Clean Water Act for decades? The developers in the industry who were not policing themselves for decades? The insurance companies who for decades, kept issuing plans to areas in flood zones because only US homeowners in the “100-year floodplain”—areas that have a 1% chance of flooding in any given year—have to buy flood insurance, and then only if they’re taking out a federal mortgage loan or their private lender specifically requires it**? Or is it the feds fault for ever getting involved with things like the CWA 45 years ago, or regulation of newer and safer building codes that are supposed to be a guideline for all states?

*Obviously this is a rhetorical question, a storm this size is devastating in a magnitude that it would be a disaster regardless. I'm just trying to find the grey area in a black and white world.

**here's a link to where I found this info...
https://qz.com/1063985/hurricane-ha...in-houston-dont-have-federal-flood-insurance/
Click to expand...

My point is that if the Federal Government was 100% out of the flood insurance business and it was solely left up to private insurance companies much of the development in flood prone ares wouldn't happen.

Private insurance companies would charge exorbitantly or even refuse the liability, if no insurance can be obtained no lender or investor would give the money to build in these areas. So I would say the root cause is Federally backed flood insurance.
 
#8,110
#8,110
#8,114
#8,114
MT LeConte said:
Quit wasting your time. Trump has spoken. Climate change is a Chinese hoax and climate scientists worldwide are a pack of liars. Oh yeah, and it's fake news.
Click to expand...

The severity of climate change has been debated well before Trump was even close to becoming a politician, but nice try.
 
#8,116
#8,116
armchair said:
How climate change is affecting--and will affect--coastal areas, especially in the Southeast.


States of Denial | New Republic
Click to expand...

What do you care about the southeast? According to you, it's nothing but a bunch of mouth breathing, toothless Trump supporters. So what if they're washed away? That just increases the amount of beachfront property available in your liberal utopia.
 
#8,117
#8,117
For every sicnetific report about how bad climate change is, there seems to be a scientific report refuting it. Why is it, that for something that seems so irrefutable as guys like armchair say, that scientists cannot agree with each other?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,118
#8,118
MG1968 said:
What do you care about the southeast? According to you, it's nothing but a bunch of mouth breathing, toothless Trump supporters. So what if they're washed away? That just increases the amount of beachfront property available in your liberal utopia.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what has the lib panties in a wad is that they infest cities built at sea level, and don't have enough sense to reverse the trend. Common sense would dictate that if you honestly believe that the sea will rise, that you don't continue to build in locations you predict to be below sea level.

Apparently the part of the liberal brain that would deal with fact and reasoning is voided at birth.
 
#8,120
#8,120
BigOrangeTrain said:
For every sicnetific report about how bad climate change is, there seems to be a scientific report refuting it. Why is it, that for something that seems so irrefutable as guys like armchair say, that scientists cannot agree with each other?
Click to expand...

because it's all built on computer models
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,121
#8,121
BigOrangeTrain said:
For every sicnetific report about how bad climate change is, there seems to be a scientific report refuting it. Why is it, that for something that seems so irrefutable as guys like armchair say, that scientists cannot agree with each other?
Click to expand...

That's because you're watching and reading right wing news outlets instead of scientific journals. Also there's a difference between fact and belief.

The 97% consensus on global warming - From Sceptical Science




.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#8,122
#8,122
#8,123
#8,123
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#8,124
#8,124
If it's so risky, why are a bunch of climate warriors voting to increase carbon emissions? Germany, France, California, all voting to shut down nuclear plants that will be replaced with natural gas.
 
#8,125
#8,125
MT LeConte said:
Ok, I will accept it's only 84%. Considering the possible serious consequences it's pretty risky to outright deny it and just do nothing.
Click to expand...

Who’s advocating doing nothing? The US achieved guidelines set forth under the Kyoto Accords without them even being ratified.

The US isn’t the problem. It’s the rest of the world giving gross polluters like China and India a pass.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top