Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

Mad Mike

By Mad Mike
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

twa

twa

Posted
Posted (edited)

Wouldn't it be funny if environmentalists were to blame for much of the flooding?

or drought impacts and forest fire damage

 

Quote

 

One might ask, "Recovery from what?"  In a word, the answer is "man."  Environmental groups like the Sierra Club and American Rivers advocate the wholesale removal of dams, even if it requires the forced relocation of millions of people and their businesses.  They seek a continent with untamed rivers, devoid of human interference with the perceived "natural processes" of ebb and flood.  At this level of green-think, it is more religion than science, with devotion measured in antipathy for the needs of mankind whenever there is conflict with nature.

There is a recurrent phrase used in Corps and other agencies discussions of "river recovery."  That phrase is "reconnecting the river to its floodplain."  The importance of this concept to the overall goal of "river recovery" can be readily seen in the anthropomorphic spall that surrounds its use, as if the river is a mother cruelly separated from her child, the floodplain, by the heartless brutality of man.

What does "reconnecting the river to its floodplain" mean?  Just ask the plaintiffs who recently won a 375-million-dollar judgment against the Corps for causing repeated flooding and enhancing those floods' severity.  The phrase is a euphemism for letting the river flood despite decades of efforts to prevent just that.

Since 2004, the Corps has been notching levees and dikes and re-opening old river chutes, destabilizing the once-shored riverbanks and encouraging shallowing and widening to facilitate the construction of "emergent sandbar habitat" — believed to be beneficial to the endangered Least Tern and Piping Plover bird species and the Pallid Sturgeon, a dinosaur of a fish that somehow managed to survive for millennia without the Corps's assistance.

The Corps's mechanical alterations of the river have combined to the detriment of flood control by raising the WSE (water surface elevation), dramatically reducing the ability of the river to accept runoff from adjoining fields and the hundreds of tributaries that all rely on the Missouri. 

It is this engineered reduction in capacity, combined with ill considered maintenance of unnecessarily high reservoir and river levels throughout the system, that made certain that the freakish snowmelt generated by the "bomb cyclone" of early March had nowhere to go except everywhere it should not have been.

That is why flooding has increased in frequency and severity, not climate change, nor a failure of the dam system to work as designed.  Rather, the dam system's design has been thwarted in service to an environmentalist dream of a return to an untamed river, free to nourish Mother Earth with its life-giving waters as Mother River again embraces her beloved child, the floodplain.

To hell with those in the way.

 

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/nebraska_flooding_when_the_government_cares_more_about_birds_than_people.html

 

 

https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/landowners-win-lawsuit-against-army-corps-engineers-missouri-river-flood-damage#stream/0

 

Edited by twa
link
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted (edited)

we could store it in DC 

 

add

 

Isn't it funny Dems and environmentally 'woke' folk killed the identified permanent repository after wasting Billions and crying about the need to reduce co2?

 

Idiots.

Edited by twa
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, twa said:

Wouldn't it be funny if environmentalists were to blame for much of the flooding?

or drought impacts and forest fire damage

 

 

https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/landowners-win-lawsuit-against-army-corps-engineers-missouri-river-flood-damage#stream/0

 

 

I'll point out that they didn't find them at fault for the 2011 flood or this flood yet, the worse floods.

 

They have been found at fault for relatively minor floods, and in the case of really bad floods, not having a flood plain, actually makes things worse because you are overly dependent on dams makes things worse.

 

And you see that in this years flooding.  The flooding largely/partly happened because a dam failed and there wasn't enough flood plain to hold the water from that failed dam.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/climate/missouri-river-flooding-dams-climate.html

 

"And early last Thursday, the Niobrara River smashed through the nearly century-old Spencer Dam while pushing huge chunks of ice downriver. By the end of the day, the Niobrara and other tributaries had filled the reservoir behind the Gavins Point Dam, near Yankton, South Dakota, and Mr. Remus faced his decision.

 

Gavins Point is relatively small, not designed to hold back that kind of inflow. But losing the dam would be catastrophic."

 

One dam failed and that put pressure on another dam.  The decision was made to allow the release of water that didn't have anywhere else to go because even with the one dam still in place, there wasn't enough of a flood plain to hold it.

 

In too many cases, the infrastructure we have to control rivers was not designed to support the development along the rivers that has been seen, and the infrastructure that is in place is old and not very well maintained.

 

Controlling flooding works, until you have a situation that exceeds your capacity to control the flooding, and then if you have a land management plan based on the idea that you are going to control the flooding, you're in big trouble.  And that's what we've seen in 2011 and again this year.

 

What they're actually doing makes the most sense longer term.  You can't control every flood every year, and if you try, when you have things beyond your control, you are going to be in trouble.

 

The old land management plan doesn't actually make good long term sense.  Now, we do need to work with the people in the area to come up with a land management plant that makes sense, and yes, that means some of them will have to re-locate.

 

More from the link:

 

"To Mr. Remus, 2011’s destructive flood represented a rare opportunity to rethink the Missouri River levee system to accommodate more floodwater. The easiest way to do that would be to move levees away from the river, making the flood plain bigger.

He took his argument to the local board that oversaw the destroyed levee. Faced with the costs of rebuilding their levee practically from scratch, he reasoned, they might be willing to move it back.

 

Leo Ettleman, 64, was at those meetings and said he remembers saying, “John, we can’t afford it,” to which he says Mr. Remus replied: “Can you afford floods?” (Mr. Remus said he didn’t recall the conversation.)

 

Mr. Remus’s effort largely failed. The levee was set back some, but not nearly as much as the Corps had proposed."

 

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, twa said:

we could store it in DC 

 

add

 

Isn't it funny Dems and environmentally 'woke' folk killed the identified permanent repository after wasting Billions and crying about the need to reduce co2?

 

Idiots.

 

Nevada doesn't want it.  Their Republican governor doesn't want it.

 

"While Attorney General, Sandoval led the state's legal fight against the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain."

 

He certainly isn't a Dem, and I don't think many people would qualify him as environmentally woke.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, twa said:

Harry Reid killed it....or at least wounded it for now.

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/27/harry-reids-retirement-may-revive-yucca-mountain-n/

 

Your dams are less at risk if you leave room to adjust....of course the waterfront property folk object.....and are usually rich

 

Reid wounded it because he's from NV, and the NV voters don't want whether they are Republican or Democrat, which is why they were fighting in court, and essentially every elected official, including their Republican Governor, has fought it for years now.

 

The Dems didn't kill it.  The residents of NV killed it by electing people (Dem or Republican) that were against it.

 

They aren't my dams, and room to adjust is called a flood plain, which is what the Corps is trying to return.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted

The ONLY people who don't believe in man caused global warming are the GOP simpletons, even the oil industry and national security officials realize it. The spin doctors and their amateur counter-parts fully recognize it, but are otherwise invested in making sure the simpletons stay stupid.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LD0506

LD0506

Posted
Posted
Quote

Science, according to a Trump appointee at the Department of the Interior, is "a Democrat thing." Those words were reportedly used to justify the abrupt 2017 cancellation of a study into the health effects of mountaintop removal for coal-mining. At the time, then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke claimed that the study was canceled after a careful review of the grant process.

But during a Tuesday congressional hearing on this issue, Rep. Alan Lowenthal, D-Calif., citing the inspector general's report into the matter, said that a Trump appointee named Landon "Tucker" Davis had offered a likelier explanation for why a study that was more than halfway done was abruptly shut down: In Davis' words, "Science was a Democrat thing."

 

https://www.salon.com/2019/04/10/science-is-a-democrat-thing-mantra-of-the-trump-administration-revealed/?fbclid=IwAR2j8i4AazlD8dvyjS407VozQIODmkvNgvxx8YVRkhr4LOIv-qIQCqTQUpI

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

This Louisiana town is moving to higher ground as taxpayers foot the bill for growing climate crisis

 

NEW ROADS, La. — At a small church meeting house this month in a Louisiana farm town, a tiny community was making a very big decision. Residents were fed up with increasingly intense and frequent flooding, so they are moving to higher ground. Together.

 

The residents of Pecan Acres are some of America’s first climate refugees. The plan to move them could become a blueprint for other towns, as increasingly extreme weather and rising sea levels force more and more residents from the homes they’ve known for decades.

 

Pecan Acres, a subdivision of New Roads, Louisiana, was built in the 1970s along a canal. While it was always prone to flooding, in the last decade the floods have gotten much worse and much more destructive. The area levee is no longer adequate to hold the heavier rainfall. Back-to-back floods in 2016 and 2017 drew the governor’s attention, and a plan was hatched to buy out about 40 homeowners and move them to a new plot of land, barely 2 miles away, but 10 feet higher.

 

The option to purchase the land was signed in early April. The state is using federal funds, specifically community development block grants designated for disaster relief, to build new homes, demolish the flood-damaged ones, and turn the old neighborhood into wetlands. Doing so will protect neighboring communities from future floods, because the restored wetlands will act as a sponge.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

How much of that is simply due to subsidence from pumping groundwater and oil/NG in swampland?

 

used to be a problem here before they switched to surface water and quit sucking the water out and starting injecting 

 

of course all swampdwellers are sinking anyway, kinda like parts of florida with the limestone eroding

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, China said:

This Louisiana town is moving to higher ground as taxpayers foot the bill for growing climate crisis

 

NEW ROADS, La. — At a small church meeting house this month in a Louisiana farm town, a tiny community was making a very big decision. Residents were fed up with increasingly intense and frequent flooding, so they are moving to higher ground. Together.

 

The residents of Pecan Acres are some of America’s first climate refugees. The plan to move them could become a blueprint for other towns, as increasingly extreme weather and rising sea levels force more and more residents from the homes they’ve known for decades.

 

Pecan Acres, a subdivision of New Roads, Louisiana, was built in the 1970s along a canal. While it was always prone to flooding, in the last decade the floods have gotten much worse and much more destructive. The area levee is no longer adequate to hold the heavier rainfall. Back-to-back floods in 2016 and 2017 drew the governor’s attention, and a plan was hatched to buy out about 40 homeowners and move them to a new plot of land, barely 2 miles away, but 10 feet higher.

 

The option to purchase the land was signed in early April. The state is using federal funds, specifically community development block grants designated for disaster relief, to build new homes, demolish the flood-damaged ones, and turn the old neighborhood into wetlands. Doing so will protect neighboring communities from future floods, because the restored wetlands will act as a sponge.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

I've said for a long time here, we are going to pay the costs one way or another.

 

You can pay it in the context of energy efficiency/costs or you can pay it in the context of moving, replacing, and rebuilding infrastructure.

 

And the 1st case comes without the issue of things like possible changes in precipitation, increase areas subject to what historically have been tropical diseases, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, twa said:

 

a tweet with a link to those facts is misleading?

 

 

 

It doesn't include those facts.  The cutting of processed meats isn't really related to the climate change.  It is related to making the community healthier.  The New York "Green Deal" is really part of a larger plan that addresses things not really directly related to climate change.  Processed meats are bad for people.

 

Over the last few years I've called you out on this several times.  Your post at least used to show some level of integrity, but more recently, you are posting complete garbage that isn't not just misleading, but is completely false.  And not just in this thread.

 

The headline in the tweet you posted is FALSE.  The link to the tweet took you to an article that was misleading.

 

It is all garbage.  You've completely lost any sense of personal responsibility in your posting and just post whatever garbage you can find.

 

I don't know, maybe you always did this and the level of garbage you can find on the internet has just increased over the last few years.  But your posting here has ZERO value in driving meaningful discussions.  It is just a distraction from the truth and reality.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...