In Florida, officials ban term 'climate change'

>Kristina Trotta, another former DEP employee who worked in Miami, said her supervisor told her not to use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in a 2014 staff meeting. “We were told that we were not allowed to discuss anything that was not a true fact,” she said.

>This unwritten policy went into effect after Gov. Rick Scott took office in 2011 and appointed Herschel Vinyard Jr. as the DEP’s director, according to former DEP employees. Gov. Scott, who won a second term in November, has repeatedly said he is not convinced that climate change is caused by human activity, despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

>Vinyard has since resigned. Neither he nor his successor, Scott Steverson, would comment for this article.

>“DEP does not have a policy on this,” the department’s press secretary, Tiffany Cowie, wrote in an email. She declined to respond to three other emails requesting more information.

>“There’s no policy on this,” wrote Jeri Bustamante, Scott’s spokeswoman, in an email.

>But four former DEP employees from offices around the state say the order was well known and distributed verbally statewide.

>One former DEP employee who worked in Tallahassee during Scott’s first term in office, and asked not to be identified because of an ongoing business relationship with the department, said staffers were warned that using the terms in reports would bring unwanted attention to their projects.

>“We were dealing with the effects and economic impact of climate change, and yet we can’t reference it,” the former employee said.

>Former DEP attorney Byrd said it was clear to him this was more than just semantics.

>“It’s an indication that the political leadership in the state of Florida is not willing to address these issues and face the music when it comes to the challenges that climate change present,” Byrd said.

Cool

Climate Change Denial

>Climate change and global warming refer to the body of scientific evidence showing that the earth’s environment is warming due to human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. It is accepted science all over the world.

>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the United Nations, wrote in a 2014 report for world policy makers: “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.” The report’s authors were scientists from 27 countries.

>Still, many conservative U.S. politicians say the science is not conclusive and refuse to work on legislation addressing climate change. This type of legislation, such as a carbon tax or policies to encourage more sustainable energy sources, could be costly to established industry.

>Among the politicians who refuse to acknowledge climate change is Gov. Scott. During his first campaign for governor in 2010, Scott told reporters who asked about his views on climate change that he had “not been convinced,” and that he would need “something more convincing than what I’ve read.”

>In 2014, Scott said he “was not a scientist” when asked about his views on climate change.

>In response, a group of Florida scientists requested to meet with Scott and explain the science behind the phenomenon. Scott agreed. The scientists were given 30 minutes.

>“He actually, as we were warned, spent 10 minutes doing silly things like prolonged introductions,” geologist and University of Miami professor Harold Wanless recalled. “But we had our 20 to 21 minutes, and he said thank you and went on to his more urgent matters, such as answering his telephone calls and so on. There were no questions of substance."

https://youtu.be/HH4pXNtMYnk

>Scott’s predecessor, Charlie Crist, had been proactive on climate change, forming a statewide task force and convening a national summit in Miami in 2007. But evidence the issue has fallen out of favor during the Scott administration is apparent.

>One example is the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council’s Annual Research Plan, put together by DEP and other state agencies. The 2009-2010 report, published the year before Scott was elected, contains 15 references to climate change, including a section titled “Research Priorities — Climate Change.”

>In the 2014-15 edition of the report, climate change is only mentioned if it is in the title of a past report or conference. There is one standalone reference to the issue at the end of a sentence that sources say must have slipped by the censors. “It’s a distinct possibility,” said one former DEP employee.

>Instead, terms like “climate drivers” and “climate-driven changes” are used.

Orders From the Top

>Christopher Byrd said that he was warned not to use “climate change” and related terms during a 2011 staff meeting shortly after Scott appointed Vinyard as DEP director.

>“Deputy General Counsel Larry Morgan was giving us a briefing on what to expect with the new secretary,” Byrd recalled. Morgan gave them “a warning to beware of the words global warming, climate change and sea-level rise, and advised us not to use those words in particular.”

>Added Byrd: “I did infer from this meeting that this was a new policy, that these words were to be prohibited for use from official DEP policy-making with our clients.”

>Morgan did not respond to a request for comment.

>In 2011, Scott tapped Vinyard, a onetime law partner of powerful ex-Sen. John Thrasher, to lead the DEP in spite of a lack of experience with an environmental regulatory agency.

>Under Vinyard, the DEP was repeatedly embroiled in controversies, from the suspension of its top wetlands expert after she refused to approve a permit to a failed effort to sell off surplus park land. Longtime employees, including Everglades scientists, were laid off or fired, while top jobs went to people who had been consultants for developers and polluters. Meanwhile the emphasis in regulation shifted from prosecuting violations to helping industry avoid fines.

>DEP dismissed Byrd in 2013. His termination letter states: “We thank you for your service to the State of Florida; however, we believe the objectives of the office will be accomplished more effectively by removing you from your position.” Byrd, now in private practice as an environmental lawyer in Orlando, said he was fired because he repeatedly complained the DEP was not enforcing laws to protect the environment.

>Although he disagreed with the policy, Byrd said he nonetheless passed the warning down to the various offices he worked with, including the Coral Reef Conservation Program at the Biscayne Bay Environmental Center in Miami.

>“As you can imagine with the state of coral reef protection,” Byrd said, “sustainability, sea-level rise, and climate change itself were words we used quite often.”

>The Coral Reef Conservation Program is where Jim Harper, a nature writer in Miami, was working as a consultant in 2013. He had a contract to write a series of educational fact sheets about how to protect the coral reefs north of Miami. Climate change was one of the issues Harper and his partner on the project, Annie Reisewitz, wanted to address.

>“We were told not to use the term climate change,” Harper said. “The employees were so skittish they wouldn’t even talk about it.”

>Reisewitz confirmed Harper’s story. “When we put climate change into the document, they told us they weren’t using the term climate change,” she said.

>Harper and Reisewitz completed the assignment as instructed.

>A year later, in November 2014, the Coral Reef Conservation Program held a meeting to train volunteers to use a PowerPoint presentation about the threats coral reefs faced. Harper attended the meeting, held at DEP’s Biscayne Bay office in Miami. Doug Young, president of the South Florida Audubon Society and a member of the Broward County Climate Change Task Force, also attended.

>Two DEP employees, Ana Zangroniz and Kristina Trotta, showed the presentation to the volunteers and then asked if anyone had a question.

>“I told them the biggest problem I have was that there was absolutely no mention of climate change and the affect of climate change on coral reefs,” Young said.

>He continued: “The two young women, really good people, said, ‘We are not allowed to show the words, or show any slides that depicted anything related to climate change.’”

>Young and Harper said they could not participate if climate change was not mentioned. “The women kept saying, ‘Work with us; we know you are frustrated,’” Harper said.

>On Nov. 19, 2014, the DEP’s Zangroniz wrote Harper and Young an email stating she had talked to her manager about their concerns.

>“Unfortunately at this time,” she wrote, “we can’t make any alterations or additions to the presentation. … If you do choose to continue as a volunteer, we would have to request that you present the information as is. If you choose to add in an additional presentation or speaker that addresses climate change and coral reefs, there would have to be a very clear split between the two.”

>Trotta left her position as a field and administrative assistant in January. She told FCIR that when it came to scrubbing the term “climate change” from projects, she was following orders. Those orders came from Regional Administrator Joanna Walczak during a staff meeting in the summer of 2014.

>“We were instructed by our regional administrator that we were no longer allowed to use the terms ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ or even ‘sea-level rise,’ ” said Trotta. “Sea-level rise was to be referred to as ‘nuisance flooding.’”

>When staff protested, Trotta said, “the regional administrator told us that we are the governor’s agency and this is the message from the governor’s office. And that is the message we will portray.”

>The order pained her, said Trotta, who has a master’s degree in marine biology, because she believes climate change is an imminent threat to Florida.

>Walczak declined to comment citing DEP policy.

>While state officials are still not using the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming,’ any prohibition of the term “sea-level rise” seems to have ended. In a February press conference, Scott unveiled $106 million in his proposed budget to deal with the effects of rising oceans. But $50 million of that is for a sewage plant in the Keys, and $25 million is for beach restoration, which critics say is hardly a comprehensive plan to protect homes, roads and infrastructure.

>Wanless, the University of Miami professor, said the state government needs to acknowledge climate change as settled science and as a threat to people and property in Florida.

>“You have to start real planning, and I’ve seen absolutely none of that from the current governor,” he said.

>In Florida it will be hard to plan for climate change, he said, if officials can’t talk about climate change.

>“It’s beyond ludicrous to deny using the term climate change,” Wanless said. “It’s criminal at this point.”

It's funny because it's Miami. They are literary sinking and need billions to save themselves from drowning every rain season.

One DEP employee had to undergo a mandatory psych evaluation before he could return to work because he typed up some meeting minutes where it was mentioned and distributed them to everyone at the meeting.

Rick Scott is a dick bag lizard person in a human skin suit

>>144497
More like drowning under liberal tears.

Feels good to be winning and seeing America really turn around. I don't think I've ever been more optimistic about our future prospects. Must be how people felt under Ronnie, God bless him.

>>144439
>It is accepted science all over the world.
Liberal fake news making up facts. It's not accepted, it's not even science.

>>144516
I know you're trolling but it still pisses me off

>>144529
I'm actually kind of worried that he's not. There are too many people in this country that seriously believe Trump is making the country a better place. When he's done jack shit and will continue to do jack shit.

>>144536
when and why did everybody just suddenly start sucking billionaire dick, last time I remember no one liked Trump even before the elections.

>>144516
I feel fantastic under President Trump. My only issue now is to get rid of the establishment GOP members like Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Lindsay Graham who not only try to take down the President, but may as well turnover to the liberals.

It's not even been a full year yet, and the President has already done so much (which all amounts to nothing if you believe they "RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA" MSM and don't get actual news). He gets back from his foreign trip today, so I can't wait to see what he's got in store for us now that he's back home.

This is nothing new, government employees in West Virginia aren't allowed to talk about the rising sea level at all on the job.

>>144566
>I can't wait to see what he's got in store for us now that he's back home.
Whining about a baguette breaking his hand. Anger at the Germans for being more successful than the USA. Being treated as a child, although he didn't noticed that yet.

>>144578
>Germans being more successful than the US

In what way? Bringing in more refugees that ended up causing Merkel to literally rethink the whole idea of bringing in so many in the first place? Being reduced to Sweden 2.0? Moving further to leftist ideals? Further limitations on what constitutes as "free speech"?

Don't give me any of that Germany is better than America trash.

>>144582
More exports than imports.
Apparently that's why Trump want different tariff or whatever with Germany and Belgium.
He was then explained what EU is.

>>144497
No they aren't sinking

>>144529
Man made climate change is a lie.

>>144536
He is making a better place you idiot. Maybe. It for the lazy hate America left but for the people that actually matter and pay taxes he is.

I don't care about so-called "climate change" it's unproven liberal alarmist nonsense. If you can't make alternate energy viable and cost effective then it's not better.

I will also not change my lifestyle because some unproven theory that it may effect some shit skin in southeast Asia.

>>144610
WTF I hate green energy now

>>144639
Green energy is just a scam. I'll take my Exxon or BP over whatever moonbat wind farm or electric car shit.

i live in miami btw

we're fine

>>144518
The doctors should have euthanized you when you were born.

>>144610
You live on the same planet as that southeast asian. You dont pay high taxes, not at your income bracket. Climate scientists don't care about preserving your lifestyle.

>>144577
I can't think of any reason why WV would have to worry about rising sea levels, so at least in that context it makes sense. Florida at least has a lot of beachfront property and reefs, so it should be a priority to study any phenomena that might help preserve those things.

Reminder that if you support censorship, you're as anti-4chan as it's humanly possible to be, and should fuck off to Reddit as soon as possible.

>>144518
BREAKING NEWS: uneducated internet trolls declare global scientific consensus "Fake news". PhD's now considered useless

>>144667
Did you read his post? I don't think he's on the same planet

>>144433
>living in a state where you must spend millions of dollars to stop climate change from literally killing you
>not believing in climate change
>this is a natural turn of the environment

honestly do we really even *need* florida?

>>144608
Please objectively demonstrate that Florida is not suffering from rising water levels.

>>144433
Why do you fear extinction?

We live in a world where trolling>science. Deal with it. We will die in a flaming hot sheet of methane, cow farts and car exhaust in the near future. and niggers.

>>144566
>can't wait to see what he has in store for us now
Committing to a fuel source that will do nothing to improve our environment, economy, or energy independence instead of renewable energy sources. He'll probably support whatever shitty version of the AHCA the Senate tries to pass now. Basically just be a shithead like usual. Have fun sucking his cock though

>>144642
>renewable energy is a scam
So, what do we do when we run out of oil, genius? We could create so many more jobs if we started focusing on building wind farms, hydroelectric dams, and putting solar panels on our houses. It's stupid cunts like you that hold us back. Give me one good reason to keep relying on something that we will run out of in our lifetime for all of our energy?
http://www.business-standard.com/article/punditry/how-long-will-fossil-fuels-last-115092201397_1.html

>>146344
wind farms and solar panels are a huge waste of time. the enormous mining, shipping, supply, transportation operation required to sustain them in addition to the enormous weight and cost of batteries required to supplement and maintain the grid while it's cloudy or the wind is dead means they are more destructive to the environment than other power sources.

they look "apple white" and very clean but what you don't see is the 150 dead chinese people and enormous hole in the ground and red-tinged groundwater from unavoidable heavy metal contamination that results from building those "clean" wind farms.

lefty "environmentalism" is ultimately self-destructive and pointless. the people really holding up the progression to a cleaner power source are actually the environmentalists themselves who have prevented us from building nuclear power plants and stifled the growth of nuclear power technology gains that could have occurred over the past half-century.

>>146346
>complains about heavy batteries and machinery
>complains about the metal contaminating the ground
>goes on to talk about how we should move toward a radioactive fuel source instead
So, all the materials needed to get oil/coal out of the ground are lightweight, and have no negative impact on the environment? Fracking doesn't have any impact on the environment, or people's drinking water, right? There's never been an incident in which a fuckton of oil spilled into the sea, right? Fuck off you stupid cunt

So Florida is on the slow track to fuck itself. Good to know. I'll be watching them, because they're the state that will test how long a climate change denier can last while drowning.

I assume Disneyland will move before that happens. They know better.

>>146350
the energy density and ability to convert oil into fuel whenever are clearly superior to a proxy method like wind that uses an enormous amount of gas to get metal out of the ground and then more gas to convert metal into windmills then uses more gas to get those across the ocean and then more gas to get them across the country and then more gas to get them erected in a massive industrial undertaker and then more gas to maintain them over their lifespan and then more gas to dispose of them (lmao not really because they don't biodegrade) instead you can just get the oil and burn the oil for fuel.

btw the lifespan of a windmill or solar farm doesn't exceed 1/4 of a century so you have to ship of theseus the whole fucking operation once every 25 years.

it's a scam. if you want "renewable energy" you should go nuclear because it's the only thing that's actually more efficient than gas. powering a country on solar or wind is a pipedream that would never actually work. but it makes the leftists feel good which is why they go for it. "oh, isn't that so pretty and hygienic" as it stands on the graves of a hundred chinamen buried in a mine collapse while their children slurp heavy metals out of a contaminated river.

things have effects beyond what you can see.

>>144516
>another communist ploy to kill 'merrica.

Go choke on McCarthy's dick.

>>146353
Yes, fossil fuels will probably end up being what is used to transport all that material. Wouldn't the same thing be used to transport material for oil rigs, though. I don't see the point of your argument. Solar panels, windmills, and oil rigs are made out of metal. How does any one of those put a larger amount of metal in the ground? Fracking has been proven to have an adverse effect on people's drinking water. Meanwhile, all you do is draw baseless conclusions on the environmental impact of renewable energy sources from the fact they're made of metal.
>the lifespan of a windmill is 25 years
That's true, but we are projected to run out of oil in a short time as well. Wind is not the only renewable energy source, however. There are other ways to produce electricity. Meanwhile, we will be out of fossil fuels, and shit out of luck in our lifetime if we don't pull our heads out our asses, and work toward alternative sources of fuel. Nuclear power could work if you didn't have to worry about meltdowns and shit

>>146434
just burning the fossil fuels provide a constant and high-return source of energy. using an enormous amount of fuel to erect a windmill that provides a relatively weak, non-steady and ultimately wasteful source of energy (because it generates less than is expended to manufacture and transport it) is a waste of time.

ultimately, wind and solar aren't "renewable" because they rely on a transport, communication and mining operation that relies on fossil fuels anyway.

>>146453
Hydroelectric dams are cheaper to build than coal plants. They also emit very few GHGS. Wind turbines are cheaper than coal plants, also. They're also cheaper to maintain/staff since you don't need a large number of people to look after a windmill. Solar panels are cheap as he'll, and some on top of the roof of someone's house would be enough to power it.

I agree that renewable energy sources aren't perfect, but we can make them better. However, we never will if we keep back tracking like we have been.

TLDR: We WILL run out of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels pollute, and shit more GHGS into the atmosphere. Renewable energy sources are infinite, cheaper, and cleaner

>>146456
that's the point, if fossil fuels run out the entire supply chain that provides you with "renewables" is going to instantly collapse.

there is no supply chain as we know it without gas, which means that "renewable energy sources" that come out of the ground in china and then are shipped on a cross-ocean freighter aren't renewable. they're simply shunting the cost onto someone else.

>>146353
>>you can just get the oil and burn it

That's not how it works, and it really invalidates your argument to oversimplify the use of coal in comparison to your drawn out explanation of the use of wind turbines.

>>146458
we have the infrastructure already, it's much simpler than re-tooling the entire country to include massive battery cells for every node in the chain.

"renewable energy" but you need "renewable energy" that lasts longer than a couple decades, produces energy in a format that is useful to the end user, and comes at a cost that is less than digging it out of the ground and does not massively indebt us to hostile powers.

on a small scale, solar probably has a lot of worth. but for producing the energy of an entire country, and especially in certain places just isn't going to work.

my ideal grid is MSRs as mainstays with wind (in very windy, flat areas) and solar (in very sunny areas) and the wave-motion stuff when near the coast. this would produce a grid as reliable as one driven by gas without the nasty stuff put into the air.

but lmao dude chernobyl so never going to happen. so gas it is because gas is the only thing that produces a reliable source of energy, save nuclear (never going to happen) and coal (worse than gas emission-wise)

>>146457
>that's the point, if fossil fuels run out the entire supply chain that provides you with "renewables" is going to instantly collapse
Which is exactly why we need to hurry the fuck up and work on producing get a near 100% clean power grid, and as many electric powered vehicles as possible, you dense fucking cunt. What good does it do to just fucking wait around until we run out of fossil fuels? How fucking retarded are you? Holy shit

>>146463
>fossil fuels don't indebted us to hostile powers
Remember when we pissed off OPEC in 1973 by supporting Israel, and the resulting embargo caused oil prices to skyrocket?

>>146468
If nothing else, this is why I loved Trump's decisions. The left is in full baby mode right now, wailing impotently at everything around them. Do they realize how ridiculous they look to everyone else? Do they realize that the world is laughing at them?

>>146468
such a thing simply is not possible.

planes cannot fly on electricity (well, save a nuclear ramjet) i doubt that ships could actually travel the oceans without a mandatory nuclear reactor, and there is no way wind or solar will ever provide enough power to power the supply chain and the manufacture of more of those things.

if 1 wind turbine is a net energy negative, than 1000 will be an energy negative at the same ratio.

there's no reason to let the gas run out. we've already had the solution to the problem since the late 70's. we just haven't used it.

>>146471
>Such a thing will never happen
Won't know till we try
>there's no reason to let the gas run out
It will whether we "let it" or not
>>146470
>the country is going to shit, but at least the liberals are mad lol XD

>>146472
>the country is going to shit, but at least the liberals are mad lol XD

Obama was the one who flushed it first, and we're going to damn well make sure you liberals come along with us. This country can't be fixed, so the only thing worthwhile is revenge. Besides, if our enemies land harder and land first, they might be able to break our fall.

>>146473
Preaching like a damn Edgelord.

>>146472
we can definitely know before we try. we can measure the amount of energy expended in the manufacture of something.

there's a reason the whole planet is not powered by solar and wind already, and that is because it's not viable dude.

we would have already fixed the problem 50 years ago if not for the left's inability to rationally assess risk.

>>146473
I don't get the whole "Obama fucked up the country" narrative. He seemed to be slowly repairing a recession. Healthcare was controversial, but Trump's course to only make that worse. Heck, everyone Obama did that was bad (war, heathcare, and the economy as far as I can tell), Trump seems to be going in a similar but worse direction.

>>146473

Can the edgy 20 year olds leave?

>>146346
>red-tinged groundwater from unavoidable heavy metal contamination that results from building those "clean" wind farms.
That's a gold mine you saw the picture of, not a "lithium mine". You got trolled.
There's no giant hole in the ground either, at least no more than for anything made of metal.

>>146351
>I assume Disneyland will move before that happens
They're already in Paris

>>146470
It's you we're laughing at, big baby.

>>146471
>planes cannot fly on electricity
Funny, they said the same thing about humans being magically banned from flying somehow. Then we invented the plane, and now humans roam the air.
Fuck, we have a settlement in SPACE inhabited since November 2000.
Also, did you duckduckgo "solar plane" and "electric plane" in the last decade? Not google, it personalize results and you'll only find conspiracy crap.

>>146473
>This country can't be fixed, so the only thing worthwhile is revenge
So you admit you're not making murica reat nugain, but actively destroying it.
I'm glad we can agree on that point. Now join ISIS, they're recruiting for their next attack on Murican soil I heard.

>>146487
>there's a reason the whole planet is not powered by solar and wind already, and that is because
The production of solar panels wasn't industrialised enough yet for mass production to reduce prices, and there are a fuck ton subsidies on oil that fucks with competition.
Not only solar obviously produces more energy than it take to produce it (how thick are you to imagine heating some sand take more energy than the fucking sun can give?), but it is cheaper than fossil since last year actually, probably thanks to China going full Paris.

>>146471
>planes cannot fly on electricity
>PLANES CANNOT FLY ON ELECTRICITY
Just, what is wrong with you?

>>146487
You could thank Chernobyl for that.

>>146661
Actually it was Three Mile Island that did it for the US, even though that released immeasurable (as in too little to be measured) amounts of radioactive gas and did not melt through its containment.

Chernobyl, oddly enough, had relatively little to do with slowing or stopping the building of new reactors in Europe or the rest of the world. Rather, the movements to do so had been gaining momentum in various political parties since the 70s, most of which had already got enough seats to begin removing funding for new reactors.

That said, after Chernobyl, "More Nuclear!" was no longer a good party slogan, even if it could still be a quiet policy in some countries.

>had a contract to write a series of educational fact sheets
Tear up the contract and don't do the job. Gee that was hard.

>>144610
> for the people that actually matter and pay taxes he is.

Jobless people voted trump. Jobless people pay no taxes.

>>146660
planes cannot fly on electricity save if they are extremely wide-winged drones that carry pretty much nothing, i guess.

>>146701
Electric commercial airliners isn't inherently impossible. Just like jet fuel has some energy density used during combustion you just need something with similar or greater energy density in electrolyte. In fact the engine could be far smaller and simpler on electrical commercial aircraft. You just use electricity to power the propeller.
The major limitation is the energy density of the batteries because you have limited weight the aircraft can carry. Right now we have the technology at stretch for 2 hours of flight with relatively low thrust and a small craft. But the battery technology we need isn't far of. In fact at some point battery technology can reach a level of sophistication wherein it surpasses jet fuel's ability to store energy.

>>146693
Then you wont be upset when they get nothing from the government. Wew

>>146706
i'll believe it when i see it. even turboprops are garbage for cross-ocean flights. props hit a wall wherein you can't feasibly go any faster without breaking the sound barrier and shattering every window in the city during takeoff.

you can make electrically powered aircraft, but none of those will be able to sustain the logistics chain in the way current jet-powered aircraft do.

likewise, electric-powered ships do not really work without a nuclear reactor (apiece) which, granted. sure. but you'd have to replace every ship currently on the planet for the most part which is about as insane as trying to replace your entire grid with something that barely works.

>>144433
Honestly I'd be more than happy if all of Florida sinks into the ocean.
Does anybody even LIKE Florida?

>>146787
>shattering every window
>sustain the logistics chain
>electric-powered ships do not really work

Science appears to be too difficult for you. Maybe try googling "sound barrier" for starters.

>>146791
Idiot state deserves it's stupid death.
Just pity it happens so slowly the people will escape.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

>>146813
It doesn't matter anyway.

Air travel is actually a small fraction of the problem.

We can't wait around for science to give us fusion power

https://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_co2_left_061316.gif

>>146791
You want all those people in your state?

>>146861
So you want your state to be filled with Californians? That's a weird love-hate relationship you have.

>>144610
There's no such thing as a "proven theory" because that's not how scientific theories work.