BaltACD Shadow the Cats owner Schilmm if your a scientist or a professor your one job is to get grants to pay for your research and you will do whatever it takes to make sure that money never dries up even skewing the results if needed. Yet when confronted by the evidence that they are bought off for the results they scream your a denier of science. When the same people are paying for all the research and refuse to allow any one OUTSIDE the area of study to even look at the research it what I have a problem with. They refuse to even allow anyone that isn't part of their clique to look at their data at all. Not one outside review has been done on anyone of their research papers they are all peer reviewed and when your all looking for the same thing your going to find it. Let someone outside your circle look at it for once. You are overlooking what a real cat fight peer review is - if you report a 'new finding' - all your peers want to do is to discredit it and prove that it is nothing new, nothing that your name can be attached to. They don't want YOUR name applied to the finding, they want a finding where THEIR name gets applied to it.
Shadow the Cats owner Schilmm if your a scientist or a professor your one job is to get grants to pay for your research and you will do whatever it takes to make sure that money never dries up even skewing the results if needed. Yet when confronted by the evidence that they are bought off for the results they scream your a denier of science. When the same people are paying for all the research and refuse to allow any one OUTSIDE the area of study to even look at the research it what I have a problem with. They refuse to even allow anyone that isn't part of their clique to look at their data at all. Not one outside review has been done on anyone of their research papers they are all peer reviewed and when your all looking for the same thing your going to find it. Let someone outside your circle look at it for once.
You are overlooking what a real cat fight peer review is - if you report a 'new finding' - all your peers want to do is to discredit it and prove that it is nothing new, nothing that your name can be attached to. They don't want YOUR name applied to the finding, they want a finding where THEIR name gets applied to it.
All too true! Trying to read and critically comprehend journal articles outside one's limited field ain't as easy as Mrs E.B. seems to think it would be. Outside my area, I can do modestly well in some neurology journals, especially when closely relted to neuropsychology and assessment and quite well in history journals covering areas I have studied and read in, but that's about it. Even in my own field of clinical psychology, some articles are a real challenge.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
zugmann Shadow the Cats owner Not one outside review has been done on anyone of their research papers they are all peer reviewed and when your all looking for the same thing your going to find it. Let someone outside your circle look at it for once.
Not one outside review has been done on anyone of their research papers they are all peer reviewed and when your all looking for the same thing your going to find it. Let someone outside your circle look at it for once.
Shadow the Cats ownerSchilmm if your a scientist or a professor your one job is to get grants to pay for your research and you will do whatever it takes to make sure that money never dries up even skewing the results if needed. Yet when confronted by the evidence that they are bought off for the results they scream your a denier of science. When the same people are paying for all the research and refuse to allow any one OUTSIDE the area of study to even look at the research it what I have a problem with. They refuse to even allow anyone that isn't part of their clique to look at their data at all. Not one outside review has been done on anyone of their research papers they are all peer reviewed and when your all looking for the same thing your going to find it. Let someone outside your circle look at it for once.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Shadow the Cats ownerNot one outside review has been done on anyone of their research papers they are all peer reviewed and when your all looking for the same thing your going to find it. Let someone outside your circle look at it for once.
I'm sure they'd let you look at them, Mrs. B.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
His ideas though do have some merit. In Seatlle they now fine you for not composting your food waste instead of throwing it in the garbage. Just look at how PETA and other animal rights groups act towards meat companies throwing funerals for turkeys in stores holding protests inside Chik a Filet during a kids birthday party harrassing cattle trucks throwing up roadblocks at chicken processing plants. They even protested the Westminster Kennel Club dog show saying the dogs where mistreated.
Schilmm if your a scientist or a professor your one job is to get grants to pay for your research and you will do whatever it takes to make sure that money never dries up even skewing the results if needed. Yet when confronted by the evidence that they are bought off for the results they scream your a denier of science. When the same people are paying for all the research and refuse to allow any one OUTSIDE the area of study to even look at the research it what I have a problem with. They refuse to even allow anyone that isn't part of their clique to look at their data at all. Not one outside review has been done on anyone of their research papers they are all peer reviewed and when your all looking for the same thing your going to find it. Let someone outside your circle look at it for once.
Euclid VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid The people who question the climate change agenda conculusions are labeled as deniers when actually, they are agnostic like you are. But the proponents will not tolerate any position except absolute affirmation of their position. They blame people who are not in lockstep agreement, as being part of the cause of the planetary destruction they associate with climate change. If they had their way, it would be illegal to disagree with them. That is their idea of science. That from someone who posted not long ago that there were no conspiracy theories. Regards, Volker I never said there was no agenda behind the climate change bandwagon. Seeing through political agendas is not a conspiracy theory. There certainly is a political agenda surrounding manmade climate change. It is plain to see and so it needs no conspiracy to hide it. Labeling political insight as a conspiracy theory is a debate put down intended to characterize the target as being stupid and having delusions of being given rides in UFOs at night. This is a favorite personal attack tool of the political left to discredit any claimed insight into their agendas. No, there is a leftist agenda alright. It just so happens that their warning of manmade climate change gives the left everything they have always longed for. What a coincidence. It has all of their objectives including slow growth, eliminating suburbs, militant vegetarianism, public robots replacing private automobiles, transit replacing roads, renewable energy, composting waste, sustainability, and traffic circles for pedestrians. But they don’t have to get together and hatch a conspiratorial plan because all those pieces of their ideology that are delivered by the global warming agenda are second nature to them. So their agenda springs forth naturally.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid The people who question the climate change agenda conculusions are labeled as deniers when actually, they are agnostic like you are. But the proponents will not tolerate any position except absolute affirmation of their position. They blame people who are not in lockstep agreement, as being part of the cause of the planetary destruction they associate with climate change. If they had their way, it would be illegal to disagree with them. That is their idea of science. That from someone who posted not long ago that there were no conspiracy theories. Regards, Volker
Euclid The people who question the climate change agenda conculusions are labeled as deniers when actually, they are agnostic like you are. But the proponents will not tolerate any position except absolute affirmation of their position. They blame people who are not in lockstep agreement, as being part of the cause of the planetary destruction they associate with climate change. If they had their way, it would be illegal to disagree with them. That is their idea of science.
That from someone who posted not long ago that there were no conspiracy theories.
Regards, Volker
I never said there was no agenda behind the climate change bandwagon. Seeing through political agendas is not a conspiracy theory. There certainly is a political agenda surrounding manmade climate change. It is plain to see and so it needs no conspiracy to hide it.
Labeling political insight as a conspiracy theory is a debate put down intended to characterize the target as being stupid and having delusions of being given rides in UFOs at night. This is a favorite personal attack tool of the political left to discredit any claimed insight into their agendas.
No, there is a leftist agenda alright. It just so happens that their warning of manmade climate change gives the left everything they have always longed for. What a coincidence. It has all of their objectives including slow growth, eliminating suburbs, militant vegetarianism, public robots replacing private automobiles, transit replacing roads, renewable energy, composting waste, sustainability, and traffic circles for pedestrians.
But they don’t have to get together and hatch a conspiratorial plan because all those pieces of their ideology that are delivered by the global warming agenda are second nature to them. So their agenda springs forth naturally.
A superb example of Euclid's politically-tinged ideation that colors/distorts his views of reality. I really find it offensive to see the paranoid attacks by him and others on scientists and academia. The notion they are somehow all in league to secure grants is ridiculous. It betrays their ignorance of how things actually work in that field. Attending a departmental meeting and witnessing 'unanimous disagreement' on almost any topic would quickly disabuse them of that delusion.
SaturnaliaOne thing to keep in mind about climate scientists: their job is effectively to prove the theory right. Almost every climate scientist has entered the field believing that climate change is real. They believe it to the ends of the Earth, personally.
Alex,
Yes, I know you from another forum in which I particapate.
There is something I would ask all participants of discussion forums to bear in mind. That is, like those of professors at universities, they have an interest in keeping the federal grants coming. Are those professors always right? If I knew the answer I would be deemed a genious. Call it 'employment insurance' if you wish. Better than being relegated to street urchins with an MBA or PHD. It's called 'vested interest'. Without those grants they would likely find themselves collecting unemployment and living accordingly. Can you fault them for protecting their own mules?
I have tried hard to remain in the middle, somewhere between skeptical and believing in one side or the other in the discussion. It is the refusal of both sides to acknowlege that both may have valid points that irks me.
Norm
EuclidMy rate in Minnesota rose about 50% from 2011 to 2017. It is clearly the fastest rising utility cost by far. Minnesota has agressive renewable mandates. What might be the reason for this rapid rate rise? It can't be fuel cost, and the cost of plant and infrastructure does not rapidly change. So, Minnesota rates are rising fast, but in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, the electric rate is 2.5 times the Minnesota rate. That is a fact. https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2015/11/10/as-energy-prices-fall-electricity-prices-rise/#7daf34846235
Thanks for the link to the article but he didn't give a definitive answer why they had risen so fast. I suspect the mandate for renewable energy imposed on us by a former governor may have some bearing on that. Normal inflation would also be a factor in rate increases but the ones we have seen in the past several years are not in line with normal cost of living increases.
Sounds like the Youppers are really paying through the nose just to keep the lights on. Michigan's upper peninsula is sparsely populated and with only a few electric utilities making power. I'm almost positive that when their facilities can't meet demand they are forced to buy from other companies on the national grid. The cost per customer to distribute electricity there has to be much higher than in the Detroit area where most of the population is serviced by DTE (aka Detroit Edison). Consumers Power has the majority land area of lower Michigan but with fewer people per square mile and their rates are higher than Edison's.
Several generating stations in Michigan have been forced to shut down thanks to regulation unilaterally imposed without comments from the consuming public allowed. Given some reasonable amount of time for technology to make the burning of coal clean it could still be a viable fuel for years to come. Problem is the regulators wanted those plants to comply with their edict posthaste or be forced into shutting down. Fair to the public? Not in my opinion. It was nothing more than a power grab on the part of the last administration and part of a bigger conspiracy. (schlimm, pardon me for saying that, but the reality of that comment is at least semi-truthful). I'm not usually into conspiracy theories so it was just a passing thought.
As politics go, they are an everyday fact of life we who live here have to live with, but in my time here I have never seen America so divided and hateful toward the other side. Both sides are culpable, and we have to break that mold before we once again become civil with each other. I'm not panning anyone on this forum, but if one reads the comments on news sites the incivility and hatred is obvious while reading the first few comments.
SaturnaliaUnfortunately, it seems much more popular to cut down EHH than to look at anything he's done based on the actual merits, numbers, and history.
We just witnessed his numbers for the last quarter. They weren't impressive.
SD70M-2Dude--- Nice try with the re-railing but it keeps derailing instantly.
I'm having a thick slice of pan fried baloney for lunch, had a sudden craving.
One thing to keep in mind about climate scientists: their job is effectively to prove the theory right. Almost every climate scientist has entered the field believing that climate change is real. They believe it to the ends of the Earth, personally.
Then factor in that if there's no potential for cataclysmic climate change, then all the funding for their science dries up.
And then factor in that unlike most scientists, climate theories CANNOT be tested. They have their models, but like statistics, those can be faked to no end. If we could trust models, we wouldn't need 30 of them for day-to-day weather forecasting!
Now I'm not saying this discounts ALL of their work, but you have to understand that basically nobody is immune from confirmation bias, especially when the theories are unprovable.
And their field is NOT setup to challenge their ideas. They are NOT looking at studies which could fact-check or disprove their thesis. They're basically just following confirmation bias, and refusing to sign off on any peer-review which calls into question their own findings and personal beliefs.
The problem we have is that science has meet politics in an extremely unfavorable way, with a subject which will always be heaped full of uncertainly.
Al Gore once said that "ten years from now we'll be beyond the point of no return". Guess what: he said that over a dozen years ago. And now he's got a new movie/propaganda piece where he'll rinse, wash and repeat.
Many "cimate deniers", such as myself, are more upset that it is clear that this "science" is not being balanced, and is being forced upon us via higher living costs and less liberty to do what we want to do, all based on untestable "science".
I have trust is science, I'm in school to become an engineer after all. But one simply cannot trust "climate science" in the way that we can trust physics or medicine, because the theories cannot be tested, and there's way too much politics behind it.
You wouldn't take a new drug tested only via models. So you shouldn't blame somebody who isn't believing studies based only on models, as well.
-----
Back to EH Harrison for a moment.
While it's clear to me that his statement was only that they expect a sector to decline and are tailoring their capex to meet that demand, I find it obvious that this is just another topic tainted by the "we hate EHH" crowd.
Unfortunately, it seems much more popular to cut down EHH than to look at anything he's done based on the actual merits, numbers, and history.
Like climate science, this missing piece is quite saddening for those of us who enjoy objective debate and weighing the odds.
DSchmittSounds like a 100 year flood. The term is misunderstood by most people. They think it means a flood that will only happen once in 100 years.
Thank you for clarifying. That is absolutely correct.Regards, Volker
Euclidyou and I know that to be a fact, but we will never be able to convince those who can explain the economics of competing fuels with just one sentence.
The 125 year you talk of are weather not climate data. The latter go much further back through tree examinating, ice drill cores from Greenland and Antarctica etc.
I can't answer your question directly but perhaps there is a similar mechanism like in Germany.
Here renewable energies have fixed price that is higher than the market value. If renewables are available the have to be taken first. Additionally we pay a fee to balance what industries depending heavily on electricity (Aluminum) don't have to pay. Our cost have more than doubled since 2000.
The plan here was to replace coal by gas power plants. That doesn't work because the energy costs from conventional plant dropped that much because of the preference for renewables the gas plant aren't economical anymore.Regards, Volker
EuclidThe people who question the climate change agenda conculusions are labeled as deniers when actually, they are agnostic like you are. But the proponents will not tolerate any position except absolute affirmation of their position. They blame people who are not in lockstep agreement, as being part of the cause of the planetary destruction they associate with climate change. If they had their way, it would be illegal to disagree with them. That is their idea of science.
Discussions work by exchanging arguments to convince someone else of my opion. Succes not guaranteed. Regards, Volker
schlimmMy bill has stayed flat or slightly decreased since 2011, even though the ComEd delivery and recovery rates have increased. Reason? The energy prices have fallen so much because of the shift to gas.
My rate in Minnesota rose about 50% from 2011 to 2017. It is clearly the fastest rising utility cost by far. Minnesota has agressive renewable mandates. What might be the reason for this rapid rate rise? It can't be fuel cost, and the cost of plant and infrastructure does not rapidly change.
So, Minnesota rates are rising fast, but in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, the electric rate is 2.5 times the Minnesota rate. That is a fact.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2015/11/10/as-energy-prices-fall-electricity-prices-rise/#7daf34846235
Shadow the Cats ownerVolker modern record keeping of weather overall has only been a science for about 120 years total. The predicting of weather patterns even with modern day tech is still a 1 in 3 chance of getting it wrong.
You are talking of weather prognosis not climate. Some climate models start up to 1,000 years ago using data from tree rings, ice drill cores etc.
Shadow the Cats ownerHowever a volcano like Mt Etna or Kilawhwa still releases more in 2 weeks than the largest coal fired powerplant in 1 year.
But it is not just CO2 but lots of ashes that have a cooling effect. When climate scientists tried to approximate the measured temperature development only using natural sources including vulcano eruptions it didn't work. Including manmade greenhouse gases they had success.
Shadow the Cats ownerSo stop saying we are the only cause of climate change in 4.5 Billion years this planet has warmed cooled and will do so again and again.
Sorry but I never said so. I said part of the global warming is manmade. But that is the only one we can influence.
Shadow the Cats ownerTake the Paris Climate Accord. The USA was hammered in it yet China and India the Largest Polluters in the world were allowed to keep going.
The USA weren't forced into the Paris agreement they joined voluntarily. China and India ratified the agreement too. I don't know the goals for the individual countries. If they are lower for China and India thereare reasons.
Here are a few data that might help to understand: Summerazing the global CO2 output from 1850 to 2005 the very few developed countries (incl. USA) contributed 61%, the developing countries (incl. China) 39%. The USA alone produced 27%, China 11%. If you take the per capita output the USA has 16.2 tonnes and China 6.6 tonnes.
Shadow the Cats ownerAlso islands sinking is not because the water is rising it is called weathering and erosion and compression. Start reading up on that before making those claims. Water is one of the most powerful agents in this nation.
Then you know how long the Colorado River needed to dig the Grand Canyon. The latest prognosis is that the sea level might rise 7 ft til 2100.
Shadow the Cats ownerWhy was that simple we are a fully devolped country they aren't yet our President at the time was to dumb to realize that was the goal.
I better don't comment this.Regards, Volker
zugmann Norm48327 And yes, the believers cherry pick and choose their 'facts' just like those in favor of gun control. Not much point in trying to argue with those who think they are of superior knowledge. Their minds are set and can't be changed. Only the annals of history will, in the long run, prove which side was right. The non-believers do the same as well. But I'll take the word of a consensus of world-wide scientists over facebook joe 6 pack with (barely) a high school education any day. Or a politician with a degree is political sciences looking to appease his base. And by the time we "prove" which side was right, I sure as hope it was the side that wasn't predicting some dire consequences. Because by then it's too late, and kind of pointless.
Norm48327 And yes, the believers cherry pick and choose their 'facts' just like those in favor of gun control. Not much point in trying to argue with those who think they are of superior knowledge. Their minds are set and can't be changed. Only the annals of history will, in the long run, prove which side was right.
The non-believers do the same as well. But I'll take the word of a consensus of world-wide scientists over facebook joe 6 pack with (barely) a high school education any day. Or a politician with a degree is political sciences looking to appease his base.
And by the time we "prove" which side was right, I sure as hope it was the side that wasn't predicting some dire consequences. Because by then it's too late, and kind of pointless.
Three comments:
1. Add - "or a politician with a degree in real estate."
2. Follow the money. Who financially benefits from increasing use of coal, oil and carbon-based energy?
3. Much of the attack on climate science started in the early 2000s when the Koch Bros. began funding 'research' and agitprop through the Heartland Foundation.
Norm48327Electric rates in my area have increased 40% in the last year alone.
My bill has stayed flat or slightly decreased since 2011, even though the ComEd delivery and recovery rates have increased. Reason? The energy prices have fallen so much because of the shift to gas.
Norm48327Electric rates in my area have increased 40% in the last year alone. I believe most of that increase is due to the mandate to get a percentage of electricity from renewables such as solar and wind power, Neither can stand alone without huge subsidies.
True in Calufornia too. I don't know about other States, but we have a "base line" rate which is reasonably low. Go over the base line and the rates sky rocket. The base line useage is set so low that it is almost impossible not to exceed it by 3 or 4 times which may also incur State mandated penalities.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
"But the proponents will not tolerate any position ..."
"If they had their way, it would be illegal to disagree with them. That is their idea of science. "
Um, no. No. None of that is true.
No one's asking for lockstep. Scientists as a whole certainly don't want lockstep. Al Gore does not want lockstep. He wants to make a case for the issue, and I think he's saying that choosing an approach that is more earth-friendly can be good business and is definitely in the direction of "do less harm."
Sounds sensible to me, unless you come from a position where you reject what he has to say because he's a Democrat.
Norm48327And yes, the believers cherry pick and choose their 'facts' just like those in favor of gun control. Not much point in trying to argue with those who think they are of superior knowledge. Their minds are set and can't be changed. Only the annals of history will, in the long run, prove which side was right.
EuclidBruce, You and I know that to be a fact, but we will never be able to convince those who can explain the economics of competing fuels with just one sentence. If natural gas is so cheap that it can kill coal, why are electric rates rising so fast as power companies convert from coal to gas? I am all for facts, but I also know how complicated reality is. One problem with “facts” is determining whether they are facts or just a statement someone claims to be a fact. With any controversial topic, references will provide an endless parade of “facts” on each side of the argument. So you can choose your side and then go shopping for your facts to support it.
Electric rates in my area have increased 40% in the last year alone. I believe most of that increase is due to the mandate to get a percentage of electricity from renewables such as solar and wind power, Neither can stand alone without huge subsidies. Natural gas transported via pipeline certainly saves over the cost of transportation of coal by rail yet that cost differential does not show up in the rates.
And yes, the believers cherry pick and choose their 'facts' just like those in favor of gun control. Not much point in trying to argue with those who think they are of superior knowledge. Their minds are set and can't be changed. Only the annals of history will, in the long run, prove which side was right.
VOLKER LANDWEHR. The levee hight is dimensioned for a high water expected every 100 years. Each year we have a new century high water somewhere.
Sounds like a 100 year flood. The term is misunderstood by most people. They think it means a flood that will only happen once in 100 years. It actually means a flood has a 1-percent chance of occurring at a given location in any given year. There are thousands of 100 year floods around the world in any given year.
The 5 min rain in 5 years designed for would have a 20% chance of occuring at a given location in any given year.
Shadow the Cats ownerShadow the Cats owner wrote the following post 1 hours ago: Volker modern record keeping of weather overall has only been a science for about 120 years total. The predicting of weather patterns even with modern day tech is still a 1 in 3 chance of getting it wrong.
I think the conclusions of 90%+ of climatologists has far more value than an opinion based on the agitprop paid for by the Kochs and distributed by their minions and mouthpieces.
Bruce Kelly "As many know, science is based on a large empirical databases, not anecdotal remarks." Grammatical error in that statement aside (anyone else spot it?), any study of science that's been etched over a span of several thousand years by human observation and documentation, as well as by geologic record, ought to qualify as a large, empirical database. By comparison, a body of climate data that's framed around records going back only about 125 years or less is the definition of anecdotal.
"As many know, science is based on a large empirical databases, not anecdotal remarks."
Grammatical error in that statement aside (anyone else spot it?), any study of science that's been etched over a span of several thousand years by human observation and documentation, as well as by geologic record, ought to qualify as a large, empirical database. By comparison, a body of climate data that's framed around records going back only about 125 years or less is the definition of anecdotal.
Bruce,
You and I know that to be a fact, but we will never be able to convince those who can explain the economics of competing fuels with just one sentence. If natural gas is so cheap that it can kill coal, why are electric rates rising so fast as power companies convert from coal to gas? I am all for facts, but I also know how complicated reality is.
One problem with “facts” is determining whether they are facts or just a statement someone claims to be a fact. With any controversial topic, references will provide an endless parade of “facts” on each side of the argument. So you can choose your side and then go shopping for your facts to support it.
ruderunner Assuming you mean Schlimm, too much chicken little sky is falling. The opposite of Euclid post could be stated as well, "deniers" simply call "truthers" cooky. I'm in between, but it seems that even the In between are called cooks and deniers by the truthers. It seems like the truthers have an all or nothing attitude. I'm simply asking for proof, does that make me evil?
The people who question the climate change agenda conculusions are labeled as deniers when actually, they are agnostic like you are. But the proponents will not tolerate any position except absolute affirmation of their position. They blame people who are not in lockstep agreement, as being part of the cause of the planetary destruction they associate with climate change. If they had their way, it would be illegal to disagree with them. That is their idea of science.
SD70M-2Dude But another argument against ordering new coal cars is that a glut of them already exist, due to coal's decline over the past 10 years. Many are stored....
There is a line of them stored for as far as the eye can see on the Georgetown Railroad, on some of the sidings on the South Orient Railroad, and on some of the sidings on the UP to the Rio Grande Valley.
If CSX or any other carrier gets a significant up tick in coal traffic, it should not have much difficulty coming up with the cars to haul it.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Volker modern record keeping of weather overall has only been a science for about 120 years total. The predicting of weather patterns even with modern day tech is still a 1 in 3 chance of getting it wrong. Also just what has the planets population increased since 100 years ago. Now as to burning Fossil Fuels being a cause of Green house gasses yes they do release them. However a volcano like Mt Etna or Kilawhwa still releases more in 2 weeks than the largest coal fired powerplant in 1 year. Also in the 1100's during the dark ages and the height of the Vikings Greenland was clear of ice entirely. So stop saying we are the only cause of climate change in 4.5 Billion years this planet has warmed cooled and will do so again and again. All the Climate Change screaming is for most people around the world is a way for Governments to take more from us in the way of More TAXES. Take the Paris Climate Accord. The USA was hammered in it yet China and India the Largest Polluters in the world were allowed to keep going. Why was that simple we are a fully devolped country they aren't yet our President at the time was to dumb to realize that was the goal.
Also islands sinking is not because the water is rising it is called weathering and erosion and compression. Start reading up on that before making those claims. Water is one of the most powerful agents in this nation. New Orleans was at one time above sea level over time compression of the sediment put it below sea level. So stop with the mantra of islands being swallowed by the sea.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.