DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ocean Is Abnormally Warm

Liked your PFAs story- it is an old story, we all protect our own rice bowls...very few exceptions. No one answers the hard who, what, where, when, why, and how questions AND publishes their answers- MONEY, JOBS, FUTURE almost always wins- others, the not us others lose. Few remember we are all in same boat.

If only that were anything close to what you have been insinuating. But it's not.


Once again, you have been railing against the findings of man made, wide spread climate change when there is plenty of money on both sides to buy off scientists. Yet among published scientists 97% of them agree that climate change is man made................

Do scientists agree on climate change?

.....https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Trying to use misdirection of where this back and forth all started is disingenuous at best. Yes, 3% are an exception. A very slim exception. Yet that's what you wish to use as some defense to ignore all of the factual data. Same as it ever was.....

Except it's not all scientists agreeing. They carefully selected actively publishing, climate scientists. How do they define a "climate scientist?" If there definition of climate scientist is someone that works full time to prove man made climate change, then, it should be no surprise that most of them believe it is true. Actively publishing also brings into question objectivity. If a researcher know the journal wants papers supporting climate change, that is what they will try to produce. The whole publish or perish mindset that seems to have taken over academia is problematic. Publish or Perish: Where are We Heading? - Link

I'm not saying that its (man made climate change) not true. I'm just saying that scientists (and governments, and corporations) are invested in the outcomes more than is scientifically ideal. Pure, unadulterated science is practically impossible. If climate change is inevitable regardless of man's impact, it becomes harder to make money off of "trying to fight it." Again, that's not to say that we should do nothing to limit man's impact. It's just to say that it feels like you and others try to minimize the exceptions by stroking the data rather than looking at the data with an open mind.

Instead of looking at an exception and trying to figure out why, you seem to want to pretend that it doesn't exist. Pretend enough exceptions don't exist and your data becomes group think BS. Instead of trying to figure out exceptions, modern "science" seems to have a habit of designing experiments to avoid them. On the surface, this doesn't seem horrible. In practice, it can be rather harmful.

Theories are more useful when broadened to include as many scenarios as possible. When focused as narrowly as possible so as to avoid exceptions, they have a tendency to become rather far removed from how things actually work or are experienced by a not insignificant number of people.

I haven't been railing against the findings. I have been annoyed with the seeming characterization of science as absolute, to hell with evidence to the contrary. Trying to simplify complex processes and people into stereotypes and infantile reductions isn't science, it's social engineering.

Pointing at a study and saying, "Oh its science, how can you not buy hook, line, and sinker all this happy horse [censored] I've attached to it?" is a rather frustrating modern mindset.

Oh I got it. It's the outliers were should be listening to. Every time someone makes a claim everyone should be chasing their tails and wasting their time focusing their attention on them. I feel sorry for people such as yourself who see ghosts around every corner. It must be exhausting.

Instead of everyone focusing on the same path that doesn't seem to be going anywhere, perhaps different paths should be explored. I'm not saying every path should be explored. I'm just saying we shouldn't avoid exploring other paths because they are not the main path. Yes, some ideas clearly don't work and should probably not be pursued. Yet, just because an idea isn't the idea doesn't mean it won't work. Just because a scientist didn't come up with an idea doesn't make something a bad idea.

I feel sorry for sheeple that think everything has to fit in a nice, little simplified box with a pretty bow on top for them and leave no possibility for wonder or possibility itself. It must be boring as hell.

I don't see ghosts. I see possibilities. Yes, some of them end up being things I could have done without. If you don't look, you miss out on good things, too, though.

Ignoring the vast majority of the evidence doesn't make you a sheeple. Quite the opposite in fact. But you do you man.

Let me put it a different way. If a man broke into someone's house and murdered that person, how much would it matter that it was an exception? For that person, that exception would be rather important even if the rule is that people generally don't go around killing other people. Exceptions can be rather impactful. Ignoring them can have consequences. That "may cause death" warning on a prescription may represent an exception. If you knew the person that caused it to be written, you'd probably feel a bit differently about exceptions.

Winning the lottery is an exception. And, yet, people win the lottery.

Treating people and specific instances as inconsequential because they aren't main stream, to me, is pretty lousy.

...ignoring evidence makes you independant?? What are you trying to say?

Ignoring any evidence in an effort to conform with the majority makes you a sheeple. Baa.

Mudrer isn't an exception.

People waste and lose on the lottery all the time. The odds are stacked against you and it's the lottery who makes money.

Desperation is not your strong suit.

There's a difference with not being the mainstream and being outside the bounds of logic. It seems you strive to ignore when there is an overwhelming body of evidence by claiming there isn't an overwhelming body of evidence. You'll have to excuse me for not jumping in that sinking ship with you.

And don't waste my money on the lottery either. But it sounds as if you should play it heavily. After all, people win, right?

So murder is the norm now?

Yes, people waste money on the lottery. People waste money on bad science. People waste money on lots of things.

Thank you. Desperation would appear to be more your wheelhouse.

There's a difference between being outside the bounds of logic and being willing to look beyond the illusion of intelligence. I don't ignore any of the evidence. You're the one that keeps trying to avoid things. Changing the subject to avoid things is your default move.

My ship is just fine. I find the holes and try to do something about them. You're the one that likes to pretend that holes aren't there. I could sail ships through the holes in your logic.

Did I ever say one should play the lottery? I did not. Yet, it is an example of a long shot having an extraordinarily lucrative return. Sometimes to have a big breakthrough, you have to take a "risk." It is hard to make new discoveries while following well-trod paths.

Pit is pretty predictable. Whatabouts, deflection, and strawmen. Its all the cards he holds.

This is an honest question, did you study earth systems, at a collegiate level?. I have friends, Republican friends that sound like you.

I’ve been waiting for the college level class, institution, that refutes anthropogenic climate change. Speaking of, feel like we had an IPCC report that came out a couple years ago, I think it said we are trending toward high end of projections.

Feel like 2 more years we will have another update, a pulse.

I have a degree in evolutionary anthropology. So I studied how man became who we are today.

There are eight billion or so humans on the planet. 75,000 years ago there were approximately 30,000 humans on earth.

To think that humans have no effect on the environment does not compute.

Go to your local grocery store. Imagine the size of the container you would need to hold everything in that store contained in plastic. Ok.

Empty that container everyday. Imagine all the stores in the world. How much space would you need daily to hold that amount of plastic?

That plastic does not decompose.

Think about what 8 billion of us do daily. What we produce. What we use. What we consume. What we throw away.

Now tell me again how man does not affect the environment.

You're completely missing what I'm saying.

I'm not refuting climate change. I refuted the idea that only scientists have any hope of coming up with a solution to it. I refuted the idea that scientists completely understand it.

I don't doubt that it exists and that it presents large problems. I just think the elitist "I'm a scientist, so you should listen to me" approach isn't always a good idea. Becoming a scientist doesn't instantly make a person know everything. I feel one should focus more on the actual science/data than on the feelings of the people that work with the data. The data doesn't say that the solutions scientists come up with are the absolute best every time. In fact, the solutions scientists come up with have been known to have horrific consequences that they overlooked (Use of Thalidomide to treat nausea during pregnancy for example.) Ignoring potential problems because they detract from what one wants to try to prove is not great science. Ignoring potential solutions because "scientists" didn't come up with the idea is a "good" way to miss better solutions.

When carefully crafted experiments continue to show exceptions, it likely means something is being overlooked. Like everyone else, scientists have a tendency to conflate their beliefs and their knowledge.
Scientists seem to have a very hard time admitting that they don't actually know certain things. They seem to have an even harder time admitting that someone that isn't a scientist could potentially solve a problem better than they have been able to. The seeming inability to even consider a possibility doesn't feel like a good trait for the people that are supposed to increase society's knowledge. A seeming inability for people given great trust to consider that they might be wrong or not know everything, to me, would appear to be a bad situation. As someone quoted earlier (paraphrasing,) the illusion of intelligence can be a big problem.

It's far outside the realm of anything we are discussing. Murder is real. You don't need to do a study or have conflicting theories on whether someone was shot in the chest and murdered. It isn't a question for debate. Why you would try to even broach this topic withing the bounds of our discussion is beyond reason.


And at least one person wastes a lot of time trying to claim we need to consider outliers as reality.


I'm not the one who tried to compare murder to science.


Murder?


You try to create holes where none exist and then shout "There's a hole!"


You just advocated taking long shots and mentioned the lottery within that example.... again.

#triggered

It wasn't a long step from your ignoring the obvious "killing me" to murder. I also "broached the subject" because bad science can literally kill people.

Outliers are a part of reality. Outliers aren't made up or fake. They literally exist.

Yes, I'll talk about unpleasant realities like murder. Constantly watching you butcher logic feels like witnessing a metaphorical murder. You are practically a serial logic-killer.

I advocated for not putting all of societies eggs in one basket. It's impossible to know the probability of something bringing a positive result if you refuse to even consider it. I intimated that there can be value in taking the path less traveled. You are too busy making up arguments I didn't make that you can "murder" to listen to what I am actually saying.

You are so sure that you are right that you aren't even hearing what I'm saying. You're coming at it with a belief that it must be wrong so you're not even really processing it.

This happens in "science," too. People think they know what they are going to see, and they interpret the results with that "knowing" in mind without actually taking the time to see and trying to understand what is really there.

Well of course you were.....


They certainly do. Now we just have to look at the definition to see what they are......



That's what one says when they think ignoring overwhelming evidence in order to give credence and waste time with people far outside the realm of logic seems like a practical approach. In their minds that's logic.


What you've actually been doing is ignoring the fact that when scientists independent of each other who can get their papers published agree that climate change is not only real but man made 97% of the time we should instead focus on the other 3%. I hear what you're actually saying but I'm not so sure you do.


I can process it just fine. I can also process 97% and process that's not some conspiracy theory. Give it a try.


According to you 97% of them do that. Yeah..... but no.

Does this serve a purpose? It appears to have no point or logic.


If we use your "definition" of outlier, every person in the world is an outlier. No two people are exactly alike. No two test points are exactly alike (they all differ in time.)

If you want to make the argument that everything is an outlier, I could see merit there.

Overwhelming isn't a technical term. Let's look at the definition "If something is overwhelming, it affects you very strongly, and you do not know how to deal with it." That is hardly scientific. Your not knowing how to deal with the evidence has no bearing on what that evidence actually means. Burying something in [censored] "overwhelms" whatever is being buried. Overwhelming is a throw away word that people use to obfuscate. No matter how much evidence you gather, there can still be a matter of interpretation. Convictions get overturned. Scientists find out that past interpretations were wrong or in some part incomplete.
No, that's what you keep trying to make my argument into. That's how you've hacked my logic apart and tried to reassemble some of the pieces while adding made up bits of your own.

This all started because Lyuokdea posted some gatekeeping you are not a scientist garbage. Science isn't some sacred cow. It's not reserved for the elite. Anyone can use the scientific method. If he'd said , that's a bad idea, why don't you test your idea, and let us know how it goes? Whatever, that's fine. The you're not a scientist so you can't have a good idea mindset is crap. Anyone can be a "scientist." While science can get complex, the actual method is really rather simple. It seems that all to frequently "scientists" get caught up in the complexity of their personal work and lose sight of the underpinnings.


No, you really can't. You're like dealing with a dementia patient. Sometimes you're almost lucid, but most of the time you seem to think along the lines that science tastes like rainbows. (If that makes no sense, that was what I was getting at.)


Yeah, but... yeah. There really is no but. Expectation bias is something that everyone is susceptible to and should be aware of.

What you believe and how you interpret things have no bearing on reality. Of course you think you process just fine. But, you would be biased about that.

I've definitely become biased against that idea of your processing ability. When you post obvious falsehoods like "outliers aren't reality," and you constantly change others arguments to suit your agenda, it would seem to call that ability into question.

Scientists are no different than attorney's in that they are experts in their field with the background and education to apply that knowledge. As everyone knows, “A man who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer”. Yet somehow you wish to represent scientists in a different light.

Claiming that someone who believes 97% isn't overwhelming sounds like a dementia patient sounds like something a dementia patient would say. 97% is the reality. Something you will desperately refuse to accept and claim other people are out of touch.

overwhelming; defeat completely. "his teams overwhelmed their opponents"

Have you ever considered changing your sig. to "Fiercely Misguided?

97% isn't the reality. 97% is someone's representation/interpretation of the reality. 97% is words "on paper," or 1s and zeros in cyberspace. It's confined to the specific data those collecting it chose to gather. It does not encompass all of reality.

Scientists and attorneys are no different in the fact that sometimes things don't go the way they think they should. Attorneys lose cases. Scientists end up being wrong. Being an expert does not make one infallible.

You want to use lame aphorisms like "as everyone knows" and use it along with BS folk wisdom. Sam Sloan, James Blumstein, and numerous others have represented themselves in court and won their cases. You on the other would likely fit your quoted saying. You should probably call someone in to present a better case than you are doing.

I might have to consider adding "PitDawg is Fiercely Misguided (but he thinks I am)" to my sig.

His rush to judgment overwhelmed all good sense.

I'm kind of over it. If you want to believe that grass is pink instead of green, have at it. If you are unwilling to consider being wrong, nothing can convince you otherwise.

97% of people aren't claiming that grass is pink.

Here's what it actually boils down to. Somehow you think that, without any actual evidence to support it, that the 97% reported isn't actually 97%.

We all have a threshold at which we question things. Yours appears to be as low as 3%. It could be as low as 1% or 2% since we haven't broached that threshold. Mine isn't that low. It's virtually impossible to get 80% or 90% of any profession to agree on anything. Nobody with any skills at critical thinking think believing 97% of scientists is a "rush to judgement". They have been studying this for decades now. Somehow in your mind that is a rush to judgement.

Yes, scientists and lawyers can be wrong. But not 97% of them.

You think credence should be given to the 3%. If you're waiting for 100% of scientists or attorney's to agree on almost everything, you will never believe anything. Which is the point I think you are at. Blaming me for that won't help you.

97% of them can all be wrong. I'm not saying they are all wrong. I'm saying how many, in itself, has no real bearing one way or the other. Galileo was one person against all (most) of the scientific establishment. He was right, and they were wrong.

I think we should give credence based on the actual evidence rather than based on how many people support it. The one percent can be the ones that end up being right. I'm not saying they are always right. I'm saying they shouldn't be ignored just because they are the minority.

If you ask 100 ardent MAGA supporters if Trump should be president, 100% will say yes. Does that make it reality? That's the logic of your argument. I'm not arguing against climate change. I'm arguing against the logic (more illogic) that you seem to keep presenting as evidence. The number of people that believe something is not sound evidence.

There is no threshold. I question everything. Most things resolve themselves rather quickly. The disconnect seems to be that you don't comprehend what I am questioning. I'm not questioning what you believe (climate change.) I question why you believe it (or at least the reason you keep giving for believing it.) Believing something because other people believe something is a bad reason for believing something. Yet, that is ultimately the "logic" of the argument you keep making.

"If 97% of scientists are wrong, I'm going to agree with them because there are 97% of them" is effectively what you keep saying.

The pink grass is your insistence that the number of people that support something determine it's truth. Reality is independent of what people say about it regardless of how many people do so. The majority could be right. The majority could be wrong. Their being the majority has nothing to do with it.

Since it's far more likely that only 3% or less would say grass is pink it sounds that pink grass is more of a you issue. The fact you had to reach back to the 1600's to make your point is highly indicative of how far and in between the plausibility of your assertion is. And "most" is a threshold you're well past at 97%.

What you seem to keep saying is "Well 3% of scientists say otherwise so we should listen to them." It has taken decades of research and studies to arrive at that 97% consensus yet you keep acting like that doesn't matter anyone believing that as fact is "rushing to judgement? God Lord.

Majority means anything over 50%. That's not what we're talking about here. Like I said before, if your threshold in 3# and possibly less you'll never believe anything.

You still don't get it.

I'm not saying we should listen to the 3%. I'm not saying we should disregard the 97%.

I'm saying we should look at the actual evidence and not worry about how many people think what. We shouldn't worry about who it is that thinks what. What we should focus on is the actual information that has been gathered. Even an experiment designed to disprove what you believe can provide data that can support your hypothesis.

Should Thomas Edison not have performed all his failed experiments that eventually led to a functioning lightbulb? Even when experiments don't work out the way one hoped for, they can provide valuable information.

Personally, instead of belittling people and telling them that they aren't scientists, which instigated my joining the discussion, it would appear, to me, to be more useful to encourage individuals with ideas to test them and make more "scientists."

"The fact" I had to reach back is another [censored] twisting of things to suit your agenda. I used Thalidomide as another example and that was in wide use in the 1950s and 1960s. (Were you a Thalidomide baby, Pit? That'd explain some things.) Galileo is just a well known example of the majority being wrong, so I used it. I didn't have to reach back.

It's also unclear how your false statement relates to any assertion I allegedly made. Care to quote that assertion? I'm only seeing your strawmen.

You don't seem to understand that one can question things that they do believe. In fact, questioning one's beliefs can strengthen them. It seems that those that lack conviction in their beliefs are those most hesitant to question them.

This resistance to questions contributes to my "despair" for alleged "science."

I just wanted to add.......

18% of people still believe the sun revolves around the earth.

6% of people believe in unicorns.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/37-percent-of-people-comp_b_2864142

10% of people believe the earth is flat.

https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-survey-us-public-beliefs

I suppose since double the percentage of people believe in unicorns, over three times the percentage of people believe the earth is flat and six times the percentage of people should give those things serious consideration?

Oh that's right, Galileo. That still doesn't address the other two. Too bad we don't have science to dispel those crazy ideas.

Your strawmen are not worth the aggravation of thoughtful response which one can expect to be ignored anyways. Have a good day. Enjoy making up idiotic arguments. I'm done responding to them.

Which is exactly what I have been saying.....


The way they came to that consensus was by collecting and accumulating data that has been to "focus on is the actual information that has been gathered."


You are trying to mix invention and advancement with scientific study. Those aren't the same thing.

You are only seeing what you want to see. There are no strawmen here with the exception that you're digging up every one you can find to try and discredit 97% f the scientific community.

They were no less idiotic than you trying to mix inventors with scientific studies.

You're right. They were much more idiotic. See, you don't even realize what you are actually saying.

Trying to intimate that Thomas Edison wasn't a scientist because he invented things is also a bad argument. Someone can be both.

Trying to gatekeep science doesn't change what science actually is. Calling something science doesn't make it incontrovertible fact.

I understand that in you world decades of research and studies that end up in a 97% consensus aren't convincing enough for you. I think you've made the point that nothing can convince you to not being cynical of everything.

A couple stories just from the last 2-3 weeks.

Alaska’s Rivers Are Turning Orange as Thawing Permafrost Releases Metals Into Waterways
A new study identifies at least 75 Arctic streams where minerals, especially iron, are staining water with a rusty hue

Christian Thorsberg
Christian Thorsberg

Daily Correspondent

May 24, 2024
An orange tributary of the Kugororuk River.
An orange tributary of the Kugororuk River. Josh Koch, USGS
In recent years, the typical purples, blues and greens that color Alaska’s tundra ecosystems have been cut through with an unexpected hue as rivers run orange.

The phenomenon was first widely noted by scientists in 2018, and satellite imagery confirmed that as far back as 2008, certain waterways in the state have been changing from clear to rusted.




“The more we flew around, we started noticing more and more orange rivers and streams,” Jon O’Donnell, an ecologist for the National Park Service who has sampled the affected waters, says in a statement. “There are certain sites that look almost like a milky orange juice.”

In research published this week in the journal Communications: Earth & Environment, O’Donnell and a team of other scientists suggest they have pinpointed the cause of this color shift—and it’s linked to climate change.

As the Arctic warms, its permafrost is thawing. When this occurs, acid and metals—including zinc, nickel, copper, cadmium, iron and aluminum—are released from the loosening soil and exposed to water and oxygen through weathering. This process causes the metals—especially iron—to essentially rust, staining the rivers a muddy orange-brown.

Orange tributary waters mix with clearer waters of the Anaktok River.
Orange tributary waters mix with clearer waters of the Anaktok River. Josh Koch, USGS
Across about 600 miles of waterways in northern Alaska’s Brooks Range, the researchers identified 75 rivers and streams that have turned orange. Many are stained so deeply that their new rusted hue is visible in imagery taken from space.



Study lead author Brett Poulin, an organic geochemist at the University of California, Davis, used to teach a class in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains, where acid mine drainage discolored waterways near abandoned mines. “We’re seeing the same sequences of changes in water chemistry in these rivers, but far from mine sources,” he says in a video about the research.

Water samples registered pH levels of 2.6, significantly more acidic than the typical river water pH range of 6.5 to 8.

How these changes may impact fisheries and wildlife is another area of research the team would like to explore.

“When the river turned orange, we saw a significant decrease in macroinvertebrates and biofilm on the bottom of the stream, which is essentially the base of the food web,” Poulin tells the Guardian’s Aliya Uteuova. “It could be changing where fish are going to be able to live.”

With more metals in the rivers, scientists are concerned the phenomenon could impact rural drinking water—and at the very least affect the water’s taste, reports CBS News’ Aliza Chasan.



“It’s an area that’s warming at least two to three times faster than the rest of the planet,” Scott Zolkos, an Arctic scientist at Woodwell Climate Research Center who was not involved in the study, tells the Guardian. “So, we can expect these types of effects to continue.”

An orange tributary of the Kugororuk River
An orange tributary of the Kugororuk River. Josh Koch, USGS
Many rivers throughout Alaska have already experienced significant declines in salmon runs due to rising water temperatures and other factors, intimately affecting Alaska Native communities and subsistence users. Researchers have also observed chum salmon increasing their populations in cooler, northern latitudes.

Permafrost thaw across the Arctic has been linked to the release of a variety of other substances, including long-frozen viruses and massive amounts of stored carbon. This melting has also destabilized the ground in some areas, creating housing crises in the tundra as the shifting land affects infrastructure.

More work is needed to better understand the effects of permafrost thaw on water quality, the researchers say, and to determine how to prevent further damage.


Report this ad
“Chemistry tells us minerals are weathering,” Poulin says in the statement. “Understanding what’s in the water is a fingerprint as to what occurred.”


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...eleases-metals-into-waterways-180984408/

Panama prepares to evacuate first island in face of rising sea levels
MATÍAS DELACROIX and JUAN ZAMORANO
Updated Mon, June 3, 2024 at 7:11 AM EDT·5 min read
2.5k

will relocate to new homes, built by the government, on the mainland. (AP Photo/Matias Delacroix)ASSOCIATED PRESSMore
GARDI SUGDUB, Panama (AP) — On a tiny island off Panama’s Caribbean coast, about 300 families are packing their belongings in preparation for a dramatic change. Generations of Gunas who have grown up on Gardi Sugdub in a life dedicated to the sea and tourism will trade that next week for the mainland’s solid ground.

They go voluntarily — sort of.

The Gunas of Gardi Sugdub are the first of 63 communities along Panama’s Caribbean and Pacific coasts that government officials and scientists expect to be forced to relocate by rising sea levels in the coming decades.

On a recent day, the island’s Indigenous residents rowed or sputtered off with outboard motors to fish. Children, some in uniforms and others in the colorful local textiles called “molas,” chattered as they hustled through the warren of narrow dirt streets on their way to school.

“We’re a little sad, because we’re going to leave behind the homes we’ve known all our lives, the relationship with the sea, where we fish, where we bathe and where the tourists come, but the sea is sinking the island little by little,” said Nadín Morales, 24, who prepared to move with her mother, uncle and boyfriend.

An official with Panama’s ministry of housing said that some people have decided to stay on the island until it's no longer safe, without revealing a specific number. Authorities won’t force them to leave, the official said on condition of anonymity to discuss the issue.

Gardi Sugdub is one of about 50 populated islands in the archipelago of the Guna Yala territory. It is only about 400 yards (366 meters) long and 150 yards (137 meters) wide. From above, it’s roughly a prickly oval surrounded by dozens of short docks where residents tie up their boats.

Every year, especially when the strong winds whip up the sea in November and December, water fills the streets and enters the homes. Climate change isn't only leading to a rise in sea levels, but it's also warming oceans and thereby powering stronger storms.

The Gunas have tried to reinforce the island’s edge with rocks, pilings and coral, but seawater keeps coming.

“Lately, I’ve seen that climate change has had a major impact,” Morales said. “Now the tide comes to a level it didn’t before, and the heat is unbearable.”

The Guna’s autonomous government decided two decades ago that they needed to think about leaving the island, but at that time it was because the island was getting too crowded. The effects of climate change accelerated that thinking, said Evelio López, a 61-year-old teacher on the island.

He plans to move with relatives to the new site on the mainland that the government developed at a cost of $12 million. The concrete houses sit on a grid of paved streets carved out of the lush tropical jungle just over a mile (2 kilometers) from the port, where an eight-minute boat ride carries them to Gardi Sugdub.

Leaving the island is "a great challenge, because more than 200 years of our culture is from the sea, so leaving this island means a lot of things,” López said. “Leaving the sea, the economic activities that we have there on the island, and now we’re going to be on solid ground, in the forest. We’re going to see what the result is in the long run.”

Steven Paton, director of the Smithsonian Institution’s physical monitoring program in Panama, said that the upcoming move “is a direct consequence of climate change through the increase in sea level.”

“The islands on average are only a half-meter above sea level, and as that level rises, sooner or later the Gunas are going to have to abandon all of the islands almost surely by the end of the century or earlier.”

“All of the world's coasts are being affected by this at different speeds,” Paton said.

Residents of a small coastal community in Mexico moved inland last year after storms continued to take away their homes. Governments are being forced to take action, from the Italian lagoon city of Venice to the coastal communities of New Zealand.

A recent study by Panama’s Environmental Ministry’s Climate Change directorate, with support from universities in Panama and Spain, estimated that by 2050, Panama would lose about 2.01% of its coastal territory to increases in sea levels.

Panama estimates that it will cost about $1.2 billion to relocate the 38,000 or so inhabitants who will face rising sea levels in the short- and medium-term, said Ligia Castro, climate change director for the Environmental Ministry.

On Gardi Sugdub, women who make the elaborately embroidered molas worn by Guna women hang them outside their homes when finished, trying to catch the eye of visiting tourists.

The island and others along the coast have benefitted for years from year-round tourism.

Braucilio de la Ossa, the deputy secretary of Carti, the port facing Gardi Sugdub, said that he planned to move with his wife, daughter, sister-in-law and mother-in-law. Some of his wife’s relatives will stay on the island.

He said the biggest challenge for those moving would be the lifestyle change of moving from the sea inland even though the distance is relatively small.

“Now that they will be in the forest their way of living will be different,” he said.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/panama-prepares-evacuate-first-island-151000223.html

But, but, but.... we're only on page 5. NO FAIR!!

And the hen finally roosts to cackle.

Good post.

I'm always confused that nobody ever addresses the elephant in the room.

Isn't the planet doomed without population control?

And I don't mean doomed in a passive, exaggerated manner... I mean DOOMED.

Thoughts?

I pay close attention to all scientific discoveries daily.

There is so much going on. If you went to sleep and woke up 100 years from now, 500 years, 1000. The world will be unrecognizable.

We no longer are a slave to evolution. We are altering evolution today.

The issues we face today like climate change, fossil fuels etc. That will all be gone. The earth will go on and in time heal itself if we become part of that process.

In the short term what we are doing today. There are and there will be more consequences.

When the human population grows at the current rate. There will be a price to pay.

Everything we need is here. This planet is amazing. How we manage ourselves will be the key to how we choose to survive.

There will always be people making the excuse that there's nothing we can do so why try. And generally it turns out to be the same people that call for personal responsibility from everyone else.

^ Another trash post ^

I said nothing like that, I've never said anything like that. I just ask uncomfortable questions and wait for people to dance around them... And Pit@DawgTalkers to move the goalposts.

Get your last word, Larry. Wife must have beat you again last night, I'm not playing pre-school today.

In case you missed it, my response wasn't addressed to you nor named you. It seems as though you may be slightly paranoid and think what i say somehow revolves around you. Your first posts of the day were pre-school. It seems you are now posturing for a quick advance to first grade. Your report card dictates that won't be happening soon.