Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Re: S Miami Votes to Secede, Plan for SLR

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 23 Oct 2014, 12:31:32

T - "Kentucky used to be part of Virginia and Tennessee used to be part of North Carolina". And at one time Texas wasn't even one of the united states. Ahhh...to dream again. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: S Miami Votes to Secede, Plan for SLR

Unread postby basil_hayden » Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:46:56

dinopello wrote:
basil_hayden wrote:
dinopello wrote:
basil_hayden wrote:This is what happens when all you do is coke and go to the beach.


I'm just curious - what happens ? Sea level rises ? Decide to secede ?


What happens while doing coke and going to the beach all day is that you decide to secede, then after the coke buzz wears off, you find yourself underwater thinking to yourself "damn, we shouldn't have seceded, we should have bought North Florida (maybe even South Georgia) since we have 75% of the population and 82% of the worth."

But it's too late, you blew your money on coke and had a blast on the beach, with al the other pirates.

Thanks for the opportunity to explain!


No problem, but I thank you! I've never done coke so I didn't know!

Between living in south Georgia and some great memories of a blast on a beach though - I'm not sure which is the right move.


Well according to dohboi, you won't be on the beach, the beach will be on you. Does this help you make the right move?
User avatar
basil_hayden
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: CT, USA

Re: S Miami Votes to Secede, Plan for SLR

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 24 Oct 2014, 15:48:28

I'm not sure I said that exactly, but I like it--makes me sound kind of MX-y: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKEzkJJReJI
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: S Miami Votes to Secede, Plan for SLR

Unread postby basil_hayden » Sat 25 Oct 2014, 18:25:46

It's all about progression, regression, and adaptation.
User avatar
basil_hayden
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: CT, USA

Re: S Miami Votes to Secede, Plan for SLR

Unread postby Lore » Sat 25 Oct 2014, 18:42:57

Too late already for South FL to adapt. Adaptation in the next 50 years means walking away from your home and or business with nothing in your pockets and begging your friends in the North on higher ground if you can put up a Hooverville next to them.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: S Miami Votes to Secede, Plan for SLR

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sat 25 Oct 2014, 21:44:06

I assume you guys are aware that when a small town council passes a resolution, it's just symbolic, right?

There's no legal mechanism to secede from the state, that I'm aware of.

Secondly -- no, nobody is ever going to "spend state tax dollars on climate change mitigation and Dutch type seawalls." For one thing, all the rich millionaires and billionaires down there only moved there BECAUSE THERE'S NO INCOME TAX.

If you want all this climate stuff done you'd need a state income tax and then guess what -- the rich just move on out. They're too cheap anyway, they won't pay taxes for anything else what makes you think a hedge fund guy gives a flip about the sea level rise? Let's get real here.

Thirdly -- Florida couldn't even build a darn train going from Orlando to Tampa even though the voters voted for it in referrendum -- the damn thing still never got built. So no, I don't see any Dutch sea walls or whatever getting built. Again -- there is not the tax revenue to do that with, it's in the constitution that there can never be an income tax.

If you're curious about where the population in Florida is, just look at it from space at night:

Image

Population centers: Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa Bay, Naples, then Miami metro area.

Before you go and put your climate change mitigation hopes on south Florida, don't forget that was the land of the hanging chads:

Image

Guys -- this is a wasted thread. Maybe another state may do something about climate change but it just ain't gonna be Florida, so let me save your breath.

* Russian oligarchs in Miami are not going to support an income tax

* Rich wasps and old money ain't gonna support an income tax

* Rich oldsters, and geezers just on their ss check too -- ain't gonna support any taxes

* And everyone else won't support any increase in the sales tax

Having said that -- the state is actually pretty good at building beaches up and dealing with erosion. I wouldn't worry about it. Sea level rise will be slow enough to do it over time, doesn't have to be *tomorrow*.

Also -- you guys do realize that in 100 million years all the species will all be gone anyway? And the earth will be very desolate and cold, and this is without any AGW it's just natural cycles. And all the continents will have moved and North America will have collided with Europe.

All these species will be gone, anyway.

If we care about our own speces, we'd best start expanding and branch out -- OFF this planet. Because this environment is impermanent. It cycles and changes constantly and then one day the sun will swallow it up.

P.S. State level taxes are fixed, and there will never be an income tax.

If the wealthier counties want to spend money on climate change so much then there is nothing stopping those county commissions from doubling property taxes. (oh, except the voters :lol:)

But really, south Florida needn't secede, if county commissions want to address a problem the state does not then there is nothing stopping them from doing that.

And another thing -- you know, it's actually good that so many people live on the water. THAT is actually what will keep the beaches built up, you know? If nobody lived there then nobody would care. But if you've got condo towers and gazzilionaire mansions all along the coast, then those people care, THAT is actually what keeps the beaches built up. They actually truck sand in.

If nobody lived there and it all went wild then there'd be nobody to maintain the coast line where it is.

Florida will keep those beaches build up. It's actually not rocket science. State has dealt with erosion for a long time. All you gotta do is dredge up sand in the gulf and then they just pump it onto the beach. Counties and the state already do that. So what's the problem. :?:
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15161
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: S Miami Votes to Secede, Plan for SLR

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sat 25 Oct 2014, 22:30:11

There's actually a ballot initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot that will put more money aside for wetlands and conservation and erosion, etc:

Florida Water and Land Conservation Initiative, Amendment 1 (2014)

The Florida Water and Land Conservation Initiative, Amendment 1 is on the November 4, 2014 ballot in the state of Florida as an initiated constitutional amendment. The measure, upon voter approval, would dedicate 33 percent of net revenue from the existing excise tax on documents to the Land Acquisition Trust Fund.[1]
The Land Acquisition Trust Fund would be expended to acquire and improve conservation easements, wildlife management areas, wetlands, forests, fish and wildlife habitats, beaches and shores, recreational trails and parks, urban open space, rural landscapes, working farms and ranches, historical and geological sites, lands protecting water and drinking water resources and lands in the Everglades Agricultural Areas and the Everglades Protection Area. The fund is designed to manage and restore natural systems and to enhance public access and recreational use of conservation lands.[1]

The campaign in support of the initiative is being led by Florida's Water and Land Legacy.[2]
For a referred amendment to win in Florida, it must win a supermajority vote of 60 percent of those voting on the question, according to Section 5 of Article XI of the Florida Constitution.
http://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Water_and_Land_Conservation_Initiative,_Amendment_1_(2014)


Notice that it doesn't raise taxes, or talk about any tax that anyone understands -- property or sales tax -- but rather it's saying it will "set aside" 33% of the excise tax revenue.

Before I'd vote for something like that, I'd want to know just how much money that is and what the excise tax is being spent on currently. If it's too much money then that just means the state would have to raise other taxes to pay for whatever the excise tax was paying for.

And, just on good government principle I'm not sure a constitutional amendment set aside is a good idea. For example -- what the legislature would just wind up doing is simply pull out the same amount of money they were spending on conservation, so then this voter initiative makes do darn difference and it's a wash. :lol:

(this thing won't pass -- legal marijuana would pass lol -- but people look at things like this and if it sounds confusing and sounds like taxes they vote NO. Ballot initiatives are tricky, you really can't vote yes without researching it and knowing if this is just a boondoggle for some interest group that got signatures together to put it on the ballot.

It won't pass but -- I'll look into this, if it's not a scam or a bunch of crap then I'll vote for it and then I can say I "did something about climate change." :razz:

But if it's just tax dollars to buy more swampland then I don't know if that's necessary, there are already huge massive conservation areas and national parks and state parks and protected land all down there.

They should have put some money in there to help the manatees more, then I'd vote for it. I'll look into it.)
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15161
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: S Miami Votes to Secede, Plan for SLR

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Sat 25 Oct 2014, 23:34:29

Sixstrings wrote:Before I'd vote for something like that, I'd want to know just how much money that is

You could take a minute to Google it:
The state revenue restricted to the purposes specified in the amendment is estimated to be $648 million in Fiscal Year 2015-16
http://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Water_an ... nt_1_(2014)
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7310
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: S Miami Votes to Secede, Plan for SLR

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 26 Oct 2014, 12:13:12

Keith_McClary wrote:The state revenue restricted to the purposes specified in the amendment is estimated to be $648 million in Fiscal Year 2015-16


Hm, ok, that's over half a billion dollars. That's some very significant environmental legislation there, that would be over half a billion set aside every year from now until infinity -- by constitutional amendment -- and it's the tax on real estate sales so that would keep up with inflation too.

That's really a massive amount of money, coming from a state, for the environment. That would be $6.5 billion spent after 10 years.

The entire EPA budget for the federal government is only $8 billion a year.

Chamber of commerce is against it:

Throughout the next 20 years, the amendment would siphon off approximately $19 billion from dedicated trust funds.

“Legislating via constitutional amendments doesn’t work in California and it shouldn’t work here!”

- SPEAKER WILL WEATHERFORD
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

“Imagine, if every group that wasn’t satisfied with the amount of funding their special program got during the recession decided to do a constitutional amendment and mandate a certain amount of spending, how impossible it would be to balance our state budget?”

- DAVID HART
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
FLORIDA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

...

The Florida Chamber Opposes Amendment 1 Because It:
Forces the taxpayers of Florida to arbitrarily give the government control over more land than the state has the ability to manage and protect from invasive species.
Ties the hands of the Florida Legislature in the event of a future downturn in the economy.
Encourages other special interests to try to get their funding placed in the Constitution, potentially harming our elected state leaders’ ability to govern in a fiscally responsible way.
Is not a responsible or effective way of protecting Florida’s environmental resources.
http://www.flchamber.com/political/2014-election-center/vote-amendment-1/


I'm going to have to look into this some more. That's just so much money, we're talking like seven billion dollars every ten years from now until forever.

So what's it for, to buy swampland? I think the chamber of commerce is right, it would be more land bought than the state can even manage. And why is it necessary. There are already huge massive national parks and national forests and state parks and state forests all over the place.

There's no land left, anyway.

If they start buying land up then that's just hurting agriculture. What do they want to do, buy up the tomato and sugar farms and just let alligators and mosquitos run wild?

I'm not sure about that, why does a state need to be buying so much land for environmental set aside when we already have so many national forests and all that in the state. :?: Everglades protected area is actually a massive country-sized chunk of set aside, down there.

Maybe this is a real estate scam, lol. Use the real estate tax to have the state buy land and thereby pump up real estate prices! Lmao!

Lastly, that's just so much money, I'd have to wonder if taxes will go up if the state has to start setting aside so many billions of new dollars into the environment. And how does that even work, who would manage all this, does it just become a big gravy train boondoggle and it's stuck in the constitution.

Doing some more reading on it.. basically what happened was the that the state has already been spending half the excise tax on the environment for the last forty years.

But since the recession, they started cutting into environmental funding to meet other shortfalls in the budget.

So the idea of this set aside is to force lawmakers to keep spending as much as they were before. But the amendment cherry picks programs and things that aren't included in it would still need funded and that means taxes going up.

It's bad government, in general, these referendum things. People may sign an initiative saying sure, let's spend $20 billion on the environment over the next twenty years, without really thinking about that and where the $20 billion is going to come from. And then if taxes have to go up you'll just have another ballot initiative to repeal this one.

Here's what I wonder -- just the what the hell is "land conservation?" What is a "land trust?" I don't even know. What exactly do they do. :?: :?: :?:

If it's about springs and rivers then okay, but if it's just buying land some massive tomato farming corp wants to unload to the state, then I don't see the need for it.

And I wonder this -- if the state has already been doing this for the last 40 years, where the hell has all that money gone to. :?:

The state shouldn't be "buying land," there's enough wild land as it is. And you can't grow and try to conserve land at the same time anyway, that's an oxymoron. Best you can do is have a lot of national and state parks and national and state forests, and we already have those. That everglades national forest is big enough as it is, larger than a lot of countries, it doesn't need to be any bigger.

There's enough alligators out there as it is. Every so often there's a story about an alligator eating some old lady's little dog, or biting someone's arm off (that's why I don't swim in rivers, it's no joke, they're full of gators. And the water is dirty anyway, there's not a river or lake in Florida that's worth a damn, it's not even about pollution it's just dirty, you've got killer amoebas and microbes and all that in the water. Nasty yucky water. The springs and spring fed rivers are gorgeous though, and crystal clear).

To make my own mind up about this environmental legislation, I'd have to see a breakdown on what the money is actually spent on.

If it's money to for manatees and dolphins and erosion and tourist trap heritage sites then fine okay, but if it's for developers to unload land onto the taxpayer because they can't sell it otherwise, then no. And I don't want my taxes going up. And I'm just confused by it, how does a "land trust" actually "protect water." You can't turn back the tide of development by just buying land and setting it aside to go wild and alligators breeding out of control.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15161
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: S Miami Votes to Secede, Plan for SLR

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 26 Oct 2014, 13:22:06

Here's an irony for you:

If a state can't fund the evnvironment because of a recession, then really it's a wash, because a recession means that new development has slowed or stopped.

So see, it works out. There's less money getting spent on conservation right now but OTOH there is less need for conservation, because the development boom stopped.

I have no problem supporting money for -- dredging sand and building up beaches, which is already done anyway so there's your climate change mitigation.

I'd vote for a billion dollars just for the darn manatees.

What I'm skeptical of though are "land trusts" that have the state buy land and what is really the point of that. :?: Pollution in Florida is agricultural. You can't ever buy enough land though to stop agriculture, nor would you want to. Only way to try to do something about that is to look at farming practices. It's a tricky problem though -- all those pesticides and chemicals that get sprayed on crops, get into the water. But you can't stop that problem by just state owned land and trying to make less land there for farming.

Or maybe you can, if there's a real science behind this, if it's targeted then okay but I have to wonder if it's just a boondoggle for somebody to unload some land they are stuck with.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15161
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: S Miami Votes to Secede, Plan for SLR

Unread postby dolanbaker » Mon 27 Oct 2014, 06:35:52

Are you sure that it is an environmental issue that is causing them to want to secede?

The reason I ask is look at the story & video below.


http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29666348
More than 18,000 residents in the suburbs south of Baton Rouge, the state capital of Louisiana, have signed a petition calling for the creation of a new city called St George.

The community is currently part of East Baton Rouge Parish, which also includes the city of Baton Rouge itself.

The campaigners claim they simply want to improve the quality of local schools and to ensure that taxpayers - who currently contribute roughly two thirds of funds to the parish - have more control over the money they contribute to fund services.

Opponents insist that the proposal is also motivated by race and class. They point out that the new city of St George would be 70% white - and that the mainly poor and black community in the rest of Baton Rouge would face crippling cuts to education if it lost the taxpayers who provide most of its revenue.

The St George campaign says it needs less than 2,000 signatures to hit its goal of 20,000 signatures which would enable it to put the independence vote on the ballot. But some major business interests in the community including a casino have said they would rather stay part of the parish.

The BBC's Anna Bressanin spoke to passionate supporters on both sides of the debate.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.:Anonymous
Our whole economy is based on planned obsolescence.
Planned obsolescence, one of the largest contributors to the man made element of climate change, but the one least discussed: dolanbaker
User avatar
dolanbaker
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3660
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: Speed of Siberian Coastal Erosion Doubled

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 01 Sep 2015, 23:43:35

I bet with the very warm summer we had in parts of Alaska and Siberia rates are at very high levels again this September.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15532
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Speed of Siberian Coastal Erosion Doubled

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 02 Sep 2015, 00:31:19

And the large waves, as were recently reported for Barrow, AK.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby AgentR11 » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 14:27:25

Defenses against ocean flooding are never futile; they are just not permanent. They are a temporary adaptation, where you compare their cost, vs the amount of time they'll likely serve the purpose. I'd suspect any structure that could give an extra 30 yrs would be more than cost effective in many built up locations. Just be sure to raise the property tax assessments of those
being protected by that structure.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6150
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 08:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: Sea Level Rise

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 14:56:50

AgentR11 wrote:Defenses against ocean flooding are never futile; they are just not permanent. They are a temporary adaptation, where you compare their cost, vs the amount of time they'll likely serve the purpose. I'd suspect any structure that could give an extra 30 yrs would be more than cost effective in many built up locations. Just be sure to raise the property tax assessments of those
being protected by that structure.

Excellent point on the last sentence. Reading along, I was going to point out that "cost effective" will be viewed from the angle of who's paying for it, until I saw that.

Given the politics thus far, as usual with such things, isn't that really the whole issue? People want to be taken care of, but don't want to pay for it.

People want good roads and bridges, but don't want a higher gasoline tax. People want safe and reliable water supplies, but don't want to pay higher water bills to properly maintain/replace our aging water infrastructure. People want a safe and reliable electric grid, but hate electricity rates (implying they won't want to pay extra to improve the grid).

And on and on.

...

It reminds me of this PBS documentary I saw years ago about this rural community that was basically paradise, except they had a big raw sewage problem when it rained. And the documentary acted like (but didn't state) that they couldn't get the money to build the sewage plant/improvements to fix it.

Those poor people, I thought. Shouldn't the federal government help out with a loan, which could be paid off via sewage taxes over 20 years or so?

Well, it turns out money was the ENTIRE problem. Finally PBS admitted the federal government HAD offered a loan to build the sewage plant to solve the problem. But the local residents didn't want to pay for it. They wanted it to come 100% from the feds. $100ish a month per resident in sewer taxes would have fixed the entire problem. Not a bad price to restore paradise.

And so it goes.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7234
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Sea Level Rise

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 16:23:04

When I filled up the rental this morning I saw a sticker breaking down the taxes. HST/excise/ something else. Added up to 58%. $1.30/liter. About $5/gallon.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13248
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Sea Level Rise

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 18:10:40

Newfie wrote:When I filled up the rental this morning I saw a sticker breaking down the taxes. HST/excise/ something else. Added up to 58%. $1.30/liter. About $5/gallon.


Well, if you have paid the taxes, and the government collected the taxes to alleviate the problems caused by burning the fuel, then the government is assuming some of the direct responsibility borne for burning the fuel, versus all blame for the pollution belonging to the consumer who burned the fuel in their vehicle. If paying the taxes didn't resolve such problems, that would be the one scenario where some of the blame gets transferred to the government.

But in neither case is the FF supplier responsible. There are green transportation alternatives available. If a fuel consumer chooses to burn fuel versus choosing a green alternative, they bear the responsibility. I should think you would be glad to pay the taxes and resolve yourself of some of the blame.

Automobile and truck drivers could choose to walk, ride a bicycle, or ride a horse. Sailboat owners could choose the laborious process of sailing into the wind, versus burning marine fuels. (Yes, both us former Coasties understand how difficult that is.)

The facts are that no government can stop, slow, or reverse SLR. The taxes are either going to be wasted on temporary fixes, or (more likely) going to enrich the politicians.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Sea Level Rise

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 20 Sep 2016, 01:02:51

I'm sure the the poor little richest corporations in the world are happy that they have brave KJ to run to their defense! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Tue 20 Sep 2016, 01:27:32

Doughboy, note now that for decades, solar photovoltaics, wind turbines, and other sources of renewable energy have been available as alternatives to burning fossil fuels. Likewise, practical Battery EVs, hydrogen fuelled buses, and electric railways exist as alternative transportation. Locally sourced organic foods have been made available as alternatives to processed and packaged foods.

Yet YOU the consumer choose to continue the use of cheaper FF energy because YOU the consumer are greedy and refuse to pay the premium price associated with Green energy sources. You do this because you wish to buy even more "stuff" you don't need, but still want.

Note that the "poor little richest corporations in the world" have also provided the Green energy alternatives and the organic foods that the vast majority of people do not use. You are breaking their greedy little hearts because you refuse to buy these new Green products, and continue to purchase FF's, which they are finding harder and more expensive to supply to your voracious demands.

The consequences are (if you AGW fanboys can be believed) additional global warming, a faster rate of seal level rise, and increasing pollution that sickens everyone and further poisons the environment.

So when are YOU going to change YOUR murderous and destructive habits?

My guess is never, because YOU are a selfish, globe destroying, thoughtless consumer, and always will be. Likewise you will always be in denial of your own choices.

:mrgreen:

Now you reflect upon your role in the destruction of the planet, and decide whether your behavior will change or continue unchanged.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Sea Level Rise

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 20 Sep 2016, 21:50:36

KJ, YOU know nothing about ME, so kindly STFU.


tHaNk YoU! :) :) :) :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests