Done.

Done, two guesses

Well Tall Mike, my sources are friends in the scientific field. I trust their knowledge on the subject. True Al Gore is not a scientists but he used his standing in the community to explain what is happening in a pretty convincing argument. If you watch great documentary makers like Attenbro' as we call him you get similar easy to follow messages.

Well Tall Mike, my sources are friends in the scientific field. I trust their knowledge on the subject. True Al Gore is not a scientists but he used his standing in the community to explain what is happening in a pretty convincing argument. If you watch great documentary makers like Attenbro' as we call him you get similar easy to follow messages.

Dr Who, solar investment brings current a return of costs in about 7 years domestically. The price will come down as more is used. I have just sold my house to someone in the battery storage industry. He is rushed off his feet. The infrastructure costs on new housing estates make it cheaper to install solar/battery storage than upgrade a power network. Something to think about. And as Tuco says, building the power stations decommissioning them and cleaning up after them makes traditional power generation very expensive and will soon if not already be more expensive than new technologies.

So why would you not do the right thing be the environment? Just makes sense for the future of ur caldrons children. And Tall Mike, land mass sinking does occur in many places but the fact is the sea level is rising. Look at how London is going to be impacted. They are already planning for a far bigger, new barrier.

So why would you not do the right thing be the environment? Just makes sense for the future of ur caldrons children. And Tall Mike, land mass sinking does occur in many places but the fact is the sea level is rising. Look at how London is going to be impacted. They are already planning for a far bigger, new barrier.

@TallMike, you ask questions that have simple answers that can be found easily. Water does not fall of the earth because of gravity. Gravity is not uniform. Hence gravity is one factor why sea level is not the same everywhere. Temperature is another factor: warmth expands the water. Inertia is a third factor. Ocean streams are stronger than the "connection" efect. A good example is El Nino that not only influences the wather but also the sea level. All well documented and known for decades.

ng/ng

done

Phil's question has a simple answer too. Why would you not do the right thing? Because it costs a lot of money to those in power.

Morning. Go.

NG. EZPZ. So easy in fact that a believer in global warming, oh wait, that failed so it was re-branded climate change, could probably accomplish it. After all, this puzzle is actually a man made problem.

done

Phil, I looked into a solar power scheme offered by my electric coop. I decided their projections were a bit too optimistic and didn't believe it was a good investment. Currently, coal and gas power generation produces electricity cheaper than solar.

I am not against alternative energy solutions, but they haven't yet become viable. It takes government subsidies to sustain them. That is a waste of tax payer money. For all we know a totally different solution will be found. So you can't even be sure supporting wind or solar generation is the right thing to do.

There are technical problems that don't have satisfactory solutions, like what to do when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. Yes batteries work, but they add more cost to an already expensive technology.

There is also the problem of finding space for all the solar and wind generating facilities. They take up many times more space than conventional generating facilities.

And they are eye sores according to some. For instance the late Ted Kennedy, a champion of wind power except when it was in his backyard, killed the proposed Cape Cod Wind Farm because he didn't want to see it.

Wind power isn't for every situation but if you drove through Austria you'd see turbines everywhere. Offshore turbines are also occurring. Solar however fits on everyones roof and will soon be invisible as it will be on a coating on glass, steel roof coverings etc. When you see them everywhere as we do here, you soon realise they are far less ugly than the old satellite dishes we used to have.

Don't know what the cost is in the US and subsidies here in Aus are minimal and were brought in only to get the industry up to critical mass where early development made it expensive. Now the systems are cheap and the incentives pretty much non existent. A typical 5kw system comes in around $5K installed Payback in 3 to 7 years depending on how smart you are in energy saving - e.g. using solar to do the washing during the day, not at night.

It make a fine supplement to conventional power generation, but it is not anywhere near ready to replace it. Because the problems of storing power have not been solved, there must be full conventional capacity to make sure power is always available. In other words, adding solar and wind generating infrastructure does not reduce the requirements for conventional generating infrastructure. It is just an added cost for the electric company and ultimately the consumer.

means you can go off grid. For a farmer this can work out cheaper than running a new power supply to the farm.

? Or severe weather events aren't occurring more frequently? Or extreme temperatures aren't happening most years? Get real guys.

They are not.

drwho you get your energy from a co-op? That is awesome. You little socialist you!!!

I live in the People's Republic of Minnesota.

Really! Maybe not in your part of the world, or maybe you don't see the world news and all the extreme events around the world.

That's just the problem Phil, the news. They highlight disasters. We hear more about them than before but that doesn't mean they are happening any more frequently than in the past.

Mate or mine used to live there, bloody freezing place, no wonder you want the world to warm up a bit! Try living with severe bush fires every year, droughts that last a decade, storms that flood cities,

Have you ever spoken to a weatherman?

Phil, the U.S. has the greatest propaganda machine in the world. We report very little in the news that runs counter to the corporate line. Because they pay to advertise. Even if something negative to the corporate line is reported then all of a sudden someone from the corporate side is brought in to rebut or explain away.

Like John Coleman, founder of the weather channel?

From what little US news I have seen, find it hard to watch because they all talk at the same time and slap each other on the back too much, I think you are right Tuco

For example. The whole Socialist revolution going on in this country is being hidden.

Hidden? Aren't you watching the Democrat convention?

Maybe watch the BBC World News or Australian Broadcasting Corporation online. Or even Al Jazeera to get another perspective. CNN can be OK but only really covers US in depth.

No, I am not watching it because I listen to pundits ignore the facts that Bernie Sanders and his supporters took one of the great political machines to the wire and the people are pissed off and want more Socialism.

Both conventions are bizarre, they pretty much preach to the converted. I do find them fascinating though. Hard to watch, bit like watching a train wreck.

I couldn't stand watching either one because there was too much gum flapping by know nothing "experts" and not enough coverage of the actual conventions.

I watch AlJazeera before TimeWarner took them off. I listen to BBC world News. But the problem is we have had almost 40+ years of VooDoo Economics in this country and it is killing people like me.

Tuco, you and I are more likely to be killed by Obama Care than voodoo economics.

drwho benefits directly from an energy co-op and he is correct because of his communities Socialism Solar isn't economically smart for him. Think of what would happen if we co-op'd all the energy?

That is bull crap drwho. Don't start with the health care system. I spend too much time involved in that.

I am more likely to be killed by a monkey driving a bus than I am Obama Care or Voodoo Economics my point is my quality of life is less than my parents directly because of VooDoo Economics.

I don't know where you have been the last 30 years or so. Maybe another country?

Nothing is trickling down. I pay more for property taxes, school taxes, sales, license fees, everything that used to "trickle down" from the federal government that no longer does because of tax cuts for the wealthy.

My impressions are that Trump has played the politics of fear and crazily might persuade enough voters to vote for him over someone who is incredibly unpopular. The US seem to be pretty much over the traditional 2 party political system yet because your system is all about money, nobody else apart from rich megalomaniacs could possible afford to be in the game. A far better system would be for organised tv debates paid for out of tax dollars to a set limit, no other funding allowed. You have to have comprehensive policies and costed plans scrutinised by the treasury and the public ask the questions, not edited by the media because it makes for better tv! You might get some sensible government

You enjoy the benefits of socialism in you co-op and yet still sing the praises of the system that bleeds the middle and lower class and would love to privatize your co-op as soon as possible.

And how do you put up with more than 2 months of an election campaign? How does a government get anything done, it spends its entire time electioneering or raising money whose payback seems to be assured.

Actually, as I recall starting with the Johnson administration there was lots of concern in the media about a declining standard of living for Americans, but Ronald Reagan and VooDoo economics put a stop to that. More recently the chorus of concern for a declining standard of living has begun again. See a pattern?

it is better when the government doesn't get anything done

Phil, Bernie raised a ton of money with an average donation of $27. That is my point of how it is white washed that this is what the people want. Not more voodoo economics, benefit the top and let it trickle down.

He did seem to me to actually have more actual policies than the others, mostly sensible.

The media is crap drwho. I go by what is really happening. My parents never made more than $60K a year and were able to save money and buy a frigging 40 foot boat. We make $120K a year and have trouble saving anything.

You talk to most people in my shoes and they will tell you the same thing.

Ronald Reagan was a corporate wet dream. He could sell cigarettes to emphysema patients.

Tuco, did both your parents work?

a shame that Obama couldn't actually get anything really done because of a system that stopped him achieving what the voters voted for in electing him. He has probably been the most respected US President by the rest of the world and not because he is soft. He's not, he actually has wanted to make the US better. Unfortunately the system beat him.

Wages are flat, why? We are more productive than ever. Why???

And Reagan was possibly a better actor than a president!

Phil, FDR would have never done anything either if he didn't have Democratic control of Congress.

Yes they did drwho.

Because taco the wealthy have got wealthier and they basically provide the money to the politicians to keep the status quo.

BINGO!!!!!!

Just curious, it was more common in our parents time for only one to work.

And the media is complicit telling them that being shit on is being a Great American!!!

Yeah you could do that if the wages were such that you could afford that. You are making my point.

My mom was a trail blazer. She started her own business. But she never made more than my dad who worked at IBM.

So if you are making twice what your parents made why are you worse off?

Because I am paying more for everything else. Because of VooDoo economics.

because in today's dollars 120K is not twice what 60K was in they 60-s - 80s

250-300k would be more like it. If my wages went up at the same rate as a CEO's pay then yeah. It would be fine.

but it can't because of VooDoo Economics. Breaks for the top and they will trickle down to all. IT DOESN"T WORK

However it is also true that if you took everyones money away from them and gave everyone the same amount, within 5 years the wealth would pretty much have returned to those that have it now. However, there has to be a balance. In a fair and just society, the wealthy would actually pay more tax and be happy to do so to provide health funding for everyone, education free to everyone etc. Look at the Scandinavians. Highest wealth, highest taxes but they're happy to have it that way. Greed is so ugly and whats worse is that the tax avoidance industry is rife, especially in big companies and the super rich. Not all of course.

Not voodoo economic, inflation which is an unseen tax. You problem is government caused, too much government spending eventually the debt has to be monetized, which was done in the Johnson administration and now again in the Obama administration.

And don't tell me to work harder. No CEO works harder than me. I not only have my full time job and take care of my elderly mother, I am an apprentice at a clock shop nights.

The Scandinavians worked out that if everyone has a great start in life the country benefits and therefore everyone benefits.

Bullshit again. Ronald Reagan. I don't worry about the deficit it is big enough to take care of itself. Lets spend trillions on defense and cut taxes. We will cut programs to not pay for it.

There was a great film - pay it forward. Lessons to everyone in that film.

We balanced the budget under Clinton Gingrich by raising the top tax rate by 5%. What part of that do you not remember?

The part where they actually got more tax revenues from the top 5%.

I give up.

doomed to repeat.

Raising tax rates does not necessarily create more tax revenue. Tax rates were lowered under Kennedy and Reagan and both times it sparked economic growth and higher tax revenues.

I believe Harding and Coolidge also got the same results.

This is where you get in trouble. You have to compare what taxes were cut in each case.

Phil, the line about the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer is catchy. However, if we examine statistics, we find that the gap between rich and poor in the US decreased under Reagan and "VooDoo economics" which it has been increasing under the current president.

The gap narrowed under Reagan primarily by bringing low income earners up. It is now widening primarily by keeping low income earning down.

Cutting taxes on unearned income does not create economic growth. Allowing capital to remain unused at the top and leave the economy is what trickle down is all about. It is about creating wealth and hoping that wealth will be used to create jobs and better standard of life for all. The problem is it DOESNT WORK!

Works every time it is tried.

drwho like any disease it takes a while to show it's symptoms. There is a greater divide now than at any time since the Gilded Age.

And currently getting wider.

But remember it was narrowing under "Voodoo economic".

Because we haven't changed the tax code back to something sane.

I agree the tax code is insane. I suspect we don't agree on what would be sane.

No it wasn't. There was a bump. Because of the huge spending on defense. But that all collapsed and no plan on what to do when it did. And the deregulation of wall street resulted in the economy collapsing. Sheesh.

No it didn't.

It was perverse government incentives to the banking system. But we have been through this before.

ah yes, the famous "but tax revenue increased under Reagan" argument. Actually, adjusted for inflation, population increases, and the 2% increase in FICA (which people love to forget); revenue increases were smaller under Reagan than on average.

I know you disagree, but I am afraid you are blind to your ideology. When you deregulate the Banks and wall street you give them an opportunity to steal. And boy did they ever.

How?

Swops, Bundled crap mortgages, rating companies colluding with banks.

No one paying attention to Madoffs

That was all legal. Ethically challenged but legal. And it was done because of implicit guarantees that the government would bail them out when everything collapsed.

It is all there but then again those that profited from this have many ways of explaining it away at rightfully pointing the finger at government. But government wasnt the problem for what it did. It is the problem for what it didnt do. It didn't enforce the laws or inivestigate them.

Instead it bailed them out!

There were no implicit guarantees about bail outs. That was done by Bush's man from Goldman Sachs. What was his name again.???

It was terrible and yet the disgraceful behaviour went unpunished, bankers and traders need to be accountable.

The guarantee was the fact the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were buying up bad mortgages like mad, and the government couldn't allow them to fail.

How much of our tax dollars did he convince all his buddies in the banking industry to take from us. The biggest tax payer rip off in history and it was perpetrated by Bankers.

Yeah Fannie and Freddie. That is a Fox news whipping boy too. used to deflect blame.

The free market holds bankers accountable. If there had been no bail-out the guilty banks would have failed.

There is no Free Market. That is a joke. The system is rigged.

Conspiracy theories don't become you.

That is not a conspiracy theory. It is reality.

Que music from the Twilight Zone.

And yet the banks survive when they should have failed and the top bankers get paid millions. Yes they are an easy target but they have been allowed to survive by being bailed out for their failures.

Exactly Phil. I think we all agree the bailout was a big mistake.

Ditto. What is twilight zone about that? Where was/is your precious Free Market when we need it? It is always Privatize the Profits, Socialize the Losses.

In fact it was morally wrong.

I don't agree that a bailout was a bad idea. I just don't think it should have gone to the Banks. It should have gone to the home owners.

and to the investors in the banks crap securities.

If there had been no prospect of a bailout the banks would not have acted so recklessly.

Bullcrap again. They acted recklessly because they were allowed to by no one watching over them. Deregulation.

Bullcrap again. They acted recklessly because they were allowed to by no one watching over them. Deregulation.

So you think the banker were too stupid to know the loans were bad? Why did they bundle them up in securities then? Simple, to hide them from the suckers they wanted to unload them on.

I think you are both right on that one. The UK and Australian banks have higher regulation and much tighter lending criteria. However even they are guile of lending billions in dodgy deals yet make it very difficult for small businesses. I think they were lending in ways they didn't understand and turned a blind eye to morality in the interest of making money for themselves.

And let's not forget the threats of discriminatory lending law suits from Janet Reno and the justice department.

?

?

One of the reasons for making bad loans was because the banks had been threatened with legal sanctions by the Clinton Administration.

On what basis?

Not making enough loans to minorities and low income people.

The banks are in the business of lending money to people who can pay them back. It shouldn't matter what race you are. Unfortunately it's when they make loans to people who can't possibly afford to pay it off that they come unstuck. We heard tales of lending to people in the US without a job and they didn't even need to pay it back just hand in the keys and walk away?

Low income earners are not necessarily a bad risk. There is a massive amount of micro lending in third world countries that is really making a difference to millions of lives.

The law is written such that rejecting loan applications from minorities at a higher rate than non-minorities is prima facie evidence of discrimination.

What I get really sick of is corporations that borrow massively, usually using other peoples money then when it goes bad blame other parties or say the investors knew the risks.

In a like for like comparison fair enough too. But they would still need to meet basic lending criteria, a percentage multiple of their net weekly income after expenditure.

Why? You have to borrow money to start a business, and sometime to keep it running. Businesses sometime fail. So if you don't understand that you have no business investing your money in business.

Why would they even know their race on the application form? Shouldn't enter the equation

Phil, you understand the lending problem. When a member of a minority (data which the government requires banks to collect) applies for a loan, he should be accepted or rejected based on a formula. If that formula is applied equally to all applicants the process is fair. It might result in more minorities being rejected than non-minorities, but it is still fair. However, our crazy laws say otherwise.

If true, your law is an ass and should be changed. As far as I am aware we have no such law here and I would be very surprised if a bank did anything other than follow their formulas. They're very inflexible and robotic.

Absolutely, but to even suggest that here you run the risk of being labeled a racist.

85% of sub prime loans had nothing to do with CRA; they had to do with greed on the part of people selling mortgages. Removal of Glass-Steagall allowed the crisis to be widespread. Specious math and modeling on the part of risk assessment analysts at investment firms and banks allowed them to market derivatives of those bad loans (in a more heavily regulated industry like insurance; those analyses would have been laughed out of the room) and corrupt ratings agencies accepted and gave their stamp of approval. Plenty of blame to go around, the overwhelming majority of which involves the greed of the players involved.

I don't think they were too stupid to know the loans were bad. I think they made them because there was a financial incentive for them to make them and no regulation to keep them from making them. GWB pushed for more lending and gutted the regulatory agencies.

Nonsense. Everything wrong that lead to the collapse was perfectly legal under Glass-Steagall.

Im old enough to remember asking for a loan directly to the bank manger who would look you in the eye, say are you going to pay me back and if he thought he could trust you, would give you a small loan to help you build up your credit rating. Ah the memories. Daft world back then

I didn't say Glass-Steagall was a cause, only that it allowed a wider variety of institutions to be involved and thus made the crisis more widespread.

Loni you mean the removal of Glass-Steagall allowed a wider variety of institutions to be involved, right?

I agree with the greed part. But their greed would have been adequately contained just by the prospect of a bank failure, except they were counting on the bail out.

deregulation of the banking industry. like deregulation of pensions and deregulation of heath insurance, is not a good thing for the average person.

The were not counting on a bail out. They were betting against themselves with swops. They knew what they were doing. The bailout was a heist on top of malfeasance.

Actually the removal of Glass-Steagall probably protected more institutions than it hurt. Because it allowed more diversification and those banks that were more diversified in their investments were hurt less by the collapse than the others.

night all

Sleep well.

"their greed would have been adequately contained" Ayn Rand bullshit.

sleep well

well it certainly spread around the pain, perhaps more institutions were in a position to survive; but I am not altogether sure that was a good thing especially for the economy as a whole. comparing the Savings and loan crisis to this one.

The removal of Glass-Steagall was a payoff to the Bankers who elected Reagan and Bush 1. Remember GHWB was supposed to have been able to destroy Reagan in the Repub primary and called his economic ideas Voo Doo Economics. Reagan with the backing of the Corp Elite and Big Banking defeated GHWB and all of a sudden GHWB is a Supply Sider. This is what happened.

Well maybe Bush Sr. was convinced by the success of "VooDoo economics".

Yeah that's it.

I am convinced of the success of selling heroin. Don't mean I am going to start selling it.

the total repeal of the law was signed by Bill Clinton, though it had been gutted by then.

Reagan defeated Bush then Carter because he could articulate the principles of American liberty better than Bush or Carter. He persuaded the voters.

Yep one of the first things he did in office carried over from the Bush admin. Another thing to not like Bill Clinton.

Jingoism and salesmanship always work in the U.S. DONALD TRUMP???

And against Trump is a known liar and her accomplices in the media. Too close to call.

Are you aware that there is an audio maybe also a video tape of the main guy pushing all the theories of Clinton lawbreaking to the media saying "Thank God for Monica Lewinsky. Everything else we have put out there was made up." Having said that. I am not a Hillary supporter. I would have preferred Bernie, but she is so far and away a better choice than Trump that I don't understand how anyone would vote for him and not her.

Actually I do understand.

I'd like to see that, if it exists.

However, there is more evidence for Bill and Hillary's criminality than just the word of one guy.

Conspiracy theories????

i agree with your assessment of Reagan's ability to communicate ideals and ideas. He was also marvelously able to signal to marginal constituencies that he was their guy without being vocal about it.

How many Benghazi hearings? How many Whitewater hearings? How many impeachments? How many votes to defund Obama care. This is all poliltical theater to weaken anyone who tries to do something for the masses at the expense of the powerful.

Bill's serial abuse of women, and Hilary's complicity in covering it up. While the majority of Bill's dalliances were consensual, there are women coming forward with charges of sexual assault and rape.

They hate the Clintons because it may cost them some money. You are right who is going to pay for family leave, universal pre-K, etc.

Okay, Bill Cosby should be in jail. If Bill did this he should be too. If Hillary covered it up she should be wearing orange too. It has been how long since Bill was prez? How long has Hillary been in the government as Senator and SoS? Why aren't they in jail????

If Bill Clinton I should have said. I meant the mention of Cosby.

Good question. Perhaps because they are in government.

When has that ever stopped the opposition party? Watergate force a sitting prez to resign. Bill was impeached and acquitted by the Senate.

Anthony Weiner is done for flashing his package.

The list goes on and on.

TrooperGate. TravelGate. Whitewater. Monica. Bimbo erruptions. And the list goes on and on.

Vince Foster. I believe he was driven to suicide by Hillary. See Crisis of Character by Gary Byrne.

And none of them stuck.

Except Monica

cause she got her sticky. heheh gross.

Driven to suicide by Hillary. Wow.

I thought she actually killed him?

No, she didn't force him. He just couldn't take her constant berating. Hillary is a real nasty piece of work.

You are aware that many of the Clinton's critics are working for Republican think tanks. Dick Morris who had to leave the Clinton white house because of his own sordid scandal is not a credible critic.

Poison the well, shall we?

And you call her a nasty piece of work because you have had personal contact with her? Or because you believe the opposition take on her?

Poison the well?

I believe the witness of ex-secret service agents.

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy you just indulged in.

Boy those guys are super clean and honest.. They would never do anything to further their own agenda. They wouldn't get drunk and drive into a building.

what logical fallacy?

Poison the well some more.

drink the kool-aid

Look it up.

why aren't they in jail??? Why wasn't Obama thrown out of office for being a Kenyan? Opinions are like a-holes. How do we know this SS agent didn't hold a grudge? Why aren't the Clintons in jail??

Obama was born in Hawaii, not Kenya. His father was Kenyan.

Tell that to the Republican Nomineed for POTUS

And most of the people who will be voting for him

Tell it to Hillary. She started that nonsense.

Who also believe that Hillary started that nonsense and everthing else the right feeds them.

later doc. Good chatting with you as always. Keep the faith.

Look it up. It was a Hillary supporter.

Bye.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05\n/25/donald-trump-revives-the-crazy-clinton-co\nnspiracies.html

Foster's suicide note said it was the negative attention brought by being an aide to the clintons. Not from the clintons them selves but by those who hated the clintons.

leaving for real now.

Difficulty score 54. Greens paved the way.

go

Just been watching a documentary on US drugs and the Justice system.

It's unbelievable. First black were ridiculously over represented in jail on 10 year sentences for using crack cocaine, and now you're doing the same to whites on meth. A guy charged with 3 oz of meth is on life without parole. And is it working? Of course not. and never will in a thousand years. But hey, gets the polls reelected right.

How much does someone get for shooting an unarmed person in the back?

Scary stuff. Off to watch the rest.

done

Phil, it's past your bed time.

The bigger problem Phil is the School to Prison Pipeline. This is usually done to increase the profits of private prisons.

There are a lot of reasons why we have the highest prison population, most of them have nothing to do with crime.

Here's a story for you gun grabbers:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-\njapan-attack-idUSKCN1052D0

If he had used a gun I suspect the death toll would have been lower.

dwg

He'd have been able to buy one in the US!

Sadly a psych made a terrible mistake.

If he had a gun the death toll would have been lower??? Why because the others would have awakened? What if he used a silencer?

go

BTW I happen to be partial disabled due to a spinal injury. I don't really think saying someone who wants to euthanize disabled people would have caused less death if he used a gun is a very persuasive argument against gun control.

dng

Phil, I was hoping you would at least attempt to answer my previous questions. As a reminder, I referenced your claim that scientists around the world agree that global warming is a serious man-made problem and asked how many scientists you were referring to, what kinds of scientist were included in the study, and where your data came from. You only answer seems to be that you have "friends in the scientific field" who keep you informed and you trust them. I suppose we can draw our own conclusions as to how many scientist friends you have with experience in the field of climate change.

Phil, Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth contained many inaccuracies, distortions and exaggerations. Many attempts have been made to correct the false information and conclusions. However, the damage to truth will continue as long as people put their trust in that movie and don't also read and think about some of the detailed rebuttals.

Phil, I lived in England for 30 years and know a lot about the increasing flood control needs for the River Thames. You somewhat misrepresent the threats there. By far the most important issue is the exposure to storm surges from the North Sea into the tidal part of the river. The storm surges are caused by combinations of high tides, strong winds and low pressure weather systems. In recent years they have become increasingly frequent and destructive. Hence the plans for a new, bigger barrier, not because of rising sea levels as you suggest.

MrOoijer, I did not say that sea level is the same everywhere.

I simply asked this: As the oceans of the world are connected, why don't all the coastlines experience the alleged rising sea levels?

In lecturing me about the effects of ocean streams and differences in gravity and temperature, you actually dodged answering the question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opin\nion_on_climate_change

The 97% of climate scientists think man made global warming blah blah blah, myth: http://tinyurl.com/qjg5hf7

And that's not to state that it's a myth that man contributes, just that it's a myth that 97% of climate scientists agree it's a significant amount. It's closer to 70%, and that might even be too generous. The tiny blip of historical and accurate temperatures of Earth's history we have is hard to make any conclusive decisions off of. NASA's satellites saw about 19 years of no warming. You can't even see that raw data anymore because they mix it with surface temperatures because it wasn't telling people what they wanted them to hear.