Sponsored

The Rivian Demographic??

brianmartin

Well-Known Member
First Name
Brian
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Threads
3
Messages
61
Reaction score
129
Location
wa state
Vehicles
'19 Camaro 2.0t
Chinook salmon and other species who live off river environments will surely be impacted irreversibly by dams. However, global warming affects life up and down the food chain both in the oceans and on land. Reefs die off. Ocean currents fail or shift channels. Plankton and algae growth patterns change. Arctic and tundral animals lose habitat. Coastal cities and their water and sewer systems become compromised. Storm activity intensifies. Certain diseases become more endemic.

I'd prefer to see more solar and wind generation . . . but I'd take a few dammed-up rivers over runaway global spikes in carbon dioxide any day of the week.
See I'm the opposite. I think life on earth will adapt and change, but they can't do that if they can't get up the dammed river :) Just look at the persian gulf coral, which are able to thrive in very hot ocean conditions. I also happen to think the dire predictions of global climate catastrophe are completely over-blown, but thats another thread altogether :)
Sponsored

 

Hmp10

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
629
Reaction score
542
Location
Naples, FL
Vehicles
2015 Tesla Model S P90D; 2018 Honda Odyssey
I live in south Florida on the gulf coast where, with no fanfare, public spending is soaring for storm water management due to the intrusion of brackish water into drainage canals. On the other coast, in Miami, new roadbeds are being laid 2 feet higher due to increasing flooding of older streets after rains. Just north, in Palm Beach County, they have added $75MM to the annual budget to handle saltwater incursion into sewer and water systems. The most recent FEMA maps for our county have moved the 100-year flood line 11 miles further inland. My street, 20 miles inland, is literally now the new line. When I built my house in 2015-17, the county had just raised the mandatory slab elevation from 17'0" above sea level to 19'8", as homes at 17'0" elevation were beginning to see flooding they had never seen before during heavy rainstorms.

The two recent Republican gubernatorial administrations of the state have blocked public employees from using any language in public documents referring to climate change or sea level rise. Florida's gargantuan retirement/tourism economy is largely coastal, so no public officials want either to admit or to discuss publicly what's happening. So counties are just quietly raising impact fees and other taxes to deal with sea level rise that they have to pretend isn't happening. It's no longer about politics in some coastal regions. It's about staying dry.
 

Pherdnut

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Threads
32
Messages
640
Reaction score
753
Location
Chicago
Vehicles
2015 Mazda CX-9
I live in south Florida on the gulf coast where, with no fanfare, public spending is soaring for storm water management due to the intrusion of brackish water into drainage canals. On the other coast, in Miami, new roadbeds are being laid 2 feet higher due to increasing flooding of older streets after rains. Just north, in Palm Beach County, they have added $75MM to the annual budget to handle saltwater incursion into sewer and water systems. The most recent FEMA maps for our county have moved the 100-year flood line 11 miles further inland. My street, 20 miles inland, is literally now the new line. When I built my house in 2015-17, the county had just raised the mandatory slab elevation from 17'0" above sea level to 19'8", as homes at 17'0" elevation were beginning to see flooding they had never seen before during heavy rainstorms.

The two recent Republican gubernatorial administrations of the state have blocked public employees from using any language in public documents referring to climate change or sea level rise. Florida's gargantuan retirement/tourism economy is largely coastal, so no public officials want either to admit or to discuss publicly what's happening. So counties are just quietly raising impact fees and other taxes to deal with sea level rise that they have to pretend isn't happening. It's no longer about politics in some coastal regions. It's about staying dry.
It would be nice if reality-based politics wasn't divisive.
 

cc84

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2019
Threads
3
Messages
397
Reaction score
744
Location
East TX
Vehicles
2022 Rivian R1T, 2000 GMC Sierra
The two recent Republican gubernatorial administrations of the state have blocked public employees from using any language in public documents referring to climate change or sea level rise.
I'm not disputing this didn't happen. However, the articles I read, in the Washington Post and Florida Center of Investigative Reporting, said this was reported by the Florida Center of Investigative Reporting, through former employees. One was fired, an Attorney, but I don't know about the other. She worked for the DEP. The article said this was verbally communicated via their supervisors and not written. The Governor's office denies this (below) and says there is no written policy regarding this matter.

"John Tupps, a spokesperson for Gov. Rick Scott, told the Washington Post “there is no policy in existence. … Allegations and claims made in the [Florida investigative article] are not true. This policy, it doesn’t exist.”

These articles were written in 2015 and may no longer be relevant.
 

Hmp10

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
629
Reaction score
542
Location
Naples, FL
Vehicles
2015 Tesla Model S P90D; 2018 Honda Odyssey
You are correct that there was no written policy. However, reports of verbal directives being issued on the topic came from many quarters, including contractors, four DEP employees from different offices across the state, and others, some of whom still work or do business with the state. The attorney who was fired was an environmental lawyer who was fighting the suspension of environmental law enforcement that the previous administration had enforced.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html
 

Sponsored

cc84

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2019
Threads
3
Messages
397
Reaction score
744
Location
East TX
Vehicles
2022 Rivian R1T, 2000 GMC Sierra
You are correct that there was no written policy. However, reports of verbal directives being issued on the topic came from many quarters, including contractors, four DEP employees from different offices across the state, and others, some of whom still work or do business with the state. The attorney who was fired was an environmental lawyer who was fighting the suspension of environmental law enforcement that the previous administration had enforced.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html
I have no doubts this could have happened. However, these are reports and hearsay only. The employee heard it from her Supervisor, who heard it from.......etc. Nothing verifiable that I could find, other than who do you believe.. There are no written memos, no written policies....only verbally communicated. How can one prove, or disprove this took place, other than take the word of the people complaining, or from the Governor's office? The only reason I questioned the report is that I find it hard to believe large government agencies can operate on verbal communication alone, with nothing in writing. My opinion only and I'm certainly not disputing your conclusions.
 

Hmp10

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
629
Reaction score
542
Location
Naples, FL
Vehicles
2015 Tesla Model S P90D; 2018 Honda Odyssey
You're right. All references to climate change or sea level rise just quit appearing in all DEP and other state documents spontaneously. It was nothing more than coincidence that Rick Scott became governor. The Department of Environmental Protection just suddenly decided that they had been wrong to refer to climate change and sea level rise in prior years.

I'm a retired attorney. Hearsay can often be quite reliable and is, therefore, admissible in many situations in court.
 

cc84

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2019
Threads
3
Messages
397
Reaction score
744
Location
East TX
Vehicles
2022 Rivian R1T, 2000 GMC Sierra
I'm a retired attorney. Hearsay can often be quite reliable and is, therefore, admissible in many situations in court.
Agreed. However, you would want to excuse me as a juror. Didn't pass the smell test for me. I would require more evidence to convict.....I find it extremely hard to believe not one written memo. I do believe one article stated rising sea level is not prohibited any longer......All from me. Only showing another side. Thanks for your involvement.
 

Hmp10

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
629
Reaction score
542
Location
Naples, FL
Vehicles
2015 Tesla Model S P90D; 2018 Honda Odyssey
You seem confused about what hearsay is. If four employees of the Department of Environmental Protection say that they were told by their supervisors not to use the terms "climate change" or "sea level rise", that is NOT hearsay. It is their relating of something they were told directly. Now, you may think they are lying, but that goes to the question of credibility, not to whether what they are saying is hearsay.

If their supervisors told them that they got orders from someone higher up, it might be hearsay relating to the question of what that higher-up party said, but not hearsay relating to what the employees were told.

In the matter under discussion here, there is an exception to the hearsay rule: Rule 807 (Residual Exception) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This exception allows a jury to hear hearsay evidence if there is circumstantial evidence bolstering the hearsay and the hearsay is more probative than any other evidence that can be obtained through reasonable efforts.

Hence, the circumstantial evidence that (1) across the Florida DEP all written references to climate change or sea level rise disappeared shortly after the beginning of the Rick Scott administration; (2) Rick Scott and his successor are on the record as disagreeing with climate change science; (3) supervisors in different offices across the state all give the same reason for the same orders; and (4) employees can ask their supervisors why but cannot reasonably access the governors to ask them why would be sufficient to allow a jury to decide whether the order emanated from the governor's office, as was told to the employees by their supervisors.

To recap: what the employees said they were told by their supervisors is NOT hearsay. What reason those supervisors were given from above for those orders is hearsay, but a jury would be allowed to consider that hearsay under the residual exception rule.

Putting all this technicality aside, Florida's two most recent governors are on the record in dismissing climate science. Yet every coastal county in the state is implementing measures aimed specifically at addressing coastal flooding and backup of brackish waters into systems that were once beyond the reach of salt water. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
 

cc84

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2019
Threads
3
Messages
397
Reaction score
744
Location
East TX
Vehicles
2022 Rivian R1T, 2000 GMC Sierra
You seem confused about what hearsay is. If four employees of the Department of Environmental Protection say that they were told by their supervisors not to use the terms "climate change" or "sea level rise", that is NOT hearsay. It is their relating of something they were told directly. Now, you may think they are lying, but that goes to the question of credibility, not to whether what they are saying is hearsay.

If their supervisors told them that they got orders from someone higher up, it might be hearsay relating to the question of what that higher-up party said, but not hearsay relating to what the employees were told.

In the matter under discussion here, there is an exception to the hearsay rule: Rule 807 (Residual Exception) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This exception allows a jury to hear hearsay evidence if there is circumstantial evidence bolstering the hearsay and the hearsay is more probative than any other evidence that can be obtained through reasonable efforts.

Hence, the circumstantial evidence that (1) across the Florida DEP all written references to climate change or sea level rise disappeared shortly after the beginning of the Rick Scott administration; (2) Rick Scott and his successor are on the record as disagreeing with climate change science; (3) supervisors in different offices across the state all give the same reason for the same orders; and (4) employees can ask their supervisors why but cannot reasonably access the governors to ask them why would be sufficient to allow a jury to decide whether the order emanated from the governor's office, as was told to the employees by their supervisors.

To recap: what the employees said they were told by their supervisors is NOT hearsay. What reason those supervisors were given from above for those orders is hearsay, but a jury would be allowed to consider that hearsay under the residual exception rule.

Putting all this technicality aside, Florida's two most recent governors are on the record in dismissing climate science. Yet every coastal county in the state is implementing measures aimed specifically at addressing coastal flooding and backup of brackish waters into systems that were once beyond the reach of salt water. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

I stand by my previous statements. I am not denying Florida's two most recent governors are dismissing climate science. I haven't researched that, nor is it my intention to do so. My beef is with the article and not with you, except for making reference to a specific political party. And, it was political no doubt, otherwise it wasn't necessary to call out any particular party.

No written memos. No emails. No written policies. No one admits to any of this and the governor's office denies it. Hearsay, or outright deception from somewhere, as it's not proven they got it from their Supervisors. It was only their statement and not proven at all. Whomever they supposedly heard it from has either not responded, or denied it. My conclusion is different from yours, is all there is. If I was a juror, there would be no conviction. There are people in this world that think their way is the only way and the end justifies the means, which includes deception and misleading statements. There are also disgruntled employees with nothing to lose. I think it is highly unlikely that not even one Memo, Email, or Admission has been found, if this allegation is true. Only one memo, email, or admission could tip the scale for me, if but only so slightly. At least II could give consideration to "hearsay" at that time.

You stated "The two recent Republican gubernatorial administrations of the state have blocked public employees..........", Had you left off Republican, then there would have been no response from me. However, you chose to make this political, by naming a political party. Believe me, this country is split right down the middle. You see it one way, I see it another. Same with the ducks. I am not saying the article isn't true and that you are wrong, but rather I need more evidence because what I read and how I interpret though my "supposedly" common sense, doesn't add up for me. I appreciate your expertise in this subject, especially on hearsay, and your comments. We just disagree. Thank you. The last thing I want is to get into an argument with an Attorney. I would use a smiley face here, but I'm unfamiliar with the ones they show. I'm sorry this has gotten off topic and respectfully turn this over to you for the last word if you choose to do so.
 

Sponsored

Hmp10

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
629
Reaction score
542
Location
Naples, FL
Vehicles
2015 Tesla Model S P90D; 2018 Honda Odyssey
The simple fact is that people making controversial decisions often don't want a paper trail of their actions . . . as in "call me". The argument that nothing can be proven without written evidence is a myth, just as is the common belief that circumstantial evidence is neither admissible nor sufficient in most court cases. Both these myths are exploited by people who do not want others to apply common sense to what information is before them in order to reach logical conclusions.

The reason I mentioned that the two governors were Republican is because the rejection of climate science is dominant in Republican politics. The Republican national platform discounts climate science explicitly, using this language to bolster the pretense that there is no strong majority consensus among the international science community that we are undergoing climate change and sea level rise:

"The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists. They are using yesterday’s tools to control a future they do not comprehend. The environmental establishment has become a self-serving elite, stuck in the mindset of the 1970s, subordinating the public’s consensus to the goals of the Democratic Party. Their approach is based on shoddy science, scare tactics, and centralized command-and-control regulation."

It was a Republican decision to pull us out of the Paris Climate Accord. It was a Republican decision to refuse to participate in the environmental panels at the last G7 meeting in which all other attending nations participated. It is a Republican decision not even to put climate issues on the agenda for the next G7 which we, as the host nation, control, despite all the other attending nations viewing it as one of the most important topics before the G7.

It may be inconvenient to acknowledge it, but one of the strongest predictors of one's position on climate change has become tightly correlated to one's party affiliation.

I have voted Republican and Democratic throughout most of my adult life. I was especially biased toward Republicans when living in Chicago because of the corruption of the Democratic machine there. I lean Republican on most taxation and some economic issues. I met and contributed heavily to both John McCain and Barack Obama in 2008 when they visited my firm (a hedge fund) for private meetings with the management committee. Based on those meetings, I was planning to vote for John McCain until he put Sarah Palin on the ticket. However, each passing year in Florida brings me closer to a reckoning about where willful blindness and short-term goals will leave us when it comes to climate issues.

I'm making a lot of money off Republican tax cuts, I know how to play the markets through boom or bust, and I probably won't live long enough to suffer the consequences of the soaring deficits Republican economic policies are creating . . . but I may well live to see my stomping grounds in Florida under water.

As you can see, I gratefully accepted your invitation to have the last word.
 

skyote

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Threads
55
Messages
2,725
Reaction score
5,647
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
Jeeps, 2500HD Duramax, R1S Preorder (Dec 2018)
Anyone that argues against climate change is oblivious. There has been climate change for as long as our planet has existed.

The question is how much humans & our CO2 production affects climate change. There is compelling science on both sides of the issue, but unfortunately, I am not an expert. Every study is biased...

What I do know is that it caanot hurt to reduce our CO2 emmissions, so easy answer from that perspective.
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Threads
9
Messages
2,883
Reaction score
2,317
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla XLR+2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, R1T
Occupation
EE Retired
The alarmists say the science is proven. The skeptics say it isn't. But no real scientist would ever say that any aspect of science is irrefutably proven. A real scientist is skeptical about every single bit of science he has ever been exposed to. It's the nature of the beast.

So I am skeptical - very skeptical. But, nonetheless, I have to agree that I don't see any way that less CO2 and NOx could be detrimental.
 
Last edited:

Hmp10

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
629
Reaction score
542
Location
Naples, FL
Vehicles
2015 Tesla Model S P90D; 2018 Honda Odyssey
You might have noticed that I never made any claims about the causes of this current cycle of climate change. I have simply pointed out that Florida is having to deal with sea level rise, irrespective of its cause.

If government officials want to argue about what is causing it, that is one thing. To pretend it is not happening is another thing entirely.

As for disagreements among scientists, the hottest debate centers around causes and projections. The data on average air and ocean temperatures and ice cap melts is simply data, and there is less debate there.
 

eltrkadvntrr

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Threads
0
Messages
8
Reaction score
9
Location
Out and About
Vehicles
Rice Burner
QUOTE="Hmp10, post: 4252, member: 131"]You might have noticed that I never made any claims about the causes of this current cycle of climate change. I have simply pointed out that Florida is having to deal with sea level rise, irrespective of its cause.

If government officials want to argue about what is causing it, that is one thing. To pretend it is not happening is another thing entirely.[/QUOTE]
I would have to agree. We all not that those in government operate at a different level then most of us. The stories will vary depending on what route they want the public to go, but it is hard to deny what is being witnessed. A wise man once told me, "I believe in 90% of what I see and 10% of what I hear".
Sponsored

 
 




Top