Ben Shapiro Debunks Climate Change

[_Kevin Graham]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJXAgey5Wl4

"Even if the ocean rises 10 feet, what, do you think people living on the coastline aren't going to just sell their homes and move?"

Yes Ben, because we all know that investors pay a premium for properties under water.

[_canpakes]

Interesting example of Ben’s tendency to construct strawmen and display flippant idiocy.

And this is one of Prager U’s intellectual giants.

[_Some Schmo]

I saw Shapiro on Real Time. I'd never seen him before, but it took about 2 minutes before I thought, This guy's an idiot.

It's amazing which voices emerge on the right in this country. It's as though they place a premium on dumb, and exalt it.

[_DarkHelmet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJXAgey5Wl4

"Even if the ocean rises 10 feet, what, do you think people living on the coastline aren't going to just sell their homes and move?"

Yes Ben, because we all know that investors pay a premium for properties under water.

Wow. One of the perceived strengths of conservatives is they understand how capitalism works. Did he really say that? Even the most economic illiterate pot head could see how that won't work.

[_MeDotOrg]

Somewhere in the bowels of the argument against climate change is the feeling that human generated climate change cannot be possible because responding to it would require a global cooperation and perhaps engender a dangerous sense of trans-national human identity.

[_canpakes]

Somewhere in the bowels of the argument against climate change is the feeling that human generated climate change cannot be possible because responding to it would require a global cooperation and perhaps engender a dangerous sense of trans-national human identity.

Exactly. It would also entail being imaginative enough to consider that the population and settlement patterns of 7.5 billion folks, many of them with few resources or no mobility, would result in more folks than just a few rich ‘Santa Monicans’ (gotta imply the liberal rub, of course) ending up in the path of a 10-foot sea-level rise. ; )

[_canpakes]

Some folks, unlike Shapiro, actually did some work on this.

More than half of the area of 40 large cities (population over 50,000) is less than 10 feet above the high tide line, from Virginia Beach and Miami (the largest affected), down to Hoboken, N.J. (smallest). Twenty-seven of the cities are in Florida, where one-third of all current housing sits below the critical line — including 85 percent in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. Each of these counties is more threatened than any whole state outside of Florida – and each sits on bedrock filled with holes, rendering defense by seawalls or levees almost impossible.

By the metric of most people living on land less than 10 ft above the high tide line, New York City is most threatened in the long run, with a low-lying population count of more than 700,000. Sixteen other cities, including New Orleans, La.; Norfolk, Va.; Stockton, Calif.; Boston, Mass.; St. Petersburg, Fla.; and Jacksonville, Fla.; are on the list of places with more than 100,000 people below the line. (Much of New Orleans is already below sea level, but is protected at today’s level by levees.)

Climate Central’s enhanced analysis paints a much more detailed pictured for completed states. For example, more than 32,000 miles of road and $950 billion of property currently sit on affected land in Florida. Threatened property in New York and New Jersey totals more than $300 billion. And New England states all face important risks.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/us-w ... rise-17428

[_canpakes]

... and folks like our dear Ceeboo lament on how wide the divide is between political sides, while pushing Shapiro’s crap as the truth and characterizing any in opposition as crazed ‘leftists’ supposedly shackling his right to free speech.

Oooh-key dokey.

[_Xenophon]

Exactly. It would also entail being imaginative enough to consider that the population and settlement patterns of 7.5 billion folks, many of them with few resources or no mobility, would result in more folks than just a few rich ‘Santa Monicans’ (gotta imply the liberal rub, of course) ending up in the path of a 10-foot sea-level rise. ; )

Not to mention it ignores entirely the problem that many people not "directly" put under water by a 10ft rise would still be put at risk for further natural disaster. If you don't think flood plains will be completely changed by that kind of increase... well you might be Ben Shapiro I guess.

[_canpakes]

I just have to wonder how long it takes for folks being coached by these arguments to realize that they’re being used and treated as morons and fools by Shapiro?