Global Warming: Man made or Nature's Cycle

What's causing global warming

  • We're doing it

    Votes: 38 34.5%
  • Nature's at it again

    Votes: 58 52.7%
  • I'm just here for the boob, but where they at?!

    Votes: 14 12.7%

  • Total voters
    110
  • Poll closed .
However, on the flip side.. I have read article claiming that global warning is happening on every single plant in our solar system. I'd like to test that one for myself.

Anyone have spaceship I can borrow ?
Well YOU'RE the one claiming to be a god, remember? ;)

IF all planets are heating up equally (respective for their distance, of course) then I'd say that the Solar Maximum cycle is finally going ahead as planned, just a little late.

It certainly doesn't Negate the CO2 rise in temps nor the overpopulation/color change/mass extinction/pollution rise in temps we are currently seeing, but when we hit solar max (Currently estimated for 2013) we should have another huge driver of heat to add to the pile:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png
Solar-cycle-data.png

This chart is widely accepted but kind of old, the latest numbers put the lines up above 1366 again, headed very vertically up. They stayed down until late 2009 and many scientists were scratching their heads as to why that cycle was longer than the two previous cycles.

Since it was down longer than anytime on record, they predict that it will either:
A. Be up at Max longer than usual
or
B. Reach higher than usual
...this time.

Naturally, this kinda sucks, and could be just the thing to bring our already-very-bad situation to the "Tipping Point" where there is no going back.
 


guys global warming is the dengarous problems we are faceing because of our fucking activities..........
 
guys global warming is the dengarous problems we are faceing because of our fucking activities..........

Man bear pig is totally here. Run everyone. I'm cereal. I'm really cereal.

I hate to be a dick, but I have no respect for the position that global warming is even a problem. There isn't evidence to support the position.

The very presumption that if the earth's climate changes (which has always been a thing that occurs) something bad will happen is idiotic, especially if you are dense enough to claim that you believe in both evolution and global warming. This shows a real inability to think.

If global warming kills animals, it's because they are no longer fit to survive. This is an amoral reality. You cannot ascribe moral intent to natural phenomena. Do you know what happens if this becomes true? Well, real simple, new animals adapt. Speciation occurs and we have a new diversity of creation. We can adapt technologically, as we have done for the last 100 thousand + years.

Also, sorry, animals going extinct is not a thing that matters at all. Not to mention that technology allows us to essentially beat evolution as a race. It's a thing that we know about because for the first time in history the last 100+ years have been filled with naturalists who care. That's not a bad thing, but it means that we have a heightened awareness of minutia that we never had before. This is the same reason we fetishize short term weather trends.

This summer, which was super hot, I heard so many idiots cite the anecdotal reality as evidence of global warming. Well, we're about to come out of (possibly) the coldest winter in about 1,000 years. Is that proof that global warming is false or that global cooling is the new reality? Or do you think, perhaps, that it doesn't matter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: guerilla
Errr... who cares? It's happening and we should be more worried about fixing it

Why?

And what do you suggest as a fix. Because I'm of the opinion that most of the people who are of your pursuasion are probably nothing more than moral exhibitionists who pay lip service to a position that's really easy to have in your brain because a lot of other stupid people agree with it. Are you one of those Prius owners?

By the way, telling me that it's a thing I should care about because it's a thing that you care about is a really bad way of getting me to care about the thing. The only reason I care about it is because the only thing I have seen come out of global warming claims are political power grabs from liberals and innefective organizations like the UN that think they have business officiating the world.
 
Well YOU'RE the one claiming to be a god, remember? ;)

IF all planets are heating up equally (respective for their distance, of course) then I'd say that the Solar Maximum cycle is finally going ahead as planned, just a little late.

It certainly doesn't Negate the CO2 rise in temps nor the overpopulation/color change/mass extinction/pollution rise in temps we are currently seeing, but when we hit solar max (Currently estimated for 2013) we should have another huge driver of heat to add to the pile:
Solar-cycle-data.png

This chart is widely accepted but kind of old, the latest numbers put the lines up above 1366 again, headed very vertically up. They stayed down until late 2009 and many scientists were scratching their heads as to why that cycle was longer than the two previous cycles.

Since it was down longer than anytime on record, they predict that it will either:
A. Be up at Max longer than usual
or
B. Reach higher than usual
...this time.

Naturally, this kinda sucks, and could be just the thing to bring our already-very-bad situation to the "Tipping Point" where there is no going back.

Hmmmm, quite an eye opening chart you've found here:updown:. It leads me to believe the effects we are seeing in our solar system may be caused by the natural process of evolution.

According to some scientists, every planet must "heat up" to change their individual vibrational frequencies. Around 2012-2013 many of these processes will have taken natures course & global warming is just a natural prerequisite of evolution. Also, keep in mind, some scientists claim these raised vibrational frequencies will alter the structure human DNA.

Imagine, can you say X-men? lmao

You see, the bigger picture here to remember is we live in an very intelligent universe. Life is planned & all these changes seem predetermined. I wonder if the Aztecs, Mayans, & Egyptians knew something ground breaking.

Or, Are all these scientists just wasting our time? Time shall tell a good story.
 
I hate to be a dick, but I have no respect for the position that global warming is even a problem. There isn't evidence to support the position.
You aren't a Dick. Because a dickless moron can't have a dick at all.

The facts are right here. It even uses small words so people like you can understand the facts.

All that stuff you've ever heard in opposition to these facts are OPINION and PROPOGANDA, all unsupported by the facts.


The very presumption that if the earth's climate changes (which has always been a thing that occurs) something bad will happen is idiotic, especially if you are dense enough to claim that you believe in both evolution and global warming. This shows a real inability to think.
Unless... We've made it (gasp!) WORSE!

I do claim to believe in both AGW & Evolution, and the two are clearly not at opposition. Only a tiny brain like yours would make that conclusion.

Also, sorry, animals going extinct is not a thing that matters at all.
...Except the fact that we like to eat animals... That part kinda sucks.
(There is a food web at play, It's not like heat will kill the cows directly.)

-Oh, and make drugs out of discoveries we find in new animals. Hate to run out of those. Can't cure new diseases then!

The simple fact here is that Genetic Diversity matters and we run out of it at a rate of something like 217,000 species a year at our present (but climbing) rate.

Not to mention that technology allows us to essentially beat evolution as a race.
What a shortsighted thought! Technology, like, oh, say, facebook? Yeah, that's making us MUCH smarter, fucktard!

This summer, which was super hot, I heard so many idiots cite the anecdotal reality as evidence of global warming. Well, we're about to come out of (possibly) the coldest winter in about 1,000 years. Is that proof that global warming is false or that global cooling is the new reality? Or do you think, perhaps, that it doesn't matter?
YES, for the billion-o-jillioneth time, Global Warming IS VERY WELL DOCUMENTED TO SHOW that it makes colder winters.

JEEZ when are you little-brains going to catch up??

It's in the report here. Seriously, lots of pictures. Small words. 13 or so pages. All your stupidity (on this matter at least) gone.
 
The only reason I care about it is because the only thing I have seen come out of global warming claims are political power grabs from liberals and innefective organizations like the UN that think they have business officiating the world.
If you've said anything here today that remotely shows you have a brain cell in your head, this is it.

Lots of politicians, sure, Al Gore too, have made a bad situation worse. Instead of appointing the best scientists to start a clean up crew, it appears that they have tried to profit from the situation.

Imagine that. Politicians trying to profit from fear. What is this world coming to!?!

Dont' blame the scientists or the science. The science is well known, but the media has to cover both sides and there are a hell of a lot of politicians on both sides trying to make a power play or profit grab of some kind.
 
You aren't a Dick. Because a dickless moron can't have a dick at all.

Ad Hominum is a good way to begin an argument. It strengthens your position.

Sorry, you didn't answer any of my questions. What is the evidence that points to the phenomena as a problem? I didn't every deny GW. I didn't even give you my position on whether it's happening or not. I didn't deny any evidence. My issue is with your moral indignation about the issue. Everyone tells me it's happening. My question is why should I care?

I shall proceed with the rest of your arguments. I will break them into their full, discreet components, and not reduce them as you did mine to elements that

Unless... We've made it (gasp!) WORSE!

I do claim to believe in both AGW & Evolution, and the two are clearly not at opposition.

Perhaps if you read my argument you would see that I never said that a belief in GW and evolution are in opposition. What I said is that being morally indignant is incongruous because the process of evolution is amoral and the process of climate change whether human created or not is amoral.

As I will assume you are a person who believes in a Godless evolution, you will need to come up with a thesis about where morality comes from and give me some first principles about why I should care about this stuff. From the perspective you've decided to take, that'll be pretty hard unless you aren't a systematic thinker in which case your arguments don't need to be derived from first principles and can be a set of stuff you feel rather than think. If that's the case, we're right back to the part where I say I don't care about your opinion about things if all you can espouse are emotional poop about why you believe things matter.

Only a tiny brain like yours would make that conclusion.

Ok... that's a nicely packaged piece of unimportance.

The facts are right here. It even uses small words so people like you can understand the facts.

All that stuff you've ever heard in opposition to these facts are OPINION and PROPOGANDA, all unsupported by the facts.

Again, why should I care if the world is getting a little warmer? I congratulate you on finding facts on the internet as well. That's a pretty neat accomplishment. I hope that you own that site and are just using WF to drive traffic to it. That would be awesome.

Alas, you aren't explaining why I should care. Just telling me that the world is warming is not telling me why it's important.

Unless... We've made it (gasp!) WORSE!

We probably haven't. But even if we have, why should I care?

(Regarding animal extinction)...Except the fact that we like to eat animals... That part kinda sucks.
(There is a food web at play, It's not like heat will kill the cows directly.)

-Oh, and make drugs out of discoveries we find in new animals. Hate to run out of those. Can't cure new diseases then!

The simple fact here is that Genetic Diversity matters and we run out of it at a rate of something like 217,000 species a year at our present (but climbing) rate.

Man, I thought I'd adequately explained evolution with big words like speciation. Apparently I need to explain it again. You see, when some animals go extinct, it doesn't mean that all animals cease to exist. But nice try. Also, cows are probably not going to go extinct as a result of global warming.

Oh, and let me introduce you to the reality of extinction. I'm so glad that scientists even a majority of them, so rarely get things wrong. A Third of ‘Extinct’ Mammals May Still Be Alive | Wired Science | Wired.com.

What a shortsighted thought! Technology, like, oh, say, facebook? Yeah, that's making us MUCH smarter, fucktard!

Hmm, I think that's what we call a Red Herring. Obviously I mean things more like wheel chairs, artificial hearts and limbs, medicine that allows us to overcome diseases, operations that get rid of faulty organs and skin cancer, gene therapy, an understanding of germ theory, the ability to escape gravity and fly to the moon, and more. But yeah, Facebook is a pretty good invention too.


YES, for the billion-o-jillioneth time, Global Warming IS VERY WELL DOCUMENTED TO SHOW that it makes colder winters.

JEEZ when are you little-brains going to catch up??

It's in the report here. Seriously, lots of pictures. Small words. 13 or so pages. All your stupidity (on this matter at least) gone.

No doubt that period of warming are documented. If you want to call the earth's getting warmer a well documented happening, then good for you. Going outside and reading a thermometer, declaring that this week is a hundredth of a degree hotter than the same time last year is pretty uninteresting though.

Let's talk about the last time that there was nice strong consensus by the world's scientists for some interesting, global climate anomally. The year was 1970 something. And the world was filled with bored ex-hippies who had just barely earned their college degrees.

The belief of these hippies was that the world was not harmonious. We needed to smoke more weed, and feel the pulse of the ground beneath our feet. They proved their intelligence by writing meaningless poetry about how they went places, books about drugs, and they sang songs about how people need to drink coke. The world was interesting back then. Lo and behold, just as hippies are beginning to do science research, declarations come out about how humans aren't living harmoniously with the world. They organize their students to protest and tell the world that if nothing changes, an ice age will come. Food will be scarce.
Another Ice Age? - TIME

Time progresses. In the 80s they turn to oil and start calling oil companies big bad names. They start a movement to demonize oil people claiming that oil would run out by... like a long time ago. In 1979 Jimmy Carter even declared that oil wells were running dry (he was wrong). They made up idiotic stories about how companies like GM were destroying electric cars which makes no sense. But since there was a documentary about it, people think it's true.

Global cooling never really caught on. Then suddenly, in like 1995, the tune changes and the same former hippies are telling me that they had lied about the whole cooling thing and that global warming was now the new thing.

They pushed that for a few years, and everyone jumped on board. Then a lot of the science started to get criticized by other smart scientists, and they changed their tune again. Now it's called climate change. Now climate change is something we can all agree on because... well... the climate changes from time to time.

The same former hippies are pushing the theory down my throat, and they are telling me that I need to care about the harmony of nature because the same idiotic BS they believed in the 60s is what they pretended to prove with science.

These scientists have been constantly wrong about most of this stuff. Their models are brand new, inexact, and unscientific. They are more interested in producing crisis than doing science. All of their studies presuppose that there is a problem caused by global warming. Birds don't poop as much. Why? Because of global warming. We know they are correlated because birds stopped pooping as much 10 years ago which is the same time that we made up this theory about global warming. Man, false correlations areso not a thing I care to be duped into caring about.

And so once again, I present to you Man Bear Pig.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf69EEL3WBk]YouTube - Man Bear Pig[/ame]
 
Let's talk about the last time that there was nice strong consensus by the world's scientists for some interesting, global climate anomally. The year was 1970 something. And the world was filled with bored ex-hippies who had just barely earned their college degrees.

The belief of these hippies was that the world was not harmonious. We needed to smoke more weed, and feel the pulse of the ground beneath our feet. They proved their intelligence by writing meaningless poetry about how they went places, books about drugs, and they sang songs about how people need to drink coke. The world was interesting back then. Lo and behold, just as hippies are beginning to do science research, declarations come out about how humans aren't living harmoniously with the world. They organize their students to protest and tell the world that if nothing changes, an ice age will come. Food will be scarce.
Another Ice Age? - TIME

That wasn't a scientific consensus. In fact, there were more scientists and research papers in the 70s predicting warming than cooling.

AMS Journals Online - The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

What 1970s science said about global cooling
 
Man bear pig is totally here. Run everyone. I'm cereal. I'm really cereal.

I hate to be a dick, but I have no respect for the position that global warming is even a problem. There isn't evidence to support the position.

The very presumption that if the earth's climate changes (which has always been a thing that occurs) something bad will happen is idiotic, especially if you are dense enough to claim that you believe in both evolution and global warming. This shows a real inability to think.
It's intellectually dishonest to ignore the effect that 6+ billion people and industry that literally carves out our landscape and natural resources have no adverse effect on the planet.

This summer, which was super hot, I heard so many idiots cite the anecdotal reality as evidence of global warming. Well, we're about to come out of (possibly) the coldest winter in about 1,000 years. Is that proof that global warming is false or that global cooling is the new reality? Or do you think, perhaps, that it doesn't matter?
It has been said, many many times, that pointing out a cold winter is not proof against global warming. At the high level, global warming means the overall temperature of the earth rising, which mostly affects our oceans. Which effects the ice caps by melting more of the ice shelfs, which in turn (a) makes the sea level rise and effects the marine ecosystem, and (b) releases previously trapped methane gases into the atmosphere. All of these different things come together to result in abnormal weather patterns in general - which includes abnormally hot summers AND abnormally cold winters.

I honestly have no clue why people latch on to the "warm" in global warming, and have the nerve to point out cold weather or snow on the ground as legitimate evidence to the contrary.

But if you don't want to believe in the science of global warming, that's...strange, but fine. As I had posted before, the solutions (however actually effective) being presented to us in order to combat the effects of global warming are in no way bad. Finding ways to rely less on oil is not bad. Finding ways to create vehicles that are just as useful to us while also running on relatively less power is not bad; utilizing electronics that draw less power is not bad; eating healthier, or relying more on local food suppliers (in order to shy away from factory-based production and interstate transport of foods, which use more fuel) is not bad. If a few people get extremely rich off of such lifestyle changes, then it sucks that it isn't me - but I don't see how I'm losing out, really.
 
Sorry, you didn't answer any of my questions.
I'm not here to be your slave, fool. I was here to Squash your incorrect statements.

What is the evidence that points to the phenomena as a problem? I didn't every deny GW. I didn't even give you my position on whether it's happening or not. I didn't deny any evidence. My issue is with your moral indignation about the issue. Everyone tells me it's happening. My question is why should I care?
SINCE IT'S OBVIOUS that you didn't read the response in the quoted source on this topic, I'll pull it out for you:

many different respected scientists said:
To claim that global warming will be good for humanity is to turn a blind eye to the many negative impacts.

The most common argument along these lines is that carbon dioxide is ‘plant food’, implying that CO emissions are a good thing. This ignores the fact that plants rely on more than CO to survive. The “CO fertilizer” effect is limited and will be quickly overwhelmed by the negative effects of heat stress and drought, which are expected to increase in the future. Over the past century, drought severity has increased globally and is predicted to intensify in the future. Plants cannot take advantage of extra CO if
they’re dying of thirst.

There are many climate change impacts that have no positive aspects. Between 18 to 35% of plant and animal species could be committed to extinction by 2050. Oceans are absorbing much of the CO in the air, which leads to ocean acidification. This is predicted to have severe destabilising effects on the entire oceanic food-chain, on top of the negative effects of coral bleaching from warming waters (a one-

(Chart here showing scary Drought repercussions hitting us in the 2030s)


two punch from global warming). An estimated 1 billion people depend on the ocean for a substantial portion (>30%) of their animal protein.

As glaciers and snowfields dwindle, so does the water supply for millions of people who are deeply reliant on those freshwater supplies, especially for irrigated agriculture. Similarly, sea level rise and increased storm activity will affect millions over this century as rice paddies are inundated with salt water, seawater contaminates rivers, aquifers become polluted and populations are displaced. This will force many millions of people to move inland, increasing the risk of conflict.

When someone says global warming is a good thing, citing isolated positive impacts, remember that the full body of evidence indicates the negatives far outweigh the positives.

It is Climatologist's job to think of this shit, and they do so. -While I'd never discourage anyone from double-checking the work of others and forming their own opinions, you seem to be blathering on about yours while not even aware what the experts have to say on the matter.



As I will assume you are a person who believes in a Godless evolution, you will need to come up with a thesis about where morality comes from and give me some first principles about why I should care about this stuff.
Me? Fuckabunchathat.

I wasn't even remotely skimming the topic of Morality. You introduced that point, which I feel isn't relative to this thread.

You see, when some animals go extinct, it doesn't mean that all animals cease to exist. But nice try. Also, cows are probably not going to go extinct as a result of global warming.
I never said it was an immediate danger; but if you kill off ENOUGH things at the bottom of the food web then eventually shit trickles up and we all die, plain and simple.

& Even if we don't, are you just as happy living in a world where you only have half as many things to eat? Sounds to me like your argument advocates a lack of choices and therefore a lower standard of living. -That's worse than death in my own, personal book.


lukep said:
Like Facebook?
Hmm, I think that's what we call a Red Herring. Obviously I mean things more like wheel chairs, artificial hearts and limbs.... But yeah, Facebook is a pretty good invention too.
You're intelligence is showing... :updown:

I think I've already argued this point in another thread here somewhere, but the short and simple fact of it is that inventions like the Idiot box and now Facebook are making the populace of the earth vastly more stupid.

Think back to Shakespeare's day... Each Human had to excersize their brains in many different skillsets daily and our IQs were much higher then... Read any Shakespeare sonnet or play to see what I mean.

We've basically been de-evolving ever since, becoming more stupid as Technology enables us more and more. In short, technology is splitting our race into the nerd race of a very few and the popular race with Single-digit IQs.

So there's no red herring here, it fits squarely in the category with the most popular & important technological inventions of all time: The Internet, TV, Radio, etc...

These scientists have been constantly wrong about most of this stuff. Their models are brand new, inexact, and unscientific.
But the burden of PROOF is on their side.

PROVE them wrong, don't just complain about it, fucktard.
 
You can't prove something doesn't exist fucktard. Why the hell is the burden of evidence on the side of those who are skeptical. Let me tell you what you are arguing. You are arguing that anytime an idiot puts forth a theory, the burden of proof is on the side of the people who think that idiot is wrong. Sorry, but the burden of proof is generally on the presenter of a theoretical framework. Why does it work? What's the basis? And man, I'm so glad that you think I should go prove them wrong. The fact that that lives in your head as a concept is delicious like candy. Yes, I will go prove them wrong with the millions of dollars available for funding research that is looking for negative evidence of global warming. I will use the scientific prowess I accumulated while earning my many PhDs. Do you know how laughable it would be if I asked you to go prove them right?

Also, the stuff you call evidence in that quote box is just words. Telling me that by 2030 35% of the world's plant life and animals will die is so based on nothing but hocus pocus. If you think that someone hasn't heard that stuff before, you're wrong. I've heard it all my life. I was told in 4th grade that oil was going to run out within 5 years... it didn't.

Oh, and to assert that we're collectively stupider today than in the days of Shakespeare as a society is hilariously false. Man, we are spoiled both at the knowledge that exists today and the speed at which it can be accesses. We live longer, we all go to college. And we are smarter. But the idea of single digit IQs is sooo notable and fun to think about. Man, a person with an IQ of 7 would be fun to observe.

Also, simply asserting that FB is a bad invention doesn't make it so. And your use of it was def a red herring.

@Davin Black I agree some of what you're saying. I didn't say that warm weather or cold weather was evidence btw. I said it's hilarious that people think it is. That one side of this debate gets to hold up every hot summer as evidence, and the other side would be laughed at to do the same with cold winters.

My contention is with your use of the word adverse. This gets to the heart of what I'm asking. Why should I care? Why is it adverse? It's intellectually dishonest to simply think that change itself is "adverse" without explanation.

@Moxie interesting papers and discussion. I would like to see the critiques of that paper. I wonder how they went about finding those articles. If it's right, then the record needs to be set straight about that. But I'm still asking the central question, why does it matter? Why do people get sad when a glacier melts?

Here's the reality, if the sea levels rise, we know how to build dikes. Need an example that isn't Louisiana? Holland.

Yes, biodiversity matters. But the idea that it matters because we eat animals like @lukep says is so strange. The animals we eat are generally domesticated and the animals we hunt are highly adaptive (like deer). Evolution eventually takes care of the biodiversity problems that would occur as a result of GW.

The idea that people don't want to get away from using oil and coal is so dumb. People are working hard at developing new technologies. What is happening is the government keeps getting in the way, diverting brain power by subsidizing bad technologies like the dev of corn ethanol. Car companies are latching onto this moronic desire to be "green" and making cars like the Prius which don't really provide any payoff in energy savings in the longrun.
 
@Davin Black I agree some of what you're saying. I didn't say that warm weather or cold weather was evidence btw. I said it's hilarious that people think it is. That one side of this debate gets to hold up every hot summer as evidence, and the other side would be laughed at to do the same with cold winters.
My bad then, I misunderstood what you were trying to say there.

My contention is with your use of the word adverse. This gets to the heart of what I'm asking. Why should I care? Why is it adverse? It's intellectually dishonest to simply think that change itself is "adverse" without explanation.
It's adverse because our use of resources and technology is both increasing the number and lifespan of people on the planet, while diminishing the quality of/increasing the cost of the same resources we're benefiting from.

I do not like paying more money each year for limited resources. I do not like freezing cold winters in D.C., and instances of 3 feet of snow when the norm is 35-40 degrees Farenheit and 1-5 inches of snow for the year. I do not like 90+ degree weather with humidity making it feel even more unbearable, when the norm is around 70 to 80 in past years. I don't like making financial sacrifices in order to adjust to the above, when a comparative few shifts spread across all areas of industry and our daily lives would make many of these concerns a non-issue. There's no simpler explanation I can come up with.

I could spend time overwhelming you with walls of text and quotes/links, but you don't seem to want your question answered (no offense). You've been given reasons to care (lukep) and reasons not to care, and simply focus on embracing new/cheaper/healthier ways of doing what we already do (myself). The problem is, even in the face of compelling evidence, you can always detach yourself from the argument by:

1. Saying "So what?" (where you're at now)
2. Saying "I'll be dead by the time this is a huge issue (what a number of people have already said)
3. Saying "It's just stuff that'll make other people very rich" - which pisses me off, because that can be said about literally anything.

It's a very frustrating debate to have.
 
But I'm still asking the central question, why does it matter? Why do people get sad when a glacier melts?

Positives and negatives of global warming

Here's the reality, if the sea levels rise, we know how to build dikes. Need an example that isn't Louisiana? Holland.

$15 billion of our federal tax money was spent in just New Orleans to strengthen the dikes after Katrina. I've only skimmed through it, but the following looks at the huge costs of building and maintaining them all over the globe :
Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a ?beyond 4°C world? in the twenty-first century ? Philosophical Transactions A

The biggest problems would be in Asia. People can say "I don't care about them", but that doesn't matter when it comes to your tax money being used to help them, just like it was after the tsunami in Indonesia.