Do Global Warming believers think we should abandon New Orleans?

First time I have ever agreed with Dana, the neighborhoods that are below sea level should be filled in to be reasonably above before being rebuilt. Same goes for towns built on flood planes on the rivers or sand bars off shore. Yes NO is a critical city but the sections below sea level should not be supported by the nation. If they want to buy and pay for a solution that is their business not ours. I still think they could make it pay for itself by using them as a land fill for solids and using the dumping fees to pay for rebuilding the area!

new orleans has been BELOW sea level for more than a hundred years. some of it is 14 feet below sea level now & all of the city continues sinking lower every year as the mud its built on subsides.

every drop of water that falls in the city has to be pumped uphill to the Mississippi or the gulf.

sooner or later we're just going to have to face reality & let nature take its course or bankrupt the rest of the country so the resident's can continue to live on the bottom of the ocean at taxpayers expense.

specifically because of the fact as smart because of the fact the physicists in contact in GW study think of they're, they forget approximately to get suggestion from people who might extra extra on that project. the completed climate modeling technique falls under 3 issues: a million.) while modeling a chaotic gadget, with a view to make precise predicitons relating to the destiny, your preliminary startijng element values could be very precise. the international temp archives is a techniques from precise and fluctuate between reporting companies by using as much as .5 degree in a month. 2.) you could no longer use your variety of a chaotic gadget for a protracted quantity of time. at an identical time as I have not got any doubt that they might quicker or later have fashions that are precise sufficient to foretell out to the subsequent month, they is only no longer precise to foretell out to the subsequent 3 hundred and sixty 5 days and under no circumstances out to the subsequent a hundred years. 3.) in the experience that your pc variety shoots off into infinity or destructive infinity at an identical time as the gadget you're modeling has under no circumstances accomplished that, it is sign that your variety is incorrect, no longer that the gadget will shoot off to infinity. i'm not sure that AGW physicists comprehend this. in the event that they do, then they're conceited SOBs who're afraid to confess that there are issues that even they with their super brains can no longer locate the solutions to. Now why the scientific community has allowed this farce to bypass on see you later with out giving credence to those who actual comprehend the problems of modeling a chaotic gadget is previous me. For that, i think of you could keep on with the money.

Unles we are willing to put as much money as the Dutch do into dikes, then yes! The place is under sea level, so its gotta have lots of money poured into it to keep it up. No reason to just rebuild it every few years and hope that nothing happens to it. I'd call that a waste of taxpayer money. Who cares what gore says, just try to be reasonable.

no we all in this world together so why abandon New Orleans when we can help in make a difference. most people have money to pay so why waist money on things you can never get satisfied with and help out with the Global Warming and other Countries. Yes its expensive but we need to have a healthy Globe one country is flooded what will happen to the other countries nearby. What l mean is don't abandon New Orleans when they is something we can do about it starting with our surroundings

The sea level is not going to rise 1 foot let alone 26 in the next 20 years. That's not what 'An Inconvenient Truth' said.

Nevertheless, if it were up to me, I would not have rebuilt New Orleans after Katrina. It's just a matter of time before it gets leveled by another big hurricane. While it's not certain how global warming will effect the frequency of hurricanes, it does appear to be making them stronger.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080903/full/news.2...

Since we're already rebuilding New Orleans, there's no point in abandoning it. But when it gets leveled by another hurricane, again I if it were up to me I wouldn't rebuild it.

That's a good question, but I don't believe anyone would suggest that, just as no-one would "abandon" Bangladesh... The costs of abandoning a city would be enormous for a start, not to mention the ethical and logistical problems. Instead isn't it more productive to try to curb the warming trend before it's too late (if it's not too late already), and invest in mitigation measures such as improved flood barriers etc?

26 feet in 20 years? I'm not a skeptic, but dang son.

Anyway I really don't think it would be that expensive, all we need is someone who knows how to build dikes that are actually worth a dam, pun intended.

You need to read real reports and not just listen to a movie with a bunch of untruths and exaggerated ideas in it.

Regardless of climate issues it's a strategically important location.