There's no need to strawman. Even if storms weren't getting stronger we'd still have to contend with rising sea levels and the loss of arable land just for starters. While it would be ideal to live in a state of progress such that most folks didn't own nor operate a vehicle there is no credible threat at this point toward not being able to own and operate a vehicle.

How is no independent mobility progress?

People don't have independent mobility now. The majority of cars are not designed for off road and therefore can only go where there are streets. If public transportation provides the same access, then there is no loss of mobility.

Well yes, but in 99.9% of cases, there are roads to where you want to go. Public transport is not independent. Live in a rural area? Fsck you, no bus/train for you. Have a large dog? Nope, no transport for your dog. Want to travel at 3 in the morning? Nope. Need to carry stuff with you, more than you can carry? Nope. Want to go to a protest? Nope, no buses/trains driving there today.

That's why the post that started all this expressed a desire to live in a future where people could replace their cars with public transportation as opposed to advocating that we get rid of all cars now. Currently public transportation isn't viable for many people, but it would be nice if in the future it was.

That being said, I think that you are overstating some of the limitations of public transportation. The NYC subway runs 24 hours, allows dogs, I have taken it while transporting 200 lbs of steel before, and it did not stop running during the George Floyd protests (including after curfew).

>While it would be ideal to live in a state of progress such that most folks didn't own nor operate a vehicle

No it wouldn't. It is ideal to live in a state of progress where most "folks" can afford to own and operate a vehicle that allows them to go wherever they want whenever they want and take people with them.

The US has followed this as a guiding principle over the last hundred years and largely succeeded, however the end-state seems to be a built environment where car ownership is not simply a widely enjoyed privilege so much as a de facto requirement to go about the activities of daily living, which feels, at least to me, somehow less free.

If they can accomplish the same things with more efficient public transportation, then that seems like it would be progress.

Why is that “progress?” Why is “progress” a good thing in its own and who decides what “progress” even is?

I addressed that in my post. In this case I'm using progress to mean accomplishing the same thing with less resources. It's not a good thing on its own, it's a good thing because resources are limited and expending those resources tends to produce pollution.

You aren’t accomplishing the same thing, you are providing less tailored experience and calling it progress because you believe your opinions are progress and any others are regressive. Thanks for proving that

Instead of resorting to personal attacks, why not present a counter argument?

Only that you are not accomplishing the same thing. You are accomplishing something inferior. And please don't make me explain to you how you don't get, by far, the same level of service, the same amount of destinations, 24/7 availability, etc with public transportation than with your car.

When I lived in NYC, the experience of using public transportation was far superior to the experience of driving. I didn't have to purchase and maintain a car, I could read or use my phone during the trip, when I went out with friends I didn't have to worry about a designated driver, I could travel late at night when I would be too tired to drive safely, in the winter I didn't have to spend half the trip in a cold car, my risk of injury during my commute was much lower, etc.

1. Most people do not live in New York. I live in Seattle and driving is not a problem except for an hour at the end of the day.

2. Public transportation comes with its own set of risks. It is up to the individual to determine what they wish. Neither option is “progress” it is a trade off.

If you read back, this discussion was about a scenario where most people don't need to own or operate their own car. That implies that they would live in a place with good public transportation like New York has now.

Arguing over the semantics of the word "progress" is missing the point. There are very real problems with building society to cater to individual private car ownership. Instead building society to cater to public transportation would address those issues. If you see a different way to address those issues than why not present it?

I live ON the beach, and the beach hasn't changed one iota in the past 40 years, other than a loss of the scarp during / after large hurricanes. The TV "science" is becoming so ridiculous that it's hard to fathom that there are people who actually believe it.

Am I to believe that there is one large, interconnected ocean, and that fluid naturally levels itself out, but that also, somehow, certain places experience sea level rise while others don't? Is it some huge coincidence that the places experiencing extreme sea level rise (e.g., Solomon Islands) are ephemeral and ever-changing volcanic islands and other volcanically active regions that sit upon a soft foundation of molten mantle?

Use your brain, my friend.

There is absolutely no possible way that you (or any other person) would notice a 4 inch GLOBAL AVERAGE rise in sea level over the last few decades. I don't care if you literally spent 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year on your belly at the high tide mark.

The data is the data and you need a lot more than "living on the beach" to refute it.

And yes, the sea level is different in different parts of the Earth. Why? Because forces are different in different parts of the Earth. Current (which impart forces) alone is enough to make a difference in sea level in two different parts of the Earth.

And yes, land changing elevation is colloquially part of sea level rise.

The problem with using your brain is it doesn't make you an expert in things, or able to refute expertise without actual knowledge. And simple observations do not amount to much knowledge on anything but the most simple subject.

Absolutely no way huh? There are literally corals (East Florida rock reef) that are barely covered in water at high tide, and these same corals were the same amount covered in 1988. I would notice. I would also notice my best friend's seawall become inundated every high tide now. I know these things are uncomfortable to hear, because a panel of dubiously grant-funded "scientists, who otherwise do nothing but produce irreproducible white papers, said differently.

4 inches is no joke for a small Florida beach town. It's not like California, where you have 80 foot cliffs and wide beaches. My favorite childhood beach spots would have been halved. Instead, they're exactly the same. 4 inches would have ruined much of our town's waterfront property.

Go look up pictures from Liberty Island, 1918. The water level is at the same brick as it is at high tide today.

Global warming is a false religion.

> Go look up pictures from Liberty Island, 1918.

    "The most obvious problem with the pics is that unless they were taken at the exact same point in a tidal cycle they say nothing about average sea level rise,". Raymo said that the old photo could have been taken near high tide and the recent photo could have been taken near low tide. We just don’t know.

All one needs to do, in order to prove the theory correct, is to take a new photo at a high springtide[1]. If it's no higher than the old photo, then the theory is correct. If it is higher, then we don't know (because the old photo could have been taken at a lower tide).

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Without any disrespect intended, anybody, who thinks the ocean is meaningfully rising because of human activity, I'd rather not have living in my town; they're likely to vote to raise my taxes because the TV told them that if they give money to the government the weather will be gooder.

1. https://www.tideschart.com/United-States/New-York/New-York-C...

Surely you would suspect any photo of being photoshopped?

Satellites take millions of "photos" around the world every day, and combined with local measurements, we have a pretty accurate record of how the sea level around Manhattan has changed over the last century: https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=8518750&c_date=1900/1...

> Without any disrespect intended, anybody, who thinks the ocean is meaningfully rising because of human activity, I'd rather not have living in my town;

Without any disrespect, perhaps you would think differently if you'd had a career in exploration geophysics for mineral resources and energy spanning a few decades as I have had.

I started out with continent wide surveying to peg old pre-GPS maps to WGS84 and have worked on mapping the global magnetic field, the geoid (mean 1G gravity surface), continent wide tidal models and radiometric references, etc.

It's clear enough that human activity is causing more heat energy to be trapped in the lower atmosphere and upper sea levels, the artic and antartic are slowly shrinking back .. and none of this is as yet readily perpectabe to the casual human eye - good instrumentation and records tell a different story, as was peer linked in a comment here.

I have little interest in convincing you, this is just a factual statement of my experience and yourself and your town can continue to believe whatever you collectively choose - it has zero impact on what is actually happening and what the next generations will have to deal with as a result of a century of excessive fossil fuel consumption.

A new generation has come up since Al Gore's fictional movie from 2006, presumably starting production in 2005. I have seen zero evidence of the predicted calamitous events that would distiguish this day from those in 2005. however I have seen the evidence of widespread problems in children who are having nighmares of a future "planetary emergency" which never seems to arrive. If children with emotional problems are the preferred social outcome of this political science, then the science is a success

Given how vehemently wrong you are I can only imagine you don't understand what's being communicated and don't want to learn what's being communicated.

Sea levels are rising primarily because the sea is warming, and water, like most substances, expands as it heats up.

Global warming does not affect every place on Earth evenly, that's partly why the phrase "climate change" is preferred. It's possible that you live in an area that due to the local or regional geography, the sea level has not changed much.

Bruh.