Here’s a question that never gets answered: If global warming is a threat to cities, why do politicians who believe that global warming is a threat to their cities allow huge real-estate projects in areas they say global warming will destroy?
For example, Salon recently wrote this about Miami and Florida Senator Marco Rubio:
The unstoppable collapsing of West Antarctic glaciers could greatly impact New York, New Orleans, Miami and more.
[. . .]
The flood rise would hurt 27 cities in Florida (though Sen. Rubio recently declared he doesn’t believe in human-created climate change). According to Climate Central, one-third of all of Florida’s housing currently sits below the 10 foot high tide line. This includes 85 percent of Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Miami would be the largest city affected by rising sea levels.
For those who worry that preventative measures for climate change will hurt the economy, here’s another way of putting what 10 feet of flooding would do to the United States. Climate Central reports:
“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 here’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose district will be “ground zero” for the alleged destruction from global warming, going after Rubio’s comment as well:
If Marco Rubio is going to keep denying #climatechange, I'll keep sharing articles on how wrong he is: http://t.co/X37sjqUpdY #thismakes4
— Debbie Wasserman Schultz (@DWStweets) May 13, 2014
The link above is to a Post editorial that questions Rubio’s judgment to be president because of his skepticism.
If it’s a question of judgment then, what does it say about the judgment of Miami allowing the the Patricia and Phillip Frost Museum of Science to construct a new building that will be underwater if the alarmist predictions of Salon, the WaPost, Wasserman Schultz, et al., are accurate?
Here’s the satellite view of the location of the new Frost Museum of Science:
And here’s the flood-map from Climate Central with 10 feet of sea-level rise. The museum in a flood zone and right on the bay, which is at greater risk from hurricanes and storm surge:
And here’s the view looking southeast from atop the seawall adjacent to the museum complex. That canal leads directly to the Atlantic ocean:
This leads me back to my original question as this is exactly the sort of project that shouldn’t be built if alarmists predictions are accurate. But if Miami, Wasserman Schultz, and the architects and engineers of this “science” museum aren’t worried about flooding from global warming or more powerful hurricanes, why should I?