4 ms·

Then they should say so in the article. All it says is "The Noordwaard polder was one of 39 such areas selected for the Dutch government’s “Room for the River”

Then they should say so in the article. All it says is "The Noordwaard polder was one of 39 such areas selected for the Dutch government’s “Room for the River” program, in which land was given back to the water." Shame on the Dutch government for the euphemism, too, I guess. Afaik it is nothing new that the sea claims land that was previously settled on. The destruction of Rungholt in the 14th century is a famous example that comes to mind.

mannykannot 7y ago
The point is that it is an example of an issue that is going to become much more pressing. Considering a 14th. century event without regard to what has changed since then (technically, economically and environmentally) is not very informative.
- adventskalender 7y ago
  Why not? If such things have happened before, it seems dishonest to use such imagery to conjure a scenario of doom. Maybe the risk is now higher, more frequent, different, whatever. Fine, then tell me so, show me the numbers. I don't want to be manipulated with emotional imagery. I want to be informed. I don't read the news for entertainment. I mean yeah I do, but I actually want to read it for information.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    So you want data, but the only datum you offer in support of your assertion that you are being unreasonably manipulated is the effect of a single storm in the 14th. century. Meanwhile, other people have been posting much more pertinent comments on, for example, the non-uniformity of global-warming-induced sea-level rise.
    - adventskalender 7y ago
      No the manipulation is the story about the abandoned settlement. I don't think you understood my point at all. The only assertion I made is that land being lost to the sea is not a new or outlandish thing. For that 14th century is sufficient - and even better in context of global warming, as there was no such thing in the 14th century. Also I am not a journalist publishing an article. So I mentioned the first example I remembered. If I was publishing an article, I would do more research.
      - mannykannot 7y ago
        > ...and even better in context of global warming, as there was no such thing in the 14th century. On the contrary, that means it has little relevance to the resurgent concerns of the 21st. century. Your position is a form of denial that goes "we don't have to worry about global-warming induced X, because X occurred before there was global warming", which is, of course, bogus if global warming is significantly changing the scale of X. I get the impression that your feeling of being manipulated is precisely because you do not get this point. Furthermore, your complaint that the author did not write the article you wanted to read is of no interest and is not going to change anything.

mannykannot 7y ago

The point is that it is an example of an issue that is going to become much more pressing. Considering a 14th. century event without regard to what has changed since then (technically, economically and environmentally) is not very informative.

adventskalender 7y ago
Why not? If such things have happened before, it seems dishonest to use such imagery to conjure a scenario of doom. Maybe the risk is now higher, more frequent, different, whatever. Fine, then tell me so, show me the numbers. I don't want to be manipulated with emotional imagery. I want to be informed. I don't read the news for entertainment. I mean yeah I do, but I actually want to read it for information.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  So you want data, but the only datum you offer in support of your assertion that you are being unreasonably manipulated is the effect of a single storm in the 14th. century. Meanwhile, other people have been posting much more pertinent comments on, for example, the non-uniformity of global-warming-induced sea-level rise.
  - adventskalender 7y ago
    No the manipulation is the story about the abandoned settlement. I don't think you understood my point at all. The only assertion I made is that land being lost to the sea is not a new or outlandish thing. For that 14th century is sufficient - and even better in context of global warming, as there was no such thing in the 14th century. Also I am not a journalist publishing an article. So I mentioned the first example I remembered. If I was publishing an article, I would do more research.
    - mannykannot 7y ago
      > ...and even better in context of global warming, as there was no such thing in the 14th century. On the contrary, that means it has little relevance to the resurgent concerns of the 21st. century. Your position is a form of denial that goes "we don't have to worry about global-warming induced X, because X occurred before there was global warming", which is, of course, bogus if global warming is significantly changing the scale of X. I get the impression that your feeling of being manipulated is precisely because you do not get this point. Furthermore, your complaint that the author did not write the article you wanted to read is of no interest and is not going to change anything.