"sea level rise" is a "left-wing term" WTF?

[A Person]

Yes, coming just after North Carolina Republicans legislated away sea level rise, Virginia Republicans declare that "sea level rise" is a "left-wing term" and must not be used. Instead they will use 'politically neutral' terms that pretend there's nothing going on.

'liberal code words' like "sea level rise" or "climate change" are out, instead "increased flooding risk", "coastal resiliency" and, of course, "recurrent flooding" are in,

Clearly "increased flooding risk" has nothing to do with the sea levels rising, that's pesky liebrul, demoncraKKK propaganda. It's just God's tears from all that gay sex on the beaches. Ban abortions and the problem's solved.

The Republican Party and its supporters are collectively insane - roughly half of Americans!

Science is politically neutral, sane people accept the findings, insane ones deny, obfuscate and legislate it away.

[A Person]

The BBC (more socialist, commie propaganda) has a sane article on the topic:

Virginia's attorney general, Republican Ken Cuccinelli, has waged an aggressive public battle against the Obama administration's efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, which he said would drive up electricity costs and kill jobs in the state's coal industry.

While politicians in Washington and in Richmond, Virginia's state capital, have done little to address the problem, authorities along Virginia's coast have watched the waters rise and have been forced to take action.

The city government of Norfolk spends about $6m (£3.8m) a year to elevate roads, improve drainage, and help homeowners literally raise their houses to keep their ground floors dry, says Assistant City Manager Ron Williams.
...
At Naval Station Norfolk, the world's largest naval base, the US Navy is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to replace aging piers with new ones better able to withstand the rising water.

"Sea level rise was having a measurable impact on the readiness of the ships," says retired Capt Joseph Bouchard, who was commander of the base from 2000-2003. "And that's unacceptable."

So the Navy decided to replace the old piers with double-decked piers - one for utilities, the other for the ship operations - with the upper deck 21ft above current sea level.

"Were it not for sea level rise caused by climate change, the Navy could have replaced those piers with single deck piers at much much less cost," he says.

[Liv]

What I don't understand is why they even have a beef with climate change anyways?

I'm assuming its the cost of production, right? It costs more to make green products? Less profit, etc?

But seriously, isn't there bigger fish to fry.

Climate Change seems like a reasonable issue that both sides could agree on.

Is there any definitive proof that admitting to climate change would be more expensive for our capitalist Republicans?

I just don't get it.

[A Person]

Climate Change seems like a reasonable issue that both sides could agree on.

Well there's that liberal word 'reasonable' that's causing the problem.

If you believe the Bible that God promised never to flood the Earth again and you also believe that you will be raptured straight to Heaven in your lifetime, then why would you give a damn about the environment if it means changing the smallest of behaviors you like.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Seems to me that people in power fight against things that they see as a threat. My guess would be that real estate developers hate the talk of sea level rises because they want to sell units at high prices TODAY, regardless of how those property values might change 20-30 years down the road.

And why are rank and file, working-class people also fighting against the idea? I guess that they merely follow along with their corporate masters, because they are told to oppose it.