> In any case, you've conveniently avoided my request for a citation that the world population is moving away from the coasts.
I never claimed that, I claimed that the population would move on an as-needed basis, which you yourself demonstrated via your friend. Why would people move if there is no danger? That said, we do indeed see falling property values in growing flood zones, pointing towards decreased desirability of some coastal land. My claim is that such land will slowly grow over time, at a manageable rate. As we have observed to date. Again, my entire claim: "people move, people build, life moves on".
> If you arbitrarily choose the peak population year
Lol. How is picking the maximum arbitrary when considering trends? Another piece of based armchair statistics from you.
> I'm done here. I've already wasted too much time on your junk comments.
Unfortunately common when one tries to disrupt the HN hivemind. "I don't have any facts to back this up but Smart People^{tm} say it's true so if you don't agree you're dumb".
I never claimed that, I claimed that the population would move on an as-needed basis, which you yourself demonstrated via your friend. Why would people move if there is no danger? That said, we do indeed see falling property values in growing flood zones, pointing towards decreased desirability of some coastal land. My claim is that such land will slowly grow over time, at a manageable rate. As we have observed to date. Again, my entire claim: "people move, people build, life moves on".
> If you arbitrarily choose the peak population year
Lol. How is picking the maximum arbitrary when considering trends? Another piece of based armchair statistics from you.
> I'm done here. I've already wasted too much time on your junk comments.
Unfortunately common when one tries to disrupt the HN hivemind. "I don't have any facts to back this up but Smart People^{tm} say it's true so if you don't agree you're dumb".
I tried.