The US on-line edition of the Mirror recently published an article about the infamous NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) map showing cities and areas that will be inundated in the year 2100.

Don’t worry if it is too small to see exactly what areas are covered. Except for a very few areas right on the coast in Northern California and Oregon, and in Maine, they claim it is all gonna be underwater. (Yep, plus much of the Mississippi Valley, not shown.)

Unless, of course, we bow down to government and stop driving our cars and trucks, stop flying, stop heating our houses about 55 in winter or below 85 in summer. And always charge our phones and tablets with solar panels. While of course, paying more and more taxes, and otherwise start behaving like the peasants that Pharaoh let Joseph squeeze. (Not just during the seven fat years, but the seven lean ones too!)

It has been a quarter-century and more since we were told that manmade global warming (now, “manmade global climate change” ™?) was going to inundate the coasts, wipe out oceanside cities, and send millions of refugees fleeing from these areas. At least a half-dozen “sink-by” dates have passed. Yet places like Miami, San Diego, Seattle, Dallas, New Orleans, Boston, New York, and other cities remain inhabitable. (Well, for certain values of “inhabitable” when we consider these are all megalopi and not, in TPOL’s opinion, able to be tolerated. Especially places like New Orleans.)

Which brings us to the main point of this commentary about this particular government lie. Not only already demonstrated to be a lie time and again, but for once, a lie we might have reason to wish were the truth.

Huh? Again, think of those massive (and to TPOL, intolerable) cities. Their populations, their governmental structures, and their political leaders. As well as their other characteristics: character, health, etc.

Is there just a possibility that the United States might actually benefit if all these cities were inundated? Abandoned? Populations scattered?

Is there a possibility that the benefits of such sea level rise might far outweigh the tremendous costs of that drowning of cities?

Not just financial benefits and costs, but mental, moral, and social? Could even their own States do better without these shoreline havens of crime, incompetence, corruption, pollution, and worse? (Admittedly, Rhode Island might be an exception to that, given its size and location.)

There would be a danger of the massive hordes of refugees overwhelming the population of better areas, of course. A danger we see around us right now. After all, many people who are “relatively conservative” or “moderately libertarian” in California, or Boston, or NYC? By the standards of Colorado or Wyoming or even upland California, these people are uncomfortably liberal, regressive. We might say that their consciences are seared: they are unable to recognize the dangers of government. They are subjects not citizens. Parasites not producers.

But their impact would likely be far less than their influence concentrated in their urban nightmares now.

It is, of course, highly unlikely. First, the likelihood of sea levels really rising enough to flood these place is, at best, very, very low. Second, with their voting power, they would likely succeed in further bankrupting their own States and the FedGov with spending to “solve” the crisis. Third, most of these places are buzy not breeding themselves into extinction. (They are sustained by migration from other places in the States and from foreign locations: their own birthrates are as bad as those of Japan or Russia.)

But it is still a fun thought experiment. Casually suggest to a Woke friend that we might all be better off if New Orleans had been abandoned after Katrina and a Newer Orleans built up the river or along the coast a ways. Or suggest that maybe Massachusetts might be a nicer place without Boston.