It wasn’t given back to the sea because they were tired of having all that extra farmland. They are strategically giving up on some parts to preserve others.
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.
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.
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.
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.