The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

[_Res Ipsa]

Whattya wanna bet ldsfaqs pops open the thread, dimly skims RI’s post, feels a surge of frustration, and posts some rambling incoherent nonsense about Liberals?

- Doc

Well, you got most of it right!

[_Chap]

the Raw Climate Data

As has been explained to you, the point is that the data your source presented was not 'raw' but 'cooked'.

[_ldsfaqs]

the Raw Climate Data

As has been explained to you, the point is that the data your source presented was not 'raw' but 'cooked'.

LOL... You have it backward. That IS the Raw Data, you're just "claiming" it's not.
And as I've said, it's YOUR side which "cooks" the data, changing it after the fact.
This is all well documented, that you think otherwise shows you know nothing about this subject.

Here's more good stuff which exposes Leftist lies...

Category Five Climate Nonsense From VOX

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3B1QahA2Tw

[_DarkHelmet]

And as I've said, it's YOUR side which "cooks" the data, changing it after the fact.

Imagine you decide to go on a diet to lose weight. While you are dieting, you weight yourself every day and record the results. Some days you weigh yourself on your bathroom scale, and other days you weigh yourself on the scale at the gym. Sometimes you weigh yourself in the morning before breakfast, and sometimes at night after dinner. Two months into your diet, you realize there are a couple problems with your "raw data". The gym scale is 2 pounds off from your bathroom scale. You also realize you are consistently 3 pounds heavier in the evening than you are in the morning. You test your bathroom scale with weight plates and realize it is 2 pounds off, meaning the gym scale is the accurate one. You decide to start weighing yourself only in the morning and only using the gym scale in order to get a more accurate trend of your progress. You also go back to your historic data and adjust or remove *gasp* all the weigh-ins taken in the evening and/or using the bathroom scale in order to make your historic data align with your current data going forward. Have you committed fraud?

[_mikwut]

I am sincerely curious about a point Dan Pena raised on a Joe Rogan podcast and how the climate alarmists on this board would respond. Some of the fastest growing real estate is high rise condominiums and hotels on the coasts like in Florida. Why would banks fund loans of such enormous amounts of money for the building of this accelerating real estate if the projections of climate change and sea level rise due to it are in fact just that alarming? Aren't the banks and their risk analysis just as scientific as the consensus regarding the issues about climate change? Their scientific risk analysis surely addresses or looks at the climate change realities?

mikwut

[_DarkHelmet]

I am sincerely curious about a point Dan Pena raised on a Joe Rogan podcast and how the climate alarmists on this board would respond. Some of the fastest growing real estate is high rise condominiums and hotels on the coasts like in Florida. Why would banks fund loans of such enormous amounts of money for the building of this accelerating real estate if the projections of climate change and sea level rise due to it are in fact just that alarming? Aren't the banks and their risk analysis just as scientific as the consensus regarding the issues about climate change? Their scientific risk analysis surely addresses or looks at the climate change realities?

mikwut

Has demand for coastal real estate declined in recent years? Is it expected to decline in the foreseeable future? I assume those forecasts are more important to the banks than climate change predictions. Besides, as Ben Shapiro explains, if your house gets flooded because of global warming, you can just sell it and move.

[_Res Ipsa]

I am sincerely curious about a point Dan Pena raised on a Joe Rogan podcast and how the climate alarmists on this board would respond. Some of the fastest growing real estate is high rise condominiums and hotels on the coasts like in Florida. Why would banks fund loans of such enormous amounts of money for the building of this accelerating real estate if the projections of climate change and sea level rise due to it are in fact just that alarming? Aren't the banks and their risk analysis just as scientific as the consensus regarding the issues about climate change? Their scientific risk analysis surely addresses or looks at the climate change realities?

mikwut

Partly because Homo Economis is a myth. People do not consistently act as reasonable economic actors. Real estate and other bubbles are testament to that.

Partly because of the extensive disinformation campaign on climate change. All continued building reflects is the expectations of certain members of the population. What some people expect with regards to climate change is not any indication of the reality of climate change.

Partly because denial is a strong part of human psyche.

This argument is like saying that Mormonism must be false because only a small percentage of people believe it. It appears more sophisticated because of an unrealistic view that markets magically predict reality.

[_canpakes]

[quote="mikwut":t2amjby5]I am sincerely curious about a point Dan Pena raised on a Joe Rogan podcast and how the climate alarmists on this board would respond. Some of the fastest growing real estate is high rise condominiums and hotels on the coasts like in Florida. Why would banks fund loans of such enormous amounts of money for the building of this accelerating real estate if the projections of climate change and sea level rise due to it are in fact just that alarming? Aren't the banks and their risk analysis just as scientific as the consensus regarding the issues about climate change? Their scientific risk analysis surely addresses or looks at the climate change realities?

mikwut[/quote:t2amjby5]
mikwut,

This is a good question, and it has been addressed in prior threads.

First, consider that any bank that will extend a real estate loan to you for coastal property isn't going to keep that loan on their books. It will sell that loan off within weeks of closing, to other entities that purchase paper based on certain risk categories and investment strategies. And that organization will sell it to another, etc., etc.. The comparative risk of that loan becomes inconsequential to the original bank and progressively less so to future entities that will trade it as part of a larger bundled collection of debt.

Second, consider that in the eye of some cities or municipalities, the are certain short-term advantages to [i:t2amjby5]hitting the gas [/i:t2amjby5]on development in areas at risk of suffering effects from climate change. Check out the short article below, from about 5 years ago, that explains some of the rationale behind this:

[quote:t2amjby5][b:t2amjby5][i:t2amjby5]Miami and the Costs of Climate Change[/i:t2amjby5][/b:t2amjby5]

[size=85:t2amjby5]By Robert Meyer, Risk Center co-director[/size:t2amjby5]

As a city sitting virtually at sea level, Miami has been called “ground zero” for the problems posed by climate change, a place where rising sea levels threaten its very future existence. The latest (2013) IPCC forecast of sea level rise, for example, predicts that by later this century, global sea levels will be 2 feet higher than they are today, and quite possibly higher. Under that scenario, the nuisance flooding that now periodically comes with high tides will be a daily affair, the storm surge impact of hurricanes will be amplified, and lower-lying areas of the city will be uninhabitable.

And that’s actually not the worst of it: under higher sea levels, the Biscayne aquifer—where southeast Florida draws its drinking water—will increasingly suffer from salt-water intrusion, a problem for which there is no foreseen solution other than the investment of billions of dollars in water-treatment facilities.

[b:t2amjby5]But as bleak as this future would seem to be, few with real skin in the game in Miami—residents, real estate investors, and companies—are backing away from long-term investment. Exhibit A: Miami is currently undergoing a nearly unprecedented surge in real estate construction, with planning discussions centering less on who will leave first and more on how high new projects can be built.[/b:t2amjby5] Among the projects underway, for example, is an 80-plus story behemoth in Brickell Center, the city’s urban core. If the city is on the verge of being a modern-day Atlantis, those who would have the most to lose are apparently not worried about it.

Why this apparent deafness to the dire warnings? Well, here’s a paradox. If one talks to developers and city commissioners in the area it’s hard to find evidence of overt denial of current and future risk; it was a city, after all, that was almost completely destroyed by a hurricane in 1926, and most concede that a reoccurrence is a matter of when, not whether. Likewise, few deny that the city’s unique geography makes it vulnerable to the effects of rising sea levels. It is a long-term problem that the planning commissions of both Miami and Miami Beach acknowledge exists and threatens to worsen.

[b:t2amjby5]Where locals disagree with outsiders, however, is about how best to deal with the problem. Rather than sounding alarms and cutting back on development, there is an implicit sense that the best approach may be, ironically, to do the opposite.[/b:t2amjby5] And while a strong case can be made that this behavior has no rational basis, it may represent Miami’s best long-term hope for dealing with the threats posed by climate change, one that other cities might be advised to mimic: the best strategy may, in fact, be to foster a collective belief that there is no threat—or at least not one serious enough to lose sleep over.

Before I explain why, let me first address the two standard explanations for the building boom, explanations that are indeed part of the puzzle. The first is that real estate developers, by their nature, are gamblers with short planning horizons. In the late 2000s, the real estate and equities crash quickly wiped out many builders. One might assume that would have made them skittish. To the contrary, the quick recovery that followed taught most that big risks are worth taking, and are survivable. While developers today may concede that the sea levels are rising, it is a risk that lies well beyond their investment horizons, and in any case is dwarfed by the more immediate risk of a returning recession.

The second explanation is that many of the buyers for all the new condo units are cash investors from Latin America, and the risks of Miami real estate—over-development, speculation, environmental unsustainability —remain small relative to similar investments back home. No one is saying that real estate isn’t risky in Miami, or that sea level rise is fiction. What they are saying is that all investment carries risk, and development there is simply a bet they are prepared to take.

[b:t2amjby5]But there’s another rational reason why even risk-averse residents in south Florida might, paradoxically, hope that buyers and sellers remain collectively naïve, or at least act as if they are, about the risks of sea level rise. South Florida relies almost exclusively on real estate taxes to fund public infrastructure. If the threat (or reality) of sea level rise suppresses property valuations, there will be less public money to address the risk. As an illustration, the head of public works on Miami Beach recently argued that the city would be wise to accelerate its investments in storm-water drainage improvements ($100 million now and $400 million planned) simply because the city had the tax base to afford it now—something it could not necessarily count on in the future.

Because buyers and sellers on Miami Beach have yet to connect the dots between nuisance flood events and the future consequences of sea level rise, property buyers continue to be drawn into the area, and development projects continue unabated—both of which are essential for a continued healthy tax base.[/b:t2amjby5]

But if and when buyers and sellers do connect the dots, everything will change; it could spark a rapid downward wealth spiral that, once initiated, would be difficult to reverse. Lowering property valuations would reduce the city’s tax revenue which, in turn, would leave it with less money to shore up the city against sea level rise.

The city would then be forced to choose between two losing remedies: increase taxes on those who choose to stay, or decline to make the needed improvements—both of which, of course, would only exacerbate the problem. Miami’s best move at that point would be to go hat-in-hand to the state and federal government for a bailout, but that seems unlikely. Quite aside from the “I-told-you-so” reactions that such pleas might evoke, almost all coastal communities would be facing similar problems and asking for commensurate help. Miami Beach as we know it now could cease to exist long before the Atlantic reclaims Collins Avenue.

[b:t2amjby5]Given this, south Florida’s best shot at coping with the long-term environmental threat may be a strategy that no doubt seems perverse to environmentalists: aggressively foster a collective belief that sea level rise is not something we urgently need to worry about. South Florida is potentially facing a huge adaptation bill down the road, and paying for it will require a healthy tax base. Keeping that tax base flush depends on a cooperative equilibrium where buyers and sellers maintain an optimistic view that it’s tomorrow’s problem, one that will be easily tackled when the time comes. This keeps the coffers filled and provides the resources needed to pay for the engineering adaptations needed to keep the game going.[/b:t2amjby5]

In this light, Miami’s construction cranes aren’t monuments to climate-change denial. Quite to the contrary—they are the instruments that may, indirectly, allow the city to survive it. Controlled ignorance, in some cases, can be a good thing.

[i:t2amjby5]This article appears in the Risk Center’s 2014 newsletter. [/i:t2amjby5]
[/quote:t2amjby5]

https://riskcenter.wharton.upenn.edu/mi ... te-change/

[_EAllusion]

In addition to what others have said, the national flood insurance program being accessible to coastal homes creates distorted risk / benefit analysis of owing and living in homes close to areas of higher risk of flood. One way to think about Mikwut's question is to wonder why people build and live in valuable homes in high risk flood areas right now.

[_Res Ipsa]

In addition to what others have said, the national flood insurance program being accessible to coastal homes creates distorted risk / benefit analysis of owing and living in homes close to areas of higher risk of flood. One way to think about Mikwut's question is to wonder why people build and live in valuable homes in high risk flood areas right now.

Good point. Without the NFIP, coastal homes would have no insurance for damage caused by flood, which includes storm surge.