brenthutch 441 #1551 August 28, 2019 Lets get back to the topic of the original post. If I concede (and I don't) that global warming is bad and man is causing it, how will the green new/newer deal fix it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #1552 August 28, 2019 1 minute ago, brenthutch said: I looked into it and you are right, according to NASA the rate of sea level rise has increased by a profound .9mm per year. If this were truly a threat it would be reflected in the price of beachfront property in Miami and the Obamas would not have spent millions on their house on the shore. So you're saying that a change in property value on waterfronts is a metric of whether sea level rise and global warming are relevant? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 441 #1553 August 28, 2019 1 minute ago, DJL said: So you're saying that a change in property value on waterfronts is a metric of whether sea level rise and global warming are relevant? No I'm saying that if it were seriously a problem, banks would not make loans, and insurance companies would not cover oceanfront properties and folks would not be flocking from the inland safety of Illinois and New York to the dangerous, just-barely-above-sea level, Florida. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #1554 August 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, brenthutch said: Lets get back to the topic of the original post. If I concede (and I don't) that global warming is bad and man is causing it, how will the green new/newer deal fix it? By getting Republicans voters who are afraid of Socialists to move forward on energy and environmental issues so all the feelgood BS and state employment things don't become a reality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #1555 August 28, 2019 5 minutes ago, brenthutch said: No I'm saying that if it were seriously a problem, banks would not make loans, and insurance companies would not cover oceanfront properties and folks would not be flocking from the inland safety of Illinois and New York to the dangerous, just-barely-above-sea level, Florida. You should go read up on what Miami has had to already do and what it plans on doing. Protecting that property value can get pretty expensive and you have to question why they'd spend the money if it weren't an issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,439 #1556 August 28, 2019 1 hour ago, brenthutch said: No I'm saying that if it were seriously a problem, banks would not make loans, and insurance companies would not cover oceanfront properties and folks would not be flocking from the inland safety of Illinois and New York to the dangerous, just-barely-above-sea level, Florida. Well, there is an increasing number of locations where insurance is either hard to find and/or astronomical. This article in Coastal Living indicates that many places have “insurers of last resort.” Why? Because other insurers won’t cover them. The insurance company is making a bet that the house won’t flood this year. They can always cancel at the end of the year. And one’s responsibility to pay a mortgage doesn’t go away if the property floods, any more than responsibility to pay a car note goes away if you wreck the car. As far as “people flocking,” well, not everyone. People also buy McMansions, outdoor kitchens, and big giant trucks that don’t fit in their suburban garage (no, not for hauling plywood or a trailer, just to haul their perceived dick around, or to make sure that when they get into a wreck, the other guy gets screwed). They see it on TV and just have to have it Wendy P. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #1557 August 28, 2019 1 hour ago, brenthutch said: No I'm saying that if it were seriously a problem, banks would not make loans, and insurance companies would not cover oceanfront properties ?? Insurance companies don't care about what they cover, as long as they make money. In this case, they just raise their rates so that no matter what happens, they don't lose money. After all, a hurricane won't destroy a home _every_ year. Let's say it destroys a $500,000 home every ten years instead of every 100 years due to climate change. Want insurance? No problem! New premium is $55K a year. This is how insurance companies work. If you don't believe me, talk to an actuary. From the Guardian: =================== MARCH 22, 2019 Climate Change Could Make Insurance Unaffordable for Most People Insurers have warned that climate change could make coverage for ordinary people unaffordable after the world’s largest reinsurance firm blamed global warming for $24 billion of losses in California’s recent wildfires. Ernst Rauch, Munich Re’s chief climatologist, told The Guardian that the costs could soon be widely felt, with premium rises already under discussion with clients holding asset concentrations in vulnerable parts of the state. “If the risk from wildfires, flooding, storms, or hail is increasing, then the only sustainable option we have is to adjust our risk prices accordingly. In the long run it might become a social issue,” he said after Munich Re published a report into climate change’s impact on wildfires. “Affordability is so critical [because] some people on low and average incomes in some regions will no longer be able to buy insurance.” ======================== Quote folks would not be flocking from the inland safety of Illinois and New York to the dangerous, just-barely-above-sea level, Florida. Of course they would. They get a nice house today, and who cares about tomorrow. People do things that are stupid and shortsighted all the time. If you doubt this, visit any single's bar or casino in the world. Or better yet, just listen to a republican deny climate change and push for more coal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimrees 0 #1558 August 28, 2019 1 hour ago, brenthutch said: I looked into it and you are right, according to NASA the rate of sea level rise has increased by a profound .9mm per year. If this were truly a threat it would be reflected in the price of beachfront property in Miami and the Obamas would not have spent millions on their house on the shore. What does Miami have to do with this? The beach house is on Martha's Vineyard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #1559 August 28, 2019 1 hour ago, jimrees said: What does Miami have to do with this? The beach house is on Martha's Vineyard. Shhhh - he's on a (t)roll. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #1560 August 28, 2019 5 hours ago, brenthutch said: If this were truly a threat it would be reflected in the price of beachfront property in Miami and the Obamas would not have spent millions on their house on the shore. Bullshit. The real estate market is nowhere near nimble enough to reflect plus 10 year risks. I mean, income valuations are all done on 10 year basis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 441 #1561 August 29, 2019 9 hours ago, jimrees said: What does Miami have to do with this? The beach house is on Martha's Vineyard. You are right because the laws of hydrodynamics don't apply to Obama. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 441 #1562 August 29, 2019 7 hours ago, kallend said: Shhhh - he's on a (t)roll. Oh I get it! That is very clever. Its nice to see you back at the top of your game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #1563 August 29, 2019 1 hour ago, brenthutch said: You are right because the laws of hydrodynamics don't apply to Obama. Remember back when you were using terms like Shockley-Quessier limit without knowing exactly what they meant and why they might or might not be relevant? I fear you are doing that again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #1564 August 29, 2019 10 hours ago, brenthutch said: You are right because the laws of hydrodynamics don't apply to Obama. Their address is 79 Turkeyland Rd, Edgartwon and their property is not in a threatened area for flooding in a 65 to 100 year timescale. https://www.mvtimes.com/2019/08/21/effects-climate-change-chappaquiddick/ Also, they do not live on "Oceanfront" property, they're about a mile back along an inner bay that is blocked off from the ocean by a breakwater. It's at least 10 feet above sea level whereas sea level rise for that area is projected to be between 12 to 48 inches by 2050 and up to 72 inches by 2100. https://www.topozone.com/massachusetts/dukes-ma/island/marthas-vineyard/ Martha's Vineyard simply isn't in the same category of risk as Miami and that's probably why they chose to buy a house there. Also, the strategy of Democrats isn't simply to abandon the coast and sit back for 100 years until their grandchildren can say "Told you so...". Things like the Green New Deal will save the world and we'll all get a puppy. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 219 #1565 August 29, 2019 (edited) On 8/19/2019 at 7:19 PM, brenthutch said: A sober assessment would take into consideration BENEFITS as well as costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Case_for_Fossil_Fuels Yes - and cancer is found to be beneficial in a few ways too. Edited August 29, 2019 by turtlespeed Phat Phongers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 441 #1566 August 29, 2019 31 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: Yes - and cancer is found to be beneficial in a few ways too. Only if you live long enough to get it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 219 #1567 August 29, 2019 2 minutes ago, brenthutch said: Only if you live long enough to get it Very true. Thanks for conceding that there are necessary evils like cancer, and fossil fuels. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 441 #1568 August 29, 2019 More from the author of the Green New Deal Glacier Disease https://www.mrctv.org/videos/rep-ocasio-cortez-climate-change-threatens-unleash-glacier-diseases-frozen-thousands-years I didn't know they did not have mosquitos up north Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #1569 August 29, 2019 3 minutes ago, brenthutch said: More from the author of the Green New Deal Glacier Disease https://www.mrctv.org/videos/rep-ocasio-cortez-climate-change-threatens-unleash-glacier-diseases-frozen-thousands-years I didn't know they did not have mosquitos up north That was true 30 years ago of many places up North. Fortunately you're changing the climate, so now they're feeling more at home! Another way Trump is winning. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #1570 August 29, 2019 15 hours ago, brenthutch said: You are right because the laws of hydrodynamics don't apply to Obama. What? Which laws of hydrodynamics are you referring to, exactly? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #1571 August 29, 2019 6 minutes ago, yoink said: What? Which laws of hydrodynamics are you referring to, exactly? A liquid at liquid will keep liquiding until liquided upon by an equal and opposite liquid. Gotta give a pass here and there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,720 #1572 August 29, 2019 10 minutes ago, yoink said: What? Which laws of hydrodynamics are you referring to, exactly? When you're so full of pee you can't hold it any longer? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #1573 August 29, 2019 28 minutes ago, JoeWeber said: When you're so full of pee you can't hold it any longer? I just hydrodynamiced myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #1574 August 29, 2019 3 minutes ago, normiss said: I just hydrodynamiced myself. You should wear a CALOSTROPHY bag. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,720 #1575 August 29, 2019 11 minutes ago, DJL said: You should wear a CALOSTROPHY bag. That Depends.......... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
