Probably the clearest example of two divergent realities lies in the issue of global climate change. To see one side of the coin you only need tune in to any of the network news stations: California fires, hurricanes in the Gulf, and flooding in New York are all being blamed on anthropogenic climate change. It’s not hard to consider the other side of the coin, either—generally any site in the Right Blogosphere can be expected to scoff at it.
Everyone having their own facts is evident in this column from Holman Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal as well:
After 41 years of promoting a fuzzy and unsatisfying estimate of how much warming might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, the world’s climate science arbiter has finally offered the first real improvement in the history of modern climate science.
Through five previous U.N. assessment plus their predecessor, the 1979 Charney Report, the likely worst-case was a rise of 4.5 degrees Celsius. This came from averaging the result of inconsistent computer climate simulations about which the IPCC knew only one thing: They couldn’t all be right and perhaps none were.
Using real-world data, the new report now says the worst case is a 4-degree rise. More important, with much greater confidence than before, disastrous outcomes above 5 degrees are now found to be very unlikely.
In another departure, the U.N. panel now says the dire emissions scenario it promoted for two decades should be regarded as highly unlikely, with more plausible projections at least a third lower.
The report also notes, as the press never does, the full impact of these emissions won’t be manifested until decades, even a century, later. The ultimate likely worst-case effect of a doubling of CO2 might be 4 degrees, but the best estimate of the “transient climate response†this century is about 2.7 degrees, or 1.6 degrees on top of the warming experienced since the start of the industrial age.
You might not wish this on your least-favorite planet, but compare it with media coverage of the U.S. National Climate Assessment in 2018, which paraded as a nearly foregone conclusion a temperature increase of 6.1 degrees.
No, the new report isn’t a reason to stop worrying about climate change, on the unlikely assumption that your previous level of worry corresponded to the actual science. But if you’ve been buying the media’s exaggerations, you can relax quite a bit.
My own view is a bit different. I don’t know whether human activity is inducing global climate change but I think it’s obvious that human activity has local effects and those effects can be pretty dramatic. I don’t believe that you can pipe a billion gallons of water per day into Southern California without it having some effect. I also think we should be using resources more prudently and efficiently than we do.
And I do have a question. Why do we encourage people to move to the coasts? There have been hurricanes and other serious storms in those areas for millions, billions of year. What’s new is people building so many homes there.
“Why do we encourage people to move to the coasts?”
Encourage? People are going there on their own, for obvious reasons. All the people migrating from NY, NJ, CA and IL are locating not just “on the coast,” but near the water. And I think you are a bit late:
I’ve lived on the coast of the Gulf and experienced Hurricane Irma. I currently live on the coast of S Carolina. We just got a whiff of a hurricane recently, but Bluffton got Hurricane Mathew a while back.
The building codes in Florida are now such that the homes can withstand tremendous storms. Irma literally went through Naples. Our house, and almost all those more recently built did just fine. Cracking of clay roof tiles due to wind flutter was the biggest issue. Its the older, say pre-1980, homes that suffer the damage. Now, in the Keys………… But those people have been there for ages.
Similarly, in the S Carolina low country we literally live adjacent to the marsh’s emanating from the Colleton River. But our home, like all the homes in such locations, is built 10 ft up, with flow through panels. That’s where the garages are, and you would have to get your cars out in the event of a hurricane, but they aren’t going to blow over or flood. Its the older homes, generally built prior to 1970.
Let’s not even talk about New Orleans. Although the levees held this time.
I see Uncle Joe gave a speech today blaming the NY hurricane/floods on global warming, and of course the justification for his 10% infrastructure bill. This falls somewhere between arrant nonsense and pure dishonesty.
Agree with Drew that I dont think you need to encourage people to live by the water. People pay a premium to do that be it ocean or lake. Homes built to newer code are safer. You are still at risk of losing power and water.
Do we still subsidize home and flood insurance in coastal regions? That should go away or have pretty low limits. Not sure why we are subsidizing insurance for multimillion dollar homes (if we still are).
Steve
Facts are malleable, and proper tools to mold an agenda. The climate extremists don’t really believe them.
But on the other hand, when the Arctic melts into the Atlantic, the whole shebang tips over, and goodbye Gulf Stream, goodbye Europe and life as we know it.
And, all the code updates Drew mentioned cost money, Katrina scoured the Mississippi coast of older homes and those people won’t be back.
Creative Destruction.
We have already been in that warmer climate: the Medieval Climate Optimum, the Roman Optimum, the Minoan Optimum. Each successive optimum was somewhat cooler than the previous one. The long term temperature trend is down. The current climate is similar to the Dust Bowl 30’s. There was actual cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s.
The current warming is not unusual. It is possible that AGW will in fact raise world temperatures, and it may have contributed to the recovery from the Little Age Ice of the 14th to 19th Centuries. But the temperature rise will be near zero at the Equator (because of water), and it will be greatest around 60 N and S.
A temperature rise that melted the Greenland Icecap (but NOT the Arctic Ice) would flood our coastlines, but it would also open up vast areas of Canada, Scandinavia, and Siberia. The actual amount of livable and arable land would expand immensely.
Whether that will affect the Gulf Stream and atmospheric circulation is debatable. The combination of differential solar surface heating and the Earth’s rotation demands a northern flow of both air and water from the equator, and it is the Earth’s spin (angular momentum) that determines the curvature of the flows.
The interruptions of the Gulf Stream in earlier eras (there were several) were mainly due to melting of continental ice sheets. Those no longer exist.
Of the hundred or so climate models, two or three are actually tracking the recent temperature rise. All the others are running hotter than the data, some extremely so. Averaging them is an act of scientific fraud. Funding for all models, other than the few that actually work, should be ended. But that’s like getting a heroin addict of the drug.
Mish had a summary. But you probably knew that.
Full hurricane insurance in FL will often now run $50k per year for high end homes so people self insure, at least for a portion. No subsidies. A big house can have a $100-150k roof. A partial tear off also results in water damage. The homes getting disaster relief actually are the low end homes. And people don’t move. They rebuild. Watch New Orleans etc.
What about flood insurance? Hurricane only covers wind IIRC. We need functional ports. I am not opposed to subsidizing insurance so that people can work in port areas, just dont think we should be subsidizing what amounts to vacation homes.
Steve
From what I understand, almost all flood insurance in the US is not only federal subsidized but the prices are also fixed by the government. If one lives in a federally designated floodplain, then you can’t get a mortgage without it.
There is a lot of room for reform there, but of course, it’s politically very difficult.
Thanks for the info Drew.
50 grand, guess We’ll stay and brave the twisters.
As I remember, people were relocated from New Orleans to Houston.
Remember the $2,000. debit cards?
My FEMA flood insurance is $5k per year. The house is built to withstand a 100 year flood. I don’t think my area has ever had a flood that would get into the house. Do the math. I don’t know if it’s subsidized or not. I’ve never been a fan of subsidies. Rather, low lying areas should have high risk pools.
The notion that they are largely vacation homes is false. The overwhelming majority are primary homes.
I just skimmed this CRS report and the TLDR version is that the government is phasing out subsidies with the goal that premiums should reflect risk:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45999
At this point, the government should get out of the flood insurance business except to serve as a backstop for catastrophic events that private insurers can’t handle – like a Tsunami or other massive, unpredictable events. Those who need flood insurance should get private insurance at market rates.
I don’t want to be ghoulish while people are still suffering after the most recent hurricane but hurricanes, while not “predictable”, are expected events when you live on the Gulf Coast. Any coast, actually. It’s like flooding when you live on the banks of the Mississippi.
“Those who need flood insurance should get private insurance at market rates.”
That’s correct. And see Daves follow on comment.
Basically you shouldn’t ask your neighbor to subsidize your risky behaviors. We disguise who bears a portion of your risk by saying government should step in. Admittedly you have some problems. Some people have been in these disaster prone zones since, well, forever. It makes change difficult. But we have become a subsidize every risky behavior culture.
I was wrong about our FEMA premium. Its $2000, not $5000. Still, priced off of a 100 year flood that means the premiums cover a $200,00 loss, less capital reserves and administration. The basic insurance principals should be: 1) the risk taker pays the freight, not your neighbor 2) you self insure for what you find sensible for your circumstances (ie choose your deductible or fully self insure), 3) form like risk pools to spread the risk among like risktakers, 4) let the insurers price the premiums and bear the overage risks, along with laying off the rare event risk on re-insurers, which is just a portfolio management concept.
We homogenize too much because its easy. We are suckers for sob stories from the irresponsible, and what amount to, grifters.
“I don’t think my area has ever had a flood that would get into the house.”
And if you do it most likely will be a burst washing machine hose while you are away. Constantly under pressure and taken for granted, (like myself).
As I understand it that’s a flood insurance issue.