[IanDrake]

Obama only ran the country for 8 years, but hfdh434535 knows better.

Real estate is about the closest thing to putting your money where your mouth is as far as climate change goes and the people have spoken - the coasts are still the most valuable and desirable places to live.

[dkarras]

>Real estate is about the closest thing to putting your money where your mouth is as far as climate change goes and the people have spoken

I would definitely buy coast property today because this won't be a significant problem in my lifetime. I'd buy from coast again when it becomes a significant problem, just that the coast location would be different of course.

[IanDrake]

You're re missing the point. Look at the map, the blue region is the extent in 100 years.

What do you think happens in that 100 years? I assume this would be a near linear progression. That means current waterfront has about 10-20 years, not 100.

[dkarras]

The blue region will not be totally underwater. The most pessimistic estimate is a 6 feet rise by 2100. A coast property, if you are inclined, can deal with that.

The note under map says: Blue indicates counties where flooding will displace residents if sea levels rise by six feet by 2100. Counties in shades of pink and red will see higher-than-average migration, with the darker shades representing larger population increases.

So it only means people will likely migrate to other areas, not that the blue places will be totally underwater by 2100.

Got me wondering though, are you really a climate change skeptic? I mean climate change is something as obvious as gravity, we have all the data to support it, we can directly observe it etc. I find it hard for a sane people to question it, really. I mean I understand how someone can be skeptical about "man made climate change" which is something open to debate, but climate change itself isn't really open to debate.

[IanDrake]

Does the climate change? Of course. Are we doing a good job predicting it and understanding how it works? No. Not even close.

I have a background in financial modeling, using exponentially more observations, in a less chaotic system, with participants betting on the models with real dollars. It makes climate change models look like simplistic toys, which most are.

There is NO consequence of being wrong with a climate model, no shame, and there's a high degree of survivorship bias. Climate models that have been right, have been right for the wrong reasons. Climate models that have been wrong (most) are long forgotten and never discussed. New models come out all the time to hype fears for events that prior models predicted would be happening now (and aren't).

The question isn't does the climate change, the question is do we understand it at all.

[baq]

That is true, always has been and always will be true, regardless of where the coastline happens to be at the time :)