[mike_hearn]

Why so uncharitable? You could at least consider the possibility that their understanding of the situation is better than yours.

There are supposedly two climate-related threats from living on the coast: sea level rise and storm risk. Sea level rise is so trivial that many Pacific islands have been getting bigger, not smaller as was predicted, and it's a very steady rate of change. That leaves storm risk. NOAA is a group of people with a long history of scientific scandals who owe much of their funding to their claims about climate risk, but let's see what they say about living on the coast:

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

> "it is premature to conclude with high confidence that human-caused increases in greenhouse gases have caused a change in past Atlantic basin hurricane activity that is outside the range of natural variability"

Mankind has been emitting CO2 for 150+ years but there's no data showing it's made the weather worse.

So, all claims that living on the coast is a bad idea are based 100% on modelling predictions. Given they've been diverging over time and divergence has got worse instead of better, the opposite of what should be happening, reasonable people can certainly conclude it's OK to ignore them when considering property prices.