A free staters wanted to kill a MA "tree hugger"?

[eques]

In fact the only problem with global warming is that more land along the coastal regions will be flooded and that's it.

New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Florida... no big loss, any of them.

Don't forget the Raritan River basin and much of the swampy areas of NJ (especially Secaucus) as well as the low-lying areas of the Pacific River valley up to Boonton, NJ.

Yeah, no big loss...

[cathleeninnh]

And guess who's going to pay to bail em all out?

Cathleen

[Sweet Mercury]

In fact the only problem with global warming is that more land along the coastal regions will be flooded and that's it.

New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Florida... no big loss, any of them.

Don't forget the Raritan River basin and much of the swampy areas of NJ (especially Secaucus) as well as the low-lying areas of the Pacific River valley up to Boonton, NJ.

Yeah, no big loss...

Take it from an NJ resident: it's no big loss.

[eques]

In fact the only problem with global warming is that more land along the coastal regions will be flooded and that's it.

New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Florida... no big loss, any of them.

Don't forget the Raritan River basin and much of the swampy areas of NJ (especially Secaucus) as well as the low-lying areas of the Pacific River valley up to Boonton, NJ.

Yeah, no big loss...

Take it from an NJ resident: it's no big loss.

I was born there and lived the vast majority of my life there. 

No longer a resident, though! 

[anthonybpugh]

"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason." --Jack Handey

[Caleb]

In fact the only problem with global warming is that more land along the coastal regions will be flooded and that's it.

New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Florida... no big loss, any of them.

I tend to see the loss of those places as one of the perks of global warming. 

[JonM]

They problem is where all those idiots would move.

[FrankChodorov]

Here's a climate action plan: Stop basing public policy on junk science.

you are going to be on the wrong side of history...

Frank, my friend, I'm afraid it is you who are going to be on the wrong side of history.  Or more appropriately, you already are on the wrong side of history.

History tells us that the earth has been far colder than it is now.  There used to be glaciers in Indiana, for instance.

The other side of that coin is that the earth has also been much warmer than it is now.  The arctic regions, for instance, used to be tropical.

Is the earth warming?  Unquestionably.  I have yet to have someone tell me a reason (other than "our precious coastal cities") that it matters.  Although I believe that the earth is warming, it isn't on my top 100,000,000,000 list of things I'm going to worry about. In fact, it may be a good  thing, as far as I'm concerned.  The earth will go on and survive, my friend.  Don't you worry about that.  So will humanity.  All this talk of global warming ends up edging out real problems, like the fact that government scientists have made some pretty nasty biological weapons.  Let's not get all caught up in knee jerk reactions to fake problems.

the science has become more and more unquestionable over the last five years - there is almost no debate within the peer review scientific community over whether or not humans are a contributing factor to global climate change, there are still scientific questions remaining about exactly how much and the consequences as it may effect man.

the public debate has now shifted to policy prescriptions...as it should.
scientists should not be involved in the policy debate portion.

the major problem is that the condition will change so rapidly that migratory patterns/ranges for insects, birds, animals and their diseases will overwhelm the natural habitats that they move into...this also makes alien species brought into habitats particularly troublesome.

the insurance industry will lead the charge as their losses mount - State Farm will no longer write homeowners policies along coastal areas.

[cathleeninnh]

I would hope State Farm would stop writing policies along the coast, but I have no faith that the regulatory insurance bodies would stay out of it. It is a good market approach to discourage development in an area likely to lose ground.

Cathleen

[Russell Kanning]

There is no private earthquake insurance in Cal. ... it is all done by the state now.

[Lloyd Danforth]

No company has the funds to back up the possible costs of the distruction. The state doesn't either.

[eques]

I wouldn't say that that's specifically true... or, at best, no one company would have the resources to cover a loss due to an earthquake.

The problem is that state regulation, once enforced, necessarily snuffs out any private enterprise.  So even if there was a way to run a profitable earthquake insurance firm, we would never know it looking at the way things operate today because of the state-controlled industry in California.

I think that pre-paid insurance for areas prone to natural disasters is probably not the best way to solve the problem at hand, anyway.  I think somebody on this board mentioned "reverse insurance," where the payout is essentially a loan.  So, instead of paying out the nose through premiums, you don't pay unless you actually need it.

If, once you rebuild, your house gets knocked flat again and you're still paying off the first loan, it might be time to reconsider applying for another loan to rebuild.

[Russell Kanning]

No company has the funds to back up the possible costs of the distruction. The state doesn't either.

Sure they could .... a company just can't cover every house in cal. The state just demanded things that noone could live with .... so now just government coverage.

[error]

The state just demanded things that noone could live with .... so now just government coverage.

... which nobody can live with.

[NC2NH]

scientists should not be involved in the policy debate portion.

Please tell this to Dr. Heidi and the other meteorologists at the Weather Channel. It's hard to find a prime time forecast for tomorrow's weather, but they'll darn sure tell you all about global warming and the ways government can solve it.