According to the New York Times, global warming isn’t a threat. About what you just read, the Times didn’t acknowledge the latter as much as it implied it.
In a recent article, the Times reported that coastal areas are home to almost 40 percent of the U.S. population. Which is very telling about many things, including the threat (or lack thereof) associated with so-called global warming.
That’s because where we live is a rather pure market signal calling into question the perceived threat of global warming. Think about it.
Warming theorists have for the longest time told us that rising temperatures associated with rising sea levels threaten coastal communities around the world. Yet despite the fearmongering fanned by warming’s top scientists and truest of true believers, Americans continue to cluster in coastal areas.
Not asked enough is why Americans would populate the coasts if their lives, livelihoods and property were threatened by global warming. And if the answer from warming adherents is that the people don’t know any better, or that Fox News is tricking people, please think again.
Regarding Fox, its audience is quite a bit smaller than 40 percent of the U.S., not to mention that coastal cities have long been majority populated by Democrats who don’t watch Fox to begin with. As for “the people” broadly not knowing, it’s easy to forget that the people are the market, meaning they’re information personified. Yet this rather deep market defined by 40 percent of the U.S. population is unperturbed by global warming’s existential qualities.
Maybe those on the coasts are too rich to care? No, it’s not a serious presumption as the left continue to unwittingly imply. They’re the ones who routinely lament that a tiny, 1 percent sliver of the population is arrogating to itself an allegedly fixed pie of wealth, which means that by the same analysis of a left wing most prone to believe in global warming theory, it couldn’t be that 40 percent of the U.S. population is too rich to care about the supposedly looming threat of rising sea levels.
Some will say rising sea levels don’t matter for the people on the coasts since “moral hazard” reigns in coastal cities. This is a popular view on the right, that state and federal insurance socializes choices about where to live. Except that it doesn’t. Evidence supporting the previous statement can be found in the cost of houses and apartments in coastal areas. They tend to be much higher than inland prices, and certainly much higher than the $250,000 in compensation that may be directed to those unlucky enough to see their house or apartment taken out by the much talked about “future” ravages of global warming.
Which is just a comment that in their collective knowledge, rich and poor alike don’t much worry about the looming effects of global warming, which means some of the biggest American businesses aren’t really worried either, right? If 40 percent of the U.S. population is clustered on the coasts, then by extension some of the greatest U.S. businesses must be located there too. It should be noted that their shareholders wouldn’t allow them to be in coastal areas if warming were a threat…
Which brings us to the scientists who are supposedly monolithic about a threat that markets reject. It’s probably telling too, though not in ways that warming theorists would like us to believe: if the U.S. population is near majority coastal, then the scientists predicting their doom must be substantially fringe.
