More NH Seacoast Sea Level Scaremongering from the Union of Concerned Scientists - Granite Grok

More NH Seacoast Sea Level Scaremongering from the Union of Concerned Scientists

young_frankensteinWhenever the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) releases a “report” the only thing you need to know is that they are and always have been a progressive political activist group.

UCS got its start when a bunch of hippies at MIT formed up as part of the anti-war movement. Anti-War and more often than not anti-American. In 1998, UCS assured the public that American analysts had exaggerated North Korea’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. And I won’t say they are total hacks and frauds, but these are the same people who announced that because of “warmer winters” in the UK moles would destroy Stonehenge.

Winters are about the same as they ever were in the UK but even if they weren’t (discounting all the possibilities I mention here) the most famous standing stones in Britain are safe.  It’s taxpayers who are in danger. And that’s just as true here in the Granite State.

The New Hampshire seashore’s impending doom at the hands of CO2 is not a new story. It’s on the list with CO2 ending winters and winter tourism. Right next to CO2 ruining foliage and fall tourism. Alongside CO2 ruining New Hampshire’s Maple season and on and on. Tourism, as it turns out, hasn’t noticed but that doesn’t stop the Climate cult and its pseudo scientism.

Back in 2016, that UCS “report” lead to concerns over what would remain of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard if we ‘did nothing.’ Always with the hanging curveball assumption is that whatever was happening, you were responsible. But with more your money (and it’s never enough) someone could do something about it. The media, naturally, swung at that sucker and swung hard.

Portsmouth decided it might need an extra $10-12 million added to a shoreline park refurb project to prepare for the promised apocalypse. What are the odds the same “experts” are working a deal with a Nigerian Prince that will cover the costs?

Back in 2016, the UCS also predicted as many as 190 floods per year and a 6-foot rise in sea-level by 2100. I’m not at all worried. If we took a ride down Memory-Hole Lane the percentage of accurate “predictions” by the UCS is probably a lot closer to zero than say, twenty percent. But that’s no reason not to take them “seriously” when they come back with a new report, is it?

The “2018 sky is falling coastline apocalypse report,” destroying real estate values edition has some scary stuff in it for homeowners, or so the reporting goes.

[It] “projects an average of 1.8 feet of sea level rise for New Hampshire in 2045 and 6.6 feet in 2100. The analysis also projects how many properties might avoid such flooding if sea level rise is constrained through the achievement of the long-term temperature goals of the Paris Agreement and if ice loss is limited.”

Back in 2016, we were looking at a foot of rise by 2050 and 6 feet by 2100. Now its 1.8 feet by 2045 and 6.6 feet by 2100. And I’d share all the scary details, but I don’t have to because,

If nations adhere to the primary goal of the Paris Agreement – capping warming to below 2 degrees Celsius – and there is limited loss of land-based ice, about 65 percent of New Hampshire’s at-risk homes would avoid chronic flooding by the end of the century, thus safeguarding the vast majority of property values and annual property tax revenue.  

Sounds like the schtick from Climate Mayors for Payouts to the UN Climate Scam, right – for which Portsmouth (not unexpectedly) was all-in.

And now the UCS has a report to push that crap climate accordeven after the UN admits it will do little or nothing to address any of the concerns about which the UCS alarmists are wailing.

The list of what would need to be done by 2020 — a little over two years from now — includes: Boosting renewable energy’s share to 30%. Pushing electric cars to 15% of new car sales, up from less than 1% today. Doubling mass transit use. Cutting air travel CO2 emissions by 20%. And coming up with $1 trillion for “climate action.”

Here is Warmist Bjorn Lomborg’s graph of the impact if everyone did everything, which will never happen, shows a massive waste of money for nothing of worth.

It’s a bad investment. Worse than bad. Yet the ever-credible UCS is hanging its hat on it and claiming that compliance is going to save 65% of the properties on the seacoast?

Really?

As for ice melt, there’s another non-problem. We’ve had less sea ice than we have now despite having more CO2. But neither scenario has stopped liberals from buying or building homes along coastlines that shouldn’t be there if any of their predictions ever came true.  None of them did. But that doesn’t seem to stop them from making more.

Once market risk perceptions catch up with reality, the report states, and the potential drop in New Hampshire’s coastal property values could have reverberations throughout the economy – affecting banks, insurers, investors and developers – potentially triggering regional housing market crises, according to UCS.

But decades into the CO2 sea-level rise fraud and property valuations for tax purposes are not declining in Portsmouth. Resale values continue to climb. Values for tax purposes continue to climb. Demand for these properties continues to rise. Everything but the sea is rising in Portsmouth.

But if we are to believe what they claim shouldn’t the city intervene?

Did anyone tell potential buyers that they should expect their property taxes to skyrocket to provide adequate protection from Posidons prophesied doom or that the properties themselves ?

Would it be negligence on the part of sellers, real estate agents, or local government to withhold such information?

I think it would.

Unless it was all a fraud. In more ways than one.

Portsmouth is expecting everyone else to pay up.