Dear Thinker:

In his column below, Holman Jenkins of the WSJ masterfully skewers the NYT and other parishioners at the Church of Climatology for claiming that climate change has lowered the value of hoity-toity homes along coastlines.  Actually, the real cause is the government finally reducing flood insurance subsidies for such homes--subsidies that came at the expense of working stiffs in Kansas and other flyover country.  No doubt this means that Donald Trump, the hero of such working stiffs, will gladly pay more for insurance on Mar-a-lago.

Larger question:  Is there any American who doesn't benefit from redistribution--from some sort of subsidy, handout, entitlement, or job dependent on government regulations or the tax code?  I haven't been able to find one.  We should've elected Bob Dole as president years ago for the symbolic value, given that we're all on some sort of dole.     

Regards,
Mencken's Ghost

Shoreline Gentry Are Fake Climate Victims

A reduction in federal subsidies is behind lower coastal home values.

By 

HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.

The Wall Street Journal, Updated Nov. 26, 2016 8:14 a.m. ET

The fake news problem is getting serious. An example appeared on the front page of theNew York Times on Friday, under the headline "Rising Seas Turn Coastal Houses Into a Gamble."

Supposedly elevated sea levels caused by global warming have homeowners and developers worried about the value of their coastal properties.

Supposedly their concern has been heightened by the election of Donald Trump, "who has long been a skeptic of global warming."

Supposedly the Trump selection of Myron Ebell, a policy specialist who challenges the media consensus on global warming, to head the EPA transition has "intensified these worries in Florida and among many climate scientists."

The emphasis is ours—though, of course, it's probably true that somebody "in Florida" buys the thesis of this story, even if it's just a Times reporter passing through.

Only in the second half of a 3,099-word opus is the truth not so much revealed as hinted. Halting and piecemeal reform of the federal flood-insurance subsidy program that has so benefited wealthy seaside homeowners is why beach-front housing prices are being reset.

A Sarasota couple found it harder to sell their Florida house when shoppers noticed a $7,000 annual flood insurance bill. "This experience will become more common, economists say, as the federal government shifts away from subsidizing flood insurance rates to get premiums closer to reflecting the true market cost of the risk," the paper notes in passing.

Bingo. When Teddy Roosevelt built his Sagamore Hill on Long Island, he did so a quarter mile from shore at an elevation of 115 feet not because he disdained proximity to the beach or was precociously worried about climate change. The federal government did not stand ready with taxpayer money to defray his risk.

Estimates vary, but sea levels may have risen at two millimeters a year over the past century. Meanwhile, tidal cycles along the U.S. east coast range from 11 feet every day (in Boston) to two feet (parts of Florida).

On top of this, a "notable surge event" can produce a storm surge of seven to 23 feet, according to a federal list of 10 hurricanes over the past 70 years.

We should not exaggerate the degree to which homeowners are being asked to shoulder their own risks. Washington is doling out five-figure checks to Jersey homeowners to raise houses on pilings to reduce the federal government's future rebuilding costs. But, to state the obvious, normal tidal variation plus storm surge is the danger to coastal property. Background sea-level rise is a non-factor. A FEMA study from several years ago found that fully a quarter of coastal dwellings are liable to be destroyed over a 50-year period.

Though it pleased New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to pretend Superstorm Sandy in 2012 was caused by global warming, the storm wasn't even a hurricane by the time it hit shore—it just happened to hit at peak tide. Sure, certain people in Florida and elsewhere like to conflate the two. It's in their interests to do so. But the Times is not obliged to make front-page climate propaganda out of a false syllogism.

Alas, climate change is one of the worst things to happen to journalism. Our industry's base of financial support was already being eroded by digital economics. Our intellectual credibility is assailed by fake news, on one hand, and by the rise of bloggers, on the other, many of whom are more perceptive, disciplined thinkers.

Climate change is the cheapest grace on offer these days. Climate reporters aren't expected to understand the science or its limits—understanding is actively discouraged. Just memorize the word "consensus" and fling "denier" at anybody who proves inconvenient.

This column, for instance, says nothing about the role of fossil fuels in climate change. It doesn't mention that President Obama's policies would have no effect on climate change so the transition to President Trump will have no effect either. The only thing being denied is that climate change is the major factor in repricing shoreline property. Its author will be called a denier anyway.

The emperor's new clothes is our most important parable of groupthink. It reminds us that a certain kind of cowardice expresses itself not as fear but as joy—joy at conformity, joy at being part of a mob, joy at being immune to criticism no matter how bovine your reporting because you exhibit the "right" stance on climate change.