University of Notre Dame
Perhaps “researchers” are only measuring virtue signaling~ctm
Believing in climate change has no effect on whether or not coastal homeowners are protecting their homes from climate change-related hazards, according to a new study from the University of Notre Dame.
Funded by Notre Dame’s Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN), the study analyzed data from a 2017 Coastal Homeowner Survey of 662 respondents in one of the most frequently exposed U.S. coastal communities, New Hanover County, North Carolina. Just one year after the survey, the county was affected by Hurricane Florence and was nearly missed by Hurricane Dorian in September.
The survey asked homeowners whether they believed in climate change, in human causation of climate change, or in God having a role in controlling the weather or climate. Coastal homeowners were also questioned about their knowledge of climate-related hazards, their knowledge of warming oceans and their perception of the seriousness of the impact of climate change.
“We found that climate change attitudes have little to no statistically significant effect on coastal homeowners’ actions towards home protection, homeowner action or homeowner intentions to act in the future,” said Tracy Kijewski-Correa, the Leo E. and Patti Ruth Linbeck Collegiate Chair and associate professor of civil and environmental engineering and earth sciences, associate professor of global affairs and co-author of the study. “This is despite the fact that with climate change, U.S. coastlines have experienced increased frequency and intensity of tropical storms and sea level rise, which has further heightened their vulnerability to waves, storm surge and high-tide flooding.”
According to the study published in Climatic Change, 81.5 percent of survey respondents believed climate change is “probably happening,” with varying degrees of confidence. The Notre Dame research team also measured for partisanship and ideology with the intention to control for questions about climate change that can tap into identity and prior political beliefs. However, after controlling for partisanship, the findings were unaffected.
“Despite persistent differences between Democrat and Republican ideologies in regards to climate change, the behavior of people from either party appears relatively similar. Neither has or intends to take action to improve the structural vulnerabilities of their homes,” said Debra Javeline, associate professor of political science at Notre Dame and lead author of the study. “Homeowners’ knowledge about climate change also held no significance, showing that providing more information and understanding may not be the main driver of convincing homeowners to reduce the vulnerabilities of their coastal homes.”
The research team found that although coastal homeowners may perceive a worsening of climate change-related hazards, these attitudes are largely unrelated to a homeowner’s expectations of actual home damage. Javeline says this may be a reflection of the limited communication about home vulnerabilities from other key stakeholders, like insurance companies, government agencies or sellers of home improvement products.
“Although increasing education and awareness of climate change is important, our findings suggest that encouraging homeowners to reduce the vulnerability of their coastal home may be more effective if expressed in regards to structural mitigation and its economic benefits, rather than in context of climate change,” said Javeline.
###
The study was co-authored by Angela Chesler, doctoral student in political science and the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame, and was developed in partnership with the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety and implemented by the survey research firm SSRS. The study also received the 2019 Paul A. Sabatier Best Conference Paper Award from the Science, Technology & Environmental Politics Section of the American Political Science Association.
Kijewski-Correa and Javeline are affiliated with Notre Dame’s Environmental Change Initiative and the Kellogg Institute for International Studies. Kijewski-Correa is also affiliated with Notre Dame’s Fitzgerald Institute for Real Estate and the Notre Dame Initiative for Global Development, while Javeline is a fellow in the Kroc Institute at Notre Dame.
So while the so called believers in CC will make the expected virtue signals , they don’t really believe, or possibly think that its so far ahead that it will not affect them in their lifetimes.
Of more importance is what do the Insurance businesses think. Has the cost of coverage for buildings on the foreshore risen over say the last 20 years, in line with the level of alarm from the Warming lobby ?
Other than in line with inflation of course. But if not, why not ?
MJE VK5ELL
Several years ago, insurance premiums went up all along the Eastern Seaboard of the US, allegedly in response to a greater chance of loss due to Global Warming. The rate hikes were supported in part by messaging from the US government which supported the notion of increasing future losses.
So what happened?
Premiums went up, losses and insurance payouts did not. The insurance industry made record profits. For quite a while after that, the financial and investment industry viewed the insurance industry as “the next big thing” for investment and profit. The situation generated countless news stories in investment circles.
As I recall, one of the enabling factors was the US Govt. which recalculated “flood risk” for homes across the board, around ~2012-2013, or so. The risk factors went up, and people had to by more insurance, or pay more for the insurance they had.
Insurance rates are mostly set by actual payouts. When a hurricane landfalls, the payouts increase, so the reinsurance rates climb until sufficient reserves are established, and so the retail insurance rates also increase.
Rates aren’t set by climate change fears.
Even if there was a spike due to political pressure, competition would quickly force rates back down.
Quickly is a relative term.
The fact is, here in Florida (and many other locales I would well suspect), after 2005 homeowners insurance rates spiked gigantically.
We then or course went into the long period of very low impacts from storms anywhere in the US, compared to historical averages, including the well known droughts in major hurricanes hitting the US or existing anywhere in the Gulf of Mexico.
This was a very long period of drastically reduced payouts for tropical cyclone related claims.
Also flood insurance rates spiked and the maps for them were redrawn to include many large regions that have never flooded in modern times.
On top of that, some insurers stopped writing policies in the state, including some that were huge prior to 2005, such as State Farm.
State farm has since returned, and rates have moderated, but I do not know if they ever went back to the trajectory and range they hade been in/on before all of this.
And I can tell you not a single dollar was ever refunded for many many years of jacked up rates, which are attributable at least in part to climate alarmist notions of new normal and assurances of ever worsening frequency and magnitude of tropical cyclone activity.
It takes a long time to replenish reserves after a big payout.
“Belief” in Climate Change is similar to “Belief” in UFO’s.
The true believer can get belligerent if you try to debunk (“step on”) their beliefs with any kind of scientific facts or evidence simply because they “Want” to believe that they have the power to alter the climate. They want to believe the boogeyman (CO2) is a real monster that needs to be controlled. And they require affirmation of their beliefs from other like minded “True Believers”
We left South Carolina coast east of US-17 in part due to insurance costs.
Our home was designed and carefully sited to survive near the worst of H. Hugo. At high tide the red fish swam under the house for thirty years.
But too many Yankees spoil the broth.
Yankees?
What kind of a redneck whines about Yankees?
Patient Zero: Barack Obama
‘the so called believers in CC will make the expected virtue signals’
I’m sure they gave at the office.
I was watching a presentation on why people adopt political correct views and it seems that they do so because those opinions are seen as high status markers in social situations where you don’t know the participants.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oo0NIDKC5U
That would possibly explain why we observe societies high status individuals (Leo DiCaprio and the UK Royal family) preaching about climate change and then hopping on private planes to fly someplace warm for their vacations and not seeing the cognitive dissonance in their behaviour or maybe they absolve themselves of sins through their tax efficient foundations. It is having the right politically correct opinion that matters to them. I expect that this was much the same during the era when Eugenics was de rigueur, they were all for sterilising others but not themselves. You see this as well in the Malthusian part of the green spectrum where they claim there are too many people however they seem to be a ripe old age with grandchildren of their own.
Isn’t the basic mantra of Malthusian ” there are too many other people in the world” ?
From most of the Malthusians that I have met, I would say the basic mantra is a little more like this:
“There are too many people who don’t look like me, in the world.”
Believing in climate change means you go along to get along… which means you are condemning the next generation to a communist paradise.
I live within 150 yards of the coast, approx. 70 feet above HW. Insurance here has only gone up by building inflation costs.
You have lived in Beaufort how long, long enough to remember a selection of home insurance companies?
Our home and auto insurance combined is much less now than home insurance when we lived east of US-17.
I’ve lived here 9 years. A very small island called Alderney on the edge of the English Channel. There is only one local insurance company, but I feel it’s better to use them as they understand local conditions better than a UK based outfit online. We get thumped quite hard by storms coming in off the North Atlantic, the first bit of real estate to the West is the US, 3,000 miles away.
We are very small, 3 square miles, population a shade under 2,000.
I presume you are on the south side. Do people in the lee of the breakwater pay more?
No, I live on the North side, up by the hospital overlooking Crabby Bay and the Swinge. Spray from the breakwater regularly hits the house leaving the windows on the seaward side looking like frosted glass. Need regular cleaning from now until next Spring.
I wouldn’t say insurance costs are any more than on the bigger sister island of Guernsey, although labour costs are slightly less here.
Say “hi” to Dame Julie Andrews for me next time you see her.
Will do, although I’m not sure she still lives here. Her house is at the other end of the island from me.
I am in deep trouble – I don’t believe in either god- or CO2-related climate change.
I would also like an explanation of what “U.S. coastlines have experienced increased frequency and intensity of tropical storms and sea level rise” means.
How does sea level rise have a frequency and intensity? Perhaps she meant ‘as well as’ sea level rise rather than include it with the storms.
From all of the virtually multi-century/decadal straight-line tide gauge graphs shown on WUWT, she should explain where natural sea level rise ended and man-made rise started.
The researchers probably should have begun their article with proof of the existence of God, and or climate change.
Ignorant twaffle from climate change trough chasing pseudo scientists.
Nice that they ignore not only coastal storms of the Twentieth Century, but also the 16th through 19th Century storm wracked histories.
Proof?
No actual meteorological, physics or statistician experts were involved. Just those eager to grab a piece of the lucrative climate change cow by swindling coastal land owners.
Good catch, CTM. Another clear example that people virtue-signal with their mouth and reality-signal with their wallets. That having been demonstrated, remember the east coast of north-central-south Americas is a floundering coast (sea in transgression) and sea level continues to rise, so some local beach house lost should be anticipated.
Nicely put!
I think that’s exactly Nicholas Nassim Taleb’s message. link
Don’t ask someone what they think about the economy. Ask them what they have in their portfolio. What comes out of peoples’ mouths is highly unreliable. What they really believe is demonstrated by their actions.
Political scientists doing a Sociology study. How quaint.
Charles Mackay-born 1814- wrote the book ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,” commenting: “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one,” which chimes with todays mass climate hysteria.
Climatically there is nothing new under the sun. The last ‘Climate Emergency’ was declared in Parliament by King Charles in January 1661 due to the ‘unseasonableness’ of the weather, following a series of very warm winters and very hot summers. This ended abruptly in the bitter cold of the 1690’s . Equally the ‘emergency’ may have reflected the extreme hot weather of the 1540’s or extreme cold weather of the 1560’s or two years of incessant rain from 1315, providing five times annual average rainfall with devastating floods and famine. Older readers will remember the 1970’s alarm over an imminent ice age.
Despite many scientists confirming the IPCC never said we had ‘only 12 years to save the planet’, anarchist groups such as Extinction Rebellion have persuaded many people to carry out their anti democratic and anti capitalist agenda, under the guise of a ‘Climate Emergency.’ Definition of emergency; ‘ a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action’.
Let’s assume that striking students and adults determined to achieve ‘no emissions’ by 2025 are prepared to immediately upend their modern day lifestyles and make sacrifices, as with energy consumption set to soar by 50% by 2050, renewables can not take up the fossil fuel energy gap for decades.
Examples of likely sacrifices: Assuming journeys are necessary in the first place, travel only by bus, cycling, walking or train. For students, no parents taxi service. No flying except in an emergency. No spring water in plastic bottles, No imported food or food out of season when there is a local alternative. Little meat, dairy or fish, no hot daily showers, an embargo on throw away fashion clothes and shoes, no cotton. Infrequent washing of clothes in tepid water and no artificial drying. Drastic reductions of energy guzzling internet and social media, with environmentally damaging smart phones and computers rationed to one a household and kept for years, and curtailment of consumer good purchases. Accept carbon rationing.
Curtail consumption of habitat destroying coffee and forego endless home deliveries, whether fast food or shoes. Cease attendance at festivals or sporting events, especially overseas or with floodlights. Minimal home heating. Expect regular power cuts. Curtail vegan foods which have achieved mythical planet saving status, despite many vegan ingredients being imported –often by air-bearing huge carbon footprints.
So, presumably local activists believing in this climate emergency have taken their own drastic steps to try to prevent it? May we know which of the above list they are personally immediately implementing?
Perhaps they ought to leave climate change to nature which has provided extremes of one sort or another throughout the 12000 year long Holocene and instead concentrate on the environment? This is undoubtedly facing a ‘crisis’
tonyb
“This is despite the fact that with climate change, U.S. coastlines have experienced increased frequency and intensity of tropical storms…”
And where do the researchers get the data to support this conclusion?
*sigh*
And where do the researchers get the data to support this conclusion?
From the local book store, in the Science Fiction section.
I thought everybody knew this.
They saw it in the newspapers.
”This is despite the fact that with climate change, U.S. coastlines have experienced increased frequency and intensity of tropical storms and sea level rise, which has further heightened their vulnerability to waves, storm surge and high-tide flooding.”
The problem starts with the researchers making that supposition a priori! Since there is precious little evidence of increased frequency or intensity of storms or sea-level rise, even though I “believe in” climate change I see no reason to take any particular steps to “climate proof” my property!
Somebody needs to sit these people down with graphs (Paul Homewood at ’Notalotofpeopleknowthat’ is very good with graphs on climate matters) and set them right!
They won’t see something they don’t want to see.
That’s the beauty of global warming, climate change, climate emergency etc. what ever the religious movement is called today.
“The problem starts with the researchers making that supposition a priori!”
The problem is that they are not “researchers”, as easily available reference materials show fairly conclusively that their opinion of what climate change has done to US coastlines has little factual basis.
I did not realize science required belief. Reality only “is”; no matter your wants, desires, or beliefs.
Really the “Kroc” Institute as in: What a load of “crock”.
CAGW — here’s my personal break down.
C —> Personally, I am very skeptical about this supposed problem.
A —> We are a biological entity; all biological entities have an effect on their environment so I am at a “meh”
GW or CC —> Again, so what? Climate has always changed happened. Sometimes cools; sometimes warms. I prefer a bit warmer.
And I gotta tell everybody between the 1917 and 2005 of the Pendersen Glacier I prefer the 2005. Where the glacier was is now biologically productive land. Glaciers are biologically destructive weather/climate machines.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-glacier-mass-balance
They only are using 40 of the nearly 100,000 glaciers:
“Scientists have described more than one hundred thousand glaciers in the World Glacier Inventory….”
The aren’t even honest enough with grammatical convention to use 100,000 but one hundred thousand glaciers. You gotta love the intellectual dishonest.
The article includes quotes from Tracy Kijewski-Correa
https://engineering.nd.edu/profiles/tcorrea
One quote includes. “…U.S. coastlines have experienced increased frequency and intensity of tropical storms…”
Ms. Kijewski-Correa’s statement is contradicted by NOAA data. Maybe she should research the topics she’s supposedly studying.
Regards,
Bob
PS to Tracy Kijewski-Correa:
See my ebook “Dad, Is Climate Getting Worse in the United States?”:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07FW5HDNS/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1532559369&sr=1-1&keywords=dad%2C+is+climate+getting+worse+in+the+united+states
Tracy, you will soon discover that data indicate that climate is not getting worse in the United States. Those of us who understand reality laugh at people like you who state the opposite. So thanks for the laugh, Tracy. BTW, we’re not laughing with you. We’re laughing at you.
Regards,
Bob
Hurricanes have nothing to do with climate change but rather are extreme weather events that are part of the current climate. Most recently hurricanes have been decreasing in both frequency and intensity. South East coastlines have always been subject to hurricanes. coastlines are always changing whether the climate is actually changing or not.
Individuals, irrespective of learning or propaganda, are not acting to counter threats like sea level rise, for one overwhelming reason – they do not see the threat happening, they do not feel it, they do not believe there is a threat to them.
Simples. Now analyse that in academia.
Geoff S
Charles
I see your “Perhaps “researchers” are only measuring virtue signaling~ctm” and raise you what UND’s headline should have been:
Saying you believe in [dangerous] climate change doesn’t mean you believe in [dangerous] climate change, study finds.
They’re using reported belief as the proxy for belief, whereas the right proxy to use is acting-as-if. (There are other ways of knowing what people really think, but they involve MRI, polygraphy, etc.)
That is very true…
Many groups, like ER, indicate through activism that they “Believe” in ACC and yet do very little to act like they believe (Personal divestiture from Fossil Fuels and Fossil derived goods and services) Like their stage that was powered by Diesel Generators.
should be very little to show through personal sacrifice.
Meanwhile over in California a far more urgent problem is how people will cope with days of no electricity because power cables have been switched off owing to risk of forest fires, which in turn would ignite lawsuits. I presume that the risk of fire is the combination of inevitable faults igniting highly combustible undergrowth, which I gather is the result of legislation banning its removal, especially within firebreaks. Five days without being able to charge a phone or access the internet will result in riots.
We can only hope.
How about no traffic signals, no street lights, food spoiling in the refrigerator, people with life sustaining medical devices left without them, hospitals which run out of fuel for generators…
This is a recipe for disaster, an will not, as noted, prevent any but a small subset of potential fires.
Which, when they do occur, will happen to people with no power and presumably limited means of communication.
Businesses will be forced to shut, food on stores shelves will rot, and traffic accidents may claim more lives than any fire has done.
And this is no one off event…it is the plan for the future wherever and whenever fire weather occurs…which is a regular condition in much of the state.
This is a big story which is so far getting little attention.
Wait until millions of people have been without power for days and the blackouts widen to more populous areas.
Just wait…
Anybody want to lay odds on emergency legislation to exempt the power companies from lawsuits from fires?
The BBC have reported it. To be fair, the immediate article[1] reports the PG&E woes and doesn’t mention the C word. However, true to from, one of the linked articles[2] the BBC cannot resist the temptation to link to the Paradise disaster:
[2]. The BBC has a policy of never reporting or linking to any article doubting that the “man-made climate change” hypothesis is “established science”.
[1] BBC: Northern California hit by mega power cuts over wildfire fears https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49982236
[2] BBC: Climate change: California wildfires ‘can now happen in any year’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47444463
This is kind of good news. It shows that empirical evidence still trumps the beliefs and the pseudo-claptrap coming out of the IPCC. It’s a bit like the republic of Kiribati building a massive new airport to attract those ‘climate-damaging’ aircrafts with tourists.
Eliminate federal flood insurance. The federal government should not be in the insurance business.
“Funded by Notre Dame’s Global Adaptation Initiative”
Says it all. Garden party in an unicorn preservation natural reserve ensued.
“Believing in climate change has no effect on whether or not coastal homeowners are protecting their homes from climate change-related hazards”
Yeah, thats called denial.
Loydo,
Science requires belief?
Are you living a low carbon footprint? If you are using modern technology than you aren’t living as low carbon footprint as you could be. Remember, you are carbon based lifeform that requires carbon based molecules to live.
The only part of CAGW I am personally skeptical of is the “C”. Everything else about it is seems to be normal SOP of planet Earth.
Wait for one of the Super Volcanoes to explode then we can talk about “CCC” – oh wait we will probably be dead.
Wrong as usual. It’s called cognitive dissonance. Their belief system (“climate change”) is at odds with their behavior.
No, that’s called virtue signaling.
It’s also called pandering. Something you are quite familiar with.
Typical of the alarmist assumptions and their absurd versions of “climate change”.
The political scientists involved assumed any acceptance of any form of climate changes is their “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming climate change” tallied under alarmist’s belief in the anthropogenic caused “climate change”.
Whereupon lolly can jump in and generally denigrate people whose acceptance of natural climate change is misrepresented.
Especially, as those who live their lives along any coastline generally ignore the alarmist claims of imminent doom. Besides the snow birds who own a 2nd or 3rd tax haven home along the carolina coast, are a significant population of people whose work and incomes are salt water dependent.
These residents understand why the Outer Banks and the Carolina coasts are called “Graveyard of the Atlantic”. Even short term and transient residents should be aware of that name; moreso since so many of them beachcomb hoping to find a ‘piece of eight’.
Im stunned that any council allows building ON a beach! regardless of any CC , it strikes me as outright stupid .
if I was an insurer that would be the places I refused outright to insure .
about as daft as the idiots that build cantilevered homes on the riverbanks etc
You’ll be equally amazed that some properties similarly situated can be rented, for a week, a month, or a summer. After about 3 days and nights of continuous surf sound, interspersed with barefoot walks on the wet sand, and sunrise or sunset vistas with continuously-changing colors, intensity and far-off cloud formations, the ebb and flow of the tides… you either love it, or don’t. People that live there year-round accept the storm risk as just part of the equation.
I’ve fished along several coasts.
It is not hard on any coast to find a bath house, bait house, boat rental, beach rental, etc. etc. along any area of the coast where civilization meets the sea.
At other areas where people actually work the water, it is not uncommon to see homes lining any area of the water to which they have access.
Barataria outside of New Orleans is home to shrimpers, commercial fishermen and crabbers. It is not unusual as one takes their boat into the Gulf, they pass homes along the water’s edge where docks are easy places to clean catch for dinner.
To live along a coast is not a crime and has been done since before man left Africa. Many of whom are aware that the time of dangerous sea level rise are centuries past.
What is absurd, besides alarmist spreading false claims, is the Federal Government providing flood insurance for any building in a flood plain.
People will understandably live along the coast, moderating temperatures overcoming humidity problems. There is an interesting experiment going on in Texas, which has established its own state insurance therefore spreading the cost risk across the state. There is still private insurance, and based on inadequate information it seems cheaper but more rigorous in application. In the Harvey strike area the last storm of consequence was Celia in 1970, but there were two others in the 1960s. The significant storm was 1919 where flood waters were above levels where they are still building floors. Other storms with less damage were also high, at least in places. I suspect that it will take an increase in frequency to force Florida standards, but it is nice to be in a relatively low strike area. A real analysis comparing government versus private, especially churches, post storm impact is necessary.
Not sure of all the complications, but my guess is that it would help to fix the Texas constitution if you can call it that.
“The survey asked homeowners whether they believed in climate change”…
The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years……
When the climate STOPS changing, then I’ll start worrying !
Perhaps all those who accept the science sold up to people who don’t?
As usual your comment has no connection to the facts “We found that climate change attitudes have little to no statistically significant effect on coastal homeowners’ actions towards home protection, homeowner action or homeowner intentions to act in the future,”
Perhaps someone who read the post just detonated the fantasies of someone who didn’t.
Perhaps griff thinks “losing sleep about global warming” is interchangeable with “accepting the science” because he reads “the science” about as deeply as he read “the post.”
Once again, it’s only science when the trolls agree with it.
Oddly it seems that beach front housing is still worth more than other types of housing despite the ‘rising seas ‘
As exemplified by Barack and Michelle Obama buying a mansion in Martha’s Vineyard. Despite all of the “imminent danger” of climate change that he and his administration espoused through his terms as President, it seems as if he isn’t that worried about sea-level rise or catastrophic flooding from the huge increase in massive storms hitting the US.
I wonder if they included the UN, which has spent $2bn refurbishing their waterfront home.
The questions to ask anyone living on the coast or river valley is:
[1] Do they expect the beach, cliff, river bank to remain exactly where they are in perpetuity?
[2.1] Did they study geography (physical)
[2.2] Did they study geography (political)
[3] When the Japanese Tsunami struct was the immediate problem: (a) physical or (b) political?