I've never understood this argument. Please explain to me how it makes sense. Do you really think these elites care about the long-term value of their properties enough that they wouldn't invest because of climate change? If they get 10, 20, 30 good years out of their properties, why would they have problems with losing them at some point?
Then why should the plebs pay 50% more for gas to get to their minimum wage jobs?
I'm sorry, how does that answer my question? You're changing the topic.
Do you think they don't believe what they are saying? They seem pretty convincing.
A quote I heard just today: "I see better than I hear." That is, show me by your actions. If the words don't match the actions, I'll believe the actions.
(The quote was from T. J. Houshmandzadeh.)
If you use this logic to "disprove the elites", could you answer the question I posed to GP? Why do you think the elites care about their properties? Why wouldn't they buy them to get another good 10, 20, 30 years out of them before it's too late?
If they really believed their rhetoric why wouldn't they build on an inland ridge and pipe the water in?
I think they're pointing out the disconnect between espousing the idea that we're on the verge of rapid, irrevocable, global calamity on one hand, and both directly contributing to that and buying beachfront property. It's easy to see why someone already predisposed to believe misinformation around science might look at that assume that it's all a scam of one form or another.
As AnimalMuppet said actions speak louder than words.
“Your actions speak so loudly, I can not hear what you are saying.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson
With all due respect, read some research on weather science.