Drew, The author (Delingpole) is doing a bit of cherry picking himself. He comes across a bit confrontational, which I guess is necessary nowadays for anyone to be a popular commentator. Anyway, the chart he is showing is not a chart in support of the argument "Extreme weather events are increasing: yet another green propaganda myth". He is showing a chart of deaths due to extreme weather. This is not the same as the number of extreme events. Is it surprising that more people died of weather-related events in the 1920s-1940s? That was an era of world wars & their aftermath (not to mention a world-wide depression, antibiotics were just being discovered, viruses were not well understood). Many many posts ago, I put up a chart showing the increase in the number of billion-dollar weather events per year. This is also not the same as an increase in the number of events. It is more a function of our development along the coasts and short-term thought when it comes to civil planning. The chart that Delingpole shows is taken from data in the paper "Deaths and Death Rates from Extreme Weather Events: 1900-2008" (I.M Goklany) Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 14 Number 4 Winter 2009. The paper is definitely making the argument that the human costs of climate change are over dramatized. However, just looking at the data from the paper we cannot draw the conclusion that Delingpole is making. From the actual paper: Figure 1: The number of extreme climate events per decade There is likely better reporting of extreme events now as compared to the early 20th century; however this graph clearly shows the events are increasing. Figure 2: Deaths and death rates due to extreme climate events per decade This is the data from Delingpole's graph. He is showing the data from Figure 2 and making a statement contrary to Figure 1. Did he not see Figure 1 (didn't read the paper he is referencing?) or is he selectively reporting the data that fits with his argument? Either way lacks integrity both scientifically and journalistically. Here is a link that might be useful: Link to paper

I have read a few articles in the last few months about what home buyers should do if the builder is bankrupt or in danger of it. (Link below) Oftentimes they lose a great deal of money, or if they've already closed, they have no warranty. But the warranty is somewhat of an illusion anyway. Another problem is liens. Seems like the ones who get harmed the most, (as far as customers), are the ones who've put a lot of money down and it's just "gone," and the builder folds. There are always secured creditors in line way before home buyers and their deposits. As for big builders, I think Beazer could be the first to go under because they're also under federal investigation for mortgage fraud and securities fraud, and one of their exec's destroyed documents during the investigation. Here is a link that might be useful: Homebuyers can prepare for the worst

Here in CT the house next to us was abandoned last January. Compalints began with the town but no one could get ahold of the mortage company, the town said they could not go on the property including the 'set back' line. In March or April it went up for auction with several interested parties. They wanted a very large amount of money for it and considering it had been destroyed by previous owners, pipes had burst, structural damage had been done and needed a new spetic they would not enterain any lower bids. The house then sat. Several of us in the neighborhood went to the town about it - I in particular went in May and complained b/c the house butts up against my back yard, had a man made water feature/pond and they had piled garbage in bags on the deck and filled the cars with garbage, food prior to leaving. I have small children and raccoons had taken up living there due to food/water source. I complained about failure to use my backyard due to animals, etc. I also asked for a name of who to send hospital bills to when my children needed medical care from animal attacks. We then got into it about 'getting rid' of the raccons and one of our police officers was at the town hall by chance and he suggested that I pay for traps to be set up. I work in a law firm and advised them they were inhibiting my right to use my property but it got no where. In any event - My husband and I went on to contact the health dept., the State Dept. of health and various news stations as did other neighbors. Finally, in July - someone came and mowed the yard. In Sept. someone came and cleaned the house - they told us it took 20 bombs to kill was was moving in the house inside full bags of garbage. (I had been inside in early spring and there was food, flies, etc. everywhere - GROSS.) I will also say that we were advised NOT to mow the lawn b/c they claim that it could be considered tresspassing and desstruction of property. We rotated mowing the grass until the end of the season disregarding the town. The house went up for sale 'as is' by a real estate company in the fall and they are not disclosing it was a foreclosure or any of it's problems. My neighbor was outside when a potential buyer started talking to him and had no idea about the issues - when his 'realtor' came outside to join him - she said she new nothing about it and would have to look into it. It is now 1 year later and it still sits.

Oh for god's sake let's not start dragging the aclu into this. I can't find it now, but just a couple hours ago I read where prime forclosures are starting to creep upward. One of the people profiled in the story was in Vegas--true, a declining mkt, but she had a good job as technology head of a casino and a fairly reasonably priced house. Nevertheless, in '06 or '07 she was bait-and-switched into an interest-only loan w/ a $40,000 prepay penalty that doesn't go away until 2009. (Countrywide) That $40k is more than 10% the amount of the mortgage. I thought to myself 'how the heck did she get into such a loan??' Then I noticed the picture. She's black. And yes, that does make a difference. Conservative pundits may protest till they're blue in the face that it's not color, it's poverty, or lack of education, or whathaveyou. But that's bull. It's color. Minorities are many times more likely than whites to get overcharged or offered only inappropriate products. It happens over and over again. Just a year or two ago, most of the big life insurers settled a class action case where they essentially were forced to admit that they'd charged blacks more for life insurance products over decades. They'd also churned these accounts and done all sorts of other fraudulent things. I used to date a guy who worked in a mortgage office located in a black neighborhood in Bklyn. This place was scam-central. I read years later that the company had been shut down by the atty general. It's a disgrace that it took so long. Even as a college kid I could tell they were in the business of ripping people off. So, bottom line, the fact that the aclu and others have fought to force lenders and other financial companies to a) do business with minorities at all, and b) do so fairly without adding a 'color surcharge,' has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we're now in a mortgage meltdown caused by lax lending and fraud. What does have to do with it? Well, whoever invented the idea that people should convert unsecured loans to secured loans by taking out home-equity loans to pay off the CCs, for one. They're still running those ads in my area. What gets me is not only that shady 'credit counseling' companies would push it (why not, there's a buck to be made) but that it actually makes it into 'financial advice' given by so-called experts on tv and in magazines. Also, the Fed, by keeping the money supply so cheap and plentiful for so many years. Check out Jim Jubak on msnmoney.com for multiple well-thought-out discussions of why and how the Fed caused the last several asset bubbles, and why the current rate-lowering is setting us up for the next one. And of course the loan machines--I mean banks--that keep inventing ways of lending money to people under terms that are meant to look like they're good for consumers, but are actually just a way of dragging out the repayment and therefore increasing their profit (I/O, 40-year, exploding ARMs, etc). Finally: I was watching 'My First Place' on HGTV last night. A young couple was looking for a house somewhere in the mountains out west. They were completely unreaslistic about what they were going to get for ~$200k, I thought, but then lo and behold they found a place. Paid $225k. At the end, when they're showing the closing, I almost jumped out of bed--they took out a 100% interest-only ARM mortgage! They were shown signing the 'adjustable rate disclosure' without even reading it! I almost shouted--they still do those?!? I don't know when this was filmed, but it's a pretty new show. I wonder if they're foreclosed yet.