Insurers waking up to risks of climate change

[Catawba]

Rev, you just don't get it. All who disagree with AGW are moronic people who don't understand science. How dare you question the almighty knowledge of bloggers, politicians, and faulty government funded climate research and have an opinion that isn't spoon-fed to you.

I do find it funny though. People say it's a great thing and proves global warming when insurance companies want to charge more for the increased risks of AGW when in reality its just an excuse to charge more and make more money. I'm sure it would be a corporate money grabbing evil if they were to raise rates for pretty much any other reason though :shrug:

Thanks for your opinion Digsbe! However, there has not been a scientific organization of national or international standing that has held a dissenting opinion since 2007.

 

[digsbe]

Thanks for your opinion Digsbe! However, there has not been a scientific organization of national or international standing that has held a dissenting opinion since 2007.

I attribute this to government funding and the persecution scientists face when they deviate from the norm. We've seen obvious holes and academic dishonesty when it comes to AGW research and conclusions.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I attribute this to government funding and the persecution scientists face when they deviate from the norm. We've seen obvious holes and academic dishonesty when it comes to AGW research and conclusions.

Yes, wasn't there some sort of e-mail scam showing these scientists acting less than "scientific"?

 

[digsbe]

Yes, wasn't there some sort of e-mail scam showing these scientists acting less than "scientific"?

Yeah, the Climategate scandal. It exposed a lot of the dishonesty and open discussion of how to contort data to make it seem like AGW is happening. There are also other facts that show many of these thermometers are placed next to things that emit heat (like heating units, blacktop pavement, etc).

 

[Catawba]

I attribute this to government funding and the persecution scientists face when they deviate from the norm. We've seen obvious holes and academic dishonesty when it comes to AGW research and conclusions.

Again thanks for your opinion but I've got to go with the consensus of climate experts. I don't happen to believe in a world wide conspriracy dating back half a century. Did you not study the greenhouse effect in school?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Yeah, the Climategate scandal. It exposed a lot of the dishonesty and open discussion of how to contort data to make it seem like AGW is happening. There are also other facts that show many of these thermometers are placed next to things that emit heat (like heating units, blacktop pavement, etc).

The current weather patterns remind me of growing up in the 70's.... Weather is cyclical.... :shrug:

 

[Catawba]

Yes, wasn't there some sort of e-mail scam showing these scientists acting less than "scientific"?

You are behind aren't you? That was investigated and it was found it did not affect the science behind the AGW determination.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You are behind aren't you? That was investigated and it was found it did not affect the science behind the AGW determination.

By whom? the very people perporting it? :lamo

 

[Catawba]

By whom? the very people perporting it? :lamo

You can educate yourself about it here if you wish:

"An academic inquiry cleared climate scientist Michael Mann of any academic misconduct arising from leaked e-mails"

Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again: Scientific American

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You can educate yourself about it here if you wish:

"An academic inquiry cleared climate scientist Michael Mann of any academic misconduct arising from leaked e-mails"

Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again: Scientific American

:shrug:


Let me ask you, how far are you willing to go to stop "climate change"?


I mean even if this country reduced all of it's emmissions to zero, china and russia, countries little talked about, would still be doing the world "harm".... What lengths sir, are you willing to go for you cause?

 

[Catawba]

:shrug:


Let me ask you, how far are you willing to go to stop "climate change"?


I mean even if this country reduced all of it's emmissions to zero, china and russia, countries little talked about, would still be doing the world "harm".... What lengths sir, are you willing to go for you cause?

China is moving ahead of us in future plans to reduce CO2. We are all in this together. As in most endeavors in life, the slackards hurt the group of course. We need to place a high priority on alternative energy developement and phase out our burning of fossil fuels and most importantly increase the efficient use of energy in this country. We are the most wasteful user of energy on the planet.

Without these actions, we are dooming our future economy, not to mention the environmental degradation and the effect that will have on people's lives.

 

[ARealConservative]

Who wants AGW to be a real threat to our economy? You do know that ignoring our contribution makes things worse for ourselves, right? It is why Colonial settlers established regulations to requre settlers to go outside the fort to take a crap. It is not a difficult concept to get, you don't **** in your own backyard.

I'm afraid that just ignoring the stink is not an effective way to deal with the problem.

tell it to the progressive leaders that freak out the minute our economy shows signs of slowing down.

the sad truth is, to allow us to go 14 trillion in debt means we can't slow down our consumption, we have to increase it.

 

[Deuce]

Yeah, the Climategate scandal. It exposed a lot of the dishonesty and open discussion of how to contort data to make it seem like AGW is happening. There are also other facts that show many of these thermometers are placed next to things that emit heat (like heating units, blacktop pavement, etc).

No, that's not what happened with "climategate." That's what Fox News told you happened. If anyone on the right wing had bothered to make even a cursory check on the context of that email, they would have known that "the decline" being referred to was not global temperatures but rather the apparent temperature as shown by tree ring temperature proxies. The tree ring proxies deviate from known temperatures after about 1960 or so. Much discussion and research is ongoing as to why exactly this happens, since tree ring proxies match very well with the rest of the known temperature record as well as the other temperature proxies over the last 1000 years. (prevailing theories are that either increases in acid rain, ozone depletion, or a combination of the two slightly stunted tree growth in the upper lattitudes of the northern hemisphere, causing this apparent temperature decline) This information was publicly available in the very paper referred to in that "hide the decline" email. Six different investigations into the "scandal" all concur that no fraud occurred.

As for the effects of poor siting of temperature stations, this one is also easily disproven. Anthony Watts, a prominent skeptic, ran a group of volunteers who photographed stations all around the country showing bad siting. It's true, many stations are not placed in accordance with the standards. (or they were placed correctly but later new construction brought them out of compliance) His group rated the stations on a scale of "best" to "poor." So, the NOAA decided to investigate the impact of Watts' research and accusations. They reran the temperature record using only the stations Watts' team rated "best" or "good." And again using only stations labeled worse than that. ("fair" or "poor" i think) And again using a newer-but-smaller network of more advanced stations placed deliberately far from civilization. Each time, the data comes back nearly identical. In fact, the "poor" stations, rather counter-intuitively, introduce a cooling bias into the data, not a warming bias. Watts' team made some accusations but never bothered to check on the impact of the situation.

I've posted links that prove this numerous times. Do you need to see it again?

 

[Deuce]

:shrug:


Let me ask you, how far are you willing to go to stop "climate change"?


I mean even if this country reduced all of it's emmissions to zero, china and russia, countries little talked about, would still be doing the world "harm".... What lengths sir, are you willing to go for you cause?

I'm willing to replace every single fossil fuel plant with nuclear, solar, or wind. I'm also willing to invest heavily in research and infrastructure to prepare the country for all-electric vehicles. (except perhaps for semi trucks for now, as battery technology is nowhere near what we need to run those.) To pay for it, I'm willing to slash military budgets, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely, and implement Cap and Trade to raise additional revenue.

The United States is the worst offender in total CO2 emissions to date by far. China, despite quadruple the population, has only just recently caught up to us in per-year emissions. We've done the most damage, we should be the ones to push first on this. We should also foot the biggest part of the bill. China and India aren't stupid, they're already investing more in "green" energy than we are. They know they can't match our power consumption per-capita without renewable energy, oil supplies are already stretching.

 

[Henrin]

If I had your ability to ignore science and statistics I might come to the same conclusion.

I'm not ignoring science. Where I got my conclusion is from science and history.

 

[Deuce]

I'm not ignoring science. Where I got my conclusion is from science and history.

Then I'm sure you can back up what you said with some good peer-reviewed research!

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Once upon a time ALL THE SCIENTEST said the scablands in Washington State were caused by glaciers. Then one scientist said he thought they were caused by a huge flood. He was labeled a crackpot for a decade and laughed out of the scientific world. One day there was a forest fire in the mountains surrounding Missoula Montana and another scientist saw what looked like lake shore rings on the mountainsides. Then the glacial lake Missoula theory was born and suddenly ALL THE SCIENTEST said oops! Guess the crackpot guy was right. Scientist are people first, scientist second. They engage in group think and are afraid to go against what the consensus is just like real human beings. There is a lesson here learn it.

 

[Deuce]

Once upon a time ALL THE SCIENTEST said the scablands in Washington State were caused by glaciers. Then one scientist said he thought they were caused by a huge flood. He was labeled a crackpot for a decade and laughed out of the scientific world. One day there was a forest fire in the mountains surrounding Missoula Montana and another scientist saw what looked like lake shore rings on the mountainsides. Then the glacial lake Missoula theory was born and suddenly ALL THE SCIENTEST said oops! Guess the crackpot guy was right. Scientist are people first, scientist second. They engage in group think and are afraid to go against what the consensus is just like real human beings. There is a lesson here learn it.

You can apply this to anything, though. Scientists got X wrong, so nuclear fission is inherently suspect!

The fact that scientists can be wrong is not evidence that they are wrong about a particular subject.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

China is moving ahead of us in future plans to reduce CO2. We are all in this together. As in most endeavors in life, the slackards hurt the group of course. We need to place a high priority on alternative energy developement and phase out our burning of fossil fuels and most importantly increase the efficient use of energy in this country. We are the most wasteful user of energy on the planet.

Awesome. look how awesome they are doing with that whole "moving ahead thing". :lamo

China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter | Environment | guardian.co.uk

China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter....

Without these actions, we are dooming our future economy, not to mention the environmental degradation and the effect that will have on people's lives.

i still do not see what lengths you are willing to go for your cause. To me it seems empty rhetoric.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I'm willing to replace every single fossil fuel plant with nuclear, solar, or wind. I'm also willing to invest heavily in research and infrastructure to prepare the country for all-electric vehicles. (except perhaps for semi trucks for now, as battery technology is nowhere near what we need to run those.) To pay for it, I'm willing to slash military budgets, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely, and implement Cap and Trade to raise additional revenue.

Electric cars do not have the distance this vast land has. I agree with nuclear...

Cap and trade would bankrupt us.

The United States is the worst offender in total CO2 emissions to date by far. China, despite quadruple the population, has only just recently caught up to us in per-year emissions. We've done the most damage, we should be the ones to push first on this. We should also foot the biggest part of the bill. China and India aren't stupid, they're already investing more in "green" energy than we are. They know they can't match our power consumption per-capita without renewable energy, oil supplies are already stretching.

Wrong:


China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter.... see above post.

 

[Deuce]

Electric cars do not have the distance this vast land has. I agree with nuclear...

Cap and trade would bankrupt us.







Wrong:


China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter.... see above post.

Before declaring that I am wrong, perhaps you should reread what I wrote. I straight up told you they'd caught us in emissions. They have quadruple the population but only just recently passed us up because their per-capita emissions are so much lower.

China now has the largest per-year emissions. Total emissions to date, on the other hand, we're still well ahead.

Cap and Trade was a Republican idea, a "market-based solution." It has also been very successful. President Reagan implemented the first Cap and Trade system, for lead content in gasoline. It worked better, faster, and cheaper than what the GOP at the time was calling the Democrats' "Command and Control" solution was predicted. President Bush Sr. implemented a Cap and Trade system for sulfur dioxide emissions, one of the primary acid rain pollutants. (I think also nitrous oxide?) It worked well, acid rain in the United States has dropped dramatically and yet somehow America did not go bankrupt. President Bush Jr. expanded on his father's system.

Tim Pawlenty signed a regional Cap and Trade law in Minnesota. John McCain and Sarah Palin touted their Cap and Trade system in the 2008 election season. Newt Gingrich appeared in a commercial alongside Al Gore promoting Cap and Trade and stating that America needs to do something about this.

But somehow around November 2008, Cap and Trade became socialism. Are you telling me all of these people I have named are socialists?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Before declaring that I am wrong, perhaps you should reread what I wrote. I straight up told you they'd caught us in emissions. They have quadruple the population but only just recently passed us up because their per-capita emissions are so much lower.

I state in 2007 they passed us. :shrug:

China now has the largest per-year emissions. Total emissions to date, on the other hand, we're still well ahead.

excuses excuses.

Cap and Trade was a Republican idea, a "market-based solution." It has also been very successful. President Reagan implemented the first Cap and Trade system, for lead content in gasoline. It worked better, faster, and cheaper than what the GOP at the time was calling the Democrats' "Command and Control" solution was predicted. President Bush Sr. implemented a Cap and Trade system for sulfur dioxide emissions, one of the primary acid rain pollutants. (I think also nitrous oxide?) It worked well, acid rain in the United States has dropped dramatically and yet somehow America did not go bankrupt. President Bush Jr. expanded on his father's system.

not a Republican, don't care whos stupid plan it was.

Tim Pawlenty signed a regional Cap and Trade law in Minnesota. John McCain and Sarah Palin touted their Cap and Trade system in the 2008 election season. Newt Gingrich appeared in a commercial alongside Al Gore promoting Cap and Trade and stating that America needs to do something about this.

So what? Not a republican. Don't care which idiot came up with the idea.



I am a conservationist. I am not a funny money scheme supporting ninny.... impdaddy:

But somehow around November 2008, Cap and Trade became socialism. Are you telling me all of these people I have named are socialists?

It sucked long before 2008.....

 

[Deuce]

I state in 2007 they passed us. :shrug:






excuses excuses.





not a Republican, don't care whos stupid plan it was.




So what? Not a republican. Don't care which idiot came up with the idea.



I am a conservationist. I am not a funny money scheme supporting ninny.... impdaddy:






It sucked long before 2008.....

I'd be willing to bet that you never once said so prior to 2008.

So, are you willing to say that Cap and Trade is not socialism, or are all the people I mentioned socialists?

 

[Catawba]

tell it to the progressive leaders that freak out the minute our economy shows signs of slowing down.

the sad truth is, to allow us to go 14 trillion in debt means we can't slow down our consumption, we have to increase it.

Then you don't ignore an enivonmental change we are causing that could cost us trillions, and you don't keep being the most wasteful user of energy in the world because that is going to bust our economy as we approach peak oil in the world. That is the true conservative perspective.

We no longer have the luxury of thinking short term!

 

[sawyerloggingon]

You can apply this to anything, though. Scientists got X wrong, so nuclear fission is inherently suspect!

The fact that scientists can be wrong is not evidence that they are wrong about a particular subject.

You missed the moral of the story completely. I constantly hear from warmers that “all the scientist” agree. Moral of story is, “all the scientist” agreeing doesn’t necessarily make them right so why bother saying that.