I think insurance journal ought to do a bit of research on cass sunstein before they use one of his articles…I think they would be in for an eye opening experience…ie: unapoligized commited communist for starters.
Why is this crap being peddled here? I moved to Insurance Journal to get away from the editor at National Underwriter. He also peddled liberal malarkey. Please keep it to facts and not opinion that leads to higher taxation on a global level.
Jared – these are facts, you dumb___….. I’m not sure what constitutes a “fact” in your adorably right-wing section of the world, but here in reality a scientific consensus of 97% is about as close as one can come. The science is done. Choose not to believe it if you wish, but at least have the courtesy to be appropriately ashamed and tight-lipped about your willful ignorance. __it’s here, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Listen lefty, while you insult the right wing section of the population I’m going to give you some pointers on your own willful ignorance and due diligence in research not biased by your own political allegiance, or your preconceived notions you learned in your liberal leaning town (newsflash, it happens to liberals as much as conservatives)
Pointer one: 97% of scientists agree with man mad “climate change”. They changed the title for a reason.
Pointer two: Global warming on a large scale is not the concern even if it existed, the measure of which man made “global warming” will affect the planet is universally considered to be outside the area of concern for scientists.
Pointer three: This occurred when science showed man made global warming simply can’t and won’t heat the planet on a scale to cause enough warming that life is unsustainable on earth.
Now for pointer 4, the one that you should be arguing, but you’re not because of your lack of due diligence due to political allegiance: The concern, is the affect on habitats (including human habitats) from “climate change”. That would be an eco system dying out due to a changing rain pattern, or a rainforest coming out of a desert. It has already been confirmed by scientists, and with good reason, that 3rd world countries would be hit the worst.
Wait huh? Ever looked into the reason why GLOBAL warming would affect one nation more than another? That’s because it is not global WARMING it is CLIMATE change. If a third world country loses their source of water, or an eco system, they can’t just rebuild a new one in the changed ecosystem or move or build a network of industry around it. They don’t have the money to do so.
Now that you and your left wing “fact” bull has been compensated for, and I have shown how much you “liberals” suffer from the blind eye, do me a favor:
Never, ever, throw a bigoted comment out implying that conservatives don’t use facts.
Yeah, conservatives are just rich white stupid people who watch fox news right?
I tend to be more moderate politically, leaning right fiscally and left socially (with exceptions – I like to think for myself). I have no doubt in my mind that climate change is a fact, and have to say Bob’s post is spot-on. Not a big fan of the “liberal” digs, but understand where he’s coming from there. But it is climate change, not “global warming”.
Frank Dunne – So, let me get this straight. Because he’s a communist, we shouldn’t trust the science behind anthropogenic global warming? Hmmmm. Interesting. So, if Cass Sunstein told us to stop drinking poison because it was killing us, would we also question the science behind that, just because he’s got some questionable political beliefs?
I think insurance journal ought to do a bit of research on cass sunstein before they use one of his articles…I think they would be in for an eye opening experience…ie: unapoligized commited communist for starters.
I’m betting you slept through Spelling class as well as science class.
An”unapoligized commited communist?” You’re ridiculous.
Why is this crap being peddled here? I moved to Insurance Journal to get away from the editor at National Underwriter. He also peddled liberal malarkey. Please keep it to facts and not opinion that leads to higher taxation on a global level.
You are under no obligation to read every word of every article.
…..here we go.
That’s right, if you can’t argue science (which you can’t), attack the person.
Climate change (global warming) is most likely happening. What is debatable is whether it is man made or a natural occurrence.
mikey,
I could not agree more, the statistics do in fact prove that the planet is getting hotter, that said I have yet to see any solid proof as to why.
Jared – these are facts, you dumb___….. I’m not sure what constitutes a “fact” in your adorably right-wing section of the world, but here in reality a scientific consensus of 97% is about as close as one can come. The science is done. Choose not to believe it if you wish, but at least have the courtesy to be appropriately ashamed and tight-lipped about your willful ignorance. __it’s here, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Are you serious?
Listen lefty, while you insult the right wing section of the population I’m going to give you some pointers on your own willful ignorance and due diligence in research not biased by your own political allegiance, or your preconceived notions you learned in your liberal leaning town (newsflash, it happens to liberals as much as conservatives)
Pointer one: 97% of scientists agree with man mad “climate change”. They changed the title for a reason.
Pointer two: Global warming on a large scale is not the concern even if it existed, the measure of which man made “global warming” will affect the planet is universally considered to be outside the area of concern for scientists.
Pointer three: This occurred when science showed man made global warming simply can’t and won’t heat the planet on a scale to cause enough warming that life is unsustainable on earth.
Now for pointer 4, the one that you should be arguing, but you’re not because of your lack of due diligence due to political allegiance: The concern, is the affect on habitats (including human habitats) from “climate change”. That would be an eco system dying out due to a changing rain pattern, or a rainforest coming out of a desert. It has already been confirmed by scientists, and with good reason, that 3rd world countries would be hit the worst.
Wait huh? Ever looked into the reason why GLOBAL warming would affect one nation more than another? That’s because it is not global WARMING it is CLIMATE change. If a third world country loses their source of water, or an eco system, they can’t just rebuild a new one in the changed ecosystem or move or build a network of industry around it. They don’t have the money to do so.
Now that you and your left wing “fact” bull has been compensated for, and I have shown how much you “liberals” suffer from the blind eye, do me a favor:
Never, ever, throw a bigoted comment out implying that conservatives don’t use facts.
Yeah, conservatives are just rich white stupid people who watch fox news right?
Very classy.
I tend to be more moderate politically, leaning right fiscally and left socially (with exceptions – I like to think for myself). I have no doubt in my mind that climate change is a fact, and have to say Bob’s post is spot-on. Not a big fan of the “liberal” digs, but understand where he’s coming from there. But it is climate change, not “global warming”.
Fact, bears eat beets. Bears, beets, “Battlestar Galactica.”
Bears do not… What is going on?! What are you doing?!
Michael!
Frank Dunne – So, let me get this straight. Because he’s a communist, we shouldn’t trust the science behind anthropogenic global warming? Hmmmm. Interesting. So, if Cass Sunstein told us to stop drinking poison because it was killing us, would we also question the science behind that, just because he’s got some questionable political beliefs?
I’m more afraid of the one in the white house, and the ones in the house and senate, than afraid of global warming. Just saying….