We are inundated by the \’sky is falling\’
mantra, but nothing has changed. Memorial Day weekend still had tons of traffic, folks still had campfires, more monster trucks on the road than ever, with every gasoline powered toy known to man on trailers. Are we to just wring our hands for a few months about Gorebal warming, then back to doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING WE HAVE BEEN DOING? Hell yes, thats what will happen. Because change is very difficult. And where are the real leaders, those who would make a workable policy, tell us that this is the program, and off we go? People ***** about gas at $3.50 a gallon but wring their hands about Gorebal Warming. I pray it really is about money, and the inconvenient theory is incorrect, because if we really did have to make changes we are in a world of ****. When pithy, one of a kind remarks are outlawed, only outlaws will have pithy, one of a kind remarks.
This whole global warming crock of $@%^ will all be a big joke in five years.
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel\’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. \”\”Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” \”Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming\” and \”it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 \”will not dramatically increase the global temperature.\” “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don\’t add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.
When is this bull$%^& going to stop? Don\’t these insurance companies know that institutionalizing this crap is just going to make it harder to undo after everyone figures out global warming is nonsense? We should sue insurance carriers on behalf of policyholders for wasting their money (or policyholder premium) on meetings, research and \”new\” insurance products for a freaking myth.
It is not the insurance companies, it is this publication. The insurance companies I talk to are not concerned about this as a long term issue, religious movements are not part of their actuaries.
Everything must be politicized – retirement (Social Security), health care (Medicare/Medicare, next: Hillarycare), education (govt schools), wages (as in minimum), employment (ya gotta hire anyone who walks in the door), the family (\”Heather Has Two Mommies), now the dang weather (global warming). Hubris knows no bounds.
Insurance Journal would be doing its readers a huge favor by presenting the side of those who know that it is all bunk. Apparently they think that alarmist leftwing drivel generates responses and readership, because the truth is just too boring.
Follow the money, and lets make some too!
Can\’t you see the motive here? Probably the big drivers in this movement have a lot invested in the Gorebal Warming ruse.
Lets jump on board as well. We can start by investing in auto makers who put out the hybrids (half gas, half ripoff). Do that for 9-12 months while this ponzi scheme plays out. Also anything with the word \’green\’ in it. But don\’t wait too long to get out. When it tanks it will tank quickly.
The editor is tied into the environmental business (through direct family). This is an agenda, don\’t be mistaken. It will continue because a cause is being served. At this point, it is up to the advertisers.
I don\’t think it is fair to divulge any names online or further information online. What I say is true, it is not something I came up with. The bottom line is, there continues to be a series of articles in the IJ that has a clear bias and there are both political and personal reasons for these articles. Someone high up in this publication has ties to the enviromental movement. Advertisers need to speak.
I don\’t think it is fair to divulge any names online or further information online. What I say is true, it is not something I came up with. The bottom line is, there continues to be a series of articles in the IJ that has a clear bias and there are both political and personal reasons for these articles. Someone high up in this publication has ties to the enviromental movement. Advertisers need to speak.
Why would someone like yourself admit that you cannot debate the issues? I truly think you can do better. Your post is very immature and has nothing to do with the article. Your political party has played a valuable role in the debate up until about 6 years ago when the debate turned childish instead of one of intelligence. It will be sad the day we see a one party system in America because the other side forgot how to debate. Bill Clinton is a person I beg to differ with on 80% of the issues, but refuse to trash our fine country just because our views are not 100% in sync. Represent your political party in an honorable way instead of trashing it.
Somehow it\’s peversely gratifying to see the nutbags come out of the closet every time the IJ publishes an article on climate change.
The usual suspects – under various names -repeat their mantra that it\’s all a hoax -despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There\’s even a new one this time, \”Hawaii Duke,\” who sees a vast conspiracy, but of course can\’t name names. He\’s probably too busy watching for black helicopters.
I\’ll give \”Chilly\” some credit for effort – he managed to find some obscure Israeli scientist, who doesn\’t believe it either.
Trying to get such people to actually read the data is useless. They\’re too busy using these articles as an excuse to attack Al Gore, Democrats and anything else that offends them.
If they really cared about America and the insurance industry they would be seeking solutions rather than condemning the messenger for giving them information they don\’t want to hear.
A couple of years ago, before sufficient data had been compiled to verify the reality of the world\’s warming climate and the increasing evidence that man\’s activities are in large part responsible for it, one would have called these sceptics \”ostriches\” with their heads buried in the sand. Today we should apologize to the ostriches.
HawaiiDuke888 may have a point. Has anyone seen any articles in Insurance Journal from the scientists that are reconsidering their position on global warming? What about the scientists that never agreed with the original hype on this? One sided, and always the same side.
All indications are that it goes back to the money or the publicity. Gore loves the publicity and the money (carbon credits company), and the people doing the studies probably get government grants (that\’s our tax dollars, thank you very much!). And now we can sell a new line of insurance products.
It would appear that the media in general will repeat over and over until they make it \”fact.\” Personally, I am sick of it being shoved down my throat.
Many of you probably remember the hype back in the 70s when we were being told we were entering an ice age. Obviously we missed it when we blinked and went on into global warming.
They did have one article that counters global warming, but at least 5 or more articles that plugs what is called \”global warming\” or \”climate change.\” While there has been a warming trend in the past years, this is typical of a cycle just like they thought their so-called \”ice age\” would materialize. You can see how mature this crowd is, by making this political as in the post by Rosie. Reputable publications plug both sides since their is a debate on this issue. You are right, the IJ along with other want to keep ramming this down our throast until we accept as fact. Even they think it is fact. Former San Francisco weatherman turned talk show host, Brian Sussman, who is a scholar in this area, was threatened to have his license pulled because he dared to counter the global warming fanatics. These folks do not want free speech on this because they are scared of free speech. They will never talk logical to you. By the way, this has been the coolest winter in years, yet they will still put a spin on it. Just wait until they come out with their ice age tantrums again. I guess if it makes you feel good (or if you have big profit to make from it), then say it!
Has anyone noticed that every year or two it is a new \’crisis du jour\’? Why is that? Am I too cynical because I notice that newschannels must have a lead story to sell advertising? And we all just follow along without questioning the validity or veracity of the so called news. Something like 70% of Americans say they are dissatisfied with life in the US. What a joke. Our lives are better today than at any time in our history, yet those polled make it seem like we have some kind of worries, thanks in large part to the media. I read a newsweek story about global warming and insurance. Now when has Newsweek ever concerned themselves with insurance? I googled the author, from San Francisco, and found that she had worked the Clinton white house as a beat reporter, and was a big fan of Al Gore (she even did a radio interview I listened to about Gorebal).
Coincidence that a Gore fan would write an article about Gorebal warming and insurance? Maybe it is coincidence.
I tend to think at the end of the day its about money. People now have something to talk about (Gorebal Warming), but who has changed anything about their lives with the questionable news? Even my tree hugging Big D friends still do the same things they did before this latest, predictable, and by no means the last great revelation. Heretofore referred to as \’crisis du jour\’.
Nice to see a competent level headed discussion about something here at IJ. Although it is easy to see why, as the triumvirate of ignorance is not involved in the discusion.
To those in support of global warming being a fact, have you never read opposing views and/or studies? Why dismiss opposing views so quickly? It is far from being a settled fact that human made greenhouse gasses are causing global warming.
Thank you Tyrone. Very interesting. I will keep that in mind when I am reading their articles. Hopefully, they read the notes that we write. If they won\’t eliminate the global warming nonsense, at the very least, I would like to start seeing articles that argue both sides.
Whether or not you believe global warming is a fact …..
With gas at four bucks a gallon (and electricity costs rising), don’t you folks agree it might be a good idea to work on alternative energy sources from a strictly economic standpoint?
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”
For an additional premium of $_____.__ we will cover any additional expense you incur from global warming. Failure to prove the existance of Global Warming and identify the individual(s) responsible will void this contract. Just stating Global Warming is FACT and even typing in BOLD letters will not qualify as FACT.
One need not look for a hidden motive for IJ’s coverage of the global warming issue. Go to the web sites of the world’s two largest Insurers/Reinsurers (Munich and Allianz) and search their sites for “Global Warming” If it is an issue for them, it is an issue for the industry, and ultimately society because that much money speaks loudly.
As an aside, look at all the cool words we get out of it; carbon footprint is my favorite.
I have to agree with skeptical. This study was done by attorneys. Its all about money and a new wave of lawsuits.
As for the 3rd party lawsuits, if I have a tree on my property that falls into your house due to hurricane winds, how is it my liability. Last time I checked this was considered an act of nature and not covered for liability.
We are inundated by the \’sky is falling\’
mantra, but nothing has changed. Memorial Day weekend still had tons of traffic, folks still had campfires, more monster trucks on the road than ever, with every gasoline powered toy known to man on trailers. Are we to just wring our hands for a few months about Gorebal warming, then back to doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING WE HAVE BEEN DOING? Hell yes, thats what will happen. Because change is very difficult. And where are the real leaders, those who would make a workable policy, tell us that this is the program, and off we go? People ***** about gas at $3.50 a gallon but wring their hands about Gorebal Warming. I pray it really is about money, and the inconvenient theory is incorrect, because if we really did have to make changes we are in a world of ****. When pithy, one of a kind remarks are outlawed, only outlaws will have pithy, one of a kind remarks.
Check out this website for more info….
http://www.aajasf.org/boardbios/pattitom.html
What crap. A field day for the attorneys looms.
This whole global warming crock of $@%^ will all be a big joke in five years.
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel\’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. \”\”Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” \”Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming\” and \”it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 \”will not dramatically increase the global temperature.\” “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don\’t add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.
When is this bull$%^& going to stop? Don\’t these insurance companies know that institutionalizing this crap is just going to make it harder to undo after everyone figures out global warming is nonsense? We should sue insurance carriers on behalf of policyholders for wasting their money (or policyholder premium) on meetings, research and \”new\” insurance products for a freaking myth.
It is not the insurance companies, it is this publication. The insurance companies I talk to are not concerned about this as a long term issue, religious movements are not part of their actuaries.
Everything must be politicized – retirement (Social Security), health care (Medicare/Medicare, next: Hillarycare), education (govt schools), wages (as in minimum), employment (ya gotta hire anyone who walks in the door), the family (\”Heather Has Two Mommies), now the dang weather (global warming). Hubris knows no bounds.
Insurance Journal would be doing its readers a huge favor by presenting the side of those who know that it is all bunk. Apparently they think that alarmist leftwing drivel generates responses and readership, because the truth is just too boring.
Follow the money, and lets make some too!
Can\’t you see the motive here? Probably the big drivers in this movement have a lot invested in the Gorebal Warming ruse.
Lets jump on board as well. We can start by investing in auto makers who put out the hybrids (half gas, half ripoff). Do that for 9-12 months while this ponzi scheme plays out. Also anything with the word \’green\’ in it. But don\’t wait too long to get out. When it tanks it will tank quickly.
The editor is tied into the environmental business (through direct family). This is an agenda, don\’t be mistaken. It will continue because a cause is being served. At this point, it is up to the advertisers.
Why the secrecy? Please elaborate. We\’re all eyes…
I don\’t think it is fair to divulge any names online or further information online. What I say is true, it is not something I came up with. The bottom line is, there continues to be a series of articles in the IJ that has a clear bias and there are both political and personal reasons for these articles. Someone high up in this publication has ties to the enviromental movement. Advertisers need to speak.
I don\’t think it is fair to divulge any names online or further information online. What I say is true, it is not something I came up with. The bottom line is, there continues to be a series of articles in the IJ that has a clear bias and there are both political and personal reasons for these articles. Someone high up in this publication has ties to the enviromental movement. Advertisers need to speak.
we would have been better prepared with Mr. Gore, instead of the clown that had his brother steal the election.
Why would someone like yourself admit that you cannot debate the issues? I truly think you can do better. Your post is very immature and has nothing to do with the article. Your political party has played a valuable role in the debate up until about 6 years ago when the debate turned childish instead of one of intelligence. It will be sad the day we see a one party system in America because the other side forgot how to debate. Bill Clinton is a person I beg to differ with on 80% of the issues, but refuse to trash our fine country just because our views are not 100% in sync. Represent your political party in an honorable way instead of trashing it.
Somehow it\’s peversely gratifying to see the nutbags come out of the closet every time the IJ publishes an article on climate change.
The usual suspects – under various names -repeat their mantra that it\’s all a hoax -despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There\’s even a new one this time, \”Hawaii Duke,\” who sees a vast conspiracy, but of course can\’t name names. He\’s probably too busy watching for black helicopters.
I\’ll give \”Chilly\” some credit for effort – he managed to find some obscure Israeli scientist, who doesn\’t believe it either.
Trying to get such people to actually read the data is useless. They\’re too busy using these articles as an excuse to attack Al Gore, Democrats and anything else that offends them.
If they really cared about America and the insurance industry they would be seeking solutions rather than condemning the messenger for giving them information they don\’t want to hear.
A couple of years ago, before sufficient data had been compiled to verify the reality of the world\’s warming climate and the increasing evidence that man\’s activities are in large part responsible for it, one would have called these sceptics \”ostriches\” with their heads buried in the sand. Today we should apologize to the ostriches.
MP
Reel \’em in, Rosie!!
HawaiiDuke888 may have a point. Has anyone seen any articles in Insurance Journal from the scientists that are reconsidering their position on global warming? What about the scientists that never agreed with the original hype on this? One sided, and always the same side.
All indications are that it goes back to the money or the publicity. Gore loves the publicity and the money (carbon credits company), and the people doing the studies probably get government grants (that\’s our tax dollars, thank you very much!). And now we can sell a new line of insurance products.
It would appear that the media in general will repeat over and over until they make it \”fact.\” Personally, I am sick of it being shoved down my throat.
Many of you probably remember the hype back in the 70s when we were being told we were entering an ice age. Obviously we missed it when we blinked and went on into global warming.
They did have one article that counters global warming, but at least 5 or more articles that plugs what is called \”global warming\” or \”climate change.\” While there has been a warming trend in the past years, this is typical of a cycle just like they thought their so-called \”ice age\” would materialize. You can see how mature this crowd is, by making this political as in the post by Rosie. Reputable publications plug both sides since their is a debate on this issue. You are right, the IJ along with other want to keep ramming this down our throast until we accept as fact. Even they think it is fact. Former San Francisco weatherman turned talk show host, Brian Sussman, who is a scholar in this area, was threatened to have his license pulled because he dared to counter the global warming fanatics. These folks do not want free speech on this because they are scared of free speech. They will never talk logical to you. By the way, this has been the coolest winter in years, yet they will still put a spin on it. Just wait until they come out with their ice age tantrums again. I guess if it makes you feel good (or if you have big profit to make from it), then say it!
Has anyone noticed that every year or two it is a new \’crisis du jour\’? Why is that? Am I too cynical because I notice that newschannels must have a lead story to sell advertising? And we all just follow along without questioning the validity or veracity of the so called news. Something like 70% of Americans say they are dissatisfied with life in the US. What a joke. Our lives are better today than at any time in our history, yet those polled make it seem like we have some kind of worries, thanks in large part to the media. I read a newsweek story about global warming and insurance. Now when has Newsweek ever concerned themselves with insurance? I googled the author, from San Francisco, and found that she had worked the Clinton white house as a beat reporter, and was a big fan of Al Gore (she even did a radio interview I listened to about Gorebal).
Coincidence that a Gore fan would write an article about Gorebal warming and insurance? Maybe it is coincidence.
I tend to think at the end of the day its about money. People now have something to talk about (Gorebal Warming), but who has changed anything about their lives with the questionable news? Even my tree hugging Big D friends still do the same things they did before this latest, predictable, and by no means the last great revelation. Heretofore referred to as \’crisis du jour\’.
Nice to see a competent level headed discussion about something here at IJ. Although it is easy to see why, as the triumvirate of ignorance is not involved in the discusion.
To those in support of global warming being a fact, have you never read opposing views and/or studies? Why dismiss opposing views so quickly? It is far from being a settled fact that human made greenhouse gasses are causing global warming.
Thank you Tyrone. Very interesting. I will keep that in mind when I am reading their articles. Hopefully, they read the notes that we write. If they won\’t eliminate the global warming nonsense, at the very least, I would like to start seeing articles that argue both sides.
Clearly demonstrates $$$$.
Here is a good article about how cold it was this winter…
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21205
Whether or not you believe global warming is a fact …..
With gas at four bucks a gallon (and electricity costs rising), don’t you folks agree it might be a good idea to work on alternative energy sources from a strictly economic standpoint?
Global warming is a fact? Really?
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”
See also http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=1E639422-7094-4972-83AF-EE40EE302D41
…
AG 2000 8/11
Global Warming Endorsement
For an additional premium of $_____.__ we will cover any additional expense you incur from global warming. Failure to prove the existance of Global Warming and identify the individual(s) responsible will void this contract. Just stating Global Warming is FACT and even typing in BOLD letters will not qualify as FACT.
One need not look for a hidden motive for IJ’s coverage of the global warming issue. Go to the web sites of the world’s two largest Insurers/Reinsurers (Munich and Allianz) and search their sites for “Global Warming” If it is an issue for them, it is an issue for the industry, and ultimately society because that much money speaks loudly.
As an aside, look at all the cool words we get out of it; carbon footprint is my favorite.
I have to agree with skeptical. This study was done by attorneys. Its all about money and a new wave of lawsuits.
As for the 3rd party lawsuits, if I have a tree on my property that falls into your house due to hurricane winds, how is it my liability. Last time I checked this was considered an act of nature and not covered for liability.
I haven’t posted anything on this thread. Someone who oughta get a life is pretending to be me.