The press wants these corporate executives to be up on arms about this, but these executives know this doesn’t effect them as much as the media would like to believe it does. While we do have global warming and it’s part of a cycle, the hype that is being made about it in the press is over baked, has a political agenda tied to it and is the issue some of the more radical fringe element wants it to be.
Let’s see. The climate is impacted by oh so many things. The sun, volcanic activity, so many other natural occurring things on the planet and possibly, possibly, human activity. It is impacted to a varying degree on all these things, mostly by the sun. Removing ourselves form the Paris accords with relieve us from sending billions and billions of payments to other nations. It will also slow the export of jobs to energy cheap nations such as China and India who are building cheap energy producing coal fired power plants every week. This should be good for the American economy which should be good for the American insurance industry. So exactly what should the insurance industry say about our removal?
Dave, until and unless the International community holds China and India to account, the US is right to reject this agreement. Both of those countries have no plans to reduce their C02 footprint and they are two of the worst polluters on the planet. The US has the same level of C02 as it was in 1984 and leads the world in smart energy policy. The hoaxers can scream all they want. We are not going to foot the bill.
You both are such idiots. China and India are scaling back on their coal production and canceled plans to build more plants. But they will be the ones who capitalize on the opportunity of being on the forefront of the renewable energy industry. The billions of dollars we are giving was a self generated goal, and the amount we give as a percentage isn’t near the top of the list.
Sure, we weren’t going to give as much of a percentage, but come on, we are Americans, it would be economy crushing to do it! We aren’t able to adapt, innovate, or increase efficiency.
Wahhhhh!!!
That’s all I ever hear when so-called conservatives say it would be impossible and horrible if we were forced to be as responsible as everyone else…wtf.
June 9, 2017 at 9:29 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Hey Dude, copying my moniker to post things to make me look bad is very dishonest and typical of the snowflake mentality. You can’t win an argument so you go the deception route. Proud of yourself? You shouldn’t be, but then you don’t know right from wrong, do you?
June 9, 2017 at 1:42 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
If anything, you should HOPE that guy keeps posting under that pseudonym, since he is using logic and reason to make his arguments.
“Both of those countries have no plans to reduce their C02 footprint”
This is factually incorrect. China has already agreed and put into motion several initiatives designed to lower their carbon output. This includes being the Number 1 producer of green energy in the world…by FAR. They hydro-electric generated power alone is twice as much as the USA generates from ALL sources. India is #5 on renewable energy production worldwide. Both India and China have SKYROCKETED in their production of renewable energy sources in the past few years.
“they are two of the worst polluters on the planet.”
The USA is a far bigger polluter than India is. Twice as much pollution, and 8 times as much pollution per capita. China produces twice as much pollution as the USA, but per capita, the USA still produces over twice as much pollution per capita.
June 9, 2017 at 2:12 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
“Sure, we weren’t going to give as much of a percentage, but come on, we are Americans, it would be economy crushing to do it! We aren’t able to adapt, innovate, or increase efficiency.
Wahhhhh!!!
That’s all I ever hear when so-called conservatives say it would be impossible and horrible if we were forced to be as responsible as everyone else…wtf.”
Ignorance. Sheer ignorance.
No conservatives say we cannot do it. We say the risks of government interventions to this magnitude are far outside of what are reasonable.
When they say it will harm the economy, it will. Whether we can or want to adapt doesn’t matter. It will. When the government starts to shape what paths business takes, business starts to be unable to adapt. See the premium explosions after the 1960’s, and the forced credit and bank charter laws that caused the 2008 collapse.
The government is not good at starting a movement other than by encouraging it. “FORCED” is the primary word you have in there that you seem to be blind regarding. Let me repeat that “FORCED” to be responsible, by the government. I don’t really need to say much more if you’re actually the least bit conservative, instead of simply trying to act like Agent is a hypocrite by acting like you are to some degree later on this same page(you’re not).
Republicans have an issue with taxing the crap out of, regulating the crap out of, and spending the crap out of, issues the government is notoriously bad at. How about tax credits? How about regulatory ease for firms who become more green? These come with their own risks, but could work.
This would be like trying to force a child to become responsible, through coercion, vs through positive reinforcement. Which do you think works? It doesn’t translate exactly, of course, but you get the concept. I used this to trigger your emotions, and make you realize you’re being a tyrant. Knock it off.
June 9, 2017 at 2:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Funny addition here:
I’m in my 30’s. My generation is notoriously liberal. I’m not sure how old you are, but I’m very aware of demographics in my age group and norms. It’s very ironic given what I said above, that democrats in my age group are the most controlling I have ever seen. I sound like a classic liberal who would never control his kids or others.
You sound like someone who would control someone and claim it was for the greater good, and would smack your kids until they became responsible.
There was this ironic image in my age group where they thought that those darn republicans were so structured and hard on their children! So controlling!
Irony. Such irony, that my age range started to flex that same thing within politics. Need to fix a recession? Control it. Need to make people more forgiving? Control them. Need to stop discrimination? Simple, take away free speech man. It’s such a problem. Want to take care of income inequality? Pish, steal (tax) to make the income inequality lower. It’s easy, if you control and lower your moral standards enough. Want to stop shootings? Take away people’s rights man. WTF, why won’t you take away people’s rights? Don’t want to take away guns? Well at least give the government the ability to track mental illness! (worked great for the gays in the early 1900’s didn’t it?) I mean, control man! Give the government control! Maaaaann! (Mocking the 60’s liberal freedom by comparison to the liberal freedom today). Such an astounding flip has occurred politically in my generation. I’m the Hippy in many regards. How the heck did that happen?
June 9, 2017 at 7:02 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“Let’s see. The climate is impacted by oh so many things. The sun, volcanic activity, so many other natural occurring things on the planet and possibly, possibly, human activity. It is impacted to a varying degree on all these things, mostly by the sun. Removing ourselves form the Paris accords with relieve us from sending billions and billions of payments to other nations. It will also slow the export of jobs to energy cheap nations such as China and India who are building cheap energy producing coal fired power plants every week. This should be good for the American economy which should be good for the American insurance industry. So exactly what should the insurance industry say about our removal?”
Doug,
Grow up. You haven’t proven global warming, all you’ve done is spout. The above comment is correct, and it’s good to be stated, on the ground of warming factors, and how much actions like this will cost the economy and allow government control that will cause harm. The only methods that could cause the changes they are asking for are not minor, they are huge, and allow for complete power transistions to occur long run.
He goes over something that explains the NOAA’s water temps, and moreover, the NOAA’s charts only recently added water temps, with I believe it was 4 different types of temp monitoring methods (as we haven’t always monitored temps) and many new monitoring areas, consolidating data, and they do this roughly every few years. Their charts differ so much year to year it is insane, and they delete their source data. We have caught the science community in definite whistleblower scenarios pushing agendas, we provide vastly more funds to climate change research in the positive, than rewarding it for neutral and negative reports, and all sorts of bad things similar to this. This is becoming an unfalsifiable government issue, that governments are beginning to talk about prosecuting climate change deniers. This is no small deal, Bernie Sanders said as much, and DOJ brought it up during Obama’s tenure.
Your simple minded drivel is not needed here. Use facts, use data, use what his happening in the real world, and what could happen. Use what you know as fact to prove your points, not things that are debatable as fact to prove your point. You’re starting at the wrong point in the debate (what action the government should take and why it’s good) as opposed to looking into the harm of the government, and whether or not this is something we truly affect that much.
June 9, 2017 at 7:03 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“This is no small deal, Bernie Sanders said as much, and DOJ brought it up during Obama’s tenure”
As in they brought up prosecuting climate change deniers.
You need to research better.
June 6, 2017 at 1:28 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
8
2
Supporting the Accord is a lose-lose for the Insurance Industry.
I suspect this is in part due to the fact that the industry is very right-leaning. Statistics from the Federal Election Committee shows that 66% of all insurance workers are Republican. With the GOP’s current stance on Climate Change, it would do nothing but tick-off their members if the leadership of these trade groups came out in full force for the Paris Accords.
On the other hand, saying nothing won’t necessarily do them any harm in a liberal voter’s eyes.
People in the Insurance Industry that are Conservative are the leaders of companies, brokers, agents and they are no dummies. People that are championing the Climate Change hoax are leftist leaners. They will not rise in the ranks of leadership.
Just because you cite the NY Times does not mean you know anything. They are the worst liberal rag in America and the Washington Post is not far behind. Buzzfeed Fake News!
Did you bother to read the article or you saw “NY Times” and immediately dismissed it?
June 9, 2017 at 12:01 am
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Search your heart, I think the answer is pretty clear.
June 9, 2017 at 10:30 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Doug,
He is in full support of the biggest liar in the history of liars. You will not convince him of anything. He is Sean Hannity. He is Faux News. He is Supply Side Jesus. There is no hope.
June 9, 2017 at 4:02 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“Doug,
He is in full support of the biggest liar in the history of liars.”
This sounds exactly like Trump, and yet you say hyperbole is not acceptable. I think you’re aware you’re exaggerating.
“You will not convince him of anything. He is Sean Hannity. He is Faux News. He is Supply Side Jesus. There is no hope.”
Two comments here: First, no he isn’t, he is an individual. Comparing is fine, but you literally just now said he “is” the person or entity. This is grouping, it is the source of bigotry. Which of your parents was the bigot? Or was it your grandfather? This is a personality trait that goes hand in hand with racism, I know for sure you had a racist close family member, whether to you, or your parents, that was close enough to get engrained in them and passed to you.
The second point: Supply side Jesus is an absurd comment, as well as FAUX news. Faux news due to you disregarding an entire source instead of data, which is insanely ignorant, and the supply side Jesus, because you use an extreme example that cannot exist to explain why Jesus would give to anybody, and wouldn’t motivate based on condition or becoming poor, and said it didn’t mean you were meant to be poor just because you were. This is ignorant as well. Jesus selected who he went to. It is explicitly stated that he avoided healing many, and helping many, and why? Because Jesus did do supply side healing. He gave it to those who deserved it. Who would love him. He abstained from those who would not. This is why he said “go and sin no more” this is why he sends people to hell, this is why the world is falling apart, because God allows onto those to reap the bad rewards of their efforts. The supply side Jesus comic implies that Jesus would just give to all poor, regardless of consideration of if it would actually lift them out of poverty, simply because at some point he said it was hard for a rich man to get to heaven, and at others he implied that blessed are the poor. This is an ignorant comic, and ignorant reference, and that’s not surprising considering your simple mind. It is ok to be ignorant, however, if you are, God expects you to be obedient and to follow those who are not. This is why he says obey your governments, unless they tell you to disobey God, and that they exist for you. This is why he allows masters to beat slaves, as long as they don’t kill them, because learning to put up with things and follow is an important part of going to God, even if it sucks. This is why the poor can be rich, obedience, not because they are poor, but because they know how to put up with crap. And if you have never put up with crap precisely because you’re poor, you’re not wealthy in morality, this would easily be over 90% of the poor in the first world countries, who label the rich, decry supply side economics as heartless, and vote themselves money. They do not have the spirit of obedience, they do not have the spirit of kindness and humbleness, and they do not have the spirit of living a meager life and being ok with it.
It was fairly well explained. I had many issues and I went over them in depth. A short one liner is not always possible.
When you get to higher intelligence ranges you tend to have a lot more depth in the comments.
While you say what like I rambled what actually happened is you can’t keep track of it.
In IQ tests, they usually have simple shifts of objects, which correlates strongly with your ability to position information in you mind, and how quickly. To me, shifting and comparing multiple parts of what I put up, both concept by concept, and sentence by sentence, is easy when I get to the length I just did. This is due to having an IQ in excess of 150. For you, it I evidently not. I mentioned the shifting of objects so perhaps your mind can correlate the action of shifting an object, flipping it to it’s side and moving patters, to identifying and shifting phrases side by side in your head, and relationships between the paragraphs, sentences, and need for those off details.
It really frustrates me how often people lose this. Even if someone has bad sentence structure, as I’m sure you will say I do (I don’t) if you have a high IQ, you should be able to restructure the phrases to compare where they would or should apply, as long as you think it out, and as long as they simply had poor sentence structure, but had the right concept.
So if they for example said Cats don’t like dogs.
Then gave evidence of cats not liking dogs. Gave an anecdotal example of cats not liking dogs, then for some reason rambled about the other point in the middle of their cat and dog speech, but it had to do with another topic that was debated, and came back to cats and dogs, you could restructure it easily if you had the intellect or patience to do so.
In this scenario I addressed supply side Jesus, why it doesn’t work, and some points of how he thinks of it, by referencing concepts in the supply side Jesus comic style, as well as nearly exact phrases contained in it. I reference this to the bible, when it comes to how people are to behave, and that is relevant to disprove how he thinks that Jesus doesn’t want for the government to influence how people behave through supply side similar methods (such as, you don’t work you don’t get food, but in the supply side Jesus thinks you should get food from Planet’s point of view, and saying certain laws will encourage people to work is something Planet thinks Jesus wouldn’t do.).
I could go further, but I don’t want to, it would take too long and too much.
I made my point, if one is smart enough, they will get it.
If not, I don’t need to waste my time. It is valuable.
June 9, 2017 at 5:05 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
We get it, you have a superiority complex. :)
Just remember: “It is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the Kingdom of God.”
If the rich are truly moral, they will divest themselves from their riches, and use it to help the poor and otherwise needy, not use it further enrich themselves.
Before you argue this point: it’s not necessary. I understand. :)
June 9, 2017 at 5:17 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“We get it, you have a superiority complex. :)”
My IQ here is directly relevant, especially considering you said what as if I rambled. Quoting your credentials is something those on the left do a lot. I don’t have a superiority complex, but you do have a morality complex. People like you love it when people like me say these things, because you think it makes your arguments stronger, or you a better person. It doesn’t. Your outside your league, I also set you up with this comment so I could thrash you when you did this reply. You didn’t disappoint.
“Just remember: “It is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the Kingdom of God.”
You clearly missed my point.
“If the rich are truly moral, they will divest themselves from their riches, and use it to help the poor and otherwise needy, not use it further enrich themselves.”
You clearly missed my point. I did not argue the rich were good. I said what Planet thought of the quote, since it is in the Supply Side Jesus comic. Planet thinks this means that God does not support the idea of not giving to the poor because they earned being poor. It however, does not establish that fact. Jesus clearly didn’t go to people who didn’t deserve it. He didn’t heal people who didn’t deserve it. He avoided cities who would not change if he healed them. I’m sorry, but his healing came with the requirement of “go and sin no more”. He left us on Earth because we sinned, and being poor is a direct consequence of that (in that anyone poor exists at all).
Before you argue this point: it’s not necessary. I understand. :)”
I doubt it. Or you wouldn’t have made it. You bore me, typical responses.
Now, will you disavow what this flaming liberal said above, grouping, calling Agent FAUX news, using a mock Supply Side Jesus to mock economics instead of debating the pros and cons of economics, and will you hold the left in politics accountable for encouraging this, as they certainly do?
Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot, you’re too balanced for that, and you’re a conservative as you implied (or should I say mislead to gain debate points). You lack the bias, which is why you went after Agent. You also lack the intelligence to try what you’re attempting with me debating tactic style.
I do both sides in regards to criticism buddy. And I can prove it. I haven’t noticed you comment on a liberal matter.
June 7, 2017 at 11:41 am
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
11
4
What even is this post? Who cares who wrote it? The article details factual evidence stating that what you posted above is absolutely garbage and banal. Quit parroting talking heads on TV and in the govt. and think for yourself.
You: “Conservatives rool, Liberals drool!
Me: “Well, here are conservatives that agree with me which 100% refutes your point.”
You: “Liberal rag! blarrgghhhhhh!”
That would be amazing if true. I grew up believing that, as well.
And then I met someone who only consumed news through Fox News. Logic and Facts don’t mean “being cold and heartless,” it means using multiple sources, verifying the efficacy or accuracy of data, and then applying that wisdom towards the improvement of all.
For example, conservatives hate welfare…unless it happens to go to those top income earners. They preach about wanting to balance budgets, but try to do so by sharply increasing military spending and cutting taxes on the wealthy. They say they want the government out of their daily lives, but then try to legislate who can get married. They say they are for logic and facts, but then ignore any news source or research paper that refutes their beliefs.
A more accurate statement for you would be:
Conservatives weigh the value of logic and facts.
Liberals consider the emotions and feelings of others.
“For example, conservatives hate welfare…unless it happens to go to those top income earners. ”
List to me one example of this. Tax cuts are not forms of welfare. The business keeps more of the money it creates, the capital it creates. The only forms of corporate welfare that have been majorly supported, are lower tax rates for green energy companies, and, mountains of green energy funding (Cash for clunkers, tax credit for buying green cars, green solar panels, and, literal investments into Solyndra). I have never met a republican who is ok with corporate welfare, so you are extrapolating something to mean what it doesn’t.
“They preach about wanting to balance budgets, but try to do so by sharply increasing military spending and cutting taxes on the wealthy.”
The reason for the tax cuts, is how much it affect GDP and capital distribution by the economy in place of the government. The theory is more wages can come directly from business instead of from the government, and therefore the service will be more directly attached to the money, which will allow better investments and possibly less money to be needed to be spent by the government. They also cut other areas. Increasing the military by comparison to what and which area? Trump submitted a DOD budget increase in the $600 billion range. Interesting isn’t it? Why? Because many of Obama’s DOD budgets were $500 billion. Why is this interesting? Because many of Bush W’s were under that. Why is this interesting? Because total defense spending, including foreign aid, actually went up under Obama, despite some DOD years below republican approval. In the tune of about $800 billion dollars, vs some years in which Bush W’s was a total of $400 billion inclusive of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. If Trump for example approved military DOD increases, as republicans usually do, of $50 billion, this is only a fraction of the $400 billion total spending increase. Obama sent 26,000 bombs into the Middle East. This was not DOD budget funds. Each one is $1/m roughly to engineer and produce. That is 26 billion on one year’s request of random bombing. Republicans who advocate for higher DOD spending typically don’t ask for huge military spending increases, it may be as much as $50 billion on any given year, but, due to constantly having to intervene, that amount can end up automatically being higher. In the final point, no, they don’t sharply increase military spending, not to the tune that can balance or destroy a budget. Though they can act in ways that can inflate the budget, but that is still historically maintainable. Bush W’s deficits ranged 100-300 billion for most his years. The recession was the reason for the rough 1 trillion bad year, which had nothing to do with spending increases, and the higher debt had to do with interest rates. Obama’s are lower than Bush W’s. Bush w did well for annual deficits. We had several 1 trillion dollar spending deficits with Obama, driven by things republicans tried to stop. They are better at spending. It’s time to stop taking little things to try they aren’t, it is immature.”
“They say they want the government out of their daily lives, but then try to legislate who can get married.”
No, they don’t want to port over a government marriage program to treat gay people the same as not gay people. Republicans far and away approve civil unions, which stand only to say someone is legally married and allow the spouse to have the typical rights, but not benefits that we afford to households that have higher strains (families).
Essentially, they are not ok with treating same sex marriage as the same as non sex marriage legally. And they aren’t the same, whether by need, by biology, or any other metric.
“They say they are for logic and facts, but then ignore any news source or research paper that refutes their beliefs”
Some, but the vast majority of these disregard the research paper with data and metrics.
Listen, I can tell you’re in my age range, because you talk like it, don’t be a tool to the typical arguments that mislead our generation.
“Essentially, they are not ok with treating same sex marriage
*With regards to benefits* (but not with regards to rights which are not the same as benefits)
as the same as non sex marriage legally. And they aren’t the same, whether by need, by biology, or any other metric.
“They say they are for logic and facts, but then ignore any news source or research paper that refutes their beliefs””
June 10, 2017 at 2:12 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Bob, I am unable to respond to you, IJ continually blocks any response I can make.
Good work, Insurance Journal! Great way to foment discussion and to help others learn the truth.
June 9, 2017 at 5:02 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“List to me one example of this. Tax cuts are not forms of welfare. The business keeps more of the money it creates, the capital it creates. The only forms of corporate welfare that have been majorly supported, are lower tax rates for green energy companies, and, mountains of green energy funding (Cash for clunkers, tax credit for buying green cars, green solar panels, and, literal investments into Solyndra). I have never met a republican who is ok with corporate welfare, so you are extrapolating something to mean what it doesn’t.”
And these are all democrat ideals. I basically just assumed you would know that.
You could do yourself a favor and not read anything Bob writes. I haven’t for years. The guy just tries to bully and is always tooting his own horn. Must be the gods’ gift of Bobs.
Moves like this one with the Paris Accord just gives the world even more reason to laugh at us. We are the laughing stock of planet because of the clown at the top and his side show antics.
Seriously. his last missive made me laugh and cringe multiple times. No self-awareness at all. A true Trump supporter, through and through. :)
You are right about the world laughing at us, though. The fact that the loudest voices are the ones actually coming out to support anti-science and reason is the scariest thing about it, and the most embarrassing.
And yes, I support Trump, which says nothing about me. I do it for facts. Let’s go ahead and debate a Trump issue, and you can then understand why I hold the position.
” The fact that the loudest voices are the ones actually coming out to support anti-science and reason is the scariest thing about it, and the most embarrassing.”
It is not being anti science to be against this bill. The one who lacks self awareness and awareness of others is you. You clearly haven’t seen why people doubt the affects and extent of man made climate change. I can show you though, if you stop this belief that people are anti science and instead take the stance that they haven’t been convinced. It isn’t just that either, the Paris accord allows massive government overreach, with minimal result, and a lot of people who can benefit from it in cronyism. Who decides which companies receives the 100 billion of aid to poorer countries? Which country will provide the types that are non direct? (Solar panels are selling them cars that are green efficient, etc).
You’re not fooling anyone, and you lack the depth to debate me. Otherwise, prove me wrong. Let’s have a debate on metrics. You choose it.
“Doug,
He is in full support of the biggest liar in the history of liars. You will not convince him of anything. He is Sean Hannity. He is Faux News. He is Supply Side Jesus. There is no hope.”
Was perfectly ok and well intentioned toward agent? Answer the question Doug. Was this a reasonable comment? Was it not a form of shaming? Was it not taking cliché lines, insults in the form of Faux News, and literally using a comic style of economic debate to accuse people who want economic growth of hating the poor?
Your rich man comment doesn’t matter, what does is what works best economically for the poor.
Instead, we see someone saying “supply side jesus” every time a republican comments. Did he prove his economic theory was better?
Answer the question, you fraud. You’re not a moderate. You’re not conservative, but you are a player. And I take them down a peg every time.
Get involved on one end and not the other, and I’ll show what you are by insisting on facts myself.
Let’s debate. This is what, the third time I’ve said present facts?
Bobby, I am only going to respond to your post about climate change, not about policy or religion, since we obviously differ in that respect. Policy and beliefs can be argued, and I respect your earnest desire to do so, but you can’t argue opinions.
As an aside, I favor personal freedoms when it doesn’t impinge on another’s right to personal freedom. To that end, I favor decriminalizing drugs, while also ensuring strict punishments are kept in place for eg: mothers who damage children in utero due to drug use, or parents who abuse children while on drugs, etc. I do not, however, favor allowing businesses to operate in a way that could lead to the destruction of our planet and the way we live.
If climate change is primarily the result of greenhouse gas emissions, then there is an imperative need to restrict a company’s ability to contribute to that destruction. Businesses that refuse to be ecologically responsible should be disincentivized via fines, increased taxes, and so on leading up to eventually jail time or repeat or especially egregious offenders.
So…anyways, on to our regularly scheduled programming:
You quoted Dave who stated that the sun is the primary cause for our current warming, but no scientific basis for the argument. You cite young-earthers Harris-Mann as if they have any weight to their arguments. You can call yourself a Climatologist, as Harris does, but without formal training, it holds no weight. I consider myself a professional basketball player, but for some reason don’t warrant the paychecks of my “colleagues” in the NBA. The graph in the article doesn’t even have a y-axis, and was built on faulty science from a crazy person.
The linked page cites Dr. Iben Browning as a reference, a shyster or delusional guy whose many predictions on climate and the weather were proven totally false. This is the guy that predicted major earthquakes that never happened, the collapse of the federal government, stated that volcanic eruptions were the major cause of climate change and that global warming was caused by war, famine and strife. Yeah… you are trusting data that references this dude as a scholarly source.
The other two sources are either nearly 100 years old built on false assumptions and with no scholarly backup (“Climate…The Key to Understanding Business Cycles…The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak) and the other is some unknown thing that I can’t find: “Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois”
Please provide scholarly sources to backup your assertions about the sun being the primary source of global climate change. Please provide scholarly sources to backup your refutation on human activity being the principal driver of climate change.
Now, I will quote what you ended one of your many, many posts with:
“Your simple minded drivel is not needed here. Use facts, use data, use what his happening in the real world, and what could happen.”
Don’t bring weird non-scientific BS in here. If you want to talk science, use scientific sources.
Here’s NASA reporting on solar activity being the source of global climate change:
Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That’s because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.”
“Peter Foukal of the Massachusetts-based firm Heliophysics, Inc., who has tracked sunspot intensities from different spots around the globe dating back four centuries, also concludes that such solar disturbances have little or no impact on global warming. Nevertheless, he adds, most up-to-date climate models—including those used by the United Nations’ prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—incorporate the effects of the sun’s variable degree of brightness in their overall calculations.”
and, from the same article:
“Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim.”
I would love to respond to you, but IJ won’t let me…
June 9, 2017 at 5:08 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“You could do yourself a favor and not read anything Bob writes. I haven’t for years.”
You do this with many, and it’s a weakness, not a strength.
“The guy just tries to bully and is always tooting his own horn. Must be the gods’ gift of Bobs.”
Incorrect.
“Moves like this one with the Paris Accord just gives the world even more reason to laugh at us. We are the laughing stock of planet because of the clown at the top and his side show antics.”
You need to do deeper analysis, which would be possible if you actually listened to the other side.
You labeled all climate change deniers as people who were hypocrites and hated mother earth. You have made it clear what to do with these people (bully them) and I have made it clear what to do with them (debate them and facts).
I have numerous times told you to remove your absurd commentary and convince me. Then you say I’m bullying you because I call you an idiot when you don’t.
I won the debate with you the moment you stopped responding. Good work.
I just can’t believe how ignorant and shortsighted our current administration is. Climate change due to contributory human factors is literally settled science. Pulling out of the Paris Accord is an incredibly embarrassing admission about how ignorant we are and how out of step we are with the rest of the world. Ubelievable.
While you are correct, you will unfortunately find many people, including many professionals in the industry who ignore the science and tend to listening to science illiterates who tell them things that have no basis in science or truth, and they eat it up because it absolves themselves and all of humanity for our current and future predicaments.
The press wants these corporate executives to be up on arms about this, but these executives know this doesn’t effect them as much as the media would like to believe it does. While we do have global warming and it’s part of a cycle, the hype that is being made about it in the press is over baked, has a political agenda tied to it and is the issue some of the more radical fringe element wants it to be.
Part of a cycle you say?
Is this what you’re talking about? https://xkcd.com/1732/
[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car’s temperature has changed before.
Let’s see. The climate is impacted by oh so many things. The sun, volcanic activity, so many other natural occurring things on the planet and possibly, possibly, human activity. It is impacted to a varying degree on all these things, mostly by the sun. Removing ourselves form the Paris accords with relieve us from sending billions and billions of payments to other nations. It will also slow the export of jobs to energy cheap nations such as China and India who are building cheap energy producing coal fired power plants every week. This should be good for the American economy which should be good for the American insurance industry. So exactly what should the insurance industry say about our removal?
Dave, until and unless the International community holds China and India to account, the US is right to reject this agreement. Both of those countries have no plans to reduce their C02 footprint and they are two of the worst polluters on the planet. The US has the same level of C02 as it was in 1984 and leads the world in smart energy policy. The hoaxers can scream all they want. We are not going to foot the bill.
You both are such idiots. China and India are scaling back on their coal production and canceled plans to build more plants. But they will be the ones who capitalize on the opportunity of being on the forefront of the renewable energy industry. The billions of dollars we are giving was a self generated goal, and the amount we give as a percentage isn’t near the top of the list.
Sure, we weren’t going to give as much of a percentage, but come on, we are Americans, it would be economy crushing to do it! We aren’t able to adapt, innovate, or increase efficiency.
Wahhhhh!!!
That’s all I ever hear when so-called conservatives say it would be impossible and horrible if we were forced to be as responsible as everyone else…wtf.
Hey Dude, copying my moniker to post things to make me look bad is very dishonest and typical of the snowflake mentality. You can’t win an argument so you go the deception route. Proud of yourself? You shouldn’t be, but then you don’t know right from wrong, do you?
If anything, you should HOPE that guy keeps posting under that pseudonym, since he is using logic and reason to make his arguments.
“Both of those countries have no plans to reduce their C02 footprint”
This is factually incorrect. China has already agreed and put into motion several initiatives designed to lower their carbon output. This includes being the Number 1 producer of green energy in the world…by FAR. They hydro-electric generated power alone is twice as much as the USA generates from ALL sources. India is #5 on renewable energy production worldwide. Both India and China have SKYROCKETED in their production of renewable energy sources in the past few years.
“they are two of the worst polluters on the planet.”
The USA is a far bigger polluter than India is. Twice as much pollution, and 8 times as much pollution per capita. China produces twice as much pollution as the USA, but per capita, the USA still produces over twice as much pollution per capita.
“Sure, we weren’t going to give as much of a percentage, but come on, we are Americans, it would be economy crushing to do it! We aren’t able to adapt, innovate, or increase efficiency.
Wahhhhh!!!
That’s all I ever hear when so-called conservatives say it would be impossible and horrible if we were forced to be as responsible as everyone else…wtf.”
Ignorance. Sheer ignorance.
No conservatives say we cannot do it. We say the risks of government interventions to this magnitude are far outside of what are reasonable.
When they say it will harm the economy, it will. Whether we can or want to adapt doesn’t matter. It will. When the government starts to shape what paths business takes, business starts to be unable to adapt. See the premium explosions after the 1960’s, and the forced credit and bank charter laws that caused the 2008 collapse.
The government is not good at starting a movement other than by encouraging it. “FORCED” is the primary word you have in there that you seem to be blind regarding. Let me repeat that “FORCED” to be responsible, by the government. I don’t really need to say much more if you’re actually the least bit conservative, instead of simply trying to act like Agent is a hypocrite by acting like you are to some degree later on this same page(you’re not).
Republicans have an issue with taxing the crap out of, regulating the crap out of, and spending the crap out of, issues the government is notoriously bad at. How about tax credits? How about regulatory ease for firms who become more green? These come with their own risks, but could work.
This would be like trying to force a child to become responsible, through coercion, vs through positive reinforcement. Which do you think works? It doesn’t translate exactly, of course, but you get the concept. I used this to trigger your emotions, and make you realize you’re being a tyrant. Knock it off.
Funny addition here:
I’m in my 30’s. My generation is notoriously liberal. I’m not sure how old you are, but I’m very aware of demographics in my age group and norms. It’s very ironic given what I said above, that democrats in my age group are the most controlling I have ever seen. I sound like a classic liberal who would never control his kids or others.
You sound like someone who would control someone and claim it was for the greater good, and would smack your kids until they became responsible.
There was this ironic image in my age group where they thought that those darn republicans were so structured and hard on their children! So controlling!
Irony. Such irony, that my age range started to flex that same thing within politics. Need to fix a recession? Control it. Need to make people more forgiving? Control them. Need to stop discrimination? Simple, take away free speech man. It’s such a problem. Want to take care of income inequality? Pish, steal (tax) to make the income inequality lower. It’s easy, if you control and lower your moral standards enough. Want to stop shootings? Take away people’s rights man. WTF, why won’t you take away people’s rights? Don’t want to take away guns? Well at least give the government the ability to track mental illness! (worked great for the gays in the early 1900’s didn’t it?) I mean, control man! Give the government control! Maaaaann! (Mocking the 60’s liberal freedom by comparison to the liberal freedom today). Such an astounding flip has occurred politically in my generation. I’m the Hippy in many regards. How the heck did that happen?
“Let’s see. The climate is impacted by oh so many things. The sun, volcanic activity, so many other natural occurring things on the planet and possibly, possibly, human activity. It is impacted to a varying degree on all these things, mostly by the sun. Removing ourselves form the Paris accords with relieve us from sending billions and billions of payments to other nations. It will also slow the export of jobs to energy cheap nations such as China and India who are building cheap energy producing coal fired power plants every week. This should be good for the American economy which should be good for the American insurance industry. So exactly what should the insurance industry say about our removal?”
Doug,
Grow up. You haven’t proven global warming, all you’ve done is spout. The above comment is correct, and it’s good to be stated, on the ground of warming factors, and how much actions like this will cost the economy and allow government control that will cause harm. The only methods that could cause the changes they are asking for are not minor, they are huge, and allow for complete power transistions to occur long run.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
What do you notice about this study and chart?
He goes over something that explains the NOAA’s water temps, and moreover, the NOAA’s charts only recently added water temps, with I believe it was 4 different types of temp monitoring methods (as we haven’t always monitored temps) and many new monitoring areas, consolidating data, and they do this roughly every few years. Their charts differ so much year to year it is insane, and they delete their source data. We have caught the science community in definite whistleblower scenarios pushing agendas, we provide vastly more funds to climate change research in the positive, than rewarding it for neutral and negative reports, and all sorts of bad things similar to this. This is becoming an unfalsifiable government issue, that governments are beginning to talk about prosecuting climate change deniers. This is no small deal, Bernie Sanders said as much, and DOJ brought it up during Obama’s tenure.
Your simple minded drivel is not needed here. Use facts, use data, use what his happening in the real world, and what could happen. Use what you know as fact to prove your points, not things that are debatable as fact to prove your point. You’re starting at the wrong point in the debate (what action the government should take and why it’s good) as opposed to looking into the harm of the government, and whether or not this is something we truly affect that much.
“This is no small deal, Bernie Sanders said as much, and DOJ brought it up during Obama’s tenure”
As in they brought up prosecuting climate change deniers.
You need to research better.
Supporting the Accord is a lose-lose for the Insurance Industry.
I suspect this is in part due to the fact that the industry is very right-leaning. Statistics from the Federal Election Committee shows that 66% of all insurance workers are Republican. With the GOP’s current stance on Climate Change, it would do nothing but tick-off their members if the leadership of these trade groups came out in full force for the Paris Accords.
On the other hand, saying nothing won’t necessarily do them any harm in a liberal voter’s eyes.
People in the Insurance Industry that are Conservative are the leaders of companies, brokers, agents and they are no dummies. People that are championing the Climate Change hoax are leftist leaners. They will not rise in the ranks of leadership.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/business/insurers-stray-from-the-conservative-line-on-climate-change.html
Just because you are conservative doesn’t mean you need to be science illiterate.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Did you bother to read the article or you saw “NY Times” and immediately dismissed it?
Search your heart, I think the answer is pretty clear.
Doug,
He is in full support of the biggest liar in the history of liars. You will not convince him of anything. He is Sean Hannity. He is Faux News. He is Supply Side Jesus. There is no hope.
“Doug,
He is in full support of the biggest liar in the history of liars.”
This sounds exactly like Trump, and yet you say hyperbole is not acceptable. I think you’re aware you’re exaggerating.
“You will not convince him of anything. He is Sean Hannity. He is Faux News. He is Supply Side Jesus. There is no hope.”
Two comments here: First, no he isn’t, he is an individual. Comparing is fine, but you literally just now said he “is” the person or entity. This is grouping, it is the source of bigotry. Which of your parents was the bigot? Or was it your grandfather? This is a personality trait that goes hand in hand with racism, I know for sure you had a racist close family member, whether to you, or your parents, that was close enough to get engrained in them and passed to you.
The second point: Supply side Jesus is an absurd comment, as well as FAUX news. Faux news due to you disregarding an entire source instead of data, which is insanely ignorant, and the supply side Jesus, because you use an extreme example that cannot exist to explain why Jesus would give to anybody, and wouldn’t motivate based on condition or becoming poor, and said it didn’t mean you were meant to be poor just because you were. This is ignorant as well. Jesus selected who he went to. It is explicitly stated that he avoided healing many, and helping many, and why? Because Jesus did do supply side healing. He gave it to those who deserved it. Who would love him. He abstained from those who would not. This is why he said “go and sin no more” this is why he sends people to hell, this is why the world is falling apart, because God allows onto those to reap the bad rewards of their efforts. The supply side Jesus comic implies that Jesus would just give to all poor, regardless of consideration of if it would actually lift them out of poverty, simply because at some point he said it was hard for a rich man to get to heaven, and at others he implied that blessed are the poor. This is an ignorant comic, and ignorant reference, and that’s not surprising considering your simple mind. It is ok to be ignorant, however, if you are, God expects you to be obedient and to follow those who are not. This is why he says obey your governments, unless they tell you to disobey God, and that they exist for you. This is why he allows masters to beat slaves, as long as they don’t kill them, because learning to put up with things and follow is an important part of going to God, even if it sucks. This is why the poor can be rich, obedience, not because they are poor, but because they know how to put up with crap. And if you have never put up with crap precisely because you’re poor, you’re not wealthy in morality, this would easily be over 90% of the poor in the first world countries, who label the rich, decry supply side economics as heartless, and vote themselves money. They do not have the spirit of obedience, they do not have the spirit of kindness and humbleness, and they do not have the spirit of living a meager life and being ok with it.
what?
It was fairly well explained. I had many issues and I went over them in depth. A short one liner is not always possible.
When you get to higher intelligence ranges you tend to have a lot more depth in the comments.
While you say what like I rambled what actually happened is you can’t keep track of it.
In IQ tests, they usually have simple shifts of objects, which correlates strongly with your ability to position information in you mind, and how quickly. To me, shifting and comparing multiple parts of what I put up, both concept by concept, and sentence by sentence, is easy when I get to the length I just did. This is due to having an IQ in excess of 150. For you, it I evidently not. I mentioned the shifting of objects so perhaps your mind can correlate the action of shifting an object, flipping it to it’s side and moving patters, to identifying and shifting phrases side by side in your head, and relationships between the paragraphs, sentences, and need for those off details.
It really frustrates me how often people lose this. Even if someone has bad sentence structure, as I’m sure you will say I do (I don’t) if you have a high IQ, you should be able to restructure the phrases to compare where they would or should apply, as long as you think it out, and as long as they simply had poor sentence structure, but had the right concept.
So if they for example said Cats don’t like dogs.
Then gave evidence of cats not liking dogs. Gave an anecdotal example of cats not liking dogs, then for some reason rambled about the other point in the middle of their cat and dog speech, but it had to do with another topic that was debated, and came back to cats and dogs, you could restructure it easily if you had the intellect or patience to do so.
In this scenario I addressed supply side Jesus, why it doesn’t work, and some points of how he thinks of it, by referencing concepts in the supply side Jesus comic style, as well as nearly exact phrases contained in it. I reference this to the bible, when it comes to how people are to behave, and that is relevant to disprove how he thinks that Jesus doesn’t want for the government to influence how people behave through supply side similar methods (such as, you don’t work you don’t get food, but in the supply side Jesus thinks you should get food from Planet’s point of view, and saying certain laws will encourage people to work is something Planet thinks Jesus wouldn’t do.).
I could go further, but I don’t want to, it would take too long and too much.
I made my point, if one is smart enough, they will get it.
If not, I don’t need to waste my time. It is valuable.
We get it, you have a superiority complex. :)
Just remember: “It is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the Kingdom of God.”
If the rich are truly moral, they will divest themselves from their riches, and use it to help the poor and otherwise needy, not use it further enrich themselves.
Before you argue this point: it’s not necessary. I understand. :)
“We get it, you have a superiority complex. :)”
My IQ here is directly relevant, especially considering you said what as if I rambled. Quoting your credentials is something those on the left do a lot. I don’t have a superiority complex, but you do have a morality complex. People like you love it when people like me say these things, because you think it makes your arguments stronger, or you a better person. It doesn’t. Your outside your league, I also set you up with this comment so I could thrash you when you did this reply. You didn’t disappoint.
“Just remember: “It is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the Kingdom of God.”
You clearly missed my point.
“If the rich are truly moral, they will divest themselves from their riches, and use it to help the poor and otherwise needy, not use it further enrich themselves.”
You clearly missed my point. I did not argue the rich were good. I said what Planet thought of the quote, since it is in the Supply Side Jesus comic. Planet thinks this means that God does not support the idea of not giving to the poor because they earned being poor. It however, does not establish that fact. Jesus clearly didn’t go to people who didn’t deserve it. He didn’t heal people who didn’t deserve it. He avoided cities who would not change if he healed them. I’m sorry, but his healing came with the requirement of “go and sin no more”. He left us on Earth because we sinned, and being poor is a direct consequence of that (in that anyone poor exists at all).
Before you argue this point: it’s not necessary. I understand. :)”
I doubt it. Or you wouldn’t have made it. You bore me, typical responses.
Now, will you disavow what this flaming liberal said above, grouping, calling Agent FAUX news, using a mock Supply Side Jesus to mock economics instead of debating the pros and cons of economics, and will you hold the left in politics accountable for encouraging this, as they certainly do?
Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot, you’re too balanced for that, and you’re a conservative as you implied (or should I say mislead to gain debate points). You lack the bias, which is why you went after Agent. You also lack the intelligence to try what you’re attempting with me debating tactic style.
I do both sides in regards to criticism buddy. And I can prove it. I haven’t noticed you comment on a liberal matter.
What even is this post? Who cares who wrote it? The article details factual evidence stating that what you posted above is absolutely garbage and banal. Quit parroting talking heads on TV and in the govt. and think for yourself.
You: “Conservatives rool, Liberals drool!
Me: “Well, here are conservatives that agree with me which 100% refutes your point.”
You: “Liberal rag! blarrgghhhhhh!”
Conservatives apply logic and facts.
Liberals apply emotion and feelings.
That would be amazing if true. I grew up believing that, as well.
And then I met someone who only consumed news through Fox News. Logic and Facts don’t mean “being cold and heartless,” it means using multiple sources, verifying the efficacy or accuracy of data, and then applying that wisdom towards the improvement of all.
For example, conservatives hate welfare…unless it happens to go to those top income earners. They preach about wanting to balance budgets, but try to do so by sharply increasing military spending and cutting taxes on the wealthy. They say they want the government out of their daily lives, but then try to legislate who can get married. They say they are for logic and facts, but then ignore any news source or research paper that refutes their beliefs.
A more accurate statement for you would be:
Conservatives weigh the value of logic and facts.
Liberals consider the emotions and feelings of others.
Oh my God! Ok let’s deal with this.
“For example, conservatives hate welfare…unless it happens to go to those top income earners. ”
List to me one example of this. Tax cuts are not forms of welfare. The business keeps more of the money it creates, the capital it creates. The only forms of corporate welfare that have been majorly supported, are lower tax rates for green energy companies, and, mountains of green energy funding (Cash for clunkers, tax credit for buying green cars, green solar panels, and, literal investments into Solyndra). I have never met a republican who is ok with corporate welfare, so you are extrapolating something to mean what it doesn’t.
“They preach about wanting to balance budgets, but try to do so by sharply increasing military spending and cutting taxes on the wealthy.”
The reason for the tax cuts, is how much it affect GDP and capital distribution by the economy in place of the government. The theory is more wages can come directly from business instead of from the government, and therefore the service will be more directly attached to the money, which will allow better investments and possibly less money to be needed to be spent by the government. They also cut other areas. Increasing the military by comparison to what and which area? Trump submitted a DOD budget increase in the $600 billion range. Interesting isn’t it? Why? Because many of Obama’s DOD budgets were $500 billion. Why is this interesting? Because many of Bush W’s were under that. Why is this interesting? Because total defense spending, including foreign aid, actually went up under Obama, despite some DOD years below republican approval. In the tune of about $800 billion dollars, vs some years in which Bush W’s was a total of $400 billion inclusive of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. If Trump for example approved military DOD increases, as republicans usually do, of $50 billion, this is only a fraction of the $400 billion total spending increase. Obama sent 26,000 bombs into the Middle East. This was not DOD budget funds. Each one is $1/m roughly to engineer and produce. That is 26 billion on one year’s request of random bombing. Republicans who advocate for higher DOD spending typically don’t ask for huge military spending increases, it may be as much as $50 billion on any given year, but, due to constantly having to intervene, that amount can end up automatically being higher. In the final point, no, they don’t sharply increase military spending, not to the tune that can balance or destroy a budget. Though they can act in ways that can inflate the budget, but that is still historically maintainable. Bush W’s deficits ranged 100-300 billion for most his years. The recession was the reason for the rough 1 trillion bad year, which had nothing to do with spending increases, and the higher debt had to do with interest rates. Obama’s are lower than Bush W’s. Bush w did well for annual deficits. We had several 1 trillion dollar spending deficits with Obama, driven by things republicans tried to stop. They are better at spending. It’s time to stop taking little things to try they aren’t, it is immature.”
“They say they want the government out of their daily lives, but then try to legislate who can get married.”
No, they don’t want to port over a government marriage program to treat gay people the same as not gay people. Republicans far and away approve civil unions, which stand only to say someone is legally married and allow the spouse to have the typical rights, but not benefits that we afford to households that have higher strains (families).
Essentially, they are not ok with treating same sex marriage as the same as non sex marriage legally. And they aren’t the same, whether by need, by biology, or any other metric.
“They say they are for logic and facts, but then ignore any news source or research paper that refutes their beliefs”
Some, but the vast majority of these disregard the research paper with data and metrics.
Listen, I can tell you’re in my age range, because you talk like it, don’t be a tool to the typical arguments that mislead our generation.
“Essentially, they are not ok with treating same sex marriage
*With regards to benefits* (but not with regards to rights which are not the same as benefits)
as the same as non sex marriage legally. And they aren’t the same, whether by need, by biology, or any other metric.
“They say they are for logic and facts, but then ignore any news source or research paper that refutes their beliefs””
Bob, I am unable to respond to you, IJ continually blocks any response I can make.
Good work, Insurance Journal! Great way to foment discussion and to help others learn the truth.
“List to me one example of this. Tax cuts are not forms of welfare. The business keeps more of the money it creates, the capital it creates. The only forms of corporate welfare that have been majorly supported, are lower tax rates for green energy companies, and, mountains of green energy funding (Cash for clunkers, tax credit for buying green cars, green solar panels, and, literal investments into Solyndra). I have never met a republican who is ok with corporate welfare, so you are extrapolating something to mean what it doesn’t.”
And these are all democrat ideals. I basically just assumed you would know that.
You could do yourself a favor and not read anything Bob writes. I haven’t for years. The guy just tries to bully and is always tooting his own horn. Must be the gods’ gift of Bobs.
Moves like this one with the Paris Accord just gives the world even more reason to laugh at us. We are the laughing stock of planet because of the clown at the top and his side show antics.
Seriously. his last missive made me laugh and cringe multiple times. No self-awareness at all. A true Trump supporter, through and through. :)
You are right about the world laughing at us, though. The fact that the loudest voices are the ones actually coming out to support anti-science and reason is the scariest thing about it, and the most embarrassing.
I have quite a bit of self awareness.
And yes, I support Trump, which says nothing about me. I do it for facts. Let’s go ahead and debate a Trump issue, and you can then understand why I hold the position.
” The fact that the loudest voices are the ones actually coming out to support anti-science and reason is the scariest thing about it, and the most embarrassing.”
It is not being anti science to be against this bill. The one who lacks self awareness and awareness of others is you. You clearly haven’t seen why people doubt the affects and extent of man made climate change. I can show you though, if you stop this belief that people are anti science and instead take the stance that they haven’t been convinced. It isn’t just that either, the Paris accord allows massive government overreach, with minimal result, and a lot of people who can benefit from it in cronyism. Who decides which companies receives the 100 billion of aid to poorer countries? Which country will provide the types that are non direct? (Solar panels are selling them cars that are green efficient, etc).
You’re not fooling anyone, and you lack the depth to debate me. Otherwise, prove me wrong. Let’s have a debate on metrics. You choose it.
So this comment:
“Doug,
He is in full support of the biggest liar in the history of liars. You will not convince him of anything. He is Sean Hannity. He is Faux News. He is Supply Side Jesus. There is no hope.”
Was perfectly ok and well intentioned toward agent? Answer the question Doug. Was this a reasonable comment? Was it not a form of shaming? Was it not taking cliché lines, insults in the form of Faux News, and literally using a comic style of economic debate to accuse people who want economic growth of hating the poor?
Your rich man comment doesn’t matter, what does is what works best economically for the poor.
Instead, we see someone saying “supply side jesus” every time a republican comments. Did he prove his economic theory was better?
Answer the question, you fraud. You’re not a moderate. You’re not conservative, but you are a player. And I take them down a peg every time.
Get involved on one end and not the other, and I’ll show what you are by insisting on facts myself.
Let’s debate. This is what, the third time I’ve said present facts?
Think you can do it?
Bobby, I am only going to respond to your post about climate change, not about policy or religion, since we obviously differ in that respect. Policy and beliefs can be argued, and I respect your earnest desire to do so, but you can’t argue opinions.
As an aside, I favor personal freedoms when it doesn’t impinge on another’s right to personal freedom. To that end, I favor decriminalizing drugs, while also ensuring strict punishments are kept in place for eg: mothers who damage children in utero due to drug use, or parents who abuse children while on drugs, etc. I do not, however, favor allowing businesses to operate in a way that could lead to the destruction of our planet and the way we live.
If climate change is primarily the result of greenhouse gas emissions, then there is an imperative need to restrict a company’s ability to contribute to that destruction. Businesses that refuse to be ecologically responsible should be disincentivized via fines, increased taxes, and so on leading up to eventually jail time or repeat or especially egregious offenders.
So…anyways, on to our regularly scheduled programming:
You quoted Dave who stated that the sun is the primary cause for our current warming, but no scientific basis for the argument. You cite young-earthers Harris-Mann as if they have any weight to their arguments. You can call yourself a Climatologist, as Harris does, but without formal training, it holds no weight. I consider myself a professional basketball player, but for some reason don’t warrant the paychecks of my “colleagues” in the NBA. The graph in the article doesn’t even have a y-axis, and was built on faulty science from a crazy person.
The linked page cites Dr. Iben Browning as a reference, a shyster or delusional guy whose many predictions on climate and the weather were proven totally false. This is the guy that predicted major earthquakes that never happened, the collapse of the federal government, stated that volcanic eruptions were the major cause of climate change and that global warming was caused by war, famine and strife. Yeah… you are trusting data that references this dude as a scholarly source.
The other two sources are either nearly 100 years old built on false assumptions and with no scholarly backup (“Climate…The Key to Understanding Business Cycles…The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak) and the other is some unknown thing that I can’t find: “Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois”
Please provide scholarly sources to backup your assertions about the sun being the primary source of global climate change. Please provide scholarly sources to backup your refutation on human activity being the principal driver of climate change.
Now, I will quote what you ended one of your many, many posts with:
“Your simple minded drivel is not needed here. Use facts, use data, use what his happening in the real world, and what could happen.”
Don’t bring weird non-scientific BS in here. If you want to talk science, use scientific sources.
Here’s NASA reporting on solar activity being the source of global climate change:
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That’s because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/
“Peter Foukal of the Massachusetts-based firm Heliophysics, Inc., who has tracked sunspot intensities from different spots around the globe dating back four centuries, also concludes that such solar disturbances have little or no impact on global warming. Nevertheless, he adds, most up-to-date climate models—including those used by the United Nations’ prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—incorporate the effects of the sun’s variable degree of brightness in their overall calculations.”
and, from the same article:
“Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim.”
One of the peer-reviewed articles:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf
etc, etc, etc.
I would love to respond to you, but IJ won’t let me…
“You could do yourself a favor and not read anything Bob writes. I haven’t for years.”
You do this with many, and it’s a weakness, not a strength.
“The guy just tries to bully and is always tooting his own horn. Must be the gods’ gift of Bobs.”
Incorrect.
“Moves like this one with the Paris Accord just gives the world even more reason to laugh at us. We are the laughing stock of planet because of the clown at the top and his side show antics.”
You need to do deeper analysis, which would be possible if you actually listened to the other side.
You labeled all climate change deniers as people who were hypocrites and hated mother earth. You have made it clear what to do with these people (bully them) and I have made it clear what to do with them (debate them and facts).
I have numerous times told you to remove your absurd commentary and convince me. Then you say I’m bullying you because I call you an idiot when you don’t.
I won the debate with you the moment you stopped responding. Good work.
I just can’t believe how ignorant and shortsighted our current administration is. Climate change due to contributory human factors is literally settled science. Pulling out of the Paris Accord is an incredibly embarrassing admission about how ignorant we are and how out of step we are with the rest of the world. Ubelievable.
~Constantin Poindexter
CEO, SuretyOne.com
Constantin,
While you are correct, you will unfortunately find many people, including many professionals in the industry who ignore the science and tend to listening to science illiterates who tell them things that have no basis in science or truth, and they eat it up because it absolves themselves and all of humanity for our current and future predicaments.