“Are those really viable solutions? Not entirely, but they could make a difference. If the impacts of the changing climate are even remotely as severe as many studies indicate, the industry will face the gravest crisis it has ever known within the next 50 or so years. It needs to start putting solutions in place now. Even if it’s all a hoax, it’s better to be safe than sorry – and out of business.”
Yes, it’s better to be safe than sorry-that is as long as the one making that statement would be on the receiving end of the taxes, fees, etc. that people are forced (by government of course) to pay to avoid “climate change.” Two maxims apply here: “follow the money,” and “cui bono?”
The whole point is that weather is so complex that any claim that it can be predicted 50 or 100 years ahead is laughable, at best (as I write this, they’re predicting a snowstorm for the Philadelphia area two days from now; even this close “they” are not sure how much snow we’ll get).
Face it, the whole “climate change” issue is a hoax created to enrich a few politically connected bank accounts at everyone else’s expense (so what else is new?). This article is merely damage control after the revelations of fraud, lies, etc. in the “climate research” gang that have been revealed over the past few months.
Please do those of us who still retain critical thinking skills a favor and pick a new scare to promote. I’ll give you a few and you can pick one: the Red Menace; the Brutal Hun; a new Ice Age; Islamofascism (oh wait, that one has been taken); the flu pandemic (ditto); etc., etc.
The insurance industry also stands to profit from the global warming scare. It helps explain higher rates and higher reinsurance costs. Any way they can justify the need to increase retained surplus is a good thing for the industry.
Or, as the article also suggests, anytime the industry can persuade taxpayers to take over the risky side of the business, that will also provide the carriers with greater profits.
I’m not saying the carriers or reinsurance industry is wrong for taking that position, but don’t waive off the rest of us more cynical folks when we say that the majority of the climate change argument is nothing but hot air. But hey, I like higher premiums and less risk too. I’m just not willing to trade my country and my freedom for some short term profits.
As I see it, there is absolutely no way, without a Totalitarian, One-World government, that we can ever control all of the emerging countries and cause them to follow the restrictions suggested. So, all we will accomplish is a crippling of our country, and we’ll still be left with the same end result, if the disasterous warming really happens, which I don’t buy, but it could.
So, what happens, happens. In the meantime, I’d rather have my children and grand children live in a free society for a short time, than to be caged and shackled to live forever. Hoping for the entire world to hold hands and sing in harmony, is a pipe dream, even with the shackles in my estimation.
I’m sure that makes me sound loony to some folks. Oh well.
Why are we all so concerned about insurance costs if there ends up being global warming? So what if the ocean rises some. Increase insurance premium on the homes that could be affected the most. If the premium is 1/4 of the cost of the home, then I have a feeling these homeowners will be selling. Who will buy you ask? Movie stars, billionaires even millionaires. They won’t need insurance as they will self insure. Then when their house is destroyed, they’ll reach into their bank account and fix it. Insurance won’t be involved, homes will still be repaired and life will go on. End of debate, but I’m sure someone will complain saying they’ve owned property on the coast for generations and now they’ll have to sell because they can’t afford insurance. Well, I’m sure generations ago, their great grandpappy didn’t even have insurance on it either, so quit being a spoiled brat!!
Whats more crazy than the idea of global warming are the people that believe it’s a conspiracy. World leaders, batallions of scientists and respected schools of research are lying to the planet to fatten a few pockets for only select government officals and industries? Doesn’t sound very profitable for EVERYONE in on this ‘conspiracy’ if it is in fact all about the benjamins. Of course there’s going to be those that will take advantage but to challange respected organizations that have made it their life’s work to come to a conclusion on the subject is ignorant. People are jumping the gun on both sides. I’m in the middle, I’ll sit and wait. Until a conclusion is reached, I won’t mind living a greener life not for ‘global warming’ but just for the sake of the planet and the other I share it with.
Lewis- With all due respect there are very few global warming skeptics who see this as just a conspiracy to fatten the purses of idiots like Algore.
The underlying motivation is purely political. Green legislation like socialized medicine enable the government to exercise more and more control over the citizenery.
For example: I volunteered at a large metro park system for 8 years. In the training session for new volunteers we were told that because of conservation efforts by the state government forestation in our state had more than doubled over the last hundred years. In spite of that we were supposed to tell the public that our forests were endangered and that we should take an active role with the public to convince them that our forests were in danger. I asked why we should lie to park visitors. I was told that the best way to accomplish a goal was to frighten the public into thinking there was a problem when in fact there was not. The destruction of the lumber industry was the ultimate goal (this from one of the park instructors teaching the volunteers)
Global warming skeptics care deeply about our planet and we support clean air and clean water legislation. We object vehemently to spreading a lie that could cost us all our freedom in the end.
I suggest that all global warming believers start looking at the numbers and the science coming from both sides of the debate. I reached my conclusions after doing so. You cannot reach a valid conclusion on any debate without looking at the facts as provoded by BOTH sides. If you take the time to look there are thousands of qualified professionals who scoff at the global warming scare.
Waterbug, in response to your post, allow me to clarify. I have made myself educated on both sides of the debate, that doesn’t mean that I have chosen a side. I am a skeptic on the idea that this is a scare tactic to make Al Gore a richer man. It’s your opinion ‘it’s’ political. It’s his or her opinion ‘it’s’ about money and it’s my opinion that both opinions are ludacris and that many conspiracy theorists that are feeding you people these ideas are themselves in on it for profit as well. For some reason Michael Moore comes to mind.
Perhaps some of these ideas use the same method such as ‘the scare tactic’ to help fuel their own agenda. I don’t buy into any of it.
Furthermore, because one group of people lead by an arrogant person incapable of running a what should be honest and respectable branch at the forest service where you volunteered who is telling volunteers to lie to ‘scare the public’ into conservation doesn’t mean that’s the agenda of all conservation efforts run by the government.
My opinion is nobody on either side knows what the hell their talking about.
Lewis, Lewis, Lewis. First of all, Ludacris is a low life rapper. A common mistake.
Let me make it clear- We skeptics almost universally don’t give a rat’s rear whether Algore and his pathetic minions get rich or not. The incomes earned by the wealthy don’t affect me in any way.
What annoys me is otherwise bright people falling for fairy tales like global cooling, global warming, communists hiding under the bed, and unintended acceleration in Audi 5000’s.
I am a scientist and I don’t belong to a political party. I do vote in every election however.
Now now Waterbug, let’s not be so quick to stoop to pointing out spelling errors on a fast comment message board in a desperate attempt to level up when you have a few of your own. I’m not writing an essay. BTW, it’s spelled citizenry not citiznery
Back to the topic at hand, I have in fact heard and read many ideas that this IS in fact all about money but that isn’t my point and hasn’t been my point entirely. I know that you claim to be a scientist, wouldn’t surprise me if you were the global warming skeptics spokesperson too, as you claim ‘most skeptics’ don’t care who’s getting rich off of this. When it’s clear by many blogs, various articles and even books that that’s exactly what many skeptics believe but again that’s not my point.
I was not necessarily speaking to YOU and your idea but the ideas in general. I’m merely pointing out that the idea that politics and money alike are not the reason for the hoopla of global warming alone. Seems like you missed my point. Too busy defending the idea that the government is trying to control everyone I suppose.
“What annoys me is otherwise bright people falling for fairy tales like global cooling, global warming, communists hiding under the bed, and unintended acceleration in Audi 5000’s.” IS EXACTLY MY POINT! As well as those that believe the motivation is political and the governments wants to take over the world.
“The underlying motivation is purely political. Green legislation like socialized medicine enable the government to exercise more and more control over the citizenery.” I would think that someone that recognizes the real danger of socialized medicine would know the difference between a legitimate example of a shift in government strategy and a bunch of hype. I haven’t yet seen any moves to try to cap my emissions. The flop at Copenhagen further proves my point. I’m more concerned about the health care plan and the government trying to take that over because that IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING. Again, simmer down on the hype, because your point will never be supported by legitimate facts. All I’m sayin is I’ll believe it when I see it.
“Are those really viable solutions? Not entirely, but they could make a difference. If the impacts of the changing climate are even remotely as severe as many studies indicate, the industry will face the gravest crisis it has ever known within the next 50 or so years. It needs to start putting solutions in place now. Even if it’s all a hoax, it’s better to be safe than sorry – and out of business.”
Yes, it’s better to be safe than sorry-that is as long as the one making that statement would be on the receiving end of the taxes, fees, etc. that people are forced (by government of course) to pay to avoid “climate change.” Two maxims apply here: “follow the money,” and “cui bono?”
The whole point is that weather is so complex that any claim that it can be predicted 50 or 100 years ahead is laughable, at best (as I write this, they’re predicting a snowstorm for the Philadelphia area two days from now; even this close “they” are not sure how much snow we’ll get).
Face it, the whole “climate change” issue is a hoax created to enrich a few politically connected bank accounts at everyone else’s expense (so what else is new?). This article is merely damage control after the revelations of fraud, lies, etc. in the “climate research” gang that have been revealed over the past few months.
Please do those of us who still retain critical thinking skills a favor and pick a new scare to promote. I’ll give you a few and you can pick one: the Red Menace; the Brutal Hun; a new Ice Age; Islamofascism (oh wait, that one has been taken); the flu pandemic (ditto); etc., etc.
Exactly. Follow that money.
The insurance industry also stands to profit from the global warming scare. It helps explain higher rates and higher reinsurance costs. Any way they can justify the need to increase retained surplus is a good thing for the industry.
Or, as the article also suggests, anytime the industry can persuade taxpayers to take over the risky side of the business, that will also provide the carriers with greater profits.
I’m not saying the carriers or reinsurance industry is wrong for taking that position, but don’t waive off the rest of us more cynical folks when we say that the majority of the climate change argument is nothing but hot air. But hey, I like higher premiums and less risk too. I’m just not willing to trade my country and my freedom for some short term profits.
As I see it, there is absolutely no way, without a Totalitarian, One-World government, that we can ever control all of the emerging countries and cause them to follow the restrictions suggested. So, all we will accomplish is a crippling of our country, and we’ll still be left with the same end result, if the disasterous warming really happens, which I don’t buy, but it could.
So, what happens, happens. In the meantime, I’d rather have my children and grand children live in a free society for a short time, than to be caged and shackled to live forever. Hoping for the entire world to hold hands and sing in harmony, is a pipe dream, even with the shackles in my estimation.
I’m sure that makes me sound loony to some folks. Oh well.
Why are we all so concerned about insurance costs if there ends up being global warming? So what if the ocean rises some. Increase insurance premium on the homes that could be affected the most. If the premium is 1/4 of the cost of the home, then I have a feeling these homeowners will be selling. Who will buy you ask? Movie stars, billionaires even millionaires. They won’t need insurance as they will self insure. Then when their house is destroyed, they’ll reach into their bank account and fix it. Insurance won’t be involved, homes will still be repaired and life will go on. End of debate, but I’m sure someone will complain saying they’ve owned property on the coast for generations and now they’ll have to sell because they can’t afford insurance. Well, I’m sure generations ago, their great grandpappy didn’t even have insurance on it either, so quit being a spoiled brat!!
Whats more crazy than the idea of global warming are the people that believe it’s a conspiracy. World leaders, batallions of scientists and respected schools of research are lying to the planet to fatten a few pockets for only select government officals and industries? Doesn’t sound very profitable for EVERYONE in on this ‘conspiracy’ if it is in fact all about the benjamins. Of course there’s going to be those that will take advantage but to challange respected organizations that have made it their life’s work to come to a conclusion on the subject is ignorant. People are jumping the gun on both sides. I’m in the middle, I’ll sit and wait. Until a conclusion is reached, I won’t mind living a greener life not for ‘global warming’ but just for the sake of the planet and the other I share it with.
Lewis- With all due respect there are very few global warming skeptics who see this as just a conspiracy to fatten the purses of idiots like Algore.
The underlying motivation is purely political. Green legislation like socialized medicine enable the government to exercise more and more control over the citizenery.
For example: I volunteered at a large metro park system for 8 years. In the training session for new volunteers we were told that because of conservation efforts by the state government forestation in our state had more than doubled over the last hundred years. In spite of that we were supposed to tell the public that our forests were endangered and that we should take an active role with the public to convince them that our forests were in danger. I asked why we should lie to park visitors. I was told that the best way to accomplish a goal was to frighten the public into thinking there was a problem when in fact there was not. The destruction of the lumber industry was the ultimate goal (this from one of the park instructors teaching the volunteers)
Global warming skeptics care deeply about our planet and we support clean air and clean water legislation. We object vehemently to spreading a lie that could cost us all our freedom in the end.
I suggest that all global warming believers start looking at the numbers and the science coming from both sides of the debate. I reached my conclusions after doing so. You cannot reach a valid conclusion on any debate without looking at the facts as provoded by BOTH sides. If you take the time to look there are thousands of qualified professionals who scoff at the global warming scare.
Waterbug, in response to your post, allow me to clarify. I have made myself educated on both sides of the debate, that doesn’t mean that I have chosen a side. I am a skeptic on the idea that this is a scare tactic to make Al Gore a richer man. It’s your opinion ‘it’s’ political. It’s his or her opinion ‘it’s’ about money and it’s my opinion that both opinions are ludacris and that many conspiracy theorists that are feeding you people these ideas are themselves in on it for profit as well. For some reason Michael Moore comes to mind.
Perhaps some of these ideas use the same method such as ‘the scare tactic’ to help fuel their own agenda. I don’t buy into any of it.
Furthermore, because one group of people lead by an arrogant person incapable of running a what should be honest and respectable branch at the forest service where you volunteered who is telling volunteers to lie to ‘scare the public’ into conservation doesn’t mean that’s the agenda of all conservation efforts run by the government.
My opinion is nobody on either side knows what the hell their talking about.
Lewis, Lewis, Lewis. First of all, Ludacris is a low life rapper. A common mistake.
Let me make it clear- We skeptics almost universally don’t give a rat’s rear whether Algore and his pathetic minions get rich or not. The incomes earned by the wealthy don’t affect me in any way.
What annoys me is otherwise bright people falling for fairy tales like global cooling, global warming, communists hiding under the bed, and unintended acceleration in Audi 5000’s.
I am a scientist and I don’t belong to a political party. I do vote in every election however.
Now now Waterbug, let’s not be so quick to stoop to pointing out spelling errors on a fast comment message board in a desperate attempt to level up when you have a few of your own. I’m not writing an essay. BTW, it’s spelled citizenry not citiznery
Back to the topic at hand, I have in fact heard and read many ideas that this IS in fact all about money but that isn’t my point and hasn’t been my point entirely. I know that you claim to be a scientist, wouldn’t surprise me if you were the global warming skeptics spokesperson too, as you claim ‘most skeptics’ don’t care who’s getting rich off of this. When it’s clear by many blogs, various articles and even books that that’s exactly what many skeptics believe but again that’s not my point.
I was not necessarily speaking to YOU and your idea but the ideas in general. I’m merely pointing out that the idea that politics and money alike are not the reason for the hoopla of global warming alone. Seems like you missed my point. Too busy defending the idea that the government is trying to control everyone I suppose.
“What annoys me is otherwise bright people falling for fairy tales like global cooling, global warming, communists hiding under the bed, and unintended acceleration in Audi 5000’s.” IS EXACTLY MY POINT! As well as those that believe the motivation is political and the governments wants to take over the world.
“The underlying motivation is purely political. Green legislation like socialized medicine enable the government to exercise more and more control over the citizenery.” I would think that someone that recognizes the real danger of socialized medicine would know the difference between a legitimate example of a shift in government strategy and a bunch of hype. I haven’t yet seen any moves to try to cap my emissions. The flop at Copenhagen further proves my point. I’m more concerned about the health care plan and the government trying to take that over because that IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING. Again, simmer down on the hype, because your point will never be supported by legitimate facts. All I’m sayin is I’ll believe it when I see it.