There aren’t NATO dues, genius. There is a goal, not even a mandate, where they aim to spend 2% of GDP on defense costs. There are also direct contributions where each nation pays a predetermined amount determined by a cost sharing calculator, and all nations have been paying it.
You don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t even know the bare bones basics. You hear nonsense by idiots, and repeat it as fact if you like it. There is no reason for you to write anything online, you aren’t competent. Stop.
I have no clue what you are referring to with ACORN and Trayvon Martin.
October 9, 2018 at 2:37 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
Tx lady has never talked about Trayvon.
This is probably guilt by association Tx lady. I’m sorry to see it.
October 9, 2018 at 2:34 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
He repeats what he hears other people say? Says the almost 100% of scientists say XYZ person in this same page. You have no self reflection.
Also, I called that you would do this again. Recently I brought up our conversation on climate change, in which when it came down to it, you admitted that the percentage of scientists who believe that human made global warming will be catastrophic is nowhere near 100%. You then back petaled and called me dishonest, when I pointed out you were misrepresenting your consensus studies and so was the left. You claimed then, that it wasn’t your point to say it would be catastrophic just that man caused climate change. In this post you’ve said that it’s 100% due to man. You contradict yourself so much it’s unbelievable. When I in the past said that you were in fact trying to make this argument you ran away like a coward, telling me that wasn’t your argument. It is probably because I crushed your argument at the time. Here you are back at it.
This is nonsense. Bock his ip IJ. You removed my post in which I pointed out I was sexually assaulted and UW had mocked me and said I supported rape. You don’t get much worse than that (on his end not yours)
No, there were pledges by NATO countries to pay > 2% of their GDP to support the NATO military efforts. They ALL defaulted on their pledge, thus Trump called them out on it, and promised to hold them accountable. Some are now seeing the light, and seeing the might of the USA that was previously inadequately supported by chicken#$%# nations who joined NATO and took a free ride for many decades.
Again, simply wrong. Stop mindlessly repeating what Trump has said on this, every legitimate fact checker has said he’s wrong. 2% is not a minimum, and the 2012 pledge was to reach that amount within a decade for the countries that weren’t there. Also it’s a guideline, not a requirement. They also aren’t paying anybody, they are spending on their military budget. You seem to think they pay that into a shared pot. You can’t default on a guideline. You clearly don’t understand what the agreement is in the most simple terms. Stop writing about it.
October 12, 2018 at 7:22 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
No, I’m not wrong. Saying so doesn’t make it so. Pledges do not hold the force of a formal agreement, but some pledges that WERE upheld by a few honorable nations.
Why are you arguing about something that doesn’t hold the force of a contract?
More important, you IGNORED the FACT that the pledge WAS upheld by some HONORABLE nations who appreciate the alliance…. and argued on behalf of dishonorable, greedy nations who received protection from the US who did all the ‘heavy lifting’.
The US lost lives of good soldiers in the process while cowardly nations didn’t send their fare share of troops. Yet, you criticize anyone who reports the facts, like Trump, and others here …. why?
October 15, 2018 at 10:03 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Polar, you were wrong, get over it. You stated they agreed to pay over 3% of GDP im dues. That’s wrong in every single aspect. You aren’t credible on this topic. Nobody takes you seriously on this topic.
October 9, 2018 at 2:41 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
6
3
This is not related. I get you’re upset about it, but on NATO and defense other countries are notoriously anti war in spending, and it has been this way a long time.
Let’s talk about the actual topic of climate change and policies, not associated aspects. I hate that. On any side it shuts down debate and the true conversation.
Aside from almost, if not, 100% of climate scientists yes, most of the people in industrialized, educated countries believe it.
I would also support the re-transfer of wealth even if climate change were indeed a liberal hoax pushed to take the money of rich people. A more humane Dekulakization and total economic change to include and mitigate elite externalities is probably the only way to solve this problem at this point. But of course the normal idiots will be here defending masa genocide at the expense of their own energy use, and denying all science, as usual. Grab that Farmers Almanac, light up some oil, and push nonsense, baby, MAGA!
Climate Scientists know there are two sure ways to solve the threat (if there is one) of man-made Climate Change:
1. Nuclear energy: carbon free. Ask the French, who use nuclear for 50% of their energy.
2. Carbon Sequestration: for $500 billion (about 1% of global GDP), CO2 could be trapped and most of it used for energy. The fear of reaching a tipping point on temperature increase would be immediately overcome.
So why don’t we do it? Liberals. These solutions don’t satisfy the “purity” requirements of the Earth Religion. Nuclear isn’t perfect; we might have to blast the waste into space. Carbon Sequestration doesn’t satisfy the requirement that we suffer for our Gaia. Keeping the economy going strong is against the beliefs of the Puritans who want us to suffer for what we have done to the planet.
Nuclear can only be done with almost total government ownership and control. I’m fine with that, but if we are going to do it we should do solar and other renewable sources. Nuclear just shifts the problem from carbon emissions to nuclear waste storage which will he a massive problem if done worldwide, or even widely in the US. It’s a terrible way to get energy.
Sequestration is far from a proven method, especially the economics of it. It’s nothing but an excuse to keep using coal, because that owns the libtards. That’s why conservatives like it, it’s really that simple.
Also, climate scientists are not overwhelmingly saying these are the 2 ways to stop it, that’s an outright lie. In fact the recent UN report says otherwise. Don’t reply, you’ve said climate scientists are engaged in a worldwide coordinated hoax, through hundreds of different organizations with thousands of independent scientists in order to make money, you aren’t credible.
You call me a liar without even thinking about what I said. I never said these were the ONLY solutions. I only said that either one would work according to Climate Scientists.
No wonder you go to Climate Church. I never said climate scientists are “engaged in a worldwide coordinated hoax”. YOU are the liar. And you discredit all of your own opinions as a result.
October 9, 2018 at 2:39 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Carbon sequestration is debatable, as they don’t know if it could work on a global scale.
In tests it might differ from reality.
I do enjoy your posts though. Where did you get the $500 billion number? Is that the estimated cost of one of the two? Both?
October 9, 2018 at 12:35 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
8
To the Climate Change Hoaxers, KAG and go away, preferably to Venezuela.
aren’t you even just a LITTLE embarrassed about liking your own posts? is your ego that fragile?
October 11, 2018 at 6:03 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
‘Climate scientists’ is a subset of all scientists. In general, these ‘Climate Scientists’ have an agenda; i.e. to prove their titles have significance and distinguish them from ‘Scientists’ in general.
YOU should support the transfer of wealth to whoever you want; just leave me and other smart people out of it. Pay all you want out of YOUR pocket/ purse to whoever you want.
I recommend seeing the movie about NASA’s 60th Anniversary, Above And Beyond. There is absolutely no doubt that climate change is real, man-made, and deadly. No doubt. Zero. Zilch. None, whatsoever. It is an absolute reality. It is a clear and present danger. It is real and it is here. We can solve the problem or not, but we cannot ignore the problem. It is hotter each year. There are more destructive hurricanes, fires, and storms every year. This didn’t happen by accident. It is not luck. It is not chance. It is not cyclical. It is not natural.
No, they won’t. In fact most recent work says the increase has been 100% due to man, and much has said we might even be in a cooling period if it weren’t for man. Stop lying. Too bad IJ won’t ban people who spam lies. Only people who call out racism hey banned here.
Yes, they will. See how easy it is to contradict someone without providing substantiation. So, now, show us with facts or logic how most of the increase in temps was due to man. Ready, steady, … GO!
Ok, look at 97-100% if the published science on this, the Cook report looking at climate science in total, or their followup study debunking the claims that scientists didn’t formally say it was man made in some studies. Ready, set,… Oh yeah, you don’t read things that go against your beliefs, you just lie, like with your fake statistics degree. Well, go!
October 9, 2018 at 5:35 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
8
Because you say Climate Change is man-made doesn’t make it so. Your use of hyperbole also doesn’t matter one bot, er, bit. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Terminology gets in the way. Insurance people should understand this. It’s like rate-making. You have historical data that tells you if you’re loss costs are going up or down. Average global temperature has been going up. That means “global warming” is a technically accurate term to use, whereas “climate change” is a neutral term, of course the climate is changing all the time. In order to project what your loss ratio will be in the future, and set your pricing, you determine if your historical loss cost changes have a causal factor that will continue; distracted driving, increased cost to repair cars etc. With climate change, this would be the increasing amount of carbon in the atmosphere, also a historically measured piece of data. Is there a causal relationship? Insurance companies doing pricing seeing the same correlation would 99% percent of the time call it causal.
Regardless, global warming is not a problem. It is a symptom…of overpopulation. That’s okay though. Nature always corrects imbalances. If we don’t fix overpopulation, nature will. And it will likely be much more painful than who is going to pay for reducing carbon emissions.
Hard to consume the earth from 93 million miles away. By the way, NASA now says the sun is in a minimum faze and we will see cooling for a while now. Get your winter clothes out.
Agent is not well versed in modern (or even slightly out dated) science.
Agent, the term you are referring to on how a star can reach the earth from 93 million miles away is when the sun becomes a supernova (or when it explodes and destroys the planet we are living on). While it is still possible for our sun to become a supernova (a class 1 and not 2), the more likely scenario right now would be that the earth would be vaporized when the sun becomes a red giant before reducing its heat to a white dwarf.
You just blew Agent’s mind. Right now, he’s wondering if you are making up “red giant” and “white dwarf” or are those actual terms. Pro tip, Agent, they are actual terms. Go grab a book and if you’re like Tramp, maybe you can find one that’s mainly just pictures so you don’t have to look at all those letters and words. Grammar – who needs it, right?
October 10, 2018 at 12:53 pm
Yup says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Captain,
He was really trying to figure out which was more of a racist term so he can call you a hypocrite. those white dwarfs and those darn red giants.
October 10, 2018 at 1:26 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Maybe we really should start calling it white little people and rosy giants. What do you think, Agent? Is it time to change the scientific terminology?
October 10, 2018 at 3:36 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
5
Conspiracy theorist much? What weed have you been smoking? Call us back in a million years and we will have another conversation.
October 10, 2018 at 4:00 pm
rob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
it’s not a conspiracy theory, agent…It’s BASIC and proven science, often taught at the elementary school level.
It’s nothing to fear for now, but eventually, the sun (a star) will swell exponentially and become a red giant, where it will systematically destroy most of the surrounding planets including Mercury, Venus and Earth, then it will gradually shrink in size to become a white dwarf, before either just going out or exploding. It’s been documented many times by astronomers.
October 10, 2018 at 4:06 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Agent,
How old are you to not know about these things? Yes it will not happen in our lifetime, but it will happen. There are different classifications for supernovas depending on how they form (Class 2 is worse than a class 1 just like hurricanes). If you do not know these simple terms and the implications you do not have enough knowledge to make opinions on anything above a 5th grade science classroom. I only posted links to these because we have never discussed the difference here, but you seem to need it.
here is something explaining red giants and white dwarfs: https://sciencing.com/characteristics-redgiant-whitedwarf-stars-8395763.html
here is something explaining supernovas: https://www.space.com/6638-supernova.html
October 11, 2018 at 8:38 am
Yup says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
I’m crying laughing at this entire string of comments.. Never before did you think Agent could be that ignorant.
October 9, 2018 at 5:37 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
6
Please tell us WHEN the Sun will consume the Earth. Should I invest in a new air conditioner, or will I never see the day it draws near or happens?
Humans will never see the day, but other life forms will inherit the planet so we should do our best to preserve it, conserve it (you call yourself a conservative, right?), and pass it on in good health to whatever life follows ours. We all should be better stewards of God’s gift.
I say let the other life forms try to stop the sun from going super nova. So, stop with the stupid, fraudulent efforts to transfer wealth via carbon taxes and tax credits.
I could care less about the money. My only concern is how we are treating this living organism that has given to us a countless-fold. You are the one who is obsessed with the money aspect. Take wealth and shove it. There are far more too many things important in life than wealth. Otherwise, The Bible would have told us all the secret to life was getting rich.
October 12, 2018 at 7:31 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
I agree; you could CARE LESS about the money.
I’m taking my greater wealth after the TRA-17 redux of Fed Taxes and spending it on campaign contributions…. take a wild guess as to which party I’m supporting.
October 9, 2018 at 1:23 pm
J.S. says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
Again, here come the uninformed political opinions. Aren’t we lucky.
Thank the partisan, liberal media. If they REALLY cared about climate change, they would host hour long, balanced investigations into the truth, including the truth that Al Gore said we only had 10 years to act over 10 years ago. Meaning the climate zealots need to go back and read “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” to find the reasons no one will listen when the alarm is real.
There are valid reasons for skepticism. Just like Christina Ford’s story was a joke (but the media refused to list in detail all the reasons for skepticism. Instead, they just asked “do YOU believe her?” as a test of being a good person).
Al Gore said we had 10 years to act over 10 years ago and your complaint is we’re not at that threshold yet?? We’re 2/3rds of the way there and it’s projected that will get the next 1/3rd over the next 12 years.
So yes, I agree – Gore was wrong. 10 years IS less than 22 years. But looking at things at a global timescale (e.g. hundreds of years to full on ‘epochs’), the “extra” 12 years here is a REALLY insignificant difference.
A report issued yesterday by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says the planet will reach the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030. The planet is already two-thirds of the way there, with global temperatures having warmed about 1 degree C. Avoiding going even higher will require significant action in the next few years.
Why should we believe them? So many predictions of doom from the Climate Scientists have been flat wrong.
And the bigger issue: WHAT should we do about it? Even the report issued yesterday doubted that we could solve the problem politically. My point is completely valid: when the liberal media spins and lies about everything, the consequences are serious: nobody believes anything. Every poll shows declining trust in the media.
Thanks Liberals! (See Christine Ford. Exhibit A on media corruption and dishonesty.)
Craig,
While yes they have overestimated dangers in the past, there is something with historical data that helps predict future possibilities. The main issue for me is that instead of working together for a nonpartisan answer both sides (notice how I said both) are just disregarding the other. The biggest issue I see is that conservatives will not admit that climate change can be helped even if it is slightly, and democrats (stop using liberals to your agenda, not every democrat as liberal as you make them) sometimes will be over confident in some reports.
Also, please do not push that Agenda about Christine Ford. She was not motivated by politics (you can disagree all you want, but it won’t make your dream true). Judge Kavanaugh also lied about his drinking habits while under oath with the senate, does that mean he is unfit for the supreme court? The claims cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt which they could not be. I attribute this to the length of time it has been since it occurred for those that were interviewed, and also those people that were left out.
October 9, 2018 at 4:34 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
You’re free to believe whatever you’d like. Nobody can *make* you believe anything. I know why I believe them and I’m sure there’s nothing anyone here can say or point out to you that will cause you to change your stance. Just remember, if you choose not to believe you still have made a choice (sorry I twisted your words around Mr. Peart!)
October 9, 2018 at 7:21 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
“here is something with historical data that helps predict future possibilities”
Incomplete historical data, many of it that has an equation implemented as guesses because of a severe lack of data. This isn’t historical data that has been well documented.
The oceanic was part of what was added to say we are nearly there, and the oceanic temperatures are compiled from varying monitoring points (at certain points less than a 100th what they are now), from 4 different methods, and an equation that is used to offset how much there is error in those methods. The oceanic data is terrible. Surface temperatures now always include “oceanic surface” which we do not have long term tracking for to any degree.
This could well be within the margin of error for their data, there might even be net zero warming, or negative warming.
We do not have historical data on this matter, that is the problem.
October 9, 2018 at 7:23 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
The issue is you are pretending people on the right are ignoring historical data, only because you don’t listen to a word they say.
I still don’t see how so many people like me can outright say what we say, and you just hear the part that we don’t trust the scientists, not that we don’t have the data, and you don’t think to look at the data and listen to what people like me say about it being incomplete. No no, you would rather think that a vast swath of the population refuses to accept science. It’s absurdly degrading to the populous of the other side, and is so narcissistic I cannot believe it.
October 10, 2018 at 9:15 am
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
Bob,
I just made that point that both sides are not listening. If you do not admit your own parties wrongdoings, you are a part of the greater problem.Blindly following without listening and attempting to understand is an issue, and you have it bob.
October 10, 2018 at 3:36 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
5
“Bob,
I just made that point that both sides are not listening. If you do not admit your own parties wrongdoings, you are a part of the greater problem.Blindly following without listening and attempting to understand is an issue, and you have it bob.”
You have not admitted you yourself did what I said above, so you don’t get to try a catch 22 with me. Nice try, but this doesn’t dismiss your behavior on this topic. Mine has been normal, I’ve used why I question science. Each time I do, you included, the left says we ignore science. That is what causes the sides not to listen to each other. Consensus studies, and hogwash about denying science, not the guy that comes in and says, hey, you leftists are ignoring us and are pretending we don’t understand science, knock it off. You don’t get to reply to that saying “I’m not going to listen until you admit your fault in that process.”. Fault is not a two way street. You’re more at fault. Tell me what to admit that I did wrong, and I’ll agree. I will not say vaguely I have added to a problem just to say I’m balanced, like you, and that is unethical. Itemization decreases polarization. So list specifically how I’ve added to the problem (hint, saying I insult people won’t work, don’t try).
This is a site you should take a look at by the way.
It points out how people in the 97% consensus say they disagree, etc.
October 9, 2018 at 5:39 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
5
Keep moving the goalposts, from 10 yrs to 22 yrs, to whatever time is needed to fool the masses into believing your claim. Few will believe you, but they may donate to your POLITICAL causes.
This is just absurd banter from an argument long past. the hilarious part, is that agent constantly brings this up, and apparently has never even bothered to look into his stupidity.
The Long Island Sound – the body of water that separates Long Island from CT is absolutely an estuary. Use whatever means you would like to look it up..
So, Rosie; you’re trying to support Al Gore and his mindless minions and their Climate Change Hoax by pointing out how he lied and 10 years passed to prove it? LOL!
1) Prediction: an act of predicting. something that is predicted
1a) Predict: to declare or indicate in advance especially foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason
A PREDICTION was made. Gore didn’t LIE. His PREDICTION was off by a decade (which is a REALLY small amount of time on a global timescale).
Hey, do you like sports? Take the NFL. Many people PREDICTED the Cleveland Browns wouldn’t lose any less than 14 games. Well, that’s wrong now.
Does that make everyone who predicted their final 2018 record to be less than 2-14 a LIAR or was their PREDICTION simply wrong as more data became available?
October 9, 2018 at 4:22 pm
J.S. says:
Like or Dislike:
10
2
It’s actually humorous. I find all the self-assured comments on a very complex scientific question on an insurance website to be utterly ridiculous. This is not the place to go to learn anything on the topic.
The constant references to Al Gore as if his movie should be an exact prediction in to the future gives him a lot more credibility than he deserves. It may have been the first time you heard about “global warming”, but it wasn’t for the scientists in the field.
Why this is a liberal vs. conservative issue is beyond me. It has nothing to do with politics or the conspiracy theories people keep bring up. Is it because Al Gore happened to be the one to bring this to many peoples conscious thoughts?
I certainly don’t claim to know if the scientists are right or wrong. Only time will tell. However, if the deniers are wrong, the world basically ends for current human habitation. If the scientists are wrong, the economy will be affected around the globe for a while.
Back on planet earth, LOTS of climate scientists disagree with the “kill the economy” movement that the Left proposes as the ONLY solution to Climate Change.
LOTS of scientists agree that Climate Change could be solved with nuclear power – and many progressives are in agreement. But not the crazy Climate Zealots! OH NO! Not ‘pure’ enough for the Religion. Neither is carbon sequestration; the Climate Zealots say solving the problem is no fun if you can’t suffer for our Earth Mother . . .
That’s why I asked you for your source – so I could read about it! “LOTS of scientists agree that Climate Change could be solved with nuclear power.” Please provide your source and I’ll be glad to read it!
October 11, 2018 at 11:15 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
A guy who has said multiple times the Farmers Almanac is more reliable for weather forecasts is criticizing people for where they get their sources.
Agent, remember when you spent like 2 years replying, “Source!?” in every story? Stupid and hypocritical.
October 10, 2018 at 9:05 am
??? says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
I love that you get downvoted for that comment. “HOW DARE YOU MAKE A RATIONAL AND REASONABLE ASSERTION!”
Because Insurance Journal (short for journalism?) believes in respectful, honest discourse. (So long as it promotes liberal ideas. All other ideas must be white washed away . . .)
Note the phrase “urgent actions needed now…” in the article’s title.
Sleazy ad narrators use similar language to try to prompt a response to “call now; operators are standing by now, 24/7”, in order to coerce you to make a hasty decision – to buy their product or service – which you wouldn’t have made if you thought it through.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
There aren’t NATO dues, genius. There is a goal, not even a mandate, where they aim to spend 2% of GDP on defense costs. There are also direct contributions where each nation pays a predetermined amount determined by a cost sharing calculator, and all nations have been paying it.
You don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t even know the bare bones basics. You hear nonsense by idiots, and repeat it as fact if you like it. There is no reason for you to write anything online, you aren’t competent. Stop.
You don’t need to be so rude.
I have no clue what you are referring to with ACORN and Trayvon Martin.
Tx lady has never talked about Trayvon.
This is probably guilt by association Tx lady. I’m sorry to see it.
He repeats what he hears other people say? Says the almost 100% of scientists say XYZ person in this same page. You have no self reflection.
Also, I called that you would do this again. Recently I brought up our conversation on climate change, in which when it came down to it, you admitted that the percentage of scientists who believe that human made global warming will be catastrophic is nowhere near 100%. You then back petaled and called me dishonest, when I pointed out you were misrepresenting your consensus studies and so was the left. You claimed then, that it wasn’t your point to say it would be catastrophic just that man caused climate change. In this post you’ve said that it’s 100% due to man. You contradict yourself so much it’s unbelievable. When I in the past said that you were in fact trying to make this argument you ran away like a coward, telling me that wasn’t your argument. It is probably because I crushed your argument at the time. Here you are back at it.
This is nonsense. Bock his ip IJ. You removed my post in which I pointed out I was sexually assaulted and UW had mocked me and said I supported rape. You don’t get much worse than that (on his end not yours)
No, there were pledges by NATO countries to pay > 2% of their GDP to support the NATO military efforts. They ALL defaulted on their pledge, thus Trump called them out on it, and promised to hold them accountable. Some are now seeing the light, and seeing the might of the USA that was previously inadequately supported by chicken#$%# nations who joined NATO and took a free ride for many decades.
Again, simply wrong. Stop mindlessly repeating what Trump has said on this, every legitimate fact checker has said he’s wrong. 2% is not a minimum, and the 2012 pledge was to reach that amount within a decade for the countries that weren’t there. Also it’s a guideline, not a requirement. They also aren’t paying anybody, they are spending on their military budget. You seem to think they pay that into a shared pot. You can’t default on a guideline. You clearly don’t understand what the agreement is in the most simple terms. Stop writing about it.
No, I’m not wrong. Saying so doesn’t make it so. Pledges do not hold the force of a formal agreement, but some pledges that WERE upheld by a few honorable nations.
Why are you arguing about something that doesn’t hold the force of a contract?
More important, you IGNORED the FACT that the pledge WAS upheld by some HONORABLE nations who appreciate the alliance…. and argued on behalf of dishonorable, greedy nations who received protection from the US who did all the ‘heavy lifting’.
The US lost lives of good soldiers in the process while cowardly nations didn’t send their fare share of troops. Yet, you criticize anyone who reports the facts, like Trump, and others here …. why?
Polar, you were wrong, get over it. You stated they agreed to pay over 3% of GDP im dues. That’s wrong in every single aspect. You aren’t credible on this topic. Nobody takes you seriously on this topic.
This is not related. I get you’re upset about it, but on NATO and defense other countries are notoriously anti war in spending, and it has been this way a long time.
Let’s talk about the actual topic of climate change and policies, not associated aspects. I hate that. On any side it shuts down debate and the true conversation.
Thus, many people from places outside the USA are probably down-voting on Conservatives posts.
Proof: ^ several from UK source IP addys.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Does any thinking person actually believe these lies? It is ALL about transfer of wealth.
Aside from almost, if not, 100% of climate scientists yes, most of the people in industrialized, educated countries believe it.
I would also support the re-transfer of wealth even if climate change were indeed a liberal hoax pushed to take the money of rich people. A more humane Dekulakization and total economic change to include and mitigate elite externalities is probably the only way to solve this problem at this point. But of course the normal idiots will be here defending masa genocide at the expense of their own energy use, and denying all science, as usual. Grab that Farmers Almanac, light up some oil, and push nonsense, baby, MAGA!
Climate Scientists know there are two sure ways to solve the threat (if there is one) of man-made Climate Change:
1. Nuclear energy: carbon free. Ask the French, who use nuclear for 50% of their energy.
2. Carbon Sequestration: for $500 billion (about 1% of global GDP), CO2 could be trapped and most of it used for energy. The fear of reaching a tipping point on temperature increase would be immediately overcome.
So why don’t we do it? Liberals. These solutions don’t satisfy the “purity” requirements of the Earth Religion. Nuclear isn’t perfect; we might have to blast the waste into space. Carbon Sequestration doesn’t satisfy the requirement that we suffer for our Gaia. Keeping the economy going strong is against the beliefs of the Puritans who want us to suffer for what we have done to the planet.
Nuclear can only be done with almost total government ownership and control. I’m fine with that, but if we are going to do it we should do solar and other renewable sources. Nuclear just shifts the problem from carbon emissions to nuclear waste storage which will he a massive problem if done worldwide, or even widely in the US. It’s a terrible way to get energy.
Sequestration is far from a proven method, especially the economics of it. It’s nothing but an excuse to keep using coal, because that owns the libtards. That’s why conservatives like it, it’s really that simple.
Also, climate scientists are not overwhelmingly saying these are the 2 ways to stop it, that’s an outright lie. In fact the recent UN report says otherwise. Don’t reply, you’ve said climate scientists are engaged in a worldwide coordinated hoax, through hundreds of different organizations with thousands of independent scientists in order to make money, you aren’t credible.
You call me a liar without even thinking about what I said. I never said these were the ONLY solutions. I only said that either one would work according to Climate Scientists.
No wonder you go to Climate Church. I never said climate scientists are “engaged in a worldwide coordinated hoax”. YOU are the liar. And you discredit all of your own opinions as a result.
Carbon sequestration is debatable, as they don’t know if it could work on a global scale.
In tests it might differ from reality.
I do enjoy your posts though. Where did you get the $500 billion number? Is that the estimated cost of one of the two? Both?
To the Climate Change Hoaxers, KAG and go away, preferably to Venezuela.
aren’t you even just a LITTLE embarrassed about liking your own posts? is your ego that fragile?
‘Climate scientists’ is a subset of all scientists. In general, these ‘Climate Scientists’ have an agenda; i.e. to prove their titles have significance and distinguish them from ‘Scientists’ in general.
YOU should support the transfer of wealth to whoever you want; just leave me and other smart people out of it. Pay all you want out of YOUR pocket/ purse to whoever you want.
Correction: ‘Climate Scientists’ is an absurd set out of all scientists. not ‘subset’. Bear culpa. ;)
This is moronic. Is like saying physics science can’t be trusted because the work is done by a subset of scientists and they have an agenda.
I recommend seeing the movie about NASA’s 60th Anniversary, Above And Beyond. There is absolutely no doubt that climate change is real, man-made, and deadly. No doubt. Zero. Zilch. None, whatsoever. It is an absolute reality. It is a clear and present danger. It is real and it is here. We can solve the problem or not, but we cannot ignore the problem. It is hotter each year. There are more destructive hurricanes, fires, and storms every year. This didn’t happen by accident. It is not luck. It is not chance. It is not cyclical. It is not natural.
Much of climate change is natural. Climate Scientists who believe the warming planet is largely man-made will tell you it is also partly natural.
Back to Climate Church for you . . .
No, they won’t. In fact most recent work says the increase has been 100% due to man, and much has said we might even be in a cooling period if it weren’t for man. Stop lying. Too bad IJ won’t ban people who spam lies. Only people who call out racism hey banned here.
Yes, they will. See how easy it is to contradict someone without providing substantiation. So, now, show us with facts or logic how most of the increase in temps was due to man. Ready, steady, … GO!
Ok, look at 97-100% if the published science on this, the Cook report looking at climate science in total, or their followup study debunking the claims that scientists didn’t formally say it was man made in some studies. Ready, set,… Oh yeah, you don’t read things that go against your beliefs, you just lie, like with your fake statistics degree. Well, go!
Because you say Climate Change is man-made doesn’t make it so. Your use of hyperbole also doesn’t matter one bot, er, bit. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
I await substantial proof, instead of cowardly down votes, that climate change is more man-made than natural.
Terminology gets in the way. Insurance people should understand this. It’s like rate-making. You have historical data that tells you if you’re loss costs are going up or down. Average global temperature has been going up. That means “global warming” is a technically accurate term to use, whereas “climate change” is a neutral term, of course the climate is changing all the time. In order to project what your loss ratio will be in the future, and set your pricing, you determine if your historical loss cost changes have a causal factor that will continue; distracted driving, increased cost to repair cars etc. With climate change, this would be the increasing amount of carbon in the atmosphere, also a historically measured piece of data. Is there a causal relationship? Insurance companies doing pricing seeing the same correlation would 99% percent of the time call it causal.
Regardless, global warming is not a problem. It is a symptom…of overpopulation. That’s okay though. Nature always corrects imbalances. If we don’t fix overpopulation, nature will. And it will likely be much more painful than who is going to pay for reducing carbon emissions.
The Sun is the most powerful object in the Solar System. The Sun heats the Earth.
The Sun is an ever expanding ball of gas.
The Sun will consume the Earth.
Hard to consume the earth from 93 million miles away. By the way, NASA now says the sun is in a minimum faze and we will see cooling for a while now. Get your winter clothes out.
Not to familiar with the life cycles of a star? google how those work.
Agent is not well versed in modern (or even slightly out dated) science.
Agent, the term you are referring to on how a star can reach the earth from 93 million miles away is when the sun becomes a supernova (or when it explodes and destroys the planet we are living on). While it is still possible for our sun to become a supernova (a class 1 and not 2), the more likely scenario right now would be that the earth would be vaporized when the sun becomes a red giant before reducing its heat to a white dwarf.
You just blew Agent’s mind. Right now, he’s wondering if you are making up “red giant” and “white dwarf” or are those actual terms. Pro tip, Agent, they are actual terms. Go grab a book and if you’re like Tramp, maybe you can find one that’s mainly just pictures so you don’t have to look at all those letters and words. Grammar – who needs it, right?
Captain,
He was really trying to figure out which was more of a racist term so he can call you a hypocrite. those white dwarfs and those darn red giants.
Maybe we really should start calling it white little people and rosy giants. What do you think, Agent? Is it time to change the scientific terminology?
Conspiracy theorist much? What weed have you been smoking? Call us back in a million years and we will have another conversation.
it’s not a conspiracy theory, agent…It’s BASIC and proven science, often taught at the elementary school level.
It’s nothing to fear for now, but eventually, the sun (a star) will swell exponentially and become a red giant, where it will systematically destroy most of the surrounding planets including Mercury, Venus and Earth, then it will gradually shrink in size to become a white dwarf, before either just going out or exploding. It’s been documented many times by astronomers.
Agent,
How old are you to not know about these things? Yes it will not happen in our lifetime, but it will happen. There are different classifications for supernovas depending on how they form (Class 2 is worse than a class 1 just like hurricanes). If you do not know these simple terms and the implications you do not have enough knowledge to make opinions on anything above a 5th grade science classroom. I only posted links to these because we have never discussed the difference here, but you seem to need it.
here is something explaining red giants and white dwarfs: https://sciencing.com/characteristics-redgiant-whitedwarf-stars-8395763.html
here is something explaining supernovas: https://www.space.com/6638-supernova.html
I’m crying laughing at this entire string of comments.. Never before did you think Agent could be that ignorant.
Please tell us WHEN the Sun will consume the Earth. Should I invest in a new air conditioner, or will I never see the day it draws near or happens?
You will never see the day. some millions of years. regardless, it will happen.
Humans will never see the day, but other life forms will inherit the planet so we should do our best to preserve it, conserve it (you call yourself a conservative, right?), and pass it on in good health to whatever life follows ours. We all should be better stewards of God’s gift.
I say let the other life forms try to stop the sun from going super nova. So, stop with the stupid, fraudulent efforts to transfer wealth via carbon taxes and tax credits.
I could care less about the money. My only concern is how we are treating this living organism that has given to us a countless-fold. You are the one who is obsessed with the money aspect. Take wealth and shove it. There are far more too many things important in life than wealth. Otherwise, The Bible would have told us all the secret to life was getting rich.
I agree; you could CARE LESS about the money.
I’m taking my greater wealth after the TRA-17 redux of Fed Taxes and spending it on campaign contributions…. take a wild guess as to which party I’m supporting.
Again, here come the uninformed political opinions. Aren’t we lucky.
Thank the partisan, liberal media. If they REALLY cared about climate change, they would host hour long, balanced investigations into the truth, including the truth that Al Gore said we only had 10 years to act over 10 years ago. Meaning the climate zealots need to go back and read “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” to find the reasons no one will listen when the alarm is real.
There are valid reasons for skepticism. Just like Christina Ford’s story was a joke (but the media refused to list in detail all the reasons for skepticism. Instead, they just asked “do YOU believe her?” as a test of being a good person).
Just like with Climate Change . . .
Al Gore said we had 10 years to act over 10 years ago and your complaint is we’re not at that threshold yet?? We’re 2/3rds of the way there and it’s projected that will get the next 1/3rd over the next 12 years.
So yes, I agree – Gore was wrong. 10 years IS less than 22 years. But looking at things at a global timescale (e.g. hundreds of years to full on ‘epochs’), the “extra” 12 years here is a REALLY insignificant difference.
A report issued yesterday by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says the planet will reach the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030. The planet is already two-thirds of the way there, with global temperatures having warmed about 1 degree C. Avoiding going even higher will require significant action in the next few years.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Why should we believe them? So many predictions of doom from the Climate Scientists have been flat wrong.
And the bigger issue: WHAT should we do about it? Even the report issued yesterday doubted that we could solve the problem politically. My point is completely valid: when the liberal media spins and lies about everything, the consequences are serious: nobody believes anything. Every poll shows declining trust in the media.
Thanks Liberals! (See Christine Ford. Exhibit A on media corruption and dishonesty.)
Craig,
While yes they have overestimated dangers in the past, there is something with historical data that helps predict future possibilities. The main issue for me is that instead of working together for a nonpartisan answer both sides (notice how I said both) are just disregarding the other. The biggest issue I see is that conservatives will not admit that climate change can be helped even if it is slightly, and democrats (stop using liberals to your agenda, not every democrat as liberal as you make them) sometimes will be over confident in some reports.
Also, please do not push that Agenda about Christine Ford. She was not motivated by politics (you can disagree all you want, but it won’t make your dream true). Judge Kavanaugh also lied about his drinking habits while under oath with the senate, does that mean he is unfit for the supreme court? The claims cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt which they could not be. I attribute this to the length of time it has been since it occurred for those that were interviewed, and also those people that were left out.
You’re free to believe whatever you’d like. Nobody can *make* you believe anything. I know why I believe them and I’m sure there’s nothing anyone here can say or point out to you that will cause you to change your stance. Just remember, if you choose not to believe you still have made a choice (sorry I twisted your words around Mr. Peart!)
“here is something with historical data that helps predict future possibilities”
Incomplete historical data, many of it that has an equation implemented as guesses because of a severe lack of data. This isn’t historical data that has been well documented.
The oceanic was part of what was added to say we are nearly there, and the oceanic temperatures are compiled from varying monitoring points (at certain points less than a 100th what they are now), from 4 different methods, and an equation that is used to offset how much there is error in those methods. The oceanic data is terrible. Surface temperatures now always include “oceanic surface” which we do not have long term tracking for to any degree.
This could well be within the margin of error for their data, there might even be net zero warming, or negative warming.
We do not have historical data on this matter, that is the problem.
The issue is you are pretending people on the right are ignoring historical data, only because you don’t listen to a word they say.
I still don’t see how so many people like me can outright say what we say, and you just hear the part that we don’t trust the scientists, not that we don’t have the data, and you don’t think to look at the data and listen to what people like me say about it being incomplete. No no, you would rather think that a vast swath of the population refuses to accept science. It’s absurdly degrading to the populous of the other side, and is so narcissistic I cannot believe it.
Bob,
I just made that point that both sides are not listening. If you do not admit your own parties wrongdoings, you are a part of the greater problem.Blindly following without listening and attempting to understand is an issue, and you have it bob.
“Bob,
I just made that point that both sides are not listening. If you do not admit your own parties wrongdoings, you are a part of the greater problem.Blindly following without listening and attempting to understand is an issue, and you have it bob.”
You have not admitted you yourself did what I said above, so you don’t get to try a catch 22 with me. Nice try, but this doesn’t dismiss your behavior on this topic. Mine has been normal, I’ve used why I question science. Each time I do, you included, the left says we ignore science. That is what causes the sides not to listen to each other. Consensus studies, and hogwash about denying science, not the guy that comes in and says, hey, you leftists are ignoring us and are pretending we don’t understand science, knock it off. You don’t get to reply to that saying “I’m not going to listen until you admit your fault in that process.”. Fault is not a two way street. You’re more at fault. Tell me what to admit that I did wrong, and I’ll agree. I will not say vaguely I have added to a problem just to say I’m balanced, like you, and that is unethical. Itemization decreases polarization. So list specifically how I’ve added to the problem (hint, saying I insult people won’t work, don’t try).
This is a site you should take a look at by the way.
“https://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=links&arg=570”
It points out how people in the 97% consensus say they disagree, etc.
Keep moving the goalposts, from 10 yrs to 22 yrs, to whatever time is needed to fool the masses into believing your claim. Few will believe you, but they may donate to your POLITICAL causes.
Rob & Rosenblatt,
It’s ok, Agent doesn’t know grade school science. “What do you mean the sun is a star!? The sun is the sun!”
This is just absurd banter from an argument long past. the hilarious part, is that agent constantly brings this up, and apparently has never even bothered to look into his stupidity.
The Long Island Sound – the body of water that separates Long Island from CT is absolutely an estuary. Use whatever means you would like to look it up..
So, Rosie; you’re trying to support Al Gore and his mindless minions and their Climate Change Hoax by pointing out how he lied and 10 years passed to prove it? LOL!
Polar – let’s go back to English 101.
1) Prediction: an act of predicting. something that is predicted
1a) Predict: to declare or indicate in advance especially foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason
A PREDICTION was made. Gore didn’t LIE. His PREDICTION was off by a decade (which is a REALLY small amount of time on a global timescale).
Hey, do you like sports? Take the NFL. Many people PREDICTED the Cleveland Browns wouldn’t lose any less than 14 games. Well, that’s wrong now.
Does that make everyone who predicted their final 2018 record to be less than 2-14 a LIAR or was their PREDICTION simply wrong as more data became available?
It’s actually humorous. I find all the self-assured comments on a very complex scientific question on an insurance website to be utterly ridiculous. This is not the place to go to learn anything on the topic.
The constant references to Al Gore as if his movie should be an exact prediction in to the future gives him a lot more credibility than he deserves. It may have been the first time you heard about “global warming”, but it wasn’t for the scientists in the field.
Why this is a liberal vs. conservative issue is beyond me. It has nothing to do with politics or the conspiracy theories people keep bring up. Is it because Al Gore happened to be the one to bring this to many peoples conscious thoughts?
I certainly don’t claim to know if the scientists are right or wrong. Only time will tell. However, if the deniers are wrong, the world basically ends for current human habitation. If the scientists are wrong, the economy will be affected around the globe for a while.
Bias much? “If the scientists are wrong . . .”
Back on planet earth, LOTS of climate scientists disagree with the “kill the economy” movement that the Left proposes as the ONLY solution to Climate Change.
LOTS of scientists agree that Climate Change could be solved with nuclear power – and many progressives are in agreement. But not the crazy Climate Zealots! OH NO! Not ‘pure’ enough for the Religion. Neither is carbon sequestration; the Climate Zealots say solving the problem is no fun if you can’t suffer for our Earth Mother . . .
“LOTS of scientists agree that Climate Change could be solved with nuclear power”
Can you please verify this “factual statement” with a source? What type of scientists are they? How many is “LOTS” anyway — 1 in 1,000? 1 in 50?
Try reading something. Turn off CNN. The number of lefties who now agree we need nuclear power has been growing for years.
That’s why I asked you for your source – so I could read about it! “LOTS of scientists agree that Climate Change could be solved with nuclear power.” Please provide your source and I’ll be glad to read it!
A guy who has said multiple times the Farmers Almanac is more reliable for weather forecasts is criticizing people for where they get their sources.
Agent, remember when you spent like 2 years replying, “Source!?” in every story? Stupid and hypocritical.
I love that you get downvoted for that comment. “HOW DARE YOU MAKE A RATIONAL AND REASONABLE ASSERTION!”
Because Insurance Journal (short for journalism?) believes in respectful, honest discourse. (So long as it promotes liberal ideas. All other ideas must be white washed away . . .)
Note the phrase “urgent actions needed now…” in the article’s title.
Sleazy ad narrators use similar language to try to prompt a response to “call now; operators are standing by now, 24/7”, in order to coerce you to make a hasty decision – to buy their product or service – which you wouldn’t have made if you thought it through.
“Listen, you gotta vote for me, ok? I alone can fix it.”
Yep, sleazy narrator all right.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/37735/environmentalists-save-world-dump-your-pets-emily-zanotti?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro&fbclid=IwAR1qkK83hi6RTPrfvGrAnQhPu1oEtuUMuETTLOu01KXlabzn8IY4wBpGA0w