Hurray! Insurance Journal found another Scary Monster Story of the Week!
TRIPLE in damages say the True Believers. OMG.
Wake me up when Insurance Journal publishes the science that backs up NASA and NOAA’s work to alter historical temperature records. You mean you aren’t aware of that important Climate Science news? (Doesn’t trigger Scary Monster emotions I guess.)
NASA and NOAA – formerly credible outfits – changed the temperature records of the early 20th Century to show lower temperatures back then. Which does what? Which makes today’s temperatures seem hotter by comparison – despite the current 20 year period of almost no warming. And then the supine news media can report “hottest year on record” every year, despite infinitesimal increases in temperature.
How Convenient! (Shh. Keep quiet about skeptical news while in Climate Church).
wait – i am confused – is this an insurance website posting an article about an insurance group or a forensic data analytics website that is here to prove or refute science?
If the fear is justified, i want to know how it will impact my industry. If i wanted to know if climate change is real or not, i would not use an insurance journal as my point of reference
Well then why are you reading an article about non-scientist/insurance people who say it is a Scary Monster?
February 28, 2019 at 8:18 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
11
2
I just told you why I’m here – If the fear is justified, i want to know how it will impact my industry
February 28, 2019 at 10:04 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
4
10
It’s not controllable by humans, and won’t likely significantly affect your industry because it’s greatly exaggerated by ‘Climate Scientists’ who get kickbacks and research funding.
February 28, 2019 at 10:57 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
7
1
“won’t likely significantly affect” … right, but that means it could impact the industry slightly or it could impact the industry significantly which is why i am here to read about how it how it could do that. what do you and craig not understand?
February 28, 2019 at 2:10 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
Wake me up when IJ publishes the science showing gravity is true.
Gravity we can consistently repeat results based on proven theory. Man’s affect on climate we cannot, and have methods of measurement that are questionable, location and methodology issues, etc.
Craig – Wow, you must know a huge amount of meteorology, atmospheric chemistry and physics to sneer at about 98% of the professional scientists in the world. What was your doctoral dissertation topic?? I’ll bet it was impressive. And for you to have such an informed opinion that you communicate so eloquently is inspiring.
Clown comment. That 97% number has been so thoroughly discredited that informed people are embarrassed to reference it anymore.
And your blind faith in what the liberal media tells you to think reveals your PHD in nothing.
I read a lot about Climate Science from lots of sources that are legitimate, informed and respected. Like the journal Nature, one of the most respected publishers of recent science in the world (unlike Insurance Journal, which is a partisan hack seller of Scary Monster stories only).
Craig, they have to give the IJ resident Climate Hoaxer something to do so they publish every scare story they can dream up. By the way, I pay attention to reality. LA has reported they had the coldest February in the last 60 years, not the hottest. Global Cooling is now the norm and the cycle should persist for some time. Not to worry though. AOC says we won’t be here in 12 years if we don’t spend $93 Trillion with a T for the New Green Deal.
Global Warming Scientists =/= Reliable Source of Research because they’ve censored or selected data, and selected model parameters and model designs, to fit their agenda.
February 28, 2019 at 2:12 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
8
1
Good thing basically all climate scientists, including those at oil companies, believe the confirmed clime change hypothesis, and not just “climate change scientists”.
March 4, 2019 at 5:22 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
“Good thing basically all climate scientists, including those at oil companies, believe the confirmed clime change hypothesis, and not just “climate change scientists”.”
There is no one “climate change hypothesis” in point one, and you saying that shows your level of knowledge on the issue is severely lacking.
For one of your consensus studies, I once showed how more then a dozen of the people the study claimed agreed with their consensus, outright rebuked that, and said their study was being misrepresented.
Consensus studies are being pushed to shape a 97% consensus which does not exist, showing that 97% of climate scientists agree man made global warming is a global threat.
This simply isn’t true, and the severity of how much so is also greatly debated.
I’ve already shown you the flaws, and I don’t need to do so again.
No one here, conservative or otherwise is stating that 97% of scientists shouldn’t be believed. We are staying the consensus study itself is incorrect, and there is no 97% consensus stating what the left is saying is the case, and I’ve already proven this true numerous times, which is the far scarier thing right now. The misrepresentation of science is happening from the left, not the right.
It’s getting really annoying.
February 27, 2019 at 2:42 pm
Michael Urbanek says:
Like or Dislike:
7
6
Imagine! Premiums rise due to (predicted & faulty) climate models – another scam, a “carbon tax”, but from the private sector. Theft by an industry that knows how to steal.
Calling out corporate issues does not mean that A: The issue was caused by a free market. It could have just as easily been caused by regulation in which a corporate entity got an edge and B: That regulation is what they support.
A free market alternative to a sleazy company like this would be the best check. The free market tends to have solutions, an over regulated one doesn’t as often. Regulation is not always the cure, and sometimes there is no cure. Greed itself happens, regulation doesn’t stop it and in some scenarios allows it.
Cornell says, “despite the current 20 year period of almost no warming.” Real science by real scientists tells us that a 20-year period means very little in evaluating climate. Cornell needs to read all the scientists. Where is the proof that NASA and NOAA altered historical temperature records? Real facts show that, well over the last couple hundred of years, the sea level in New England has been rising. Thus, we experience more flood events, more coastal erosion. Geologists have been studying this for many years, well before considering causes for climate change. The science is clear that, regardless of causes, the planet is still coming out of the last major ice age. That fact combined with more development along the coasts mean, regardless of the possible causes of rising sea levels, there are greater insurance risks.
Gee, I wonder why California doesn’t build more reservoirs to hold all the run off from snow melt in the Sierras. They let it run all the way to the Pacific and then complain about droughts the next summer. Got toe save that Smelt fish, right?
California should build more reservoirs. And Tejas should stop allowing housing developments to be built in their reservoirs without requiring notification to prospective buyers that they’re going to be flooded out every few years. But hey, it brings in Federal money on a regular basis.
Now we’re talking! Correct, ATF, 20 years is nothing. So is 140 years, the duration of time that represents the entire history of temperature records, so when the numb skulls in the media scream “hottest year on record”, they are making fools of themselves and anyone who listens to them.
You can look up the NASA and NOAA reports, if you really care. But I doubt you do. You simply want to parrot the PC-approved Scary Monster stories. It is easier than reading and thinking for yourself.
The sea level is rising? Well how much? And when did it start rising? How about when the last mini-Ice Age ended.
Are there greater insurance risks? Yes. But the latest report from reputable scientists indicated that if we do NOTHING about climate change, meaning no Teslas, no solar panels, nothing, then you know what the predicted costs will be? 2% of the economy in about 75 years. In other words, the cost will be nothing, because by then projected GDP will have grown to 2 or 3 times today’s GDP. (I forget who did that report. It was either the IPCC or the US Government’s Climate Change folks.)
And how much is caused by man? Nobody really knows. But if the USA fell off the face of the Earth, it would only reduce future temps. by .01 Centigrade. So let me know when you want China and India to step up, or when you want to expand nuclear power. Because everything else is just feel-good babble.
Prey tell Craig – how long should we be looking at records to have it mean something for “climate” analysis? You just said 140 years is too short – you previously told me one epoch was too long – so exactly how far back should we be looking???
I already did in another article, and I put that in my last reply above. What’s YOUR answer?
February 28, 2019 at 1:46 pm
This Is Embarassing says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
Some of you are so woefully uninformed. But hey, why not, screw our environment, our planet, our future, and our children. (That’s a list of all the things that will suffer if we don’t be better stewards for this rock we live on.)
Remember, we aren’t destroying the planet. The planet will be just fine. Humans just won’t be a part of the equation anymore.
We absolutely are not “destroying the planet”. Are there serious environmental issues asides from the climate change madness? Yes, certainly. Plastics in the ocean, declining habitat for wildlife, extinction of species are all real. But take it easy on the hyperbole. Try specific solutions instead of feel-good hysteria .
Hey, I agree, there are many environmental issues we face on this planet. Good thing most of us can chew gum and walk at the same time. Let’s combat all the issues and be better stewards of our world!
I have no idea what the solution is, but I do know that we need one. Just yesterday it was announced that human driven climate change has reached the “gold standard” of scientific certainty.
Sounds great. How about the other questions that are nowhere near certain:
1. How bad will the consequences be? The IPCC’s last report actually INCREASED the probability it won’t be as bad as we thought before. And if so, it won’t be bad at all. (So why spend trillions or millions or anything at all, if that might be the case?)
2. What do we do about it anyway? Wind and solar can’t scale sufficiently to replace fossil fuels and the religious left won’t allow nuclear. And no one wants to give up air conditioning or cars. Electric cars are powered by electricity from fossil fuels. China and India keep building new coal plants. Green New Deal? HA HA HA HA. Would bankrupt the world, let alone the US.
I don’t know, perhaps just do something. Quit railing about how it’s a hoax and do your individual part. All you need to do is look at the world around you to see that things are changing. Will any one thing be the ultimate fix? Doubtful. Will some combination or realistic and rational solutions make a difference? Maybe. Should we stick our heads in the sand and say “this is fine”? Absolutely not. I have a 13 year old son. I have a duty to do everything I can to ensure that the world is a little better for him than it was for me. So ya, when 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists say we can’t just do nothing, I going to try and be a better steward to our planet. IN. WHATEVER. WAY. I. CAN.
LET ME SAY IT LOUDER FOR THOSE IN THE BACK – EVERY. LITTLE. BIT. COUNTS.
March 4, 2019 at 5:30 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
6
“Quit railing about how it’s a hoax and do your individual part.”
I will never stop, nor will Craig, in trying to stop the government from it’s efforts (and yes, there are climate change hoaxes sponsored by the government) to rile people up with doomsday predictions that are over stated, while they misrepresent the science community, and people like you then try to shame people into being better stewards saying you advocate something you just don’t know what. It isn’t a moral high ground, it’s a low ground, that you are standing on. On your end it is nothing more than narcissism. Everyone wants to be an individual and stand up and do the right thing. You however, are giving power to the government in spite of the individual, while telling the individual it’s for their own good, you don’t know what changes will come, but it’s for their own good, just give the power away.
I don’t buy that for a hot second, and I don’t follow doomsday predictions. I also do take care of the environment and drive an electric car, and can guarantee I will do more in my life than you (electric house with solar) I still will never support the government being involved, and still won’t support the lies about a scientific consensus that doesn’t exist, or you, for that matter, because you’re just a big narcist. Did I say that already? Stop shaming Craig, or I’ll keep shaming you.
February 28, 2019 at 7:29 pm
MightyQuinn says:
Like or Dislike:
4
5
For bilyuns and bilyuns of years a massive climate change has taken place every 10,000 to 15,000 years. For most of those years man was not present and climate change still occurred. Most of those times a salient factor of change was the bombardment of the earth by asteroids and the movement of our magnetic shield which, BTW, is on the move again. Massive climate change will take place whether liberals want it to or not. This data was published and proven while you were still in your crib and your parents were teaching you to wear Birkenstocks and drop baby acid.
Humans live for a very miniscule number of years. We are not a factor of any significance in the universe nor the normal earth life cycle. If you are more worried about your progeny suffering, then fess up and recognize that you will be dead before they die and gee-whiz there is nothing you can do then.
The current liberal mantra of climate change is total arrogance which is due to an overwhelming sense of self importance, hubris. The steps that the idiots currently propose to curtail climate change [which cannot be stopped] will do more harm to families and the world’s economies than climate change. Your plans to do away with industries and jobs with profligate spending on an unsolvable situation will result in utter social despair and the deaths of millions if not bilyuns just so that you can go on an ego trip of ”
saving the planet.”
MightyQuinn,
Except for the fact that most who want to take care of planet aren’t doing so because of human civilization but life in general. What about those life forms to follow us? What about the planet in general? It is a living thing and we should be better stewards of God’s gift to all living things. It’s not about window pane and flip-flops, it’s about doing the right thing. But, I wouldn’t suspect anyone subscribing to The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus to understand. Not sure if that includes you or not, but the comment about jobs leads me to believe you may be part of that religion.
You and I may be dead (I know you were talking to Planet), but what about our kids? What about our grandchildren? What about our kids’ grandchildren? Just because we’ve schlepped off this mortal coil does not absolve us of our responsibility to be good stewards of the planet for future generations.
Hurray! Insurance Journal found another Scary Monster Story of the Week!
TRIPLE in damages say the True Believers. OMG.
Wake me up when Insurance Journal publishes the science that backs up NASA and NOAA’s work to alter historical temperature records. You mean you aren’t aware of that important Climate Science news? (Doesn’t trigger Scary Monster emotions I guess.)
NASA and NOAA – formerly credible outfits – changed the temperature records of the early 20th Century to show lower temperatures back then. Which does what? Which makes today’s temperatures seem hotter by comparison – despite the current 20 year period of almost no warming. And then the supine news media can report “hottest year on record” every year, despite infinitesimal increases in temperature.
How Convenient! (Shh. Keep quiet about skeptical news while in Climate Church).
This is exactly why you don’t know that the world will end in 12 years; you won’t listen to AOC!
wait – i am confused – is this an insurance website posting an article about an insurance group or a forensic data analytics website that is here to prove or refute science?
You have arrived at a liberal publication’s weekly genuflection to the God of Climate Fear.
If the fear is justified, i want to know how it will impact my industry. If i wanted to know if climate change is real or not, i would not use an insurance journal as my point of reference
Well then why are you reading an article about non-scientist/insurance people who say it is a Scary Monster?
I just told you why I’m here – If the fear is justified, i want to know how it will impact my industry
It’s not controllable by humans, and won’t likely significantly affect your industry because it’s greatly exaggerated by ‘Climate Scientists’ who get kickbacks and research funding.
“won’t likely significantly affect” … right, but that means it could impact the industry slightly or it could impact the industry significantly which is why i am here to read about how it how it could do that. what do you and craig not understand?
Wake me up when IJ publishes the science showing gravity is true.
Gravity we can consistently repeat results based on proven theory. Man’s affect on climate we cannot, and have methods of measurement that are questionable, location and methodology issues, etc.
Craig – Wow, you must know a huge amount of meteorology, atmospheric chemistry and physics to sneer at about 98% of the professional scientists in the world. What was your doctoral dissertation topic?? I’ll bet it was impressive. And for you to have such an informed opinion that you communicate so eloquently is inspiring.
Clown comment. That 97% number has been so thoroughly discredited that informed people are embarrassed to reference it anymore.
And your blind faith in what the liberal media tells you to think reveals your PHD in nothing.
I read a lot about Climate Science from lots of sources that are legitimate, informed and respected. Like the journal Nature, one of the most respected publishers of recent science in the world (unlike Insurance Journal, which is a partisan hack seller of Scary Monster stories only).
Craig, they have to give the IJ resident Climate Hoaxer something to do so they publish every scare story they can dream up. By the way, I pay attention to reality. LA has reported they had the coldest February in the last 60 years, not the hottest. Global Cooling is now the norm and the cycle should persist for some time. Not to worry though. AOC says we won’t be here in 12 years if we don’t spend $93 Trillion with a T for the New Green Deal.
LA =/= Global
February =/= Climate
February = weather
Global Warming Scientists =/= Reliable Source of Research because they’ve censored or selected data, and selected model parameters and model designs, to fit their agenda.
Good thing basically all climate scientists, including those at oil companies, believe the confirmed clime change hypothesis, and not just “climate change scientists”.
“Good thing basically all climate scientists, including those at oil companies, believe the confirmed clime change hypothesis, and not just “climate change scientists”.”
There is no one “climate change hypothesis” in point one, and you saying that shows your level of knowledge on the issue is severely lacking.
For one of your consensus studies, I once showed how more then a dozen of the people the study claimed agreed with their consensus, outright rebuked that, and said their study was being misrepresented.
Consensus studies are being pushed to shape a 97% consensus which does not exist, showing that 97% of climate scientists agree man made global warming is a global threat.
This simply isn’t true, and the severity of how much so is also greatly debated.
I’ve already shown you the flaws, and I don’t need to do so again.
No one here, conservative or otherwise is stating that 97% of scientists shouldn’t be believed. We are staying the consensus study itself is incorrect, and there is no 97% consensus stating what the left is saying is the case, and I’ve already proven this true numerous times, which is the far scarier thing right now. The misrepresentation of science is happening from the left, not the right.
It’s getting really annoying.
Imagine! Premiums rise due to (predicted & faulty) climate models – another scam, a “carbon tax”, but from the private sector. Theft by an industry that knows how to steal.
I agree. I wish Global Warming Hoaxers wouldn’t steal Carbon Taxes from inexperienced, gullible liberals.
Yes, and no insurance companies will buck the trend use the “real models” and make a ton of money with cheaper premiums.
So you don’t believe in markets, that’s confirmed here. So, logically you have to support government intervention, right?
Calling out corporate issues does not mean that A: The issue was caused by a free market. It could have just as easily been caused by regulation in which a corporate entity got an edge and B: That regulation is what they support.
A free market alternative to a sleazy company like this would be the best check. The free market tends to have solutions, an over regulated one doesn’t as often. Regulation is not always the cure, and sometimes there is no cure. Greed itself happens, regulation doesn’t stop it and in some scenarios allows it.
Cornell says, “despite the current 20 year period of almost no warming.” Real science by real scientists tells us that a 20-year period means very little in evaluating climate. Cornell needs to read all the scientists. Where is the proof that NASA and NOAA altered historical temperature records? Real facts show that, well over the last couple hundred of years, the sea level in New England has been rising. Thus, we experience more flood events, more coastal erosion. Geologists have been studying this for many years, well before considering causes for climate change. The science is clear that, regardless of causes, the planet is still coming out of the last major ice age. That fact combined with more development along the coasts mean, regardless of the possible causes of rising sea levels, there are greater insurance risks.
Gee, I wonder why California doesn’t build more reservoirs to hold all the run off from snow melt in the Sierras. They let it run all the way to the Pacific and then complain about droughts the next summer. Got toe save that Smelt fish, right?
California should build more reservoirs. And Tejas should stop allowing housing developments to be built in their reservoirs without requiring notification to prospective buyers that they’re going to be flooded out every few years. But hey, it brings in Federal money on a regular basis.
By the way, what does “Got toe” mean?
Now we’re talking! Correct, ATF, 20 years is nothing. So is 140 years, the duration of time that represents the entire history of temperature records, so when the numb skulls in the media scream “hottest year on record”, they are making fools of themselves and anyone who listens to them.
You can look up the NASA and NOAA reports, if you really care. But I doubt you do. You simply want to parrot the PC-approved Scary Monster stories. It is easier than reading and thinking for yourself.
The sea level is rising? Well how much? And when did it start rising? How about when the last mini-Ice Age ended.
Are there greater insurance risks? Yes. But the latest report from reputable scientists indicated that if we do NOTHING about climate change, meaning no Teslas, no solar panels, nothing, then you know what the predicted costs will be? 2% of the economy in about 75 years. In other words, the cost will be nothing, because by then projected GDP will have grown to 2 or 3 times today’s GDP. (I forget who did that report. It was either the IPCC or the US Government’s Climate Change folks.)
And how much is caused by man? Nobody really knows. But if the USA fell off the face of the Earth, it would only reduce future temps. by .01 Centigrade. So let me know when you want China and India to step up, or when you want to expand nuclear power. Because everything else is just feel-good babble.
Prey tell Craig – how long should we be looking at records to have it mean something for “climate” analysis? You just said 140 years is too short – you previously told me one epoch was too long – so exactly how far back should we be looking???
You tell me, Nostradamus.
I already did in another article, and I put that in my last reply above. What’s YOUR answer?
Some of you are so woefully uninformed. But hey, why not, screw our environment, our planet, our future, and our children. (That’s a list of all the things that will suffer if we don’t be better stewards for this rock we live on.)
Remember, we aren’t destroying the planet. The planet will be just fine. Humans just won’t be a part of the equation anymore.
We absolutely are not “destroying the planet”. Are there serious environmental issues asides from the climate change madness? Yes, certainly. Plastics in the ocean, declining habitat for wildlife, extinction of species are all real. But take it easy on the hyperbole. Try specific solutions instead of feel-good hysteria .
Hey, I agree, there are many environmental issues we face on this planet. Good thing most of us can chew gum and walk at the same time. Let’s combat all the issues and be better stewards of our world!
Rah! Rah! Sis Boom Bah!
I have no idea what the solution is, but I do know that we need one. Just yesterday it was announced that human driven climate change has reached the “gold standard” of scientific certainty.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/certainty-human-driven-climate-change?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2
The link is to an excellent article that discusses the actual science behind it all as well as links to research, data, and analysis.
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!
Sounds great. How about the other questions that are nowhere near certain:
1. How bad will the consequences be? The IPCC’s last report actually INCREASED the probability it won’t be as bad as we thought before. And if so, it won’t be bad at all. (So why spend trillions or millions or anything at all, if that might be the case?)
2. What do we do about it anyway? Wind and solar can’t scale sufficiently to replace fossil fuels and the religious left won’t allow nuclear. And no one wants to give up air conditioning or cars. Electric cars are powered by electricity from fossil fuels. China and India keep building new coal plants. Green New Deal? HA HA HA HA. Would bankrupt the world, let alone the US.
I don’t know, perhaps just do something. Quit railing about how it’s a hoax and do your individual part. All you need to do is look at the world around you to see that things are changing. Will any one thing be the ultimate fix? Doubtful. Will some combination or realistic and rational solutions make a difference? Maybe. Should we stick our heads in the sand and say “this is fine”? Absolutely not. I have a 13 year old son. I have a duty to do everything I can to ensure that the world is a little better for him than it was for me. So ya, when 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists say we can’t just do nothing, I going to try and be a better steward to our planet. IN. WHATEVER. WAY. I. CAN.
LET ME SAY IT LOUDER FOR THOSE IN THE BACK – EVERY. LITTLE. BIT. COUNTS.
“Quit railing about how it’s a hoax and do your individual part.”
I will never stop, nor will Craig, in trying to stop the government from it’s efforts (and yes, there are climate change hoaxes sponsored by the government) to rile people up with doomsday predictions that are over stated, while they misrepresent the science community, and people like you then try to shame people into being better stewards saying you advocate something you just don’t know what. It isn’t a moral high ground, it’s a low ground, that you are standing on. On your end it is nothing more than narcissism. Everyone wants to be an individual and stand up and do the right thing. You however, are giving power to the government in spite of the individual, while telling the individual it’s for their own good, you don’t know what changes will come, but it’s for their own good, just give the power away.
I don’t buy that for a hot second, and I don’t follow doomsday predictions. I also do take care of the environment and drive an electric car, and can guarantee I will do more in my life than you (electric house with solar) I still will never support the government being involved, and still won’t support the lies about a scientific consensus that doesn’t exist, or you, for that matter, because you’re just a big narcist. Did I say that already? Stop shaming Craig, or I’ll keep shaming you.
For bilyuns and bilyuns of years a massive climate change has taken place every 10,000 to 15,000 years. For most of those years man was not present and climate change still occurred. Most of those times a salient factor of change was the bombardment of the earth by asteroids and the movement of our magnetic shield which, BTW, is on the move again. Massive climate change will take place whether liberals want it to or not. This data was published and proven while you were still in your crib and your parents were teaching you to wear Birkenstocks and drop baby acid.
Humans live for a very miniscule number of years. We are not a factor of any significance in the universe nor the normal earth life cycle. If you are more worried about your progeny suffering, then fess up and recognize that you will be dead before they die and gee-whiz there is nothing you can do then.
The current liberal mantra of climate change is total arrogance which is due to an overwhelming sense of self importance, hubris. The steps that the idiots currently propose to curtail climate change [which cannot be stopped] will do more harm to families and the world’s economies than climate change. Your plans to do away with industries and jobs with profligate spending on an unsolvable situation will result in utter social despair and the deaths of millions if not bilyuns just so that you can go on an ego trip of ”
saving the planet.”
Bilyuns…
I think that’s how they spell it at Tramp University. Or did before it was shut down as a fraudulent scam.
MightyQuinn,
Except for the fact that most who want to take care of planet aren’t doing so because of human civilization but life in general. What about those life forms to follow us? What about the planet in general? It is a living thing and we should be better stewards of God’s gift to all living things. It’s not about window pane and flip-flops, it’s about doing the right thing. But, I wouldn’t suspect anyone subscribing to The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus to understand. Not sure if that includes you or not, but the comment about jobs leads me to believe you may be part of that religion.
Captain Planet, you and I will be dead. Your nobility is cute though.
You and I may be dead (I know you were talking to Planet), but what about our kids? What about our grandchildren? What about our kids’ grandchildren? Just because we’ve schlepped off this mortal coil does not absolve us of our responsibility to be good stewards of the planet for future generations.
MightyQuinn,
I am more of a big picture kind of guy. I think of more than just myself on this matter.