I had to stop reading the article after reading paragraph two to make this observation:
“Climate Central, a non-profit news organization that reports on climate science…”
Obviously, the rest of the article’s conclusions are suspect due to the oxymoronic statement above; i.e. ‘news organization… reports on climate science’. At this point, I must ask: “WHERE DO THEY GET THEIR FUNDING, if not from investors seeking profits?” Follow the (dirty) money back to the sources.
Since its start in 2008, the following foundations, government agencies, and institutions have provided funding for Climate Central:
Changing Horizons Fund of the Rockefeller Family Fund
ClimateWorks
The David & Lucile Packard Foundation
The Dixon Family Fund
Flora Family Foundation
Foundation for Environmental Research
Google.org
The Heising-Simons Foundation
The High Meadows Foundation
Island Foundation
The KR Foundation
Kresge Foundation
The MacArthur Foundation
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
NASA Headquarters
NASA Langley
National Institutes of Health via Johns Hopkins University
National Science Foundation via Columbia University
National Science Foundation via George Mason University
NOAA CICS (Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites) via North Carolina State University
Northrup Grumman
Peter T Paul Foundation
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation via Pepperwood Preserve
The Pisces Foundation
The Randall and Mary Hack Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
The Robert & Ellen Gutenstein Foundation
Robertson Foundation
Saul D Levy Foundation
The Schmidt Family Foundation
Town Creek Foundation
Turner Foundation, Inc.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of Energy
University of Tennessee
V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation
The Winslow Foundation
The World Bank via The Nature Conservancy
So Rosenblatt, is it a contradiction that NASA contributed to this organization and then published a report that the seas are receding instead of rising due to no Climate Change? Don’t believe it? Google is helpful.
Let me reply for you Rosenblatt. Agent, that’s not what the NASA report showed relating to long-term sea levels. From that NASA report
July 12, 2017 – 86.2mm
July 21, 2017 – 84.8mm
Yup. It decreased slightly. No sarcasm here. But wait. Doesn’t the data go back further than last week? Yup.
June 9, 1995 – 6.9mm
June 4, 2000 – 23.5mm
June 12, 2005 – 44.7mm
July 30, 2010 – 50.1mm
July 2, 2017 – 86.5mm
July 12, 2017 – 86.2mm
July 21, 2017 – 84.8mm
If we look at the trend over multiple years, the data tells totally a different story. Remember kids:
RABBIT HOLE = several of Confused’s posts, UW’s posts, Ron’s posts, etc.
I suspect Agent was making a sarcastic remark. Go ahead; disprove my suspicion. Ready, steady, … GO!
October 27, 2017 at 3:56 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
7
2
You keep using phrases incorrectly. Responding to someone’s unsubstantiated point with actual data is not ‘going down a rabbit hole.’ You do English very ungood (intentionally bad)
October 30, 2017 at 10:19 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
Rabbit hole. Start an unrelated discussion to end the current discussion because you can’t sustain your argument.
October 30, 2017 at 1:05 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Cool. Agent’s post about NASA’s sea level was the beginning of the rabbit hole, not my reply to him about that report.
October 31, 2017 at 9:00 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
You posted this useless data in another thread and were unwilling to provide the variance stats I requested to show the short time movements are irrelevant. Rabbit hole.
November 1, 2017 at 2:21 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
What is willful ignorance is in yours. You have not looked at anything long trend, instead, you are looking at what makes your opponents seem narrow minded, while becoming narrow minded yourself. You compared how many years now? Let’s take 150,000, and trends during warming and cooling periods, as opposed to a hundred years, which is not even close to a full warming or cooling period, it would be barely even a warming or cooling band.
I have used a chart like this to show that our current warming is still considerably below others we have had, and is well within normal band. The sea levels have the same trend over time.
I have also explained in the past why merging the land and sea data was not at all appropriate.
All you guys have done is take simple statements from simple minded people and use it to label the entire other side.
None of what they say is part of I don’t know, an organization or school system’s opinion on the matter, nor is yours actually. Even people educated on the matter try to weigh a few things: How much is man made? How much is nature? It the present trend normal? Do we know the variants to say it is not?
I don’t believe the science community because they don’t show things like what I just did, and they have a track record of changing metrics to make their case stronger, and then changing it again when the new method doesn’t appear as bad. They are clearly operating with the assumption “man made global warming = true” and that’s not ok in science.
November 1, 2017 at 2:36 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
In case you don’t get out of that article what I did, and then accuse me of not reading it:
I was not arguing the prediction. I was arguing the results.
Based on their study our rate of rise should be 4 times higher than it has been in recent times.
This says a few things:
1. Currently our rate of rise is low for the type of scenario we are in.
2. It proves that scientists really don’t understand all the factors, because their model suggests our rate of rise should be 4 times higher, and then they accordingly predict the rise should increase very soon over the next century. In other words: This is what I said in my other post: The reliability and consensus is not what you claim. There are tons of different metrics, non of the scientists know which are correct, they keep adding, removing, and finding new aspects to consider, and I can give you several on this matter. One recently talked about the fact that carbon may in fact be getting trapped in the sea, and then being turned into a carbonite type of form along land forms, so that it may be possible that there is a cap of sorts that will regulate any land spikes even if the ocean itself warms. I can put that one up too if you would like, but instead, you prefer to take the science community and say they all agree on warming. They do not. It is sheer ignorance to say as such, far worse ignorance considering that kids DO NOT listen to people like agent, and then they DO believe that people like you are basically knowledgeable. You’re damaging the youth, it’s why I debate you and Ron.
You plainly need to get over your ego, stop labeling the other side as inept, stop arguing as you do on these issues, and LISTEN to the other side as credible.
November 1, 2017 at 6:25 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I should change this:
*I don’t believe SOME in the science community and SOME who represent them* because they don’t show things like what I just did, and they have a track record of changing metrics to make their case stronger, and then changing it again when the new method doesn’t appear as bad. They are clearly operating with the assumption “man made global warming = true” and that’s not ok in science.”
October 27, 2017 at 3:45 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
6
This just adds support to Lincoln’s quote; “you can fool some of the people some of the time…”
This just confirms Ronald Reagan’s quote that conservatives generally have the intelligence of amoeba.
October 30, 2017 at 10:20 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
6
If you are correct as regards the author, my point still stands about the misleading of the public, etc.
You are making an irrelevant point.
October 30, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
We agree your point still stands – it’s just funny you made that statement while being fooled and misled about its true ‘author.’
I doubt you can see the humor in that though as it reflects poorly on you. I imagine you’ll now post you knew it wasn’t Lincoln all along and it was just a test and some other BS.
My point stands. You are a troll. You can quote me on it.
– PolarBeaRepeal.
November 1, 2017 at 2:26 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“I doubt you can see the humor in that though as it reflects poorly on you. I imagine you’ll now post you knew it wasn’t Lincoln all along and it was just a test and some other BS.”
Quite the contrary, the issue here is you don’t know how this reflects on you.
You are pouncing on a misstatement in order to go after his credibility on any other topic. Let’s say he was wrong on this, it doesn’t make him any more likely to be wrong on others.
That type of mentality, which you and others engage in here often with Polar and Agent, is not appropriate. Each case by case basis must be taken on it’s own.
I will add a slight comment on this matter:
You have not stepped in with UW still, to this date. You’re not a moderate until you do on a regular basis. I have stepped in with Polar and Agent several times. You’re obviously a fraud in this regard, one sided, narrow minded, as much as agent and polar (did you see what I just did there? I hope you did).
Yet you are blind to it. You are apparently open minded, so you think.
October 31, 2017 at 9:05 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
‘some of the people all of the time’ is what I intended to convey. I mis-stated the second half of the Lincoln quote in haste. Bear culpa.
Confused seems to think he has discredited my point because I mistakenly posted an incorrect wording of a quote intended to convey that it is easy to fool some people into believing lies, as Al Gore has done for over a decade. That alone shows the Libitterals are grasping for straws to claim even minor wins.
By the way; I’m still not tired of winning. But it’s getting a little boring, lately.
“By the way; I’m still not tired of winning.” That would be like the Bills saying they are tired of beating the Patriots.
“But it’s getting a little boring, lately.” Nearly everyone gets bored when nothing is happening for them.
October 31, 2017 at 3:06 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I see you’re not tired of trolling.
October 31, 2017 at 3:32 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Polar, if poor Confused were walking past a tree on the street, he would stop and start arguing with it.
On a similar note, if a Progressive entered an empty forest and screamed Trump is an idiot, would anyone hear him?
November 1, 2017 at 8:02 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Agent,
Nobody may hear him, but it would not make it any less true.
November 1, 2017 at 8:03 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
And I am sure president Trump would tweet about it.
November 1, 2017 at 8:40 am
The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
After TrumPresident tweeted on it, Ron would ‘Twittoll’ the remark.
November 1, 2017 at 8:42 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral,
Do you even get the irony of your post?
Probably not.
October 27, 2017 at 10:45 am
libra says:
Like or Dislike:
9
1
The insurance industry is the most keen observer of climate trends, as it’s paying for damages and essentially making book on how bad the weather could be. When statistics bear out that specific changes are too likely, carriers will just stop writing policies. When there is no coverage at all on these coastal areas, maybe people will take the impact of climate change seriously. Then…migration will be at crisis levels, and people will say they didn’t know. The time to heed the warnings is now.
Unless, people like you keep getting in the way of telling the truth.
Hey libra, got news for you. Carriers are not going to stop writing policies. They always have and always will. Besides, with sea levels dropping, that makes for a better risk.
What dangers would arise if sea levels dropped? I think ‘stink’ isn’t that dangerous. Perhaps Al Gore would have a longer walk to the shoreline from his beach front villa. Bummer!
What is the risk of anti-gravity devices on houses?
October 30, 2017 at 10:24 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
You don’t understand the concept of risk. Return to this discussion when you’ve edified yourself on it. Agents do not advise clients on ‘risk’. They provide coverage against delineated perils that have associated risk. Risk is not pivotal to the client or the agent as long as coverage mitigates risk.
Perhaps you should study the term ‘mitigate’ in regard to risk? For example, some people are not concerned with mitigating (their) risk/s to the point it/ they is/ are eliminated.
October 30, 2017 at 4:50 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
I … I don’t know where to begin.
COVERAGE MITIGATES RISK?
That’s impossible! Only people can mitigate risk by taking action. Just having coverage does not cause the risk being covered to be mitigated in the slightest.
Also (some people are not concerned with mitigating…risk…to the point it is…eliminated.)
It is literally impossible to MITIGATE risk and cause the risk to be ELIMINATED. If the risk could be mitigated and eliminated, coverage would be unnecessary to insure the risk.
I’m baffled that this type of nonsense is written as if it’s accurate as to how how the industry actually uses these terms in our everyday parlance.
October 30, 2017 at 5:19 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Wrong, Rosenblatt. If you understand risk, you’d see the error in your claim.
October 30, 2017 at 8:07 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Rosenblatt, friend, this is the same guy who says that if you gave everyone health coverage, they would have no motivation to take care of themselves.
But… Coverage apparently now mitigates and eliminates risk.
I almost couldn’t write that out without laughing.
October 31, 2017 at 8:30 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
PolarBeaRepeal – it’s okay to admit you were wrong about something. Nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. Maybe you just had a typo? All I know is you can’t seriously be standing firm that COVERAGE MITIGATES RISK….are you??
October 31, 2017 at 8:37 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Doug – I hear you. What really gets me about his post is that this is an insurance website and those kinds of comments are so off base it’s baffling that someone who supposedly knows the industry can make claims like ‘coverage mitigates risk’ and ‘you can eliminate your risks by mitigating risk.’ You don’t have to have a CPCU to understand those comments are just plain wrong.
October 31, 2017 at 9:08 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
@Doug Fish; I never implied EVERYONE would refuse to take care of themselves.
Continuing to take my posts out of context and re-state some to discredit me is typical of Libitterals on IJ who’ve lost the debate. This is a variation of a Straw Man Argument. It requires no further effort on my part to continue replying to such trash replies.
October 31, 2017 at 9:08 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Correct, Doug and Rosenblatt. And, every insurance professional knows you cannot eliminate risk, you can only avoid it all together. Risk Management 101 right there. Yogi, if you need a refresher, I still have all of my CPCU books I can lend you. Let me know and I’d be happy to help.
October 31, 2017 at 3:08 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
COMPLETE transfer of risk is possible, although not common. Not many (re)insurers want to assume all of a cedants risk, although it is done for a steep price via HIGH risk load.
November 1, 2017 at 8:49 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Your CPCU books will tell you about complete transfer of risk to an insurer or reinsurer; e.g. LPT.
Your problem is you’re looking to discredit me by taking my words and twisting them to mean what you want for your objective.
You don’t understand the concept of risk transfer, and want to argue that I intended to convey risk elimination.
Continue your attempt to try to discredit an opposing view by first DEFINING ‘risk’. I’ve asked this several times. Consult your CPCU books, which I’ve read on occasion, and you MAY find the answer. However, I’ve read some pretty dumb things written by clueless authors in CPCU texts who THOUGHT they knew what they were writing about, which had to be corrected after CPAs, CFAs, and actuaries read those books.
November 1, 2017 at 10:16 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
PolarBeaRepeal,
“Risk is not pivotal to the client or the agent as long as coverage mitigates risk.
Perhaps you should study the term ‘mitigate’ in regard to risk? For example, some people are not concerned with mitigating (their) risk/s to the point it/ they is/ are eliminated.”
Those are your exact words. How else are we supposed to interpret? How did you not state that coverage can mitigate risk, yet alone to the point of elimination?
It is OK to admit you were wrong.
November 1, 2017 at 6:15 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@Ron; you still haven’t DEFINED ‘risk’, and that is why I claim mitigation can occur through insurance coverage.
Please enlighten us by defining ‘risk’ as it is used in insurance. ONLY THEN can we continue to discuss means of mitigating risk.
October 27, 2017 at 2:26 pm
TigreTen says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
The climate is changing…and what does that mean exactly? The climate has always changed and it always will, long, long after mankind has been exterminated from this planet. So what?
Tigre, the whole Man Made Global Warming hoax concept has been thoroughly debunked and the so called hoaxer scientists disgraced. They are as false as the Obamacare boosters saying their health plan was great and we should just jump on board. Sorry, but I will let the lemmings jump in that abyss.
The rest of the world agrees…….not hardly. There is still quite a bit of debate as to the causes of climate change. Granted, that the climate is changing is not debatable, but as to why certainly is.
And the notion that anyone who disagrees with you is a ‘scientific illiterate’ is precisely the response one gets from our tolerance promoting friends on the left.
There literally is no debate except amongst scientific illiterates who think they know better than those that study the data as a profession. Those who have seen double blind studies, can look at the hard data and realize the obvious trends and how they relate to human activities.
By all means, though, please post your list of scientific organizations or countries that support your idea that the main cause of climate change is some unknown factor and not primarily man-made.
Look at that curve on the first graph on the page. Weirdly enough, the more expertise in climate science, the more the consensus nears and oftentimes reaches 100%… so strange.
I can reiterate my point again a ton of ways, but you, a scientific layperson, while chalk it up to what:
Collusion?
Paid opinions?
Agenda-driven politics?
Lack of understanding?
Outright lies?
You know what they call someone who calls out a lie in the face of near-unilateral agreement? Crazy or stupid.
October 31, 2017 at 9:14 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
@Fish: the claim of ‘scientific literacy’ is one made by those who claim to be such. It is that group which labels others ‘scientific illiterates’ as a defense mechanism to criticism aided at their ‘scientific evidence’ and ‘research’. No one with any education, and ability to apply logic and reason, falls for such hubris and arrogance by ‘scientific literates’.
October 31, 2017 at 9:15 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
correction: ‘defense mechanism against (not ‘to’) criticism’. Bear culpa.
October 30, 2017 at 5:22 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
@Fisher: “the rest of the world” is a blatant lie. Lies and hyperbole don’t ‘get a pass’ when informed people are involved in a debate.
At a distant past time, the majority of Earth’s population thought the Earth as flat. At a current time, the majority of “CLIMATE SCIENTISTS” think man can significantly and irrevocably adversely impact the climate of Earth. It is unknown how many people count themselves as “CLIMATE SCIENTISTS”.
October 30, 2017 at 7:59 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
LOL!
Why do you think that the Earth is round?
October 30, 2017 at 8:00 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Did someone tell you?
Beliefs are not proof!
October 31, 2017 at 9:10 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
But yet, you tell us the insanity from The Oval uses hyperbole all the time. And, you constantly give him a pass. Ohhh, the hypocrisy!
October 31, 2017 at 9:16 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Hyperbole that is understood to be such gets a pass.
Hyperbole that is disguised as ‘truth’ does not.
October 31, 2017 at 9:17 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
The earth is proven round by those pilots who circumnavigated it with instruments that record GIS positions and such details. PROOF. QED.
October 31, 2017 at 10:06 am
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
LOL!
Yogi, have you made the measurements yourself? You know there are thousands and thousands of people across the world that believe that the Earth is flat. Why should I believe so-called experts who say otherwise?
Who even determines what makes somebody an Earth shape “expert” anyway?
October 31, 2017 at 10:54 am
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
So, Yogi, what you are telling me is that trained specialists took careful measurements and came to conclusions about a hotly debated theory and we should just trust them just because?
Hmmm, that all sounds so eerily similar to another hotly debated theory that highly trained specialists took careful measurements about and came to conclusions on… I can’t put my finger on the topic itself, but I think I am getting warmer…
November 1, 2017 at 9:52 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@DF; enjoy your venture down yet another rabbit hole.
November 1, 2017 at 2:15 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Literally, the rest of the world agrees that Climate Change is real and man-caused.”
Wildly incorrect. You are misrepresenting the scientific consensus on the matter, as well as the research and reliability of said research.
I have already gone over why, but instead, you prefer to believe you are part of a superior part of society to another who accepts science, against another part of society (anyone who disagrees with you) who rejects science.
The reason you believe this is ego. It’s that simple.
Okay. okay. You are right, not the WHOLE world agrees, just 97% of scientists agree.
But tell me, when 97% of scientists agree on something, why do you think the 3% has a better argument?
I believe in science. I believe in the scientific method and logic. It doesn’t make me superior, but as I research methodologies and reports, it does make my opinions more INFORMED than someone who laps up the conservative media position on every stance.
Please don’t proceed to enumerate in 15 paragraphs the minute positions on which you differ from conservative media while missing my point entirely.
Science has come to a consensus on this point: Man is causing and exacerbating climate change.
look up the meaning to the word consensus in the dictionary if you don’t believe me.
They have not come to a consensus as to what the extent of the damage will be, with some alarmists stoking the flames saying crazy, apolcalyptic things. They have come to a consensus however in that almost all areas will be affected in a negative way, but they cannot say how negative yet.
I am not saying there will be 20 foot sea level rise and so on in the next 50 to 100 years, but you have to be scientifically illiterate to not see that man-made climate change is real.
November 1, 2017 at 4:35 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“Okay. okay. You are right, not the WHOLE world agrees, just 97% of scientists agree.
But tell me, when 97% of scientists agree on something, why do you think the 3% has a better argument?”
It is not 97%, and the consensus is not what you state. The 97% do not share the same beliefs, I did two posts on this but the site has not yet approved it due to links, and, apparently they fixed the glitch which allows you to post if you divide it. Maybe my link will get approved, maybe it won’t, but it firmly shows why you’re wrong on this point, and why it is so dangerous you genuinely believe what you’re saying despite the fact that it is simply not true. If it isn’t approved by tomorrow I’ll repost something similar without links.
“I believe in science. I believe in the scientific method and logic. It doesn’t make me superior, but as I research methodologies and reports, it does make my opinions more INFORMED than someone who laps up the conservative media position on every stance.”
No you don’t, as my post pointed out, your link had fatal flaws, and I showed a counter link showing that 79 scientists have published 50% of the articles in the Zimmerman 97% consensus. While peer reviewed for their data, the peer review does not represent consensus with the conclusion for the many scientists who fact checked it. Your link then goes on to state that the reason 2/3rd of the scientists that do not express a position on global warming don’t is because it is established facts, fails to give any proof of this statement of fact. That simply is not true. The issue at hand here is one side insists on using only 97% of published papers, a huge flaw, and the other does surveys, which your side then disregards. I had a debate with UW who once said that one survey included meteorologists and shouldn’t count. In order to become a climatologist you have to take courses in meteorology, and you would be able to use science to draw a conclusion. The consensus also disagrees on many aspects, and even the ones who do believe in global warming being man made all agree the margin of error in the calculations means there could also be ZERO warming at all. That is not an opinion if you read the papers.
“Please don’t proceed to enumerate in 15 paragraphs the minute positions on which you differ from conservative media while missing my point entirely.”
This is you preparing to disregard anything that dislodges your preconceived notions. Drop that act. I don’t differ from the conservative media. You don’t listen to, and otherwise label, conservatives as anti science. That’s your flaw. The length of my paragraphs are needed so that I don’t spit out cliché lines. The length does not subtract from the substance. Yet you constantly say this as if it does, as with others here.
“Science has come to a consensus on this point: Man is causing and exacerbating climate change”
Man is “possibly” would be a better phrasing, and the degree of which is under heavy debate. It could be so little that it simply put, doesn’t matter.
“look up the meaning to the word consensus in the dictionary if you don’t believe me. ”
That wouldn’t make me believe you. The dictionary is not a source to prove consensus. You haven’t proven it, and I can disprove it. Hopefully my other post goes through. This is really annoying and you know very little on the topic, that much is clear due to how you debate, and the link you used had huge errors in methodology for consensus as I just pointed out.
“They have not come to a consensus as to what the extent of the damage will be, with some alarmists stoking the flames saying crazy, apolcalyptic things.”
True.
“They have come to a consensus however in that almost all areas will be affected in a negative way, but they cannot say how negative yet.”
Not true. As one of the founders of Green Peace said, there is a massive portion of land uninhabitable on Earth presently for one reason: Cold. Warming will open up these regions. Like say a huge swath of Northern Canada. Also, there is no present day huge negative affect from Global Warming, there is concern of what COULD happen.
“I am not saying there will be 20 foot sea level rise and so on in the next 50 to 100 years, but you have to be scientifically illiterate to not see that man-made climate change is real.”
You would have to be ignorant to say it how you do, and you don’t have to be ignorant to dismiss the level of man mad climate change, as that is the case that most conservatives make. I have said numerous times, Sanders tried to make denying climate change a prosecutable offense Doug! They tried to pass Trillions of dollars of taxes or cap and trade which would negatively affect the poor. Can humans affect climate? Yes. They can. Your preface you say you’re not saying, then what are you saying and what is your goal by having people accept it? It simply cannot be that you just want common sense, given your urgency. What is your goal?
What actions should be taken? The reason conservatives speak up is to stop a plethora of bad actions from being taken. Why do you speak up? Just to be right that climate change happens and to say you’re on the side of science? Give me your reason. Right now you said this phrase to not look extreme, I know it nearly for certain, and I loathe that habit from fake moderates, so I’m going to expose it. If it was without that intent, I apologize, however, it must be nipped off in the bud if that was. I will not tolerate such behavior. Let’s see what ground you hold.
Debate me. Drop agent and polar. You know I’m superior on these matters, and I actually do line up with conservatives in politics, schools, academia (though they don’t control the school system they are there) and media.
November 1, 2017 at 4:41 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Your link then goes on to state that the reason 2/3rd of the scientists that do not express a position on global warming don’t is because it is established facts, fails to give any proof of this statement of fact. That simply is not true”
Also, your link then removes these 2/3rd’s from the 97%. In other words it doesn’t count them. It only counts ones with an expressed view point on the matter.
There is no opposition research funding for global warming. Of course 97% of funded research papers will express they agree with global warming. Then stating that because 97% of research positives agree with global warming (which is the study your link referenced) is blatantly bad metrics, and then to just say “well, we will throw out the other 2’3rd’s because they all didn’t say anything because they agree”. Well, what did the scientists have to say about that?
They bluntly said when asked it was no an accurate representation of their work.
These are real reasons your metric doesn’t hold a candle to reality.
You are finding blanket statements and applying them incorrectly. This is not science you are doing Doug, it’s basically generalizing, misrepresenting, leaving out other parts, etc.
I go far further in scope than you, and it’s why I have zero fear debating you.
You cannot shame the facts. You cannot claim you are fact oriented while you ignore glaring holes with your data and methodology.
I noticed you also then prepared to call anyone against these facts basically insane if they claim there is a narrative being pushed.
Well, I’m sorry Doug, there is, and the fact that that sounds crazy doesn’t make it crazy.
Get over your bias, wake up, and knock it off.
November 1, 2017 at 4:51 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
And they didn’t even interview all the scientists.
So the scientists are saying the study doesn’t reflect their work. And you can find more examples if you look them up.
The study itself says it disregards 2/3’s just because you know it’s like totally obvious and they don’t need to state their position.
The scientists own papers constantly say their variables could very well be wrong. One, which I just showed, estimated basically a 400% increase in sea levels if their data was right, very soon. That was in 2012, and yet, in recent years we seem to have had somewhat of a pause. Keep in mind I’m stating that 150,000 years of study is stating that in order to be at the normal rate for where we are now we have to shoot up by 4 times in the near future, and we have had some down years. This is a huge discrepancy. They also admit in the NOAA if you read their work, another source, that due to putting together 4 measurements, land and data, that the margin of error is incredibly high. Other scientists have admitted they do not know how much carbon the ocean can hold. They cannot predict how much will change. Nevertheless they are pretty sure man has an affect.
That last part is ok for anyone to believe, and I would be ok with that with you, but it is important to emphasize the last part, (pretty sure) and not to then debate it as a 97% consensus that mankind is negatively affecting the world as a definitive fact through carbon release, mock others who don’t believe you, call them anti science, and engage in what is essentially modern day bigotry (though you don’t realize it IT IS what you’re doing Doug. And that is why I rail on you for it). There is little to no evidence of that idea occurring presently. The ocean rising has not occurred when looking at the last 150,000 years. The surface has not shot up, unless you count the ocean. All these are POTENTIAL disasters at this point.
November 1, 2017 at 5:56 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Please don’t proceed to enumerate in 15 paragraphs the minute positions on which you differ from conservative media while missing my point entirely.””
Also, did you really just tell me not to line item what is wrong with your 97% generalization comment?
So…You’re just ok with taking your link as it is, and not line itemizing what is wrong with it, and then comparing that to how the media reports on it, and where politicians stand in line with that?
Then how the bloody hell will you vote for this one way or the other, or become educated?
I don’t believe you even know the definition of the word you used, you were trying to make that an insult, and didn’t use the forethought to make it as much of a zinger as you thought.
This is very common in the youth, ah ha one liners and zingers. I don’t play that game.
It’s pointless. It does nothing. You’re darn right I enumerate my arguments, line item. You’re darn right the line item points matter.
Your concept did not fly over my head. My line items are to directly contradict your comment that 97% of scientists have a consensus, and that ““Literally, the rest of the world agrees that Climate Change is real and man-caused.”. I debated against the fact that there is a consensus, and I debated against line item issues with the 97% link you used, I used line item issues with the science itself because you have to understand those items to know why the political left is out of line on it, and I connected the dots.
Are you this simple minded?
I’m far outside of your league, and you’re not much different than Polar and Agent, albeit on the left.
I’m only on the right side of the spectrum by necessity I might add, and my positions prove this again and again.
You’re on the left side of the spectrum mostly due to arrogance, social justice, and lack of knowing any better. It’s time to come of age. You’re not even technically a democrat until you at least know and can argue against the other side, which you clearly cannot. I have debated liberals on this matter who countered each of what I said. They were still wrong, but it could be conceivable what they said was accurate from their point of view. In your case the level of simplicity to your arguments is astounding.
November 1, 2017 at 6:19 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
At some point in time, 97% of humans believed Earth was flat. OK; the belief may not have been stated and a survey taken of people. But the point stands that many prior beliefs were proven wrong, and any current scientific ‘belief’ that is currently not supported with facts and agreed upon methods of measurement and determination …is open to debate.
November 1, 2017 at 8:54 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
@TigreTen; So, you must, according to Al Gore, pay hyuuuuge carbon taxes to cover the cost of mankind’s evil action against Mother Nature, and to fund Al Gore’s lavish lifestyle of flying around in a private jet to conventions of hypocrites and hoaxer-mongers. And, to pay for his nearly ocean-front villa, which is less than his projected number of feet above the sea-level rise he erroneously and fraudulently predicted in his book over a decade ago.
Come on Agent. You can’t be that narrow-focused that you just want to rail against me without actually thinking about we were talking about, right?
If someone works in Insurance and does not know the difference between MITIGATION OF RISK and TRANSFER OF RISK, that’s pretty important. It’s Insurance 101.
It’s like someone not knowing the difference between COMPREHENSIVE vs COLLISION coverage on an Auto, or ACTUAL CASH VALUE vs REPLACEMENT COST on a Home policy.
It’s quite important to know the different meanings those words have in order to actually help our clients.
Nearly all agents are salespeople, not insurance professionals. They just want to know enough to sell the policy. I believe Agent’s post regarding insurance bear that out.
Some ‘Ron’s are trolls. Others are not. ALL generalizations are useless for the purpose of advancing knowledge, and SOME may be considered diversions down a rabbit hole.
@Rosenblatt: If coverage doesn’t mitigate risk to the insured, why would they buy it? Your focus is on the wrong conceptual interpretation of risk. Define ‘risk’ for a clue as to what I referred.
“If coverage doesn’t mitigate risk to the insured, why would they buy it?”
Because coverage TRANSFERS risk! It does not MITIGATE risk!
Example:
I buy a car.
Without insurance, I am on the hook for any loss that occurs.
With insurance, that risk is transferred to my auto carrier.
Nothing in that transaction reduces the potential of me actually having an accident (which is what mitigation of risk actually means).
Two examples of risk mitigation would be me driving safely and not using my phone when I’m behind the wheel. None of those risk mitigation factors are transferred to my auto carrier by buying coverage. Only by people taking action can risk be mitigated.
Do you understand now? Do you want another example?
Better yet — how about you define what MITIGATION OF RISK means to you in the context you used it originally, and then provide me with an example of how you believe risk mitigation actually works??
You’ve just proven my point – that you don’t understand the concept of risk. I asked SEVERAL of you trolls to DEFINE risk and you continue to avoid that request – for good reason.
Do you want the definition of pure risk or speculative. Heck, here are both:
Pure Risk – the opportunity for loss but no opportunity for gain.
Speculative Risk – uncertainty about an event under consideration that could produce either a profit or a loss
One can mitigate the financial impact of a loss by transferring the risk using insurance coverage. However, that, by absolutely no means, mitigates the risk itself.
If what you meant was that coverage mitigates the financial impact of a loss, just say so. But that is not what you said.
November 1, 2017 at 1:42 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Ron, I don’t know why you continue to play into his game. You know that he cannot admit defeat, equivocation, or mistakes on his part.
For example, now he will respond to me instead of you, then travel up the page to tell someone they are going down a rabbit hole for responding to him, capping off by demanding someone solve a riddle for him in which he has left out the necessary parts.
November 1, 2017 at 3:26 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
His obsession with rabbit holes makes me sick!
November 1, 2017 at 4:45 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
You should see his pantry at home: loaded to the brim with Nesquik chocolate milk powder and Cadbury Crème Eggs.
His favorite film Harvey gets him all hot and bothered.
He refuses to get cable or satellite and instead uses only rabbit ears. (He logs onto the internet to watch Fox News religiously)
He named his sons Roger and Peter.
November 1, 2017 at 6:26 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@Ron; I read your reply and you didn’t explicitly define risk.
You used examples. One of your examples shows you believe risk is something it is not. Consult with a text on insurance that was written sometime after the turn of the century… i.e. the 20th Century.
I can state your error, but will not until you refer to a textbook definition of risk that is currently widely accepted. For example, you may have heard of The CAPM pricing model for financial securities. THAT model was widely held until it was proven to be flawed, and APM and arbitrage models replaced it. Yet, CAPM is still taught as a rudimentary model of how financial markets work as it is less complex than the currently accepted, reliable, fairly accurate and representative models of financial markets. In summary, you are using an outdated definition of ‘risk’ that leads to your inability to see how it is transfered, mitigated, etc. For more info and clues, refer to FASB 113.
Polar – how about YOU define what MITIGATION OF RISK means to you in the context you used it originally, and then provide us with an examples of how you believe risk mitigation actually works?
November 1, 2017 at 3:09 pm
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
So, we can rail against the climate by re-working the global economy and spending gazillions to maybe impact the oncoming terror
OR
we can take a trip to Holland and learn how to actually deal with sea level variances.
I knew it. I asked what your goal was above and it was pretty clear this was your solution.
Doing so when it is not needed would be irresponsible and misguided. Bullying the world to buy into your beliefs to do so, and disregarding the other side, is irresponsible and misguided. Misrepresenting the consensus is misguided and irresponsible.
You’re wrong regarding how to approach climate change, and you are basically just an indoctrinated zealot, marching to the beat of drum.
You’re not a free thinker. You’re just some kid. Listen to the other side.
No need to bully the world, they already believe in science. Remember, every nation in the world excepting only Syria run by an evil dictator and the USA, run by idiots, has adopted the position that climate change is man-caused and have agreed to take steps to mitigate the growing problems before us today.
Literally every other country.
But no, THEY have it all wrong. Duped by those nefarious scientists who keep changing their formulas and rubbing their palms together while laughing maniacally. Thank goodness our mid-level ranked education system has produced such free thinkers that can dispute these lies.
Doug, I’m curious.
As specifically as you can, what is your desired outcome?
Again, as specifically as you can, how would you intend to achieve it and in what timeframe?
November 2, 2017 at 2:14 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Did you see that rich liberals are selling their ocean front houses on both coasts? Did you see that real estate prices for ocean front homes are dropping like mad? No? That’s because neither is happening.
The NY Times reported recently that the greatest world-wide contributor to CO2 emissions was air conditioning.
How many Climate Change zealots have given up air conditioning? My guess: zero.
All talk. No Walk. We are all Climate Change Deniers now, aren’t we? Just some are Big Talkers and others are not. (Al Gore’s first movie said we had only 10 years to act, which gave us until 2017. In the famous words of Prince, “oops, out of time. . .”)
And it’s widely known that cigarettes cause cancer, yet many Doctors still smoke. You can’t just say “it’s not true because people haven’t changed their behavior.”
In this case you actually can. If a prominent person who believed in rising oceans lived on the coast it is a good indicator they are not worried about it. Scientists especially can live anywhere. My brother lived in WA while working with telescopes in HI remotely, all the scientists who were doing the research were located in CA and WA. They all operated remotely and got their ideas together in emails and through voice chat. You’re not involved in this community nor do you have any connections. When you speak of it, you make a doctors smoking analogy because you don’t have real world examples to quote. This is also why you quote the worst science on it, whereas I dive into the science of what I’m quoting. On this matter my brother is constantly annoyed at how much people misrepresent the science community. He has had debates with climate change advocates, and he agrees mostly with what I’ve said. Climate change occurs, the level of man’s interference may well make little difference, and the effort needed to change it if so, would result in mass death of the human species due to one major factor: Energy requirements / Energy sources. Regardless of “green energy” his primary concern with what will destroy the human race or harm us is: Energy/Petroleum. Those are what we should be concerned on. I could go further, but it’s not on point. What is on point is he has 1000 times the experience you do, and his IQ is 150, and he is a post grad, with physics, plasma physics, computer sciences, advanced multi variable calculus, meteorology, and several other expertise within his belt. I do not exaggerate that this man is above the top 1% of the population on these matters. He was obsessed with it since he was 10, it is no coincidence he got into such work. It is not direct climate work, but he knows the science behind it and works with the scientists who study it quite often.
Also, doctors who smoke is not a good example at all. There is a huge urge to smoke once you start, it’s known to be hard to stop. Is there a nicotine style effect at work here? He just can’t help it right?
How about you let me review your brother’s data and methodology and analysis so we can debate actual items instead of me just having to take your word about what he claims?
Point me to one of his studies or articles on the subject so I can review and make my own decisions if he’s a reputable source on the matter.
I refuse to believe what you say he told you SOLELY because you post that he has a high IQ and a bunch of degrees. Facts me please, bob.
His studies by the way have mostly pertained to anti matter, plasma, meteorology, and more physics based work. I mentioned a telescope in HI. You probably didn’t do the math on this.
Also, I’m not giving you his name regardless. I am not that dumb. I know what happens with regards to that type of info, and I have personally witnessed people on your side use that info.
My last name is going to remain private.
November 3, 2017 at 5:03 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob,
The Trump administration just put out a report TODAY stating that there is no other credible alternative explanation for global warming except for it being man-caused.
Is the Trump administration wrong about this?
November 7, 2017 at 10:49 am
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob,
I too have a super genius brother. He works on spaceships with microscopes and lasers and all sorts of cool gadgets. He says that the moon is in fact made of cheese.
Naturally, I can’t support his claims with any sort of verifiable data, mind you, and almost every other scientist who works in his field tells him that he is wrong, but you should really believe him because he IS real and IS a super genius.
LOL. In other news, even supervillian Syria just signed the Paris Accords leaving just America as the lone “smart” country in the world who doesn’t believe in the scam of climate change…except when they do (see my post above)
PS: Have I told you what my brother’s IQ is in this post yet?
November 3, 2017 at 3:06 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I have pointed you to numerous studies you have not gone over.
“Point me to one of his studies or articles on the subject so I can review and make my own decisions if he’s a reputable source on the matter. ”
I never said he published articles, and in fact, very few scientists do on this matter. As per above I pointed out in one of the consensus publication matters, 79 scientists made over half the published work on the matter stating global warming was real. This does not demonstrate consensus.
I brought up the science community because you and Doug claim there is a 97% consensus. You won’t say of what, and when I define what it isn’t, you then say it’s on me to define your words. No. It’s not. Then often you guys fall back to “I’m just saying man affects climate”. No. You’re not. You’re saying 97% of scientists believe we should do this:
“So, we can rail against the climate by re-working the global economy and spending gazillions to maybe impact the oncoming terror”
And you have not proven that we need to do that, or there is a consensus we need to re work the global economy or there will be doom. Doug tried to back track and say to me that he wasn’t saying there would be extreme things, if there aren’t, why would he agree it would be the right thing to do to re work the entire world economy?
Also, you said “I refuse to believe what you say he told you SOLELY because you post that he has a high IQ and a bunch of degrees. Facts me please, bob.”
I REFUSE and so do other conservatives here, to believe based on what others say about the scientific consensus, especially when I can prove numerous authors say their work is misrepresented by those consensus surveys.
I have given facts on the matter, you ignore them.
Do you deny what I’ve already said to Doug in several posts? Read those. There are studies to go with them, but this site actually emailed me about trying to get those studies to post here, they don’t want the links on the site.
I already gave the 400% one, is that not wildly incorrect and does it not show what I said? Consensus of what? The data and theory is exactly that, and it’s absolutely terrible. We might have a 400% increase in the coast line. Maybe. We’re supposed to. Maybe.
What do you believe? You outline it. What are the factors? How much global warming is man made? What action should be taken?
You keep saying people won’t believe science. NO! The belief, if you respected the other side instead of acting like a punk, would be they don’t believe that political measures and governmental measures are needed for climate change, nor that man made climate change has any large affect on the world that needs to affect the world economy to be altered, nor that it even could be. Do you disagree with any of these points, and if so, use the metrics as to why, and how much you believe we can stop.
The one against science is you! This is nonsense, and virtue signaling at it’s best. I get it, due to your arrogance you think you want to save the world, everyone else wants to deny science and facts, and you’re the hero.
YOU ARE NOT THE HERO. You’re the villain. You need to realize this, and respect the anti global warming crowd, instead of labeling them as basically “agent” and “polar” folks who know nothing.
Size is needed to direct your commentary and to put in thought.
If you prefer cliché one liners go for it.
I’m done debating on this article regardless. It was pretty clear you never read substantiated evidence as it is, considering how you digested your last source, and so far the only links you have given are regarding supposed scientific consensus.
The scientific consensus is being misrepresented. It’s that simple. I gave several article regarding warming, and you have ignored them. I’ve gone over problems with the data, you’ve ignored it, or others here then said those scientists were paid shills.
I don’t have time for this style of debate.
All I can say is you clearly do not respect the side who is against the global warming hype, and it’s not ok. You’re not the virtuous hero, you’re the villain.
Heard the latest Confused Global Warming Hoaxer? Massive, massive Cold on way to freeze up all of the northern part of the country. Hard to melt the Polar Cap under that kind of cold.
I had to stop reading the article after reading paragraph two to make this observation:
“Climate Central, a non-profit news organization that reports on climate science…”
Obviously, the rest of the article’s conclusions are suspect due to the oxymoronic statement above; i.e. ‘news organization… reports on climate science’. At this point, I must ask: “WHERE DO THEY GET THEIR FUNDING, if not from investors seeking profits?” Follow the (dirty) money back to the sources.
Since its start in 2008, the following foundations, government agencies, and institutions have provided funding for Climate Central:
Changing Horizons Fund of the Rockefeller Family Fund
ClimateWorks
The David & Lucile Packard Foundation
The Dixon Family Fund
Flora Family Foundation
Foundation for Environmental Research
Google.org
The Heising-Simons Foundation
The High Meadows Foundation
Island Foundation
The KR Foundation
Kresge Foundation
The MacArthur Foundation
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
NASA Headquarters
NASA Langley
National Institutes of Health via Johns Hopkins University
National Science Foundation via Columbia University
National Science Foundation via George Mason University
NOAA CICS (Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites) via North Carolina State University
Northrup Grumman
Peter T Paul Foundation
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation via Pepperwood Preserve
The Pisces Foundation
The Randall and Mary Hack Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
The Robert & Ellen Gutenstein Foundation
Robertson Foundation
Saul D Levy Foundation
The Schmidt Family Foundation
Town Creek Foundation
Turner Foundation, Inc.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of Energy
University of Tennessee
V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation
The Winslow Foundation
The World Bank via The Nature Conservancy
I had to stop reading, I saw something I disagree with. /s
So Rosenblatt, is it a contradiction that NASA contributed to this organization and then published a report that the seas are receding instead of rising due to no Climate Change? Don’t believe it? Google is helpful.
Let me reply for you Rosenblatt. Agent, that’s not what the NASA report showed relating to long-term sea levels. From that NASA report
July 12, 2017 – 86.2mm
July 21, 2017 – 84.8mm
Yup. It decreased slightly. No sarcasm here. But wait. Doesn’t the data go back further than last week? Yup.
June 9, 1995 – 6.9mm
June 4, 2000 – 23.5mm
June 12, 2005 – 44.7mm
July 30, 2010 – 50.1mm
July 2, 2017 – 86.5mm
July 12, 2017 – 86.2mm
July 21, 2017 – 84.8mm
If we look at the trend over multiple years, the data tells totally a different story. Remember kids:
CLIMATE = long term
WEATHER = short term
This is willful stupidity of the highest order.
You forgot one item:
RABBIT HOLE = several of Confused’s posts, UW’s posts, Ron’s posts, etc.
I suspect Agent was making a sarcastic remark. Go ahead; disprove my suspicion. Ready, steady, … GO!
You keep using phrases incorrectly. Responding to someone’s unsubstantiated point with actual data is not ‘going down a rabbit hole.’ You do English very ungood (intentionally bad)
Rabbit hole. Start an unrelated discussion to end the current discussion because you can’t sustain your argument.
Cool. Agent’s post about NASA’s sea level was the beginning of the rabbit hole, not my reply to him about that report.
You posted this useless data in another thread and were unwilling to provide the variance stats I requested to show the short time movements are irrelevant. Rabbit hole.
What is willful ignorance is in yours. You have not looked at anything long trend, instead, you are looking at what makes your opponents seem narrow minded, while becoming narrow minded yourself. You compared how many years now? Let’s take 150,000, and trends during warming and cooling periods, as opposed to a hundred years, which is not even close to a full warming or cooling period, it would be barely even a warming or cooling band.
I have used a chart like this to show that our current warming is still considerably below others we have had, and is well within normal band. The sea levels have the same trend over time.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Past-150000-Years-of-Sea-Level-History-Suggests-High-Rates-of-Future-Sea-Level-Rise.html
I have also explained in the past why merging the land and sea data was not at all appropriate.
All you guys have done is take simple statements from simple minded people and use it to label the entire other side.
None of what they say is part of I don’t know, an organization or school system’s opinion on the matter, nor is yours actually. Even people educated on the matter try to weigh a few things: How much is man made? How much is nature? It the present trend normal? Do we know the variants to say it is not?
I don’t believe the science community because they don’t show things like what I just did, and they have a track record of changing metrics to make their case stronger, and then changing it again when the new method doesn’t appear as bad. They are clearly operating with the assumption “man made global warming = true” and that’s not ok in science.
In case you don’t get out of that article what I did, and then accuse me of not reading it:
I was not arguing the prediction. I was arguing the results.
Based on their study our rate of rise should be 4 times higher than it has been in recent times.
This says a few things:
1. Currently our rate of rise is low for the type of scenario we are in.
2. It proves that scientists really don’t understand all the factors, because their model suggests our rate of rise should be 4 times higher, and then they accordingly predict the rise should increase very soon over the next century. In other words: This is what I said in my other post: The reliability and consensus is not what you claim. There are tons of different metrics, non of the scientists know which are correct, they keep adding, removing, and finding new aspects to consider, and I can give you several on this matter. One recently talked about the fact that carbon may in fact be getting trapped in the sea, and then being turned into a carbonite type of form along land forms, so that it may be possible that there is a cap of sorts that will regulate any land spikes even if the ocean itself warms. I can put that one up too if you would like, but instead, you prefer to take the science community and say they all agree on warming. They do not. It is sheer ignorance to say as such, far worse ignorance considering that kids DO NOT listen to people like agent, and then they DO believe that people like you are basically knowledgeable. You’re damaging the youth, it’s why I debate you and Ron.
You plainly need to get over your ego, stop labeling the other side as inept, stop arguing as you do on these issues, and LISTEN to the other side as credible.
I should change this:
*I don’t believe SOME in the science community and SOME who represent them* because they don’t show things like what I just did, and they have a track record of changing metrics to make their case stronger, and then changing it again when the new method doesn’t appear as bad. They are clearly operating with the assumption “man made global warming = true” and that’s not ok in science.”
This just adds support to Lincoln’s quote; “you can fool some of the people some of the time…”
Lincoln never said that
This just confirms Ronald Reagan’s quote that conservatives generally have the intelligence of amoeba.
If you are correct as regards the author, my point still stands about the misleading of the public, etc.
You are making an irrelevant point.
We agree your point still stands – it’s just funny you made that statement while being fooled and misled about its true ‘author.’
I doubt you can see the humor in that though as it reflects poorly on you. I imagine you’ll now post you knew it wasn’t Lincoln all along and it was just a test and some other BS.
So, your point is what, exactly?
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin110340.html
Lincoln never said that exact phrase I wrote.
My point stands. You are a troll. You can quote me on it.
– PolarBeaRepeal.
“I doubt you can see the humor in that though as it reflects poorly on you. I imagine you’ll now post you knew it wasn’t Lincoln all along and it was just a test and some other BS.”
Quite the contrary, the issue here is you don’t know how this reflects on you.
You are pouncing on a misstatement in order to go after his credibility on any other topic. Let’s say he was wrong on this, it doesn’t make him any more likely to be wrong on others.
That type of mentality, which you and others engage in here often with Polar and Agent, is not appropriate. Each case by case basis must be taken on it’s own.
I will add a slight comment on this matter:
You have not stepped in with UW still, to this date. You’re not a moderate until you do on a regular basis. I have stepped in with Polar and Agent several times. You’re obviously a fraud in this regard, one sided, narrow minded, as much as agent and polar (did you see what I just did there? I hope you did).
Yet you are blind to it. You are apparently open minded, so you think.
‘some of the people all of the time’ is what I intended to convey. I mis-stated the second half of the Lincoln quote in haste. Bear culpa.
Confused seems to think he has discredited my point because I mistakenly posted an incorrect wording of a quote intended to convey that it is easy to fool some people into believing lies, as Al Gore has done for over a decade. That alone shows the Libitterals are grasping for straws to claim even minor wins.
By the way; I’m still not tired of winning. But it’s getting a little boring, lately.
“By the way; I’m still not tired of winning.” That would be like the Bills saying they are tired of beating the Patriots.
“But it’s getting a little boring, lately.” Nearly everyone gets bored when nothing is happening for them.
I see you’re not tired of trolling.
Polar, if poor Confused were walking past a tree on the street, he would stop and start arguing with it.
On a similar note, if a Progressive entered an empty forest and screamed Trump is an idiot, would anyone hear him?
Agent,
Nobody may hear him, but it would not make it any less true.
And I am sure president Trump would tweet about it.
After TrumPresident tweeted on it, Ron would ‘Twittoll’ the remark.
The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral,
Do you even get the irony of your post?
Probably not.
The insurance industry is the most keen observer of climate trends, as it’s paying for damages and essentially making book on how bad the weather could be. When statistics bear out that specific changes are too likely, carriers will just stop writing policies. When there is no coverage at all on these coastal areas, maybe people will take the impact of climate change seriously. Then…migration will be at crisis levels, and people will say they didn’t know. The time to heed the warnings is now.
Unless, people like you keep getting in the way of telling the truth.
Hey libra, got news for you. Carriers are not going to stop writing policies. They always have and always will. Besides, with sea levels dropping, that makes for a better risk.
An insurance agent, who advises paying clients on risk, believes they sea levels are dropping.
What dangers would arise if sea levels dropped? I think ‘stink’ isn’t that dangerous. Perhaps Al Gore would have a longer walk to the shoreline from his beach front villa. Bummer!
What is the risk of anti-gravity devices on houses?
You don’t understand the concept of risk. Return to this discussion when you’ve edified yourself on it. Agents do not advise clients on ‘risk’. They provide coverage against delineated perils that have associated risk. Risk is not pivotal to the client or the agent as long as coverage mitigates risk.
Perhaps you should study the term ‘mitigate’ in regard to risk? For example, some people are not concerned with mitigating (their) risk/s to the point it/ they is/ are eliminated.
I … I don’t know where to begin.
COVERAGE MITIGATES RISK?
That’s impossible! Only people can mitigate risk by taking action. Just having coverage does not cause the risk being covered to be mitigated in the slightest.
Also (some people are not concerned with mitigating…risk…to the point it is…eliminated.)
It is literally impossible to MITIGATE risk and cause the risk to be ELIMINATED. If the risk could be mitigated and eliminated, coverage would be unnecessary to insure the risk.
I’m baffled that this type of nonsense is written as if it’s accurate as to how how the industry actually uses these terms in our everyday parlance.
Wrong, Rosenblatt. If you understand risk, you’d see the error in your claim.
Rosenblatt, friend, this is the same guy who says that if you gave everyone health coverage, they would have no motivation to take care of themselves.
But… Coverage apparently now mitigates and eliminates risk.
I almost couldn’t write that out without laughing.
PolarBeaRepeal – it’s okay to admit you were wrong about something. Nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. Maybe you just had a typo? All I know is you can’t seriously be standing firm that COVERAGE MITIGATES RISK….are you??
Doug – I hear you. What really gets me about his post is that this is an insurance website and those kinds of comments are so off base it’s baffling that someone who supposedly knows the industry can make claims like ‘coverage mitigates risk’ and ‘you can eliminate your risks by mitigating risk.’ You don’t have to have a CPCU to understand those comments are just plain wrong.
@Doug Fish; I never implied EVERYONE would refuse to take care of themselves.
Continuing to take my posts out of context and re-state some to discredit me is typical of Libitterals on IJ who’ve lost the debate. This is a variation of a Straw Man Argument. It requires no further effort on my part to continue replying to such trash replies.
Correct, Doug and Rosenblatt. And, every insurance professional knows you cannot eliminate risk, you can only avoid it all together. Risk Management 101 right there. Yogi, if you need a refresher, I still have all of my CPCU books I can lend you. Let me know and I’d be happy to help.
COMPLETE transfer of risk is possible, although not common. Not many (re)insurers want to assume all of a cedants risk, although it is done for a steep price via HIGH risk load.
Your CPCU books will tell you about complete transfer of risk to an insurer or reinsurer; e.g. LPT.
Your problem is you’re looking to discredit me by taking my words and twisting them to mean what you want for your objective.
You don’t understand the concept of risk transfer, and want to argue that I intended to convey risk elimination.
Continue your attempt to try to discredit an opposing view by first DEFINING ‘risk’. I’ve asked this several times. Consult your CPCU books, which I’ve read on occasion, and you MAY find the answer. However, I’ve read some pretty dumb things written by clueless authors in CPCU texts who THOUGHT they knew what they were writing about, which had to be corrected after CPAs, CFAs, and actuaries read those books.
PolarBeaRepeal,
“Risk is not pivotal to the client or the agent as long as coverage mitigates risk.
Perhaps you should study the term ‘mitigate’ in regard to risk? For example, some people are not concerned with mitigating (their) risk/s to the point it/ they is/ are eliminated.”
Those are your exact words. How else are we supposed to interpret? How did you not state that coverage can mitigate risk, yet alone to the point of elimination?
It is OK to admit you were wrong.
@Ron; you still haven’t DEFINED ‘risk’, and that is why I claim mitigation can occur through insurance coverage.
Please enlighten us by defining ‘risk’ as it is used in insurance. ONLY THEN can we continue to discuss means of mitigating risk.
The climate is changing…and what does that mean exactly? The climate has always changed and it always will, long, long after mankind has been exterminated from this planet. So what?
Tigre, the whole Man Made Global Warming hoax concept has been thoroughly debunked and the so called hoaxer scientists disgraced. They are as false as the Obamacare boosters saying their health plan was great and we should just jump on board. Sorry, but I will let the lemmings jump in that abyss.
Tell that to the rest of the world. LOL
Literally, the rest of the world agrees that Climate Change is real and man-caused.
On your side: Scientific Illiterates.
On the world’s side: the world. Including scientists.
Hmm… now who should I side with?
The rest of the world agrees…….not hardly. There is still quite a bit of debate as to the causes of climate change. Granted, that the climate is changing is not debatable, but as to why certainly is.
And the notion that anyone who disagrees with you is a ‘scientific illiterate’ is precisely the response one gets from our tolerance promoting friends on the left.
http://opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
Now you show me yours…
There literally is no debate except amongst scientific illiterates who think they know better than those that study the data as a profession. Those who have seen double blind studies, can look at the hard data and realize the obvious trends and how they relate to human activities.
By all means, though, please post your list of scientific organizations or countries that support your idea that the main cause of climate change is some unknown factor and not primarily man-made.
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
Look at that curve on the first graph on the page. Weirdly enough, the more expertise in climate science, the more the consensus nears and oftentimes reaches 100%… so strange.
I can reiterate my point again a ton of ways, but you, a scientific layperson, while chalk it up to what:
Collusion?
Paid opinions?
Agenda-driven politics?
Lack of understanding?
Outright lies?
You know what they call someone who calls out a lie in the face of near-unilateral agreement? Crazy or stupid.
@Fish: the claim of ‘scientific literacy’ is one made by those who claim to be such. It is that group which labels others ‘scientific illiterates’ as a defense mechanism to criticism aided at their ‘scientific evidence’ and ‘research’. No one with any education, and ability to apply logic and reason, falls for such hubris and arrogance by ‘scientific literates’.
correction: ‘defense mechanism against (not ‘to’) criticism’. Bear culpa.
@Fisher: “the rest of the world” is a blatant lie. Lies and hyperbole don’t ‘get a pass’ when informed people are involved in a debate.
Also, BELIEFS are not proof.
At a distant past time, the majority of Earth’s population thought the Earth as flat. At a current time, the majority of “CLIMATE SCIENTISTS” think man can significantly and irrevocably adversely impact the climate of Earth. It is unknown how many people count themselves as “CLIMATE SCIENTISTS”.
LOL!
Why do you think that the Earth is round?
Did someone tell you?
Beliefs are not proof!
But yet, you tell us the insanity from The Oval uses hyperbole all the time. And, you constantly give him a pass. Ohhh, the hypocrisy!
Hyperbole that is understood to be such gets a pass.
Hyperbole that is disguised as ‘truth’ does not.
The earth is proven round by those pilots who circumnavigated it with instruments that record GIS positions and such details. PROOF. QED.
LOL!
Yogi, have you made the measurements yourself? You know there are thousands and thousands of people across the world that believe that the Earth is flat. Why should I believe so-called experts who say otherwise?
Who even determines what makes somebody an Earth shape “expert” anyway?
So, Yogi, what you are telling me is that trained specialists took careful measurements and came to conclusions about a hotly debated theory and we should just trust them just because?
Hmmm, that all sounds so eerily similar to another hotly debated theory that highly trained specialists took careful measurements about and came to conclusions on… I can’t put my finger on the topic itself, but I think I am getting warmer…
@DF; enjoy your venture down yet another rabbit hole.
“Literally, the rest of the world agrees that Climate Change is real and man-caused.”
Wildly incorrect. You are misrepresenting the scientific consensus on the matter, as well as the research and reliability of said research.
I have already gone over why, but instead, you prefer to believe you are part of a superior part of society to another who accepts science, against another part of society (anyone who disagrees with you) who rejects science.
The reason you believe this is ego. It’s that simple.
Okay. okay. You are right, not the WHOLE world agrees, just 97% of scientists agree.
But tell me, when 97% of scientists agree on something, why do you think the 3% has a better argument?
I believe in science. I believe in the scientific method and logic. It doesn’t make me superior, but as I research methodologies and reports, it does make my opinions more INFORMED than someone who laps up the conservative media position on every stance.
Please don’t proceed to enumerate in 15 paragraphs the minute positions on which you differ from conservative media while missing my point entirely.
Science has come to a consensus on this point: Man is causing and exacerbating climate change.
look up the meaning to the word consensus in the dictionary if you don’t believe me.
They have not come to a consensus as to what the extent of the damage will be, with some alarmists stoking the flames saying crazy, apolcalyptic things. They have come to a consensus however in that almost all areas will be affected in a negative way, but they cannot say how negative yet.
I am not saying there will be 20 foot sea level rise and so on in the next 50 to 100 years, but you have to be scientifically illiterate to not see that man-made climate change is real.
“Okay. okay. You are right, not the WHOLE world agrees, just 97% of scientists agree.
But tell me, when 97% of scientists agree on something, why do you think the 3% has a better argument?”
It is not 97%, and the consensus is not what you state. The 97% do not share the same beliefs, I did two posts on this but the site has not yet approved it due to links, and, apparently they fixed the glitch which allows you to post if you divide it. Maybe my link will get approved, maybe it won’t, but it firmly shows why you’re wrong on this point, and why it is so dangerous you genuinely believe what you’re saying despite the fact that it is simply not true. If it isn’t approved by tomorrow I’ll repost something similar without links.
“I believe in science. I believe in the scientific method and logic. It doesn’t make me superior, but as I research methodologies and reports, it does make my opinions more INFORMED than someone who laps up the conservative media position on every stance.”
No you don’t, as my post pointed out, your link had fatal flaws, and I showed a counter link showing that 79 scientists have published 50% of the articles in the Zimmerman 97% consensus. While peer reviewed for their data, the peer review does not represent consensus with the conclusion for the many scientists who fact checked it. Your link then goes on to state that the reason 2/3rd of the scientists that do not express a position on global warming don’t is because it is established facts, fails to give any proof of this statement of fact. That simply is not true. The issue at hand here is one side insists on using only 97% of published papers, a huge flaw, and the other does surveys, which your side then disregards. I had a debate with UW who once said that one survey included meteorologists and shouldn’t count. In order to become a climatologist you have to take courses in meteorology, and you would be able to use science to draw a conclusion. The consensus also disagrees on many aspects, and even the ones who do believe in global warming being man made all agree the margin of error in the calculations means there could also be ZERO warming at all. That is not an opinion if you read the papers.
“Please don’t proceed to enumerate in 15 paragraphs the minute positions on which you differ from conservative media while missing my point entirely.”
This is you preparing to disregard anything that dislodges your preconceived notions. Drop that act. I don’t differ from the conservative media. You don’t listen to, and otherwise label, conservatives as anti science. That’s your flaw. The length of my paragraphs are needed so that I don’t spit out cliché lines. The length does not subtract from the substance. Yet you constantly say this as if it does, as with others here.
“Science has come to a consensus on this point: Man is causing and exacerbating climate change”
Man is “possibly” would be a better phrasing, and the degree of which is under heavy debate. It could be so little that it simply put, doesn’t matter.
“look up the meaning to the word consensus in the dictionary if you don’t believe me. ”
That wouldn’t make me believe you. The dictionary is not a source to prove consensus. You haven’t proven it, and I can disprove it. Hopefully my other post goes through. This is really annoying and you know very little on the topic, that much is clear due to how you debate, and the link you used had huge errors in methodology for consensus as I just pointed out.
“They have not come to a consensus as to what the extent of the damage will be, with some alarmists stoking the flames saying crazy, apolcalyptic things.”
True.
“They have come to a consensus however in that almost all areas will be affected in a negative way, but they cannot say how negative yet.”
Not true. As one of the founders of Green Peace said, there is a massive portion of land uninhabitable on Earth presently for one reason: Cold. Warming will open up these regions. Like say a huge swath of Northern Canada. Also, there is no present day huge negative affect from Global Warming, there is concern of what COULD happen.
“I am not saying there will be 20 foot sea level rise and so on in the next 50 to 100 years, but you have to be scientifically illiterate to not see that man-made climate change is real.”
You would have to be ignorant to say it how you do, and you don’t have to be ignorant to dismiss the level of man mad climate change, as that is the case that most conservatives make. I have said numerous times, Sanders tried to make denying climate change a prosecutable offense Doug! They tried to pass Trillions of dollars of taxes or cap and trade which would negatively affect the poor. Can humans affect climate? Yes. They can. Your preface you say you’re not saying, then what are you saying and what is your goal by having people accept it? It simply cannot be that you just want common sense, given your urgency. What is your goal?
What actions should be taken? The reason conservatives speak up is to stop a plethora of bad actions from being taken. Why do you speak up? Just to be right that climate change happens and to say you’re on the side of science? Give me your reason. Right now you said this phrase to not look extreme, I know it nearly for certain, and I loathe that habit from fake moderates, so I’m going to expose it. If it was without that intent, I apologize, however, it must be nipped off in the bud if that was. I will not tolerate such behavior. Let’s see what ground you hold.
Debate me. Drop agent and polar. You know I’m superior on these matters, and I actually do line up with conservatives in politics, schools, academia (though they don’t control the school system they are there) and media.
“Your link then goes on to state that the reason 2/3rd of the scientists that do not express a position on global warming don’t is because it is established facts, fails to give any proof of this statement of fact. That simply is not true”
Also, your link then removes these 2/3rd’s from the 97%. In other words it doesn’t count them. It only counts ones with an expressed view point on the matter.
There is no opposition research funding for global warming. Of course 97% of funded research papers will express they agree with global warming. Then stating that because 97% of research positives agree with global warming (which is the study your link referenced) is blatantly bad metrics, and then to just say “well, we will throw out the other 2’3rd’s because they all didn’t say anything because they agree”. Well, what did the scientists have to say about that?
ht tp://ww w.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
They bluntly said when asked it was no an accurate representation of their work.
These are real reasons your metric doesn’t hold a candle to reality.
You are finding blanket statements and applying them incorrectly. This is not science you are doing Doug, it’s basically generalizing, misrepresenting, leaving out other parts, etc.
I go far further in scope than you, and it’s why I have zero fear debating you.
You cannot shame the facts. You cannot claim you are fact oriented while you ignore glaring holes with your data and methodology.
I noticed you also then prepared to call anyone against these facts basically insane if they claim there is a narrative being pushed.
Well, I’m sorry Doug, there is, and the fact that that sounds crazy doesn’t make it crazy.
Get over your bias, wake up, and knock it off.
And they didn’t even interview all the scientists.
So the scientists are saying the study doesn’t reflect their work. And you can find more examples if you look them up.
The study itself says it disregards 2/3’s just because you know it’s like totally obvious and they don’t need to state their position.
The scientists own papers constantly say their variables could very well be wrong. One, which I just showed, estimated basically a 400% increase in sea levels if their data was right, very soon. That was in 2012, and yet, in recent years we seem to have had somewhat of a pause. Keep in mind I’m stating that 150,000 years of study is stating that in order to be at the normal rate for where we are now we have to shoot up by 4 times in the near future, and we have had some down years. This is a huge discrepancy. They also admit in the NOAA if you read their work, another source, that due to putting together 4 measurements, land and data, that the margin of error is incredibly high. Other scientists have admitted they do not know how much carbon the ocean can hold. They cannot predict how much will change. Nevertheless they are pretty sure man has an affect.
That last part is ok for anyone to believe, and I would be ok with that with you, but it is important to emphasize the last part, (pretty sure) and not to then debate it as a 97% consensus that mankind is negatively affecting the world as a definitive fact through carbon release, mock others who don’t believe you, call them anti science, and engage in what is essentially modern day bigotry (though you don’t realize it IT IS what you’re doing Doug. And that is why I rail on you for it). There is little to no evidence of that idea occurring presently. The ocean rising has not occurred when looking at the last 150,000 years. The surface has not shot up, unless you count the ocean. All these are POTENTIAL disasters at this point.
“Please don’t proceed to enumerate in 15 paragraphs the minute positions on which you differ from conservative media while missing my point entirely.””
Also, did you really just tell me not to line item what is wrong with your 97% generalization comment?
So…You’re just ok with taking your link as it is, and not line itemizing what is wrong with it, and then comparing that to how the media reports on it, and where politicians stand in line with that?
Then how the bloody hell will you vote for this one way or the other, or become educated?
I don’t believe you even know the definition of the word you used, you were trying to make that an insult, and didn’t use the forethought to make it as much of a zinger as you thought.
This is very common in the youth, ah ha one liners and zingers. I don’t play that game.
It’s pointless. It does nothing. You’re darn right I enumerate my arguments, line item. You’re darn right the line item points matter.
Your concept did not fly over my head. My line items are to directly contradict your comment that 97% of scientists have a consensus, and that ““Literally, the rest of the world agrees that Climate Change is real and man-caused.”. I debated against the fact that there is a consensus, and I debated against line item issues with the 97% link you used, I used line item issues with the science itself because you have to understand those items to know why the political left is out of line on it, and I connected the dots.
Are you this simple minded?
I’m far outside of your league, and you’re not much different than Polar and Agent, albeit on the left.
I’m only on the right side of the spectrum by necessity I might add, and my positions prove this again and again.
You’re on the left side of the spectrum mostly due to arrogance, social justice, and lack of knowing any better. It’s time to come of age. You’re not even technically a democrat until you at least know and can argue against the other side, which you clearly cannot. I have debated liberals on this matter who countered each of what I said. They were still wrong, but it could be conceivable what they said was accurate from their point of view. In your case the level of simplicity to your arguments is astounding.
At some point in time, 97% of humans believed Earth was flat. OK; the belief may not have been stated and a survey taken of people. But the point stands that many prior beliefs were proven wrong, and any current scientific ‘belief’ that is currently not supported with facts and agreed upon methods of measurement and determination …is open to debate.
@TigreTen; So, you must, according to Al Gore, pay hyuuuuge carbon taxes to cover the cost of mankind’s evil action against Mother Nature, and to fund Al Gore’s lavish lifestyle of flying around in a private jet to conventions of hypocrites and hoaxer-mongers. And, to pay for his nearly ocean-front villa, which is less than his projected number of feet above the sea-level rise he erroneously and fraudulently predicted in his book over a decade ago.
PolarBeaRepeal – are you standing by your statements that (1) you can eliminate risk solely by mitigating it and that (2) coverage mitigates risk?
Rosenblatt, your word parsing has caught up to you again. Sorry dude, you speak a different language than people with Common Sense.
Come on Agent. You can’t be that narrow-focused that you just want to rail against me without actually thinking about we were talking about, right?
If someone works in Insurance and does not know the difference between MITIGATION OF RISK and TRANSFER OF RISK, that’s pretty important. It’s Insurance 101.
It’s like someone not knowing the difference between COMPREHENSIVE vs COLLISION coverage on an Auto, or ACTUAL CASH VALUE vs REPLACEMENT COST on a Home policy.
It’s quite important to know the different meanings those words have in order to actually help our clients.
Rosenblatt,
Nearly all agents are salespeople, not insurance professionals. They just want to know enough to sell the policy. I believe Agent’s post regarding insurance bear that out.
Some ‘Ron’s are trolls. Others are not. ALL generalizations are useless for the purpose of advancing knowledge, and SOME may be considered diversions down a rabbit hole.
@Rosenblatt: LPT.
@Rosenblatt: Financial reinsurance cover.
@Rosenblatt: If coverage doesn’t mitigate risk to the insured, why would they buy it? Your focus is on the wrong conceptual interpretation of risk. Define ‘risk’ for a clue as to what I referred.
“If coverage doesn’t mitigate risk to the insured, why would they buy it?”
Because coverage TRANSFERS risk! It does not MITIGATE risk!
Example:
I buy a car.
Without insurance, I am on the hook for any loss that occurs.
With insurance, that risk is transferred to my auto carrier.
Nothing in that transaction reduces the potential of me actually having an accident (which is what mitigation of risk actually means).
Two examples of risk mitigation would be me driving safely and not using my phone when I’m behind the wheel. None of those risk mitigation factors are transferred to my auto carrier by buying coverage. Only by people taking action can risk be mitigated.
Do you understand now? Do you want another example?
Better yet — how about you define what MITIGATION OF RISK means to you in the context you used it originally, and then provide me with an example of how you believe risk mitigation actually works??
You’ve just proven my point – that you don’t understand the concept of risk. I asked SEVERAL of you trolls to DEFINE risk and you continue to avoid that request – for good reason.
Do you want the definition of pure risk or speculative. Heck, here are both:
Pure Risk – the opportunity for loss but no opportunity for gain.
Speculative Risk – uncertainty about an event under consideration that could produce either a profit or a loss
One can mitigate the financial impact of a loss by transferring the risk using insurance coverage. However, that, by absolutely no means, mitigates the risk itself.
If what you meant was that coverage mitigates the financial impact of a loss, just say so. But that is not what you said.
Ron, I don’t know why you continue to play into his game. You know that he cannot admit defeat, equivocation, or mistakes on his part.
For example, now he will respond to me instead of you, then travel up the page to tell someone they are going down a rabbit hole for responding to him, capping off by demanding someone solve a riddle for him in which he has left out the necessary parts.
His obsession with rabbit holes makes me sick!
You should see his pantry at home: loaded to the brim with Nesquik chocolate milk powder and Cadbury Crème Eggs.
His favorite film Harvey gets him all hot and bothered.
He refuses to get cable or satellite and instead uses only rabbit ears. (He logs onto the internet to watch Fox News religiously)
He named his sons Roger and Peter.
@Ron; I read your reply and you didn’t explicitly define risk.
You used examples. One of your examples shows you believe risk is something it is not. Consult with a text on insurance that was written sometime after the turn of the century… i.e. the 20th Century.
I can state your error, but will not until you refer to a textbook definition of risk that is currently widely accepted. For example, you may have heard of The CAPM pricing model for financial securities. THAT model was widely held until it was proven to be flawed, and APM and arbitrage models replaced it. Yet, CAPM is still taught as a rudimentary model of how financial markets work as it is less complex than the currently accepted, reliable, fairly accurate and representative models of financial markets. In summary, you are using an outdated definition of ‘risk’ that leads to your inability to see how it is transfered, mitigated, etc. For more info and clues, refer to FASB 113.
Polar – how about YOU define what MITIGATION OF RISK means to you in the context you used it originally, and then provide us with an examples of how you believe risk mitigation actually works?
So, we can rail against the climate by re-working the global economy and spending gazillions to maybe impact the oncoming terror
OR
we can take a trip to Holland and learn how to actually deal with sea level variances.
Frankly, we need to do both. Anything else would be irresponsible and misguided.
I knew it. I asked what your goal was above and it was pretty clear this was your solution.
Doing so when it is not needed would be irresponsible and misguided. Bullying the world to buy into your beliefs to do so, and disregarding the other side, is irresponsible and misguided. Misrepresenting the consensus is misguided and irresponsible.
You’re wrong regarding how to approach climate change, and you are basically just an indoctrinated zealot, marching to the beat of drum.
You’re not a free thinker. You’re just some kid. Listen to the other side.
No need to bully the world, they already believe in science. Remember, every nation in the world excepting only Syria run by an evil dictator and the USA, run by idiots, has adopted the position that climate change is man-caused and have agreed to take steps to mitigate the growing problems before us today.
Literally every other country.
But no, THEY have it all wrong. Duped by those nefarious scientists who keep changing their formulas and rubbing their palms together while laughing maniacally. Thank goodness our mid-level ranked education system has produced such free thinkers that can dispute these lies.
Doug, I’m curious.
As specifically as you can, what is your desired outcome?
Again, as specifically as you can, how would you intend to achieve it and in what timeframe?
Did you see that rich liberals are selling their ocean front houses on both coasts? Did you see that real estate prices for ocean front homes are dropping like mad? No? That’s because neither is happening.
The NY Times reported recently that the greatest world-wide contributor to CO2 emissions was air conditioning.
How many Climate Change zealots have given up air conditioning? My guess: zero.
All talk. No Walk. We are all Climate Change Deniers now, aren’t we? Just some are Big Talkers and others are not. (Al Gore’s first movie said we had only 10 years to act, which gave us until 2017. In the famous words of Prince, “oops, out of time. . .”)
And it’s widely known that cigarettes cause cancer, yet many Doctors still smoke. You can’t just say “it’s not true because people haven’t changed their behavior.”
In this case you actually can. If a prominent person who believed in rising oceans lived on the coast it is a good indicator they are not worried about it. Scientists especially can live anywhere. My brother lived in WA while working with telescopes in HI remotely, all the scientists who were doing the research were located in CA and WA. They all operated remotely and got their ideas together in emails and through voice chat. You’re not involved in this community nor do you have any connections. When you speak of it, you make a doctors smoking analogy because you don’t have real world examples to quote. This is also why you quote the worst science on it, whereas I dive into the science of what I’m quoting. On this matter my brother is constantly annoyed at how much people misrepresent the science community. He has had debates with climate change advocates, and he agrees mostly with what I’ve said. Climate change occurs, the level of man’s interference may well make little difference, and the effort needed to change it if so, would result in mass death of the human species due to one major factor: Energy requirements / Energy sources. Regardless of “green energy” his primary concern with what will destroy the human race or harm us is: Energy/Petroleum. Those are what we should be concerned on. I could go further, but it’s not on point. What is on point is he has 1000 times the experience you do, and his IQ is 150, and he is a post grad, with physics, plasma physics, computer sciences, advanced multi variable calculus, meteorology, and several other expertise within his belt. I do not exaggerate that this man is above the top 1% of the population on these matters. He was obsessed with it since he was 10, it is no coincidence he got into such work. It is not direct climate work, but he knows the science behind it and works with the scientists who study it quite often.
Also, doctors who smoke is not a good example at all. There is a huge urge to smoke once you start, it’s known to be hard to stop. Is there a nicotine style effect at work here? He just can’t help it right?
How about you let me review your brother’s data and methodology and analysis so we can debate actual items instead of me just having to take your word about what he claims?
Point me to one of his studies or articles on the subject so I can review and make my own decisions if he’s a reputable source on the matter.
I refuse to believe what you say he told you SOLELY because you post that he has a high IQ and a bunch of degrees. Facts me please, bob.
His studies by the way have mostly pertained to anti matter, plasma, meteorology, and more physics based work. I mentioned a telescope in HI. You probably didn’t do the math on this.
Also, I’m not giving you his name regardless. I am not that dumb. I know what happens with regards to that type of info, and I have personally witnessed people on your side use that info.
My last name is going to remain private.
Bob,
The Trump administration just put out a report TODAY stating that there is no other credible alternative explanation for global warming except for it being man-caused.
Is the Trump administration wrong about this?
Bob,
I too have a super genius brother. He works on spaceships with microscopes and lasers and all sorts of cool gadgets. He says that the moon is in fact made of cheese.
Naturally, I can’t support his claims with any sort of verifiable data, mind you, and almost every other scientist who works in his field tells him that he is wrong, but you should really believe him because he IS real and IS a super genius.
LOL. In other news, even supervillian Syria just signed the Paris Accords leaving just America as the lone “smart” country in the world who doesn’t believe in the scam of climate change…except when they do (see my post above)
PS: Have I told you what my brother’s IQ is in this post yet?
I have pointed you to numerous studies you have not gone over.
“Point me to one of his studies or articles on the subject so I can review and make my own decisions if he’s a reputable source on the matter. ”
I never said he published articles, and in fact, very few scientists do on this matter. As per above I pointed out in one of the consensus publication matters, 79 scientists made over half the published work on the matter stating global warming was real. This does not demonstrate consensus.
I brought up the science community because you and Doug claim there is a 97% consensus. You won’t say of what, and when I define what it isn’t, you then say it’s on me to define your words. No. It’s not. Then often you guys fall back to “I’m just saying man affects climate”. No. You’re not. You’re saying 97% of scientists believe we should do this:
“So, we can rail against the climate by re-working the global economy and spending gazillions to maybe impact the oncoming terror”
And you have not proven that we need to do that, or there is a consensus we need to re work the global economy or there will be doom. Doug tried to back track and say to me that he wasn’t saying there would be extreme things, if there aren’t, why would he agree it would be the right thing to do to re work the entire world economy?
Also, you said “I refuse to believe what you say he told you SOLELY because you post that he has a high IQ and a bunch of degrees. Facts me please, bob.”
I REFUSE and so do other conservatives here, to believe based on what others say about the scientific consensus, especially when I can prove numerous authors say their work is misrepresented by those consensus surveys.
I have given facts on the matter, you ignore them.
Do you deny what I’ve already said to Doug in several posts? Read those. There are studies to go with them, but this site actually emailed me about trying to get those studies to post here, they don’t want the links on the site.
I already gave the 400% one, is that not wildly incorrect and does it not show what I said? Consensus of what? The data and theory is exactly that, and it’s absolutely terrible. We might have a 400% increase in the coast line. Maybe. We’re supposed to. Maybe.
What do you believe? You outline it. What are the factors? How much global warming is man made? What action should be taken?
You keep saying people won’t believe science. NO! The belief, if you respected the other side instead of acting like a punk, would be they don’t believe that political measures and governmental measures are needed for climate change, nor that man made climate change has any large affect on the world that needs to affect the world economy to be altered, nor that it even could be. Do you disagree with any of these points, and if so, use the metrics as to why, and how much you believe we can stop.
The one against science is you! This is nonsense, and virtue signaling at it’s best. I get it, due to your arrogance you think you want to save the world, everyone else wants to deny science and facts, and you’re the hero.
YOU ARE NOT THE HERO. You’re the villain. You need to realize this, and respect the anti global warming crowd, instead of labeling them as basically “agent” and “polar” folks who know nothing.
I have reviewed your links many MANY times and we’ve had discussions about what I thought were deficiencies with the majority of your citations.
I stopped reading the rest of your reply since you started off with such a blatant and bold faced lie.
I will start to take you seriously again if you post honestly and stop making things up about me or what I’ve said, reviewed, argued, etc.
cue 15 paragraph screed again.
Have fun, I stopped reading them. Even Trump’s administration agrees that there is no other alternative explanation for global climate change.
Size is needed to direct your commentary and to put in thought.
If you prefer cliché one liners go for it.
I’m done debating on this article regardless. It was pretty clear you never read substantiated evidence as it is, considering how you digested your last source, and so far the only links you have given are regarding supposed scientific consensus.
The scientific consensus is being misrepresented. It’s that simple. I gave several article regarding warming, and you have ignored them. I’ve gone over problems with the data, you’ve ignored it, or others here then said those scientists were paid shills.
I don’t have time for this style of debate.
All I can say is you clearly do not respect the side who is against the global warming hype, and it’s not ok. You’re not the virtuous hero, you’re the villain.
Heard the latest Confused Global Warming Hoaxer? Massive, massive Cold on way to freeze up all of the northern part of the country. Hard to melt the Polar Cap under that kind of cold.