Here we have yet another climate change article which covers several points of view. It touches on insurance issues, as is to be expected on IJ. But it favors the ‘pro’ view on Climate Change that implies humankind has a significant impact on an ongoing natural phenomena without mentioning the fact there is no agreed upon normal/ average temperature of Earth, nor any published (to my knowledge) pace of he change expected during any sizeable, credible time period.
It certainly takes the ‘pro’ view in the paragraph toward the end wherein US insurers inertia on the matter is due to ‘politicization’ of the issue. In truth, politicization of the issue in the US is due to the lack of specific evidence, no agreement among reasonable people over the ‘average / normal’ temperature or the proper way to measure the significance of man’s influence, and most important, the freedom of speech rights of Americans that other citizens of the Earth do not all enjoy. So, the author uses ‘politicization’ aimed at the ‘con’ view by Americans exercising their right to think and speak freely.
Saw nothing in the article that indicated “it favors the ‘pro’ view on Climate Change that implies humankind has a significant impact”. Come-on, you can do better than that.
You are again misrepresenting the consensus and what they say.
You also rarely take up the debate as to the data itself, and instead quote consensus studies. Many of which I have debunked by showing scientists openly stating the consensus studies are misrepresenting their study conclusion.
There is not a scientific consensus as to the impact level of man made climate change, only that they can affect it.
The level is widely debated, and, many scientists have said that the margin of error could make it zero, by their own studies.
The NOAA’s flaw is they relied on testing that was proven to be unreliable, and they poorly monitored and dealt with temperature monitoring even when they tried to fix it. They applied an equation to adjust for the margin of error prior to when there was any applicable data world wide or reliable data. This means their oceanic temperatures have a huge margin of error, and then they combined that with their earth surface temperatures. Even now when you google “surface temperatures” every single link that comes up does not list just “earth” surface temperatures, they include “surface land and ocean”. This is not an opinion, it is a fact, and it is how they say the earth is warming to crazy amounts. People have rightly contested the NOAA data, and the fact that there was intentional misleading (and this is not an opinion, it is a fact, climategate is real) their motives are in question and their data is unreliable.
You have not presented definitive data of global warming.
If you did, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, you have not.
Instead you mock disbelievers. You’re a punk, a brat, and the equivalent of a Nazi, not those on the right who seek to stop that behavior.
your argument becomes completely null and void when you equate someone with whom you disagree as a Nazi. Bob, you seem like an intelligent person but you’re better than that. Rise above it.
In general (not solely directed to you, Bob), the blaming the other side for everything has to stop, as does justifying and tolerating poor behavior you would have considered abhorrent because “the other side does / did it.” Let it stop with you.
November 14, 2017 at 1:10 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
No, I’m stating exactly what the data shows. You’ve criticized it, misstated what the specific studies showed, proving you haven’t read them, and then used that as “proof” I was a liar, which you proceeded to repeat for months. Scram, lying, uninformed, uneducated, Bob. Nobody wants to deal with you aside grin Yogi and Agent 2 real geniuses.
November 13, 2017 at 6:46 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
And of course, you’re misrepresenting the science as well.
SW, he can explain it to you, but he can’t make you understand it. Common, you can do better than that. By the way, the sea is not encroaching into Miami streets now so you are safe in your safe space.
Very slanted article based on a failed theory of man made Global Warming. This is every month’s business from IJ. The science is far from being settled and I don’t care how many times they blame man, the Polar Ice Caps are still there and growing and your ice berg is not melting.
The climate has always changed, is changing now and will always change-even, after mankind has been extinguished from this planet. Seriously, can we focus on real insurance issues here like the cost of risk, financial and claims problems, agent and broker situations without going “into the weeds” of these political dealings?
The first two posts about this matter are discussing something that wasn’t even brought up in the article – man’s potential influence on the climate. The post clearly did not discuss WHY the climate is changing, did not imply what’s causing it, just stated the fact that it is changing.
Let’s put aside what may be causing the change just for a moment — you two clearly agree that the climate is changing. Great.
Do you agree that the Insurance Industry needs to prepare for the impact of the changing climate accordingly?
The slant of the article is apparent by the suggestion that the insurance industry needs to prepare for climate change. Yet, the change may be toward COOLER times. Why the need to prepare regardless of the direction of the change? Where is the PROOF that the change will be toward higher temps on Earth?
If you don’t see the bias, you are either similarly biased or oblivious to it (the bias).
we already covered this four times, but I’ll post again and hopefully you’ll stop spouting that nonsense
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
November 13, 2017 at 4:22 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
9
Congratulations Confused, you get troll of the month. Not a lick of sense, but you do like to argue for arguments sake. You are wrong and we know it, but we will let you rant on in your Gore belief system.
November 13, 2017 at 4:43 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
8
1
What a devastating rebuttal – you sure showed me that my data was wrong solely based on insults (end sarcasm)
November 13, 2017 at 5:26 pm
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
9
0
Most of the arguments I’ve read here are opinions that are rooted more in political viewpoints than real science. None of us can know for sure what will happen to the climate and whether or not we effect it. But I always think of what happens on a small scale and wonder if it happens to the planet on a large scale. For example, the forecasted low for tonight in Atlanta is 42 degrees but in Douglasville (30 miles away) the low is 39. The elevation and latitude is about the same. It’s probably not surprising to anyone that Atlanta would be warmer – more concrete (retains heat), more people & vehicles, more activity & structures, etc. Seems like the planet would follow the same pattern but of course I am sure Polar has a good scientific, non political reason why this would not be true.
November 13, 2017 at 6:25 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
9
I forgot to mention that the measurements of sea levels after 2000 posted by Confused included only days when Al Gore waded in the ocean at the time the measurements were taken.
November 13, 2017 at 6:27 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
Confused, liberals agree with science and that climate change is creating rising sea levels; modern conservatism is nothing but not wanting to pay taxes, racism, and being against liberals, so their position is that the sea is falling. It’s not even worth reading 99% of their moronic nonsense, except for a laugh.
As an example; liberals are against sexual abuse of minors, so this week conservatives are defending an accused serial sexual abuser of minors because he’s a conservative. Although, for some here who have been in a similar spot and made similar arguments in the past, their defense is consistent at least.
November 13, 2017 at 6:31 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
“we already covered this four times, but I’ll post again and hopefully you’ll stop spouting that nonsense
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”
Yes we did, and I went further back than you did. If you want to focus on an idiotic argument that’s your flaw.
Also, don’t talk like that to Agent.
“Remember kids:
CLIMATE = long term
WEATHER = short term”
This is no different than saying swear words, it is your method of dehumanizing him. Just call him wrong, don’t call him a degrading level of fool that cannot understand basic math basically. He can, he may have weakness here but that is not so you can then kick him in the face, unless you want me to do the same to you, which is why I get on you and Ron on this. The way you treat Agent and conservatives is not ok.
November 13, 2017 at 6:37 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
In other words if you want to know what my link showed:
It showed that during times of warming (of which we have gone through many) the bands for sea level rising show we should be going up 400% faster than we are now. I’m guessing the reason behind this is they are using the model of warming that the NOAA does, which is highly flawed. I would have to re go through the study to find out for certain, but if it looks like a duck, it probably is. We are talking the study that went from thousands of years.
I have similarly shown studies that have shown that our temperatures go well into our bands of cooling and warming over I believe the last chart was 6500 years. Which is interesting for a few reasons:
According to most studies we are putting out more carbon than any time by a longshot in that 6500 range, yet there are time periods in which it was warmer, and, more importantly, the first half of the carbon increases did not have an equal effect to the second half, a big issue people talk about a lot. Some scientists call this the “pause” it depends on who you’re talking too. When Cruz was talking with climate folks about it, they thought that was the pause, rather than the last 15 years of surface temps excluding ocean.
There are tons of studies on this if you bothered to look at them instead of consensus studies.
The last time you debated you had mentioned that with my logic who should we trust?
And my commentary was I will trust numbers that make sense which I can review. And If I cannot review the numbers, I won’t trust it. You also made it clear you were ok with believing the positive on something, as being true, without trustworthy numbers, as if it was on me to prove global warming wasn’t happening.
Ok, well here we go:
Prove how much global warming is man made, prove how much we will warm in the next decade, and prove we have been disastrous or largely involved in it. Give me your numbers, not a survey.
You can’t. I have given you many.
November 14, 2017 at 8:59 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Bob – I think you may be missing my point. I’m not arguing if man is or is not the reason the climate is changing.
hat’s why I specifically wrote “Let’s put aside what may be causing the change just for a moment” above
I’m arguing that because we work in the Insurance Industry, due to Fundamental Risk, us folks in Insurance need to prepare for the change regardless of which direction the temp’s go.
Let’s try this again. Let’s completely ignore the driver(s) of the change in the climate. I have two simple questions for you and I promise there’s no “gotcha” intent here. In fact, if you simply reply “yes” or “no” to the questions I won’t even post a reply besides “thank you.”
Regardless of the cause(s), and regardless of what direction the temp’s may be headed….
(1) Do you believe the climate is changing?
(2) If yes, do you think the Insurance Industry needs to prepare for whatever impact may occur due to the change in climate?
That’s all I’m saying. No ulterior motive here. No “gotcha!” intent. No need for me to ask further questions if you answer concisely as yes or no.
November 14, 2017 at 1:15 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
Bob’s argument is now that consensus studies by experts are worse than specific, cherry-picked studies that confirm his beliefs, which in this case have ALWAYS been disproven or will be. He’s anti-science, anti-intellectual, and interested in nothing but arguing and pushing his predetermined beliefs which cannot and will not ever change, until Fox and Breitbart update his opinions for him, just ignore him.
November 13, 2017 at 6:04 pm
The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
@Rosenblatt; Googl-ing doesn’t provide the answers; it has been shown, not ‘proven’, to be biased in presenting some items atop the search results and other things far down the list, out of sight of all but the most determined to learn the facts.
I understand Fundamental Risk, but the authors of the article do not present that premise. They assume one side of the debate is truth and move forward from that point.
Will you tell everyone how to prevent climate change? Give us the steps and how much time will elapse until the effects are observable, if at all?
Night, the other countries of the world who signed on to Paris accords want the US to do all the heavy lifting on Climate Change clean up. Trillions to be spent to change the temperature 1/10th of a degree over 20 years. Not much bang for the buck, is it? These countries won’t even contribute their “fair” share on defense to NATO. Why would we expect them to pay for the Climate Change hoax?
November 13, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
Comments in the article come from from Ceres, a “sustainability advocacy group” and “Climate Wise”. Pretty balanced so far, wouldn’t you say?
Climate Wise apparently thinks the size of premiums will cause people to opt for mitigation instead. So maybe the risks are manageable after all.
Warren Buffett thinks the opposite of the doomsayers quoted in the article. He thinks Climate Change will be good for his business and that people will buy MORE insurance, not less. So maybe Climate Change won’t be so horrible after all and the risks are manageable. (Don’t look for an article like that in the press, let alone the Insurance Journal.) Warren Buffett has a pretty good track record when risking his own money, instead of just talking about it, and he is no knee-jerk climate denier, by the way.
The predictable, simplistic shot at Trump was to be expected. A fair reporting on everything Trump has said on Climate Change might make him seem more like Barack Obama, who recently said science is not clear on what to do about Climate Change. Which happens to be true.
A lot of what you wrote makes sense. Buffet has a good, but not perfect record on stocks. But what about his railroad business? With the XL pipeline and other related projects restarted, it isn’t as lucrative as he thought it would be when he jumped in years ago.
The key takeaway from your post is that no one knows, but those who are pushing the hoax that man can significantly affect climate are certainly not being forthright.
He thinks it will be good for insurance and investors, not society, and certainly not the people all over the world who will be hammered and killed by it. If you pass massive externalities onto others you increase profits for investors.
Trump thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax while Obama thinks it’s unknown how, or even if, science can deal with the problem, which he acknowledges exists, like almost 100% of all published climate science by climate scientists. It’s misleading or disingenuous to pretend they are in near agreement on the topic.
President Obama said many times that Climate Change was “settled science”. It is disingenuous and misleading to make such a statement when so much uncertainty exists.
Science is never settled. Check the number of studies that continue around the subject of Climate Change. If the science is “settled”, why so many outstanding questions?
Prediction: parsing of the science to find “settled” aspects that can defend Obama’s blanket, misleading statement which every honest person knows was intended to avoid debating policy proposals.
So why did Obama try to negotiate with the Chinese on Climate Change when they have the worst pollution along with India in the world. At the end of the meeting, Obama said the US would be compliant by 2020. China said fine, we will “start” our Climate Change program in 2030. Hmm, didn’t sound too serious to me.
Geez I wonder. Maybe to decrease their pollution. Only an idiot wouldn’t see this. Also, per capita, the US has significantly higher carbon emissions than either of those countries.
Stop trying to couch it, or create all this nonsense, BS, pretend science, fake data, lies, and made up “facts,” be honest, and say you don’t care about climate change. At least that’s honest.
UW, quit posting before you hurt yourself. The US has much cleaner air than China or India. By the way, 2030 is 13 years away before China even starts. Al Gore needs to make a visit to China and demand they start now. Chances are, he will get a deaf ear on his rants.
November 16, 2017 at 6:39 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
You are so chronically uninformed it’s demoralizing to any thinking person. China has already started meeting their goals under the Paris Accords. The goal is to meet certain benchmarks by 2030,not to start then. Literally everything you think or say is wrong. It’s unreal.
November 15, 2017 at 1:47 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
So, if Jjjina and India jumped off a bridge, would you? Do you prefer to lead by example or follow? Hey, America first, right?
UW, I am glad you are demoralized. By the way, better get used to the Polar Vortex coming down from Canada. Predictions are for a very severe cold winter, especially in the northern blue states. This is just the start of the Global Cooling period that has been predicted for a while now.
November 17, 2017 at 6:10 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Is RI recommending insurance coverage based on the risks associated with a cooling climate, or just you?
November 13, 2017 at 2:41 pm
Susan says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
Regardless of whether you believe in climate change, or if you do, if mankind is the cause, the bigger point is that major weather disasters are happening and we need, as a nation, to become more resilient. 2017 brought horrible hurricanes, fires, floods, tornadoes and a record hail season (driving billions and billions in damage.) Why these bad storms happen is less important that making sure we can defend against them if or when they do. We need to locate and build properties to far more resilient standards and address the real weather risks they face today, faced 3 decades ago, and still will face 20 years from now, regardless of climate change.
As a property loss prevention specialist, I agree entirely with Susan. As the headline of the story indicates, “growing climate risk may be impossible to model…”
So, what did the industry do BEFORE modeling was available??? Site inspections by field representatives and (human) analysis of the risk, along with suggestions / recommendations for mitigating the risk, were employed extensively. So, if it can’t be modeled, maybe the risk can be (humanly) analyzed, evaluated and priced appropriately with proper credits for risk abatement given.
Of course, that would require hiring and training personnel to replace the professionals who were “eliminated” from the profession over the past 40 years (sour grapes).
When evaluating flood risks for the future, perhaps the 1,000 year flood levels should be considered a bench mark for the application of loss preventative measures. Too drastic??? Maybe the 500 yr. flood plain should be used – you guys who are smarter than me can figure that out.
I side with the Trump Administration in regards to climate change. His cabinet and different departments are filled with absolute titans of industry and many respected scientists.
I think Informed Voter was posting the article to show that the report upheld the theory that man is contributing to Climate Change and that the global temperatures are increasing. I mean, that’s what the report says after all in many different ways:
“Formal detection and attribution studies for the period 1951 to 2010 find that the observed global mean surface temperature warming lies in the middle of the range of likely human contributions to warming over that same period. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Over the last century, there are no alternative explanations supported by the evidence that are either credible or that can contribute more than marginally to the observed patterns. There is no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of and the pattern of global warming observed over the industrial era”
bob, Agent, Yogi and anyone else can throw every possible scenario they want against the wall to see what sticks, but the fact remains:
-The vast, vast majority of scientists agree. (detractors for some reason count scientists who do not comment on climate chage as being on the side of disbelievers for some reason)
-Every single country in the world except America has an international agreement on the books to mitigate pollution and reduce CO2 output with the express purpose of reducing our destructive impact on the environment.
-Trump’s own administration, as the link above demonstrates, states that there is no other credible explanation or reason for warming trends other than to factors from man-made causes. Every “credible sounding” explanation given by climate science deniers has been shown to be without scientific merit.
In the past, they have used these arguments as the basis for why the world would be warming currently, conveniently leaving off the most obvious of all the answers:
-Sunspots (Actually result in lower surface temperature on the sun)
-solar flares and general energy output variations from the sun (Solar Maximum happens every 11 years or so. Scientists demonstrate that it does in fact have an effect, albeit a very small one. Scientists account for solar variations data in their calculations already)
-volcanic eruptions (Can cause global temperature changes depending on the severity of the eruption, however nothing long-term)
-Earth’s proximity to the sun and tilt on axis. (Actually shown to have caused a slight decrease in temp over the past few thousand years.)
-Space Alien Interference (maybe they have some sort of heating death ray? Perhaps?
Or…you know, you could go the logical route and see the billions of tons of CO2 that have been put into the atmosphere as a direct result of burning fossil fuels and deforestation, which sequesters carbon as long as the trees stay alive. CO2 has been shown to cause warming due to the way it absorbs infra-red heat from the earth’s surface, making that heat unable to escape the atmosphere. Kind of like a greenhouse…which is why they give it such a clever name. lol
If you want to doubt the scientists who have studied and concluded about thousands of peer-reviewed studies demonstrating an obvious cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and rising global temperatures, be my guest. But don’t be surprised when we continue to think of you all as being deliberately ignorant.
Personally, I am going to side with Trump’s EPA on this one, too. They seem to have thought this out really well.
I love the certainty of the Climate Change zealots when in fact, the reports being cited express a great deal of uncertainty. See the quotes you cite:
IPCC: “extremely likely” is not certainty. “Dominant cause” is not the only cause. “Likely human contributions” leaves a whole lot of wiggle room for other contributions.
And then we get to the real problem, what to do about it. And this is where science is at a dead end. The Paris Climate Accord would only reduce CO2 production over the next 30 years by 10% if every country meets their unenforceable goals.
Al Gore’s movie in 2007 said we only had 10 years to address the issue. Now China will only start to do something about it in 2030, according to the Paris Climate Acord.
The NY Times reported that the biggest contributor to CO2 production world wide is air conditioning.
Honesty Test: Which of you believers have given up air conditioning? Sure you have.
The report said it’s Extremely Likely. That’s 95% certainty. I know that’s not 100% certainty, but you can’t get much better than that (besides Virtually Certain which is 98%).
“For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence”
That statement clearly does not imply a “great deal of uncertainty” either.
Intellectually honest people don’t make things up. NO WHERE is “Extremely Likely” given a mathematical correlation, let alone “95%”.
Because they believe (key word) man made contributions are the cause of the warming does not make it certain that the oceans are going to destroy everything.
And more importantly, you ignore the most important point I made: science has given us NO politically acceptable way to stop Climate Change. You don’t want your standard of living to go down, just like me. And poor people around the world want what you and I have. So the world makes silly Paris Climate Acord non-agreements and you jump up and down when logic says it is pointless anyway.
You have revealed yourself as not serious about Climate Change, as you are unwilling to talk about the truth.
It is very unsettled science, to coin a phrase. Denying this is laughable.
I did not make that up, Craig. There are tons of websites that can back this up if you google it and don’t want to take my word for it, but here’s what the IPCC’s likelihood scale actually means:
Virtually certain: 99 to 100 per cent probability
Extremely likely: Over 95 per cent
Very likely: Above 90 per cent
Likely: Above 66 per cent
More likely than not: 50 per cent and above
About as likely as not: Between 33 and 66 per cent
Unlikely: Zero to 33 per cent
Very unlikely: Zero to 10 per cent
Extremely unlikely: Zero to five per cent
Moving on from your blatantly false statement that I just made up that Extremely Likely = 95%…okay, let’s talk about how we can curb Climate Change.
1) Reduction in fossil fuels that emit CO2
2) Increased use of renewable energy which produces less CO2 than fossil fuels
3) Purchase energy efficient appliances (pay attention to the yellow sticker they put on those appliances!)
4) Retrofit shower heads to use less water (would only matter if you take warm showers, not cold ones)
5) Carpool
6) Don’t buy cars with 15MPH highway ratings
There are 6 really easy ways for people to reduce their carbon footprint without upending their lives and those options are not so cost prohibitive that the average person would be unable to undertake those actions.
Why are you here, if only to mock and distort posts while missing the meaning of literally everything?
You, Agent, Yogi, and bob should rename yourselves Legion, because you all post the same (minus bob posting multi-page screeds answering what he had for breakfast this morning)
November 17, 2017 at 3:43 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Devastating reply! You sure proved (1) you were right that I made up the 95% confidence level and (2) I couldn’t provide any low-cost options to help slow down the planet’s increasing temperatures. Great debate, Craig. I look forward to reading more of your insightful posts in the future. (end sarcasm)
November 21, 2017 at 1:47 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Rosenblatt, you have confidence in the wrong people. Disgraced scientists and Al Gore are not people that inspire confidence. By the way, his second movie has been a huge dud so the American people have caught on to the Climate Change Hoax.
Here we have yet another climate change article which covers several points of view. It touches on insurance issues, as is to be expected on IJ. But it favors the ‘pro’ view on Climate Change that implies humankind has a significant impact on an ongoing natural phenomena without mentioning the fact there is no agreed upon normal/ average temperature of Earth, nor any published (to my knowledge) pace of he change expected during any sizeable, credible time period.
It certainly takes the ‘pro’ view in the paragraph toward the end wherein US insurers inertia on the matter is due to ‘politicization’ of the issue. In truth, politicization of the issue in the US is due to the lack of specific evidence, no agreement among reasonable people over the ‘average / normal’ temperature or the proper way to measure the significance of man’s influence, and most important, the freedom of speech rights of Americans that other citizens of the Earth do not all enjoy. So, the author uses ‘politicization’ aimed at the ‘con’ view by Americans exercising their right to think and speak freely.
Saw nothing in the article that indicated “it favors the ‘pro’ view on Climate Change that implies humankind has a significant impact”. Come-on, you can do better than that.
re-read the 1st paragraph, with an open mind.
Read the headline alone. The entire premise that we have a “growing” climate risk is a farce.
It should favor the pro-view, that’s what almost 100% of climate scientists and published work has determined and confirmed as the science consensus.
You are again misrepresenting the consensus and what they say.
You also rarely take up the debate as to the data itself, and instead quote consensus studies. Many of which I have debunked by showing scientists openly stating the consensus studies are misrepresenting their study conclusion.
There is not a scientific consensus as to the impact level of man made climate change, only that they can affect it.
The level is widely debated, and, many scientists have said that the margin of error could make it zero, by their own studies.
The NOAA’s flaw is they relied on testing that was proven to be unreliable, and they poorly monitored and dealt with temperature monitoring even when they tried to fix it. They applied an equation to adjust for the margin of error prior to when there was any applicable data world wide or reliable data. This means their oceanic temperatures have a huge margin of error, and then they combined that with their earth surface temperatures. Even now when you google “surface temperatures” every single link that comes up does not list just “earth” surface temperatures, they include “surface land and ocean”. This is not an opinion, it is a fact, and it is how they say the earth is warming to crazy amounts. People have rightly contested the NOAA data, and the fact that there was intentional misleading (and this is not an opinion, it is a fact, climategate is real) their motives are in question and their data is unreliable.
You have not presented definitive data of global warming.
If you did, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, you have not.
Instead you mock disbelievers. You’re a punk, a brat, and the equivalent of a Nazi, not those on the right who seek to stop that behavior.
your argument becomes completely null and void when you equate someone with whom you disagree as a Nazi. Bob, you seem like an intelligent person but you’re better than that. Rise above it.
In general (not solely directed to you, Bob), the blaming the other side for everything has to stop, as does justifying and tolerating poor behavior you would have considered abhorrent because “the other side does / did it.” Let it stop with you.
No, I’m stating exactly what the data shows. You’ve criticized it, misstated what the specific studies showed, proving you haven’t read them, and then used that as “proof” I was a liar, which you proceeded to repeat for months. Scram, lying, uninformed, uneducated, Bob. Nobody wants to deal with you aside grin Yogi and Agent 2 real geniuses.
And of course, you’re misrepresenting the science as well.
SW, he can explain it to you, but he can’t make you understand it. Common, you can do better than that. By the way, the sea is not encroaching into Miami streets now so you are safe in your safe space.
Very slanted article based on a failed theory of man made Global Warming. This is every month’s business from IJ. The science is far from being settled and I don’t care how many times they blame man, the Polar Ice Caps are still there and growing and your ice berg is not melting.
The climate has always changed, is changing now and will always change-even, after mankind has been extinguished from this planet. Seriously, can we focus on real insurance issues here like the cost of risk, financial and claims problems, agent and broker situations without going “into the weeds” of these political dealings?
The first two posts about this matter are discussing something that wasn’t even brought up in the article – man’s potential influence on the climate. The post clearly did not discuss WHY the climate is changing, did not imply what’s causing it, just stated the fact that it is changing.
Let’s put aside what may be causing the change just for a moment — you two clearly agree that the climate is changing. Great.
Do you agree that the Insurance Industry needs to prepare for the impact of the changing climate accordingly?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“Why the need to prepare regardless of the direction of the change?”
Google “Fundamental Risk” to get the answer to this question.
Google the NASA report on receding seas and the new cooling period we are entering.
we already covered this four times, but I’ll post again and hopefully you’ll stop spouting that nonsense
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
Congratulations Confused, you get troll of the month. Not a lick of sense, but you do like to argue for arguments sake. You are wrong and we know it, but we will let you rant on in your Gore belief system.
What a devastating rebuttal – you sure showed me that my data was wrong solely based on insults (end sarcasm)
Most of the arguments I’ve read here are opinions that are rooted more in political viewpoints than real science. None of us can know for sure what will happen to the climate and whether or not we effect it. But I always think of what happens on a small scale and wonder if it happens to the planet on a large scale. For example, the forecasted low for tonight in Atlanta is 42 degrees but in Douglasville (30 miles away) the low is 39. The elevation and latitude is about the same. It’s probably not surprising to anyone that Atlanta would be warmer – more concrete (retains heat), more people & vehicles, more activity & structures, etc. Seems like the planet would follow the same pattern but of course I am sure Polar has a good scientific, non political reason why this would not be true.
I forgot to mention that the measurements of sea levels after 2000 posted by Confused included only days when Al Gore waded in the ocean at the time the measurements were taken.
Confused, liberals agree with science and that climate change is creating rising sea levels; modern conservatism is nothing but not wanting to pay taxes, racism, and being against liberals, so their position is that the sea is falling. It’s not even worth reading 99% of their moronic nonsense, except for a laugh.
As an example; liberals are against sexual abuse of minors, so this week conservatives are defending an accused serial sexual abuser of minors because he’s a conservative. Although, for some here who have been in a similar spot and made similar arguments in the past, their defense is consistent at least.
“we already covered this four times, but I’ll post again and hopefully you’ll stop spouting that nonsense
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”
Yes we did, and I went further back than you did. If you want to focus on an idiotic argument that’s your flaw.
Also, don’t talk like that to Agent.
“Remember kids:
CLIMATE = long term
WEATHER = short term”
This is no different than saying swear words, it is your method of dehumanizing him. Just call him wrong, don’t call him a degrading level of fool that cannot understand basic math basically. He can, he may have weakness here but that is not so you can then kick him in the face, unless you want me to do the same to you, which is why I get on you and Ron on this. The way you treat Agent and conservatives is not ok.
In other words if you want to know what my link showed:
It showed that during times of warming (of which we have gone through many) the bands for sea level rising show we should be going up 400% faster than we are now. I’m guessing the reason behind this is they are using the model of warming that the NOAA does, which is highly flawed. I would have to re go through the study to find out for certain, but if it looks like a duck, it probably is. We are talking the study that went from thousands of years.
I have similarly shown studies that have shown that our temperatures go well into our bands of cooling and warming over I believe the last chart was 6500 years. Which is interesting for a few reasons:
According to most studies we are putting out more carbon than any time by a longshot in that 6500 range, yet there are time periods in which it was warmer, and, more importantly, the first half of the carbon increases did not have an equal effect to the second half, a big issue people talk about a lot. Some scientists call this the “pause” it depends on who you’re talking too. When Cruz was talking with climate folks about it, they thought that was the pause, rather than the last 15 years of surface temps excluding ocean.
There are tons of studies on this if you bothered to look at them instead of consensus studies.
The last time you debated you had mentioned that with my logic who should we trust?
And my commentary was I will trust numbers that make sense which I can review. And If I cannot review the numbers, I won’t trust it. You also made it clear you were ok with believing the positive on something, as being true, without trustworthy numbers, as if it was on me to prove global warming wasn’t happening.
Ok, well here we go:
Prove how much global warming is man made, prove how much we will warm in the next decade, and prove we have been disastrous or largely involved in it. Give me your numbers, not a survey.
You can’t. I have given you many.
Bob – I think you may be missing my point. I’m not arguing if man is or is not the reason the climate is changing.
hat’s why I specifically wrote “Let’s put aside what may be causing the change just for a moment” above
I’m arguing that because we work in the Insurance Industry, due to Fundamental Risk, us folks in Insurance need to prepare for the change regardless of which direction the temp’s go.
Let’s try this again. Let’s completely ignore the driver(s) of the change in the climate. I have two simple questions for you and I promise there’s no “gotcha” intent here. In fact, if you simply reply “yes” or “no” to the questions I won’t even post a reply besides “thank you.”
Regardless of the cause(s), and regardless of what direction the temp’s may be headed….
(1) Do you believe the climate is changing?
(2) If yes, do you think the Insurance Industry needs to prepare for whatever impact may occur due to the change in climate?
That’s all I’m saying. No ulterior motive here. No “gotcha!” intent. No need for me to ask further questions if you answer concisely as yes or no.
Bob’s argument is now that consensus studies by experts are worse than specific, cherry-picked studies that confirm his beliefs, which in this case have ALWAYS been disproven or will be. He’s anti-science, anti-intellectual, and interested in nothing but arguing and pushing his predetermined beliefs which cannot and will not ever change, until Fox and Breitbart update his opinions for him, just ignore him.
@Rosenblatt; Googl-ing doesn’t provide the answers; it has been shown, not ‘proven’, to be biased in presenting some items atop the search results and other things far down the list, out of sight of all but the most determined to learn the facts.
I understand Fundamental Risk, but the authors of the article do not present that premise. They assume one side of the debate is truth and move forward from that point.
Will you tell everyone how to prevent climate change? Give us the steps and how much time will elapse until the effects are observable, if at all?
Night, the other countries of the world who signed on to Paris accords want the US to do all the heavy lifting on Climate Change clean up. Trillions to be spent to change the temperature 1/10th of a degree over 20 years. Not much bang for the buck, is it? These countries won’t even contribute their “fair” share on defense to NATO. Why would we expect them to pay for the Climate Change hoax?
Comments in the article come from from Ceres, a “sustainability advocacy group” and “Climate Wise”. Pretty balanced so far, wouldn’t you say?
Climate Wise apparently thinks the size of premiums will cause people to opt for mitigation instead. So maybe the risks are manageable after all.
Warren Buffett thinks the opposite of the doomsayers quoted in the article. He thinks Climate Change will be good for his business and that people will buy MORE insurance, not less. So maybe Climate Change won’t be so horrible after all and the risks are manageable. (Don’t look for an article like that in the press, let alone the Insurance Journal.) Warren Buffett has a pretty good track record when risking his own money, instead of just talking about it, and he is no knee-jerk climate denier, by the way.
The predictable, simplistic shot at Trump was to be expected. A fair reporting on everything Trump has said on Climate Change might make him seem more like Barack Obama, who recently said science is not clear on what to do about Climate Change. Which happens to be true.
A lot of what you wrote makes sense. Buffet has a good, but not perfect record on stocks. But what about his railroad business? With the XL pipeline and other related projects restarted, it isn’t as lucrative as he thought it would be when he jumped in years ago.
The key takeaway from your post is that no one knows, but those who are pushing the hoax that man can significantly affect climate are certainly not being forthright.
He thinks it will be good for insurance and investors, not society, and certainly not the people all over the world who will be hammered and killed by it. If you pass massive externalities onto others you increase profits for investors.
Trump thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax while Obama thinks it’s unknown how, or even if, science can deal with the problem, which he acknowledges exists, like almost 100% of all published climate science by climate scientists. It’s misleading or disingenuous to pretend they are in near agreement on the topic.
President Obama said many times that Climate Change was “settled science”. It is disingenuous and misleading to make such a statement when so much uncertainty exists.
Science is never settled. Check the number of studies that continue around the subject of Climate Change. If the science is “settled”, why so many outstanding questions?
Prediction: parsing of the science to find “settled” aspects that can defend Obama’s blanket, misleading statement which every honest person knows was intended to avoid debating policy proposals.
So why did Obama try to negotiate with the Chinese on Climate Change when they have the worst pollution along with India in the world. At the end of the meeting, Obama said the US would be compliant by 2020. China said fine, we will “start” our Climate Change program in 2030. Hmm, didn’t sound too serious to me.
Geez I wonder. Maybe to decrease their pollution. Only an idiot wouldn’t see this. Also, per capita, the US has significantly higher carbon emissions than either of those countries.
Stop trying to couch it, or create all this nonsense, BS, pretend science, fake data, lies, and made up “facts,” be honest, and say you don’t care about climate change. At least that’s honest.
UW, quit posting before you hurt yourself. The US has much cleaner air than China or India. By the way, 2030 is 13 years away before China even starts. Al Gore needs to make a visit to China and demand they start now. Chances are, he will get a deaf ear on his rants.
You are so chronically uninformed it’s demoralizing to any thinking person. China has already started meeting their goals under the Paris Accords. The goal is to meet certain benchmarks by 2030,not to start then. Literally everything you think or say is wrong. It’s unreal.
So, if Jjjina and India jumped off a bridge, would you? Do you prefer to lead by example or follow? Hey, America first, right?
UW, I am glad you are demoralized. By the way, better get used to the Polar Vortex coming down from Canada. Predictions are for a very severe cold winter, especially in the northern blue states. This is just the start of the Global Cooling period that has been predicted for a while now.
Is RI recommending insurance coverage based on the risks associated with a cooling climate, or just you?
Regardless of whether you believe in climate change, or if you do, if mankind is the cause, the bigger point is that major weather disasters are happening and we need, as a nation, to become more resilient. 2017 brought horrible hurricanes, fires, floods, tornadoes and a record hail season (driving billions and billions in damage.) Why these bad storms happen is less important that making sure we can defend against them if or when they do. We need to locate and build properties to far more resilient standards and address the real weather risks they face today, faced 3 decades ago, and still will face 20 years from now, regardless of climate change.
^^^ THIS!!! +1,000,000
This! I’d like to think BOTH sides should be able to agree here. Common ground? Very rare in this world today.
As a property loss prevention specialist, I agree entirely with Susan. As the headline of the story indicates, “growing climate risk may be impossible to model…”
So, what did the industry do BEFORE modeling was available??? Site inspections by field representatives and (human) analysis of the risk, along with suggestions / recommendations for mitigating the risk, were employed extensively. So, if it can’t be modeled, maybe the risk can be (humanly) analyzed, evaluated and priced appropriately with proper credits for risk abatement given.
Of course, that would require hiring and training personnel to replace the professionals who were “eliminated” from the profession over the past 40 years (sour grapes).
When evaluating flood risks for the future, perhaps the 1,000 year flood levels should be considered a bench mark for the application of loss preventative measures. Too drastic??? Maybe the 500 yr. flood plain should be used – you guys who are smarter than me can figure that out.
Thanks in part to climate change Houston has had “500 year” floods 3 years in a row.
I side with the Trump Administration in regards to climate change. His cabinet and different departments are filled with absolute titans of industry and many respected scientists.
Here is the report they issued: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/
Lots science in this report, so read it carefully and let us not confuse fake news, and unscientific trolling as factual or meritous of argument.
“In the industrial era, human activities have been, and are increasingly, the dominant cause of climate warming.”
“Titans of industry” dumped chemicals and raw sewage in our rivers and streams back in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.
I think Informed Voter was posting the article to show that the report upheld the theory that man is contributing to Climate Change and that the global temperatures are increasing. I mean, that’s what the report says after all in many different ways:
“Formal detection and attribution studies for the period 1951 to 2010 find that the observed global mean surface temperature warming lies in the middle of the range of likely human contributions to warming over that same period. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Over the last century, there are no alternative explanations supported by the evidence that are either credible or that can contribute more than marginally to the observed patterns. There is no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of and the pattern of global warming observed over the industrial era”
I think Informed Voter is being a bit snide. ;)
bob, Agent, Yogi and anyone else can throw every possible scenario they want against the wall to see what sticks, but the fact remains:
-The vast, vast majority of scientists agree. (detractors for some reason count scientists who do not comment on climate chage as being on the side of disbelievers for some reason)
-Every single country in the world except America has an international agreement on the books to mitigate pollution and reduce CO2 output with the express purpose of reducing our destructive impact on the environment.
-Trump’s own administration, as the link above demonstrates, states that there is no other credible explanation or reason for warming trends other than to factors from man-made causes. Every “credible sounding” explanation given by climate science deniers has been shown to be without scientific merit.
In the past, they have used these arguments as the basis for why the world would be warming currently, conveniently leaving off the most obvious of all the answers:
-Sunspots (Actually result in lower surface temperature on the sun)
-solar flares and general energy output variations from the sun (Solar Maximum happens every 11 years or so. Scientists demonstrate that it does in fact have an effect, albeit a very small one. Scientists account for solar variations data in their calculations already)
-volcanic eruptions (Can cause global temperature changes depending on the severity of the eruption, however nothing long-term)
-Earth’s proximity to the sun and tilt on axis. (Actually shown to have caused a slight decrease in temp over the past few thousand years.)
-Space Alien Interference (maybe they have some sort of heating death ray? Perhaps?
Or…you know, you could go the logical route and see the billions of tons of CO2 that have been put into the atmosphere as a direct result of burning fossil fuels and deforestation, which sequesters carbon as long as the trees stay alive. CO2 has been shown to cause warming due to the way it absorbs infra-red heat from the earth’s surface, making that heat unable to escape the atmosphere. Kind of like a greenhouse…which is why they give it such a clever name. lol
If you want to doubt the scientists who have studied and concluded about thousands of peer-reviewed studies demonstrating an obvious cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and rising global temperatures, be my guest. But don’t be surprised when we continue to think of you all as being deliberately ignorant.
Personally, I am going to side with Trump’s EPA on this one, too. They seem to have thought this out really well.
I love the certainty of the Climate Change zealots when in fact, the reports being cited express a great deal of uncertainty. See the quotes you cite:
IPCC: “extremely likely” is not certainty. “Dominant cause” is not the only cause. “Likely human contributions” leaves a whole lot of wiggle room for other contributions.
And then we get to the real problem, what to do about it. And this is where science is at a dead end. The Paris Climate Accord would only reduce CO2 production over the next 30 years by 10% if every country meets their unenforceable goals.
Al Gore’s movie in 2007 said we only had 10 years to address the issue. Now China will only start to do something about it in 2030, according to the Paris Climate Acord.
The NY Times reported that the biggest contributor to CO2 production world wide is air conditioning.
Honesty Test: Which of you believers have given up air conditioning? Sure you have.
“Great deal of uncertainty” — really?
The report said it’s Extremely Likely. That’s 95% certainty. I know that’s not 100% certainty, but you can’t get much better than that (besides Virtually Certain which is 98%).
“For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence”
That statement clearly does not imply a “great deal of uncertainty” either.
Intellectually honest people don’t make things up. NO WHERE is “Extremely Likely” given a mathematical correlation, let alone “95%”.
Because they believe (key word) man made contributions are the cause of the warming does not make it certain that the oceans are going to destroy everything.
And more importantly, you ignore the most important point I made: science has given us NO politically acceptable way to stop Climate Change. You don’t want your standard of living to go down, just like me. And poor people around the world want what you and I have. So the world makes silly Paris Climate Acord non-agreements and you jump up and down when logic says it is pointless anyway.
You have revealed yourself as not serious about Climate Change, as you are unwilling to talk about the truth.
It is very unsettled science, to coin a phrase. Denying this is laughable.
I did not make that up, Craig. There are tons of websites that can back this up if you google it and don’t want to take my word for it, but here’s what the IPCC’s likelihood scale actually means:
Virtually certain: 99 to 100 per cent probability
Extremely likely: Over 95 per cent
Very likely: Above 90 per cent
Likely: Above 66 per cent
More likely than not: 50 per cent and above
About as likely as not: Between 33 and 66 per cent
Unlikely: Zero to 33 per cent
Very unlikely: Zero to 10 per cent
Extremely unlikely: Zero to five per cent
Moving on from your blatantly false statement that I just made up that Extremely Likely = 95%…okay, let’s talk about how we can curb Climate Change.
1) Reduction in fossil fuels that emit CO2
2) Increased use of renewable energy which produces less CO2 than fossil fuels
3) Purchase energy efficient appliances (pay attention to the yellow sticker they put on those appliances!)
4) Retrofit shower heads to use less water (would only matter if you take warm showers, not cold ones)
5) Carpool
6) Don’t buy cars with 15MPH highway ratings
There are 6 really easy ways for people to reduce their carbon footprint without upending their lives and those options are not so cost prohibitive that the average person would be unable to undertake those actions.
derp. #6 should be 15MPG, not 15MPH
“Reduction in fossil fuels that emit CO2”. I never thought of that.
I just never realized stopping Climate Change was so damn easy.
Thanks for the insights!
Why are you here, if only to mock and distort posts while missing the meaning of literally everything?
You, Agent, Yogi, and bob should rename yourselves Legion, because you all post the same (minus bob posting multi-page screeds answering what he had for breakfast this morning)
Devastating reply! You sure proved (1) you were right that I made up the 95% confidence level and (2) I couldn’t provide any low-cost options to help slow down the planet’s increasing temperatures. Great debate, Craig. I look forward to reading more of your insightful posts in the future. (end sarcasm)
Rosenblatt, you have confidence in the wrong people. Disgraced scientists and Al Gore are not people that inspire confidence. By the way, his second movie has been a huge dud so the American people have caught on to the Climate Change Hoax.