“The lawsuit was filed this week in federal court in Boston, and it may be an indication of escalating tensions between environments and the Trump administration of over the president’s efforts to roll back climate change regulations.”
This president has a difficult time being honest about all things “stormy”. Our company talks often about the effect of climate change on our bottom line. The changing climate patterns are impacting our losses. The ag world is greatly affected. Predictability is shifting with the air streams. And now, tomorrow at 12:32, I will be teeing it up again for the 25th straight month in the state of Iowa. Just when I thought there was no way I was getting another January round in here in this state, boom – 50 degrees and all the snow is gone.
The planet is warming. But that is about all we know.
The respected journal of recent scientific research, the journal Nature, reported this month that estimates for the worst case scenario at the end of this century must be reduced by half. That’s right. The Climate Scientists were wrong by 50% about the worst possible outcomes from Climate Change.
(Look it up. Or don’t if you are a Climate Zealot clinging to your religion.)
The Scripps Institute of Oceanography reported this month that they can find no evidence so far that the oceans were absorbing the warming from Climate Change. This means the 18 year hiatus in warming – predicted by exactly zero climate models – has no explanation, as “ocean absorption” was the primary explanation by the Climate Scientists for the 18 year hiatus. All computer models appear to have simply been wrong.
NASA recently released a report on annual warming. In the report was note that because of Solar activity, we may realize zero warming for the next 10 years. Who predicted this previously? No one.
And now we learn that 46% of CEOs think Climate Change will impact their business. Sounds like more PC nonsense to me. (“Diversity, sustainability, Climate Change, blah blah blah.”) They all know how to play the game.
It absolutely did not say that. You are misrepresenting what they wrote or lying, as you have done over and over here. The study they published contends their method for estimating the range of outcomes limits the highest and lowest outcomes for climate change based on how sensitive the earth is to everything causing climate change. Their estate goes to a 3.4 C increase, and a 3.5 C increase could risk destroying civilization. So their method says destroying civilization is still a possibility, but less than before, if it’s right. A 1.5 C increase has disastrous effects on humans and their lowest probability, with only 99.9 percent probability of being THAT LOW is almost a degree higher than that. Saying they were ‘wrong by 50%’ is almost nonsensical and in the best case scenario giving it the benefit of the doubt applies only if this 1 study which hasn’t been replicated or even really looked at by other scientists is 100% accurate.
That is if the new method of predicting the range of the increase-which it doesn’t dispute, nor does it dispute that humans are causing it-is 100% accurate and overturns hundreds of other studies and predictions that have been through peer review. That’s unlikely.
There wasn’t an 18 year pause in warming. Again, woefully uninformed, or more likely fundamentally dishonest. You aren’t an informed, honest, serious person on this. You are a denialist that will push any combination of presumably good news for your opinion, or outright falsehoods.
Feel feee to actually cite your oceans study, I’m sure it’s good for a laugh.
C’mon man! That’s like making a decision to not buy ADM stock because it fell 77 cents in 35 minutes of trading this morning. Your anecdotal golf story makes for a cute closing zinger to an otherwise boring anti-Trump wail but it makes you look like an uninformed rube. NOTE: Not all Iowans are this myopic! The only effect on your company’s bottom line caused by climate change is the waste of productivity just talking about it. There is nothing supporting your hysteria except man-made (like that?) computer models programmed by fellas with a government grant to prove that climate change exists.
Craig, the bi monthly Hoaxer article does nothing to convince me that their fake agenda has any merit. Trump was right to pull out of the Paris accord. The US is back and many, many companies are going to expand and hire more workers. The Davos meeting had some big Oil and Gas companies ready to drill on and offshore in the US and hire American workers. Too bad hoaxers, get over it.
nothing will ever convince you that any of your beliefs should be reevaluated at all.
you couldn’t be convinced that if arctic sea level increased by 20 “units” and antarctic sea level decreased by 10 “units” over the same time period that it meant the planet’s polar sea levels decreased by 10 “units” as a whole.
i bet you still think CFC’s were not causing a hole in the ozone layer 30 years ago and that was a hoax too, right? still think Progressive’s Flo is a real person (not the actress) and Flo has her own social security number and files taxes? still think people need to buy renters insurance even though they’re the owners of the home? still going to complain to Andrew and try to get my post removed?
typo fixed: you couldn’t be convinced that if arctic sea level increased by 20 “units” and antarctic sea level decreased by 10 “units” over the same time period that it meant the planet’s polar sea levels ***increased*** by 10 “units” as a whole.
Did you even read the research I cited? It is current, 2018, from sources that believe Climate Change is real and is primarily man-caused. And it supports growing skepticism about what we know.
Is the Earth warming? Of course, but the Climate has always warmed and cooled over time.
Has the Earth been warmer than today? Yes, by a great deal. Has there been more rapid increases in warming? Yes, thousands of years ago, as revealed by the journal Nature this year. And they were baffled by it.
I read your post, but I wasn’t replying to you. That said, I agree the earth is warming and the planet’s temperature has vacillated from super hot to freezing cold over the past 4+ billion years.
January 26, 2018 at 4:42 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
Uh, Confused, don’t you mean the past 6,000 years since that’s how old the planet is?
January 30, 2018 at 6:29 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
“Uh, Confused, don’t you mean the past 6,000 years since that’s how old the planet is?”
No one here has made this argument.
You yourself claim to have been Catholic, and claim to be Christian. Why does this statement not apply to you, but it does to people who do not believe in the government’s position on climate change? It’s not related to either you or someone who denies the climate change narrative from the governemnt. I want to know what triggers this as the logical reply?
January 26, 2018 at 4:35 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
” Perhaps you haven’t seen the latest on the Ozone layer closing up.”
I did. Do you think it had anything to do with the reduced use of CFC’s over the past 30 years or do you think the CFC-Ozone Layer connection was a hoax?
“By the way, the Arctic sea ice has grown thicker with the Polar Vortex and we are now entering Global Cooling.”
you did exactly what I said you’ve done before….focusing on only ONE pole on the Earth. To talk about the planet’s sea ice and if it’s grown or shrunk across the globe, you MUST look at what BOTH the Arctic and Antarctic are doing.
Agent wrote, “Perhaps you haven’t seen the latest on the Ozone layer closing up.”
Thank you for making our point. Yes, human activity depleted the Ozone. We realized it, products and behaviors were changed in hopes the Ozone could be restored. Presto, it worked. Rinse and repeat and take care of Mother Earth. Quit poisoning her.
“i bet you still think CFC’s were not causing a hole in the ozone layer 30 years ago and that was a hoax too, right? still think Progressive’s Flo is a real person (not the actress) and Flo has her own social security number and files taxes? still think people need to buy renters insurance even though they’re the owners of the home? still going to complain to Andrew and try to get my post removed?”
These are methods to dislodge any of his commentary, and are not ok. Is Flo relevant to current debate? If he was wrong before it doesn’t make him more likely to be wrong now.
This is not an appropriate method of debate. On any level. You are making a character attack the means to dislodge his debate. This is different than his character attacks. When he says you’re stupid it’s an insult. You are using examples of stupidity to call him wrong on things that don’t have to do with his stupidity in the past. So any show of stupidity affects all his arguments. That is called using his character as a methods to dislodge debate.
You do it and so do the leftists here far more than those on the right. UW makes a point of using this method, so does Ron, and it’s annoying how much you believe you folks debate better against Agent vs reality. You’re the leftist equivalent. Get over it, or change it.
I can agree to most of what bob is saying here. There is no reason to lampoon or lambast the fellow. If you think his arguments are in bad faith, then berating him will do nothing, minus poke the bear.
Only 36% of Insurance CEOs list climate change as one of the megatrends that will transform their business? How can they afford to stick their heads in the sand?
What have been the megadrivers in insurance claims in the past couple of years?
A hurricane season that had its effects exacerbated by warmer ocean waters.
Wildfires exacerbated by extended periods of rainless months.
Hailstorms in Colorado and the Midwest which caused billions (with a b, mind you) in damage.
Massive snowfalls within short periods due to warmer Great Lakes water temperatures.
Billions of dollars in crop insurance claims due to drought.
and so on and so forth.
What would CEOs of Insurance companies list instead as one of the “megatrends” instead of climate change?
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
Someone on the IJ staff likes to bolster the ‘Global Warming significantly impacted by humans’ Hoax to watch the ‘polite debate’ between Conservatives and Liberals that ensues.
I don’t think that is why they do it, DNC. It is probably because the vast majority of the educated world sees climate change as:
A) Mostly Man-caused. (Remember, if it isn’t humanity, what is it? Sun isn’t producing more energy, there hasn’t been some mysterious uptick in volcanic activity,etc. What is happening is heat-trapping particulates are in the air that wouldn’t be in the air if it weren’t for automobile exhaust, factory smoke, burned fossil fuels for heating homes, deforestation which would otherwise trap and sequester carbon, livestock that can outnumber humans in many regions, etc…. If it isn’t all of that, what is it)
and
B) Highly Dangerous that will cause massive upheaval, civil unrest, and cause innumerable changes to the way people all over the planet live their lives. Yes, some regions will see a net gain due to climate change. Places in Canada, for example, which may right now feature winters too harsh to live in could become more livable within 100 years. Those in areas that already experience extreme weather may see those climates become much harsher and cruel.
Unrest, unease, and shifting populaces and risk exposure is the name of the game with Insurance. If InsuranceJournal weren’t posting relevant topics to what the vast majority of professionals already believe, it would be irresponsible, regardless of your unfounded beliefs.
The question that everyone who believes climate change is a hoax should ask themselves is, “Why does everyone else believe this and I am smart enough to see the truth?”
In all of your vast knowledge and abilities, would you really pit yourself against climate experts and researchers across the world? In every country? In every Fortune 500 company who employ experts to help them anticipate changes in the economy and environmental landscape to avoid the pitfalls that a lack of preparation would bring? Really?
I don’t trust myself to know better than people who have spent their life’s work to understanding how this all works. If it were all a hoax, how have so many verifiable geniuses and experts been duped into devoting trillions of dollars in an attempt to clean-up mankind’s problems before it is too late?
YOU SAID: Remember, if it isn’t humanity, what is it?
You can cut the school marm tone, OK? Please. Take a swing at this smarty pants: How did the last ice age end without, ya know, humanity??
You guys undermine your own argument with your finger waving tsk-tsk arrogant ways. To be so full of ones self and oh so right all the time. What’s that like, dude?
“How did the last ice age end without, ya know, humanity??”
In exactly the same fashion as today, only instead of releasing enough trapped CO2 to raise levels 100ppm over millennia, it has happened in the last 200ish years of the industrial age, and has skyrocketed with continued industrial progress throughout the third world.
This isn’t rocket science.
If you thought my tone was smarmy, that is completely on you. I am asking questions not talking down or belittling.
Column A – Scientists, world leaders, titans of industry, Every major global climate researching body, etc.
Column B – Laypeople, a handful of fossil fuel executives, The Trump Administration.
It is just the sheer bravado of holding firm to a position based on political leaning, instead of on scientific understanding which astounds me the most.
I am as fallible as anyone, which is why I don’t trust in my own judgment. I would rather believe those who have participated in double blind studies, and who have dedicated their lives to interpreting and studying scientific data, oftentimes at a compensation far lacking what they would achieve in the private sector or in different fields, who are telling us that, yes, this problem is real, and yes, it should be cause for alarm.
I said “school marm”. Give yourself some credit — you weren’t smarmy.
January 30, 2018 at 7:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
The most specific thing to be worried about is how the government is treating this on the left.
As Bernie has said:
One of his goals is:
“Bring climate deniers to justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change”
So not only are we to accept the government position on it, if we say fund other positions, and they believe these are wildly against common science, we can prosecute them right?
This is definitely more dangerous than global warming could ever be. The world has warmed before. We survived, and can survive. If leftists begin the path toward totalitarian regimes, hundreds of millions of people will die. This is not an over statement, it’s just you on the left are very blind to what has happened when things like this happened in the past.
I’m not concerned with people being worried about being conscientious about climate change. I’m worried about things like this.
You are backing these people up by stating what skeptics should believe. That’s not ok.
Planet is calling these people akin to 6,000 year old Earth believers, which is hogwash. He was a part of that religious community and is somehow exempt.
Debate is fine. Shutting down debate based an arguments of authority, and consensus studies, is not fine. You have not rationally argued the case for climate change, and instead of questioning those who question climate change, you should question why it is no one will believe you who is a skeptic? Perhaps there actually is a reason other than they are arrogant or ignorant.
That’s your flaw and it’s on you. It’s clear what you think on the matter, as well as others here like confused.
The way you guys debate this is abhorrent and reflects very poorly on the youth in society. Its intimidation tactics at it’s best, and societal pressure at it’s worst.
January 30, 2018 at 7:11 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Arguments of or from authority would be like this:
The majority of people with X position agree!
That’s not an argument, and in fact it’s dangerous to argue this way. I could just as easily say: The bible says so. I don’t accept such arguments. Give me data.
January 31, 2018 at 3:12 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Bob, you wrote that Bernie said ““Bring climate deniers to justice…” and then added in your comment of “So…if we say fund other positions, and they believe these are wildly against common science, we can prosecute them right?”
Wrong.
The full text of that paragraph clearly states Bernie is only talking about Corporations who may have knowingly ignored the dangers of their product and funded opposition studies to “support” their stance that their product was safe (analogous to this would be the NFL and them paying physicians to underestimate the impact their sport has on concussions and CTE, then getting sued by former players for hiding evidence”
To wit:
“Bernie recently called for the Department of Justice to investigate Exxon Mobil, which may have not only known about the dangers of climate change, but has spent millions of dollars to spread doubt about the causes and impacts of burning fossil fuels.”
He’s not talking about you and other average Joe’s who may deny climate change is occurring. He simply wants to prosecute corporations who might have known their product was dangerous yet paid people to put out reports that intentionally underestimated the danger of their products.
Reading the entire context of his comment, not just the one line you cherry picked, makes his argument quite reasonable. I don’t know how anyone could argue that if corporations intentionally misled the public about the dangers of their product, they should not actually be held liable for their intentional misrepresentation.
January 31, 2018 at 5:55 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
There’s no point with him Rosenblatt, he misquotes and deceptively quotes stuff constantly. This is a religion for him, nothing can change his mind. It’s no different than when he lies about studies, lies about what people have claimed, or provides data he hasn’t looked at and freaks out when people point out it doesn’t support his claims. Ignore him so he’ll go back to 4Chan.
Here is someone who makes some good points regarding consensus and how we have been mislead.
I’m trying to find the good old studies showing you are wrong regarding how many believe we are going to cause devastating affects through man made global warming.
I want to say that the number was just under, or just over, 50%, even with one of the 97% studies which had flaws to begin with, as per my other link. I know I showed this link to UW before.
Regardless, consensus studies are not evidence of the point you’re making, and this is why people are not believing you.
You aren’t making a scientific case. Don’t tell me you’re not a scientist. You don’t have to be one to show the methodology. I’ve seen the flaws with the NOAA, and I don’t accept the data methods they use. I never will, and this is why they cannot make predictions by the way.
There are clear flaws with the current ability to track climate change long term. That’s one of the big ones.
If I were to ask you, based on what data can we prove the world is warming, what would your answer be? What were the methods of measurement? What time period so as to show it’s a “climate” weight we are looking at and not a short term snapshot of what we cannot draw a large conclusion from? You will find that especially 1880-1950 our data reference points are crap. That’s selling them above what they are. The NOAA acknowledges this, and uses an equation to try and balance the crap. If you’ve ever looked at it, they also put the ocean data in, which especially is crap data, to try and account for the lack of non oceanic warming. In other words: The ocean absorbed the heat, when they include that, the data still shows warming, when they don’t, this is the pause people talk about. Should we include oceanic? Yes. Should we include 1880-1950 numbers and make an equation to average it out based on minimal observed science? Hell to the no. That is what they did. We do not have good relevant data.
This is why people are skeptical. But rather than acknowledging that, you just berate them.
I have reviewed that site and its bias is on full display.
I am all for a reasonable discussion about INTERPRETATIONS on hard scientific data, but to do it from a disingenuous position like this site has is counter-productive.
For example, on the “No net temperature increase in the arctic over the past 90 years”, they begin talking about decadal oscillations, and then use a map of scientific climate data to prove their point, which unmistakingly shows the past 4 decades show a steady increase without any of the former oscillations prevalent in the decades before the 1950s.
Carbon emissions increased RAPIDLY after the end of World War II. In fact, they doubled every 15 years. Every graph at that website referenced by NoTricksZone shows a rapid increase in surface temperatures, with the poles getting the worst of it, over the past few decades, with no end in site.
Surface sea temperatures have been on the increase across the world, although the distribution to severe warming zones to belts of cooling zones is distributed in a much more spotty way.
Patrick Moore, one of the green peace founders also says this very well.
Much of the land mass in the northern regions of the Earth are not inhabitable, or have dire consequences for living there, and there is one reason: Cold.
Any of our global warming from humans is not a concern. Eventually this warming will occur enough to melt much of the ice caps with or without human intervention. When that occurs, much of Canada will open up for habitation, and may even lead to a lot of new areas to mine for natural gas, gold, as well as fossil fuels.
I am not convinced global warming is a threat in any way that will not happen without humanity as it is.
The extent of global man made warming has clearly been lied about by the government which is concerning, and there have been methods to use it for morally unquestionable tax routes which is not ok. The government needs to be kept in check, we don’t need to have governments trying to keep the Earth’s cycles in check.
I maintain that believing in global warming with consensus studies is dangerous. I maintain that calling climate skeptics ignorant or arrogant, is also dangerous. None of your arguments address these points, in fact, they intentionally side step it. The way you have talked to climate change skeptics is the problem. You have prescribed a mandatory belief. I didn’t even read your replies, because you couldn’t possibly explain away your bias, and compare this with your name, cut the bias (an unrealistic childish goal which manipulators try to take advantage of, ALL people have bias, it is only people who seek to discredit people who claim they cut their own) I don’t believe a word you say.
You have not presented evidence. You have discredited skeptics. You are not mindful of the consequences, you are not aware of the land mass available and not available presently. You have not thought about this long term into the fact changes will have to be made one way or the other, with or without man in the coming centuries (inhabitable land mass and moving people).
I’m very tired of your argument style, and the fact that the left tends to try and dominate this argument and demand consensus. It’s not ok. It never will be, and your argument will always lose until you respect non believers (skeptics) of this climate change narrative.
” I didn’t even read your replies, because you couldn’t possibly explain away your bias, and compare this with your name, cut the bias ”
Please note that explaining and having bias is reasonable. However, you have not explained what has made your bias, which you clearly have (and all of us do). Instead you have said everyone should share the consensus you believe exists (it doesn’t, not in the way you claimed anyway, as to man made global warming being a devastating issue). You have used arguments of authority, not used data, and you have completely ignored elements of the argument. You can be biased and acknowledge the other side. That’s fine. You patently insist the other side cannot exist or be reasonable, and that is extreme bias to a level I cannot allow.
I AM a moderate. The only one here, I can say where I’ve changed my mind and I CAN PROVE IT. I still have bias, but I am unusually easy to change on these issues IF and a big IF I am given information that merits it.
The fact that the left here has labeled me as far right is sheer insanity given what I have said of my positions.
I am the only one on either side who said he would vote Bernie or for someone like him if this next cycle disproves what I believe about Trump’s economics. I am the ONLY one who has said I would support a public option if healthcare cannot be solved. I am the only one who has said I would be ok with both the public option and private options.
I am the only one here who has flipped on immigration and explained why, in the last 5 years.
I am the only one who has pointed out merit on both sides, such as the opt out 401k program for Obama, and HPV vaccines in Texas, condemning the governor who blocked it.
I do not care for your posturing, which you are assuredly doing, I do not care for politics. I care about data. Give me, the dang data.
I tell you and Ron this again and again, and instead I’m called a dang lemming. This lemming initially condemned Trump until the Riots and his Nevada speech. I initially supported Cruz, then Bernie, then Trump. When Trump launched the missiles at Syria, like many Trump supporters I said “well he’s an idiot.” and we condemned him at large. All the major Trump supporters did this by the way, even Milo. Trump supporters have been bullied, this is not an opinion, it is a fact.
I am tired of the left because their colors have become clear this last election, and I DO NOT support bullies.
My debate is not bullying, anger is not bullying. When you get in a class room and you can’t say Trump support without being harassed or beaten up, then there’s a problem and we have seen KIDS beaten up for supporting Trump, and no, it didn’t happen like this against kids that supported Obama. ANTIFA and the mindsets of liberals are causing this crap, and they are not being kept in check. This does relate to climate change folks, they have the same mentality: Convert or die (be gone) essentially. I do not support that mentality. If you have not made the case, and you haven’t, then I am in no position to believe you, and I am not required to least I be called anti science based on your flawed perception of consensus studies buddy. You can claim you’ have a lack of bias but how you have treated skeptics here regarding climate change paints a different story.
January 31, 2018 at 4:11 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“It’s not ok that Confused says nothing will change Agent’s mind.”
Really? Why do think that? Before you answer, please remember — Agent has posted MANY times that nothing will ever change his mind on any topic, no matter the evidence, no matter the data – his views will never change. He (and Conservatives) are always right and everyone else is always wrong.
And he didn’t mean that hyperbolically because I asked him multiple times if he was being or if there was any sarcasm or exaggeration when he said that stuff. He really means it. He has said it a lot. Why can’t I post something he admitted is true about himself?????
This shows more of the flaws I mentioned regarding some of the 97% numbers and the limited scientists who made the papers.
It also shows other good points. It does not have to be all correct for the main point I’m making to be correct. I don’t care if you have some problems with it, as I’m sure you will. My biggest issue is that what I stated was correct. The consensus studies are misleading, and they definitely don’t show what you say they do.
“B) Highly Dangerous that will cause massive upheaval, civil unrest, and cause innumerable changes to the way people all over the planet live their lives. Yes, some regions will see a net gain due to climate change. Places in Canada, for example, which may right now feature winters too harsh to live in could become more livable within 100 years. Those in areas that already experience extreme weather may see those climates become much harsher and cruel. ”
Incorrect regarding B. I have shown this time and time again. The majority of scientists do not believe the affects of man made global warming will be devastating. I have also pointed out the flaws with these consensus studies. In many points scientists say their papers have been flat misrepresented, or their conclusions. Many the issue was the methodology, and in some, the same 72 scientists made all the published data on the topic, whether there were a thousand papers or not. Stating that the 72 scientists are representative of the entire community is wildly misleading, and it’s clear this misleading is being done intentionally. The methods of measurement have changed several times, the NOAA had to add the oceanic temperatures and make an average with guesses for the past, and did not highlight the most recent methods of measurement which are known to be the most accurate. That leaves a huge margin of error. The NOAA has specifically done this in ways that make warming look worse than it is, and has resulted in some scientists saying the oceanic raise would have to explode by 400% over a 10 year period. That didn’t happen, so the model was wrong. The issue is just how much corruption there has been seen to use this climate issue as a means of controlling voting habits. It’s clear that is occurring.
Consensus studies are not science by the way. They simply aren’t. The models have been shown to be in error again and again.
“The question that everyone who believes climate change is a hoax should ask themselves is, “Why does everyone else believe this and I am smart enough to see the truth?””
Incorrect, because everyone doesn’t. The real question should be, why is the consensus of the scientific community being misrepresented? Or, the real real question should be: Is the data reliable? Has it predicted events reliably? What is the methodology. I had a debate with Confused on the variables in the NOAA data, and he ultimately made it a “who should be believed” argument instead of what data is real type of scenario. I believe any of us can read this and come to a conclusion, if we stop the “who should be believed” and only believe when we see data that works and is proven reliable.
“In all of your vast knowledge and abilities, would you really pit yourself against climate experts and researchers across the world? In every country? In every Fortune 500 company who employ experts to help them anticipate changes in the economy and environmental landscape to avoid the pitfalls that a lack of preparation would bring? Really?”
This is not what he’s doing. The fact that you would say this shows how clueless you are on the actual studies on the matter. Also, to state there is no bias ignores climate gate, in which it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they talked about using a model that made things look worse than they were. These people’s careers and government funding rely on it. You have refused to acknowledge this even happened, obviously, or you wouldn’t shame skeptics.
“I don’t trust myself to know better than people who have spent their life’s work to understanding how this all works. If it were all a hoax, how have so many verifiable geniuses and experts been duped into devoting trillions of dollars in an attempt to clean-up mankind’s problems before it is too late?”
And how is there dissent at all? Trusting people is stupid. You do have the know how to look at the data and see it doesn’t make a viable conclusion at this point. It’s plain to anyone who isn’t in the field.
I didn’t realize there were still people out there that think climate change is a hoax. From some of the comments above, it sounds like because the numbers weren’t exactly correct at the beginning that it means it’s a hoax? As we advance, collect more data, etc, the predictions will get more accurate. I’ve actually never understood why climate change is seen by some as a liberal/left wing idea. Climate change is a problem for all. I can’t believe anyone would think the vast majority of scientists/climatologists that are warning us are all part of some left wing conspiracy to hurt businesses. I also can’t believe that anyone could think that people have no effect on our environment.
I obviously am not a scientist or climatologist, so I don’t if certain regulations are over-reaching or not, but it sounds fairly irresponsible to simply say all regulations are bad.
It’s not so much a hoax (defined as: to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous so the usual “in 50 years we’re all gonna burn!” is too long a timeline for “hoax”) as it is a mechanism to get to the ultimate goal of a measure of control over a gullible population. But, it is hoax-like, with something beyond the trick itself; beyond a trick for the sake of a trick. I award you partial credit.
“as it is a mechanism to get to the ultimate goal of a measure of control over a gullible population” Care to elaborate on what you think the ultimate measure of control the scientists involved in studying this field are hoping to put into play?
Although I believe in the man-influenced climate change model, I think focusing on the man-made piece is shortsighted — if “we” (not specific to you and I, the general “we”) can agree the temperatures across the globe are rising and extreme weather is becoming more common, “we” need to be good stewards of the planet and do what we can to leave the earth in decent shape for our kids and our kids’ kids — which is to say nothing of projecting how our insurance-related businesses may need to adapt pricing and policy concentration so we can stay in business..
For example: if “you” (again – general “you”) didn’t believe the hole in the ozone layer in the 80’s was influenced by humans releasing CFC’s into the atmosphere, that’s fine….but “you” should have at least considered cost-effective alternatives to CFC-filled Aquanet Hair Spray. Worst case — you’re right and nothing changes. Best case — you’re wrong yet you helped reduce introducing more ozone-depleting gases into the atmosphere.
Care to elaborate on what you think the ultimate measure of control the scientists involved in studying this field are hoping to put into play?
Are you serious? The scientists are there simply to lend a degree (no pun) of credulity to the “study”. They are funded tools of the power structure. The politicians need something to point to as they say “aha! its you people and the way you live thats killing the planet! We must ______!” And in the process, otherwise intelligent people get duped into thinking that real conclusions can be drawn from extremely short historical records, man-made computer models are always right, and the sun plays no role in any of this whatsoever. It’s just we the people causing the whole dang mess.
You raised the point (as it is a mechanism to get to the ultimate goal of a measure of control over a gullible population) so the onus is on you to explain what you think is their ultimate goal. Are you unable to specify exactly what you think the ultimate goal is of the scientists who you claim are trying to control a gullible population?
January 30, 2018 at 4:25 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
My apologies – you shifted your argument from saying the scientists were trying to control the gullible population, but now you say it’s the politicians (whom you think are paying off the scientists to reach their conclusions) that are doing so.
If you’re unwilling to explain what exactly you think their trying to do to “control the gullible population” and how it will benefit them from doing so (you know — back up your argument), or if you are just going to move the goalposts each time I ask you to clarify what you meant, I would rather not continue this conversation with you.
January 30, 2018 at 4:26 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
grr. stupid homonyms. “exactly you think their trying” –> “exactly you think THEY’RE trying “
January 30, 2018 at 4:49 pm
UboreMe says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
Rosy, thanks, but I didn’t ask you/ewe (I know you are challenged this way, so pick) to have a conversation with me. You engaged me after my perfectly clear post in a little parsing, nitpicking and homonym bingo. Now you’re/your reliving your debate team days with this bs about “I don’t quite understand/tell me about this control you speak of/I don’t get you/please explain” pablum when you know exactly what I mean. And if you don’t, you are far to gone for me to waste any time bringing you up to speed. Good day, sir.
January 30, 2018 at 4:55 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Good day to you too, sir.
January 30, 2018 at 4:56 pm
Cut the Bias says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Sun energy output hasn’t increased.
If the sun hasn’t been doing it, what is?
January 30, 2018 at 1:07 pm
UboreMe says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
QUOTE: I obviously am not a scientist or climatologist
Nobody here is! That’s the hilarious thing about some of these blowhard know it alls!!
So the Geneva Convention, an insurance industry think tank, interviews 62 C-level executives at insurance and reinsurance companies, and based on that non-biased input determines that the insurance industry has made ‘significant contributions in the climate change battle’ ! LOL. Since we’re all in the insurance industry, lets take the credit !!
Perhaps the insurance industry should try motivating people to protect the environment for their children and grandchildren’s future. How about increasing automobile insurance by the 300% on fossil fuel powered vehicles and reduce insurance on PHEVs with a range minimum range of 25 miles on battery by 5% and 15% on EV and FCV vehicles.
“The lawsuit was filed this week in federal court in Boston, and it may be an indication of escalating tensions between environments and the Trump administration of over the president’s efforts to roll back climate change regulations.”
This president has a difficult time being honest about all things “stormy”. Our company talks often about the effect of climate change on our bottom line. The changing climate patterns are impacting our losses. The ag world is greatly affected. Predictability is shifting with the air streams. And now, tomorrow at 12:32, I will be teeing it up again for the 25th straight month in the state of Iowa. Just when I thought there was no way I was getting another January round in here in this state, boom – 50 degrees and all the snow is gone.
The planet is warming. But that is about all we know.
The respected journal of recent scientific research, the journal Nature, reported this month that estimates for the worst case scenario at the end of this century must be reduced by half. That’s right. The Climate Scientists were wrong by 50% about the worst possible outcomes from Climate Change.
(Look it up. Or don’t if you are a Climate Zealot clinging to your religion.)
The Scripps Institute of Oceanography reported this month that they can find no evidence so far that the oceans were absorbing the warming from Climate Change. This means the 18 year hiatus in warming – predicted by exactly zero climate models – has no explanation, as “ocean absorption” was the primary explanation by the Climate Scientists for the 18 year hiatus. All computer models appear to have simply been wrong.
NASA recently released a report on annual warming. In the report was note that because of Solar activity, we may realize zero warming for the next 10 years. Who predicted this previously? No one.
And now we learn that 46% of CEOs think Climate Change will impact their business. Sounds like more PC nonsense to me. (“Diversity, sustainability, Climate Change, blah blah blah.”) They all know how to play the game.
It absolutely did not say that. You are misrepresenting what they wrote or lying, as you have done over and over here. The study they published contends their method for estimating the range of outcomes limits the highest and lowest outcomes for climate change based on how sensitive the earth is to everything causing climate change. Their estate goes to a 3.4 C increase, and a 3.5 C increase could risk destroying civilization. So their method says destroying civilization is still a possibility, but less than before, if it’s right. A 1.5 C increase has disastrous effects on humans and their lowest probability, with only 99.9 percent probability of being THAT LOW is almost a degree higher than that. Saying they were ‘wrong by 50%’ is almost nonsensical and in the best case scenario giving it the benefit of the doubt applies only if this 1 study which hasn’t been replicated or even really looked at by other scientists is 100% accurate.
That is if the new method of predicting the range of the increase-which it doesn’t dispute, nor does it dispute that humans are causing it-is 100% accurate and overturns hundreds of other studies and predictions that have been through peer review. That’s unlikely.
There wasn’t an 18 year pause in warming. Again, woefully uninformed, or more likely fundamentally dishonest. You aren’t an informed, honest, serious person on this. You are a denialist that will push any combination of presumably good news for your opinion, or outright falsehoods.
Feel feee to actually cite your oceans study, I’m sure it’s good for a laugh.
C’mon man! That’s like making a decision to not buy ADM stock because it fell 77 cents in 35 minutes of trading this morning. Your anecdotal golf story makes for a cute closing zinger to an otherwise boring anti-Trump wail but it makes you look like an uninformed rube. NOTE: Not all Iowans are this myopic! The only effect on your company’s bottom line caused by climate change is the waste of productivity just talking about it. There is nothing supporting your hysteria except man-made (like that?) computer models programmed by fellas with a government grant to prove that climate change exists.
Craig, the bi monthly Hoaxer article does nothing to convince me that their fake agenda has any merit. Trump was right to pull out of the Paris accord. The US is back and many, many companies are going to expand and hire more workers. The Davos meeting had some big Oil and Gas companies ready to drill on and offshore in the US and hire American workers. Too bad hoaxers, get over it.
nothing will ever convince you that any of your beliefs should be reevaluated at all.
you couldn’t be convinced that if arctic sea level increased by 20 “units” and antarctic sea level decreased by 10 “units” over the same time period that it meant the planet’s polar sea levels decreased by 10 “units” as a whole.
i bet you still think CFC’s were not causing a hole in the ozone layer 30 years ago and that was a hoax too, right? still think Progressive’s Flo is a real person (not the actress) and Flo has her own social security number and files taxes? still think people need to buy renters insurance even though they’re the owners of the home? still going to complain to Andrew and try to get my post removed?
typo fixed: you couldn’t be convinced that if arctic sea level increased by 20 “units” and antarctic sea level decreased by 10 “units” over the same time period that it meant the planet’s polar sea levels ***increased*** by 10 “units” as a whole.
Did you even read the research I cited? It is current, 2018, from sources that believe Climate Change is real and is primarily man-caused. And it supports growing skepticism about what we know.
Is the Earth warming? Of course, but the Climate has always warmed and cooled over time.
Has the Earth been warmer than today? Yes, by a great deal. Has there been more rapid increases in warming? Yes, thousands of years ago, as revealed by the journal Nature this year. And they were baffled by it.
I read your post, but I wasn’t replying to you. That said, I agree the earth is warming and the planet’s temperature has vacillated from super hot to freezing cold over the past 4+ billion years.
Uh, Confused, don’t you mean the past 6,000 years since that’s how old the planet is?
“Uh, Confused, don’t you mean the past 6,000 years since that’s how old the planet is?”
No one here has made this argument.
You yourself claim to have been Catholic, and claim to be Christian. Why does this statement not apply to you, but it does to people who do not believe in the government’s position on climate change? It’s not related to either you or someone who denies the climate change narrative from the governemnt. I want to know what triggers this as the logical reply?
” Perhaps you haven’t seen the latest on the Ozone layer closing up.”
I did. Do you think it had anything to do with the reduced use of CFC’s over the past 30 years or do you think the CFC-Ozone Layer connection was a hoax?
“By the way, the Arctic sea ice has grown thicker with the Polar Vortex and we are now entering Global Cooling.”
you did exactly what I said you’ve done before….focusing on only ONE pole on the Earth. To talk about the planet’s sea ice and if it’s grown or shrunk across the globe, you MUST look at what BOTH the Arctic and Antarctic are doing.
Agent wrote, “Perhaps you haven’t seen the latest on the Ozone layer closing up.”
Thank you for making our point. Yes, human activity depleted the Ozone. We realized it, products and behaviors were changed in hopes the Ozone could be restored. Presto, it worked. Rinse and repeat and take care of Mother Earth. Quit poisoning her.
Prove it hoaxer instead of quoting disgraced scientists.
“i bet you still think CFC’s were not causing a hole in the ozone layer 30 years ago and that was a hoax too, right? still think Progressive’s Flo is a real person (not the actress) and Flo has her own social security number and files taxes? still think people need to buy renters insurance even though they’re the owners of the home? still going to complain to Andrew and try to get my post removed?”
These are methods to dislodge any of his commentary, and are not ok. Is Flo relevant to current debate? If he was wrong before it doesn’t make him more likely to be wrong now.
This is not an appropriate method of debate. On any level. You are making a character attack the means to dislodge his debate. This is different than his character attacks. When he says you’re stupid it’s an insult. You are using examples of stupidity to call him wrong on things that don’t have to do with his stupidity in the past. So any show of stupidity affects all his arguments. That is called using his character as a methods to dislodge debate.
You do it and so do the leftists here far more than those on the right. UW makes a point of using this method, so does Ron, and it’s annoying how much you believe you folks debate better against Agent vs reality. You’re the leftist equivalent. Get over it, or change it.
I can agree to most of what bob is saying here. There is no reason to lampoon or lambast the fellow. If you think his arguments are in bad faith, then berating him will do nothing, minus poke the bear.
Only 36% of Insurance CEOs list climate change as one of the megatrends that will transform their business? How can they afford to stick their heads in the sand?
What have been the megadrivers in insurance claims in the past couple of years?
A hurricane season that had its effects exacerbated by warmer ocean waters.
Wildfires exacerbated by extended periods of rainless months.
Hailstorms in Colorado and the Midwest which caused billions (with a b, mind you) in damage.
Massive snowfalls within short periods due to warmer Great Lakes water temperatures.
Billions of dollars in crop insurance claims due to drought.
and so on and so forth.
What would CEOs of Insurance companies list instead as one of the “megatrends” instead of climate change?
Someone on the IJ staff likes to bolster the ‘Global Warming significantly impacted by humans’ Hoax to watch the ‘polite debate’ between Conservatives and Liberals that ensues.
I don’t think that is why they do it, DNC. It is probably because the vast majority of the educated world sees climate change as:
A) Mostly Man-caused. (Remember, if it isn’t humanity, what is it? Sun isn’t producing more energy, there hasn’t been some mysterious uptick in volcanic activity,etc. What is happening is heat-trapping particulates are in the air that wouldn’t be in the air if it weren’t for automobile exhaust, factory smoke, burned fossil fuels for heating homes, deforestation which would otherwise trap and sequester carbon, livestock that can outnumber humans in many regions, etc…. If it isn’t all of that, what is it)
and
B) Highly Dangerous that will cause massive upheaval, civil unrest, and cause innumerable changes to the way people all over the planet live their lives. Yes, some regions will see a net gain due to climate change. Places in Canada, for example, which may right now feature winters too harsh to live in could become more livable within 100 years. Those in areas that already experience extreme weather may see those climates become much harsher and cruel.
Unrest, unease, and shifting populaces and risk exposure is the name of the game with Insurance. If InsuranceJournal weren’t posting relevant topics to what the vast majority of professionals already believe, it would be irresponsible, regardless of your unfounded beliefs.
The question that everyone who believes climate change is a hoax should ask themselves is, “Why does everyone else believe this and I am smart enough to see the truth?”
In all of your vast knowledge and abilities, would you really pit yourself against climate experts and researchers across the world? In every country? In every Fortune 500 company who employ experts to help them anticipate changes in the economy and environmental landscape to avoid the pitfalls that a lack of preparation would bring? Really?
I don’t trust myself to know better than people who have spent their life’s work to understanding how this all works. If it were all a hoax, how have so many verifiable geniuses and experts been duped into devoting trillions of dollars in an attempt to clean-up mankind’s problems before it is too late?
YOU SAID: Remember, if it isn’t humanity, what is it?
You can cut the school marm tone, OK? Please. Take a swing at this smarty pants: How did the last ice age end without, ya know, humanity??
You guys undermine your own argument with your finger waving tsk-tsk arrogant ways. To be so full of ones self and oh so right all the time. What’s that like, dude?
“How did the last ice age end without, ya know, humanity??”
In exactly the same fashion as today, only instead of releasing enough trapped CO2 to raise levels 100ppm over millennia, it has happened in the last 200ish years of the industrial age, and has skyrocketed with continued industrial progress throughout the third world.
This isn’t rocket science.
If you thought my tone was smarmy, that is completely on you. I am asking questions not talking down or belittling.
Column A – Scientists, world leaders, titans of industry, Every major global climate researching body, etc.
Column B – Laypeople, a handful of fossil fuel executives, The Trump Administration.
It is just the sheer bravado of holding firm to a position based on political leaning, instead of on scientific understanding which astounds me the most.
I am as fallible as anyone, which is why I don’t trust in my own judgment. I would rather believe those who have participated in double blind studies, and who have dedicated their lives to interpreting and studying scientific data, oftentimes at a compensation far lacking what they would achieve in the private sector or in different fields, who are telling us that, yes, this problem is real, and yes, it should be cause for alarm.
I said “school marm”. Give yourself some credit — you weren’t smarmy.
The most specific thing to be worried about is how the government is treating this on the left.
As Bernie has said:
One of his goals is:
“Bring climate deniers to justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change”
So not only are we to accept the government position on it, if we say fund other positions, and they believe these are wildly against common science, we can prosecute them right?
https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/
This is definitely more dangerous than global warming could ever be. The world has warmed before. We survived, and can survive. If leftists begin the path toward totalitarian regimes, hundreds of millions of people will die. This is not an over statement, it’s just you on the left are very blind to what has happened when things like this happened in the past.
I’m not concerned with people being worried about being conscientious about climate change. I’m worried about things like this.
You are backing these people up by stating what skeptics should believe. That’s not ok.
Planet is calling these people akin to 6,000 year old Earth believers, which is hogwash. He was a part of that religious community and is somehow exempt.
Debate is fine. Shutting down debate based an arguments of authority, and consensus studies, is not fine. You have not rationally argued the case for climate change, and instead of questioning those who question climate change, you should question why it is no one will believe you who is a skeptic? Perhaps there actually is a reason other than they are arrogant or ignorant.
That’s your flaw and it’s on you. It’s clear what you think on the matter, as well as others here like confused.
The way you guys debate this is abhorrent and reflects very poorly on the youth in society. Its intimidation tactics at it’s best, and societal pressure at it’s worst.
Arguments of or from authority would be like this:
The majority of people with X position agree!
That’s not an argument, and in fact it’s dangerous to argue this way. I could just as easily say: The bible says so. I don’t accept such arguments. Give me data.
Bob, you wrote that Bernie said ““Bring climate deniers to justice…” and then added in your comment of “So…if we say fund other positions, and they believe these are wildly against common science, we can prosecute them right?”
Wrong.
The full text of that paragraph clearly states Bernie is only talking about Corporations who may have knowingly ignored the dangers of their product and funded opposition studies to “support” their stance that their product was safe (analogous to this would be the NFL and them paying physicians to underestimate the impact their sport has on concussions and CTE, then getting sued by former players for hiding evidence”
To wit:
“Bernie recently called for the Department of Justice to investigate Exxon Mobil, which may have not only known about the dangers of climate change, but has spent millions of dollars to spread doubt about the causes and impacts of burning fossil fuels.”
He’s not talking about you and other average Joe’s who may deny climate change is occurring. He simply wants to prosecute corporations who might have known their product was dangerous yet paid people to put out reports that intentionally underestimated the danger of their products.
Reading the entire context of his comment, not just the one line you cherry picked, makes his argument quite reasonable. I don’t know how anyone could argue that if corporations intentionally misled the public about the dangers of their product, they should not actually be held liable for their intentional misrepresentation.
There’s no point with him Rosenblatt, he misquotes and deceptively quotes stuff constantly. This is a religion for him, nothing can change his mind. It’s no different than when he lies about studies, lies about what people have claimed, or provides data he hasn’t looked at and freaks out when people point out it doesn’t support his claims. Ignore him so he’ll go back to 4Chan.
http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/06/only-53-of-climatologists-meteorologists-36-of-engineers-geoscientists-19-of-agronomists-are-climate-consensus-believers/#sthash.lgMG6MDv.dpbs
Here is someone who makes some good points regarding consensus and how we have been mislead.
I’m trying to find the good old studies showing you are wrong regarding how many believe we are going to cause devastating affects through man made global warming.
I want to say that the number was just under, or just over, 50%, even with one of the 97% studies which had flaws to begin with, as per my other link. I know I showed this link to UW before.
Regardless, consensus studies are not evidence of the point you’re making, and this is why people are not believing you.
You aren’t making a scientific case. Don’t tell me you’re not a scientist. You don’t have to be one to show the methodology. I’ve seen the flaws with the NOAA, and I don’t accept the data methods they use. I never will, and this is why they cannot make predictions by the way.
There are clear flaws with the current ability to track climate change long term. That’s one of the big ones.
If I were to ask you, based on what data can we prove the world is warming, what would your answer be? What were the methods of measurement? What time period so as to show it’s a “climate” weight we are looking at and not a short term snapshot of what we cannot draw a large conclusion from? You will find that especially 1880-1950 our data reference points are crap. That’s selling them above what they are. The NOAA acknowledges this, and uses an equation to try and balance the crap. If you’ve ever looked at it, they also put the ocean data in, which especially is crap data, to try and account for the lack of non oceanic warming. In other words: The ocean absorbed the heat, when they include that, the data still shows warming, when they don’t, this is the pause people talk about. Should we include oceanic? Yes. Should we include 1880-1950 numbers and make an equation to average it out based on minimal observed science? Hell to the no. That is what they did. We do not have good relevant data.
This is why people are skeptical. But rather than acknowledging that, you just berate them.
It’s out of line.
I have reviewed that site and its bias is on full display.
I am all for a reasonable discussion about INTERPRETATIONS on hard scientific data, but to do it from a disingenuous position like this site has is counter-productive.
For example, on the “No net temperature increase in the arctic over the past 90 years”, they begin talking about decadal oscillations, and then use a map of scientific climate data to prove their point, which unmistakingly shows the past 4 decades show a steady increase without any of the former oscillations prevalent in the decades before the 1950s.
What happened after the 1950s?
htt ps://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2017-04/fossil_fuels_1.png
Carbon emissions increased RAPIDLY after the end of World War II. In fact, they doubled every 15 years. Every graph at that website referenced by NoTricksZone shows a rapid increase in surface temperatures, with the poles getting the worst of it, over the past few decades, with no end in site.
Surface sea temperatures have been on the increase across the world, although the distribution to severe warming zones to belts of cooling zones is distributed in a much more spotty way.
Patrick Moore, one of the green peace founders also says this very well.
Much of the land mass in the northern regions of the Earth are not inhabitable, or have dire consequences for living there, and there is one reason: Cold.
Any of our global warming from humans is not a concern. Eventually this warming will occur enough to melt much of the ice caps with or without human intervention. When that occurs, much of Canada will open up for habitation, and may even lead to a lot of new areas to mine for natural gas, gold, as well as fossil fuels.
I am not convinced global warming is a threat in any way that will not happen without humanity as it is.
The extent of global man made warming has clearly been lied about by the government which is concerning, and there have been methods to use it for morally unquestionable tax routes which is not ok. The government needs to be kept in check, we don’t need to have governments trying to keep the Earth’s cycles in check.
I maintain that believing in global warming with consensus studies is dangerous. I maintain that calling climate skeptics ignorant or arrogant, is also dangerous. None of your arguments address these points, in fact, they intentionally side step it. The way you have talked to climate change skeptics is the problem. You have prescribed a mandatory belief. I didn’t even read your replies, because you couldn’t possibly explain away your bias, and compare this with your name, cut the bias (an unrealistic childish goal which manipulators try to take advantage of, ALL people have bias, it is only people who seek to discredit people who claim they cut their own) I don’t believe a word you say.
You have not presented evidence. You have discredited skeptics. You are not mindful of the consequences, you are not aware of the land mass available and not available presently. You have not thought about this long term into the fact changes will have to be made one way or the other, with or without man in the coming centuries (inhabitable land mass and moving people).
I’m very tired of your argument style, and the fact that the left tends to try and dominate this argument and demand consensus. It’s not ok. It never will be, and your argument will always lose until you respect non believers (skeptics) of this climate change narrative.
” I didn’t even read your replies, because you couldn’t possibly explain away your bias, and compare this with your name, cut the bias ”
Please note that explaining and having bias is reasonable. However, you have not explained what has made your bias, which you clearly have (and all of us do). Instead you have said everyone should share the consensus you believe exists (it doesn’t, not in the way you claimed anyway, as to man made global warming being a devastating issue). You have used arguments of authority, not used data, and you have completely ignored elements of the argument. You can be biased and acknowledge the other side. That’s fine. You patently insist the other side cannot exist or be reasonable, and that is extreme bias to a level I cannot allow.
I AM a moderate. The only one here, I can say where I’ve changed my mind and I CAN PROVE IT. I still have bias, but I am unusually easy to change on these issues IF and a big IF I am given information that merits it.
The fact that the left here has labeled me as far right is sheer insanity given what I have said of my positions.
I am the only one on either side who said he would vote Bernie or for someone like him if this next cycle disproves what I believe about Trump’s economics. I am the ONLY one who has said I would support a public option if healthcare cannot be solved. I am the only one who has said I would be ok with both the public option and private options.
I am the only one here who has flipped on immigration and explained why, in the last 5 years.
I am the only one who has pointed out merit on both sides, such as the opt out 401k program for Obama, and HPV vaccines in Texas, condemning the governor who blocked it.
I do not care for your posturing, which you are assuredly doing, I do not care for politics. I care about data. Give me, the dang data.
I tell you and Ron this again and again, and instead I’m called a dang lemming. This lemming initially condemned Trump until the Riots and his Nevada speech. I initially supported Cruz, then Bernie, then Trump. When Trump launched the missiles at Syria, like many Trump supporters I said “well he’s an idiot.” and we condemned him at large. All the major Trump supporters did this by the way, even Milo. Trump supporters have been bullied, this is not an opinion, it is a fact.
I am tired of the left because their colors have become clear this last election, and I DO NOT support bullies.
My debate is not bullying, anger is not bullying. When you get in a class room and you can’t say Trump support without being harassed or beaten up, then there’s a problem and we have seen KIDS beaten up for supporting Trump, and no, it didn’t happen like this against kids that supported Obama. ANTIFA and the mindsets of liberals are causing this crap, and they are not being kept in check. This does relate to climate change folks, they have the same mentality: Convert or die (be gone) essentially. I do not support that mentality. If you have not made the case, and you haven’t, then I am in no position to believe you, and I am not required to least I be called anti science based on your flawed perception of consensus studies buddy. You can claim you’ have a lack of bias but how you have treated skeptics here regarding climate change paints a different story.
“It’s not ok that Confused says nothing will change Agent’s mind.”
Really? Why do think that? Before you answer, please remember — Agent has posted MANY times that nothing will ever change his mind on any topic, no matter the evidence, no matter the data – his views will never change. He (and Conservatives) are always right and everyone else is always wrong.
And he didn’t mean that hyperbolically because I asked him multiple times if he was being or if there was any sarcasm or exaggeration when he said that stuff. He really means it. He has said it a lot. Why can’t I post something he admitted is true about himself?????
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle
This shows more of the flaws I mentioned regarding some of the 97% numbers and the limited scientists who made the papers.
It also shows other good points. It does not have to be all correct for the main point I’m making to be correct. I don’t care if you have some problems with it, as I’m sure you will. My biggest issue is that what I stated was correct. The consensus studies are misleading, and they definitely don’t show what you say they do.
“B) Highly Dangerous that will cause massive upheaval, civil unrest, and cause innumerable changes to the way people all over the planet live their lives. Yes, some regions will see a net gain due to climate change. Places in Canada, for example, which may right now feature winters too harsh to live in could become more livable within 100 years. Those in areas that already experience extreme weather may see those climates become much harsher and cruel. ”
Incorrect regarding B. I have shown this time and time again. The majority of scientists do not believe the affects of man made global warming will be devastating. I have also pointed out the flaws with these consensus studies. In many points scientists say their papers have been flat misrepresented, or their conclusions. Many the issue was the methodology, and in some, the same 72 scientists made all the published data on the topic, whether there were a thousand papers or not. Stating that the 72 scientists are representative of the entire community is wildly misleading, and it’s clear this misleading is being done intentionally. The methods of measurement have changed several times, the NOAA had to add the oceanic temperatures and make an average with guesses for the past, and did not highlight the most recent methods of measurement which are known to be the most accurate. That leaves a huge margin of error. The NOAA has specifically done this in ways that make warming look worse than it is, and has resulted in some scientists saying the oceanic raise would have to explode by 400% over a 10 year period. That didn’t happen, so the model was wrong. The issue is just how much corruption there has been seen to use this climate issue as a means of controlling voting habits. It’s clear that is occurring.
Consensus studies are not science by the way. They simply aren’t. The models have been shown to be in error again and again.
“The question that everyone who believes climate change is a hoax should ask themselves is, “Why does everyone else believe this and I am smart enough to see the truth?””
Incorrect, because everyone doesn’t. The real question should be, why is the consensus of the scientific community being misrepresented? Or, the real real question should be: Is the data reliable? Has it predicted events reliably? What is the methodology. I had a debate with Confused on the variables in the NOAA data, and he ultimately made it a “who should be believed” argument instead of what data is real type of scenario. I believe any of us can read this and come to a conclusion, if we stop the “who should be believed” and only believe when we see data that works and is proven reliable.
“In all of your vast knowledge and abilities, would you really pit yourself against climate experts and researchers across the world? In every country? In every Fortune 500 company who employ experts to help them anticipate changes in the economy and environmental landscape to avoid the pitfalls that a lack of preparation would bring? Really?”
This is not what he’s doing. The fact that you would say this shows how clueless you are on the actual studies on the matter. Also, to state there is no bias ignores climate gate, in which it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they talked about using a model that made things look worse than they were. These people’s careers and government funding rely on it. You have refused to acknowledge this even happened, obviously, or you wouldn’t shame skeptics.
“I don’t trust myself to know better than people who have spent their life’s work to understanding how this all works. If it were all a hoax, how have so many verifiable geniuses and experts been duped into devoting trillions of dollars in an attempt to clean-up mankind’s problems before it is too late?”
And how is there dissent at all? Trusting people is stupid. You do have the know how to look at the data and see it doesn’t make a viable conclusion at this point. It’s plain to anyone who isn’t in the field.
I didn’t realize there were still people out there that think climate change is a hoax. From some of the comments above, it sounds like because the numbers weren’t exactly correct at the beginning that it means it’s a hoax? As we advance, collect more data, etc, the predictions will get more accurate. I’ve actually never understood why climate change is seen by some as a liberal/left wing idea. Climate change is a problem for all. I can’t believe anyone would think the vast majority of scientists/climatologists that are warning us are all part of some left wing conspiracy to hurt businesses. I also can’t believe that anyone could think that people have no effect on our environment.
I obviously am not a scientist or climatologist, so I don’t if certain regulations are over-reaching or not, but it sounds fairly irresponsible to simply say all regulations are bad.
It’s not so much a hoax (defined as: to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous so the usual “in 50 years we’re all gonna burn!” is too long a timeline for “hoax”) as it is a mechanism to get to the ultimate goal of a measure of control over a gullible population. But, it is hoax-like, with something beyond the trick itself; beyond a trick for the sake of a trick. I award you partial credit.
“as it is a mechanism to get to the ultimate goal of a measure of control over a gullible population” Care to elaborate on what you think the ultimate measure of control the scientists involved in studying this field are hoping to put into play?
Although I believe in the man-influenced climate change model, I think focusing on the man-made piece is shortsighted — if “we” (not specific to you and I, the general “we”) can agree the temperatures across the globe are rising and extreme weather is becoming more common, “we” need to be good stewards of the planet and do what we can to leave the earth in decent shape for our kids and our kids’ kids — which is to say nothing of projecting how our insurance-related businesses may need to adapt pricing and policy concentration so we can stay in business..
For example: if “you” (again – general “you”) didn’t believe the hole in the ozone layer in the 80’s was influenced by humans releasing CFC’s into the atmosphere, that’s fine….but “you” should have at least considered cost-effective alternatives to CFC-filled Aquanet Hair Spray. Worst case — you’re right and nothing changes. Best case — you’re wrong yet you helped reduce introducing more ozone-depleting gases into the atmosphere.
Care to elaborate on what you think the ultimate measure of control the scientists involved in studying this field are hoping to put into play?
Are you serious? The scientists are there simply to lend a degree (no pun) of credulity to the “study”. They are funded tools of the power structure. The politicians need something to point to as they say “aha! its you people and the way you live thats killing the planet! We must ______!” And in the process, otherwise intelligent people get duped into thinking that real conclusions can be drawn from extremely short historical records, man-made computer models are always right, and the sun plays no role in any of this whatsoever. It’s just we the people causing the whole dang mess.
You raised the point (as it is a mechanism to get to the ultimate goal of a measure of control over a gullible population) so the onus is on you to explain what you think is their ultimate goal. Are you unable to specify exactly what you think the ultimate goal is of the scientists who you claim are trying to control a gullible population?
My apologies – you shifted your argument from saying the scientists were trying to control the gullible population, but now you say it’s the politicians (whom you think are paying off the scientists to reach their conclusions) that are doing so.
If you’re unwilling to explain what exactly you think their trying to do to “control the gullible population” and how it will benefit them from doing so (you know — back up your argument), or if you are just going to move the goalposts each time I ask you to clarify what you meant, I would rather not continue this conversation with you.
grr. stupid homonyms. “exactly you think their trying” –> “exactly you think THEY’RE trying “
Rosy, thanks, but I didn’t ask you/ewe (I know you are challenged this way, so pick) to have a conversation with me. You engaged me after my perfectly clear post in a little parsing, nitpicking and homonym bingo. Now you’re/your reliving your debate team days with this bs about “I don’t quite understand/tell me about this control you speak of/I don’t get you/please explain” pablum when you know exactly what I mean. And if you don’t, you are far to gone for me to waste any time bringing you up to speed. Good day, sir.
Good day to you too, sir.
Sun energy output hasn’t increased.
If the sun hasn’t been doing it, what is?
QUOTE: I obviously am not a scientist or climatologist
Nobody here is! That’s the hilarious thing about some of these blowhard know it alls!!
So the Geneva Convention, an insurance industry think tank, interviews 62 C-level executives at insurance and reinsurance companies, and based on that non-biased input determines that the insurance industry has made ‘significant contributions in the climate change battle’ ! LOL. Since we’re all in the insurance industry, lets take the credit !!
Also, I am not aware of a battle……
Perhaps the insurance industry should try motivating people to protect the environment for their children and grandchildren’s future. How about increasing automobile insurance by the 300% on fossil fuel powered vehicles and reduce insurance on PHEVs with a range minimum range of 25 miles on battery by 5% and 15% on EV and FCV vehicles.