Oh good. I thought we would go one full week without Climate Religion. Insurance Journal, you have restored my faith in you!
Can anyone tie the recent hurricanes to Climate Change? No. There isn’t a respected Climate Scientist who would dare to try to say that any single weather event was directly caused by Climate Change.
And the Trump Administration issues a common sense rule: STOP building in areas that are clearly exposed to flood damage from hurricanes like, let’s see, the one that just actually happened.
Have we ever had hurricanes before? Why golly, yes (although the number over the past 15 years has been far, far lower than usual, so maybe Climate Change is good? Where is THAT article?).
But leave it to the media to twist anything into Trump bashing. “SEE, TRUMP IS A HYPOCRITE!”
Actually, no he isn’t. Just common sense folks.
Silly, laughable liberals. So caught up in the Religion they can no longer think straight.
Craig – are you disputing what the actual article said: that Trump veto’ed an Obama rule and then HUD promulgated a rule that veto’s the veto and “re-implements” the Obama rule Trump initially vetoed??
Did you read both? The Obama era rule was a national rule applying to nearly ALL construction that required an expenditure for estimates of the impact from Climate Change. This is a a classic, typical Big Government-mandated increase in costs on a blanket basis without justification. Trump repealed that rule and said local and State authorities could still implement their own rules if they wished.
The current Trump rule applies to Federal Funds being spent now for hurricane relief only. In other words, stop building in known flood zones. Common sense on a very limited application.
Before you fall for Lib. tricks in logic, try being skeptical.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your clarifying point (which I appreciate you posting).
So the Obama rule dealt with Federally funded projects and this rule deals with how states use money from US Dept of HUD.
Are you saying the new rule is different than the old one because funds from HUD **are not** considered federally-funded projects and wouldn’t be “covered” under the Obama rule that Trump veto’ed?
My bad … after a 3rd read of your post, I understand the point you were making. Please feel free to disregard the last post I made seeking further clarification.
Craig Cornell says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 7
Thumb down 19
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Oh good. I thought we would go one full week without Climate Religion. Insurance Journal, you have restored my faith in you!
Can anyone tie the recent hurricanes to Climate Change? No. There isn’t a respected Climate Scientist who would dare to try to say that any single weather event was directly caused by Climate Change.
And the Trump Administration issues a common sense rule: STOP building in areas that are clearly exposed to flood damage from hurricanes like, let’s see, the one that just actually happened.
Have we ever had hurricanes before? Why golly, yes (although the number over the past 15 years has been far, far lower than usual, so maybe Climate Change is good? Where is THAT article?).
But leave it to the media to twist anything into Trump bashing. “SEE, TRUMP IS A HYPOCRITE!”
Actually, no he isn’t. Just common sense folks.
Silly, laughable liberals. So caught up in the Religion they can no longer think straight.
No. I am saying that the Obama rule was a national rule applying to construction projects of all sorts. The Trump rule only applies to the disbursement of funds for Hurricane relief right now. And so it is just common sense that if the Feds are giving out money to re-build after a Hurricane that they require anyone receiving that money to prove they aren’t re-building in a known flood zone.
The Trump rule is very, very limited and what anyone would do, regardless of any belief in Climate Change.
I noticed the last 2 times I debunked your drivel about your studies supposedly disproving climate change you mysteriously, instantly disappeared, just like I’ve seen you do with Planet. Just another Agent/Yogi/Bob copying and pasting nonsense.
Also, as far as I’ve seen you’ve never proven climate change by anything other than climate change consensus studies. I have not seen you break down the actual data and say why it appears we are or aren’t warming.
In one debate with you, I used the wrong terminology, and as soon as I corrected the terminology you accused me of changing my argument, even despite the fact that you numerous times said what the hell are you talking about there is no such thing as “x”. I finally explained what I meant verbatim, which was that you were saying that the majority of scientists believe that both over half of warming is manmade, and that 97% of scientists believed that climate change would be catastrophic, as in bad enough to have severe results.
You finally admitted that of course they didn’t think that, and then called me names again, while saying I only was making that point to change the game since I was wrong, at which point I said why the heck would I even have argued at all stating you were misrepresenting the consensus, and why would you argue at all if you agreed that there was not consensus that man made global warming would be catastrophic or severe?
The point in the global warming is not whether or not man causes some warming. It is whether or not they could cause serious harm which wouldn’t happen at all.
Let’s say for example they cause the oceans to rise 100 years early. They would still rise. An exodus will still need to occur. I don’t particularly believe this one, but I’m giving an example.
Or say the world will go back into a warming period. Canada will be livable. And let’s say it changes that period by 300 years, and it will still happen. An exodus will still be needed.
Now let’s say we cause immeasurable costs for a hundred years fighting about this. You don’t get those back. We may be broke when the exodus is needed. See the point? Or alternatively we may not be ready and people may actually die. Energy is a big deal. We don’t have replacements for many of these.
Most the solutions will harm the poor (carbon taxes, really?) and changing the market to alternate energy solutions which don’t exist obviously won’t work, or to more expensive ones, will result in mass poverty.
I come from a liberal family in many regards, despite you calling me conservative, and one big one is: We do not waste, we do not litter, we are conservationists. I believe in not harming the planet. My biggest issue with liberals currently is that they have no solution, they are not realistic, they are engaging in credibility wars and arguments from a point of authority (consensus studies) they are bullying people who don’t believe them instead of debating (and when they do debate, again, it is consensus studies. People here who I would consider somewhat moderate have recently said somewhat nicely why shouldn’t we believe this and referenced why we wouldn’t believe the science community, and the answer is the science community is being misrepresented by a small number in the science community, and a few corrupt politicians. The scientific consensus is not what is shown currently and should be questioned) and they are seeing people who are at a default of non believing as ignorant. I do not think a non believer should be mocked, I believe they should be talked with.
UW you are an extremist. I’m tired of your attitude. I didn’t need to talk nicely just now and I did. End it.
“You finally admitted that of course they didn’t think that, and then called me names again,”
I should be more clear with my words. I grabbed one of your studies, and showed that even your own best study, showed that right around half of them thought that man could have a catastrophic level of affect on climate change.
And you said of course 97% of scientists had debate to the severity, and that it wasn’t 97% that agreed man would destroy the Earth with climate change.
Are you going to flip it around now? Because if you do I’m going to find that conversation, don’t even try UW.
Once again, bob posts a thorough review of a prior interaction with UW, to prove UW is misrepresenting what others said. He’s not the first person to notice UW’s tactics.
Craig: You seem to feel you’re an expert on this; Great. Where did you get your PHD from or are you just another nobody spouting off their political opinion on a scientific question?
if you can’t even tell the article was written by Bloomberg and not someone from IJ, i’m not so sure we should rely on your analysis of the material as being 100% accurate
Attack the source of the invalid comment, not the one who corrected the error.
February 13, 2018 at 2:11 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“It doesn’t matter where the author of the article works.
More important is the CONTENT.”
This is perfectly relevant to what you said. The majority of the post was directing what you did. You attempted to get rid of anything he said based on something that wasn’t related to the content of his main argument.
Also, stop acting like a victim. You weren’t “attacked”. Millennials. Such victims.
February 14, 2018 at 2:36 pm
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I criticized your tactic of focusing on an irrelevant point instead of the subject matter.
If you think otherwise, how would the reply by Craig Cornell be invalidated by him stating the wrong name of the author?
February 8, 2018 at 4:15 pm
Independent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
There are respected PHD’s who have researched and continue to study their areas of interest and see climate changes happening at an unprecedented speed which is the key to the climate problem. Change is happening faster than nature can adapt. Migrations of species occurring out of sync with food sources will cause mass casualties. Why care? Pollinators make food possible. You can get all puffed up about politics, but listen to actual smart people who do real work in the real world, and you’ll learn some things. Yes the world has been hotter and has been colder. But this time the results have a different impact, which is going to effect both sides of the aisle for a long, long time.
Let me correct that quote to match what your posts have shown that you really believe:
and yet, no one has provided a reliable analysis of this issue, that I am willing to believe, that shows a SIGNIFICANT LEVEL CORRELATION of human actions and global temperatures.
I KNOW that is not what you wrote. That is why I started the post with, “Let me correct that quote…”
February 14, 2018 at 2:39 pm
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You can SAY anything you want about ‘correcting my post’. I will believe scientific evidence when it is offered. Until then, I have high standards of acceptance of a theory; i.e. VALID proof.
Ok tell me this isn’t a problem. When you go to look at the data itself (as in the temps) for one of the oceanic temperature methods on NOAA’s website, you get that. No, that’s not a virus. That’s a clear warning from the government and NOAA. I was just going to post data regarding the temperatures and to show the method of measurement from this time period, but now I am literally too afraid to open the file and post. What the heck?
And to prove it comes from the very site showing it’s methodology, we have a problem.
Holy hell Ron! This one of their sties explaining their merging of temperatures, and they literally then say you cannot access the data unless you are a government personal or authorized!
Do you see a problem yet? Because I sure do!
This explains the past links and why I couldn’t find it when Confused and I debated (as in I knew that they merged data because they say as such, but I couldn’t find on their own site the actual temps, I just knew they made an equation for 1880 through present by merging 3 different oceanic temperature methods of monitoring).
The issue here is there is even a location and depth argument as to what is valid. They basically said well we accounted for the variance through this theory.
There is literally no credible data for oceanic temperatures to create a long term observable change. While you on the left say what climate vs weather is, this is precisely that argument as to why they are not credible studies.
You need to knock this off.
The data isn’t there, and what data they do have they threaten legal prosecution if posted online or used.
February 14, 2018 at 3:04 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Polar,
Did you see that link I just showed Ron? My level of outrage is so high, I was curious what your thoughts were.
February 13, 2018 at 2:33 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Wrong Ron. No one here has given evidence which is sufficient.
I’ve gone over the issues with the NOAA too many times to count and no one here will even acknowledge the issues in the data. This doesn’t show a problem with not being willing to believe. It is a problem in which your side has made it socially unacceptable to not believe, and that is why you believe.
That’s the bigger problem.
The consensus has been misrepresented. The data is not there to make the conclusion. We haven’t monitored climate and oceans nearly long enough with credible methods.
The equation currently uses a theory, do you understand this, it is a theoretical equation to offset the fact that they are combining 3 different oceanic temperature models with earth surface temperatures. That is the data which is presently used. It is right on the site, I’ve shown it numerous times.
The issue here is the amount of monitoring locations going back even 60 years. We do not accurately know the ocean temperatures long term, and yet an equation was used to basically guesstimate.
Do you acknowledge this is the case?
That this is a flaw?
That the data is not complete? That the data is not there!? Go to the NOAA review the data. This one I’ve specifically linked before, in which it goes over merging the oceanic data. They don’t give the specific equation when they mention it but they specifically say they do it.
The biggest issue here is that as it stands now we don’t have the data, and you on the left are forcing it as accepted and settled science. That is disturbing, especially when Bernie Sanders wants to use the DOJ to prosecute people who deny the government and media’s assessment of climate change.
We should at least wait until the science is settled before saying things like you did to Agent.
You, Polar, Agent, Craig and a few others from the right have proven Time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again that you will NEVER believe any evidence that goes against your beliefs and/or narratives.
That was the point of my post.
February 14, 2018 at 2:42 pm
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You forgot a few ‘times’ because Global Warming Hoaxers have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the naive. Re-submit your post.
When there is VALID scientific evidence of SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION, I’ll accept it. But there never will be such evidence due to what we know about Climate Cycles and their true, underlying causes.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Craig – are you disputing what the actual article said: that Trump veto’ed an Obama rule and then HUD promulgated a rule that veto’s the veto and “re-implements” the Obama rule Trump initially vetoed??
Did you read both? The Obama era rule was a national rule applying to nearly ALL construction that required an expenditure for estimates of the impact from Climate Change. This is a a classic, typical Big Government-mandated increase in costs on a blanket basis without justification. Trump repealed that rule and said local and State authorities could still implement their own rules if they wished.
The current Trump rule applies to Federal Funds being spent now for hurricane relief only. In other words, stop building in known flood zones. Common sense on a very limited application.
Before you fall for Lib. tricks in logic, try being skeptical.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your clarifying point (which I appreciate you posting).
So the Obama rule dealt with Federally funded projects and this rule deals with how states use money from US Dept of HUD.
Are you saying the new rule is different than the old one because funds from HUD **are not** considered federally-funded projects and wouldn’t be “covered” under the Obama rule that Trump veto’ed?
My bad … after a 3rd read of your post, I understand the point you were making. Please feel free to disregard the last post I made seeking further clarification.
Re-posted on behalf of CC:
Craig Cornell says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 7
Thumb down 19
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Oh good. I thought we would go one full week without Climate Religion. Insurance Journal, you have restored my faith in you!
Can anyone tie the recent hurricanes to Climate Change? No. There isn’t a respected Climate Scientist who would dare to try to say that any single weather event was directly caused by Climate Change.
And the Trump Administration issues a common sense rule: STOP building in areas that are clearly exposed to flood damage from hurricanes like, let’s see, the one that just actually happened.
Have we ever had hurricanes before? Why golly, yes (although the number over the past 15 years has been far, far lower than usual, so maybe Climate Change is good? Where is THAT article?).
But leave it to the media to twist anything into Trump bashing. “SEE, TRUMP IS A HYPOCRITE!”
Actually, no he isn’t. Just common sense folks.
Silly, laughable liberals. So caught up in the Religion they can no longer think straight.
No. I am saying that the Obama rule was a national rule applying to construction projects of all sorts. The Trump rule only applies to the disbursement of funds for Hurricane relief right now. And so it is just common sense that if the Feds are giving out money to re-build after a Hurricane that they require anyone receiving that money to prove they aren’t re-building in a known flood zone.
The Trump rule is very, very limited and what anyone would do, regardless of any belief in Climate Change.
I noticed the last 2 times I debunked your drivel about your studies supposedly disproving climate change you mysteriously, instantly disappeared, just like I’ve seen you do with Planet. Just another Agent/Yogi/Bob copying and pasting nonsense.
None of my info is copied and pasted. If so, prove it.
My arguments are not mainstream and are my own. However you, you commonly get into source arguments, meaning, you copy and paste their nonsense.
I get into data arguments.
Also, as far as I’ve seen you’ve never proven climate change by anything other than climate change consensus studies. I have not seen you break down the actual data and say why it appears we are or aren’t warming.
In one debate with you, I used the wrong terminology, and as soon as I corrected the terminology you accused me of changing my argument, even despite the fact that you numerous times said what the hell are you talking about there is no such thing as “x”. I finally explained what I meant verbatim, which was that you were saying that the majority of scientists believe that both over half of warming is manmade, and that 97% of scientists believed that climate change would be catastrophic, as in bad enough to have severe results.
You finally admitted that of course they didn’t think that, and then called me names again, while saying I only was making that point to change the game since I was wrong, at which point I said why the heck would I even have argued at all stating you were misrepresenting the consensus, and why would you argue at all if you agreed that there was not consensus that man made global warming would be catastrophic or severe?
The point in the global warming is not whether or not man causes some warming. It is whether or not they could cause serious harm which wouldn’t happen at all.
Let’s say for example they cause the oceans to rise 100 years early. They would still rise. An exodus will still need to occur. I don’t particularly believe this one, but I’m giving an example.
Or say the world will go back into a warming period. Canada will be livable. And let’s say it changes that period by 300 years, and it will still happen. An exodus will still be needed.
Now let’s say we cause immeasurable costs for a hundred years fighting about this. You don’t get those back. We may be broke when the exodus is needed. See the point? Or alternatively we may not be ready and people may actually die. Energy is a big deal. We don’t have replacements for many of these.
Most the solutions will harm the poor (carbon taxes, really?) and changing the market to alternate energy solutions which don’t exist obviously won’t work, or to more expensive ones, will result in mass poverty.
I come from a liberal family in many regards, despite you calling me conservative, and one big one is: We do not waste, we do not litter, we are conservationists. I believe in not harming the planet. My biggest issue with liberals currently is that they have no solution, they are not realistic, they are engaging in credibility wars and arguments from a point of authority (consensus studies) they are bullying people who don’t believe them instead of debating (and when they do debate, again, it is consensus studies. People here who I would consider somewhat moderate have recently said somewhat nicely why shouldn’t we believe this and referenced why we wouldn’t believe the science community, and the answer is the science community is being misrepresented by a small number in the science community, and a few corrupt politicians. The scientific consensus is not what is shown currently and should be questioned) and they are seeing people who are at a default of non believing as ignorant. I do not think a non believer should be mocked, I believe they should be talked with.
UW you are an extremist. I’m tired of your attitude. I didn’t need to talk nicely just now and I did. End it.
End the bad behavior.
“You finally admitted that of course they didn’t think that, and then called me names again,”
I should be more clear with my words. I grabbed one of your studies, and showed that even your own best study, showed that right around half of them thought that man could have a catastrophic level of affect on climate change.
And you said of course 97% of scientists had debate to the severity, and that it wasn’t 97% that agreed man would destroy the Earth with climate change.
Are you going to flip it around now? Because if you do I’m going to find that conversation, don’t even try UW.
Once again, bob posts a thorough review of a prior interaction with UW, to prove UW is misrepresenting what others said. He’s not the first person to notice UW’s tactics.
Craig: You seem to feel you’re an expert on this; Great. Where did you get your PHD from or are you just another nobody spouting off their political opinion on a scientific question?
Where did the writer of the Insurance Journal article get his PHD?
Or is he just another “nobody spouting off their political opinion on a scientific question?”
PS You shouldn’t be so insulting to Insurance Journal news writers. After all, you don’t even know them.
if you can’t even tell the article was written by Bloomberg and not someone from IJ, i’m not so sure we should rely on your analysis of the material as being 100% accurate
It doesn’t matter where the author of the article works.
More important is the CONTENT.
Warning to readers of Confused’s posts: Rabbit hole ahead!
Attack the source of the invalid comment, not the one who corrected the error.
“It doesn’t matter where the author of the article works.
More important is the CONTENT.”
This is perfectly relevant to what you said. The majority of the post was directing what you did. You attempted to get rid of anything he said based on something that wasn’t related to the content of his main argument.
Also, stop acting like a victim. You weren’t “attacked”. Millennials. Such victims.
I criticized your tactic of focusing on an irrelevant point instead of the subject matter.
If you think otherwise, how would the reply by Craig Cornell be invalidated by him stating the wrong name of the author?
There are respected PHD’s who have researched and continue to study their areas of interest and see climate changes happening at an unprecedented speed which is the key to the climate problem. Change is happening faster than nature can adapt. Migrations of species occurring out of sync with food sources will cause mass casualties. Why care? Pollinators make food possible. You can get all puffed up about politics, but listen to actual smart people who do real work in the real world, and you’ll learn some things. Yes the world has been hotter and has been colder. But this time the results have a different impact, which is going to effect both sides of the aisle for a long, long time.
… and yet, no one has provided a reliable analysis of this issue that shows a SIGNIFICANT LEVEL CORRELATION of human actions and global temperatures.
Let me correct that quote to match what your posts have shown that you really believe:
and yet, no one has provided a reliable analysis of this issue, that I am willing to believe, that shows a SIGNIFICANT LEVEL CORRELATION of human actions and global temperatures.
Sorry, that’s not what I wrote. Straw Man Arguments are the tools of those who’ve already lost the debate.
I KNOW that is not what you wrote. That is why I started the post with, “Let me correct that quote…”
You can SAY anything you want about ‘correcting my post’. I will believe scientific evidence when it is offered. Until then, I have high standards of acceptance of a theory; i.e. VALID proof.
Holy crap.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/mlost/operational/products
Ok tell me this isn’t a problem. When you go to look at the data itself (as in the temps) for one of the oceanic temperature methods on NOAA’s website, you get that. No, that’s not a virus. That’s a clear warning from the government and NOAA. I was just going to post data regarding the temperatures and to show the method of measurement from this time period, but now I am literally too afraid to open the file and post. What the heck?
ht tps://w ww.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/mlost
And to prove it comes from the very site showing it’s methodology, we have a problem.
Holy hell Ron! This one of their sties explaining their merging of temperatures, and they literally then say you cannot access the data unless you are a government personal or authorized!
Do you see a problem yet? Because I sure do!
This explains the past links and why I couldn’t find it when Confused and I debated (as in I knew that they merged data because they say as such, but I couldn’t find on their own site the actual temps, I just knew they made an equation for 1880 through present by merging 3 different oceanic temperature methods of monitoring).
The issue here is there is even a location and depth argument as to what is valid. They basically said well we accounted for the variance through this theory.
There is literally no credible data for oceanic temperatures to create a long term observable change. While you on the left say what climate vs weather is, this is precisely that argument as to why they are not credible studies.
You need to knock this off.
The data isn’t there, and what data they do have they threaten legal prosecution if posted online or used.
Polar,
Did you see that link I just showed Ron? My level of outrage is so high, I was curious what your thoughts were.
Wrong Ron. No one here has given evidence which is sufficient.
I’ve gone over the issues with the NOAA too many times to count and no one here will even acknowledge the issues in the data. This doesn’t show a problem with not being willing to believe. It is a problem in which your side has made it socially unacceptable to not believe, and that is why you believe.
That’s the bigger problem.
The consensus has been misrepresented. The data is not there to make the conclusion. We haven’t monitored climate and oceans nearly long enough with credible methods.
The equation currently uses a theory, do you understand this, it is a theoretical equation to offset the fact that they are combining 3 different oceanic temperature models with earth surface temperatures. That is the data which is presently used. It is right on the site, I’ve shown it numerous times.
The issue here is the amount of monitoring locations going back even 60 years. We do not accurately know the ocean temperatures long term, and yet an equation was used to basically guesstimate.
Do you acknowledge this is the case?
That this is a flaw?
That the data is not complete? That the data is not there!? Go to the NOAA review the data. This one I’ve specifically linked before, in which it goes over merging the oceanic data. They don’t give the specific equation when they mention it but they specifically say they do it.
The biggest issue here is that as it stands now we don’t have the data, and you on the left are forcing it as accepted and settled science. That is disturbing, especially when Bernie Sanders wants to use the DOJ to prosecute people who deny the government and media’s assessment of climate change.
We should at least wait until the science is settled before saying things like you did to Agent.
It’s not appropriate.
bob,
You, Polar, Agent, Craig and a few others from the right have proven Time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again that you will NEVER believe any evidence that goes against your beliefs and/or narratives.
That was the point of my post.
You forgot a few ‘times’ because Global Warming Hoaxers have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the naive. Re-submit your post.
When there is VALID scientific evidence of SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION, I’ll accept it. But there never will be such evidence due to what we know about Climate Cycles and their true, underlying causes.