The article teases you with a topical lead in: the Polar Vortex.
But you have to read two thirds of the article to even get to a discussion of the Polar Vortex. The main part of the article is another Scary Monster story about a NEW(!) report that has nothing to do with the Polar Vortex. The NEW(!) Report cites 2 dangers to insurance companies. Okay, I’m listening. The first is you know what: the Scary Monster creates bigger natural disasters. You know the rest, more expensive, blah blah blah.
Today’s San Diego Union Tribune cited another NEW report (Settled Science, I thought) that says that the Santa Ana winds that fuel fires in Southern Calif. will be LESS common in the future due to Climate Change. HURRAY! LESS DAMAGING FIRES! (I can’t believe they published such heresy.)
What was the second DANGER(!) for insurance companies in the IJ article?:
“On top of the physical risks, P&C insurers’ underwriting and investment activities expose them to indirect carbon risks,” the report states. “By underwriting coverage for fossil fuel projects, the insurance industry enables projects that worsen climate change, which increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather.”
Carbon Risks. That’s a new one. I hate to tell you folks, but that really isn’t any different from the last 50 years. The world runs on fossil fuels and will continue to do so, no matter how many times the Climate Zealots yell “Scary Monsters!!!!”
Regarding the second “DANGER”, I think this is the author’s passive aggressive “threat” and “suggestion”, especially for the European or left leaning insurance carriers, to “get on board” and stop providing insurance for these “carbon producing” companies.
Take away their ability to get insurance and “we can put them out of business”!
Agent, did you find the answer to the question we’ve all been asking you? It’s right here in this article…”weather is what is happening outside your house now, while climate is what happens over many years.”
It’s quite clear some on the conservative side, like Tramp for example, doesn’t know this. And, Agent has been reciting Tramp’s sentiments on climate for years.
Most humans I listen to wish Al Gore and his Army of Global Alarming Hoaxers weren’t doing what they are doing because their impact is making the northern hemisphere too %#@& cold.
Yes, we know, most humans you listen to are the braindead on Faux Newz. They mistake weather for climate, too. Please, source for us what the average temperatures have done over the course of the last 30 years and be sure to highlight the last 10 or so. I’ll wait…
Editor’s note: September 1, 2018 — “…the slowdown in the rate of average global surface warming…has unequivocally ended. Scientists…have documented the continued build up in sub-surface ocean heat during the period.”
Editor’s note: Updated June 4, 2015
“Basically, the new analysis confirms what climate scientists have said all along: natural variability (such as the patterns described in this article) may cause the rate of warming to change from one decade to the next, but global warming is still underway.”
Did you look at the “Yearly surface temperatures since 1880” chart that CLEARLY shows a constant increase?
Did you look at the 2nd chart that said “Each of the last three decades was the warmest on record at the time, and each was warmer than the last”
How about the last sentence of the article: “Meanwhile, other environmental indicators of climate change—melting ice in Greenland, the retreat of Arctic sea ice, global sea level rise—continue to send a clear signal that Earth is still warming.”
You should really read the articles and look at the charts before you post them.
Even though you are not an honest man, here goes again . . .
When a prediction is made in 2018 by the same people whose past predictions have been WILDLY wrong, smart people exercise skepticism. In fact, their prediction is laughable; NONE of them predicted a 20 year slow down in warming 20 years ago.
Not one person predicted that. Geez, Rosenblatt.
And again, for the LAST TIME, the “warmest on record” is only the last 140 years. Which is nothing. Especially when you consider that the Earth has been warming since the last mini Ice Age. All by itself.
Geez, Rosenblatt, don’t ever play 3 card Monty. You are clearly an easy mark.
February 1, 2019 at 12:49 pm
Phil says:
Like or Dislike:
10
6
“natural variability (such as the patterns described in this article) may cause the rate of warming to change from one decade to the next, but global warming is still underway.”
Negative.
Contrary to climate models, which have been superficially locked into CO2, there is no modern global warming. Since 1950, there has been no consistent change in the earth’s temperature. The slightly warmer temperature today has been shown to be a transient, the result of brief episodes of warming in only a couple of years. It has no connection to CO2, which, in contrast to temperature, has increased steadily.
The only time during the 20th century when global temperature changed consistently over consecutive years was during the 1920s and 1930s – when CO2 was smaller than 300 – about what the IPCC claims existed before the industrial era.
February 1, 2019 at 1:35 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
8
4
Your argument that someone’s adjusted prediction is not valid because the original prediction did not occur and said prediction had to be reassessed over time is a disingenuous argument.
To predict something means to “foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason.”
Predictions ARE supposed to change over time. They MUST be adjusted based on observation and scientific reason.
Just because someone predicts something correctly (Nostradamus) does not mean ALL their predictions will be right (Nostradamus).
Just because someone predicts something wrong (Gore’s ice caps) does not mean ALL their predictions will be wrong (increase in global temperatures).
February 1, 2019 at 2:58 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
9
2
Per the article Craig and Rosenblatt referenced
“During the last decade, a longer than usual solar minimum cycle, several volcanic eruptions, and relatively low amounts of water vapor in the stratosphere may have helped cool the atmosphere temporarily. But recent research suggests that the Earth’s natural climate variability—natural, short-term fluctuations in the climate system that occur on a year-to-year basis or longer—may have played the most pivotal role of all by transferring excess heat from the Earth’s surface into the deep ocean.
One of the most well-known natural climate oscillations—the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle—causes swings in sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific. Although ENSO originates in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, a strong El Niño or La Niña event is capable of bumping global temperatures upward or downward for a year or two. Since the last major El Niño event in 1997-1998, a series of La Niña events have dominated the tropical Pacific, resulting in a prolonged cooling of sea surface temperatures that has also likely stalled the rise in global temperatures.”
I LOVE IT!! So the “scientists” accept that “one of the most well known Oscillators” and other naturally occurring phenomena ” longer than usual solar minimum cycle, several volcanic eruptions, and relatively low amounts of water vapor in the stratosphere” may have caused the “cooling or slowing down” of the earth’s temperature, but can’t accept that nature may cause it to warm the planet!!
YOU CAN”T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!! Actually, I guess THEY can.
Facts screwed up their narrative, now they have to explain why their junk science isn’t really junk science.
I maintain…figures lie and liars figure. Oops!
February 1, 2019 at 1:31 pm
Duke Newcomb says:
Like or Dislike:
8
3
Even if evil man is causing the temps to rise what is the plausible solution? Stone age living? Go to more ‘clean’ vehicles that use more carbon sources in a roundabout way?
If Americans all rode horses tomorrow any mitigation in CO2 production would be zeroed out by India and Asia.
People jump on “climate change” because it makes them feel empowered, that they have some control over their environment. But in reality what we really need to worry about are the things that can/will happen that are totally outside of our control – like asteroids, volcanic tidal waves, the coming solar minimum and the pole shift. Can’t do a thing about any one of them.
I have an idea. How about we care about and take action on the things that are in our control.
Like finding a way to protect this country’s sovereignty. We are not a country if we do not have a border. Allowing anyone in simply because life is difficult where they are from is a recipe for destruction. The Dem’s and leftists are too short sighted to think that this will ever stop on it’s own. Our illegal immigration problem is likely well past 12-15 million people.
Answer me one question, progressives. How many people is too many? Should China send about 100 million of their poorest people to Mexico so they can come through our southern border? How about the poor people in Africa (whose lives are far worse that those in South America)? Another 50 million from them?
Try to use some logic and basic math. Eventually, the money will run out. Eventually, there will be more and more terrorists and criminals that get in the country.
Furthermore, this is the real and present danger that is MOST likely to happen in the next 12 years. I can deal with the temperature going up 5-10 degrees over the next 500 years.
Can you deal with a terrorist or illegal alien thug killing your loved one tomorrow?
Again, confusing natural climate cycles with man-made doom. They are two different things.
Should insurers plan for the unexpected in all things, including the future climate? But of course.
Can the Doom Sayers tell us what is going to happen and when and how bad it is going to be and why all the predictions of the Climate Scientists so far have been wildly unreliable? No.
And all the Doom Sayers who try to tell us it is “Settled Science” and anyone who asks questions is a Bad Person, a “Denier”, well those people are hurting their own cause. Go read again “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”.
When you Doom Sayers truly are speaking the truth, no one will listen. And it’s your fault. You kept saying false things and insisting on how Righteous you are instead of acknowledging how difficult the science really is.
First, you need to recognize that both Munich Re and Swiss Re are European companies with a left leaning/progressive mindset.
Second, All insurance carriers budget for catastrophes. Some better than others.
Third, Man made decisions on what to build and where and whom to insure and for how much have more impact on the cost of rebuilding after a disaster than man made climate change. It’s time to stop blaming the weather (climate) for stupid, selfish decisions by people.
Fourth, Check out the amount of Capital the largest insurance companies have. It is greater than any time in history. In other words, the industry can afford it. They just have trouble making the investors believe it. That is why they keep trying to expand their top line in hopes that it will improve the bottom line. Sometimes those decisions are not good decisions. See # 3 above.
“European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say”
Quiz Time: Is that from The Onion? Yes or No. Let’s see, it combines white racism with climate change. My guess: Yes.
Nope. CNN today. Google it. Here is the logic: so many Native Americans were killed that it allowed a massive increase in tree growth, which swallowed up lots of CO2, which then cooled the Earth. Seriously.
Problem: The Journal Nature, one of the most highly respected science journals in the US, had an article on trees and Climate Change this month. It said that trees might actually make the Earth warmer!!!!!
Craig, is https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37823-w the article in question you’re talking about? Did you actually read it? Like the part about how climate change has reduced tree productivity and survival in many regions of the world? Or are you going to deny any part of the article that doesn’t help push your agenda forward? Would you like to actually point to the part of the article you’re referencing, or did you just hear that on Fox News and regurgitate it? Because while I’m skimming, I don’t see anything to back up your beliefs. Craig posting more nonsense and claiming it’s fact? Shock.
Isn’t it interesting how often lefties like to insult people they disagree with? That is OBVIOUSLY not the same article, genius. But thanks for the insults. You must be a really Superior person.
Craig said, “Isn’t it interesting how often lefties like to insult people they disagree with?”
But yet, Craig has also said:
FEBRUARY 5, 2019 AT 2:54 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
You are such a partisan hack, making foolish comments almost exclusively:
JANUARY 21, 2019 AT 2:05 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
1
Says the guy who has nothing interesting to say, ever.
MAY 1, 2018 AT 3:55 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Clowns. Partisan clowns.
• DECEMBER 10, 2018 AT 1:29 PM
craig cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
2
Poor Jerry. Ad hominem attacks that reveal his complete ignorance of the topic.
MARCH 21, 2018 AT 4:20 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
And there you have the perfect explanation of Climate Change.
Because you “believe in science”.
Keep on making us laugh . . . or look in the mirror and do it for yourself.
Clown.
MARCH 19, 2018 AT 9:04 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
1
Dream on you probably don’t think very often.
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 1:59 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
5
3
Sheep don’t have large brains.
APRIL 4, 2018 AT 11:18 AM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Clearly, you guys are smoking too much ganja. And your paranoid conspiracy theories would be laughable . . . except you get to vote.
APRIL 19, 2018 AT 2:53 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
And my point is confirmed by confused! Thanks, third grader!
MAY 23, 2018 AT 11:41 AM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Boring. No insights whatsoever. Just Boring.
You must not be very smart. Sorry. (Have you heard of MIT?)
Who knew that Craig is a lefty? Just keeps insulting people he disagrees with over and over and over and over and…
I’ll never get sick of this calling out of blatant hypocrisy.
February 6, 2019 at 11:22 am
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
If you were a fair minded and honest person, here is what you would acknowledge: I don’t insult people until AFTER they insult me first. Go back and look at those comments and what preceeded them.
When someone disagrees with me respectfully, I follow suit.
You see? Civility requires two dance partners. Try it for once.
February 6, 2019 at 12:03 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Craig … you just insulted me below when I did not insult you. That happened a whopping 2 minutes before you claimed you never make the first insult. Unbelievable.
February 6, 2019 at 2:35 pm
Jax Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Rosenblatt: I think you have really thin skin. Man up a bit.
February 6, 2019 at 2:51 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
I’m not offended – I was just pointing out that Craig was lying
February 6, 2019 at 8:11 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Craig – your link to prove “trees might actually make the earth warmer” seems to have a lot of words to support the other side of the argument.
“The global significance of these findings is still unclear. Pangala and Gauci both estimate that the cooling effect of trees taking up carbon greatly outstrips the warming from tree emissions of methane and nitrous oxide.”
“That doesn’t mean that all forests cool the planet, however.”
“Most scientists agree, however, that tropical forests are clear climate coolers”
“…one of the first global studies examining one part of this exchange: the influence of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, emitted by trees. These include isoprene , a small hydrocarbon that can warm the globe in several ways … Yet isoprene can have a cooling influence, too, by helping to produce aerosol particles that block incoming sunlight.”
“Higher-latitude boreal forests emit mostly terpenes, which help to cool the climate”
“She followed up on her research paper by writing an opinion piece in The New York Times entitled ‘To Save the Planet, Don’t Plant Trees’, which argued that the large uncertainties around the extent to which forests cool or warm the climate made tree planting a risky strategy for fighting climate change …. The article, and especially the headline (which Unger did not write), triggered a tsunami of complaints from researchers, who disputed the science and said the piece threatened to undermine years of research and advocacy. A group of 30 forest scientists wrote a response on the environmental news website Mongabay, saying, “We strongly disagree with Professor Unger’s core message.””
Don’t be intentionally dense. This is news because of the shift from the absolute “trees cool” position we have all been told to one where climate scientists aren’t so sure anymore.
By the way: the climate scientists who agree with this study are getting death threats. They openly discussed NOT publishing the findings out of fear they would be ostracized or have their careers hurt.
Congratulations for being part of the liberal team that is so understanding and tolerant.
You shouldn’t have to wait for someone to answer a question before you read the article you linked. Just read it and, like I did, post the ACTUAL quotes from the article that you think support what you’re claiming it says.
February 6, 2019 at 2:00 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
I’ll start with the Headline:
“How much can forests fight climate change?
Trees are supposed to slow global warming, but growing evidence suggests they might not always be climate saviours.”
“The article, and especially the headline (which Unger did not write), triggered a tsunami of complaints from researchers, who disputed the science and said the piece threatened to undermine years of research and advocacy. A group of 30 forest scientists wrote a response on the environmental news website Mongabay, saying, “We strongly disagree with Professor Unger’s core message.””
Jerry, once again you’re the bigger man, but once again it doesn’t seem to matter. Craig and Jax are clearly trolls and it’s sad that the moderators here don’t make any effort to erase their discourse. You caught him in a clear lie above but he just turns to another argument. It’s occasionally hard to avoid arguing with him, but maybe he’ll just get so angry about “the lefties” his heart will explode and we won’t have to deal with him at some point. Clearly he has anger issues.
February 6, 2019 at 6:44 pm
jerry says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I meant Rosenblatt. Oops :P
February 7, 2019 at 9:21 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
No worries Jerry – I talk to myself all the time … some of the best conversations I have are with myself :D
February 6, 2019 at 2:52 pm
Jax Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
When will the ‘media’ begin to differentiate between climate change due to man’s presence on the planet vs naturally occurring climate change ? My guess is that they will not even make the effort to understand the difference, let alone discuss them as two separate issues until there is money in it for them. As long as the current narrative continues to sell, then that is what we will get.
One day the truth will come out and then we’ll be able to accurately assess the things we can do to curb or slow climate change vs those changes being affected by the planet herself. That is a truth that lots of people don’t want to hear.
The article teases you with a topical lead in: the Polar Vortex.
But you have to read two thirds of the article to even get to a discussion of the Polar Vortex. The main part of the article is another Scary Monster story about a NEW(!) report that has nothing to do with the Polar Vortex. The NEW(!) Report cites 2 dangers to insurance companies. Okay, I’m listening. The first is you know what: the Scary Monster creates bigger natural disasters. You know the rest, more expensive, blah blah blah.
Today’s San Diego Union Tribune cited another NEW report (Settled Science, I thought) that says that the Santa Ana winds that fuel fires in Southern Calif. will be LESS common in the future due to Climate Change. HURRAY! LESS DAMAGING FIRES! (I can’t believe they published such heresy.)
What was the second DANGER(!) for insurance companies in the IJ article?:
“On top of the physical risks, P&C insurers’ underwriting and investment activities expose them to indirect carbon risks,” the report states. “By underwriting coverage for fossil fuel projects, the insurance industry enables projects that worsen climate change, which increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather.”
Carbon Risks. That’s a new one. I hate to tell you folks, but that really isn’t any different from the last 50 years. The world runs on fossil fuels and will continue to do so, no matter how many times the Climate Zealots yell “Scary Monsters!!!!”
MARCH 21, 2018 AT 4:20 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
And there you have the perfect explanation of Climate Change.
Keep on making us laugh . . . or look in the mirror and do it for yourself.
Clown.
Craig,
Regarding the second “DANGER”, I think this is the author’s passive aggressive “threat” and “suggestion”, especially for the European or left leaning insurance carriers, to “get on board” and stop providing insurance for these “carbon producing” companies.
Take away their ability to get insurance and “we can put them out of business”!
Agent, did you find the answer to the question we’ve all been asking you? It’s right here in this article…”weather is what is happening outside your house now, while climate is what happens over many years.”
Will you please call Tramp and let him know, too?
@Platitude: are you asking others to call the White House because your phone # has been blocked due to your past calls?
APRIL 9, 2018 AT 2:28 PM
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
2
Sounds like you don’t have any original thoughts.
AUGUST 20, 2018 AT 8:31 AM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
you need to get a life
Guess what, Planet?? We knew that.
Did you know that the climate has always been changing over many years? It’s called (whisper) nature.
Will you please let the rest of the leftist kooks know? Much obliged!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Planet – So do you agree that nature is cause of climate change?
Most humans I listen to wish Al Gore and his Army of Global Alarming Hoaxers weren’t doing what they are doing because their impact is making the northern hemisphere too %#@& cold.
Yes, we know, most humans you listen to are the braindead on Faux Newz. They mistake weather for climate, too. Please, source for us what the average temperatures have done over the course of the last 30 years and be sure to highlight the last 10 or so. I’ll wait…
Here you go. Headline: “Why did the Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past 10 years?” (I know. Waste of time. Talking to a wall.)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjA6oTT-prgAhUKCnwKHaYEDKkQFjAAegQICxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.climate.gov%2Fnews-features%2Fclimate-qa%2Fwhy-did-earth%25E2%2580%2599s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade&usg=AOvVaw1TKBSnCMlQkLW9lv6bTW4c
I swear you post links without reading them.
Editor’s note: September 1, 2018 — “…the slowdown in the rate of average global surface warming…has unequivocally ended. Scientists…have documented the continued build up in sub-surface ocean heat during the period.”
Editor’s note: Updated June 4, 2015
“Basically, the new analysis confirms what climate scientists have said all along: natural variability (such as the patterns described in this article) may cause the rate of warming to change from one decade to the next, but global warming is still underway.”
Did you look at the “Yearly surface temperatures since 1880” chart that CLEARLY shows a constant increase?
Did you look at the 2nd chart that said “Each of the last three decades was the warmest on record at the time, and each was warmer than the last”
How about the last sentence of the article: “Meanwhile, other environmental indicators of climate change—melting ice in Greenland, the retreat of Arctic sea ice, global sea level rise—continue to send a clear signal that Earth is still warming.”
You should really read the articles and look at the charts before you post them.
Even though you are not an honest man, here goes again . . .
When a prediction is made in 2018 by the same people whose past predictions have been WILDLY wrong, smart people exercise skepticism. In fact, their prediction is laughable; NONE of them predicted a 20 year slow down in warming 20 years ago.
Not one person predicted that. Geez, Rosenblatt.
And again, for the LAST TIME, the “warmest on record” is only the last 140 years. Which is nothing. Especially when you consider that the Earth has been warming since the last mini Ice Age. All by itself.
Geez, Rosenblatt, don’t ever play 3 card Monty. You are clearly an easy mark.
“natural variability (such as the patterns described in this article) may cause the rate of warming to change from one decade to the next, but global warming is still underway.”
Negative.
Contrary to climate models, which have been superficially locked into CO2, there is no modern global warming. Since 1950, there has been no consistent change in the earth’s temperature. The slightly warmer temperature today has been shown to be a transient, the result of brief episodes of warming in only a couple of years. It has no connection to CO2, which, in contrast to temperature, has increased steadily.
https://youtu.be/rohF6K2avtY (16:00)
The only time during the 20th century when global temperature changed consistently over consecutive years was during the 1920s and 1930s – when CO2 was smaller than 300 – about what the IPCC claims existed before the industrial era.
Your argument that someone’s adjusted prediction is not valid because the original prediction did not occur and said prediction had to be reassessed over time is a disingenuous argument.
To predict something means to “foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason.”
Predictions ARE supposed to change over time. They MUST be adjusted based on observation and scientific reason.
Just because someone predicts something correctly (Nostradamus) does not mean ALL their predictions will be right (Nostradamus).
Just because someone predicts something wrong (Gore’s ice caps) does not mean ALL their predictions will be wrong (increase in global temperatures).
Per the article Craig and Rosenblatt referenced
“During the last decade, a longer than usual solar minimum cycle, several volcanic eruptions, and relatively low amounts of water vapor in the stratosphere may have helped cool the atmosphere temporarily. But recent research suggests that the Earth’s natural climate variability—natural, short-term fluctuations in the climate system that occur on a year-to-year basis or longer—may have played the most pivotal role of all by transferring excess heat from the Earth’s surface into the deep ocean.
One of the most well-known natural climate oscillations—the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle—causes swings in sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific. Although ENSO originates in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, a strong El Niño or La Niña event is capable of bumping global temperatures upward or downward for a year or two. Since the last major El Niño event in 1997-1998, a series of La Niña events have dominated the tropical Pacific, resulting in a prolonged cooling of sea surface temperatures that has also likely stalled the rise in global temperatures.”
I LOVE IT!! So the “scientists” accept that “one of the most well known Oscillators” and other naturally occurring phenomena ” longer than usual solar minimum cycle, several volcanic eruptions, and relatively low amounts of water vapor in the stratosphere” may have caused the “cooling or slowing down” of the earth’s temperature, but can’t accept that nature may cause it to warm the planet!!
YOU CAN”T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!! Actually, I guess THEY can.
Facts screwed up their narrative, now they have to explain why their junk science isn’t really junk science.
I maintain…figures lie and liars figure. Oops!
Even if evil man is causing the temps to rise what is the plausible solution? Stone age living? Go to more ‘clean’ vehicles that use more carbon sources in a roundabout way?
If Americans all rode horses tomorrow any mitigation in CO2 production would be zeroed out by India and Asia.
You’re right.. Dying is the answer then.
Yup. I got some bad news. We are all going to die anyway, eventually.
Should we be good stewards and take care of the planet? Yup.
Should we run around like chicken little (aka AOC) and cry we are all going to die in 12 years? I don’t think so.
People jump on “climate change” because it makes them feel empowered, that they have some control over their environment. But in reality what we really need to worry about are the things that can/will happen that are totally outside of our control – like asteroids, volcanic tidal waves, the coming solar minimum and the pole shift. Can’t do a thing about any one of them.
I have an idea. How about we care about and take action on the things that are in our control.
Like finding a way to protect this country’s sovereignty. We are not a country if we do not have a border. Allowing anyone in simply because life is difficult where they are from is a recipe for destruction. The Dem’s and leftists are too short sighted to think that this will ever stop on it’s own. Our illegal immigration problem is likely well past 12-15 million people.
Answer me one question, progressives. How many people is too many? Should China send about 100 million of their poorest people to Mexico so they can come through our southern border? How about the poor people in Africa (whose lives are far worse that those in South America)? Another 50 million from them?
Try to use some logic and basic math. Eventually, the money will run out. Eventually, there will be more and more terrorists and criminals that get in the country.
Furthermore, this is the real and present danger that is MOST likely to happen in the next 12 years. I can deal with the temperature going up 5-10 degrees over the next 500 years.
Can you deal with a terrorist or illegal alien thug killing your loved one tomorrow?
The big reinsurers have been concerned about the effects of climate change for more than 20 years. If any of these commentators can reassure them that there aren’t going to be more extremes of weather, and therefore more severe losses, they will be delighted.
Munich Re and Swiss Re are the places to start.
https://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate-change/index.html and https://www.swissre.com/risk-knowledge/mitigating-climate-risk.html
Again, confusing natural climate cycles with man-made doom. They are two different things.
Should insurers plan for the unexpected in all things, including the future climate? But of course.
Can the Doom Sayers tell us what is going to happen and when and how bad it is going to be and why all the predictions of the Climate Scientists so far have been wildly unreliable? No.
And all the Doom Sayers who try to tell us it is “Settled Science” and anyone who asks questions is a Bad Person, a “Denier”, well those people are hurting their own cause. Go read again “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”.
When you Doom Sayers truly are speaking the truth, no one will listen. And it’s your fault. You kept saying false things and insisting on how Righteous you are instead of acknowledging how difficult the science really is.
First, you need to recognize that both Munich Re and Swiss Re are European companies with a left leaning/progressive mindset.
Second, All insurance carriers budget for catastrophes. Some better than others.
Third, Man made decisions on what to build and where and whom to insure and for how much have more impact on the cost of rebuilding after a disaster than man made climate change. It’s time to stop blaming the weather (climate) for stupid, selfish decisions by people.
Fourth, Check out the amount of Capital the largest insurance companies have. It is greater than any time in history. In other words, the industry can afford it. They just have trouble making the investors believe it. That is why they keep trying to expand their top line in hopes that it will improve the bottom line. Sometimes those decisions are not good decisions. See # 3 above.
“European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say”
Quiz Time: Is that from The Onion? Yes or No. Let’s see, it combines white racism with climate change. My guess: Yes.
Nope. CNN today. Google it. Here is the logic: so many Native Americans were killed that it allowed a massive increase in tree growth, which swallowed up lots of CO2, which then cooled the Earth. Seriously.
Problem: The Journal Nature, one of the most highly respected science journals in the US, had an article on trees and Climate Change this month. It said that trees might actually make the Earth warmer!!!!!
Settled Science, folks.
Craig, is https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37823-w the article in question you’re talking about? Did you actually read it? Like the part about how climate change has reduced tree productivity and survival in many regions of the world? Or are you going to deny any part of the article that doesn’t help push your agenda forward? Would you like to actually point to the part of the article you’re referencing, or did you just hear that on Fox News and regurgitate it? Because while I’m skimming, I don’t see anything to back up your beliefs. Craig posting more nonsense and claiming it’s fact? Shock.
Isn’t it interesting how often lefties like to insult people they disagree with? That is OBVIOUSLY not the same article, genius. But thanks for the insults. You must be a really Superior person.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00122-z
Now apologize, admit I was right and that you learned something new for a change.
Craig said, “Isn’t it interesting how often lefties like to insult people they disagree with?”
But yet, Craig has also said:
FEBRUARY 5, 2019 AT 2:54 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
You are such a partisan hack, making foolish comments almost exclusively:
JANUARY 21, 2019 AT 2:05 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
1
Says the guy who has nothing interesting to say, ever.
MAY 1, 2018 AT 3:55 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Clowns. Partisan clowns.
• DECEMBER 10, 2018 AT 1:29 PM
craig cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
2
Poor Jerry. Ad hominem attacks that reveal his complete ignorance of the topic.
MARCH 21, 2018 AT 4:20 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
And there you have the perfect explanation of Climate Change.
Because you “believe in science”.
Keep on making us laugh . . . or look in the mirror and do it for yourself.
Clown.
MARCH 19, 2018 AT 9:04 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
1
Dream on you probably don’t think very often.
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 1:59 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
5
3
Sheep don’t have large brains.
APRIL 4, 2018 AT 11:18 AM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Clearly, you guys are smoking too much ganja. And your paranoid conspiracy theories would be laughable . . . except you get to vote.
APRIL 19, 2018 AT 2:53 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
And my point is confirmed by confused! Thanks, third grader!
MAY 23, 2018 AT 11:41 AM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Boring. No insights whatsoever. Just Boring.
You must not be very smart. Sorry. (Have you heard of MIT?)
Who knew that Craig is a lefty? Just keeps insulting people he disagrees with over and over and over and over and…
I’ll never get sick of this calling out of blatant hypocrisy.
If you were a fair minded and honest person, here is what you would acknowledge: I don’t insult people until AFTER they insult me first. Go back and look at those comments and what preceeded them.
When someone disagrees with me respectfully, I follow suit.
You see? Civility requires two dance partners. Try it for once.
Craig … you just insulted me below when I did not insult you. That happened a whopping 2 minutes before you claimed you never make the first insult. Unbelievable.
Rosenblatt: I think you have really thin skin. Man up a bit.
I’m not offended – I was just pointing out that Craig was lying
Craig – your link to prove “trees might actually make the earth warmer” seems to have a lot of words to support the other side of the argument.
“The global significance of these findings is still unclear. Pangala and Gauci both estimate that the cooling effect of trees taking up carbon greatly outstrips the warming from tree emissions of methane and nitrous oxide.”
“That doesn’t mean that all forests cool the planet, however.”
“Most scientists agree, however, that tropical forests are clear climate coolers”
“…one of the first global studies examining one part of this exchange: the influence of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, emitted by trees. These include isoprene , a small hydrocarbon that can warm the globe in several ways … Yet isoprene can have a cooling influence, too, by helping to produce aerosol particles that block incoming sunlight.”
“Higher-latitude boreal forests emit mostly terpenes, which help to cool the climate”
“She followed up on her research paper by writing an opinion piece in The New York Times entitled ‘To Save the Planet, Don’t Plant Trees’, which argued that the large uncertainties around the extent to which forests cool or warm the climate made tree planting a risky strategy for fighting climate change …. The article, and especially the headline (which Unger did not write), triggered a tsunami of complaints from researchers, who disputed the science and said the piece threatened to undermine years of research and advocacy. A group of 30 forest scientists wrote a response on the environmental news website Mongabay, saying, “We strongly disagree with Professor Unger’s core message.””
Don’t be intentionally dense. This is news because of the shift from the absolute “trees cool” position we have all been told to one where climate scientists aren’t so sure anymore.
By the way: the climate scientists who agree with this study are getting death threats. They openly discussed NOT publishing the findings out of fear they would be ostracized or have their careers hurt.
Congratulations for being part of the liberal team that is so understanding and tolerant.
I highly suggest you re-read the article before you continue to comment on what you think it says.
First, tell me why it is “news” according to the editors of Nature, one of the premier science journals in the world. ZZZZZZZZ.
You shouldn’t have to wait for someone to answer a question before you read the article you linked. Just read it and, like I did, post the ACTUAL quotes from the article that you think support what you’re claiming it says.
I’ll start with the Headline:
“How much can forests fight climate change?
Trees are supposed to slow global warming, but growing evidence suggests they might not always be climate saviours.”
Your turn.
“The article, and especially the headline (which Unger did not write), triggered a tsunami of complaints from researchers, who disputed the science and said the piece threatened to undermine years of research and advocacy. A group of 30 forest scientists wrote a response on the environmental news website Mongabay, saying, “We strongly disagree with Professor Unger’s core message.””
Sorry Craig, I forgot to end that post with “your turn”
Geez. What was the article about? Confirming that trees stop global warming/climate change/settled science?
Why did Nature even bother printing that; we already knew it.
Settled Science. HA HA HA.
So, are you done pulling out quotes from the article that actually support your argument?
Jerry, once again you’re the bigger man, but once again it doesn’t seem to matter. Craig and Jax are clearly trolls and it’s sad that the moderators here don’t make any effort to erase their discourse. You caught him in a clear lie above but he just turns to another argument. It’s occasionally hard to avoid arguing with him, but maybe he’ll just get so angry about “the lefties” his heart will explode and we won’t have to deal with him at some point. Clearly he has anger issues.
I meant Rosenblatt. Oops :P
No worries Jerry – I talk to myself all the time … some of the best conversations I have are with myself :D
When will the ‘media’ begin to differentiate between climate change due to man’s presence on the planet vs naturally occurring climate change ? My guess is that they will not even make the effort to understand the difference, let alone discuss them as two separate issues until there is money in it for them. As long as the current narrative continues to sell, then that is what we will get.
One day the truth will come out and then we’ll be able to accurately assess the things we can do to curb or slow climate change vs those changes being affected by the planet herself. That is a truth that lots of people don’t want to hear.