So what? The National Science Foundation released a report that revealed how ignorant Americans are about basic science (sample: over 70 did not know that some radiation is natural).
The fact that the Climate Hoaxers have convinced ignorant Americans to believe the hoax isn’t a surprise at all, what with the relentless media lying that ANY climate event out of the norm MUST be tied to the Scary Monster.
What would actually be impressive if a majority of Americans knew that nearly all of the predictions of Climate Scientists so far have been wrong. Now THAT would reveal true knowledge about Climate Change.
(And yet in poll after poll, the public ranks Climate Change near the bottom of their public concerns. But don’t look for that story in the Insurance Journal!)
Yes, the Earth’s climate is changing. No, man cannot significantly affect it.
Knowing the points above, Global Warming Hoaxers in the 1% Club continue to fly in their private jets and occupy beachfront homes/ villas while preaching the merits and necessity of carbon taxes on everyone else.
Thank you for your attention in this controversial matter.
Scary monster or not, I personally want to be a good steward of the planet that has been gifted to us. It is a living organism and should not be raped and poisoned.
Aw. So heart warming. (Fully devoid of thought, but still, brings a tear to my eye.)
Wake up Mr. Kangaroo, everyone wants to be a good steward of the Earth. The U.S. is one of the cleanest and safest and most pollution-free countries on Earth. Nixon founded the EPA, after all.
But that doesn’t mean I want you to waste your tax dollars chasing “solutions” to Global Warming that have NO chance of making any difference whatsoever (like liberals want me to waste my tax dollars).
Check out the news this morning: that ozone hole is “contributing to global warming”, according to, you know, “journalists”.
You see, even when we do something good for the planet (and who was against shrinking the hole? No one.), the liberals lay down the guilt for not doing enough for Mother Gaia.
Want to know why Trump is going to win again? Because everyone is sick of the constant liberal blaming/name calling/guilt trips. “You are all bad people because you are not a liberal!” they all scream non-stop. I have been called a racist 7 times and accused of not caring about the Earth enough daily. And all my conservative friends hear the same crap.
“Racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, selfish haters of the environment!” As Oprah and several commentators on Insurance Journal have stated, we all should just die and let the future enfold in the glory of liberal bliss. (Andrew is cool with all the “die now, Craig” stuff. And so am I, because Trump is going to win as a result of all the tolerant Lefty hate.)
Actually, I side with Dr. Hartwig on this one. The greatest indicator of a President’s re-election is the state of the economy. One of his 1,400 slides at NAMIC showed us the evidence. And, at that time, he said because of that fact, like it or not, President Obama would get re-elected. And, guess what?
So, yes, I believe 45 will be re-elected because he inherited an improving economy which continues to improve.
July 1, 2019 at 1:28 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
“…that ozone hole is “contributing to global warming””
a) well, duh. If there’s a “hole” in the ozone layer, that will result in higher temp’s based on what the ozone layer actually does for the planet (mainly, absorbing UV light)
b) I think Planet’s argument was that the ozone hole was an issue before but has significantly shrunk since humans started to phase out CFC’s and the like back in the late 80’s & early 90’s.
Is that the point you’re trying to refute with your statement that the hole is contributing to global warming? Or are you saying the hole is part of the reason we’re seeing increase temp’s?
To support the argument that the man-made ozone hole is improving due to human’s changing their behavior, I supply the following:
“Measurements from satellites this year showed the hole in Earth’s ozone layer that forms over Antarctica each September was the smallest observed since 1988, scientists from NASA and NOAA announced today.”
h ttps://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/warm-air-helped-make-2017-ozone-hole-smallest-since-1988
also “the most harmful chemicals have been banned since the 1990s or are being phased out, and the ozone layer is slowly recovering.”
h ttps://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2018-ozone-hole-starting-recede
also “More than 30 years after the Montreal Protocol, NASA scientists documented the first direct proof that Antarctic ozone is recovering because of the CFC phase-down: Ozone depletion in the region has declined 20 percent since 2005. And at the end of 2018, the United Nations confirmed in a scientific assessment that the ozone layer is recovering, projecting that it would heal completely in the (non-polar) Northern Hemisphere by the 2030s, followed by the Southern Hemisphere in the 2050s and polar regions by 2060.”
h ttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/ozone-depletion/
So prey tell – what exactly were you getting at when you wrote “Check out the news this morning: that ozone hole is “contributing to global warming””?
July 1, 2019 at 8:19 pm
Andrew G. Simpson says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
This is a reminder of the comment section rules that are meant to encourage civil discourse. In particular, please be advised that ad hominem or other personal attacks against other users are a violation of the rules of the forum, even when the attacks are included in otherwise on-topic comments. Personal attacks include targeting another with offensive, obscene, libelous, defamatory or threatening language or slurs; assigning false or unwanted labels to another; questioning another’s character, integrity, morals or intelligence; disclosing another’s personal information; or assuming or assigning to another user a particular political, personal, social, religious or other motive.
Also, comments that are part of extended and repetitive squabbles between two and/or among small cliques of commenters are also inappropriate use of this forum.
This forum is also to be used only in a noncommercial manner.
In short, please address topics and express opinions while refraining from labeling or negatively or falsely characterizing others with whom you may disagree. If you can’t state your view without insulting another user, don’t state it.
Users remain solely responsible for the content of their communications. Insurance Journal has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit or remove any forum comments or content.
Insurance Journal has the right to suspend access to the forum for those who violate the terms of participation.
July 2, 2019 at 12:04 pm
Jax Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Then be sure to turn your A/C off and ride your bike more. Dazzle us with your deeds, not your words.
Polls like this are pointless. Before the questions was even asked, your could guess the results. Yes, there is climate change – no more dinosaurs is the proof. DUH!!!
“The majority of Americans say global warming is important to them, and that it’s affecting the weather in the U.S.” Misleading. Should read, “Majority of the people we polled”. So is it representative of the actual majority of Americans ? I don’t know and neither do the people who conducted this poll.
Want to get a feel for how the ‘majority of Americans’ feel about any given subject, then go to the expense and trouble to conduct a real sampling of the residents of our country.
Conduct a global warming poll/survey in a West Virginia coal town and you’ll find the “majority of Americans” think global warming is bs. Do the same poll/ survey on the UC Berkley campus, get a 180 degree different response. Getting a true sampling would be tough. Having pollsters that can ask questions without leading and record answers without fudging would be tough.
Personally I think the planet’s atmosphere is warming, but I’m less certain about the cause (or causes) than some scientists today. And the idea that “activists”, whatever an “activist” is, are pressuring major U.S. insurers, particularly Liberty Mutual as of late, to stop insuring coal and tar sands. Is that even legal ?
My guess is that these ‘activists’ will be the first ones to complain when the electricity goes out and the first ones to respond to pollsters !!
Jax, you make a great point, one about as well understood by “most people” as the science around climate. Conducting research with probability samples (truly random) is practically-speaking impossible. All the surveys you see in the news are convenience samples, which are vulnerable to response bias (among other things). A survey invitation that says “Tell us what you think about climate issues” will get more people with certain perspectives than with others, as would “Tell us what you think about climate change” or “…about global warming.” They’re not the same and will produce different results.
And you’re quite right: it’s super-easy to get the answer someone wants from survey research – the hardest thing we ever do is to find out what people are REALLY thinking. Finding and eliminating bias is incredibly difficult. But many polling organizations don’t even try.
Typical stupid not thorough media piece. Of course, if there were global warming it would affect the weather. Why not instead ask people “do you know what is referred to as global warming and how do you think it will affect our weather?”
All the media wants is emotional responses, not rational responses because idiots respond to emotion so that they don’t have to think.
So what? The National Science Foundation released a report that revealed how ignorant Americans are about basic science (sample: over 70 did not know that some radiation is natural).
The fact that the Climate Hoaxers have convinced ignorant Americans to believe the hoax isn’t a surprise at all, what with the relentless media lying that ANY climate event out of the norm MUST be tied to the Scary Monster.
What would actually be impressive if a majority of Americans knew that nearly all of the predictions of Climate Scientists so far have been wrong. Now THAT would reveal true knowledge about Climate Change.
(And yet in poll after poll, the public ranks Climate Change near the bottom of their public concerns. But don’t look for that story in the Insurance Journal!)
Yes, the Earth’s climate is changing. No, man cannot significantly affect it.
Knowing the points above, Global Warming Hoaxers in the 1% Club continue to fly in their private jets and occupy beachfront homes/ villas while preaching the merits and necessity of carbon taxes on everyone else.
Thank you for your attention in this controversial matter.
Scary monster or not, I personally want to be a good steward of the planet that has been gifted to us. It is a living organism and should not be raped and poisoned.
^^^^ this (maybe without the rape and poison comment, but still ^^^^ that)
Aw. So heart warming. (Fully devoid of thought, but still, brings a tear to my eye.)
Wake up Mr. Kangaroo, everyone wants to be a good steward of the Earth. The U.S. is one of the cleanest and safest and most pollution-free countries on Earth. Nixon founded the EPA, after all.
But that doesn’t mean I want you to waste your tax dollars chasing “solutions” to Global Warming that have NO chance of making any difference whatsoever (like liberals want me to waste my tax dollars).
What happened to the ozone when we stopped using certain aerosols? Yep, you’re right. We don’t make an impact at all.
“Fully devoid of thought, but still,…”
Check out the news this morning: that ozone hole is “contributing to global warming”, according to, you know, “journalists”.
You see, even when we do something good for the planet (and who was against shrinking the hole? No one.), the liberals lay down the guilt for not doing enough for Mother Gaia.
Want to know why Trump is going to win again? Because everyone is sick of the constant liberal blaming/name calling/guilt trips. “You are all bad people because you are not a liberal!” they all scream non-stop. I have been called a racist 7 times and accused of not caring about the Earth enough daily. And all my conservative friends hear the same crap.
“Racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, selfish haters of the environment!” As Oprah and several commentators on Insurance Journal have stated, we all should just die and let the future enfold in the glory of liberal bliss. (Andrew is cool with all the “die now, Craig” stuff. And so am I, because Trump is going to win as a result of all the tolerant Lefty hate.)
Actually, I side with Dr. Hartwig on this one. The greatest indicator of a President’s re-election is the state of the economy. One of his 1,400 slides at NAMIC showed us the evidence. And, at that time, he said because of that fact, like it or not, President Obama would get re-elected. And, guess what?
So, yes, I believe 45 will be re-elected because he inherited an improving economy which continues to improve.
“…that ozone hole is “contributing to global warming””
a) well, duh. If there’s a “hole” in the ozone layer, that will result in higher temp’s based on what the ozone layer actually does for the planet (mainly, absorbing UV light)
b) I think Planet’s argument was that the ozone hole was an issue before but has significantly shrunk since humans started to phase out CFC’s and the like back in the late 80’s & early 90’s.
Is that the point you’re trying to refute with your statement that the hole is contributing to global warming? Or are you saying the hole is part of the reason we’re seeing increase temp’s?
To support the argument that the man-made ozone hole is improving due to human’s changing their behavior, I supply the following:
“Measurements from satellites this year showed the hole in Earth’s ozone layer that forms over Antarctica each September was the smallest observed since 1988, scientists from NASA and NOAA announced today.”
h ttps://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/warm-air-helped-make-2017-ozone-hole-smallest-since-1988
also “the most harmful chemicals have been banned since the 1990s or are being phased out, and the ozone layer is slowly recovering.”
h ttps://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2018-ozone-hole-starting-recede
also “More than 30 years after the Montreal Protocol, NASA scientists documented the first direct proof that Antarctic ozone is recovering because of the CFC phase-down: Ozone depletion in the region has declined 20 percent since 2005. And at the end of 2018, the United Nations confirmed in a scientific assessment that the ozone layer is recovering, projecting that it would heal completely in the (non-polar) Northern Hemisphere by the 2030s, followed by the Southern Hemisphere in the 2050s and polar regions by 2060.”
h ttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/ozone-depletion/
So prey tell – what exactly were you getting at when you wrote “Check out the news this morning: that ozone hole is “contributing to global warming””?
This is a reminder of the comment section rules that are meant to encourage civil discourse. In particular, please be advised that ad hominem or other personal attacks against other users are a violation of the rules of the forum, even when the attacks are included in otherwise on-topic comments. Personal attacks include targeting another with offensive, obscene, libelous, defamatory or threatening language or slurs; assigning false or unwanted labels to another; questioning another’s character, integrity, morals or intelligence; disclosing another’s personal information; or assuming or assigning to another user a particular political, personal, social, religious or other motive.
Also, comments that are part of extended and repetitive squabbles between two and/or among small cliques of commenters are also inappropriate use of this forum.
This forum is also to be used only in a noncommercial manner.
In short, please address topics and express opinions while refraining from labeling or negatively or falsely characterizing others with whom you may disagree. If you can’t state your view without insulting another user, don’t state it.
Users remain solely responsible for the content of their communications. Insurance Journal has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit or remove any forum comments or content.
Insurance Journal has the right to suspend access to the forum for those who violate the terms of participation.
Then be sure to turn your A/C off and ride your bike more. Dazzle us with your deeds, not your words.
If you are speaking to me, I use my Nest to efficiently run an air conditioner only when necessary and I do ride my bike often. Even to work.
Polls like this are pointless. Before the questions was even asked, your could guess the results. Yes, there is climate change – no more dinosaurs is the proof. DUH!!!
“The majority of Americans say global warming is important to them, and that it’s affecting the weather in the U.S.” Misleading. Should read, “Majority of the people we polled”. So is it representative of the actual majority of Americans ? I don’t know and neither do the people who conducted this poll.
Want to get a feel for how the ‘majority of Americans’ feel about any given subject, then go to the expense and trouble to conduct a real sampling of the residents of our country.
Conduct a global warming poll/survey in a West Virginia coal town and you’ll find the “majority of Americans” think global warming is bs. Do the same poll/ survey on the UC Berkley campus, get a 180 degree different response. Getting a true sampling would be tough. Having pollsters that can ask questions without leading and record answers without fudging would be tough.
Personally I think the planet’s atmosphere is warming, but I’m less certain about the cause (or causes) than some scientists today. And the idea that “activists”, whatever an “activist” is, are pressuring major U.S. insurers, particularly Liberty Mutual as of late, to stop insuring coal and tar sands. Is that even legal ?
My guess is that these ‘activists’ will be the first ones to complain when the electricity goes out and the first ones to respond to pollsters !!
Jax, you make a great point, one about as well understood by “most people” as the science around climate. Conducting research with probability samples (truly random) is practically-speaking impossible. All the surveys you see in the news are convenience samples, which are vulnerable to response bias (among other things). A survey invitation that says “Tell us what you think about climate issues” will get more people with certain perspectives than with others, as would “Tell us what you think about climate change” or “…about global warming.” They’re not the same and will produce different results.
And you’re quite right: it’s super-easy to get the answer someone wants from survey research – the hardest thing we ever do is to find out what people are REALLY thinking. Finding and eliminating bias is incredibly difficult. But many polling organizations don’t even try.
Typical stupid not thorough media piece. Of course, if there were global warming it would affect the weather. Why not instead ask people “do you know what is referred to as global warming and how do you think it will affect our weather?”
All the media wants is emotional responses, not rational responses because idiots respond to emotion so that they don’t have to think.