Meanwhile, India and China will produce 30 to 50 times the carbon emissions than the State of New York and plan to expand those emissions with growing middle classes exponentially. Even if climate change is due to man made actions, this will do nothing to save the planet. Nothing.
Agent,
I know you love to say this all the time. But, here’s some food for thought. If they are indeed fleeing, and most are liberal leaning, how do you think that impacts states like yours where they are ending up.
This defeatist attitude serves no purpose. The idea of “well if they’re not changing why should I!” is juvenile and small minded. New York is making the changes we want to happen everywhere, sorry your side doesn’t like being called out for not being able to do the same. Maybe if there were fewer cowards on the right we could unify as a country to make these kinds of changes and have some kind of push to convince others to do the same.
That’s one big crux of the issue: The right has no evidence it will not contribute to any change. The right has politicized science, and denies any science in opposition of Big Business. The right was arguing that climate change wasn’t real at ALL just a few years ago, now they’re arguing that it’s just man-made climate change that isn’t real. I’m sorry if I don’t trust the source that couldn’t be trusted about climate change in general. Maybe it’s time to listen to someone else.
Shouldn’t you be posting propaganda somewhere? Or did you get called on it? LOL posting epafacts.com as if it were fact when it’s a lobbyist firm’s project. Some of us aren’t sheep, Polar.
January 15, 2020 at 11:06 am
JaxAgent says:
Like or Dislike:
11
6
Everything is Republican and/or Democrat to you Jon. Left or right.
Climate science is imperfect and as of right now, a lot of guessing. Our planet has been warming and cooling on it’s own for a while now. That would be 4.5 billion people years. To suggest that scientists can somehow fill in the blanks for changes that take place over tens of thousands of years is kind of arrogant.
Is the planet warming ? Yep. Can humans do anything about it ? Maybe. Do we know what is going to happen next ? Not a chance.
I think back to all of the changes we (the United States and some other western European countries) have made over the past 30 years it is quite remarkable. (I doubt if you know what ‘leaded gasoline’ is, or that cars didn’t always have a catalytic converter on them.)
Despite that, I can’t help but think that human’s contribution to climate change is nominal at best (or worst) and as such, our ability to slow or stop the planet from warming might be akin to having us jump up and down to affect our orbit around the sun. If we time it right, maybe we can move Earth a little further away from the sun. That would help.
So take the uneducated chip off your shoulder, Jon. Your know it all, condescending attitude is really getting old.
January 15, 2020 at 1:22 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
9
Firstly, it doesn’t have to all be Republican/Democrat or Right/Left. The issue is, the right has politicized the idea of facts. Your side has politicized the truth. It’s hard not to make everything a political issue, because if there is a fact or piece of information the right doesn’t like, they will claim it’s socialist fake news, or refuse to acknowledge that there are experts who actually believe information contrary to the right’s opinion.
Sure, I can agree the changes we’ve made over the last 30 years have been great. But I think it’s naive to believe we’re making a minimal effect on the planet. When was the last time you researched the mercury content in the ocean? I grew up eating canned tuna, you know how much canned tuna a child is allowed to have now? Something like one serving in a three month period. Because the mercury content is so high now. We did that. There’s an effect to the business practices our country has taken part in.
You can say I have a chip on my shoulder, sure. But to say it’s uneducated is a fool’s response on your part. I actually do my research, and I can back up my side with facts that aren’t from opinion websites. Can you?
I’m happy to avoid condescension until I’m met with it. You have been an offender in that regard. Just because you’ve decided to try and argue civilly now doesn’t change that (nor your snide “uneducated” remark). So only you get to decide when to be condescending or offensive? I don’t think so. You get what you give, Jax. It’s not my fault that if your side wants to be offensive that I’m better at it.
There are people who say “if you don’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “treat me like a human being”. There are people who say it and they mean “treat me like an authority figure”. And sometimes people who are used to being treated as an authority figure say “if you don’t respect me I won’t respect you” but what they’re really saying is if you don’t treat me like an authority figure, I won’t treat you like a human being. This is a common attitude on the right. The boomer generation assumes because they’re older they’re right about everything, and they don’t want to admit to being wrong. That’s when your side turns petty. I stand in opposition to that and I always will.
January 15, 2020 at 1:53 pm
JaxAgent says:
Like or Dislike:
11
2
LOL.
“Firstly, it doesn’t have to all be Republican/Democrat or Right/Left.”
You sure about that Jon ?
“the right has politicized the idea of facts”; “Your side has”; “information the right doesn’t like”; ” I can back up my side”; “attitude on the right”; “That’s when your side”.
Your side, my side. That’s you in a nut shell.
All you do on this message board is pile on anyone and everyone with a view point different than your own. You don’t offer any of your own thoughts or ideas (and certainly nothing insurance related), you just regurgitate the same old tired mantra and then call out everyone else demanding proof, evidence and cite your sources……as if any of that would matter. Disagree (of course you do) then go back and read all of your previous posts (granted, they are as numerous as they are void of anything meaningful) and see for yourself.
You’re a social warrior – good for you. We’ll check back in with you in 20 years and see where that gets you. I think I know the answer already.
Methinks there is a reason that you are the Down Vote King, Jon. Got a nice ring to it, doesn’t it !! LOL.
January 15, 2020 at 2:20 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
4
4
@JaxAgent; Don’t waste effort to describe Jon, due to his denials I believe someone is compensating him $ for denigrating conservatives by use of the phrases “right winger”. “right wing nuts”, etc.
January 15, 2020 at 2:23 pm
rob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Yogi–PLEASE tell me you’re being facetious here…you don’t REALLY believe Jon is being compensated for disagreeing with conservatives, right? I don’t think anyone would bother paying someone to disagree with conservatives on so small of a forum as the IJ comment section.
January 15, 2020 at 2:54 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Rob, not ralph, sorry. I was just so excited that Polar thinks I’m being paid he’s that delusional LOLOL
January 13, 2020 at 11:17 am
Well... says:
Like or Dislike:
9
0
Seeing as India and China both have well over 30 to 50 times the population of NY, that actually seems pretty good.
Now to address the meat of what you are saying…Americans tend to think of themselves as better than everyone else, so why not be better than India and China in the area of carbon emissions output. Additionally, it is worth noting that China emissions output are trending downward, because they are actually trying to do something about it.
Prove that Global Warming will kill us all if we don’t pay taxes for emitting carbon dioxide (that Al Gore, Leonard DeCapricious, etc. emit in hyuuuge quantities with their private jets) that is needed by plants to create oxygen for animals to survive….
Uh oh!
January 15, 2020 at 8:22 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
8
7
STRAW MAN ARGUMENT – Jon didn’t bring up those people so he doesn’t have to prove that argument. Agent brought up AOC’s comment, so it’s valid for Jon to ask him to prove his point.
January 15, 2020 at 10:16 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
4
7
Try to enforce your imaginary rules on IJ comments. Ready… Set… TROLL!
January 15, 2020 at 11:01 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
6
7
LOL you got caught using a straw man argument polar stop being such a stubborn coward and admit you were wrong for once.
January 15, 2020 at 12:59 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
7
2
You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
Pointing out an argument fallacy is NOT trolling
Asking people to source their data is NOT trolling
Pointing out lies and providing links to prove it is NOT trolling
Arguing a point nobody made, constantly making personal attacks, refusing to answer on-topic direct questions, constantly deflecting and never once admitting you were wrong, lying about what a source says … THOSE are examples of trolling, which I know you’re well versed in.
January 10, 2020 at 1:27 pm
Bill Price says:
Like or Dislike:
8
0
Regrding “Munich Re’s catastrophe update shows the cat loss figures match the average of the past 30 years, but noted that events like cyclones are becoming more frequently associated with extreme precipitation, …….. Hurricane Harvey in 2017 in the U.S., and that recognizing these changes can form the basis for more preventive measures to reduce losses. ”
>>>> Losses match 30 yr loss-run… but No mention of DOT building dikes ( elevated roads) to keep rain water from draining off. Extra low cost culverts would likely reduce losses in Hurricane prone areas. <<<<< BP
If we do make changes in the face of suspected climate change and it turns out there is no climate change, we will have been inconvenienced, but there will be positive environmental impact.
If we don’t make changes and it turns out there is climate change, the results will be devastating.
That sounds logical. Now show me the numbers, the real cost of what you are proposing. And tell me how it will work and when.
The reality is that there is no easy fix and “cutting emissions” can mean a bunch of different things. Everything from carbon recapture to tree planting to banning fossil fuel production to higher gas taxes and energy taxes.
Making it out to be a morality test without details is why nothing is happening. Because the solutions being proposed are ALL very difficult and will truly damage jobs, the economy, hurt the poor the most, and won’t solve the problem, since the real problem are emissions from the developing world.
As just mentioned on the international article minutes ago (which you’ve curiously ignored) it’s quite easy. Tax the rich. Heavily. Specifically the rich who profit off of destroying the planet. Oil executives, polluters, frackers, all those guys. Why should they be paying only 11% in taxes when they directly benefit from destroying the planet? Instead of your straw man insistence that poor and middle class americans have to pay to fix the planet, how about we just make the people actively destroying the planet pay? It’s quite simple.
You’re like a local burger joint in my area that put up a sign saying they had to raise prices due to the recent increase in minimum wage. Sure, the minimum wage law that hasn’t taken effect is to blame, not the fact that red meat has doubled in price in the last five years. Open your eyes, boomers.
Yes, tax the rich. That’s original. I suppose you work for some poor people or a company that gives all it’s profits to it’s employees so they can continue to make payroll.
Those actions divert money from MEANINGFUL purposes to MEANINGLESS CLIMATE CONTROL EFFORTS. And THAT is more than just devastating! It is destructive and evil.
Meanwhile, India and China will produce 30 to 50 times the carbon emissions than the State of New York and plan to expand those emissions with growing middle classes exponentially. Even if climate change is due to man made actions, this will do nothing to save the planet. Nothing.
No wonder citizens are fleeing NY and California with leaders like this idiot.
Agent,
I know you love to say this all the time. But, here’s some food for thought. If they are indeed fleeing, and most are liberal leaning, how do you think that impacts states like yours where they are ending up.
I think I just heard you gulp!
Don’t mess with Texas.
Re: #1. above; Capt Platitude ignored The ‘Law’ of Conservation of Mass (energy, per Einstein), in a political sense.
This defeatist attitude serves no purpose. The idea of “well if they’re not changing why should I!” is juvenile and small minded. New York is making the changes we want to happen everywhere, sorry your side doesn’t like being called out for not being able to do the same. Maybe if there were fewer cowards on the right we could unify as a country to make these kinds of changes and have some kind of push to convince others to do the same.
But if it will not contribute to any change, why should we pay for it?.
That’s one big crux of the issue: The right has no evidence it will not contribute to any change. The right has politicized science, and denies any science in opposition of Big Business. The right was arguing that climate change wasn’t real at ALL just a few years ago, now they’re arguing that it’s just man-made climate change that isn’t real. I’m sorry if I don’t trust the source that couldn’t be trusted about climate change in general. Maybe it’s time to listen to someone else.
…. NO evidence that it will NOT….”
Negative Proof Fallacy:
Proving a negative….
Shouldn’t you be posting propaganda somewhere? Or did you get called on it? LOL posting epafacts.com as if it were fact when it’s a lobbyist firm’s project. Some of us aren’t sheep, Polar.
Everything is Republican and/or Democrat to you Jon. Left or right.
Climate science is imperfect and as of right now, a lot of guessing. Our planet has been warming and cooling on it’s own for a while now. That would be 4.5 billion people years. To suggest that scientists can somehow fill in the blanks for changes that take place over tens of thousands of years is kind of arrogant.
Is the planet warming ? Yep. Can humans do anything about it ? Maybe. Do we know what is going to happen next ? Not a chance.
I think back to all of the changes we (the United States and some other western European countries) have made over the past 30 years it is quite remarkable. (I doubt if you know what ‘leaded gasoline’ is, or that cars didn’t always have a catalytic converter on them.)
Despite that, I can’t help but think that human’s contribution to climate change is nominal at best (or worst) and as such, our ability to slow or stop the planet from warming might be akin to having us jump up and down to affect our orbit around the sun. If we time it right, maybe we can move Earth a little further away from the sun. That would help.
So take the uneducated chip off your shoulder, Jon. Your know it all, condescending attitude is really getting old.
Firstly, it doesn’t have to all be Republican/Democrat or Right/Left. The issue is, the right has politicized the idea of facts. Your side has politicized the truth. It’s hard not to make everything a political issue, because if there is a fact or piece of information the right doesn’t like, they will claim it’s socialist fake news, or refuse to acknowledge that there are experts who actually believe information contrary to the right’s opinion.
Sure, I can agree the changes we’ve made over the last 30 years have been great. But I think it’s naive to believe we’re making a minimal effect on the planet. When was the last time you researched the mercury content in the ocean? I grew up eating canned tuna, you know how much canned tuna a child is allowed to have now? Something like one serving in a three month period. Because the mercury content is so high now. We did that. There’s an effect to the business practices our country has taken part in.
You can say I have a chip on my shoulder, sure. But to say it’s uneducated is a fool’s response on your part. I actually do my research, and I can back up my side with facts that aren’t from opinion websites. Can you?
I’m happy to avoid condescension until I’m met with it. You have been an offender in that regard. Just because you’ve decided to try and argue civilly now doesn’t change that (nor your snide “uneducated” remark). So only you get to decide when to be condescending or offensive? I don’t think so. You get what you give, Jax. It’s not my fault that if your side wants to be offensive that I’m better at it.
There are people who say “if you don’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “treat me like a human being”. There are people who say it and they mean “treat me like an authority figure”. And sometimes people who are used to being treated as an authority figure say “if you don’t respect me I won’t respect you” but what they’re really saying is if you don’t treat me like an authority figure, I won’t treat you like a human being. This is a common attitude on the right. The boomer generation assumes because they’re older they’re right about everything, and they don’t want to admit to being wrong. That’s when your side turns petty. I stand in opposition to that and I always will.
LOL.
“Firstly, it doesn’t have to all be Republican/Democrat or Right/Left.”
You sure about that Jon ?
“the right has politicized the idea of facts”; “Your side has”; “information the right doesn’t like”; ” I can back up my side”; “attitude on the right”; “That’s when your side”.
Your side, my side. That’s you in a nut shell.
All you do on this message board is pile on anyone and everyone with a view point different than your own. You don’t offer any of your own thoughts or ideas (and certainly nothing insurance related), you just regurgitate the same old tired mantra and then call out everyone else demanding proof, evidence and cite your sources……as if any of that would matter. Disagree (of course you do) then go back and read all of your previous posts (granted, they are as numerous as they are void of anything meaningful) and see for yourself.
You’re a social warrior – good for you. We’ll check back in with you in 20 years and see where that gets you. I think I know the answer already.
Methinks there is a reason that you are the Down Vote King, Jon. Got a nice ring to it, doesn’t it !! LOL.
@JaxAgent; Don’t waste effort to describe Jon, due to his denials I believe someone is compensating him $ for denigrating conservatives by use of the phrases “right winger”. “right wing nuts”, etc.
Yogi–PLEASE tell me you’re being facetious here…you don’t REALLY believe Jon is being compensated for disagreeing with conservatives, right? I don’t think anyone would bother paying someone to disagree with conservatives on so small of a forum as the IJ comment section.
Rob, not ralph, sorry. I was just so excited that Polar thinks I’m being paid he’s that delusional LOLOL
Seeing as India and China both have well over 30 to 50 times the population of NY, that actually seems pretty good.
Now to address the meat of what you are saying…Americans tend to think of themselves as better than everyone else, so why not be better than India and China in the area of carbon emissions output. Additionally, it is worth noting that China emissions output are trending downward, because they are actually trying to do something about it.
https://climatenewsnetwork.net/chinas-falling-emissions-raise-climate-hopes/
Per China, they will begin trying in 2030. According to AOC, we won’t be here then.
Prove it. Prove AOC said we won’t be here by 2030. Except you won’t, because you can’t.
Prove that Global Warming will kill us all if we don’t pay taxes for emitting carbon dioxide (that Al Gore, Leonard DeCapricious, etc. emit in hyuuuge quantities with their private jets) that is needed by plants to create oxygen for animals to survive….
Uh oh!
STRAW MAN ARGUMENT – Jon didn’t bring up those people so he doesn’t have to prove that argument. Agent brought up AOC’s comment, so it’s valid for Jon to ask him to prove his point.
Try to enforce your imaginary rules on IJ comments. Ready… Set… TROLL!
LOL you got caught using a straw man argument polar stop being such a stubborn coward and admit you were wrong for once.
You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
Pointing out an argument fallacy is NOT trolling
Asking people to source their data is NOT trolling
Pointing out lies and providing links to prove it is NOT trolling
Arguing a point nobody made, constantly making personal attacks, refusing to answer on-topic direct questions, constantly deflecting and never once admitting you were wrong, lying about what a source says … THOSE are examples of trolling, which I know you’re well versed in.
Regrding “Munich Re’s catastrophe update shows the cat loss figures match the average of the past 30 years, but noted that events like cyclones are becoming more frequently associated with extreme precipitation, …….. Hurricane Harvey in 2017 in the U.S., and that recognizing these changes can form the basis for more preventive measures to reduce losses. ”
>>>> Losses match 30 yr loss-run… but No mention of DOT building dikes ( elevated roads) to keep rain water from draining off. Extra low cost culverts would likely reduce losses in Hurricane prone areas. <<<<< BP
If we do make changes in the face of suspected climate change and it turns out there is no climate change, we will have been inconvenienced, but there will be positive environmental impact.
If we don’t make changes and it turns out there is climate change, the results will be devastating.
That sounds logical. Now show me the numbers, the real cost of what you are proposing. And tell me how it will work and when.
The reality is that there is no easy fix and “cutting emissions” can mean a bunch of different things. Everything from carbon recapture to tree planting to banning fossil fuel production to higher gas taxes and energy taxes.
Making it out to be a morality test without details is why nothing is happening. Because the solutions being proposed are ALL very difficult and will truly damage jobs, the economy, hurt the poor the most, and won’t solve the problem, since the real problem are emissions from the developing world.
As just mentioned on the international article minutes ago (which you’ve curiously ignored) it’s quite easy. Tax the rich. Heavily. Specifically the rich who profit off of destroying the planet. Oil executives, polluters, frackers, all those guys. Why should they be paying only 11% in taxes when they directly benefit from destroying the planet? Instead of your straw man insistence that poor and middle class americans have to pay to fix the planet, how about we just make the people actively destroying the planet pay? It’s quite simple.
You’re like a local burger joint in my area that put up a sign saying they had to raise prices due to the recent increase in minimum wage. Sure, the minimum wage law that hasn’t taken effect is to blame, not the fact that red meat has doubled in price in the last five years. Open your eyes, boomers.
Yes, tax the rich. That’s original. I suppose you work for some poor people or a company that gives all it’s profits to it’s employees so they can continue to make payroll.
Those actions divert money from MEANINGFUL purposes to MEANINGLESS CLIMATE CONTROL EFFORTS. And THAT is more than just devastating! It is destructive and evil.