Can we PLEASE have someone at Insurance Journal learn about climate science before publishing Scary Monster stories? PLEASE!
More and more climate scientists are crying out against the End of the World scare tactics that are entirely unrealistic. (Don’t look for any of THOSE articles in Insurance Journal.)
These stories assume (1) no effort to mitigate green house gasses over the next 80 years and (2) no advances in technology between now and 2100 that will help reduce green house gasses and (3) a much larger population, when all signs indicate the population of the world slows as economic development expands (side note: another reason why economic growth is so important to the environment).
From this article:
“However, the study’s focus on the worst-case scenario – with high emissions and no flood preparations – may be unrealistic, said climate economist Thomas Schinko, deputy director of the Risk and Resilience research program at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna.”
Yes, if we do nothing and there is no new technology and we don’t prepare for floods, IT COULD BE BAD! Chance of any of that happening: Zero.
Which is why so many people aren’t listening any more. The Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome. Congratulations, IJ.
You repeatedly claim “More and more scientists” on your side, but you don’t post them, why is that Craig? Could it be because the only scientists that agree with you are like the “doctor” Trump keeps retweeting? The science is OVERWHELMINGLY against you yet you keep arguing against paying attention to it and offering zero proof. Considering your track record in dishonesty on these forums, the only person crying wolf is you.
Trump has nothing to do with this. What a dufus comment.
What I said is demonstrably true. The fact you are ignorant about Climate Science should be embarrassing but loud mouthed ignorance is your strong suit. I have proven your ignorance multiple times by challenging YOU to back up your BS and you NEVER back it up.
Edit: “However, the study’s focus on the worst-case scenario – with high emissions and no flood preparations – will allow insurers to make a real killing on flood policies for years. And then when the floods never occur, everyone will forget why the heck their rates are where they are, said Thomas Schinko…”
There is no stats to back the claim that we are having more “flood events.” The rest of the article gets into predictions. Let’s put it this way, the past prediction on “climate change” almost has never have come to fruition. The batting average of these some co-called eliminate scientist is well below .100. Why do they do it? It’s because scare tactics work, it means more $$$ for them and it’s the corrupt way government does business. Now some will give me a thumbs down for this view, however keep in mind, I am right on all these missed predictions. You only give me a thumbs down because you know I am right and you do this to compensate for being on the wrong side of this issue.
To quote the late author Michael Crichton “You can’t even tell me what the weather is going to be like tomorrow, how can tell me what the climate is going to be like in 100 years?”.
How can they only blame this on climate change. Yes some ice is melting, but that’s not enough to overflow the oceans. Maybe we should be more worried about all the trash dumped into the oceans. Also, why do we sink ships when they are out of commission vs recycling them? Trash, ships. cargo, etc…in my opinion have the biggest impact on rising oceans, but for some reason these climate scientist don’t want to address that. Maybe because it’s too black and white and with climate it’s so gray they can continue to milk the governments of the world out of billions of dollars. Well it’s working.
Can we PLEASE have someone at Insurance Journal learn about climate science before publishing Scary Monster stories? PLEASE!
More and more climate scientists are crying out against the End of the World scare tactics that are entirely unrealistic. (Don’t look for any of THOSE articles in Insurance Journal.)
These stories assume (1) no effort to mitigate green house gasses over the next 80 years and (2) no advances in technology between now and 2100 that will help reduce green house gasses and (3) a much larger population, when all signs indicate the population of the world slows as economic development expands (side note: another reason why economic growth is so important to the environment).
From this article:
“However, the study’s focus on the worst-case scenario – with high emissions and no flood preparations – may be unrealistic, said climate economist Thomas Schinko, deputy director of the Risk and Resilience research program at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna.”
Yes, if we do nothing and there is no new technology and we don’t prepare for floods, IT COULD BE BAD! Chance of any of that happening: Zero.
Which is why so many people aren’t listening any more. The Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome. Congratulations, IJ.
You repeatedly claim “More and more scientists” on your side, but you don’t post them, why is that Craig? Could it be because the only scientists that agree with you are like the “doctor” Trump keeps retweeting? The science is OVERWHELMINGLY against you yet you keep arguing against paying attention to it and offering zero proof. Considering your track record in dishonesty on these forums, the only person crying wolf is you.
Trump has nothing to do with this. What a dufus comment.
What I said is demonstrably true. The fact you are ignorant about Climate Science should be embarrassing but loud mouthed ignorance is your strong suit. I have proven your ignorance multiple times by challenging YOU to back up your BS and you NEVER back it up.
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
– Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Edit: “However, the study’s focus on the worst-case scenario – with high emissions and no flood preparations – will allow insurers to make a real killing on flood policies for years. And then when the floods never occur, everyone will forget why the heck their rates are where they are, said Thomas Schinko…”
There is no stats to back the claim that we are having more “flood events.” The rest of the article gets into predictions. Let’s put it this way, the past prediction on “climate change” almost has never have come to fruition. The batting average of these some co-called eliminate scientist is well below .100. Why do they do it? It’s because scare tactics work, it means more $$$ for them and it’s the corrupt way government does business. Now some will give me a thumbs down for this view, however keep in mind, I am right on all these missed predictions. You only give me a thumbs down because you know I am right and you do this to compensate for being on the wrong side of this issue.
To quote the late author Michael Crichton “You can’t even tell me what the weather is going to be like tomorrow, how can tell me what the climate is going to be like in 100 years?”.
How can they only blame this on climate change. Yes some ice is melting, but that’s not enough to overflow the oceans. Maybe we should be more worried about all the trash dumped into the oceans. Also, why do we sink ships when they are out of commission vs recycling them? Trash, ships. cargo, etc…in my opinion have the biggest impact on rising oceans, but for some reason these climate scientist don’t want to address that. Maybe because it’s too black and white and with climate it’s so gray they can continue to milk the governments of the world out of billions of dollars. Well it’s working.