I have lived on, and studied the Florida coast and Atlantic Ocean since 1984. The sea level hasn’t risen 1 inch, and ocean temperatures have gone down.
Stop this “sea level rise, global warming” nonsense
32,000 scientist have declared that man made global warming is not real. 197 scientists (the and the media) claim it is.
Someone once told me to follow the money, well it looks like, in the case of global warming, the money leads back to insurance companies. You are pushing a BS narrative to raise prices.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I guess you know more than NASA knows.
So what is your answer (or NASA’s) to what is discussed in the article? Like New Orleans, Miami has always been a questionable place to put a mass of real estate. I have seen flooded streets downtown when the sun is out. Poor choices is the issue.
Dave,
It is supposed to snow across half of Florida this week, which has happened maybe twice in my 30+ years as a Florida resident. To David’s point, sea levels have not risen. That would be the most indicative of long term warming. James Hansen, a climate scientist and former NASA head, claimed in 1988 that NYC would be partially under water and dealing with frequent high winds by 2018. I was recently in NYC and can attest that no such thing has happened.
Dave – $1000 says no one can give the total number of “actively publishing” scientists, therefore 97% is a fictitious number. Besides, Obola had NASA’s major goal for 8 years as ” Muslim outreach” so why trust NASA?
On another note- loss assessment coverage in your condo policy is very limited by several factors. The biggest- the coverage in the condo policy (example- your condo policy excludes flood, so does the loss assess).
So buy a condo policy including flood folks. Do yourself a favor and make your HOA tell you exactly what perils they insure for and what parts of the building like plumbing,hvac,paint,etc. they cover.
Good luck.
On another note, record low temps here in SC this week so I’m going down to the beach to watch the sea level fall.
Jack and Mike,
Please explain to the class the difference between “weather” and “climate”. Pro-tip, what you both are speaking about occurring right now are weather events. And, what has taken place the other 28 years of those 30 would speak to the climate, Mike. Actually, 30 is kind of the minimum number of years by which to measure climate. But, it’s a start. Happy to help!
The level of scientific ignorance is astounding. Who do you trust more, a guy walking a beach for 30 years or satellites and coastal tide gauge records kept by scientists? It’s akin to someone in Puerto Rico listening to the hurricane forecast in the week before Maria, seeing the sunny skies, and not believing a storm was approaching.
Not everything has to be political, folks. Mean air temperature is rising, ocean temperatures are rising, sea level is estimated to be rising 3.4mm a year. Noticeable to the average beachgoer? Probably not right now. The global climate is changing, whether due to humans or a natural cycle, arguing over the cause isn’t stopping it from happening or coming up with any kind of solution.
And for those pointing to the cold spell this week – I’m sure you will be back here posting about the record highs in the summer too, right?
Dave, while I am a believer that humans are having an impact on how quickly the earth is warming, I am going to play a bit of “Devil’s Advocate” here and mention that I clicked on the NASA link you sent but I went even further and reviewed the first two studies referenced by the asterisk on the statement you quoted from NASA. What I found in 5 minutes of looking at the data was nothing less than shocking. First you should know that Statistics are notoriously easy to mess with. Here is a great mainstream article about the issue: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process
Now that you understand just how easy it is to fool people with statistics we will dive into the first two references for NASA’s statement. The first study referenced by NASA talks about “97% of publishing climate scientists” but this percentage references polls of these scientists opinions to a question (each of which was essentially “do you believe humans are causing global warming?”), not scientific data published in their papers and the vast majority of the polling data was biased,to use a statistical term (that’s not an accusation, it’s an observation which is a major difference).
The second referenced “Scientific Paper” for NASA’s claims is the worst offender of the two. The 97.1% stat this study references is the “percentage among abstracts with a position on human-caused global warming”. But when you see the data table in full you get a much better picture of the situation. Of the total number of papers they pulled mentioning human-caused global warming, only 32% of the abstracts endorse that humans are causing global warming. A WHOPPING 66.5% take no position on whether or not humans are the cause. So in reality, the vast majority of the published studies haven’t actually blamed humans. However, the study’s interpretation of the data doesn’t state that. Instead they cherry picked a sub-statistic of the full data showing the percentage of human-caused climate change studies that took a position on climate change which better supports whatever narrative they are trying to push. Cherry picking is a BIG no-no in statistical analysis. This is all to say that I do believe we have sped up global warming but I find some MAJOR concerns with the interpretation of data that NASA is using to justify statements that governmental agencies and news organizations use to inform the public.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are woefully uninformed and looked up the first few sites you saw on Google, instead of a liar.
“The second referenced “Scientific Paper” for NASA’s claims is the worst offender of the two. The 97.1% stat this study references is the “percentage among abstracts with a position on human-caused global warming”. But when you see the data table in full you get a much better picture of the situation. Of the total number of papers they pulled mentioning human-caused global warming, only 32% of the abstracts endorse that humans are causing global warming. A WHOPPING 66.5% take no position on whether or not humans are the cause. So in reality, the vast majority of the published studies haven’t actually blamed humans. ”
This is wrong factually and practically. The reason many don’t say specifically climate change is due to humans in their papers is because it is scientific consensus and the authors do not feel the need to write that anymore than one would for something like gravity or evolution, unless the paper was specifically about that,SPECIFICALLY when their variables include things like carbon and emissions in the atmosphere which have undeniably increased due to humans.
In reality the 1st study is not a poll-that is nonsense. You did not read the article. It looks at multiple studies of all climate work, multiple independent polls, and so on. They show the only examples where the number isn’t consistent is when they include a huge number of non-experts, thereby influencing the stats.
Saying it does not consider the data in their paper is false. It’s a lie or you did not read it, or you did not comprehend it.
The second one falls into exactly what I stated above. They said if you used the theory you are using, things like plate tectonics would not be “confirmed” because they do not endorse it explicitly anymore.
They actually went back and reran the data from the papers in the second study that claimed climate change was not due to humans and found serious data errors in all (or almost literally every single one, I cannot remember off the top of my head) of them, and when corrected, they also confirmed the warming hypothesis.
You are wrong. You haven’t read the studies. Your interpretation is wrong.
David: If you have lived on the Florida Coast for the past 30 years and still do not believe in Climate change, I can only conclude that you have your head firmly planted in the sand. Ignore the reality at your own peril. This is not make-up science. Insurance companies are fleeing Florida for good reason. All their climate models show that South Florida will be the worst hit section of our country in terms of sea level rise. Its effects are already being felt in Miami. Wake up!
David- sounds like you should move as the earth will tilt your way and flood you out. I’d go to Alaska as they have much less tide changes there being at the top of the world. Better yet move to Houston as they are so far away from oceans that they could never flood….wait…never mind.
I am a slaes manager for a homeowners insurance carrier in Florida and would like you to know that insurance carriers are not fleeing Florida, they are entering the market and cutting rates to gain market share. They are also making private flood insurance available in greater numbers; 3 more carriers that I am aware of will be offering private flood insurance in the next 2 months.
Even after Irma, which will in all likelihood increase hurricane reinsurance rates by 8-15 percent, rates from several of the larger carriers are going down. The largest issue facing Florida homeowners insurance carriers is AOB abuse, global warming is not a consideration.
P&C insurance companies have been avoiding Florida for a long time now (at least since Andrew in 1992 if not before). The reason isn’t associated with any climate change models. The bottom line is they have recognized that that there is an enormous amount of insurable property lying at relatively little height above sea level. There isn’t enough affordable reinsurance available for any company to comfortably go out and insure large amounts of property on a low lying peninsula with hundreds of miles of coastline exposure.
Your “Obola” comment demonstrates your extreme susceptibility to unsubstantiated fact. I stopped reading your comment right there. May I suggest you try getting your information from a book instead of InfoWars?
Good one Jack. Sure am glad we have a great leader now who knows right from wrong. Also glad he pulled away from the Paris accords that were guaranteed to have America bearing the burden of pollution cost. If the signing countries are so worried about it, let them cough up the dough. Let the Chinese clean up their mess and the Indians clean up their mess. We have already done out part in our own country.
Until Sean Hannity literally reads the definitions of “climate” and “weather”, many in the Fox News demographic are going to continue to confuse the two. Sad reality.
Once again, a bunch of people giving political opinions as if they matter on a scientific question. People with no scientific background talking like they know something relevant. Unbelievable.
Hey J.S. You and all your Up-voters might want to actually read the article before you call the kettle black.
The article is based entirely on the opinion of non-scientists like Zillow, real estate agents, and “Social Science Research” organizations. FYI – social science is not climate science.
In other words, not a Climate Scientist anywhere in site, and just another scary monster-story from journalists who couldn’t tell you 3 questions that stump real Climate Scientists. (Like why they even bother to still study it, if it is all just “settled science” anyway.)
The article is exactly as you describe: “people with no scientific background talking like they know something relevant.” Yes, Unbelievable is the word.
“(Like why they even bother to still study it, if it is all just “settled science” anyway.)”
It was “settled science” that we were depleting our ozone layer back in the 80’s via CFC’s and we kept studying it for 30+ years and a study was released recently showing the size of the hole has been drastically reduced. They keep studying things to compare past & future results to see what’s happening as time goes on, AKA monitoring the situation over time. Seems reasonable to me.
We’re not having a tough time explaining our positions. So yes….it’s winter in the US and it’s been cold, but where it’s summer right now (e.g. Australia), they’re having record high temperatures!
Please remember to look at the entire planet when discussing climate change and not just the local weather in one part of one country.
I don’t remember the hoaxers ever allowing any discussion when the temperatures were plummeting in many places around the world. They just keep sticking to the mantra and they are still wrong. Al Gore said the caps would be melted by 2014. What has happened to that theory?
January 8, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I agree with you – it was wrong. Do you agree places in the southern hemisphere are breaking record high temperatures right now, even though it’s wintertime in the USA?
January 3, 2018 at 4:57 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Wonder why Andrew has not taken down your vulgar reply. Go to Media Matters if you want to talk like that. They welcome all vulgar Progressives.
Rosenblatt, it is summer in the Southern Hemisphere and you can always find warm temperatures when close to the equator. The Northern Hemisphere tends to be very cold in the Winter. Pretty much offsets the warm as we have been seeing. The earth tips slightly on its axis to bring on the seasons. That is a natural phenomenon and not man’s fault. El Nino & La Nina are also natural and not man’s fault.
To deny climate change or global warming is to show nothing short of ignorance to the world around you. That being said in relation to the article, It’s a real shame that investing in property has become a burden that cannot be lifted due to the lack of buyers. Where is the buy out now?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Bingo; it’s all about control, regulation and taking your money. The Liberals/Socialist have made this a fine art in driving their BS agenda.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I guess you know more than NASA knows.
So what is your answer (or NASA’s) to what is discussed in the article? Like New Orleans, Miami has always been a questionable place to put a mass of real estate. I have seen flooded streets downtown when the sun is out. Poor choices is the issue.
Dave,
It is supposed to snow across half of Florida this week, which has happened maybe twice in my 30+ years as a Florida resident. To David’s point, sea levels have not risen. That would be the most indicative of long term warming. James Hansen, a climate scientist and former NASA head, claimed in 1988 that NYC would be partially under water and dealing with frequent high winds by 2018. I was recently in NYC and can attest that no such thing has happened.
Dave – $1000 says no one can give the total number of “actively publishing” scientists, therefore 97% is a fictitious number. Besides, Obola had NASA’s major goal for 8 years as ” Muslim outreach” so why trust NASA?
On another note- loss assessment coverage in your condo policy is very limited by several factors. The biggest- the coverage in the condo policy (example- your condo policy excludes flood, so does the loss assess).
So buy a condo policy including flood folks. Do yourself a favor and make your HOA tell you exactly what perils they insure for and what parts of the building like plumbing,hvac,paint,etc. they cover.
Good luck.
On another note, record low temps here in SC this week so I’m going down to the beach to watch the sea level fall.
Jack and Mike,
Please explain to the class the difference between “weather” and “climate”. Pro-tip, what you both are speaking about occurring right now are weather events. And, what has taken place the other 28 years of those 30 would speak to the climate, Mike. Actually, 30 is kind of the minimum number of years by which to measure climate. But, it’s a start. Happy to help!
Cap- you crack me up. They can’t predict the weather next year and they can predict the climate 30 years from now? LMAO
The level of scientific ignorance is astounding. Who do you trust more, a guy walking a beach for 30 years or satellites and coastal tide gauge records kept by scientists? It’s akin to someone in Puerto Rico listening to the hurricane forecast in the week before Maria, seeing the sunny skies, and not believing a storm was approaching.
Not everything has to be political, folks. Mean air temperature is rising, ocean temperatures are rising, sea level is estimated to be rising 3.4mm a year. Noticeable to the average beachgoer? Probably not right now. The global climate is changing, whether due to humans or a natural cycle, arguing over the cause isn’t stopping it from happening or coming up with any kind of solution.
And for those pointing to the cold spell this week – I’m sure you will be back here posting about the record highs in the summer too, right?
Dave, while I am a believer that humans are having an impact on how quickly the earth is warming, I am going to play a bit of “Devil’s Advocate” here and mention that I clicked on the NASA link you sent but I went even further and reviewed the first two studies referenced by the asterisk on the statement you quoted from NASA. What I found in 5 minutes of looking at the data was nothing less than shocking. First you should know that Statistics are notoriously easy to mess with. Here is a great mainstream article about the issue: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process
Now that you understand just how easy it is to fool people with statistics we will dive into the first two references for NASA’s statement. The first study referenced by NASA talks about “97% of publishing climate scientists” but this percentage references polls of these scientists opinions to a question (each of which was essentially “do you believe humans are causing global warming?”), not scientific data published in their papers and the vast majority of the polling data was biased,to use a statistical term (that’s not an accusation, it’s an observation which is a major difference).
The second referenced “Scientific Paper” for NASA’s claims is the worst offender of the two. The 97.1% stat this study references is the “percentage among abstracts with a position on human-caused global warming”. But when you see the data table in full you get a much better picture of the situation. Of the total number of papers they pulled mentioning human-caused global warming, only 32% of the abstracts endorse that humans are causing global warming. A WHOPPING 66.5% take no position on whether or not humans are the cause. So in reality, the vast majority of the published studies haven’t actually blamed humans. However, the study’s interpretation of the data doesn’t state that. Instead they cherry picked a sub-statistic of the full data showing the percentage of human-caused climate change studies that took a position on climate change which better supports whatever narrative they are trying to push. Cherry picking is a BIG no-no in statistical analysis. This is all to say that I do believe we have sped up global warming but I find some MAJOR concerns with the interpretation of data that NASA is using to justify statements that governmental agencies and news organizations use to inform the public.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are woefully uninformed and looked up the first few sites you saw on Google, instead of a liar.
“The second referenced “Scientific Paper” for NASA’s claims is the worst offender of the two. The 97.1% stat this study references is the “percentage among abstracts with a position on human-caused global warming”. But when you see the data table in full you get a much better picture of the situation. Of the total number of papers they pulled mentioning human-caused global warming, only 32% of the abstracts endorse that humans are causing global warming. A WHOPPING 66.5% take no position on whether or not humans are the cause. So in reality, the vast majority of the published studies haven’t actually blamed humans. ”
This is wrong factually and practically. The reason many don’t say specifically climate change is due to humans in their papers is because it is scientific consensus and the authors do not feel the need to write that anymore than one would for something like gravity or evolution, unless the paper was specifically about that,SPECIFICALLY when their variables include things like carbon and emissions in the atmosphere which have undeniably increased due to humans.
In reality the 1st study is not a poll-that is nonsense. You did not read the article. It looks at multiple studies of all climate work, multiple independent polls, and so on. They show the only examples where the number isn’t consistent is when they include a huge number of non-experts, thereby influencing the stats.
Saying it does not consider the data in their paper is false. It’s a lie or you did not read it, or you did not comprehend it.
The second one falls into exactly what I stated above. They said if you used the theory you are using, things like plate tectonics would not be “confirmed” because they do not endorse it explicitly anymore.
They actually went back and reran the data from the papers in the second study that claimed climate change was not due to humans and found serious data errors in all (or almost literally every single one, I cannot remember off the top of my head) of them, and when corrected, they also confirmed the warming hypothesis.
You are wrong. You haven’t read the studies. Your interpretation is wrong.
In 82 years how many current home owners will be trying to sell their homes?
David: If you have lived on the Florida Coast for the past 30 years and still do not believe in Climate change, I can only conclude that you have your head firmly planted in the sand. Ignore the reality at your own peril. This is not make-up science. Insurance companies are fleeing Florida for good reason. All their climate models show that South Florida will be the worst hit section of our country in terms of sea level rise. Its effects are already being felt in Miami. Wake up!
Jim- because the sea only rises in Florida ?
David- sounds like you should move as the earth will tilt your way and flood you out. I’d go to Alaska as they have much less tide changes there being at the top of the world. Better yet move to Houston as they are so far away from oceans that they could never flood….wait…never mind.
I am a slaes manager for a homeowners insurance carrier in Florida and would like you to know that insurance carriers are not fleeing Florida, they are entering the market and cutting rates to gain market share. They are also making private flood insurance available in greater numbers; 3 more carriers that I am aware of will be offering private flood insurance in the next 2 months.
Even after Irma, which will in all likelihood increase hurricane reinsurance rates by 8-15 percent, rates from several of the larger carriers are going down. The largest issue facing Florida homeowners insurance carriers is AOB abuse, global warming is not a consideration.
Wayne- you are talking to a bunch of people that wouldn’t know a homeowners policy or a flood policy if it kicked them in their teeth.
Want to talk global warming and gay wedding cakes, you are in the right spot.
Article on AOB abuse:
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2017/02/09/441410.htm
P&C insurance companies have been avoiding Florida for a long time now (at least since Andrew in 1992 if not before). The reason isn’t associated with any climate change models. The bottom line is they have recognized that that there is an enormous amount of insurable property lying at relatively little height above sea level. There isn’t enough affordable reinsurance available for any company to comfortably go out and insure large amounts of property on a low lying peninsula with hundreds of miles of coastline exposure.
Jack,
Your “Obola” comment demonstrates your extreme susceptibility to unsubstantiated fact. I stopped reading your comment right there. May I suggest you try getting your information from a book instead of InfoWars?
Good one Jack. Sure am glad we have a great leader now who knows right from wrong. Also glad he pulled away from the Paris accords that were guaranteed to have America bearing the burden of pollution cost. If the signing countries are so worried about it, let them cough up the dough. Let the Chinese clean up their mess and the Indians clean up their mess. We have already done out part in our own country.
I nearly got frost bite this weekend from all the Global Warming we’ve had lately.
weather =/= climate
Until Sean Hannity literally reads the definitions of “climate” and “weather”, many in the Fox News demographic are going to continue to confuse the two. Sad reality.
Once again, a bunch of people giving political opinions as if they matter on a scientific question. People with no scientific background talking like they know something relevant. Unbelievable.
Hey J.S. You and all your Up-voters might want to actually read the article before you call the kettle black.
The article is based entirely on the opinion of non-scientists like Zillow, real estate agents, and “Social Science Research” organizations. FYI – social science is not climate science.
In other words, not a Climate Scientist anywhere in site, and just another scary monster-story from journalists who couldn’t tell you 3 questions that stump real Climate Scientists. (Like why they even bother to still study it, if it is all just “settled science” anyway.)
The article is exactly as you describe: “people with no scientific background talking like they know something relevant.” Yes, Unbelievable is the word.
“(Like why they even bother to still study it, if it is all just “settled science” anyway.)”
It was “settled science” that we were depleting our ozone layer back in the 80’s via CFC’s and we kept studying it for 30+ years and a study was released recently showing the size of the hole has been drastically reduced. They keep studying things to compare past & future results to see what’s happening as time goes on, AKA monitoring the situation over time. Seems reasonable to me.
Craig, sure looks to me that the Global Warming hoaxers are having a tough time explaining their positions and Global Cooling is the new science.
We’re not having a tough time explaining our positions. So yes….it’s winter in the US and it’s been cold, but where it’s summer right now (e.g. Australia), they’re having record high temperatures!
Please remember to look at the entire planet when discussing climate change and not just the local weather in one part of one country.
I don’t remember the hoaxers ever allowing any discussion when the temperatures were plummeting in many places around the world. They just keep sticking to the mantra and they are still wrong. Al Gore said the caps would be melted by 2014. What has happened to that theory?
I agree with you – it was wrong. Do you agree places in the southern hemisphere are breaking record high temperatures right now, even though it’s wintertime in the USA?
Wonder why Andrew has not taken down your vulgar reply. Go to Media Matters if you want to talk like that. They welcome all vulgar Progressives.
Rosenblatt, it is summer in the Southern Hemisphere and you can always find warm temperatures when close to the equator. The Northern Hemisphere tends to be very cold in the Winter. Pretty much offsets the warm as we have been seeing. The earth tips slightly on its axis to bring on the seasons. That is a natural phenomenon and not man’s fault. El Nino & La Nina are also natural and not man’s fault.
Do you consider Australia to be close to the equator?
Closer than Rhode Island, Canada, England, Norway, Sweden.
To deny climate change or global warming is to show nothing short of ignorance to the world around you. That being said in relation to the article, It’s a real shame that investing in property has become a burden that cannot be lifted due to the lack of buyers. Where is the buy out now?