Insurance industry may be confronted with rising sea levels

[Trakar]

Again, citing a poll from April doesn't trump a poll July

...A poll citing"belief" in climate change is alot.............ALOT different than a poll which identifies "concern" about climate change ( the poll cited by SKOOKS, of course)...

Demonstrate a group of individuals who belive in current climate change who are unconcerned about current climate change.

 

[Politico]

The only thing I know is we'll all be dead by the time anything would be under water. So it's kinda hard to worry about it.

 

[eflatminor]

If government and capital are too corrupted, to react to increasing disaster proliferation, how will any recovery be effected?

By the people demanding a government confined to the powers of the Constitution so that a free market, void of cronyism and subject to equal laws of justice be allowed to respond to demand.

When we notice, how tipping points toward disaster are ignored, the likelihood of some recovery is minimized, so more government participation seems likely, over time.

I disagree with your premise and conclusion. For the former, you'll have to provide evidence. With regard to the latter, I say we'll talk after November about that.

 

[Old Rocks]

The only thing I know is we'll all be dead by the time anything would be under water. So it's kinda hard to worry about it.

Really?

Greenland ice sheet melted at unprecedented rate during July | Environment | guardian.co.uk

The Greenland ice sheet melted at a faster rate this month than at any other time in recorded history, with virtually the entire ice sheet showing signs of thaw.

 

[skookerasbil]

Again, citing a poll from April doesn't trump a poll July

...A poll citing"belief" in climate change is alot.............ALOT different than a poll which identifies "concern" about climate change ( the poll cited by SKOOKS, of course)...

Demonstrate a group of individuals who belive in current climate change who are unconcerned about current climate change.

Ahhh............a typical response from an intellectual liberal = no interest in answering the question, "As compared to what?" ( the operative word being "concern".....see above )



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88&feature=related]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]




At the end of the day, the reason that ALL the efforts of the alarmist contingent have fallen flat on their face is because they think that they are more noble and more wise than other people. But they still cannot answer the questions..........or refuse to answer the questions that MOST people think are ciritical. Its a problem of lacking the ability to think on the margin..........which a majority of people do have the ability to do. ( ie: never allow an alarmist to balance your checkbook for you!!! )


And we wonder why their posts are laced with hate and anger???

 

[bobgnote]

Sucksassandballs, you retards think rational people HATE you, when we are disgusted, and you think we are angry, when we are cussing you and your special class out, which isn't really true.

You see, you are WAY, far away. USMB allows us, to keep at a respectful distance.

Since you are a fucktard, with a passle of special-class buddies, all cruising USMB, it may seem like rational people are angry at you. As soon as you walk through the door, that could happen. A shoving fucktard in close proximity is a LOT different, than a retard, way over where you are.

Until you get close, all you will get, from any rational authors is descriptions, of how stupid you are, without real anger. Mmmkay?

It must be hard for an irrational moron, like you, to presume anything, which is factual.

 

[Trakar]

...A poll citing"belief" in climate change is alot.............ALOT different than a poll which identifies "concern" about climate change ( the poll cited by SKOOKS, of course)...

Demonstrate a group of individuals who belive in current climate change who are unconcerned about current climate change.

Ahhh............a typical response from an intellectual liberal = no interest in answering the question, "As compared to what?" ( the operative word being "concern".....see above )

Unfortunately, an all too common response from those who think they should be held to no standard. They make wild unsupported assertions and statements and then when questioned about their statements and shown the flaws in their assertions, they simply change the subject and resort to name calling. It is indeed a pitiful state of affairs.

 

[westwall]

Insurance industry may be confronted with rising sea levels - Insurance industry may be confronted with rising sea levels

Report shows sea levels rising in the east coast

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has published a new report that documents the rate at which the sea level along the Atlantic Coast is rising. The report shows that the sea level in this region is rising three-to-four times faster than it is in other parts of the world. The report suggests that climate change could be playing a factor, as warming temperatures are having an effect in the far north. What higher sea levels could mean for the U.S. insurance industry is a complicated issue.

Climate change begins to see a major advocate in the insurance industry
Insurers have long been attuned to the risks posed by climate change. Many of begun campaigning for more serious action to be taken to mitigate the effects of the phenomenon, while others have been avoiding the issue entirely due to its controversial nature. The data from the USGS report suggests that insurers will have plenty to worry about whether they believe in climate change or not.

(...)

Insurance industry continues to prepare for possibility of future disasters
While much of the U.S. has been divided by the issue of climate change, the insurance industry is less inclined to leave the issue as nothing more than a possibility. Many insurance companies have begun preparing for the impact of stronger storms and rising sea levels spurred by climate change.

It must be divine irony, I truely despise the US Insurance industry, it rankles me that they may indeed become one of the main US industries to begin strongly pushing for effective climate change policies. So sad, but this issue is bigger than my dislike of the way they choose to turn profits.

Ahhhh yes that wonderful word of the charlatan rears it's head yet again....The world MAY also be hit by an asteroid (far more likely and far more destructive to civilisation than global warming could ever hope to be), it MAY be hit by a massive radiation blast from a super nova, it MAY be invaded by aliens, a lot of things MAY happen in the future.

None of them will alter the fact that AGW "science" is a fraud.

 

[westwall]

Demonstrate a group of individuals who belive in current climate change who are unconcerned about current climate change.

Ahhh............a typical response from an intellectual liberal = no interest in answering the question, "As compared to what?" ( the operative word being "concern".....see above )

Unfortunately, an all too common response from those who think they should be held to no standard. They make wild unsupported assertions and statements and then when questioned about their statements and shown the flaws in their assertions, they simply change the subject and resort to name calling. It is indeed a pitiful state of affairs.

Indeed it is, you should take that problem up with your masters...they don't seem to like the free exchange of ideas and try at every turn to squelch scientific enquiry. Why is that?

 

[westwall]

Again, citing a poll from April doesn't trump a poll July

...A poll citing"belief" in climate change is alot.............ALOT different than a poll which identifies "concern" about climate change ( the poll cited by SKOOKS, of course)...

Demonstrate a group of individuals who belive in current climate change who are unconcerned about current climate change.

Demonstrate to us climate change that is different from that which has occured before.

 

[skookerasbil]

Again, citing a poll from April doesn't trump a poll July

...A poll citing"belief" in climate change is alot.............ALOT different than a poll which identifies "concern" about climate change ( the poll cited by SKOOKS, of course)...

Demonstrate a group of individuals who belive in current climate change who are unconcerned about current climate change.

intellectuals..........they get pwned and then try to get you talking in circles.


fAiL

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[bobgnote]

Insurance industry may be confronted with rising sea levels - Insurance industry may be confronted with rising sea levels

Report shows sea levels rising in the east coast

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has published a new report that documents the rate at which the sea level along the Atlantic Coast is rising. The report shows that the sea level in this region is rising three-to-four times faster than it is in other parts of the world. The report suggests that climate change could be playing a factor, as warming temperatures are having an effect in the far north. What higher sea levels could mean for the U.S. insurance industry is a complicated issue.

Climate change begins to see a major advocate in the insurance industry
Insurers have long been attuned to the risks posed by climate change. Many of begun campaigning for more serious action to be taken to mitigate the effects of the phenomenon, while others have been avoiding the issue entirely due to its controversial nature. The data from the USGS report suggests that insurers will have plenty to worry about whether they believe in climate change or not.

(...)

Insurance industry continues to prepare for possibility of future disasters
While much of the U.S. has been divided by the issue of climate change, the insurance industry is less inclined to leave the issue as nothing more than a possibility. Many insurance companies have begun preparing for the impact of stronger storms and rising sea levels spurred by climate change.

It must be divine irony, I truely despise the US Insurance industry, it rankles me that they may indeed become one of the main US industries to begin strongly pushing for effective climate change policies. So sad, but this issue is bigger than my dislike of the way they choose to turn profits.

Ahhhh yes that wonderful word of the charlatan rears it's head yet again....The world MAY also be hit by an asteroid (far more likely and far more destructive to civilisation than global warming could ever hope to be), it MAY be hit by a massive radiation blast from a super nova, it MAY be invaded by aliens, a lot of things MAY happen in the future.

None of them will alter the fact that AGW "science" is a fraud.

Ahhh, yes, it's the fabulous pomposity, of Wally.

Say, Wally! While you were at the beach or wherever, did you figure out how TSI and sunspots are down, while temperatures and CO2 concentration are UP? You missed the big heat wave, I guess. It was hot, here on Earth.

Since the sea, shelf, and glacial ice has been MELTING, more than any other time, on record, some sort of favorable heat exchange should put our average global temperatures DOWN. Didn't happen, not even in Wally World.

How do you think that happened, if the GREENHOUSE EFFECT didn't get'r'done?

Of course, since you went out of town, Wally, Mr.Watt proved how chainsaws weren't really invented, by humans, and we all know releasing sequestered CO2, by burning stuff didn't throw off the balance, not even with a little bit of acid rain or ocean acidification or anything.

ALIENS came to Earth, and they must have used chainsaws, Wall! It was ALIEN Global Warming. Tell Wattsie-twatsie, WE BELIEVE IN THE ALIEN GLOBAL WARMING THEORY. That other AGW is too Jewish, for right-thinking right-wingers.

 

[Trakar]

...A poll citing"belief" in climate change is alot.............ALOT different than a poll which identifies "concern" about climate change ( the poll cited by SKOOKS, of course)...

Demonstrate a group of individuals who belive in current climate change who are unconcerned about current climate change.

Demonstrate to us climate change that is different from that which has occured before.

Irrelevent to the issue being discussed, but I will be happy to accomodate this as an additional issue.

The first issue was a claim stating that there was a difference between people who acknowledged current climate change in a specific poll and people who are concerned about climate change. I say that the people who acknowledge and openly support that we are in a current climate change episode, are overwhelmingly concerned about climate change (regardless of whether or not they accurately understand the underlying science).

Your issue is of a different nature; what types of evidence would you find persuasive?

 

[westwall]

Demonstrate a group of individuals who belive in current climate change who are unconcerned about current climate change.

Demonstrate to us climate change that is different from that which has occured before.

Irrelevent to the issue being discussed, but I will be happy to accomodate this as an additional issue.

The first issue was a claim stating that there was a difference between people who acknowledged current climate change in a specific poll and people who are concerned about climate change. I say that the people who acknowledge and openly support that we are in a current climate change episode, are overwhelmingly concerned about climate change (regardless of whether or not they accurately understand the underlying science).

Your issue is of a different nature; what types of evidence would you find persuasive?

In fact it is not irrelevant. You have made claims about the climate. The climate now is no different than in the past and that is a bit of a problem for your claims. Uniformitarianism states that things that happened in the past will happen again in the future. Show us anything that is happening now that is somehow different than what has occured allready.

You made the claim now back it up.

 

[Trakar]

Demonstrate to us climate change that is different from that which has occured before.

Irrelevent to the issue being discussed, but I will be happy to accomodate this as an additional issue.

The first issue was a claim stating that there was a difference between people who acknowledged current climate change in a specific poll and people who are concerned about climate change. I say that the people who acknowledge and openly support that we are in a current climate change episode, are overwhelmingly concerned about climate change (regardless of whether or not they accurately understand the underlying science).

Your issue is of a different nature; what types of evidence would you find persuasive?

In fact it is not irrelevant. You have made claims about the climate.

What I think about the climate, is entirely irrelevent to whether or not affirmative respondants to a poll asking people if they think we are experiencing climate change are concerned about climate change.

as I stated, however, I am willing to discuss your issue as well.

The climate now is no different than in the past and that is a bit of a problem for your claims.

No problem at all. Once we identify the type of evidence sufficient for you to accept that climate change is occurring, then I'll see what I can do to meet those standards. Without that, we are chasing an undefined and unachievable solution.

Uniformitarianism states that things that happened in the past will happen again in the future. Show us anything that is happening now that is somehow different than what has occured allready.

Uniformitarianism is a belief system that is poor reflection of reality. Nothing, not even the basic forces within the extent of our perception and understanding has ever persisted in a steady or unchanged state.

Do you want me to demonstrate the level of changes we are seeing now versus the level of changes we understand in earlier epochs of our planet's history and then compare them to changes we've seen since when; the history of our species, modern global civilization,...?

As I said, put out some criteria you would feel neccessary for you to acknowledge AGW, we'll work out the details and I'll see what I can turn up.

 

[westwall]

Irrelevent to the issue being discussed, but I will be happy to accomodate this as an additional issue.

The first issue was a claim stating that there was a difference between people who acknowledged current climate change in a specific poll and people who are concerned about climate change. I say that the people who acknowledge and openly support that we are in a current climate change episode, are overwhelmingly concerned about climate change (regardless of whether or not they accurately understand the underlying science).

Your issue is of a different nature; what types of evidence would you find persuasive?

In fact it is not irrelevant. You have made claims about the climate.

What I think about the climate, is entirely irrelevent to whether or not affirmative respondants to a poll asking people if they think we are experiencing climate change are concerned about climate change.

as I stated, however, I am willing to discuss your issue as well.

The climate now is no different than in the past and that is a bit of a problem for your claims.

No problem at all. Once we identify the type of evidence sufficient for you to accept that climate change is occurring, then I'll see what I can do to meet those standards. Without that, we are chasing an undefined and unachievable solution.

Uniformitarianism states that things that happened in the past will happen again in the future. Show us anything that is happening now that is somehow different than what has occured allready.

Uniformitarianism is a belief system that is poor reflection of reality. Nothing, not even the basic forces within the extent of our perception and understanding has ever persisted in a steady or unchanged state.

Do you want me to demonstrate the level of changes we are seeing now versus the level of changes we understand in earlier epochs of our planet's history and then compare them to changes we've seen since when; the history of our species, modern global civilization,...?

As I said, put out some criteria you would feel neccessary for you to acknowledge AGW, we'll work out the details and I'll see what I can turn up.

Uniformitarianism is a fundamental underpinning of geology and is the foundational observation of the physical world, it is by no means a "belief system". When a geologist makes a prediction based on the PRINCIPLE of uniformitarianism he will tell you what will happen, what it will look like, and what the result of it will be. The cult of AGW on the other hand tells us if "X" occurs...something MAY happen, or it COULD happen. That is the very essence of a "belief system". Your blissfully ignorant comment reveals how far removed from science you truly are.

 

[Old Rocks]

In fact it is not irrelevant. You have made claims about the climate.

What I think about the climate, is entirely irrelevent to whether or not affirmative respondants to a poll asking people if they think we are experiencing climate change are concerned about climate change.

as I stated, however, I am willing to discuss your issue as well.



No problem at all. Once we identify the type of evidence sufficient for you to accept that climate change is occurring, then I'll see what I can do to meet those standards. Without that, we are chasing an undefined and unachievable solution.

Uniformitarianism states that things that happened in the past will happen again in the future. Show us anything that is happening now that is somehow different than what has occured allready.

Uniformitarianism is a belief system that is poor reflection of reality. Nothing, not even the basic forces within the extent of our perception and understanding has ever persisted in a steady or unchanged state.

Do you want me to demonstrate the level of changes we are seeing now versus the level of changes we understand in earlier epochs of our planet's history and then compare them to changes we've seen since when; the history of our species, modern global civilization,...?

As I said, put out some criteria you would feel neccessary for you to acknowledge AGW, we'll work out the details and I'll see what I can turn up.

Uniformitarianism is a fundamental underpinning of geology and is the foundational observation of the physical world, it is by no means a "belief system". When a geologist makes a prediction based on the PRINCIPLE of uniformitarianism he will tell you what will happen, what it will look like, and what the result of it will be. The cult of AGW on the other hand tells us if "X" occurs...something MAY happen, or it COULD happen. That is the very essence of a "belief system". Your blissfully ignorant comment reveals how far removed from science you truly are.

Uniformitarianism is a fundemental principle in geology. As is punctated equilibrium. We know from present observations that transform faults move units of land hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles from their prior positions. We also know that over millions of years we can state that the average motions was so many centimeters per year. But that is not how the movement occurs. The faults move in increments of tens of feet every few decades or couple of centuries.

We have seen the same thing in the paleo climate. For many millions of years, things will stay the same, then an event will occur that will change the climate very rapidly. Several times this event has been the rapid injection of CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere. And the result was a rapid warming and change in the climate of that era.

Now why do you suggest that the rapid injection of GHGs in the atmosphere today will have differant results? The physics are the same, irregardless of the source of the GHGs.

The laws of physics state that if we add GHGs to the atmosphere, the atmosphere will warm. And that is exactly what is happening at present.

 

[Old Rocks]

Demonstrate to us climate change that is different from that which has occured before.

Irrelevent to the issue being discussed, but I will be happy to accomodate this as an additional issue.

The first issue was a claim stating that there was a difference between people who acknowledged current climate change in a specific poll and people who are concerned about climate change. I say that the people who acknowledge and openly support that we are in a current climate change episode, are overwhelmingly concerned about climate change (regardless of whether or not they accurately understand the underlying science).

Your issue is of a different nature; what types of evidence would you find persuasive?

In fact it is not irrelevant. You have made claims about the climate. The climate now is no different than in the past and that is a bit of a problem for your claims. Uniformitarianism states that things that happened in the past will happen again in the future. Show us anything that is happening now that is somehow different than what has occured allready.

You made the claim now back it up.

Now Walleyes, that is not at all what uniformitarianism claims. Uniformitarianism states that the same preconditions will produce the same results.

But we have changed the preconditions. The CO2 content in the atmosphere is no longer 280 ppm. It is now about 400 ppm. The CH4 is no longer at 0.7 or 0.8 ppm, it is over 1.8 ppm. And there are industrial GHGs we have added to the atmosphere that are thousands of times as powerful as CO2.

And we are presently seeing the warming, and also seeing an increase in the number and severity of extreme weather events. You don't need to argue with me on that, you need to argue with Swiss Re and Munich Re.

You might also note that uniformitarianism fails on the subjects of impacts and caldera volcanos.

 

[bobgnote]

Uniformitarianism may be a useful model, when we compare how humans have become like dumb beasts, by way of mass stupidity.

Via mass stupidity and corrupted institutions, the effect of human intelligence may be completely nullified, so we may be absolutely doomed as doomed can be, to repeat previous outcomes.

Unless the uniformly stupid are somehow defeated, human habitat may be uniformly distorted, by inevitable climate changes, and we won't be around, to argue the niceties, of whether humans caused any of the preconditions, for mass extinction.

The uniformly stupid are too stupid, to react. Kiss those ocean-fish, goodbye.

I wonder if we can fake some believable actuarials, about Animal Global Warming, for Wally?