As I said before, get out there and publish.
If your theories hold weight, they can stand professional scrutiny.
On the topic of evolution and evolution education in schools, Michele Bachmann has publicly declared her desire to push the teaching of intelligent design in science classes along with evolution education. Bachmann claims she is aware of "hundreds and hundreds" of scientists who believe in inelligent design and that it should be inserted into the science curriculum so students can decide for themselves what to believe. She even pushed for her home state of Minnesota to adopt intelligent design curricula.In a speech given during his campaign, Newt Gingrich defended his idea that the United States was founded on Christian principles and prayer and Creationism should be put back in schools. This includes teaching creationism and intelligent design along with or instead of evolution..Mr. Huntsman's belief in evolution and global climate change had him Tweeting "Call me crazy." Huntsman has publicly declared in numerous places that he trusts and believes the scientists on scientific issues like the theory of evolution. He is the only one in the field who has repeatedly publicly declared his support of scientists on scientific issues
Ron Paul wants to completely eliminate the Department of Education and leave decisions like whether or not to include alternatives to evolution in the science classroom up to the individual states. However, he publicly declared when asked at a town hall style campaign stop that evolution is a theory and he did not accept it.Perhaps the most outspoken candidate on the topic of teaching evolution in schools, Mr. Perry has declared several times he does not believe in the theory of evolution and has even said that they teach intelligent design and creationism in Texas public schools (which is an untrue statement). After declaring that evolution is just a "theory that's out there", he could not seem to escape questions at most campaign stops about science related topics.While governor in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney opposed teaching intelligent design or creationism in the science classroom. In a recent campaign stop, he was one of the only republicans who admitted to believing in evolution. Furthermore, Romney said there is no conflict between "true religion" and "true science".This sample seems to bear out findings of actual studies.Mr. Santorum is an anti-evolution candidate who believes intelligent design should be taught in classrooms. He also does not believe in global warming or using embryonic stem cells for research.
As I said before, get out there and publish.
If your theories hold weight, they can stand professional scrutiny.
Okay, Uncle. I give.
Just tell me one thing.
If we do nothing; when will I notice the first negative impacts of anthropogenic global climate change?
I want to prepare my family because, trust me we're spinning our wheels in the face your predictions of doom and gloom.
Haven't we already passed a couple of points of no return?
On the Brink: Planet Near Irreversible Point of Global Warming
Global Warming Close to Becoming Irreversible: Scientific ...
Global Warming is Irreversible, study suggests - The Green ...
World headed for irreversible climate change in five years ...
Time is Fast Running Out to Stop Irreversible Climate Change ...
Please let me know if those are the good scientists (among your minions of tens of thousand peer-reviewing the millions upon millions of scientific papers) or the bad ones (just making up to stir the pudding). And, if they're the good ones, what's the point of doing anything?
If they're right, times up. We should direct our efforts at adapting to the coming change instead of trying to reverse the irreversible.
I know it's about the science for you but, face it, no one is doing much more than paying lip service to doing anything concrete to reduce our CO2 emissions. Well, paying lip service while enriching themselves and throwing bad ass parties around the world - to which they travel in jets and limos - to slap each other on the back about all the good they're doing for the environment.
How do you explain the studies done showing that belief in this "AGW scare" varies proportionately with expertise?
Alarmism about ultimate effects aside, the science seems to show some evidence that we are warming the planet overall. That is a conclusion that a lot of scientists have come to.
As already pointed out, look at how many predictions are overdue.
How can this science be trusted when so many things are constantly revised and outcomes do not happen as predicted?
It appears the same incorrect hypothesis and theories are being taught in college courses, and they are constantly wrong on predictions.
Again...
Show me something that takes full and proper account of the known energy changes caused by the sun, and the well established forcing caused by black carbon. BC is easy to determine. Mixed greenhouse gasses are not.
Of all the studies thrown this way supporting CO2 as a big of culprit as claimed, none of them properly take onto account other variables that must be considered.
In accounting, your itemized additions and subtractions net change must equal the real changes to the bottom line. Don't you see... two sets of books are being kept here. the numbers do not add up. Why should I believe any of it.
That didn't answer my question. You just talked about what you wanted to talk about, as if I didn't ask anything.
How do you explain the fact that confidence in AGW goes up as expertise in climate science does?
You will dismiss anything I post out of hand anyway, using ad hominem logical fallacies.
You have worn me down to the point where I no longer feel the need to provide you with things.
Go find it. It is out there.
I think they are right to a fair degree, actually. We are on a long term track.
This is probably one of the better points you have made, IMO.
People who have smeared the scientists have mostly won the PR war, and no one wants to do what needs to be done, due to a lack of political will.
Our responsibility to the future though, does not stop even though some of the changes may be, for the moment, irreversible.
As for what you and your family can do:
Don't live near coastlines. Build stronger houses. Shoot for energy independence.
Things we should be doing anway.
If by expertise, you mean people who learn from schools teaching improper climate science, then isn't that the answer?
Its mindnumbingly stupid utterances like this that make me feel it is relevant to remind people how stupid he is. We are talking about a guy that thought it was a good idea to use a CO2 solubility chart to predict the behavior of the ocean and compared it to a fizzing soda. That is 'proper climate science' to this dolt.
For those who like satellite data:
Sound's like they are monkeying with the dataset to me.For this reason and others, Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University, says he is skeptical of the satellite data’s reliability. “As far as the data go, I don’t really trust the satellite data. While satellites clearly have some advantages over the surface thermometer record, such as better sampling, measuring temperature from a satellite is actually an incredibly difficult problem. That’s why, every few years, another big problem in the UAH temperature calculation is discovered. And, when these problems are fixed, the trend always goes up,”
Satellite climate data at 33 years: questioning shaky claims that downplay global warming
Further evidence that you are dumb as . Reading comprehension or the lack thereof is very telling.
The satellite data indicates that there is a discrepancy between the IPCC models and the satellite data. What is telling is the UofA scientists response to the blog
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/...at-13-century/
The salient point is
What WC is too stupid to realize is that this particular data actually from John Cristy, who is a noted perer reviewed skeptic who says that the warming is not as significant as the IPCC models should predict and uses satellite data to back up the claim. He goes further to justify his work and does what i feel is a decent job in doing so.The first issue I want to address deals the relationship between temperature trends of observations versus model output. I often see such posts refer to an old CCSP do ent (2006) which, as I’ve reported in congressional testimony, was not very accurate to begin with, but which has been superseded and contradicted by several more recent publications.
These publications specifically do ent the fact that bulk atmospheric temperatures in the climate system are warming at only 1/2 to 1/4 the rate of the IPCC AR4 model trends. Indeed actual upper air temperatures are warming the same or less than the observed surface temperatures (most obvious in the tropics) which is in clear and significant contradiction to model projections, which suggest warming should be amplified with al ude.
The blog post even indicates one of its quoted scientists, Ben Santer, agrees that the upper air is warming less than the surface – a result with which no model agrees. So, the model vs. observational issue was not presented accurately in the post. This has been addressed in the peer reviewed literature by us and others (Christy et al. 2007, 2010, 2011, McKitrick et al. 2010, Klotzbach et al. 2009, 2010.)
Then, some people find comfort in simply denigrating the uncooperative UAH data (about which there have been many validation studies.) We were the first to develop a microwave-based global temperature product. We have sought to produce the most accurate representation of the real world possible with these data – there is no premium in generating problematic data. When problems with various instruments or processes are discovered, we characterize, fix and publish the information. That adjustments are required through time is obvious as no one can predict when an instrument might run into problems, and the development of such a dataset from satellites was uncharted territory before we developed the first methods.
By posting and agreeing with that blog WC is actually supporting the notion of AGW and supports that it is more signiicant than this satellite data as presented might suggest.
Further it absolutely destroys the notion asserted and repeated ad nauseum by the usual suspects that the scientific community is one genous group bent on proving AGW and over-exaggerating its effects for gain and profit.
Prima facia its stupid and it also underlies what is a concern amongst many in the scientific community: that it is too compartmentalized into camps that are uncooperative and adversarial. This argument underscores a pissing contest between climatologists that use satellite data and those that use surface temperature data.
There was a similar pissing contest between climatologists and astrophysicists 5-10 years ago because the astrophysicists were attributing the warming to solar activity. To some extent its healthy debate and good for finding the truth otoh it leads to refusal to share information which has the opposite effect.
Dumbass just picked the wrong side.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 04-18-2012 at 03:24 AM.
I will take that as an explanation.
"Climate Scientists are too stupid to realize their mistakes".
So you are telling me that the scientists doing this, who spend almost a decade getting PhD's in sceince-heavy courses are all too stupid to realize how bad the science is, and just haven't figured it out yet.
You are right, and they are all wrong because they are learning "improper climate science".
Given your continually demonstrated lack of critical thinking skills, I can state that your ability to determine what is "proper science" is rather low. The odds that you are right about the science being "improper" are therefore, commensurately low.
Generally, these PhD's have spend a lot of time with hard science and math courses that tend to weed out people who can't follow along or just don't have the intellectual heft to be scientists.
I find your explanation to be highly implausible.
Lastly, I find the word choice here to be damning.
"improper". Science isn't proper or improper. That is a word that is better applied to political correctness.
That says to me that you want to subs ute your politics for what is being taught there.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-18-2012 at 09:42 AM. Reason: grammar. picky, I know.
It seems we're always on a "long term track," with anthropogenic global climate change yet, nearly every time we reach a predicted benchmark in the models, they're wrong...usually on the high side. Why do the models never underestimate the affects? Combine that with all the errors and scandals that have been discovered and I think any reasonable person has cause to be skeptical.
I've made it before.
I don't believe skeptics are smearing the scientists -- they're smearing the self-appointed demagogues that have aggregated your scientists' works into political bodies such as the IPCC, the UN, the GISS, and Al Gore, et. al., in order to control people's behavior by promising gloom and doom. The skepticism is increased by the knowledge the people doing the most to raise international awareness of global climate change are making butt loads of money doing so while, at the same time, doing absolutely nothing to control their own carbon footprints -- most of whom use more energy than some small countries.
And, I do. But, green energies are nowhere close to being mature enough for the kinds of nonsense being demanded today. Our administration is choking off the oil and coal industries while throwing billions upon billions of dollars at renewable energy sources that -- as of today -- satisfy what? 1-3% of our energy demands?
Also, and you can correct me here because I'm not going to go find it again, it is my understanding the only way to reduce our CO2 emissions to the levels we're told are necessary to avert catastrophe would necessitate our taking most of our industrialization back to levels not seen since before the industrial revolution. Is that true?
On top of it all, China just keeps chugging along burning fuel like there's no tomorrow... If China offsets our reductions by increasing their own fuel consumption, what's the point? Isn't this a global problem?
Last edited by Yonivore; 04-18-2012 at 09:02 AM.
You have, in essence, accused them of fraud.
WC has, directly, accused them of being stupid.
You and other self-professed skeptics posted, and continue to pos,t op-ed pieces that directly smear the scientists, all the articles here you post do the same thing continually.
You seem to be believing something here that is easily proved to be factually incorrect. While that may not bother you, when it comes to asking me to sign on to a public policy you prefer, that does not help.
If you can provide me with a reasonable level of credible evidence, I can be convinced.
We are arguably not choking off the oil and coal industries. Production of both has increased in recent years. This is due to demand and supply, as it always is.But, green energies are nowhere close to being mature enough for the kinds of nonsense being demanded today. Our administration is choking off the oil and coal industries while throwing billions upon billions of dollars at renewable energy sources that -- as of today -- satisfy what? 1-3% of our energy demands?
Also, and you can correct me here because I'm not going to go find it again, it is my understanding the only way to reduce our CO2 emissions to the levels we're told are necessary to avert catastrophe would necessitate our taking most of our industrialization back to levels not seen since before the industrial revolution. Is that true?
On top of it all, China just keeps chugging along burning fuel like there's no tomorrow... If China offsets our reductions by increasing their own fuel consumption, what's the point? Isn't this a global problem?
An argument that we currently get only X% of our power so, why bother developing it, is specious. "Only X% of our transportation needs is met by automobiles, the technology is just not there to move away from horses". "Our production lines in this factory only produce 1% of our total product output, therefore it doens't make sense to expand the factory"
What matters is potential going forward. One of the hardest lessons to learn in cost accounting is that sunk costs are irrelevant to making descions about future capital allocation.
You are incorrect that we would have to completely give up and go back to levels of well-being that are "pre-industrial revolution", to get our CO2 levels to zero. Nuclear and renewables are fully capable of meeting these needs with enough investment, and our ability to use energy efficiently has come a LONG way, and has the potential to go even further.
We currently have invested trillions in new coal and oil, and gas infrastructure as a global civilization, because that is what we have always done, and it has been economical in the past. What you miss here is that over time, we MUST invest similarly in nuclear and renewables.
The economics based on the physical reality of oil/coal depletion, regardless of government action, will make those sources of energy more expensive, per unit of energy.
At the same time, the economics of renewables, through technological advances, and infrastructure investment, will make those cheaper, per unit of energy.
We are nearing the crossing point now.
Yes, China, and India, are chugging these fuels. They will also be the most harmed, by what I have read. At some point they will realize this collectively too. Changing weather patterns drying up the monsoons in India will drive that point home pretty clearly.
From an economic compe iveness perspective, if your costs are stable, while your compe ors' is going up, then your products become all the more cheaper, comparatively. Let China base its current economic investments on depletable fuels.
Basically what I see here is that you are basing plans for future investments on past assumptions and data. While this works a lot of the time, it is often wrong in rapidly changing environments. The world has changed while you weren't looking.
You're right, I have. As have others in this forum. But, I doubt anything I, or anyone else in this forum, says has one scintilla of impact on anything happening outside this forum.
Out in the real world, its not the scientists being attacked, its the organizations and people that are co-opting the science, exaggerating the claims, raking in the dough and, all the while, living like nothing they say is true.
Well as soon as the EPA gets their way, coal mining will drop off dramatically. The EPA is, last I checked, an agency in the Executive Branch.
And, increases in oil production have absolutely nothing to do with anything Barack Obama has done. Production has increased because private interests, on private and state-controlled lands, have increased production.
Obama’s Claim of Increasing Domestic Drilling Not Accurate, Say Energy Analysts
For his part, Obama has placed a moratorium on Gulf drilling - while other countries continue to drill there.The increase in domestic drilling was almost entirely in areas for which the Obama administration exercised no authority, as oil production on federal land declined by 11 percent in fiscal year 2011, according to a study by the Ins ute on Energy Research (IER), a free-market energy think tank. But oil production on state lands increased that year by 14 percent and increased by 12 percent on private lands.
Obama has stalled a major pipeline to carry oil to our refineries in Texas - So, Canada said " You," we'll let Warrent Buffet rail this stuff to our coasts and sell it to China who is more than happy to burn it up into the atmosphere.
Obama is responsible for ZERO increases in our energy production.
It's not specious when you take into account the vast amounts of taxpayer treasure that is being funneled down that rabbit hole.
And, your examples don't compare. Many people kept their horses until automobiles were proven -- Obama wants to take away fossil fuels while renewable energies are not yet capable of supporting our needs. Also, it's private vs. public.
If a factory, horse rancher, or buggy-whip manufacturer wants to risk their capital on continuing a business model that doesn't look promising -- that's their choice, it's their money. As a taxpayer, I don't think my government should be in the business of free market speculation...WITH MY MONEY.
They're not irrelevant when they're foolish.
"Nuclear and renewables..."
Renewables, where we're sinking the most money, are not fully capable of meeting these needs in the near -- or distant future.
Nuclear energy, of which I'm a fan, faces its own challenges from the environmental crowd who chains themselves to construction sites every time there's a nuclear plant being raised.
Then, I'm confident, the free market will find a solution.
Sounds like an AGCC prediction, if you ask me.
What I'm fundamentally saying is let private interests and the free markets determine what energy sources are most economical.
You asked *me* to correct you on your facts. I have done so.At the same time, the economics of renewables, through technological advances, and infrastructure investment, will make those cheaper, per unit of energy.
We are nearing the crossing point now.
If the bulk of your response is one that mouse might try, i.e. "nuh-uh", then why do you ask me in the first place?
That these renewables are going to get cheaper is based on the following data and principles:
Technological development and innovation has driven the costs down on renewables consistantly for decades. There is no indication that we are approaching any wall in this regard, i.e. it is reasonable this trend will continue.
Basic business 101:
Efficiencies of scale bring unit costs down.
Learning curves bring unit costs down.
The very point you make about renewables making up such a small % of our energy needs directly implies that the costs MUST and WILL come down.
This isn't an "AGCC prediction". This is a logical extension of a trend, and based on basic market/economic principles.
You have set up a false dichotomy of choices.
1) No government intervention at all.
or
2) Total government "speculation with MY MONEY".
I reject your choice set. It is unrealistic and self-defeating.
Government should set ground rules and market rules, and then get out of the way as much as possible and let the engine of American innovation do what it does best.
Government's role is reducing uncertainty. The fact that you and people who believe as you do can't comprimise vastly increases uncertainty for businesses. The ironic thing is that this lack of certainty reduces business invesment, giving you an excuse to blame government, and comprimise even less.
Power swings back and forth, with one side wanting X policy, then another coming along and changing that, and in the mean time, a business wanting to invest doesn't know what the rules will be in 10 years, let alone 2.
What is needed is an obvious comprimse that can be ins uted where both viewpoints give up something, and agree to not changing the rules capriciously.
The free market can then make plans and get us to the best solutions.
Lastly:
Free market systems can come up with solutions, that are, for society as a whole VERY inefficient, they do this with astonishing regularity.
Blind faith is not something that is warranted here. Reasonable solutions are.
Give me a reasonable choice set. I am perfectly willing to comprimise.
LOL Climate Model "benchmarks".
Can someone provide me to a link describing these so called "benchmarks" that have been failed time and time again?
Thanks.
Thats a great video because I swear Bob Lutz sounds exactly like a combination of Yonivore, Darrin, and WC.
@ somehow the Keys were supposed to be underwater. Thats not an IPCC prediction but I could imagine that coming straight form one of Yonivore's posts.
Great video (although Mahr blaming tornadoes at the start irritated me almost enough to turn it off).
Okay, I'm not about to entertain the idea Bill Maher could fairly moderate a debate on such an issue. It's his job to get laughs by ridiculing those who disagree with his views.
Also, while I absolutely love Neil Degrasse Tyson, he's a great entertainer and makes scientific subjects easier for people like me to understand, he's not a climate scientist which, by the way, is something you and others have criticized about in the past -- that AGCC skeptic are, in large part, not climate scientists.
As an astrophysicist, Neil Degrasse Tyson is more closely aligned - on subject matter - with the 50 former NASA scientists that wrote the letter to the NASA administrator. Now, I'm not claiming they should agree with one another just that if you are going to give Neil Degrasse Tyson any respect on this subject, you should do so for the 50 former NASA scientists, as well.
Nevertheless, Lutz, or anyone with whom Maher disagrees or sees as a comedic target, who goes on Maher's show is an idiot and deserves what they get. Therefore, Lutz is an idiot.
so, instead of looking at the entertainment video you posted, I went and found a collection of statements from other real scientists (no, not all are astrophysicists or climate scientists) and, I'd like for Manny and Random to respond to these specific quotes from actual scientists -- about climate change.
True or false? Mostly true or mostly false? Reason for a lay person to harbor some skepticism over mankind's contribution to global warming or not?Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Ins ute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society said in a 2011 email exchange with a journalist: "First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it."
True or false? Mostly true or mostly false? Reason for a lay person to harbor some skepticism over mankind's contribution to global warming or not?Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences has made his views clear in several newspaper articles:"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.".[9] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."
True or false? Mostly true or mostly false? Reason for a lay person to harbor some skepticism over mankind's contribution to global warming or not?Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University and former Chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003) said in 2005 evidence given to a select committee: "In conclusion, observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future."
Yeah, I know what y'all've already said about this guy but, given the earlier suggestion over the uncertainty in satellite data, what makes it better than an actual, in-person, observation that sea levels aren't rising? Particularly if observed in places where the satellite data may indicate it is or where AGCC models indicate it should be? Just asking the question...not making a declaration of any kind.
True or false? Mostly true or mostly false? Reason for a lay person to harbor some skepticism over mankind's contribution to global warming or not?Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Ins ute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre said in his 2009 book: "There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."
True or false? Mostly true or mostly false? Reason for a lay person to harbor some skepticism over mankind's contribution to global warming or not?Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London said in a 2007 opinion piece: "It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 – 6.4 C warming. What is rarely noted is that we are already three-quarters of the way into this in terms of radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 (+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose that all of this is due to humans."
There's more to the essay but, that's the take away quote.Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Ins ute said in a 2009 essay: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."
So, Agree or disagree? Mostly agree or mostly disagree? Reason for a lay person to harbor some skepticism over mankind's contribution to global warming or not?
I know, I can find more quotes if you like, there were a couple of dozen more on the list where I found these.
Now, if you respond with a scientific paper, just know I'm going to respond in this way; As you've already noted, I'm not a climate scientist, nor am I involved in the field of climate science; and, I'm not about to go back through college for a degree in a subject just so I can understand the peer-reviewed white papers you post, ostensibly in response to my posts so, I'll simply stipulate, up front, I don't understand the papers you're going to post. Tell me instead what the paper says, where I can read it, how it contradicts the above quotes, and where any public figure is telling me what you say the scientific article is telling me.
Because, as you said earlier, you're losing the PR war because people like those above and John Stossel, and many of the places where I consume my information are able to, in layman's terms, convince me AGCC is either a crock of or, at best, a seriously flawed theory.
Weather is always a named peril even in ty homeowners policies --excepting flood mind you-- but make sure to ask for comprehensive coverage.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8390ZJ20120410(Reuters) - Property insurance rates are on the rise around the world, solidifying a turn in the market after years of declines, insurance brokerage Marsh said on Tuesday.
Just in the United States, customers without significant exposure to natural catastrophes saw price increases of up to 10 percent in the first quarter, while those in disaster-prone areas paid rates up to 20 percent higher than their last contract, the Marsh & McLennan Cos Inc (MMC.N) unit said.
"We believe that this trend will continue in the short term, with the average rate of increase continuing to rise month over month," Dean Klisura, a Marsh managing director, said in a statement.
Prices are on the rise elsewhere, Marsh added, most sharply in the countries that have had recent natural disasters.
The company cited two main factors for the increase in prices: 2011's record-setting catastrophe losses (more than $100 billion by most estimates)and changes in the way insurance companies model their exposure to risk.
I know how you feel about The American Thinker but, hear me out because the article I'm linking defends your assertion the IPCC never said the Florida Keys would be under water...
Did ABC Fabricate Projections of an Underwater Southern Florida? (Updated)
Maybe Lutz watches ABC?
Or, maybe Lutz took the word of our President?
You'll have to watch the video yourself, I'm not that interested but, I did look at the Powerpoint presentation and -- I'll be damned if the administration didn't claim the Florida Keys would be underwater. Right there in slide #11.
So, again, your problem isn't the skeptics. It's the people bringing YOUR message to the masses.
Does any of this make sense to you or are you still of the impression every American should be cuddling up with a different IPCC-approved white paper every evening?
Another example of the idiots carrying your water on this issue.Great video (although Mahr blaming tornadoes at the start irritated me almost enough to turn it off).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
