Reply With Quote
Man, it's a good thing Climate Change came along, or they wouldn't have work at all!
Wait... you mean they had jobs before? Wtf? HOW IS DIS POSSIBRU
yeah, but that's nothing compared to the 97% of the world's climate people who get paid to lie that AGW is real.
Bucshon's 3 largest contributors are.... wait for it.... energy companies.
Man, it's a good thing Climate Change came along, or they wouldn't have work at all!
Wait... you mean they had jobs before? Wtf? HOW IS DIS POSSIBRU
You Lie.
Context, sir. I didn't think it needed the blue font.
Quick question. When will insurance adjusters stop starving?
Yeah, the bit about displacement pretty much got that jackass a rather nasty bit of satire from Jon Stewart.
Bucshon's 3 largest contributors are.... wait for it.... energy companies.
The bits that I saw pretty much show the results of what I call the Republican war on science.
That will, rightly, cost them a lot of the sensible center, until they decide to pull their collective head out of their asses. These congressional idiots on a house panel on science were downright embarrassing. The GOP rank and file should be ashamed of them.
Depends on which company you work for.
being facetious. P&C companies are doing well from the lack of natural disasters. Not to say those disasters aren't around the corner, but I'd like to know when so I'll get my adjusters licenseDepends on which company you work for.
Well, from what I see, we are on track to have a below normal amount of Atlantic hurricanes for the year. Best to move to Cali, and deal with fire claims.being facetious. P&C companies are doing well from the lack of natural disasters. Not to say those disasters aren't around the corner, but I'd like to know when so I'll get my adjusters license
Not sure about the licensing process there, but you can probably find the info fairly easy at the CDOI website.
He can't turn it off.
Well they don't offer flood insurance so they miss the biggest source of damage. there are also many more claims than those of natural disaster. A storm doesn't need to be a tropical storm to do damage.being facetious. P&C companies are doing well from the lack of natural disasters. Not to say those disasters aren't around the corner, but I'd like to know when so I'll get my adjusters license
The actuaries have been crying about P&C claims increasing for over a decade to this point. Unless you are inside the insurance industry, we are not privy to the national claims totals with any degree of accuracy. Some states do report it and some of those that do like Florida are freaking out particularly along the coast.
More and more people are being deemed uninsurable and migrations are being forced. Premuims are going up. Claims are more aggressive and judgmental.
But yeah since the actuaries know how to manage even higher risk and make money at it, we should just disregard the whole thing.
How's that famous pause in AGW workin out fer ya?
Major U.S. Cities Will See 10 Times More Coastal Flooding By 2045
Flooding during high tide could occur so frequently in some U.S. cities in the future that parts could become “unusable,” according to a new report.
The report, published by the Union for Concerned Scientists, looked at 52 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tide gauges in coastal cities in Florida, Maryland, Georgia, Virginia and other states. UCS analyzed the states’ flooding risk under mid-range sea level rise predictions taken from the White House’s National Climate Assessment — an estimate of 5 inches of sea level rise by 2030, and 11 inches by 2045. It found that tidal flooding could triple in some cities in 15 years and occur 10 times as often in most cities in the next 30 years.
The Mid-Atlantic states are particularly vulnerable, the report found. A tripling of tidal flooding events in these states would mean that, in some cities, flooding could occur multiple times per week. The report also found that by 2045, one-third of the cities and towns looked at could start experiencing tidal flooding more than 180 days each year, and nine cities would see flooding 240 times each year.
These floods aren’t the type that cause death or major destruction, the authors of the report noted on a press conference Wednesday. They’re “nusiance” floods, the kind that force residents to wade through water on their way to work and move their cars before the tide comes to avoid sal er damage. But as sea levels rise, there’s likely only so much of this flooding that communities will be willing to take, report co-author Erika Spanger-Siegfried said. If the flooding becomes chronic, some areas may be forced to decide whether to relocate businesses and homes.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ooding-report/
Who cares?
How's that famous pause in AGW workin out fer ya?
Major U.S. Cities Will See 10 Times More Coastal Flooding By 2045
Flooding during high tide could occur so frequently in some U.S. cities in the future that parts could become “unusable,” according to a new report.
The report, published by the Union for Concerned Scientists, looked at 52 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tide gauges in coastal cities in Florida, Maryland, Georgia, Virginia and other states. UCS analyzed the states’ flooding risk under mid-range sea level rise predictions taken from the White House’s National Climate Assessment — an estimate of 5 inches of sea level rise by 2030, and 11 inches by 2045. It found that tidal flooding could triple in some cities in 15 years and occur 10 times as often in most cities in the next 30 years.
The Mid-Atlantic states are particularly vulnerable, the report found. A tripling of tidal flooding events in these states would mean that, in some cities, flooding could occur multiple times per week. The report also found that by 2045, one-third of the cities and towns looked at could start experiencing tidal flooding more than 180 days each year, and nine cities would see flooding 240 times each year.
These floods aren’t the type that cause death or major destruction, the authors of the report noted on a press conference Wednesday. They’re “nusiance” floods, the kind that force residents to wade through water on their way to work and move their cars before the tide comes to avoid sal er damage. But as sea levels rise, there’s likely only so much of this flooding that communities will be willing to take, report co-author Erika Spanger-Siegfried said. If the flooding becomes chronic, some areas may be forced to decide whether to relocate businesses and homes.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ooding-report/
It's a risk you take for buying so close to the ocean. Why are you standing up for the rich who own oceanfront property?
This belongs here as you are literally just rehashing crap that has been refuted in this thread dozens of time.
Concensus - you showing 25 climate scientists and 50 other scientists who are skeptics does not detract from the denominator and the opposition who of an order 4 or 5 times as high. that is thousands to tens of thousands.
Hiatus - again read the BEST and NAS papers they do a much better job of describing the current state of science than I can.
more handwaving at something that was disproven is still guilt by association.
your armageddon rhetoric is great for the christians it riles them up. I still think it is gratuitous nonsense. the article describes
not the raptureBut while scientists and climate-policy experts welcome the new momentum ahead of the Lima talks, they warn that it now may be impossible to prevent the temperature of the planet’s atmosphere from rising by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. According to a large body of scientific research, that is the tipping point at which the world will be locked into a near-term future of drought, food and water shortages, melting ice sheets, shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels and widespread flooding — events that could harm the world’s population and economy.
You should look at your last quote in this thread. You go from the wealthy to redistributing wealth is bad. Nice sophistry.
If the sea level is rising so much, why does this happen:
How's that famous pause in AGW workin out fer ya?
You know, water volume and temperature are not the only effects to sea level changes. The friction of the wind speed and direction against the ocean makes a tide higher or lower. So does the speed and direction of the ocean flow itself. And the moon isn't the only celestial body that moves the tides. The whole angular alignments between the earth, sun, and moon all play a roll.
land ice is melting, ocean levels are rising
thats like saying "if its getting hot, why is there still winter"
No, its saying that climate happens anyway.
You can assume all you want that extra glacier melt is due to CO2. That doesn't make it so. We still don't understand the full effects of dozens of other factors, and CO2 might not make a difference in the scheme of things.
Sure, I'll carry on in this thread -- thanks.
The whole consensus nonsense owes its genesis to a paper whose principle author is one John Cook:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Unfortunately for Mr. Cook, people read.
One simple question. When do the models say the warming will resume?
Maybe not but, did you overlook this excerpt?more handwaving at something that was disproven is still guilt by association.
your armageddon rhetoric is great for the christians it riles them up. I still think it is gratuitous nonsense.
not the rapture.
OMG!
Nicely taken out of context. I stand by the statement that we shouldn't pay anyone -- including the wealthy -- for taking a known risk and building on property that is almost surely going to result in a claim.
Last edited by Yonivore; 12-03-2014 at 05:38 PM. Reason: I fucked up html codes
Sure, I'll carry on in this thread -- thanks.
The whole consensus nonsense owes its genesis to a paper whose principle author is one John Cook:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Unfortunately for Mr. Cook, people read.
One simple question. When do the models say the warming will resume?
Maybe not but, did you overlook this excerpt?
OMG!
Nicely taken out of context. I stand by the statement that we shouldn't pay anyone -- including the wealthy -- for taking a known risk and building on property that is almost surely going to result in a claim.
Now you are linking pop tart. Him accusing others of falsely categorizing scientists is the most hilarious I've seen all day. I'm done contending with google sophistry.
Yes, and solar warming of the oceans works the same way.a slowing in warming is not necessarily a pause or hiatus in warming. just a change of rate. this graph is obviously not meant to be taken as stats on temperature, but just to illustrate the point. there is still an increase, just a slower increase
Consider this:
The red line has no units as for simplicity, it is set to attempt to equalize to the TSI.
Any questions as to how I plotted this? Notice that any time the red line is above the TSI, it decreases, and increases any time it is below it.
Notice that even though the TSI peaked in 1948, the heat content still increased for several more cycles.
The graph is plotted from the official SORCE satellite data, and reconstructs of the past on their site.
So, you didn't read the actual quotes from the scientists, in the article, who disagreed with Cook categorizing their papers as being in agreement with him?
Now you are linking pop tart. Him accusing others of falsely categorizing scientists is the most hilarious I've seen all day. I'm done contending with google sophistry.
Yeah, you are through.
Pretty much about the level of mentality of many of the pseudoscientists driving the denier movement.
Wow, you are putting up a link to PopTech.Sure, I'll carry on in this thread -- thanks.
The whole consensus nonsense owes its genesis to a paper whose principle author is one John Cook:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Unfortunately for Mr. Cook, people read.
One simple question. When do the models say the warming will resume?
Maybe not but, did you overlook this excerpt?
OMG!
Nicely taken out of context. I stand by the statement that we shouldn't pay anyone -- including the wealthy -- for taking a known risk and building on property that is almost surely going to result in a claim.
Dude posted here for a while, until I caught him in a lie, then he left in fairly short order.
PopTech's MO is one of shameless cherry-picking, both of quotes and research papers.
Having dealt with the guy first hand long enough to know that he is as actively intellectually dishonest as you are, I will simply dismiss the ultimate conclusion.
I have little doubt that were I to waste time chasing this rabbit down the hole, I would find the author of that website did the same thing that I caught him in here and in his other links.
Shameless cherry picking to the point of blatant intellectual dishonesty.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
