Thread for all the board liberals

[DarrinS]

We've talked about this several times. I hope youre being intentionally obtuse for effect and not really this dimwitted. There are online dictionaries and you can easily look up the meaning and background of words after all.

You very obviously argue for a conclusion as opposed to allowing the evidence dictate the outcome. RG right from the start in that climate thread had you with like two dozen specious arguments in a month and that didn't include you repeating yourself like an idiot. It is what it is.

I'm sue I've posted some dumb over the years, but my position is the same.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I mean fear in the sociopolitical presentation of "climate-change, the hot button issue", which is where this conversation started. The "if we don't do all this stuff right now, it's gonna blow!". I don't think the science findings warrant that.

What the science warrants is more research. We found a trend, an observation over a set of data. That's a great start. We don't outright know what combination of factors caused that trend to develop (otherwise, it wouldn't be a trend, it would be direct correlation). So let's do more research and try to pin point what is happening. It would be much informative both on the nature of the problem, the overall causes, and what the right solution to it is. To me, that's much more useful than going around making unquantifiable predictions (at this time) about impending doom.

Now, I'm not naive, and I know you can't make people care about something if there's no drama. But that doesn't mean I have to buy into it.

Like I said the insurance company report losses all across the country. The property and economic losses due to weather and climate events is well do ented. That is a significant quan y. For example:

Executive Summary

Since 2005, severe weather and climatological events accounted for 85% to 90% of natural hazards resulting in claims of property damage or personal injury, according to global totals
(Munich#Re, 2012). Prompted by evidence of recent increases in damages due to such events and longer term climate trends, this report presents a summary of the most recent data from the area of climate change research. This effort is intended to inform both the worldwide community of actuaries, business leaders, and the general public of the weight of scientific evidence regarding the Earth’s climate and the changes it is undergoing.

https://www.soa.org/Research/Researc...e-reports.aspx

Actuaries are all about quantification.

[ElNono]

Like I said the insurance company report losses all across the country. The property and economic losses due to weather and climate events is well do ented. That is a significant quan y. For example:

https://www.soa.org/Research/Researc...e-reports.aspx

Actuaries are all about quantification.

I don't think what we currently know about climate-change can establish a direct link between it and severe weather events. The good news is that climate-change did inspire a flurry of research on the topic, mostly fairly recent (2004+), but necessary.

That said, if you or other people do believe that, and are potentially hedging against it, that's perfectly fine with me, even if I don't share that opinion at this time.

[Splits]

Expressing opinions, tbh... nothing wrong with that...

Yeah, until your "opinion" is wrong and the Florida Keys don't exist any longer. 97% of climate scientists have come to consensus, but since you have an "opinion" the topic should be open for debate. Got it. There's actually something TERRIBLY wrong "with that".

My uncle's mother-in-law's 3rd husband's grandson told me the earth was flat. I know that most scientists agree the earth is round, but I trust this guy so my opinion is that the earth is flat.

Climate *is* weather.

Seriously? You can't possibly believe that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think what we currently know about climate-change can establish a direct link between it and severe weather events. The good news is that climate-change did inspire a flurry of research on the topic, mostly fairly recent (2004+), but necessary.

That said, if you or other people do believe that, and are potentially hedging against it, that's perfectly fine with me, even if I don't share that opinion at this time.

The temperature record is comprehensive far before 2004 as as are all the indices that the actuaries talked about. The economic impact of climate related events is accountable all the way before WW2 with the formations of state insurance commissions. When the climate cost anomaly is +$100b like the SoA says happened in 2014 then people start hedging like mad.

[DarrinS]

This is hilarious

[Splits]

I don't think what we currently know about climate-change can establish a direct link between it and severe weather events

Yeah well unless you're a climate scientist, what you "think" doesn't matter. This is settled in the scientific world.

But in your world, what you "think" should override all of the scientific evidence. Because unicorns or something. Got it.

[DarrinS]

Yeah well unless you're a climate scientist, what you "think" doesn't matter. This is settled in the scientific world.

But in your world, what you "think" should override all of the scientific evidence. Because unicorns or something. Got it.

Bull

You think only climate scientists can analyze data?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is hilarious

I hadn't read that actuarial report before. I bet you never read it.

[ElNono]

Yeah well unless you're a climate scientist, what you "think" doesn't matter.

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, and you're free to ignore it. But somebody did ask me what I thought. I merely responded.

[DarrinS]

Elnono, I know you expressed these same views years ago in RG's thread. Don't know why people are shocked.

[Splits]

Bull

You think only climate scientists can analyze data?

If you had a brain tumor and 97/100 neurosurgeons told you that you needed surgery if you wanted to live, but some random, fat Argentinian guy from Jersey told you he thought they were wrong and that you should just wait it out, because each day (weather) you didn't die meant that you would survive until your life expectancy (climate) would you respect what he was "thinking"?

[Splits]

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, and you're free to ignore it. But somebody did ask me what I thought. I merely responded.

If you had a brain tumor and 97/100 neurosurgeons told you that you needed surgery if you wanted to live, but some random, fat Argentinian guy from Jersey told you he thought they were wrong and that you should just wait it out, because each day (weather) you didn't die meant that you would survive until your life expectancy (climate) would you respect what he was "thinking"?

[DarrinS]

If you had a brain tumor and 97/100 neurosurgeons told you that you needed surgery if you wanted to live, but some random, fat Argentinian guy from Jersey told you he thought they were wrong and that you should just wait it out, because each day (weather) you didn't die meant that you would survive until your life expectancy (climate) would you respect what he was "thinking"?

Re much?

[Splits]

I'm a "conservative" so by default I hate science

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bull

You think only climate scientists can analyze data?

This is dumb. How many times have we discussed the actuarial society and NSF?

You never did say what your thoughts on that Harvard guy that took money from Exxon and lied about it. I always thought you must feel a kinship.

[ElNono]

The temperature record is comprehensive far before 2004 as as are all the indices that the actuaries talked about. The economic impact of climate related events is accountable all the way before WW2 with the formations of state insurance commissions. When the climate cost anomaly is +$100b like the SoA says happened in 2014 then people start hedging like mad.

I didn't dismiss the historical record nor the research. I merely stated that the current findings do not warrant, in my opinion, such hedging.

If anything, I'm simply being rigorous with the scientific method. We had an observation, that invites theories (hopefully more than one), that invite research, and then hopefully end up with a scientific law or more, and greater understanding of why we observed what we did. Very few theories are directly acted upon. Perhaps the greatest outlier is Eistein's theory of relativity. But that was a theory with hard numbers, sound math, and at least partially testable.

I don't know if this theory will ever be testable. The scope is humongous. But at least let's try to advance the research a little more, find some correlations. I think we're in the super early stages of this thing, and it screams for more more research to be done.

[ElNono]

Elnono, I know you expressed these same views years ago in RG's thread. Don't know why people are shocked.

I did mention that a few pages back.

[ElNono]

I love science. I'm one of the more staunch defenders of the scientific method in this place. Have been for years.

[Blizzardwizard]

Damn liberals and all their science .

Bend over, I'll show you science.

[ElNono]

Yeah, until your "opinion" is wrong and the Florida Keys don't exist any longer. 97% of climate scientists have come to consensus, but since you have an "opinion" the topic should be open for debate. Got it. There's actually something TERRIBLY wrong "with that".

I don't plan to try to impose my opinion on anybody. If anything, I've been nothing but respectful with people that think otherwise.

[ElNono]

You think only climate scientists can analyze data?

Astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, solar scientists, meteorologists... I'm probably missing a few more scientists...

[Splits]

Astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, solar scientists, meteorologists... I'm probably missing a few more scientists...

Cosmetologists, dermatologists, astrologers, fat Jersey computer programmers, etc.

Anyone can do it!

You realize you don't go to a gynecologist if you need a mole removed, right?

[ElNono]

I don't get the scorn, tbh. Anybody that claims to know science would know all the scientists I listed study the effects of their respective fields on earth, including the effects on earth's climate.

It's not meant to dismiss climate scientists (of which I have not said a single bad word about in the entire thread, nor disagreed with their findings), but list other scientists that would be interested in that data.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't dismiss the historical record nor the research. I merely stated that the current findings do not warrant, in my opinion, such hedging.

If anything, I'm simply being rigorous with the scientific method. We had an observation, that invites theories (hopefully more than one), that invite research, and then hopefully end up with a scientific law or more, and greater understanding of why we observed what we did. Very few theories are directly acted upon. Perhaps the greatest outlier is Eistein's theory of relativity. But that was a theory with hard numbers, sound math, and at least partially testable.

I don't know if this theory will ever be testable. The scope is humongous. But at least let's try to advance the research a little more, find some correlations. I think we're in the super early stages of this thing, and it screams for more more research to be done.

Your missing the point of insurance. You hedge as a matter of course. The question is how much.

the thermodynamic principles of the various ghg are law. There is no grand climate equation that explains the world down to a preferred grid level but that doesn't mean that we cannot say that adding ghg to a system increases temperature. Looking at the temperature record there is a clear correlation between ghg levels and the increase in temperature observed over the last 100 years.

and why do you say they have only been studying this since 2004? That was just when IPCC started pooling all the peer reviewed work and tried to come up with a consensus you claim doesn't exist. the spatial geometry + gradient PDEs they use in the ocean and atmospheric models were written in the 60s at Penn State. theyve been modeling it ever since.