Register to Comment
Like Tree13811Likes
  1. #47011
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    19,465

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Climate change denier Lawson recently criticised the Governor, the well-know radical "climate jihadist" (arn't all bankers?) Mark Carney for his comments on climate change insurance risk.

    Carney, however, robustly defended the Bank’s work, stating: “In the insurance business one of the top risks is climate change. Understanding those risks… is absolutely essential to discharge our responsibilities to oversee and supervise the third largest insurance market in the world.”
    ...
    Lawson’s attack follows warnings made last week by the Bank of England that insurance companies could suffer a “huge hit” if their investments in fossil fuel companies are rendered worthless as a result of global action on climate change.


    Bank of England Says Climate Change Research 'Absolutely Essential' After Attack From Climate Denier Lord Lawson | DeSmog UK
    Carney is indeed an enviro-jihadist. As is his wife.


    They are in the classic mold of affluent westerners with hands directly or indirectly on the levers of power, not unlike the clutch of politicians and billionaires making great hay from this at our expense, like Fat A Gore, George Soros, Jeremy Grantham etc.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #47012
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    19,465

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
    For me to even begin considering a 10% chance of a catastrophic disaster,
    you guys need to demonstrate a few things that you claim are beginning
    to happen:

    Show that temperatures are rising as fast as the models say they should.
    Show that sea levels are rising fast enough to meet your predictions.
    Show that droughts are more frequent and severe.
    Show that floods more frequent and severe.
    Show that tropical cyclones are occurring more frequently.
    Show that violent tornadoes and other extreme weather are occurring more frequently.

    I think you will have difficulty extracting anything from the empirical record
    that even remotely shows that any of the above six items are coming true.
    There is no reliable evidence that we have been getting more extreme climate events. And that is according to the IPCC.


    The entire fabric of Alarm, upon which stupid books like this are founded, is prediction.


    I love this nonsense blurb:

    We insure our lives against an uncertain future--why not our planet?

    We insure our lives (against accidental death and injury) because we have long standing, reliable and powerful data that shows the frequency with which these events occur. We even have powerfully proven causal relationships to fine tune risk likelihood (e.g. smoking and cancer)


    What is even worse about that ridiculous statement is that "we insure our lives" against historically measured frequency, or likelihood of events. We definitely do NOT pay a life insurance premium that assumes that likelihood of death will dramatically increase.

    On the assumption that these "academic economics [sic]" know this good and well, the best way to describe them is:


    Complete.

    F_ucking

    Charlatans.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #47013
    Steve Case Steve Case is offline
    Steve Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,286

     
     
    From the March 11th Scientific American

    Mass Deaths in Americas Start New CO2 Epoch

    Mass deaths after Europeans reached the Americas may have allowed
    forests to regrow, reducing atmospheric concentrations of carbon
    dioxide and kicking off a proposed new Anthropocene geologic epoch.

    The atmosphere recorded the mass death, slavery and war that followed 1492.
    The death by smallpox and warfare of an estimated 50 million native Americans
    as well as the enslavement of Africans to work in the newly depopulated
    Americas allowed forests to grow in former farmlands. By 1610, the growth of
    all those trees had sucked enough carbon dioxide out of the sky to cause a
    drop of at least seven parts per million in atmospheric concentrations of
    the most prominent greenhouse gas and start a little ice age.
     
     
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #47014
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    36,991

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
    For me to even begin considering a 10% chance of a catastrophic disaster,
    you guys need to demonstrate a few things that you claim are beginning
    to happen:

    Show that temperatures are rising as fast as the models say they should.
    Show that sea levels are rising fast enough to meet your predictions.
    Show that droughts are more frequent and severe.
    Show that floods more frequent and severe.
    Show that tropical cyclones are occurring more frequently.
    Show that violent tornadoes and other extreme weather are occurring more frequently.

    I think you will have difficulty extracting anything from the empirical record
    that even remotely shows that any of the above six items are coming true.
    What is strange in your screed is that you discount all currently observed data. Personally, I rely on observations before projections.

    I think the observations already in of temperature rise, changes in ice cover, snow cover, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification are already enough to cause concern, even before you get to weather extremes and future projections. And weather extremes seem to be to be on the increase. It is not about "models", it is about the changes that are easily observable to all but deniers.

    Also, I cast doubt on your judgement because when any of your pronouncements, which have been shown to totally lacking in scientific merit, are challenged, you just fall back on silly accusations of fraud.

    So I will stick with the scientific and economic experts, thank you, and let deniers like yourself witter away in the corner.

    By the way, it was you and people like you who went charging into Iraq, spending trillions of $$$ of taxpayers money, murdering tens of thousands of people, because Dick Cheney told you it was the right thing to do "even if there was a less than 2% chance of Iraq getting a bomb". How about spending trillions of $$$ to mitigate climate change, given that the scientific confidence is over 95% that humans are changing the climate?
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 13th March 2015 at 12:03 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #47015
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    36,991

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
     
     
    From the March 11th Scientific American

    Mass Deaths in Americas Start New CO2 Epoch

    Mass deaths after Europeans reached the Americas may have allowed
    forests to regrow, reducing atmospheric concentrations of carbon
    dioxide and kicking off a proposed new Anthropocene geologic epoch.

    The atmosphere recorded the mass death, slavery and war that followed 1492.
    The death by smallpox and warfare of an estimated 50 million native Americans
    as well as the enslavement of Africans to work in the newly depopulated
    Americas allowed forests to grow in former farmlands. By 1610, the growth of
    all those trees had sucked enough carbon dioxide out of the sky to cause a
    drop of at least seven parts per million in atmospheric concentrations of
    the most prominent greenhouse gas and start a little ice age.
     
     
    Nothing new there. The Little Ice Age may have been caused (or exacerbated) by the removal of the CO2 otherwise contributed by the millions of dying aboriginal Americans.

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Professor William Ruddiman is the main proponent of the "Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis" - that because of agriculture and population growth, man has been having an effect on climate for the last 10,000 years, not just for the last 170.

    Here he discusses his hypothesis in a lecture to the AGU last year, and answers some of his critics. His book Plows, Plagues and Petroleum is well worth reading.

    For example, this interglacial has been consistently warmer (on average) than previous ones.

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #47016
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    19,465

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Gemot Wagner and Martin Weizmann are two academic economics who have written about the economic consequences of climate change.
    What a surprise:

    Gemot Wagner is lead senior economist at Environmental Defense Fund,
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #47017
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    36,991

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Nothing new there. The Little Ice Age may have been caused (or exacerbated) by the removal of the CO2 otherwise contributed by the millions of dying aboriginal Americans.
    Incidentally, 1610 as the start of the Anthropocene, when humans began to affect critical parts of the natural environment .... ?

    Defining the Anthropocene : Nature
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #47018
    Steve Case Steve Case is offline
    Steve Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,286

     
     
    This collossal exercise in total insanity and stupidity
    just isn't getting the ink it deserves:

    Hull's new biomass fuel plant for Drax power station

    American forests are being cut down to supply bio-fuel
    to satisfy the UK's green energy policies. The world
    has truly embarked on a course of collective insanity.
    Nothing this stupid has ever happened before.
     
     
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #47019
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    19,465

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Incidentally, 1610 as the start of the Anthropocene, when humans began to affect critical parts of the natural environment .... ?

    Defining the Anthropocene : Nature
    Oh to be hunter gatherers once again.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #47020
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    36,991

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
     
     
    This collossal exercise in total insanity and stupidity
    just isn't getting the ink it deserves:

    Hull's new biomass fuel plant for Drax power station

    American forests are being cut down to supply bio-fuel
    to satisfy the UK's green energy policies. The world
    has truly embarked on a course of collective insanity.
    Nothing this stupid has ever happened before.
     
     
    The fake indignation is laughable, considering there are much worse environmental evils in the world.

    Nothing as stupid? Look at the invasion of Iraq! Or the nuclear arms "race".

    For which you and your ilk gleefully shelled out trillions of $$$ that could have been much better spent.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment