.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
placeholder
-
Posts
24,845 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by placeholder
-
-
Just now, susanlea said:
At least learn something today. Journalists add in climate change all the time. If listed last that means not the number 1 factor.
That's what you want it to mean.
Climate Change Is Destabilizing Insurance Industry
The president of one of the world’s largest insurance brokers warned Wednesday that climate change is destabilizing the insurance industry, driving up prices and pushing insurers out of high-risk markets.
Aon PLC President Eric Andersen told a Senate committee that climate change is injecting uncertainty into an industry built on risk prediction and has created “a crisis of confidence around the ability to predict loss.”
Reinsurance companies, which help insurers pay catastrophic losses, “have been withdrawing from high-risk areas, around wildfire and flood in particular,” Andersen told the Senate Budget Committee.
He added, “Just as the U.S. economy was overexposed to mortgage risk in 2008, the economy today is over exposed to climate risk.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-is-destabilizing-insurance-industry/
Home insurers cut natural disasters from policies as climate risks grow
Some of the largest U.S. insurance companies say extreme weather has led them to end certain coverages, exclude natural disaster protections and raise premiumsIn the aftermath of extreme weather events, major insurers are increasingly no longer offering coverage that homeowners in areas vulnerable to those disasters need most.
At least five large U.S. property insurers — including Allstate, American Family, Nationwide, Erie Insurance Group and Berkshire Hathaway — have told regulators that extreme weather patterns caused by climate change have led them to stop writing coverages in some regions, exclude protections from various weather events and raise monthly premiums and deductibles.-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Bobthegimp said:
Thank you for proving my point. Did you read the article?
"State Farm followed suit last year, saying it would stop accepting new home insurance applications in California due to "historic" increases in construction costs and inflation"
"After State Farm announced last month that it would cut 72,000 home and apartment policies in California because of inflation, regulatory costs and increasing risks from catastrophes, California's insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara, told KCRA, "This is a real crisis."
Catastrophes is mentioned last.
These are pointless discussions. I honestly don't care what religion people choose to follow as long as they respect my right to think for myself and arrive at my own conclusions.
And why does being mentioned last make it of little or no account?
-
3 minutes ago, susanlea said:
Who cares? More scaremongering.
Right. All this information reported on comes from the world's leading scientific journals. So on the one hand, we have an anonymous poster on aseannow.com on one side of the issue, and actual scientific researchers on the other. I'm going to do the crazy thing and go along with the scientists. You've got nothing.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, susanlea said:
Climate deaths down 99%, world hunger down, world population up 2bn since 2000.
The pretend crisis is a scam. It was supposed to kill millions.
Endless lies to make money.
Even before the covid pandemic, world hunger was on the rise:
Global hunger continues to rise, new UN report says
821 million people now hungry and over 150 million children stunted, putting hunger eradication goal at risk
https://www.unicef.org/eap/press-releases/global-hunger-continues-rise-new-un-report-says
Can you cite some evidence from scientific journals or the IPCC report that predicted that millions would have died already?
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, susanlea said:
6m sea rises. Thanks for the comedy show. No credibility left.
You really don't have a clue about the current state of research, do you?
Antarctic ice sheet collapse could add 3 meters to sea-level rise
The East Antarctic Ice Sheet could be in more danger of collapsing than previously thought, National Geographic reports. The ice sheet is the world's largest, holding 80% of the planet's ice. But some 400,000 years ago, a large chunk about the size of Arizona collapsed into the ocean, causing sea levels to rise by more than 3 meters. The worrying thing is that this happened during a period of relatively mild warmth, according to a study published yesterday in Nature. And it could happen again.
West Antarctic ice sheet faces ‘unavoidable’ melting, a warning for sea level rise
Accelerating ice losses are all but “unavoidable” this century in vulnerable West Antarctic ice shelves as waters warm around them, according to new research. And the analysis could mean scientists were too conservative in predicting about one to three feet of sea level rise by 2100.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/23/sea-live-rise-antarctic-ice-loss/
Greenland losing 30m tonnes of ice an hour, study reveals
A significant part of the Greenland ice sheet itself is also thought by scientists to be close to a tipping point of irreversible melting, with ice equivalent to 1-2 metres of sea level rise probably already expected.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, susanlea said:
Tell me how many people died from storms in the last 20 years compared to the previous 100 years on a decadel basis.
Can you not even look up the science?
The response to certain disasters, like hurricanes, has greatly improved thanks to greatly improved forecasting and transportation, and medical progress. But the consequences of other slow moving disasters like ocean acidification, sea level rise, and loss of glaciers, aren't so easily remedied
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, susanlea said:
All the details.
"The film includes segments intended to refute critics who say that global warming is unproven or that warming will be insignificant. For example, Gore cites the retreat of nearly all glaciers caused by melting over recent decades, showing nine cases, such as the Grinnel and Boulder Glaciers and Patagonia. He discusses the possibility of the collapse and melting of a major ice sheet in Greenland or in West Antarctica, either of which could raise global sea levels by approximately 20 feet (6m), flooding coastal areas and producing 100 million refugees. Melt water from Greenland, because of its lower salinity, could then halt the currents that keep northern Europe warm and quickly trigger dramatic local cooling there. It also contains various short animated projections of what could happen to different animals more vulnerable to global warming."
None of this is inconsistent with climatological research.
-
1
-
-
Just now, susanlea said:
All the details.
This is your idea of evidence?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, susanlea said:
That would be wrong still. If I say it warms tomorrow by 5 degrees and it only warms by 1 I'm still wrong. At least learn something about predictions. Fairly basic science.
what would be wrong still? What predictions about glaciers, the severity of hurricanes, etc was wrong?
-
17 minutes ago, susanlea said:
Still making up excuses for the serial scaremonger who is always wrong. Pretty desperate.
Always wrong?
Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?
The majority of the film, covering issues like Himalayan Glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica losing ice, the severity of hurricanes and other weather phenomena, was accurate and represented the science as it stood. Since the release of the film, considerably more evidence has been found in support of the science and projections in the film.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, susanlea said:
Gore quoted other people which means he believed it. So Gore should apologise for it.
Really? Offering someone else's opinion constitutes an endorsement? And as the article which you originally linked to and are now ignoring, Gore did not categorically state that such melting would occur.
-
7 minutes ago, susanlea said:
Gore has a long history of bad climate predictions.
https://capitalresearch.org/article/al-gores-30-years-of-climate-errors-part-2/
Ultimately, so what? Gore is not a scientist. If it's science you want, go to scientific journals. There the consensus is overwhelming.
-
7 minutes ago, susanlea said:
"In addition, in his 2006 global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore predicted that the global sea level could rise as much as 20 feet "in the near future.""
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/al-gore-history-climate-predictions-statements-proven-false
Here is the headline of the article you originally linked to:
Al Gore did not ‘predict’ ice caps melting by 2013 but misrepresented data
It goes into a great deal of detail about why what you are now claiming and that fox news article you linked to is a misrepresentation.
-
9 minutes ago, susanlea said:
Gore was quoting others and passing it off to scare people. Gore is a known scaremonger.
Your comment about some bet is also misguided. At 50-1 that would be worth it.
Your comment makes no sense. Richard Lindzen, one of the leading scientists denying global warming made a bet that global average temperature would fall rather than rise. Maybe the bet would be worth it at those odds, but do you seriously believe that he just made that bet to make a possible killing?
-
1 minute ago, susanlea said:
Everybody said temperatures would go up. Gore said they would go up a lot more and most of the ice would melt so he was wrong. At least learn how science and predictions work. Saying Gore was right is like saying the sun will rise in the east and set in the west.
You clearly didn't read the link you cited. Gore was referring to a prediction made by a climate researcher. He got that prediction somewhat wrong but he never claimed what you said he did.
And you're also wrong about everybody claiming that temperatures would continue to rise. In fact, climate change denialists said just the opposite. They claimed that in the 21st century temperatures would decline. Richard Lindzen, one of the leading denialists, actually publicly offered to bet that in 20 years the average global temperature would actually decline.
"Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years. No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only £200 if it warmed."
And he was far from alone in making that prediction.
-
5 hours ago, Bobthegimp said:
That has nothing to do with climate change.
California has always had wildfires. Always. They've always had the Santa Annas to fan the flames. I remember this from the news footage during my childhood 50 years ago. The places you mentioned on the other coast have always had hurricanes and storm surges. It's well documented and nothing new.
Insurance rates rise in step with housing prices and increased construction costs, so blaming the climate is disingenuous.
The democrats you refer to are the main people ringing the climate change alarm bell. The bloated swine, Al Gore is the worst offender. Plenty of corrupt republicans as well, they're just not at the forefront of the climate scam. Isn't Trump's estate on a waterway in Florida?
Why don't the climate gang ever mention Gore's predictions? Ever? You're welcome to believe whatever you like. I'll pay more heed when these hypocrites downsize and start living the way they are forcing the rest of us to live.
False. It's not the same old same old Major insurance companies are actually refusing to take on new properties and some are even abandoning the California market.
California loses 2 more property insurers in growing crisis
"However, as a rising number of insurers have limited coverage or exited the state, some homeowners are left with only the insurance option of last resort, the government-created FAIR Plan. Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara is trying to stem the exodus with a new “Sustainable Insurance Strategy,” which includes rules that insurers must write at least an average of 85% of their California market share in high wildfire risk communities."
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/california-loses-two-more-property-insurers-growing-crisis...
-
38 minutes ago, sidneybear said:
You've obviously never heard of Blackrock's use of activist shareholders to enforce Larry Fink's green and ESG beliefs in company boards. It's well known in management circles, so just because you've never heard of it doesn't make it untrue.
No, I've heard and read of the right wing hysteria about Black Rock. But before I get to that, as I noted previously, Larry Fink is CEO of Blackrock. The sources I cited were McKenzie Woods, Lazard, and Ernst & Young.
As for Blackrock, I've got news for you, they aren't boycotting fossil fuels as the loons in states like Texas maintain.
Even BlackRock Funds Buying Oil Stocks Are Banned by Texas ESG Fight
Texas bars its public pensions from investing in 350 funds run by asset-management giants such as BlackRock Inc. and Invesco Ltd. because a key Republican state official says they “boycott” the oil and gas industries.
But a Bloomberg News analysis found that the 72 BlackRock funds on the prohibited list have invested more than $2 billion in the oil industry, while an Invesco fund allocates about 20% to oil and natural gas companies, some of which are also Texas-based.
Or is Bloomberg lying, too?
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, sidneybear said:
The link you posted is behind a paywall, so I was unable to read it. Can you please paraphrase it? I also noted that you've switched this battery technology panacea from iron air to sodium ion. The part of the article I got access to mentioned 600MW, but not for how long, at what cost, and at what environmental and human impact to produce the batteries in the first place (hint: lithium ion).
They weren't behind paywalls for me. I don't subscribe to them. And it's pretty bizarre that you repeatedly made unfounded statements without having actually read the texts. But here are links I created using archive.ph. The first is to the Vox article that explains what it would take for renewables to power 100% of the U.S. grid.
-
Just now, sidneybear said:
Can't you debate anything without jeering at your opponents? It makes you come across as unsure of yourself and overly defensive, which is hardly surprising given that your arguments rely on solutions that are commercially and technically unproven.
It's hard to resist jeering at someone who repeatedly tells the same falsehood: the 2 companies I cited as examples are manufacturing real batteries for real use in the real world. What don't you understand about that?
-
On 5/1/2024 at 2:01 AM, Stargeezr said:
If the Earth is warming itself up, that can be called global warming. Climate change is also happening with El Nino and the
other La Nina. Extra CO2 in the air still can be measured, but it is still a trace gas of less than one half of one percent of the total atmosphere.
Another trace gas is Methane, look up the facts on google before having a climate alarmist try to tell you about the dangers of these trace gases.
I am sorry if coral reefs are in danger of warmer ocean levels, Maybe we should all thank China, Russia and the other nations
that are pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. Volcanoes must be sending lots of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere as well.
IMO
The potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was proved in the 19th century by the eminent Irish Physicist, John Tindall. Have you been sleeping for the past 150 or ss years?
-
3 minutes ago, sidneybear said:
I was surprised that the dictionary you quoted didn't use as an example the most common original usage of the word "denier". Holocaust denier was in popular use way before the word was hijacked by the warmist culture. Why would a dictionary ignore such a thing?
I got news for you. Languages change over time. That includes connotations. Not surprising to find fossilized thinking in a fan of fossil fuel.
-
2 minutes ago, sidneybear said:
No. All you did was put your faith in the past speed of technological advances, extrapolating forward to tell me that iron air batteries will solve the storage problem, just because some boffin at MIT says so. In the real world, lots of research falls by the wayside, and research teams milk funding as much as they can, while they can, by publishing hyped up forecasts.
I'm not rudely jeering at you, but you'll have to put up more than pie in the sky research articles to power the cities of today. Without storage, renewables are useless.
What pie in the sky? They exist. They have batteries in operation at power plants. Their new 765 milllion dollar plant is about to open. Their batteries are being successfully used. It's headed by Mateo Jaramillo, the former head of the battery division of Tesla. And it's not just this company. There are lots more. For example:
Natron Energy starts manufacturing ‘50,000+ cycle-life’ sodium-ion batteries at Michigan factory
Natron Energy has started commercial-scale operations at its sodium-ion battery manufacturing plant in Michigan, US, and elaborated on how its technology compares to lithium-ion in answers provided to Energy-Storage.news.
At full capacity the facility will produce 600MW of Natron’s ‘Prussian Blue’ electrode batteries primarily for the stationary energy storage system (ESS) market annually. At first it will mainly ship products to data centres starting in June, before expanding to industrial mobility, EV fast charging and telecommunications, among others.
-
1 hour ago, sidneybear said:
Aside from your usual childish jeering, you didn't address the point I made about Larry Fink, the Blackrock chief, channelling investment into ESG related businesses and away from fossil fuels, rebutting your assertion that "banks" aren't showing favouritism.
What's Larry Fink got to do with the analyses of 3 other financial firms. And as for channeling investments away from fossil fuels, once again you don't seem to understand how capitalism works. You think that fossil fuel companies should get first dibs on investments?
As for my childish jeering, pretty much all I have to say is that you made a claim, and when I noted that dictionaries universally disagreed with you, you asserted that they were woke. You pretty much made fun of yourself with comments like that.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, sidneybear said:
You’ve just put forward a nonexistent solution to power storage.
MIT research that you posted showcases iron air batteries that doesn't yet exist, might never commercially, and as such won't solve real world problems of today.
Try to focus on the real world, rather than the academic one. Batteries don't exist that will power cities when the wind stops blowing and the sun sets.
Had you bothered to read the articles you would know that Form already has successfully created battery storage for power plants using this technology. Now they're scaling it up with a massive factory.
-
1
-
UN Report Warns Of Asia's Increasing Climate Crisis
in Thailand News
Posted
Those numbers don't reflect all the health damage caused by climate change. For instance kidney disease. It's seen a huge rise, particularly in those who have to labor out of doors in increasing heat.
Rising temperatures linked to kidney disease
Scientists from Brazil and Australia have found evidence of a link between rising temperatures and renal diseases.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/climate-change-rising-temperatures-linked-to-kidney-disease/
And the fact is that the cause of global warming, the burning of fossil fuels, creates pollution which kills millions and millions yearly and impairs the health of millions more.