[Truth To Power]

I see the total lack of evidence is the usual.

The evidence is all around you. You just refuse to see it. There's a proverb for that.

[Truth To Power]

That's idiotic.

Right. It is idiotic -- and dishonest -- to adjust such a stat for inflation rather than GDP. The economy is several times larger now in real terms than it was in the 1980s, so of course there is more valuable stuff around -- buildings, vehicles, equipment, infrastructure, ships, aircraft, etc. -- to be damaged by inclement weather.

[late]

Right. It is idiotic -- and dishonest -- to adjust such a stat for inflation rather than GDP. The economy is several times larger now in real terms than it was in the 1980s, so of course there is more valuable stuff around -- buildings, vehicles, equipment, infrastructure, ships, aircraft, etc. -- to be damaged by inclement weather.

It's a standard metric.

In any case, you're arguing against yourself, silly wabbit.

[Truth To Power]

It's a standard metric.

And for many things it is quite appropriate. But not for this one. Just as one proof, consider the effect of population increase on the number of storms that do some threshold level of damage. If half the houses are destroyed, but there are twice as many houses, then more damage is done in dollar terms even if each house has the same inflation-adjusted value.

In any case, you're arguing against yourself, silly wabbit.

No, I am not. And btw, you might want to reread your sig line. It has a message for you.

[late]

Just as one proof, consider the effect of population increase on the number of storms that do some threshold level of damage.

No, I am not. And btw, you might want to reread your sig line. It has a message for you.

You need to support your hypothesis with actual evidence, which you didn't.

To pick the obvious example, Puerto Rico. Any changes you could find would be dwarfed by the extent of the destruction.

Hurricanes are pumping out more energy, fires in places like California are getting worse.

To use California, sure, you have more people and more structures in the areas of risk. That doesn't change the fact that the fire problem is getting worse.


Munich Re has also concluded following a study of "Severe Weather in North America" that (emphasis added),

"Among many other risk insights the study now provides new evidence for the emerging impact of climate change. For thunderstorm-related losses the analysis reveals increasing volatility and a significant long-term upward trend in the normalized figures over the last 40 years. These figures have been adjusted to account for factors such as increasing values, population growth and inflation.."

[Politics_Observer]

I haven't been following this thread, but I certainly liked what Michelle Obama had to say to Thunberg after Trump launched Twitter attacks against Thunberg: Don't let anybody dim your light. That was good advice from Michelle Obama and a good comeback at Trump. Trump is all about trying to dim the light of all good people.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/13/poli ... index.html

[Truth To Power]

You need to support your hypothesis with actual evidence, which you didn't.

No, you are again just factually incorrect. My argument was logical, not empirical, and it was sufficient to establish the logical fallacy in the evidence presented.

To pick the obvious example, Puerto Rico. Any changes you could find would be dwarfed by the extent of the destruction.

Another miracle of fallacy and illogic. A single event at a single location says nothing about the global trend. Galveston was virtually wiped off the map by a storm in 1900.

Hurricanes are pumping out more energy, fires in places like California are getting worse.

That's just false. There is no evidence that hurricanes are more energetic, and CA fires are no worse than they were in the 19th century.

To use California, sure, you have more people and more structures in the areas of risk. That doesn't change the fact that the fire problem is getting worse.


Munich Re has also concluded following a study of "Severe Weather in North America" that (emphasis added),

"Among many other risk insights the study now provides new evidence for the emerging impact of climate change. For thunderstorm-related losses the analysis reveals increasing volatility and a significant long-term upward trend in the normalized figures over the last 40 years. These figures have been adjusted to account for factors such as increasing values, population growth and inflation.."

Still no adjustment for GDP...

[Prosthetic Conscience]

"Among many other risk insights the study now provides new evidence for the emerging impact of climate change. For thunderstorm-related losses the analysis reveals increasing volatility and a significant long-term upward trend in the normalized figures over the last 40 years. These figures have been adjusted to account for factors such as increasing values, population growth and inflation.."
Still no adjustment for GDP...

What do you think "increasing values" means, TtP? It means that the values of stuff insured has increased - apart from inflation. "Population growth" accounts for more people with stuff to be insured. These are exactly what a reinsurance company should be taking into account, and will correlate well with GDP.

[late]

No, you are again just factually incorrect.

I provided evidence, you provided BS.

You were trying to use a simple deduction to make reality go away.

Back in the real world, you need facts. All you have is childish denials and a crude parody of science.

That is a professional insurance analysis. You would need an actual analysis that shows *specifically* where it's inaccurate.

"The study was prepared in order to support underwriters and clients in North America, the world’s largest insurance and reinsurance market. Using its NatCatSERVICE – with more than 30,000 records the most comprehensive loss data base for natural catastrophes – Munich Re analyzes the frequency and loss trends of different perils from an insurance perspective...

The study shows a nearly quintupled number of weatherrelated loss events in North America for the past three decades..

Climate change particularly affects formation of heat-waves, droughts, intense precipitation events, and in the long run most probably also tropical cyclone intensity. The view that weather extremes are becoming more frequent and intense in various regions due to global warming is in keeping with current scientific findings..

"In all likelihood, we have to regard this finding as an initial climatechange footprint in our US loss data from the last four decades. Previously, there had not been such a strong chain of evidence. If the first effects of climate change are already perceptible, all alerts and measures against it have become even more pressing.”
https://www.munichre.com/us-non-life/en/company/media-relations/press-release-archive/2012/2012-10-17-severe-weather.html

[Pants-of-dog]

The evidence is all around you. You just refuse to see it. There's a proverb for that.

Anyway,

You have failed to show how Ms. Thunberg is incorrect.

[Godstud]

It's really hard, @Pants-of-dog to call someone who cares about the future, incorrect.

[QatzelOk]

Founded in 1923 by Henry Luce, Time was the flagship of the Luce empire. Print newsmagazines have gone into a steep decline with the advent of the Internet. Despite a steep decline in circulation, Time remains the second-largest weekly after People.

Henry Luce was one of the most powerful Republican Party supporters in the 20th century, the Rupert Murdoch of his day. Luce was a member of the China Lobby that sought the overthrow of Mao Zedong. He also urged JFK to invade Cuba. Unless he did, Luce planned to imitate William Randolph Hearst and push for war, even if involved the big lie. These odious policies and others fell within the rubric of the “American Century,” a concept Luce articulated in Life magazine, another part of his empire. Through such magazines, he shared the dominant view of the American ruling class during its “globalization” phase. He had close social ties to men like John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, and his brother, director of the CIA, who worked overtime to overthrow any government that dared to defy Washington’s will. ...

...(Swedish PR executive) Rentzhog was an early supporter of Thunberg, who convinced her to be part of a social media outreach he started. Called We Don’t Have Time. It has raised millions through its foundation, helping to make Thunberg and her cause a household name. Thunberg serves on the foundation’s board, alongside Jamie Margolin just two years her senior. Since We Don’t Have Time markets carbon offsets, a dubious method of reducing greenhouse gases, Morningstar jumps to the conclusion that Thunberg and Margolin are out for a fast buck as branders of “sustainable” industries and products.

The article surmises that Time is a propaganda rag of reactionary capitalism, and that this sudden Enviro-pop-star is part of their current PR strategies.

...deflecting from her message... is despicable.

You would have watched that Coke commercial a few years back and you would have thanked Coca Cola for their message.

If anyone mentioned that the commercial was hijacking idealism in order to sell viewers unhealthy eating habits as a sneaky way to enrich a very privileged shareholder class, you would have noted how despicable it was to get away from "the message" (of teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony with bottles of Coke in their multicultural hands).

Greta's beautiful message is "we are in trouble pollution wise." This is NOT something that humankind doesn't recognize. No one ever heard her and said "I have never heard this before." Not one.

And the problem isn't that this message of "we need to solve pollution pronto" isn't getting out there. The problem is that humans are NOT ALLOWED to change to something sustainable or healthy. Our system forces its sheep - us - to conform and consume what it tells us to.

And the minute Greta calls for the end of capitalism, watch how fast all the pundits will be covering her "decent into the hell of heroin addiction, anti-semitism, and anonymous hate-sex." One of the best ways to kill someone young is to make them a celebrity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib-Qiyklq-Q

[Truth To Power]

What do you think "increasing values" means, TtP? It means that the values of stuff insured has increased - apart from inflation.

Really? IMO it is not at all clear what it means for the value of something increase but by inflation.

"Population growth" accounts for more people with stuff to be insured. These are exactly what a reinsurance company should be taking into account, and will correlate well with GDP.

"Correlate well with" is not the same as "equal." In any case insurance companies are concerned with the size of their payouts from storms, not meteorological data like windspeed, rainfall, etc.

[Truth To Power]

Anyway,

You have failed to show how Ms. Thunberg is incorrect.

Wrong again. Greta claims there is a climate emergency. There isn't. She's therefore incorrect.

[Finfinder]

The article surmises that Time is a propaganda rag of reactionary capitalism, and that this sudden Enviro-pop-star is part of their current PR strategies.


You would have watched that Coke commercial a few years back and you would have thanked Coca Cola for their message.

If anyone mentioned that the commercial was hijacking idealism in order to sell viewers unhealthy eating habits as a sneaky way to enrich a very privileged shareholder class, you would have noted how despicable it was to get away from "the message" (of teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony with bottles of Coke in their multicultural hands).

Greta's beautiful message is "we are in trouble pollution wise." This is NOT something that humankind doesn't recognize. No one ever heard her and said "I have never heard this before." Not one.

And the problem isn't that this message of "we need to solve pollution pronto" isn't getting out there. The problem is that humans are NOT ALLOWED to change to something sustainable or healthy. Our system forces its sheep - us - to conform and consume what it tells us to.

And the minute Greta calls for the end of capitalism, watch how fast all the pundits will be covering her "decent into the hell of heroin addiction, anti-semitism, and anonymous hate-sex." One of the best ways to kill someone young is to make them a celebrity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib-Qiyklq-Q

The Globalist message is so pathetic they need to hide behind a kid just like a Palestinian shields themselves with kids. Wonder why they don't ask this new world leader her thoughts on abortion?

[Pants-of-dog]

Wrong again. Greta claims there is a climate emergency. There isn't. She's therefore incorrect.

Repeating your vague claim is not an argument for your claim.

Again, you have failed to support your claim. You have, however, reminded us exactly which argument you have failed to support.

[maz]

Miss Greta was also accused of attempting to incite political violence for saying politicians should be put “against the wall.”

Greta Thunberg tells cheering crowd 'we will make sure we put world leaders against the wall' if they do not tackle global warming

It's interesting to see 99% of the mainstream media's reaction to her inflammatory language. They all reported the story as "Greta Thunberg apologizes for 'against the wall' comment" instead of something like "Greta Thunberg Threatens To Put World Leaders Up Against The Wall."

I guess this is the way that media covers for one of their assets when they fuck up and are forced to backtrack.

I don't think her comment was an accident at all considering she is allies with deranged communists such as Extinction Rebellion and "lining people up against the wall" is language that I have seen radical communists use online. I have even heard members of this forum using the language.

[Truth To Power]

Repeating your vague claim is not an argument for your claim.

It's not vague in the least, and identifying facts of objective physical reality that support my claim and refute the contrary claim is certainly an argument.

Again, you have failed to support your claim.

Again, you falsely claim I have failed to support my claim. Identifying facts of objective physical reality that contradict the opposing claim and support mine is support for my claim.

You have, however, reminded us exactly which argument you have failed to support.

I have supported it: there is no climate emergency. Nor will there ever be one caused by CO2 from human fossil fuel consumption.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

I knew you would talk about who said what instead of supporting your claim. You love using the meta-debate as a red herring.

Here, I will explian how you would support your claim if you were an honest and intelligent person:

1. Find a quote from Thunberg that you think shows her being incorrect.

Provide a link to the quote and provide the context.

2. Find a scientific study or other verifiable evidence that disproves her claim.

Provide a link to the evidence and quote the relevant text, bolding the exact phrases that disprove her claim.

Go ahead. We are waiting.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

What do you think "increasing values" means, TtP? It means that the values of stuff insured has increased - apart from inflation.

Really? IMO it is not at all clear what it means for the value of something increase but by inflation.

Yes, really. It says "factors such as increasing values, population growth and inflation", so you know it doesn't mean 'inflation'. Perhaps you have never encountered goods or real estate in your life, but you can find that people make bigger and better stuff - a building with more space for the same users, a car that is more luxurious, and so on - which is not covered either by 'inflation' or 'population growth'. This is common sense, but of course fundamental to economics as well. You're not really thinking, are you?

"Population growth" accounts for more people with stuff to be insured. These are exactly what a reinsurance company should be taking into account, and will correlate well with GDP.

"Correlate well with" is not the same as "equal." In any case insurance companies are concerned with the size of their payouts from storms, not meteorological data like windspeed, rainfall, etc.

No, the factors the reinsurance company take into account are better than using GDP. They measure the total potential damage that can be done by a storm in a place - not how much a country produces in a year. The former is much more relevant to the amount they pay out. The point is that it's not just all scientists and meteorologists who say climate change is real - so do some of the most numerate businesses in the world.