- Reaction score
- 5,305
- Points
- 1,040
Cmon, like the CPC, Green Party and PQ are free of conspiracy nuts.
Niagara declares eclipse emergency
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,039
- Points
- 1,260
The climate crisis seems to follow the mentally inept left.
- Reaction score
- 338
- Points
- 780
After Y2K, everyone agreed it was a nothing burger. What actually happened is it forced people to look at a whole lot of infrastructure that was outdated, and update it to the extent they could reasonably expect they weren't going to be the ones who looked like idiots. So all the money that was spent fixing things that should have been fixed anyway, but people were willing to accept the risk, kept anything from happening. Maybe not the plan, but certainly worked.
I think like a lot of crisis lately, some people were overreacting (but for some of those crisis' others were underreacting), but it's hard to say in hindsight "I told you so" because maybe saying it's going to be an emergency because people may act stupid was enough to keep enough people from acting stupid?
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 338
- Points
- 780
Well, that's freakin' helpful to the debate. Let's see, Einstein, Turing, Oppenheimer, Orwell, Keller, King were all socialists. Are they all mentally inept?
Even though I consider myself a centrist, I am obviously far to the left of where it seems you are. I also believe that human caused climate change is an actionable threat (as does the CIA since at least the mid 2000's), which needs proper mitigation (which doesn't mean knee jerk reactions). Am I mentally inept?
Apparently a lot of evangelicals thought this was the rapture…
Plenty of nuts to go around the political/social spectrum.
- Reaction score
- 5,305
- Points
- 1,040
Yeah, politics is a regular bag of crazy trail mix, but the bad kind no one really enjoys eating (but some health freaks convince themselves they enjoy because they are vegan paleo cross fitters).
- Reaction score
- 5,305
- Points
- 1,040
lol, get out of here. Pretending there isn't massive climate changes and calling everything climate change are two sides of the same delusional coin. Pretty hard to argue the glaciers aren't melting, sea levels aren't going up and there aren't massive changes to the weather patterns (although I'm sure you'll post some contrarian study).
Not everything is climate change, but it's hardly fake news. People who think that don't need a map to find their ass, they just need to shrug.
- Reaction score
- 4,891
- Points
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 338
- Points
- 780
Which is fine. I’m even ok with you calling public figures names because they put themselves out there.No more than I am for thinking the climate hoax is the biggest con job in history.
And being a bit to the right.
If you randomly bring something into a discussion just so you can call a whole group of people mentally inept, and the way you phrase it seems to include me, I may take exception. Or I may just think you’re an idiot and ignore everything you say.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,977
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 13,636
- Points
- 1,260
The insurance companies not insuring homes in various parts of the US because of the risk of floods, wildfires, etc would seem to disagree.No more than I am for thinking the climate hoax is the biggest con job in history.
And being a bit to the right.
And we all know that insurance companies hate to charge people more money.
Homes in parts of the U.S. are "essentially uninsurable" due to rising climate change risks
Extreme weather is spurring some insurers to exit states like California and Florida, while homeowners grapple with surging premiums.
www.cbsnews.com
- Reaction score
- 4,891
- Points
- 1,060
Insurance companies are actually a pretty interesting and objective barometer of certain things. Very little if any politics to their actuarial analyses; just math nerds and shareholders.The insurance companies not insuring homes in various parts of the US because of the risk of floods, wildfires, etc would seem to disagree.
And we all know that insurance companies hate to charge people more money.
Homes in parts of the U.S. are "essentially uninsurable" due to rising climate change risks
Extreme weather is spurring some insurers to exit states like California and Florida, while homeowners grapple with surging premiums.
- Reaction score
- 4,891
- Points
- 1,060
I should have been more clear. There is climate change, but it is the natural earth's doing. Just like it has been for billions of years. Man made climate change is the hoax.The insurance companies not insuring homes in various parts of the US because of the risk of floods, wildfires, etc would seem to disagree.
And we all know that insurance companies hate to charge people more money.
Homes in parts of the U.S. are "essentially uninsurable" due to rising climate change risks
Extreme weather is spurring some insurers to exit states like California and Florida, while homeowners grapple with surging premiums.
- Reaction score
- 338
- Points
- 780
My experience tells me that black and white thinking is usually underrepresentative of the whole truth.
Have certain zealots on the far left overstated things, absolutely.
Have a lot of politicians on both sides simultaneously stated half truths and devisive positions for political gain, most definitely.
Have some scientists overstated their position either for or against in order for research support, yep.
Have certain “entrepreneurs “ overstated solutions to make money, of course.
But my own understanding of the actual peer reviewed studies which the vast majority of competent researchers in their fields agree with indicates that an significant portion of current climate change is related to human activities, which makes it an actionable threat.
How we clear the noise from the truth and take meaningful steps to mitigate without overreacting is above my pay grade.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,563
- Points
- 1,140
- Reaction score
- 4,891
- Points
- 1,060
Too many experts. Too much hype.
Both sides have a huge amount of scientists, organizations and acolytes to explain their stance.
For every expert saying it's so, there are as many saying it isn't.
Peer review is far from pure. Stances are developed by which side is followed.
The science is clear, the science is settled. No scientist, researcher or whatever, worth their salt, would ever make that statement. The science is never settled, at least not on the climate file. Too many people giving opinion in peer review are paid researchers and their bias goes to who pays them.
If you want to believe in man made climate change, you go ahead. If you wish to listen to those that have been updating their apocalyptic forecasts for decades, that's your prerogative. People like Al Gore, the High Priest of global warming, that claim every three to five years that in another 3-5 years the ice caps will melt, New York will be under water. Some guy at the UN just called it again the other day. Three more years, then we're dead.....again. How many times do we say the sky is falling, then it doesn't.
How many trillions of dollars has been dumped into fixing this? How much have we gotten in return as far as solutions? Some untenable
green tech and electric vehicles. What has been done to actually stop the possible crisis? Where has all that money gone? Why is Red China and India still pumping carbon into the air? Why is it just western nations that are alarmed by this? Why does Greta, Gore and the rest never call out the bad actors? If we were serious and in dire need of change, the world would demand they be stopped, but they don't.
I'm tired of writing. If you want to believe, fill your boots. I won't be childish and attack you or call you names, like flat earther. I'll listen to your stance and then state mine. I can then disagree with you and leave it alone and you can do the same.Again, both sides have experts and scientists. Both sides have their graphs, stats and research. We all read, interpret and follow which science and experts we believe in. None of us develop that science. We are followers. Choose your conscience. But remember, you're still abiding by someone else's opinion. You are simply parroting that which you wish to accept. Not everyone who disagrees is wrong, stupid or a knuckle dragger. They just choose to follow a different opinion, scientists, experts and research.
Both sides have a huge amount of scientists, organizations and acolytes to explain their stance.
For every expert saying it's so, there are as many saying it isn't.
Peer review is far from pure. Stances are developed by which side is followed.
The science is clear, the science is settled. No scientist, researcher or whatever, worth their salt, would ever make that statement. The science is never settled, at least not on the climate file. Too many people giving opinion in peer review are paid researchers and their bias goes to who pays them.
If you want to believe in man made climate change, you go ahead. If you wish to listen to those that have been updating their apocalyptic forecasts for decades, that's your prerogative. People like Al Gore, the High Priest of global warming, that claim every three to five years that in another 3-5 years the ice caps will melt, New York will be under water. Some guy at the UN just called it again the other day. Three more years, then we're dead.....again. How many times do we say the sky is falling, then it doesn't.
How many trillions of dollars has been dumped into fixing this? How much have we gotten in return as far as solutions? Some untenable
green tech and electric vehicles. What has been done to actually stop the possible crisis? Where has all that money gone? Why is Red China and India still pumping carbon into the air? Why is it just western nations that are alarmed by this? Why does Greta, Gore and the rest never call out the bad actors? If we were serious and in dire need of change, the world would demand they be stopped, but they don't.
I'm tired of writing. If you want to believe, fill your boots. I won't be childish and attack you or call you names, like flat earther. I'll listen to your stance and then state mine. I can then disagree with you and leave it alone and you can do the same.Again, both sides have experts and scientists. Both sides have their graphs, stats and research. We all read, interpret and follow which science and experts we believe in. None of us develop that science. We are followers. Choose your conscience. But remember, you're still abiding by someone else's opinion. You are simply parroting that which you wish to accept. Not everyone who disagrees is wrong, stupid or a knuckle dragger. They just choose to follow a different opinion, scientists, experts and research.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,268
- Points
- 1,160
I think in actual fact there was a greater acceptance of risk in previous generations and you just have to look where people where building to know it's a really bad idea. I told my realtor which areas from a flood and geological risk were off my list and she said no one in 20 years had given her such instructions. Most people are quite unaware these days and assume that someone, somewhere has alleviated all the risk. A realtor happily showing me a basement suite of a house on an embankment where you can see the foundation has repeatedly cracked and been repaired. No one seemed to care......The insurance companies not insuring homes in various parts of the US because of the risk of floods, wildfires, etc would seem to disagree.
And we all know that insurance companies hate to charge people more money.
Homes in parts of the U.S. are "essentially uninsurable" due to rising climate change risks
Extreme weather is spurring some insurers to exit states like California and Florida, while homeowners grapple with surging premiums.
I know Climate experts who are infuriated that bad planning and decision making have been swept under the rug of "Climate Change". It's like Papal Indulgence for shitty planning.
- Reaction score
- 7,373
- Points
- 1,160
In my opinion another part of the problem is that the actuaries are getting better data. The quality of the information available to them over the last 100 years has been improved. They now know what a 100 year event looks like.
They also know what it looks like in more places as people have spread out.
Finally they also know that it costs more to replace a house in the Credit River valley now than it cost to replace an Eaton house 100 years ago.
Change is.
They also know what it looks like in more places as people have spread out.
Finally they also know that it costs more to replace a house in the Credit River valley now than it cost to replace an Eaton house 100 years ago.
Change is.