Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Ferret]

But, if you’re in the burbs above the water line, you pay less. Surely that is the case and there’s not a blanket increase in premiums because morons build a house covered in twigs with a lightening rod on the roof?

I wish this was true, but its not.

I'm in Sydney in a suburb that doesn't flood and isn't subject to bushfires.

No claims in recent years.

My home and contents insurance bill went up 36% in 2020, another 31% in 2021 and another 26% in 2022.

I think everyone insured is paying for the additional risks due to climate change.

 

[Sean K]

When it comes to recouping the losses incurred in natural disasters ie the floods across Australia in the last three years, the massive bushfires of 2019/20 they increase the premiums across all customers to spread the load.

The issue of insurance and insurance premiums is probably one of the first key economic problems facing the world as climate change impacts on infrastructure. This issue was one of the earliest concerns around climate change raised in the insurance industry.

Well, this seems pretty dumb. People building a safe house in a safe area should not be paying increased premiums for idiots building in a naturally high risk zone. If I built a house on the beach in a cyclone region, I accept the risk and pay the price. And, extra premiums for just being in a risky post code is dumb too. One of the most singularly dumbest (and most beautiful) things I’ve seen is Venice and Amsterdam. What the hell were these people thinking…

 

[IFocus]

Well, this seems pretty dumb. People building a safe house in a safe area should not be paying increased premiums for idiots building in a naturally high risk zone. If I built a house on the beach in a cyclone region, I accept the risk and pay the price. And, extra premiums for just being in a risky post code is dumb too. One of the most singularly dumbest (and most beautiful) things I’ve seen is Venice and Amsterdam. What the hell were these people thinking…

Unfortunately things are changing an area I grew up in never had wild fires these days it all just a bomb waiting to go off.

My father (ex farmer) used to burn off every year there, later in life he said to me there is no way he could do that any more and moved.

House was burnt down along with 40 odd more after my parents moved.

My grandfather was the first to build in the area back in the 20's.

 

[Sean K]

Unfortunately things are changing an area I grew up in never had wild fires these days it all just a bomb waiting to go off.

My father (ex farmer) used to burn off every year there, later in life he said to me there is no way he could do that any more and moved.

House was burnt down along with 40 odd more after my parents moved.

My grandfather was the first to build in the area back in the 20's.

Adapt, or die. Unfortunately, I have seen war on several continents so I have no compassion for people who have bought a house in a fire zone.

 

[basilio]

Adapt, or die. Unfortunately, I have seen war on several continents so I have no compassion for people who have bought a house in a fire zone.

Well Sean with global warming out of control "fire zones" are now far more extensive than ever before.
The Bushfires that destroyed millions of acres in Australia in 2019/2020 showed how how a warmer dryer climate will extend the risks of out of control fires. Those fires saw cool temperate forests that had never seen a bushfire go up in smoke.

Those 2020 bushfires also established that because of the changing climate firefighters can no longer use previous mechanisms to control fires when the conditions become too heated.

These predictions were made 30 years ago by the CSIRO when discussing the effects of global warming. They had hoped we wouldn't be seeing them for a few more years but the process has accelerated.

And it is not slowing down.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/...ge-influenced-australias-unprecedented-fires/

It's cooler and calmer, so why can't we put these fires out?

Many of the fires burning across Australia are so fierce they have been impossible to fight, but on milder days, why isn't it possible to extinguish them?

www.abc.net.au

 

[rederob]

China aiming for 2060? That’s the real problem. Add in India not cutting emissions by what, 2050, maybe. That’s 30% of the planet. The issue of GHG emissions has been clearly recognized yet China is recklessly forging ahead to what some climate clowns say is the inevitable destruction of the planet if we don’t stop all emissions by 2030. Australia’s tiny 1% will be less than .5% in a few years and is completely inconsequential. Who cares if China doesn’t bring itself out of poverty if it means the oceans boil and you can’t go skiing. Per capita is meaningless when it’s overall total emissions doing the damage.

Those points are NOT science, and are exceptionally poorly informed.
Our GHG predicament is presently due to western world industrialisation, not China's! That is, for much of the 20th century around 20% of the global population spewed out around 80% of GHG emissions. Moreover, the rapid increase in China's GHG emissions was largely due to western nations offshoring production to China and, despite cries of deglobalisation and decoupling from China's manufacturing predominance, China's industrial base supporting the rest of the world continues to grow.
It is clear you do not understand the importance of per capita emissions, so I will give two examples

• China has become the world's most efficient producer of manufactured goods. So when offshoring to China occurs the per unit CO2 impact of goods is actually reduced. However, statistically the CO2 impact is transferred to China, although only a fraction of the goods are for Chinese consumption. This exaggerates China's emissions despite achieving a GHG efficiency gain on the global manufacturing front.
• As my previous post indicated, some 5 billion people (ex China) are aspiring to better living standards, and for many that means at least a quadrupling of their GHG footprint. That's roughly equivalent to adding four nations the size of America, albeit still retaining much lower per capita emissions than America.

I’ve been wondering about this myself. Are insurance companies increasing premiums to take advantage of the clown narrative, or is it truly justified?

As @basilio notes, perhaps you need to read more rather than keep shooting yourself in the foot.
Insurance companies employ the best statisticians in the world - actuaries - and they are engaged in actuarial science. A detailed example of their science is here, and one snapshot conclusion was that:

• ... the analysis shows that in the 1.5°C warming scenario, Europe would experience a present-day 1-in-100-year winter wheat yield anomaly around once every thirty years.

On the human front, it should be noted that building codes have continued to be strengthened in nations where most insurance is underwritten, so natural disasters should be having lesser financial impact over time. Unfortunately weather systems have increasingly more energy as the planet warms, and actuaries adjust premiums in line with this increased risk.

 

[Sean K]

Well Sean with global warming out of control "fire zones" are now far more extensive than ever before.
The Bushfires that destroyed millions of acres in Australia in 2019/2020 showed how how a warmer dryer climate will extend the risks of out of control fires. Those fires saw cool temperate forests that had never seen a bushfire go up in smoke.

Those 2020 bushfires also established that because of the changing climate firefighters can no longer use previous mechanisms to control fires when the conditions become too heated.

These predictions were made 30 years ago by the CSIRO when discussing the effects of global warming. They had hoped we wouldn't be seeing them for a few more years but the process has accelerated.

And it is not slowing down.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/...ge-influenced-australias-unprecedented-fires/

It's cooler and calmer, so why can't we put these fires out?

Many of the fires burning across Australia are so fierce they have been impossible to fight, but on milder days, why isn't it possible to extinguish them?

www.abc.net.au

There have been worse fires.

 

[Sean K]

Those points are NOT science, and are exceptionally poorly informed.
Our GHG predicament is presently due to western world industrialisation, not China's! That is, for much of the 20th century around 20% of the global population spewed out around 80% of GHG emissions. Moreover, the rapid increase in China's GHG emissions was largely due to western nations offshoring production to China and, despite cries of deglobalisation and decoupling from China's manufacturing predominance, China's industrial base supporting the rest of the world continues to grow.
It is clear you do not understand the importance of per capita emissions, so I will give two examples

• China has become the world's most efficient producer of manufactured goods. So when offshoring to China occurs the per unit CO2 impact of goods is actually reduced. However, statistically the CO2 impact is transferred to China, although only a fraction of the goods are for Chinese consumption. This exaggerates China's emissions despite achieving a GHG efficiency gain on the global manufacturing front.
• As my previous post indicated, some 5 billion people (ex China) are aspiring to better living standards, and for many that means at least a quadrupling of their GHG footprint. That's roughly equivalent to adding four nations the size of America, albeit still retaining much lower per capita emissions than America.

As @basilio notes, perhaps you need to read more rather than keep shooting yourself in the foot.
Insurance companies employ the best statisticians in the world - actuaries - and they are engaged in actuarial science. A detailed example of their science is here, and one snapshot conclusion was that:

• ... the analysis shows that in the 1.5°C warming scenario, Europe would experience a present-day 1-in-100-year winter wheat yield anomaly around once every thirty years.

On the human front, it should be noted that building codes have continued to be strengthened in nations where most insurance is underwritten, so natural disasters should be having lesser financial impact over time. Unfortunately weather systems have increasingly more energy as the planet warms, and actuaries adjust premiums in line with this increased risk.

So, you think GHG are an issue and are going to destroy the planet but China being the largest emitter going into 2060 is not an issue? Where’s the emoji for a dumb clown?

 

[mullokintyre]

i know there are some ASF members from Sydney, and I am sure that all of you have been following the stange anomaly where for 330 days, Sydney did not record a temperature above 30 degreec C.
On the 3321st day, It was broken with a recorded temperature of 30.2.
However, that RWNJ and well known climate skeptic, Craig Kelly, posted a most interesting photo of the Sydney met sire where the weather recordings are taken.
View attachment 152026
For reasons best known to themselves, somebody at the bureau placed a solar panel at the front of the building that around the highest point of the suns azimuth, the rays would have just about been directly reflected onto the Stephenson screen where the temps are taken.

Surely the BOM are not trying to artificially inflate temperatures?
Mick

The Daily telegraph, which i gather is a Sydney newspaper, took up this particular issue with the BOM.
It took them a week to not respond to the reporters questions, so they published anyway.
It forced the BOM to respond, and their answer

The solar panel mysteriously vanished after media questions were asked, but the Bureau of Meteorology has now issued a statement saying the panel was erected because of potential power interruptions due to a nearby construction of a school.

It stated the panel was installed in February 2022 and removed in January 2023 “as it was no longer required to supply power to the weather station once the mains power was restored in December 2022”.

“The solar panel could not be placed on a roof due to heritage restrictions, so was placed at an appropriate distance on the grass nearby,” the BOM stated.

So the panel was there for a year potentially inflating daytime temperatures.
For an organisation that prides itself on its professional scientific data collection, thats pathetic.
Its also likely bull **** as there is no evidence of a battery backup for when the power goes out at night time, or for an extended period of time. Equally, there is no evidence of leads coming from the panel. One assumes there would have to be more than the panel,what about a regulator, a BMS, a step down transformer, a DC -DC converter , does the existing equipment go through an inverter to 12 volts, or whatever voltage to equipment runs at ?
I find it amazing that they do not already have a backup system for the whole building, but I guess the BOM are used to compliant journalists not asking the obvious questions.
Mick

 

[The Triangle]

So, you think GHG are an issue and are going to destroy the planet but China being the largest emitter going into 2060 is not an issue? Where’s the emoji for a dumb clown?

Don't waste your time with ?? . But in this case, there is a good point: let's go after the high-end per-capita emitters like Leonardo DiCaprio and Bill Gates with an excess consumption tax - something along the lines of an exponential GST.

 

[Sean K]

Don't waste your time with ?? . But in this case, there is a good point: let's go after the high-end per-capita emitters like Leonardo DiCaprio and Bill Gates with an excess consumption tax - something along the lines of an exponential GST.

The level of hypocrisy with that crowd is mind blowing. Beyond belief. And while we’re on hypocrisy and China, those arsehats lecturing us that we can’t have a couple of nuclear powered subs are building a pile of them every year and now have the largest navy in the World. I really want a dumb clown emoji. Maybe this will do. ????

 

[basilio]

It's funny, but kind of very, very sad.

This thread was started over 13 years ago as a pretty inflammatory way of dismissing concerns about the consequences of global warming. Essentially there was nothing to worry about because (possibilities)

1) It's not actually happening and "X" (pick your denier source) can show temperatures aren't rising anything like the alarmists are saying or
2) So what ? We'll just adapt. There are no real problems anyway with any warming. Just overblown hysterics. or
3) We can't afford/it's impossible to move off fossil fuels. Think of the 3rd world countries desperately reliant on coal to become just like us.

13 years later what has happened ?

Temperature rises are accelerating, particularly in high and low Latitudes. Some of the most catastrophic weather fuelled events turbocharged by GW happening every year across the globe and then - a ray of sunshine- renewable energy has become significantly more cost effective than fossil fuels.

Does any of this evidence result in a reassessment of how dangerous the path of continuing global warming will be ? Seems not.

Apparently the same shills who spent years denying there was any global warming at all are still effective at undermining its effects and ignoring the options .

And people who want to believe that story steadfastly believe the shlick and stick to their guns. A couple of times on these threads I have posed the question, in good faith
"What evidence would one require to reassess their view on global warming and the need to take urgent remedial action ? "

But It seems very clear that some people will never, ever, ever review their views. It seems there is no evidence these posters will accept from any source that will give them case for reflection. And IMV that is sad.

 

[Sean K]

It's funny, but kind of very, very sad.

This thread was started over 13 years ago as a pretty inflammatory way of dismissing concerns about the consequences of global warming. Essentially there was nothing to worry about because (possibilities)

1) It's not actually happening and "X" (pick your denier source) can show temperatures aren't rising anything like the alarmists are saying or
2) So what ? We'll just adapt. There are no real problems anyway with any warming. Just overblown hysterics. or
3) We can't afford/it's impossible to move off fossil fuels. Think of the 3rd world countries desperately reliant on coal to become just like us.

13 years later what has happened ?

Temperature rises are accelerating, particularly in high and low Latitudes. Some of the most catastrophic weather fuelled events turbocharged by GW happening every year across the globe and then - a ray of sunshine- renewable energy has become significantly more cost effective than fossil fuels.

Does any of this evidence result in a reassessment of how dangerous the path of continuing global warming will be ? Seems not.

Apparently the same shills who spent years denying there was any global warming at all are still effective at undermining its effects and ignoring the options .

And people who want to believe that story steadfastly believe the shlick and stick to their guns. A couple of times on these threads I have posed the question, in good faith
"What evidence would one require to reassess their view on global warming and the need to take urgent remedial action ? "

But It seems very clear that some people will never, ever, ever review their views. It seems there is no evidence these posters will accept from any source that will give them case for reflection. And IMV that is sad.

So, what have you done? Living in a cave off the grid and stopped burping and farting?

The hypocrisy from the climate clowns is alarming.

 

[IFocus]

So, what have you done? Living in a cave off the grid and stopped burping and farting?

The hypocrisy from the climate clowns is alarming.

What's with the agro?

 

[Sean K]

What's with the agro?

This Is the resisting climate hysteria thread, not the let’s be hysterical about climate thread.

 

[rederob]

So, you think GHG are an issue and are going to destroy the planet but China being the largest emitter going into 2060 is not an issue? Where’s the emoji for a dumb clown?

Climate science, which you do not reference, says nothing about the planet being destroyed.
On China, and the separate issue of per capita emissions, it is again clear you do not understand where the problem began, and where it is heading, despite the examples I provided.

You constantly complain about China, but understand it even less than climate. Apart from the fact that China is the leading nation in terms of renewable energy capacity, it also happens to be largely responsible for its ongoing transition by being the biggest manufacturer/exporter of both solar and wind energy system, as shown:

Using terms like " climate clowns," "burping," and "farting" seems to make you happy, as it would my 3 year old grandson. But it is not especially informative. The difference may well be that my grandson will grow up and learn something about climate that appears beyond you. That's what an education does for most people.

 

[Sean K]

Climate science, which you do not reference, says nothing about the planet being destroyed.
On China, and the separate issue of per capita emissions, it is again clear you do not understand where the problem began, and where it is heading, despite the examples I provided.

You constantly complain about China, but understand it even less than climate. Apart from the fact that China is the leading nation in terms of renewable energy capacity, it also happens to be largely responsible for its ongoing transition by being the biggest manufacturer/exporter of both solar and wind energy system, as shown:
View attachment 152588

View attachment 152589
View attachment 152591

Using terms like " climate clowns," "burping," and "farting" seems to make you happy, as it would my 3 year old grandson. But it is not especially informative. The difference may well be that my grandson will grow up and learn something about climate that appears beyond you. That's what an education does for most people.

Your grandson seems to have hacked your account.

 

[IFocus]

Your grandson seems to have hacked your account.

that's pretty good, but Robs right you getting wound up over crap just deal with the numbers BTW none of them are good.

There are major advantages for Australia but as you would know from your training also massive risks should food and resource shortages start to play out.

 

[rederob]

Your grandson seems to have hacked your account.

Is there a time when you might consider using science to make a point?
It's bad enough seeing posters regularly confuse weather with climate, or use discredited reference sources, but adding puerile comments probably does more to turn you into the clown and hypocrite that you dish out willy nilly for others.

So, if not science, perhaps use examples. You might, for example, try to show that "There have been worse fires" as you claim.
There was definitely ONE worse fire - preferably "wildfire" - being the 2003 Siberian Taiga Fires which burnt through some 47 to 55 million acres (depending on reference source). Then offer a credible explanation.
What we do find is that satellite data - at 30 metre resolution - shows an increasing global trend in forest loss due to fire from 2001 to 2019, driven by near-uniform increases across the tropics, subtropical, and temperate Australia, and boreal Eurasia. (We can't go further back at that scale as there is no data available.) This trend is consistent with observable warming trends in relevant regions. But the whole story needs to include the fact that fires are nowadays burning in greater intensity and duration, and in places which are unexpected such as on thawing permafrost in the Arctic.

 

[Sean K]

Is there a time when you might consider using science to make a point?
It's bad enough seeing posters regularly confuse weather with climate, or use discredited reference sources, but adding puerile comments probably does more to turn you into the clown and hypocrite that you dish out willy nilly for others.

So, if not science, perhaps use examples. You might, for example, try to show that "There have been worse fires" as you claim.
There was definitely ONE worse fire - preferably "wildfire" - being the 2003 Siberian Taiga Fires which burnt through some 47 to 55 million acres (depending on reference source). Then offer a credible explanation.
What we do find is that satellite data - at 30 metre resolution - shows an increasing global trend in forest loss due to fire from 2001 to 2019, driven by near-uniform increases across the tropics, subtropical, and temperate Australia, and boreal Eurasia. (We can't go further back at that scale as there is no data available.) This trend is consistent with observable warming trends in relevant regions. But the whole story needs to include the fact that fires are nowadays burning in greater intensity and duration, and in places which are unexpected such as on thawing permafrost in the Arctic.

The Earth’s getting greener. Even NASA tell us that.

I was happy to use the term ‘catastrophists’ which I think adequately and more politely describes people who are gluing themselves to roads and I’ll stop using the term climate clowns when the ‘scientists’ stop calling skeptics or people want to question the science, ‘deniers’. Any real physicist would say science is never ‘settled’ but is a work in progress. The Big Bang is still an hypothesis. I’ve said this so many times, but once more, the Earth is warming and it’s most likely due to human GHG emissions. I personally, or even the whole population of Australia, can not do anything that will stop global warming, if the theory is correct. It’s out of our hands. Now that we know GHG emissions are causing the warming, every country must act and the biggest emitter going into the future is China. So, it’s now China’s responsibility to stop its emissions but it has a free pass till 2060. But, by the Warmists calculations this is way too late. So, what is it? Is it a problem, or not? You are arguing that it’s not.

China is quite clearly the greatest threat to the human species at the moment.

Greening of the Earth Mitigates Surface Warming

Greening of the Earth Mitigates Surface Warming

www.nasa.gov