Global Warming?

[Tollster]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

If you even believe in GW a little bit, I am sure you have already changed you home insurance to a more local company, rather than a national one. I did and am saving almost 1500.00a year. between 4 cars,and 4 bikes. I had SF on my auto's for 12 years,but the rates only increased as the cars depriciated. The agent wanted me to move my home over to SF for an umbrella, but I explained that my cars have only increased,and I believe it was due to the large scale storms, that thay where making it up off of my premiums.
My local company has always treated me well with my home,so I left SF and put the money in the bank.
Its worth checking into,honestly, if they advertise on TV, they are not for me.
I suggest going over your policy and premiums,then shopping for a company that isn't national,but has good feedback. do your homework, and believe me, talking to the agent numerous times didn;t help me,even after almost 15 years, they only wanted more. Then they would have done the same thing they did on my vehicles once they had it all.

 

[EE_Bota]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

Hurricane Sandy was not real! And we never put men on the moon!
Pretty much sums it up from the nay sayers!

Scientists and meteorologists have asked us not to take individual storms as evidence of GW or AGW. We can take an extreme cold snap as evidence of global cooling otherwise. Do we do what the scientists and meteorologists requested or not?

However, a couple of politicians DID come out and say this storm is evidence of AGW. Do we get science from politicians? No? What DO we get from them? Politics? Hmmm...

Yay-sayers are not more helpful to the cause of science than Nay-sayers.

 

[Radar52]

No that is not what I am saying, Global Warming is caused by not only the USA but all (that is why it is called Global) and if we "all" did install solar and wind it may help slow, but not stop the warming trend. The earth has always went threw cycles, I think we humans have just sped it up a bit.

 

[Dustier]

Ya'll deniers do a good job of weaving and bobbing around inconvenient facts, even with the evidence of your self described nonsense being exposed with every additional sign to the contrary.

Climate Change: Evidence This is not a strategy for dealing with empirical evidence of climate change.

Temperatures 5.2 degrees F above 20th century average

* "What we would expect to see in a warming world"

* Arctic carbon dioxide tops 400 parts per million

Warmest U.S. spring on record - NOAA | Reuters

Arctic News: Global Extinction within one Human Lifetime as a Result of a Spreading Atmospheric Arctic Methane Heat wave and Surface Firestorm

Lady Tonka nailed it long ago. http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/related-topics/91234-global-warming-144.html#post2911155

This topic is rich in links to good scientific information establishing the facts on the issue of climate change. You should read them.

Now, I'm confident that deniers will flood this thread with baloney, no facts, just supposition of unqualified opinion. Ya'll will do that by astoundingly claiming there is no evidence on the table that refutes your agenda driven coup poop.

 

[EE_Bota]

View attachment 287149

Ya'll deniers do a good job of weaving and bobbing around inconvenient facts, even with the evidence of your self described nonsense being exposed with every additional sign to the contrary.

Climate Change: Evidence View attachment 287151 This is not a strategy for dealing with empirical evidence of climate change.

Temperatures 5.2 degrees F above 20th century average

* "What we would expect to see in a warming world"

* Arctic carbon dioxide tops 400 parts per million

Warmest U.S. spring on record - NOAA | Reuters

Arctic News: Global Extinction within one Human Lifetime as a Result of a Spreading Atmospheric Arctic Methane Heat wave and Surface Firestorm

Lady Tonka nailed it long ago. http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/related-topics/91234-global-warming-144.html#post2911155

This topic is rich in links to good scientific information establishing the facts on the issue of climate change. You should read them.

Now, I'm confident that deniers will flood this thread with baloney, no facts, just supposition of unqualified opinion. Ya'll will do that by astoundingly claiming there is no evidence on the table that refutes your agenda driven coup poop.

If everyone capitulates and agrees with you, what will that do for you? I don't understand why people care to try to win the hearts and minds so desperately?

 

[RobertBrown]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

"Ranting"? hardly....you made a condescending post that was absurd (and ignorant) in both content and context and then deleted it...and you still refuse to say why...so one can only make a logical guess...If I was wrong then prove it.
Now you attempt to admonish myself for asking a legitimate question...
And IMO "embarrassing" is revealing that you don't know the difference between "your" and you're :laughing:

THANK YOU! :laughing::laughing:

 

[Dustier]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

RobertBrown -- And IMO "embarrassing" is revealing that you don't know the difference between "your" and you're.

Thank you for making my point.

Obama's First Rule About 'Climate Change': Don't Say 'Climate Change'
Revealed: the day Obama chose a strategy of silence on climate change | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Ya'll are Obama supporters?

 

[Tollster]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

Scientists and meteorologists have asked us not to take individual storms as evidence of GW or AGW. We can take an extreme cold snap as evidence of global cooling otherwise. Do we do what the scientists and meteorologists requested or not?

However, a couple of politicians DID come out and say this storm is evidence of AGW. Do we get science from politicians? No? What DO we get from them? Politics? Hmmm...

Yay-sayers are not more helpful to the cause of science than Nay-sayers.

If this was 1970 and Sandy came to shore,i would say yes, but when you look at all the weather changes total and compare those to the storms you remember growing up, then surmise your own answer. This year alone we can reflect on record snowfalls in alaska, record droughts in the midwest, then combine those with the current hyperstorm we just had. I refrain from calling it global warming, extreme weather I have never experienced in my life, not in the time keeping of weather...all one after another. I feel something has changed.

The big one's in this day and age typically spread the whole country, this one almost splits the northern hemisphere:

 

[IslandTractor]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

Scientists and meteorologists have asked us not to take individual storms as evidence of GW or AGW. We can take an extreme cold snap as evidence of global cooling otherwise. Do we do what the scientists and meteorologists requested or not?

However, a couple of politicians DID come out and say this storm is evidence of AGW. Do we get science from politicians? No? What DO we get from them? Politics? Hmmm...

Yay-sayers are not more helpful to the cause of science than Nay-sayers.

I agree that individual events cannot with any certainty be attributed to AGW induced weather changes. However the politicians who did mention climate change in association with Sandy, at least the few I saw quoted (Bloomberg for example) were reasonably careful to make that point too.

It is possible to come down with lung cancer without being a smoker. We often casually attribute lung cancer to smoking however. I would put the politician's comments into the same category. They are not technically correct but are making a general point.

What is not so reasonable is to dismiss AGW as a concern simply because there is a chance (?good chance) that Sandy was just a result of a confluence of weather systems that have nothing to do with AGW. That would be like dismissing smoking as a risk factor simply because a few people get lung cancer without any history of cigarette smoking.

Establishing causal association when you are limited to observational and retrospective studies is a challenge. It doesn't mean that the association is not real just that scientific proof is much more difficult than with systems where controlled experiments can be conducted. The initial association between tobacco and lung cancer was made with retrospective studies (case control) and later prospective cohort studies were able to more clearly and strongly make the association a firm one. We don't have a control planet to compare our climate experience with however. Based on recent rates of change, we arguably cannot afford too much further prospective study of the AGW issue either so decisions will need to be made on best available rather than ideal science.

Reminds me of Rumsfeld's comment that you go to war with the army you have not the army you want.

"A great deal more is known than has been proved" Richard Feynman