Nostr Web Client

You may not believe in climate science or climate change. You may call it a #ClimateHoax.

But, the US military (and your insurance company) begs to differ so, whether you like it or not, you need to plan and invest accordingly. …And maybe reconsider your stance.

To wit: the US Navy foresee increased warfare due to the effects of climate change, as well as maritime infrastructure challenges posed by rising sea levels.

https://news.usni.org/2022/05/24/department-of-the-navy-climate-action-2030

Darin 1y ago

I was a meteorologist in the Navy. There’s opportunities for grants and layers of bureaucracy are happy to dole out money and skim off the top if you join the climate change narrative. It’s all a money grab. That why the dates (saying these cities will be under water) keep changing.

The fact is there’s no data showing evidence of global warming. But is very easy to parse out statistics to support EITHER side. Most of the scientists don’t believe the hoax, they go along to stay employed. Some quit and change careers.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

j'ai les clés 1y ago

Thanks for your opinion.

I’m curious, where did you find information to assert that “most (i.e. more than 50%) scientists don’t believe the hoax”? That’s an extraordinary claim. Are you referring to ALL scientists (e.g. plant biologists, marine biologists, ornithologists, entomologists, etc.)? Or are you asserting that over 50% of climate scientists, specifically, are lying in order to keep their jobs?

Or, perhaps you’d like to restate because, if you’re saying either of the above, this conversation is over and I’d doubt very much that you were a meteorologist in the Navy. (Or perhaps my understanding if what that title conveys is incorrect.)

Further, as I pointed to in my OP, are you equally certain that insurance companies believe there’s “no data showing evidence” of climate change? (Note that I didn’t say “global warming,” you did and it’s important to distinguish the two.) Or, are they all lying, too.

Similarly, If you are saying either of the above, I don’t think you understand how insurance markets work, or markets in general, for that matter.

Darin 1y ago

The scientific community has become VERY politicized. Many who go against the grain are blacklisted and unemployed. I have friends in meteorology who can’t even question the narrative.

That’s not science.

You’ve even proven my point by saying “…..if you say this….this conversation is over.”

GOOD science ALWAYS asks questions. No name calling, but we see a lot of that.

Dr William Gray, one of the most respected meteorologists and professor at CSU studied the data intensely. (He’s passed away now).

He gave numerous tropical weather lectures and occasionally he would politely say that he could find no evidence of anthropogenic warming.

You can find one of his papers “The physical flaws of the global warming theory and deep ocean circulation changes as the primary climate driver” at tropical.atmos.colostate.edu

Science isn’t emotional. Media and politics made it emotional because there’s SERIOUS money to be scammed….I mean made.

I worked in the Joint Typhoon Warning Center with some of the top climatologist in the world.

I’m old enough to remember when the narrative was acid rain, global cooling, global warming, notice how they moved the goal posts? NY was supposed to be under water by now.

Here’s one that will blow your mind. OIL DOES NOT COME FROM DINOSAURS. It’s not a fossil fuel.

j'ai les clés 1y ago

Me saying, “this conversation is over if you agree with either of the above” is not an example of politicizing anything, as you have alleged.

To repeat, the “either of the above” was my request that your confirm your extraordinary claim that either:

1. over 50% of ALL scientists don’t believe in climate change, or

2. over 50% of climate scientists specifically are lying in order to remain employed.

Again, you said “most scientists don’t believe the hoax.” Rather than answering, you changed to state that you have friends who can’t question the narrative. “Most of my friends think something” is not evidence. It’s anecdotal. Regardless, I agree with you that good science is about remaining open to questions.

So, let me ask you these questions:

1. What do you think about habitat loss and over-harvesting driven primarily by our global food system are the dominant threats to wildlife populations around the world?

2. What do you think about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch?

3. What do you think is causing species (plants, animals, insects) and wildlife degradation to the tune of 73% over the last 50 years?

Darin 1y ago

Over harvesting is real. Monoculture and pesticides are the wrong approach.

The pacific has a trash problem, for certain.

Human greed is the root issue. Power too.

We are not great stewards of the planet.

But short of nuclear, we can’t raise the temperature of the planet. The earth, atmosphere and water cycle act as a self-regulating terrarium. It is arrogant to think we can raise the temperature of the planet.

But we can agree to disagree. That’s okay.

Darin 1y ago

You saying, “this conversation is over if you agree with either of the above” is emotional.

It demonstrates the typical, closed minded echo chamber of left agenda.

Science is not emotional.

j'ai les clés 1y ago

That’s not emotional, my dude. It’s me setting a limitation on how much of your bullshit I’m willing to suffer.

Darin 1y ago

To answer and clarify regarding insurance companies….. I never mentioned insurance companies, how they work or what they believe. It really doesn’t matter what “they” believe. If that can deem something to be “high risk” and charge more, they will.

j'ai les clés 1y ago

You don’t have to mention insurance companies. I did, in my OP. I’ll respond to your other post, later, but it’s easier to respond to this one quickly.

Insurance companies are not a monolith. While it may be correct to say that if they deem something is high risk, then they charge more, it is incorrect to state that they all do. Insurance companies compete against each other. If one, or several, charge more for something that isn’t real (as you put it),

then others will write affordable policies and earn more customers. What we are seeing is even more extreme. Insurance companies are simply pulling out of markets entirely, refusing to write policies to collect premiums. California wild fires are a good example. State Farm refuses to underwrite because the costs are too great, and the inevitability of claims too certain. Extreme weather events due to changing climate are evident in the southwest, as well. Try getting flood insurance in Florida.

Will respond to your other post later.