http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/49616092/#49609832


Quote:

Gov. Cuomo (D-NY):  ”There has been a series of extreme weather incidents. That is not a political statement, that is a factual statement. Anyone who says there is not a dramatic change in weather patterns is denying reality.”

Quote:

He said, I don’t believe that” this is “the last occurrence we will have.” He told reporters, ”We have a one-hundred year flood every two years now.” His remarks are worth noting particularly since the 55-year-old governor is widely mentioned as a potential candidate in 2016 or beyond. Yes, Cuomo didn’t specifically mention global warming, but his entire point was that there is a “new normal” but an old infrastructure, and it’s time to do some serious planning: You did not have ocean water, salt water, breaching the banks the way you’ve had it in Manhattan, you know, in my lifetime….. When you start to fill the subway tunnels with salt water—much of the Con Ed equipment is in the tunnels, is underground—when hot electrical equipment hits cold salt water, that is a bad combination. And that is a design flaw, I believe, for our system now, if you anticipate these extreme weather conditions. Obviously we didn’t when we designed this system. We did not anticipate water coming over the Hudson River, coming over the banks, being five feet deep on the West Side Highway, and filling subway grates and every opening and filling that massive infrastructure we have below ground. Going forward, I think we do have to anticipate these extreme types of weather patterns. And we have to start to think about how do we redesign the system so this doesn’t happen again. After what happened, what has been happening in the last few years, I don’t think anyone can sit back anymore and say “Well, I’m shocked at that weather pattern.” There is no weather pattern that can shock me at this point. And I think that has to be our attitude. And how do we redesign our system and our infrastructure assuming that?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDRIv4ueXXo&sns=em

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=mhee&v=NDRIv4ueXXo


Quote:

Another factor under consideration is climate change. Like a baseball player on steroids, our climate system is breaking records at an unnatural pace. And like a baseball player on steroids, it’s the wrong question to ask whether a given home run is “caused” by steroids.

And yet there are lots of ppl who dont want to do anything about it. And theres lots more who think taxing it will help. Actually i doubt taxing it is meant to help its just that they tax everything. Why not the weather. Im not talking about australia - its everyone.

SOB

Centuries of taxation show us that taxing something does reduce its consumption. If you want to reduce something, tax it.

The insurance industry certainly believes in global warming and the occurrence of more extreme weather patterns.
.....................................................................

Climate Change and the Insurance Industry

As the entire eastern seaboard slowly recovers from its lashing by Sandy, insurance companies are bracing for the hurricane’s aftermath and the possibility of another Katrina-scale loss. 

If there’s any major incumbent business with an incentive to publicly acknowledge the risks and costs of climate change, it’s the insurance industry, and especially the re-insurers — mega-corps that backstop individual insurance companies by pooling their risks globally.  These companies can do the math, and what they’ve seen over the last couple of decades is a steady upward trend in both the number of extreme weather events and the resulting insured losses that they’ve been on the hook to cover. 

The situation is well summarized in a new report from Ceres, entitled Stormy Futures for U.S. Property/Casualty Insurers. They suggest that insurers face an existential risk from climate change.

more at:

http://amateurearthling.org/2012/10/30/climate-change-and-the-insurance-industry/

MOTR wrote on Nov 1^st, 2012 at 5:46pm:

Centuries of taxation show us that taxing something does reduce its consumption. If you want to reduce something, tax it.

Yeah that sure works on alcohol

SOB

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 1^st, 2012 at 7:27pm:

The insurance industry certainly believes in global warming and the occurrence of more extreme weather patterns. ..................................................................... Climate Change and the Insurance Industry As the entire eastern seaboard slowly recovers from its lashing by Sandy, insurance companies are bracing for the hurricane’s aftermath and the possibility of another Katrina-scale loss.  If there’s any major incumbent business with an incentive to publicly acknowledge the risks and costs of climate change, it’s the insurance industry, and especially the re-insurers — mega-corps that backstop individual insurance companies by pooling their risks globally.  These companies can do the math, and what they’ve seen over the last couple of decades is a steady upward trend in both the number of extreme weather events and the resulting insured losses that they’ve been on the hook to cover.  The situation is well summarized in a new report from Ceres, entitled Stormy Futures for U.S. Property/Casualty Insurers. They suggest that insurers face an existential risk from climate change. more at: http://amateurearthling.org/2012/10/30/climate-change-and-the-insurance-industry/

The insurance companies are taking advantage because idiots want to get taxed for nothing, so they will cash in because you want to pay more insurance for nothing. Dummies.

Evidence suggests there has been less bad weather events now than in the past.

MOTR wrote on Nov 1^st, 2012 at 5:46pm:

Centuries of taxation show us that taxing something does reduce its consumption. If you want to reduce something, tax it.

Reagan said it!

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 5:04pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 1st, 2012 at 7:27pm: The insurance industry certainly believes in global warming and the occurrence of more extreme weather patterns. ..................................................................... Climate Change and the Insurance Industry As the entire eastern seaboard slowly recovers from its lashing by Sandy, insurance companies are bracing for the hurricane’s aftermath and the possibility of another Katrina-scale loss.  If there’s any major incumbent business with an incentive to publicly acknowledge the risks and costs of climate change, it’s the insurance industry, and especially the re-insurers — mega-corps that backstop individual insurance companies by pooling their risks globally.  These companies can do the math, and what they’ve seen over the last couple of decades is a steady upward trend in both the number of extreme weather events and the resulting insured losses that they’ve been on the hook to cover.  The situation is well summarized in a new report from Ceres, entitled Stormy Futures for U.S. Property/Casualty Insurers. They suggest that insurers face an existential risk from climate change. more at: http://amateurearthling.org/2012/10/30/climate-change-and-the-insurance-industry/ The insurance companies are taking advantage because idiots want to get taxed for nothing, so they will cash in because you want to pay more insurance for nothing. Dummies. Evidence suggests there has been less bad weather events now than in the past.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE DOESN'T COUNT!  :o :o :o :o :o

MOTR wrote on Nov 1^st, 2012 at 3:35am:

"Anyone who says there is not a dramatic change in weather patterns is denying reality.”

I've never heard anyone say "there is not a dramatic change in weather patterns".

There are changes.  We all know that.

However, there's no credible evidence to support AGW.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 12:29am:

MOTR wrote on Nov 1st, 2012 at 3:35am: "Anyone who says there is not a dramatic change in weather patterns is denying reality.” I've never heard anyone say "there is not a dramatic change in weather patterns". There are changes.  We all know that. However, there's no credible evidence to support AGW.

Maybe. Maybe not. Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution? Who wants to live in the sewer?

SOB

this is the scientific fact unto that which is happening

to your weather...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYSIN5zhoow

Solar System Shift

Published on Nov 7, 2012 by Suspicious0bservers
Our World is Changing: http://youtu.be/woVitezc-zU
Electromagnetic Event: http://youtu.be/uI10tKuLtFU
STARWATER: http://youtu.be/LiC-92YgZvQ

Links can be found in the citations for the three videos above.
Category:
News & Politics

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 4:15am:

Maybe. Maybe not. Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution? Who wants to live in the sewer? SOB

Yep.  I have no problem with erring on the side of caution. 

I have a problem with scaremongering based on dubious "science".

MOTR wrote on Nov 1^st, 2012 at 5:46pm:

Centuries of taxation show us that taxing something does reduce its consumption. If you want to reduce something, tax it.

If it moves................................................  ;) ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 12:29am:

I've never heard anyone say "there is not a dramatic change in weather patterns". There are changes.  We all know that. However, there's no credible evidence to support AGW.

How do you quantify those rates of change if you don't believe in science??

  :o :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 4:44pm:

How do you quantify those rates of change if you don't believe in science??   :o :o

I do believe in science.

I don't, however, believe that the AGW hypothesis has enough credible supporting evidence.

MOTR wrote on Nov 1^st, 2012 at 5:46pm:

Centuries of taxation show us that taxing something does reduce its consumption. If you want to reduce something, tax it.

Centuries of taxation shows us the government loves taking you money and pissing it against the wall.

FriYAY wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 4:56pm:

Centuries of taxation shows us the government loves taking you money and pissing it against the wall.

Maybe that will cool things down a bit.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

Maybe that will cool things down a bit.

I note responses are only putting up the very last post when you quote.

:)

FriYAY wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 5:02pm:

I note responses are only putting up the very last post when you quote. :)

Probably has something to do with AGW.

FriYAY wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 5:02pm:

I note responses are only putting up the very last post when you quote. :)

Yeh, right: someones been playing code or??????????????????????  :o  ::)  :-?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 5:08pm:

Probably has something to do with AGW.

Might be to save power?

(i don't know why it would save power)

Considering we have only 10 years to act on climate change and all pointers suggest we won't make it, i often wonder if we should start moving important infrastructre and indeed people, out of the floods zones that rising sea levels will cause?

FriYAY wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 5:20pm:

Considering we have only 10 years to act on climate change and all pointers suggest we won't make it, i often wonder if we should start moving important infrastructre and indeed people, out of the floods zones that rising sea levels will cause?

I don't believe your prediction, and I don't believe humans can do anything about it even if you are right.

The fact that infrastructure and people are not being moved only reinforces my doubt.

However, if people want to start moving away from the coast - "just in case" - I wouldn't stand in their way.  It'll certainly generate a lot of jobs.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 5:33pm:

I don't believe your prediction, and I don't believe humans can do anything about it even if you are right. The fact that infrastructure and people are not being moved only reinforces my doubt. However, if people want to start moving away from the coast - "just in case" - I wouldn't stand in their way.  It'll certainly generate a lot of jobs.

It could be the first green intiative that actually created a job.

;D

FriYAY wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 5:43pm:

It could be the first green intiative that actually created a job. ;D

Exactly!

it is helpful to notice a psyop beta test

and or disinformationalist at work as clear as daylight

good work carry on however transparent

namaste

-:)

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 5:33pm:

I don't believe your prediction, and I don't believe humans can do anything about it even if you are right. The fact that infrastructure and people are not being moved only reinforces my doubt. However, if people want to start moving away from the coast - "just in case" - I wouldn't stand in their way.  It'll certainly generate a lot of jobs.

This is something i have been thinking about however it wont hurt to try. Better to err on the side of caution IMO. Besides litterbugs are arseholes.

SOB

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 5:33pm:

I don't believe your prediction, and I don't believe humans can do anything about it even if you are right. The fact that infrastructure and people are not being moved only reinforces my doubt. However, if people want to start moving away from the coast - "just in case" - I wouldn't stand in their way.  It'll certainly generate a lot of jobs.

greggerypeccary==>>> FENCESITTER!  :o :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 10^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

greggerypeccary==>>> FENCESITTER!  :o :o

Open-minded AGW sceptic.

Far better than being a closed-minded AGW alarmist.

I'm willing to examine all scientific evidence and change my mind if the evidence is credible and reliable.

So far, the AGW hypothesis does not have enough credible evidence.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 10^th, 2012 at 12:10pm:

Open-minded AGW sceptic. Far better than being a closed-minded AGW alarmist. I'm willing to examine all scientific evidence and change my mind if the evidence is credible and reliable. So far, the AGW hypothesis does not have enough credible evidence.

If your version of evidence-which in practical terms is entirely logical for someone who doesn't believe in science- amounts to seeing if people are moving away from the ocean then shouldn't you be examining future city planning and such like????

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 10^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

If your version of evidence-which in practical terms is entirely logical for someone who doesn't believe in science- amounts to seeing if people are moving away from the ocean then shouldn't you be examining future city planning and such like????

Who doesn't believe in science?  You?  Really, why not?

I certainly believe in it.

That's exactly why I don't currently support the AGW hypothesis: the scientific evidence doesn't stack up.

You really should ignore the alarmists and start looking at the science.

;) ;)