Thank you Tyrone. Very interesting. I will keep that in mind when I am reading their articles. Hopefully, they read the notes that we write. If they won\’t eliminate the global warming nonsense, at the very least, I would like to start seeing articles that argue both sides.
Whether or not you believe global warming is a fact …..
With gas at four bucks a gallon (and electricity costs rising), don’t you folks agree it might be a good idea to work on alternative energy sources from a strictly economic standpoint?
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”
For an additional premium of $_____.__ we will cover any additional expense you incur from global warming. Failure to prove the existance of Global Warming and identify the individual(s) responsible will void this contract. Just stating Global Warming is FACT and even typing in BOLD letters will not qualify as FACT.
One need not look for a hidden motive for IJ’s coverage of the global warming issue. Go to the web sites of the world’s two largest Insurers/Reinsurers (Munich and Allianz) and search their sites for “Global Warming” If it is an issue for them, it is an issue for the industry, and ultimately society because that much money speaks loudly.
As an aside, look at all the cool words we get out of it; carbon footprint is my favorite.
I have to agree with skeptical. This study was done by attorneys. Its all about money and a new wave of lawsuits.
As for the 3rd party lawsuits, if I have a tree on my property that falls into your house due to hurricane winds, how is it my liability. Last time I checked this was considered an act of nature and not covered for liability.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Thank you Tyrone. Very interesting. I will keep that in mind when I am reading their articles. Hopefully, they read the notes that we write. If they won\’t eliminate the global warming nonsense, at the very least, I would like to start seeing articles that argue both sides.
Clearly demonstrates $$$$.
Here is a good article about how cold it was this winter…
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21205
Whether or not you believe global warming is a fact …..
With gas at four bucks a gallon (and electricity costs rising), don’t you folks agree it might be a good idea to work on alternative energy sources from a strictly economic standpoint?
Global warming is a fact? Really?
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”
See also http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=1E639422-7094-4972-83AF-EE40EE302D41
…
AG 2000 8/11
Global Warming Endorsement
For an additional premium of $_____.__ we will cover any additional expense you incur from global warming. Failure to prove the existance of Global Warming and identify the individual(s) responsible will void this contract. Just stating Global Warming is FACT and even typing in BOLD letters will not qualify as FACT.
One need not look for a hidden motive for IJ’s coverage of the global warming issue. Go to the web sites of the world’s two largest Insurers/Reinsurers (Munich and Allianz) and search their sites for “Global Warming” If it is an issue for them, it is an issue for the industry, and ultimately society because that much money speaks loudly.
As an aside, look at all the cool words we get out of it; carbon footprint is my favorite.
I have to agree with skeptical. This study was done by attorneys. Its all about money and a new wave of lawsuits.
As for the 3rd party lawsuits, if I have a tree on my property that falls into your house due to hurricane winds, how is it my liability. Last time I checked this was considered an act of nature and not covered for liability.
I haven’t posted anything on this thread. Someone who oughta get a life is pretending to be me.