Coastal Growth, Not Global Warming, Blamed for Rising Storm Losses

February 25, 2008

  • February 25, 2008 at 5:19 am
    Little Frog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    there is a new villian in the mix; BIG LIGHT BULB! Tragicly, this is true. BIG LIGHTBULB (Westinghouse, GE,…) has convinced our politburo and Fearless-Leader to begin banning incandescent light bulbs beginning in 2010. Replacing them will be the glorious high-efficiency bulbs. OK, so they don’t last 1/2 as long as they say they should and contain Mercury which will poison our ground. The good news comrads is that they cost 3xs as much. And isn’t that a better way to reduce our need for foreign oil than drilling in Anwar or off the Florida coast like the current Chinese-Cuban joint venture.
    Free THX-1138!

  • February 26, 2008 at 9:20 am
    NOYB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    All of you who have poo-pooed global warming, please list your scientific credentials…. I thought so …. I think if we compared all the scientific opinions on this, there is an overwhelming consensus that global warming, a/k/a climate change, is happening, and that it has been affected and accelerated by increased CO2 and other pollutants. And to inform you ignorami who blow without having read anything except that information put out by the well-paid scientific studies funded by Exxon, global warming is just the term for the first stage — the result on Earth is not just warming but all extremes of weather – hot, cold, more and less precip.
    Getting back to this article, does it have to be one or the other – seems the rising losses on the coast would be from both more severe storms and the building expansion – duh ! Those who build there should pay the real cost of insurance – not look to others’ tax dollars or paying higher insurance to subsidize them.

  • February 26, 2008 at 9:31 am
    Nobody Important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Excuse us non scientists for having an opinion. Wait, Al Gore isn’t a scientist either. He should shut up then according to your rules. Sorry for the free speech mistake.

  • February 26, 2008 at 11:07 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    NYOB, one doesn’t have to be a climatologist to understand the issues involved. Any person reading studies can determine their own position. In fact, that’s what most scientists do – especially in this area. They look at data that others have collected and make up their minds about what it means. They just happen to be specialists in that area while we aren’t. Get off your high horse.

  • February 26, 2008 at 11:12 am
    Nobody Important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Be careful insulting the religion of Global Warming lastbat.

  • February 26, 2008 at 11:25 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    well, i may not be a scientist…but not every scientist agree with the results…afterall, do you truly believe a politician whom says he invented the internet and says we have global warming? if so, i have a bridge over the Atlantic Ocean, i am willing to sell.

    afterall, we all look at numbers or listen to voices and make our conclusions. that is why we have debates. if it is not conclusive, then it’s not totally so! i think yes we contribute to the environment. but we are not the sole reason for global warming, if that is really the cause. that be like stating, we might be in a recession, or may go in a recession – indicators are possibly there. so again, not eveyone is agreeing on this including many scientists.

  • February 26, 2008 at 11:36 am
    Vlad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Whether well paid or not, they are “scientific studies”. Unlike the fairy tale “An Inconvenient Truth”.

  • February 26, 2008 at 5:03 am
    Gill Fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    By definition Al would have to keep his hand down, not being a scientist. Isn’t there a fundamental problem with a wealthy politician purporting to teach us some ‘truth’? Whose truth? How did we arrive at this truth? Don’t we know at this stage of civilization that truth today is often not truth tomorrow? Doesn’t that make it incumbent on the truth givers to make sure the truth they are selling us is really true? I guess that depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.

  • February 27, 2008 at 8:40 am
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “…global warming is just the term for the first stage — the result on Earth is not just warming but all extremes of weather -hot, cold, more and less precip.”

    So… global warming could mean global cooling. Thanks for clearing that up Mr. Scientist. Please tell us: What ended the last Ice Age?

  • February 27, 2008 at 10:57 am
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

    Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.

    There’s more at:
    http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

    But you’re not allowed to read it if you’re not a scientist. Or Algore.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*