Green new deal equals magical thinking

[gowlerk 2,190]

39 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I said wettest rainy season, not year.  Also 75 degrees is unusually warm???  Winds 2-12, unusually high???

You are like a marketer. Trying to spin with carefully chosen weasel words.

[brenthutch 444]

16 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

You are like a marketer. Trying to spin with carefully chosen weasel words.

How is citing the lack of drought conditions, the temperature and wind speed weasely?  The fact of the matter is that climate change had nothing to do with the Paradise fire.  Even if some folks really really really wanted it to.

 

[gowlerk 2,190]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

How is citing the lack of drought conditions, the temperature and wind speed weasely?  The fact of the matter is that climate change had nothing to do with the Paradise fire.  Even if some folks really really really wanted it to.

 

Well, it's like this. You choose words that make it sound like the weather, being benign, had nothing to do with it. Yet for some reason a near record fire somehow managed to rage through extremely dry and large amounts of fuel. Maybe it is magical thinking? You seem to like to talk about magical thinking. Except yours. In any case, weather and climate are not the same thing, and this is one event. The insurance and banking industries consider the PG&E bankruptcy to be climate change  related. Are they just alarmists?

[brenthutch 444]

No just opportunists.  Jump on the climate change bandwagon and justify higher premiums.  

[gowlerk 2,190]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No just opportunists.  Jump on the climate change bandwagon and justify higher premiums.  

Yes, it's probably a conspiracy. They are all in cahoots. Yea, that's the ticket. Them and the Chinese that are pumping up this alarmist climate change story as a way to cheat America. Those glaciers were melting anyway. And those grapes were probably sour.

[brenthutch 444]

No conspiracy, just a way to make some money off of a tragedy by characterizing it as the “new normal”.  Remember after hurricane Katerina we were told that was going to be the norm due to climate change, necessitating higher premiums?  What followed?   A ten year hurricane drought.  The insurance companies laughed all the way to the bank, having fleeced the all of the sheeple.

[wmw999 2,444]

I would hardly call Irene, Ike, and Sandy hurricane droughts. They didn't kill as many people as Katrina, but given that the last hurricane with significant fatalities before Katrina was Camille, if I remember (1968), and the one following was Maria (2019), I'd say that a 15-year "hurricane drought" is a little shorter than a 40-year "hurricane drought." That's anecdotal, but as someone who was impacted by Ike and Irene, well, they weren't little nothings.

Wendy P.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No conspiracy, just a way to make some money off of a tragedy by characterizing it as the “new normal”.  Remember after hurricane Katerina we were told that was going to be the norm due to climate change, necessitating higher premiums?

Climate change is a conspiracy by insurance companies to charge higher premiums? And all of the insurance companies are in on this? And all of them are convinced that abandoning underwriting and use of actuarial data leads to better profits while abandoning any capitalist market principles?

That is a lot of hoax don't you think? I mean, there are probably simpler answers than that one, don't you think?

[billvon 2,990]

56 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, it's probably a conspiracy. They are all in cahoots. Yea, that's the ticket. Them and the Chinese that are pumping up this alarmist climate change story as a way to cheat America. 

And don't forget PG+E, who declared bankruptcy just to provide cover for the insurance companies.  And of course Barrow, Alaska, who is digging up their own coastline just so they can blame their town's decline on climate change.  Plus the tens of thousands of rich, arrogant grad students making up all that shit about CO2 and methane being greenhouse gases, laughing while they light their cigars with $100 bills in their mansions.  It's even bigger than the 9/11 conspiracy, I tell you.

[brenthutch 444]

28 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Climate change is a conspiracy by insurance companies to charge higher premiums? And all of the insurance companies are in on this? And all of them are convinced that abandoning underwriting and use of actuarial data leads to better profits while abandoning any capitalist market principles?

That is a lot of hoax don't you think? I mean, there are probably simpler answers than that one, don't you think?

 

Where did I say anything about a conspiracy?  History is full of examples of enterprising capitalists cashing in on public phobias, bomb/survival shelters to name one.  Oh and BTW "Super Storm Sandy" wasn't even a category one hurricane when it made landfall.

Edited April 4, 2019 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,465]

15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 

Where did I say anything about a conspiracy?  History is full of examples of enterprising capitalists cashing in on public phobias, bomb/survival shelters to name one.  Oh and BTW "Super Storm Sandy" wasn't even a category one hurricane when it made landfall.

For your accusations to make sense all the insurance companies have to be in on it. Or is your suggestion only some insurance companies increased premiums because of Climate Change, but other insurance companies don't believe in it?

[gowlerk 2,190]

22 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

For your accusations to make sense all the insurance companies have to be in on it. Or is your suggestion only some insurance companies increased premiums because of Climate Change, but other insurance companies don't believe in it?

Apparently he does not understand the free market system. Insurance companies compete for business. Very aggressively at times. They no longer have the very best mathematicians and statisticians working for them, because those people are now quants. But they still have the second from the top tier. (the third tier are mere rocket scientists)

[jakee 1,489]

9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

How is citing the lack of drought conditions, the temperature and wind speed weasely?  

Because you're citing how much it rained between 18 months and 2 years before the fire started?

[kallend 2,026]

15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Meanwhile in the US, electric cars are less than 2% of the market.

So Norway demonstrates what IS feasible while people like you are claiming it isn't feasible.

[brenthutch 444]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

Because you're citing how much it rained between 18 months and 2 years before the fire started?

The point is, that there was NOT some severe drought (or any state of drought for that matter) and the temperature was not abnormally high (unless you think 75 is sweltering.  The fact of the matter is, despite the earnest desires of many, the Paradise fire CANNOT be attributed to man made climate change.  

[gowlerk 2,190]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The point is, that there was NOT some severe drought (or any state of drought for that matter)

An unusually dry fall was one of several key factors. The weather is always a factor in this type of event. Hot gusting winds were, and in this area always are, the other main factor. The spark that sets it off can come from many sources. But without the wind and the dry fuel these events don't happen. Did climate chance contribute? That can not be proven or disproven. The area has always been subject to these type of conditions. What is more certain is that climate change is leading to more energy in the system from higher temperatures and that makes pressure differences and stronger winds more likely and more common.

It is not about the single event. It's about the trend. Again, warmer oceans, higher sea levels. The oceans drive the weather and they are becoming warmer. The specific effects on any one area's climate are unpredictable. The risk is hard to pinpoint but even harder deny. Unless you are one of those who choose to ignore evidence. Insurance companies are in the business of pricing risk. That's what they do. For the most part they are very good at it.

[jakee 1,489]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The point is, that there was NOT some severe drought (or any state of drought for that matter) and the temperature was not abnormally high (unless you think 75 is sweltering.  

But how does quoting the weather from 4 seasons previous help to discern that?

[Coreece 190]

On 4/2/2019 at 12:48 PM, kallend said:

Meanwile, in Norway:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/in-norway-electric-cars-outsell-traditional-ones-for-the-first-time-2019-04-01

Electric cars grab more than 50% of the market.

"Perversely, its electric shift is helped by the fact that its petrol or diesel cars are the most expensive in Europe. This is the only country where running an electric car is actually cheaper.

While motorists are typically subject to punitive levels of taxation, those who buy a purely electric vehicle are rewarded with a string of incentives worth thousands of pounds. Buyers escape heavy import or purchase taxes and are also exempt from 25% VAT. They also avoid road tax, road tolls, pay half price on ferries, get free municipal parking in cities and can usually use bus lanes.

Which is why the country is the third-largest market for electric vehicles in the world, after the US and China."

 

. . .And with a population of 5 million or so, the success of the global EV market depends on Norway about as much as the U.S EV market depends on Minnesota.

5 hours ago, kallend said:

21 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Meanwhile in the US, electric cars are less than 2% of the market.

So Norway demonstrates what IS feasible while people like you are claiming it isn't feasible.

"While Norway has the advantage of being a wealthier country with a smaller population, less congested roads, easier parking and plentiful hydroelectric power, the tax incentives are seen as being expensive and ultimately unsustainable."

 

So given all that, your Norway example is sort of proving Brent's point.

Also, what's feasible in a country of 5+ million people isn't as feasible in a country of 300+ million - take for example, building a convenient and efficient charging infrastructure.

 

[gowlerk 2,190]

32 minutes ago, Coreece said:

So given all that, your Norway example is sort of proving Brent's point. 

Also, what's feasible in a country of 5+ million people isn't as feasible in a country of 300+ million - take for example, building a convenient and efficient charging infrastructure.

Yes, Norway is rich from oil revenues and has a small population. It can serve as a sort of test bed, but it can not be a model for the world. It can be a guide. There is value and there are lessons we can learn from them. Early adopters of new tech are always people with money to spend. I think that was the point of one of brenthutch's other threads.

[billvon 2,990]

10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The point is, that there was NOT some severe drought (or any state of drought for that matter) and the temperature was not abnormally high (unless you think 75 is sweltering.  The fact of the matter is, despite the earnest desires of many, the Paradise fire CANNOT be attributed to man made climate change.  

There WAS a severely dry period.  It was not called a drought because that requires years of dry conditions.  You had the worst case - a wet spring and a very dry/warm fall.  That's not a drought; that's the setup that is worst for wildfires.  Live out here for a few years and you'll get that.

I'm not sure why you are so focused on this "it's not a drought" thing anyway.  Do you associate climate change with droughts, and therefore think that saying "no drought" is equivalent to saying "no climate change."

Quote

The Paradise fire CANNOT be attributed to man made climate change.  

That's like saying the 9/11 attack CANNOT be attributed to extremism, because airport security was bad.  It was one of several factors that resulted in a disaster.

[brenthutch 444]

I thought a wet winters and spring followed by a dry summer and fall was called California.  No catastrophic man made global warming needed. As that great Scottish/American troubadour, David Byrne proclaimed, "same as it ever was".

[gowlerk 2,190]

21 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

David Byrne proclaimed, "same as it ever was".

Well, since you are a fan, perhaps you would like to read some of his writings on climate change.

https://www.reasonstobecheerful.world/climate-energy

[billvon 2,990]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I thought a wet winters and spring followed by a dry summer and fall was called California.  

Like I said, live here for a while and it will make sense.  

[kallend 2,026]

16 hours ago, Coreece said:

Blah blah blah....

 

I came to the USA at a time when Americans didn't throw up their hands and whine "we can't do what other countries can do".  

I came because the USA did what other countries couldn't do, and I wanted to be part of it.

When did Americans become such a bunch of whining quitters?

[brenthutch 444]

America did not become America by copying Norway.