We're Turning The Planet's To Shit: Climate Change & Humanity's Ability To Ruin Anything Good

1678569664061.jpeg
 


That’s what The Shooman The Shooman keeps saying!


there are many inconvenient truths l could say here, but l won't.

But one fun fact.....recently a world renowned scientist removed a post made 5 years ago saying that the world would end in 5 years.

Now for my prediction. Solar and wind power will go into the dustbin where it belongs (along with electric cars), and nuclear and/or fossil fuels will reign supreme. There is no future in green power, and the politicians putting your super into green industries are going to blow all your money. The media are not allowed to tell you the truth, their job is to fill people's heads with globalist propaganda. Notice how China (a major emitter) is exempt from green energy policies....but isn't the world supposed to end in 6 years??

I know you guys don't want to hear my strong skepticism of green ideology, so l will keep quiet most of the time, but occasionally l might pop up here to give my 2 cents.
 
there are many inconvenient truths l could say here, but l won't.
At least tell me the truth about the seaside houses. I think I know it but I would like to hear your opinion.

Solar and wind power will go into the dustbin where it belongs (along with electric cars), and nuclear and/or fossil fuels will reign supreme.
What about electric cars powered with energy from nuclear plants? That ok?
 
At least tell me the truth about the seaside houses. I think I know it but I would like to hear your opinion.

I actually checked the peer reviewed science on that, and even if all the ice melted it would take 1,000 years for the sea to rise and flood many of the coastal areas. Al Gore also tried lying about the seas flooding the Earth in a court case and the Judge dismissed his claim based on the same science. Much of the science is misrepresented because the political scientists have an agenda, ie, to push a climate change emergency. In communism they call them the "useful idiots".



What about electric cars powered with energy from nuclear plants? That ok?

Much of the world uses nuclear, but the green folks will still use scare tactics to warn against it. Apparently it is not near as dangerous as the scaremongers want people to believe. I think nuclear is the future.

Just a thought on the nuclear meltdown in Chernobyl......where are all the deformed people? Why are people filming there if it is so dangerous? Why are people are still living nearby and seemingly healthy if the meltdown was so dangerous? The way the propaganda was pushed, everyone would be deformed and no-one could live there for 100 thousand years. Why the scare?

The communists love green ideology. Read about The Communism Behind Environmentalism. It is anti life (too many people on the planet) , anti God, puts animals above humans. It turns everything upsidedown, ie, it creates chaos. The `system' becomes the all knowing. The green religion is the doctrine of devils.


If the climate alarmists had nothing to hide they wouldn't be afraid to debate the skeptics. What about IPCC and Al Gore debating publicly? They love preaching, but how about being held accountable for what they say?

Where is the science to show the world might end? Where is the science that proves a climate emergency? It is all just a bunch of talk fellas.
 
Last edited:
Just one last thing....science has shown the Earth is greening and that there are more trees growing than 100 years ago. With carbon dioxide spurring on the greening of the planet, how much of this greening will absorb the extra carbon isotope-13 produced by man and bring things back into balance again? No-one ever talks about this, it puts some holes in the climate alarmist theory imo.

The other issue is....we know science has shown the carbon isotope-13 produced uniquely by humans to cause global warming, but to what percentage?? What about other factors not measured? And what about naturally occurring factors that may counteract these effects? No-one ever talks about this either. Instead the political scientists use isolated studies to feed rhetoric.

I don't get much involved in climate arguments these days. Trying to convince climate alarmist of anything would be too tiring and a waste of my life. The main thing is that l have looked enough to ask questions and think for myself; and l see the politicisation of climate science and the rhetoric used. I have seen enough to know things don't add up and this movement is up to no good. I see the disinfo and lies peddled and the shutting down of debate (communist, socialist, and far right tactics), but l don't say anything; l just observe these groups quietly.

Not saying anymore. I've got more productive things to do.
 
Just one last thing....science has shown the Earth is greening and that there are more trees growing than 100 years ago. With carbon dioxide spurring on the greening of the planet, how much of this greening will absorb the extra carbon isotope-13 produced by man and bring things back into balance again? No-one ever talks about this, it puts some holes in the climate alarmist theory imo.
However, an important distinction needs to be made between tree cover and forest cover.
The study points out that industrial timber plantations, mature oil palm estates and other specifically planted forests add to global tree cover. On paper these areas compensate for the primary forest that has been cut down; 100-hectare loss of primary forest is perfectly offset by a 100-hectare gain on a man-made plantation, for example.

But while they may be equal in area, they are not equal in biodiversity. Primary tropical forests and savannas harbour a wealth of flora and fauna which is lost when these areas are cleared.
And man-made forests do not compensate for the damage and degradation done to ecosystems through land clearance.

The research attributes 60% of all land-use change throughout the study period directly to human activity, with the remaining 40% caused by indirect factors like climate change.

As the Earth turns increasingly green it could be masking the true extent of environmental harm caused by human activity.

 

"Sandstorms in the region have been increasing in frequency since the 1960s due to rising temperatures and lower precipitation in the Gobi wilderness, Chinese authorities said.

This year, sandstorms started bearing down on parts of China in March, causing the skies to turn yellow. In the first two weeks of April alone, there have been four sandstorm and the most recent one left cars, bikes and houses coated in dust."

If only the nations getting violent storms and being submerged under water could even it out with those getting blanketed by dust and sand.
 

"...forecast that there is an 80% chance that El Niño will take hold by September."

It's the end of the world!

“We just had the eight warmest years on record, even though we had a cooling La Niña for the past three years and this acted as a temporary brake on global temperature increase,”

...That explains why I was freezing the last few years.
 
So assuming the following is true:


What do you make of this?


Just a quick post for now.....

They say numerous studies, where are these? All l see is propaganda pieces. How do they know it is climate change causing the catastrophe and not just some random weather event? Where are the numerous studies proving this?? These articles written by axis.com are also terribly written propaganda pieces, so you need to question whether the claims about company State Farm are true or just alarmist journalism.


If the claims about the insurance company is true (I have my doubts)....
Sadly these company CEOs are probably under pressure to believe these climate change theories, and most have probably been so indoctrinated they do believe it. Now it seems like some are making decisions without questioning the evidence. Politicians are like that too.

I say to these axis.com people....don't just make claims that can't be backed up, gives us names of people in these companies who you have done interviews with. Name some other companies who are doing this. I put it to you that axis.com have a political agenda and they exist to convince the public that climate change exists, that's why they can't link any studies or name any names,ie, they are propaganda pieces.
 
Last edited:
Just had a quick look at another article of theirs; like l suspected, they are political journalists, ie, an activists website. I would pay these people no attention, they are into racial politics designed to divide people.

Control the people by pressuring them to follow a narrative. If they don't follow it, make them an outcast. They used to do that in communist China during the cultural revolution where many deaths occured. Axis.com and others of their ilk glamourise cultural marxism, but the results of this is very sinister. I know l am on the right track when l see that the term "cultural marxism" has now been hijacked by political activists,ie they have changed the definition over the last two weeks with links to dozens of disinfo sites at the top of google searches putting a negative slant on people who use this term. They use these `fact checks' and terms `conspiracy theories of the right' to push their ideology and propaganda - these types of strategies/methods were also used in China by the communists to control the minds of the people (anyone who disagreed were outcast and shamed by being labelled with names with negative associations). I am awake up to them because l know the history of these ideologues and how they work, but many have fallen victim to their propaganda and know no different, and it has caused great division in society. Order out of chaos will be the result, but guess who will lead it?

What do the leftists (many politicians, journalists, CEOs, and professors) pushing cultural marxism do? They change the language and create false fact checks when people start questioning them. It works! This is why it is important to buy books, because they contain the true definitions: the goal posts continually get shifted on the internet to suit the new political agenda.
 
Last edited:
If the claims about the insurance company is true (I have my doubts)....
Sadly these company CEOs are probably under pressure to believe these climate change theories, and most have probably been so indoctrinated they do believe it. Now it seems like some are making decisions without questioning the evidence. Politicians are like that too.
Well it’s a company press release, which doesn’t mention „climate change“ but instead catastrophic events among one of multiple factors influencing the decision. I’m sure they would rather continue selling insurance.
 
"Climate change data indicate consistent increases in surface water temperatures, increasing the likelihood that N. fowleri will pose a greater threat to human health in regions with a history of occurrence and new regions where PAM has not yet been documented."

 
The cases I've seen in the news are people heading to ponds and lakes. As an urbanite I'm not sure why I would ever do that but then again I live next to the biggest set of lakes in the world and they just said beach season will open next week.
 
whether the claims about company State Farm are true or just alarmist journalism.

If the claims about the insurance company is true (I have my doubts)....
Sadly these company CEOs are probably under pressure to believe these climate change theories, and most have probably been so indoctrinated they do believe it. Now it seems like some are making decisions without questioning the evidence. Politicians are like that too.

That State Farm broke on NBC which is about as mainstream as you can get.

Well it’s a company press release, which doesn’t mention „climate change“ but instead catastrophic events among one of multiple factors influencing the decision. I’m sure they would rather continue selling insurance.

What insurers call 'cat losses' from climate change have been going up since the days of Hurricane Katrina and that first El Nino/La Nina wave at the beginning of the 21st century.

Insurers get covered (excess loss like I cover up to 1M and reinsurer covers >1M, or quota share which is a flat % of every claim dollar lost between insurers and reinsurers) in the reinsurance market. The problem is the reinsurers are now too exposed covering major cat losses and so they don't cover the insurance companies based on their own actuarial modeling and projections. This makes the risk uninsurable for the insurance carrier. This makes it impossible for a person or business to get insurance.

After the Katrina aftermath, there were a number of "alternative capital" companies (pension funds, sanctioned oligarchs, etc.) who started their own reinsurance entities in the Caribbean. This was when the Great Recession happened and equities (much less fixed income) didn't generate any ROE so everyone thought they can make their own insurance company with zero actuarial modeling expertise and generate ~15% ROE in the Caymans.

But then throwing money at stuff that blows up every year or two due to wild fires, floods, hurricanes isn't exactly generating ROI for your investors so even that capacity to insure is disappearing. It was a stop gap that delayed the inevitable.

This isn't just happening in California. It already happened in Florida where some areas are uninsurable unless it's backed by FEMA. FEMA itself in the 2010s bought into the insurance company pitch that catastrophes shouldn't be paid out 100% by tax payers. No one does national budgeting based on XXX dollars spent on natural disasters happening to their citizens every year. Why not pay some reinsurance/insurance companies every year and they will cover any extraordinary losses....should that happen. US tax dollars now go here: https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/work-with-nfip/reinsurance/traditional

Basically a pool of money going to reinsurers to help the government cover any excessive losses.

This will likely expand in the future to cover different types of claims (wild fires, earthquake, etc.) that private insurance companies can't afford to do themselves and governments probably want to roll the dice and bet it's not a perennial event.

Insurance companies do care about what they offer because if you start excluding everything - I don't cover flood, I don't cover sewage backup, I don't cover earthquake, I don't cover coronavirus pandemic - then the value of the insurance diminishes and people don't buy it anymore.

It's also much cheaper to help a company or a person install things to secure their property, make sure their machines don't blow up, make sure they have cybersecurity defence, make sure they are healthy rather than sending someone out to assess damages from a claim and making big claim payments.

In a very long winded message - do they care about climate change? They all do because they want to be profitable and if they invest in an industry that does magic CO2 clean up devices, and they give you an insurance premium discount to install it then they keep reaping (consistent) premiums without having to entertain major losses every other year or every year...or God forbid, multiple times a year. Consistent revenues make boards happy + powers the asset management arms of insurance firms to generate more ROE.
 
do they care about climate change? They all do because they want to be profitable
In don’t think they do, because they want to be profitable. If California would just mandate insurance coverage for building structures in affected areas, they would just happily charge risk-adequate, loss-covering premiums, wouldn’t they?
 
In don’t think they do, because they want to be profitable. If California would just mandate insurance coverage for building structures in affected areas, they would just happily charge risk-adequate, loss-covering premiums, wouldn’t they?

The risk is uninsurable because it has a high severity and the frequency of loss is increasing. Prior to that a hurricane came and destroyed things but it was once a generation or once a decade event. Frequency was low. Severity was still high.

You could mandate insurance coverage but at what price for the premium? Right now the insurers are saying even with reinsurance capacity put together the severity and frequency of cat losses will either put them out of business or the loss experience burns them so much they will never touch the risk again. It has gotten to the point where no matter the (reasonable) premium it's not worth hiking rates anymore.

Now if the government says offer it anyway at a reasonable price because we say it's mandatory in society - then the industry needs a backstop from the government to cover the capacity not provided by the insurers + reinsurers. If you look at that FEMA list, insurance is basically musical chairs where no one wants to be the last one holding the bag for the majority of the loss (risk).

You could lower the premium to be acceptable in two ways - increase deductibles so most losses are out of pocket for the insured. Let's say only claims over 1M are covered by the insurance company but less than 1M the policy holder pays themselves - not once, but every time. This is good for high frequency low severity claims (i.e. automobile bumper to bumper crashes) but not good for high severity losses.

You could cap the limit of coverage or put in exclusions (floods not due to hurricanes, floods only due to flash rain from Oct-Apr or caused by snow melt) but that doesn't solve the high severity issue because most people buy insurance to cover the high dollar claims and they'd be disappointed they traded their >1M coverage for a lower premium if they don't get any value from the insurance product they purchased.

Take the case of property insurance. In the beginning, insurance products were designed to cover for fires. Your warehouse burns down and you lose your goods. Your retail facing office burns down so you have a loss of income. Insurance companies actively lobbied for building codes to be improved. They offer discounts for you to spruce up your building's readiness (fire suppressant systems, fire alarms, annual employee fire drills).

For climate change they're using a lot of their asset management arms and venture/innovation wings to get into promoting green companies because other than modeling how bad this year's hurricane season is, or how freak rain storms and erosion can chip away at civilised areas, they don't really have anything they can do.

For something like boiler and machinery where they can deploy IoT to monitor your machinery and teach the policyholder to proactively maintain your industrial machines before it breaks, there is at least something for them to do.

This isn't the first time it happened. Insurers spend tons of money on earthquake risks but there's not much for them to do other than to lobby governments to zone out and relocate those who keep living in earthquake zones. And except for Turkey, Indonesia and a few others, earthquake frequency hasn't gone up but the severity is still high especially if you don't take direct measures to mitigate the risk (better buildings, better designs).
 
You could mandate insurance coverage but at what price for the premium?
Who cares just mandate it. The price is being paid anyway it is just not transparent. Want to live at the beach, pay for it.
 

"Maritime transport emits as much CO2 in a year as Germany, but is the biggest global sector without a goal for cutting emissions to 'net zero'."

Let's use sails or row like vikings...
 
Antarctic ice levels see 'massive decrease,' global climate researcher says

"'We're used to seeing these big reductions in sea ice in the Arctic, but not in the Antarctic. This is a massive decrease,' Michael Sparrow, the head of WMO's climate research division, told reporters in Geneva."

Booo...

"The WMO said Arctic sea ice levels were slightly below average, but well above the June values from the past eight years."

Yay!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom