Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

Rando, Rando , please do not pop…. it’s a conversation,, I read once “ life is too important to take so seriously”.

You know as scary as it is I do not disagree with much that you say, I am very conscious of the car I drive, resources I consume far and above the average of the rest of the world, and no I do not want to live in a sod house, riding my bike to work every day, eating granola. I like and enjoy my computer, central heat easy job and farmers market on the weekend. I do draw the line on sno mo’s and dirt bikes but heh!! we all can’t be perfect!!! I also cast a questioning eye on much of the data but over time have seen enough data points build for Me, Me not you, to have my opinion. Yours is different, good for you, thank god because I do not want to live in a world where we all think alike.

Indeed I agree it is ironic that it only because we live so comfortably do we have the luxury of worrying about our impact on the larger world and not about if my 2 yr old is going to die of diarrhea or did I scavenge enough wood for a fire. I also agree much of the developing world has little regard of emission standards, quality of air, water or land use zoning laws for that matter. They are busy trying to be like us in the U.S.

It seems however I may not be far off the mark with observations also of glibly thrown quotes do you find “narrow minded dogma” and “brilliant lib environmentalists who hate western civilization” a good opening??? Actually I am smiling and chuckling at these terms I just hope you were not serious….of course good for you if you are.

Mexico I mentioned as a representative data point that I had on hand to show that there is clear impact on a global scale of Man’s negative impact on the world. You know this is all pretty selfish I want to keep the world more or less, as it is for myself, my family and anyone else that is around,

I think it is important to find common ground here to have a discussion…

I like the Abraham Lincoln quote “ If I find I dislike a man, I need to get to know him better.”

Cheers
CW ps: you, me and jim need to go skiing

A better quote from a fellow that I am sure you would like

One final paragraph of advice: Do not burn yourself out. Be as I am-a reluctant enthusiast... a part time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of yourselves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it is still there. So get out there and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, encounter the grizz, climb the mountains. Run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for a while and contemplate the precious stillness, that lovely, mysterious and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to your body, the body active and alive, and I promise you this much: I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those deskbound people with their hearts in a safe deposit box and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this: you will outlive the bastards."

-- Edward Abbey

Yes, cheers.

This is a conversation, over-amped debate can be fun. Believe it or not, I push in order to try to extract more understanding of the topic. And I do not like to give an easy pass to flawed arguments.

Based on your post, you must not be characterized by any of my cliches, or secure enough to not get offended. Cool.

Happy turns.

Here's another interesting article. Not being a climate scientist, I'm at a loss to debate the scientific merits of various arguments. This article discusses how the insurance industry is responding to the climate change problem.

"The insurance industry prepares for climate change"

I suspect that both the author and the person interviewed are what some would describe as "global warming enthusiasts." Still, I think looking at how the insurance industry responds to this issue is worthwhile. Insurance it is the world's largest industry and it is in the business of managing uncertainty and risk. It is not, as far as I know, committed to the downfall of western civilization. A quote:

For some time, the business community, specifically the oil and gas industry, has waged a campaign to magnify scientific uncertainties. Plus, they consistently highlight studies that show that controlling CO2 emissions creates burdensome economic costs. Why do the insurance companies buy into the science?

I would say that insurers are better equipped to understand and evaluate the science than most other industries, and they have no particular vested interest in propping up polluting industries. To the contrary, pollution liability is one of the emerging (often insured) risks that keep them up at night. They are also more vulnerable to the impacts; they can’t afford to overlook or be wrong about the science. Insurers who have looked at the climate-change issue closely see more burdensome economic costs from inaction than from prudent action, and, in fact, they are developing business opportunities associated with climate-change mitigation and adaptation solutions. They are also quick to recognize that investments in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions can be highly cost-effective in terms of reduced energy expenditures.

Insured losses from weather-related events in 2005 approached $80 billion (4 times those from 9/11), and that excludes a host of small-scale events that don’t appear in the official statistics. Insurers are the masters of analyzing and coping with uncertainty, and, based on the observed patterns of weather-related losses and [the] state of the art in modeling the future outlook, are increasingly convinced that climate change needs to be addressed. Insurers worked with us as coauthors on the insurance chapter in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report and are again involved in the Fourth Assessment, to be published next year.

Another interesting article. This was the topic of a Seattle P-I editorial a week or two ago. Rather than repeat the P-I's spin on it, here's a link to the original source from Lloyd's of London (emphasis added by me). The article urges the insurance industry to adapt faster to climate change.

Lloyd's of London: "Adapt or Bust"

He added: “Although it’s almost two decades since the UN recognised that climate change was a catastrophic threat to earth, it’s clear that the insurance industry has not taken catastrophe trends seriously enough. As an industry we must work together to understand and manage these new risks, and to change our behaviour.

[...]

The report also says that the industry needs to figure out how to work in partnership with governments and businesses to look for practical solutions to help society adapt to climate change. Such partnerships would help to mitigate risks such as the number of people living on coastlines, and kickstart work to reduce CO2 emissions.

And although most natural perils are insurable “as long as the market is free to price risk adequately”, Lloyd’s warns that long-term insurability of weather-related risk is by no means guaranteed because climate change is developing much faster than initially thought.

The message is clear, and is right there in the title – Adapt or Bust. As the report says in its introduction: “Climate change is likely to bring us all an even more uncertain future. If we do not take action now to understand the risks and their impact, the changing climate could kill us.”

One thing to note about the damage of 2005 is that much of what happened with Katrina in the New Orleans area was because of neglect of the levy and could have been prevented if the local govt had done the repairs years ago. Those 05 figures are a bit misleading.

Yes, perhaps Lloyds should hire some mathamatically and analytically inclined people to help them better analyze risks. If they had, for instance, a few actuaries on board, they might not miss such an obvious point!
: