Doing a little research and found insurance companies have hard data for about 200 years which show extreme weather events due to climate change are in fact increasing. The insurance companies attribute the increased damages to climate change.
He says, without referencing that purported "hard data", while completely ignoring the fact that storm intensity has in fact been decreasing, but the number of people building in flood zones has increased, as has the dollar value of the properties built, resulting in higher dollar losses for any given storm of any given intensity.
US Annual Count of Strong to Violent Tornadoes (F3+), 1954-2014
That's a declining trend.
And the Emanuel study from 2005 has been savaged by researchers... thoroughly debunked. He claimed an 80% increase in Cat4 and Cat5 hurricanes, and was roundly laughed at for his ludicrous assertion.
Even the warmists at the NOAA state that their purported 'global warming' (which is now actually cooling... what they've taken to calling a "warming hole'... a 'hole' which extends over North America, Europe, Asia... practically the entire northern hemisphere) hasn't increased hurricane intensity or frequency.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/05/global-warming-and-hurricanes-noaa-says-no-measurable-effect-yet/https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/19/a-new-paper-about-hurricanes-shatters-the-narrative/
That's no trend since 1970.
Then I had an idea, as a conservative
Saying so doesn't make it so, and you seem to feel a need to keep reminding us of that... yet you keep chugging the libtard koolaid.
I find it offensive that many think they can damage the environment and then get a free ride from the taxpayers so why not charge an extra insurance fee scaled to environmental damage?
Prove the damage. The planet has greened, storm intensity is down, crop production is up, hurricane intensity and frequency hasn't changed for 50 years, humanity is wealthier and healthier... how about we charge a fee to retards who build in a flood zone, instead? Stupidity should hurt, after all.
Why should I pay more taxes and insurance so some uneducated fossil fuel bimbo can see a profit?
That doesn't sound conservative at all... I think you're a libtard in sheep's clothing.
You see the taxpayer is in fact subsidizing the entire fossil fuel industry which does not pay for the damage they have caused thus in my opinion it is a socialist system.
This is the T17 mine in Kolwezi. where lithium is extracted for electric car batteries:
This is a reclaimed oil sands site in Alberta, Canada:
Tell us all again how
evil oil is, and how much better for the environment your electric car is.
:DThe conservative belief, my belief
You keep emphasizing that... almost as though you're trying to shift public opinion over to your libtard way of thinking. Strange, that.
is that there is no free lunch and everyone pays there own way so why are we collectively paying for damage the fossil fuel industry created?
How about the millions upon millions of birds and bats the windmills are killing, leading to crop loss due to increased insect numbers?
How about the lithium extraction mines despoiling the environment to provide lithium for electric cars, which have a lower overall efficiency from power plant to wheels than a modern internal combustion-engine'd vehicle (and that's not even taking into account that those batteries then have to be disposed of, nor that a lot of those supposedly 'more efficient' electric cars are powered from the 30.4% of coal-powered generation)?
How about the fact that solar cell manufacturing, shipping, installation and maintenance takes more energy than the solar cells will generate over their entire lifetime, while dumping all the pollutants for their manufacture, shipping and installation into the environment now, rather than a conventional power plant dribbling much less pollution out over the estimated 18 year lifespan of a typical solar panel? (That 18 year lifespan figure was from a massive empirical study which tracked actual solar panels and figured out their lifespan... many of them ceased functioning after hail or wind damage, and there's no reason to believe that'll change in the future. It's the same study which figured out every energy input from mining to manufacturing to shipping to installation and maintenance... and found the panels don't generate enough to cover that energy expenditure over their average lifespan... and you'll note the energy expenditure was primarily from fossil fuels. Funnily enough, the researchers were 'true believers' in solar, and set out to prove solar's superiority... they ended up proving the exact opposite.)
http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-panel-makers-grappling-with-waste-2013-2Quote from http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-panel-makers-grappling-with-waste-2013-2Fueled partly by billions in government incentives, the industry is creating millions of solar panels each year and, in the process, millions of pounds of polluted sludge and contaminated water.
Then you have to take into account that solar panels are
setting roofs on fire; that firefighters are
required to let a structure burn to the ground if the fire (no matter its cause) has reached the roof or attic space rather than attempt to put out the fire unless you've got specially-built solar panels which break the current inside each panel (only Munich, Germany has these to date) to avoid electrocution hazards; that they're easily damaged by hail or high winds; that their output wanes as they age; that they have to be kept clean or their output falls dramatically; that it takes 79 workers building and installing solar panels to equal the same power output equivalent of 1 coal worker or 2 natural gas workers (and you're paying their wages if you install solar, whether you admit it or not); that they radically destabilize the electric grid, causing electricity rates to skyrocket; and that they're classified as toxic waste when disposed of after their ~18 year lifespan (and you'll be paying to dispose of them).
That's not conservative, its a so called libtard socialist system designed to transfer wealth to the fossil fuel industry while we the taxpayer foot the bill for the damage done.
No, the libtards are the ones stealing taxpayer money to fund projects which do real damage to the environment.. many of which have failed.
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
See those 19 asterisks above? Yeah, those are the ones which went bankrupt... that taxpayer money could have been better spent elsewhere. That's a 57.57% failure rate, by the way. And that's not even taking into account the multiple billions of dollars of taxpayer money given to the purchasers of those solar panels as 'incentive'... if it's such a great idea, why does it need to be 'incentivized' to such a high degree? How about we let the market decide, without government meddling on the taxpayer's dime?
everyone pays there own way
Ah, I see you agree with all that I've written... is this a temporary sanity, or more long-term?
:DNot to mention pollution kills more people than all other diseases combined
Cite? Or is this yet another instance in which you've been gullible enough to chug the libtard koolaid?
According to the study you were gullible enough to go to a libtard site, read and completely believe, pollution killed 9 million people in 2015. There were 7.2 billion people alive in 2015, per the Population Reference Bureau. That's 0.125% of the population.
According to NIH,
deaths in 2015 due to:
All causes 1656/100,000 (1.656% of the population) <<<< NOTE: THIS BLOWS YOUR BLATHER OUT OF THE WATER
Infections 273/100,000 (0.273% of the population) <<<< NOTE: THIS BLOWS YOUR BLATHER OUT OF THE WATER
Neoplasms 242/100,000 (0.242% of the population) <<<< NOTE: THIS BLOWS YOUR BLATHER OUT OF THE WATER
Circulatory 653/100,000 (0.653% of the population) <<<< NOTE: THIS BLOWS YOUR BLATHER OUT OF THE WATER
Pregnancy 7/100,000 (0.007% of the population)
Perinatal 64/100,000 (0.064% of the population)
Injury 111/100,000 (0.111% of the population)
Other 307/100,000 (0.307% of the population)
Five of the biggest hallmarks of libtards:
1) They're notoriously bad at math.
2) They have no sense of scale.
3) They have no sense of history.
4) They're gullible enough to believe every scary story they manage to read.
5) They remain clue-repellent. Willingly so.
