© Copyright 2007-2024 iBankCoin All rights reserved under penalty of bodily harm. DISCLAIMER: This is a personal web site, reflecting the opinions of its author(s). It is not a production of my employer, and it is unaffiliated with any FINRA broker/dealer. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of anyone other than myself. The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only, and are not investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities. DATA INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE USERS "AS IS." NEITHER iBankCoin, NOR ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY THIRD PARTY DATA PROVIDER MAKE ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND REGARDING THE DATA INFORMATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE. Privacy Policy
damn that climate gate!
Bullshit. More like they have an eye for free U.N. money and are blowing smoke up environmentalist assholes to make it happen.
and since enviros are gullible beyond belief, they might even get some
http://www.defense.gov/qdr/qdr%20as%20of%2029jan10%201600.PDF
Crafting a Strategic Approach to Climate and Energy
Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment. Although they produce distinct types of challenges, climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked. The actions that the Department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the future.
Climate change will affect DoD in two broad ways. First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.
Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.
While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas. In some nations, the military is the only institution with the capacity to respond to a large-scale natural disaster. Proactive engagement with these countries can help build their capability to respond to such events. Working closely with relevant U.S. departments and agencies, DoD has undertaken environmental security cooperative initiatives with foreign militaries that represent a nonthreatening way of building trust, sharing best practices on installations management and operations, and developing response capacity.
Second, DoD will need to adjust to the impacts of climate change on our facilities and military capabilities. The Department already provides environmental stewardship at hundreds of DoD installations throughout the United States and around the
world, working diligently to meet resource efficiency and sustainability goals as set by relevant laws and executive orders. Although the United States has significant capacity to adapt to climate change, it will pose challenges for civil society and DoD alike, particularly in light of the nation’s extensive coastal infrastructure. In 2008, the National Intelligence Council judged that more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels. DoD’s operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, air, and sea training and test space. Consequently, the Department must complete a comprehensive assessment of all installations to assess the potential impacts of climate change on its missions and adapt as required.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-01/market-politicians-going-separate-ways-on-climate-change-view.html
Market, Politicians Going Separate Ways on Climate Change: View
By the Editors Sep 1, 2011 2:00 PM PT
Hurricane Irene’s residue is likely to include a confusing debate over whether insurers or property owners are responsible for storm-caused water damage. There’s no lack of clarity, however, over whether the insurance industry believes in climate change and its ties to lethal weather: It does.
As Bloomberg Businessweek reports in its Sept. 5 issue, the industry has absorbed many lessons from Sept. 11 about anticipating risk. One is that the recent spate of weather extremes is likely to continue — and the insurance market must reflect that.
Interestingly, this puts the industry at odds with a number of Republican candidates who have made questioning climate change a not-insignificant part of their campaign strategy. Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann dispute whether global warming is man-made. Perry suggests that climate is affected by many variables, which scientists can manipulate “so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.” Mitt Romney is on the fence. Only Jon Huntsman Jr. has declared definitively that he trusts scientists on global warming.
Politicians have been known to dissemble about risk because voters generally don’t like to hear bad news. The insurance industry makes its money telling it to you straight — how long you’ll probably live, what price your home will fetch, whether to repair or trade in your car.
Risk Models
For this reason, it’s worth noting that insurers already factor climate change into their models for measuring, pricing and distributing risk. Insurers have no incentive to lie. If they are more scared than they should be in pricing risk, shareholders will punish them. If they aren’t scared enough, nature will do the job.
No one can say for certain that any single weather event flows from the warmer air caused by carbon emissions, which in turn lead to more rainfall, floods and snowfall over some parts of the planet, and more drought in other parts. But last year was the hottest on record. Arctic ice is at record low levels. Regardless of what politicians say, insurers must factor all this into premiums.
… If elected officials want to help constituents prepare for disaster, they could fight for legislation to curb carbon emissions, and they could keep people from building along coastlines. Politicians have enjoyed enormous success calling scientists into question. The market may not prove to be such an easy target.
since you have to resort to ancient (September 1st) reports, here is something recent:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/life/greenpage/kent-arrives-for-durban-climate-conference-as-kyoto-withdrawal-aniticipated-135023043.html
from today
Munich Re Forms Climate Change-Driven Microinsurance Program for Caribbean
By Mark E. Ruquet, PropertyCasualty360.com
December 5, 2011
you’re not clever enough to notice that this news is not helping your argument. at all.
lol
just priceless
it’s an insurance company creating an insurance they will never have to pay out, you dolt.
liberals really are gullible
AGI
Canada soon no longer part of Kyoto protocol
LOL. AKA AIG.
Quick, call Al Gore
oh wait…
not even the people that believe in global warming support all of his ‘convenient lies’.
I’m not as well informed about climate change as some people, I have a bunch of stuff I set aside to read later so I can make up my mind and will probably do some research. There are claimes of climategate and claims that it was debunked, and now a 2nd ‘climategate’ there’s also information on lots of scientists claiming it’s bogus, but I have lots of information on the political
However, an important topic this brings up in my view is the politicization of science which is very real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science
Science has often been manipulated to support an agenda. So trusting science is something that should approach with skepticism. That’s not to say science doesn’t have practical uses, just that much like statistics, you can in fact lie with science and manipulate the info.