Over at the NY Times, which is known for allowing both sides to provide viewpoints (sic), Warmist Maggie Koerth-Baker is super concerned about what hotcoldwetdry might do to the insurance industry
In March 1947, a winter of heavy snowfall followed by a quick thaw and torrents of rain swelled rivers throughout England and Wales. Over the course of just 13 days, at least 27,000 homes and businesses were flooded. It was one of the worst natural disasters in British history. But thanks to climate change, which can prevent the thick snowpack from which spring floods draw their strength, that sort of flood may be less likely to happen today.
Kinda what we’ve been seeing around a good chunk of the world, as the last 4 out of 5 winters have been brutal. Oh, and the late 40’s was a time of dipping temperatures. I do find it interesting that Maggie uses monster snows to push her science religion.
The seemingly inexorable (and increasingly irreversible) march of planetary warming is something we tend to associate with increased devastation — floods and famine, droughts and storms. In many cases, that’s true. But there’s a reason scientists prefer the term “climate change†to “global warming†— not everything is getting warmer. As the global average temperature rises, it alters weather systems, changing patterns of heat and cold and shifting wind currents. Risk is redistributed along with them.
See? Global warming causes cooling too! Nothing can ever disprove their pet cult doctrine, hence the name change to “climate change”.
Anyhow, the rest is about how the insurance industry is, like, super concerned, but there are a few who are taking advantage of this political issue and making some good money off of it being responsible or something.
As more groups like the Geneva Association call for risk models that account for climate change, politicians are going to get a different message. Denying climate change isn’t just foolish — it’s bad for business.
What Maggie and the rest of the Warmists do not seem to understand is that virtually no one denies that the climate changes, nor that the Earth is currently in one of its warm periods, which have been going on between cool periods since the end of the last glacial age 20,000 years ago. What we are debating is the cause of this warm period. Some will maintain that it is solely natural. I will maintain that it is mostly natural, with some anthropogenic forcings, mostly at the local level, ie, the Urban Heat Island Effect.
Weather can be bad for business. A cool period similar to the Little Ice Age would be much worse. Mankind has thrived during the warm periods during the Holocene, most of which were much warmer than the Modern Warm Period. If you really want to know what’s going on from the Warmist POV, follow the money and politics. Oh, and the last thing we need from Warmists, mostly part of the Progressive crowd, are ideas on How To Make Economies Work.
