Houston-area school board votes to remove 13 chapters from state-approved science textbooks, citing controversial topics

[rambot]

In this particular instance - yes, that is my opinion.

So listening to experts is of no consequence? You'll just listen to ANYONE AT ALL give to opposing opinions and give equal credence to both?

 

[rambot]

Try this

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiJ7JSHyJCGAxVBxzgGHULiB14QFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0IERg1bK7Gui1NUZ_2h-W4

ROFL. Okay. A bit more direct. I think it's gonna be a bit of a gish gallop there.

I am curious if a poster understands and accepts the basic underpinnings of AGW.

 

[Zaha Torte]

There's nothing condescending in that. You chose the word "believe". I don't "believe". I answered you specifically.

I know. I assumed you specifically chose the word "believe" in an attempt to the copious amounts of data and research that supports the theory.



That's not attacking your integrity. I explained how I understood your post. If I misunderstood your post, please feel free to correct me; I recognize nobody (myself included) always represents themselves in type how they mean to.



I am of the opinion that you made the initial claim and that you could explain yourself in greater detail.


Did you read my last post? I explained that I need to FIRST understand what they don't know. Otherwise me teaching them is beating my head against a brick wall.

But let's try some evidence then.

What, in this experiment do you take umbrage with?

Perhaps we did talk past each other earlier.

Thank you for sharing that video.

Why do you believe that the experiment conducted in the video is evidence for your initial claim?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Try this

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiJ7JSHyJCGAxVBxzgGHULiB14QFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0IERg1bK7Gui1NUZ_2h-W4

I really appreciate the source. I did a quick perusal but did not find what I was looking for.

Would you mind pointing out which section I should read?

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

I have not seen a presentation of facts that left me convinced of those conclusions.

The New York Tines’s podcast The Daily just had an episode today (May 15, 2024) about how climate changing is affecting home owners insurance. ‎The Daily: The Possible Collapse of the U.S. Home Insurance System on Apple Podcasts

Long story short: you may not believe climate change is happening, but insurance companies whose only idealogical ideal is “Make more money” are acting like it does and are going to make sure you wallet believes it is as well.

 

[Zaha Torte]

The New York Tines’s podcast The Daily just had an episode today (May 15, 2024) about how climate changing is affecting home owners insurance. ‎The Daily: The Possible Collapse of the U.S. Home Insurance System on Apple Podcasts

Long story short: you may not believe climate change is happening, but insurance companies whose only idealogical ideal is “Make more money” are acting like it does and are going to make sure you wallet believes it is as well.

Huh - I wonder if they have any other incentive to do that. Is the government involved in insurance in any way?

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Huh - I wonder if they have any other incentive to do that. Is the government involved in insurance in any way?

Are you accusing insurance companies of failing their fiduciary duty to their shareholders by not having money as their primary goal? That is serious allegation. I’d suggest you put forth some evidence if you are going to run your mouth like that.

 

[rambot]

Perhaps we did talk past each other earlier.

Thank you for sharing that video.

Why do you believe that the experiment conducted in the video is evidence for your initial claim?

It's a building block.

As you are unwilling to clearly delineate where your issues is with AGW, I am having to cut a wide swath.

Again, do you have any problems with the information presented in the video?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Are you accusing insurance companies of failing their fiduciary duty to their shareholders by not having money as their primary goal? That is serious allegation. I’d suggest you put forth some evidence if you are going to run your mouth like that.

A rather disproportionate response to a honest question.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

A rather disproportionate response to a honest question.

Your first reaction to this is making allegations of a sinister government conspiracy theory is only an honest question? Really?

 

[Zaha Torte]

It's a building block.

As you are unwilling to clearly delineate where your issues is with AGW, I am having to cut a wide swath.

Again, do you have any problems with the information presented in the video?

It was very educational. I would have no issue with that experiment showing how CO2 trapped in a plastic bottle can increase the temperature.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Your first reaction to this is making allegations of a sinister government conspiracy theory is only an honest question? Really?

I never made any allegations of a sinister government conspiracy.

I have no idea how big or little influence government has over insurance companies.

I mean - I know there are all kinds of regulations and things - but I don't really know any details.

So that leads me to wonder why an industry whose only focus is to make money is willing to lose it?

What other reason could there be besides the only other thing that I know of that has cost them money in the past - government regulation?

I am just asking questions.

Feel free to make more doodles of boogeymen.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

I never made any allegations of a sinister government conspiracy.

I have no idea how big or little influence government has over insurance companies.

I mean - I know there are all kinds of regulations and things - but I don't really know any details.

So that leads me to wonder why an industry whose only focus is to make money is willing to lose it?

What other reason could there be besides the only other thing that I know of that has cost them money in the past - government regulation?

I am just asking questions.

Feel free to make more doodles of boogeymen.

The insurance companies aren’t seeking to lose money. They are raising premiums to cover any payouts they will have to make. Or they are simply not insuring people they don’t think they can make money covering.

So thinking the government is doing this to force insurance companies to lose money is nowhere close to reality.

 

[Zaha Torte]

The insurance companies aren’t seeking to lose money. They are raising premiums to cover any payouts they will have to make. Or they are simply not insuring people they don’t think they can make money covering.

So thinking the government is doing this to force insurance companies to lose money is nowhere close to reality.

Great. So why did you bring all of this up again?

 

[rambot]

It was very educational. I would have no issue with that experiment showing how CO2 trapped in a plastic bottle can increase the temperature.

Do you believe that it was the plastic bottle and gases present that caused the temperature to increase?

Because there was a control group right beside it and rhe only variable was the gases present.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Do you believe that it was the plastic bottle and gases present that caused the temperature to increase?

Because there was a control group right beside it and rhe only variable was the gases present.

The temperature of the bottle that had CO2 introduced into it rose higher than the one that did not have CO2.

 

[Gene2memE]

I really appreciate the source. I did a quick perusal but did not find what I was looking for.

What specifically are you looking for?

Would you mind pointing out which section I should read?

Pages 4-7 inclusive.

If you want to better understand the physical science basis and how human behaviours are leading to both global warming and warming-induced climate change, then the IPCC is a really good place to start.

The 2021 version in particular goes to great pains to break out the subject into discrete topics such as paleoclimate, how we know human influence is causing climate change, how much the earth is warming, how much the earth could warm, the various axes of radiative forcing and what the impacts are and what they could be.

Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis

The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report addresses the most up-to-date physical understanding of the climate system and climate change, bringing together the latest advances in climate science.

www.ipcc.ch

I'd recommend starting with Chapter 3, as that seems to be your main area of skepticism.

 

[Paulos23]

The insurance companies aren’t seeking to lose money. They are raising premiums to cover any payouts they will have to make. Or they are simply not insuring people they don’t think they can make money covering.

So thinking the government is doing this to force insurance companies to lose money is nowhere close to reality.

I will second this since I work at an insurance company. Insurance companies are heavily regulated and their costs and earnings are on display, and for good reason since many have tried to pull insurance scams in the past. Insurance companies are there to help soften the blow of an unexpected loss. In the past insurance companies that were good at figuring the odds of loss could spread the cost of that loss around many insureds and cover it.

Now, with state departments of insurance not willing to let rates rise too fast (or in some states, not at all) insurance companies are refusing to cover some types of risk. Wildfires, Hail, and Hurricanes, all of them are changing because the climate is changing. A warming climate is making all of these stronger and harder to predict, and insurance companies can't charge enough to cover the predicted loss.

 

[Zaha Torte]

What specifically are you looking for?

Evidence that climate change is an imminent threat and that the choices of human beings is the lead cause of it.

Pages 4-7 inclusive.

If you want to better understand the physical science basis and how human behaviours are leading to both global warming and warming-induced climate change, then the IPCC is a really good place to start.

The 2021 version in particular goes to great pains to break out the subject into discrete topics such as paleoclimate, how we know human influence is causing climate change, how much the earth is warming, how much the earth could warm, the various axes of radiative forcing and what the impacts are and what they could be.

Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis

The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report addresses the most up-to-date physical understanding of the climate system and climate change, bringing together the latest advances in climate science.

www.ipcc.ch

I'd recommend starting with Chapter 3, as that seems to be your main area of skepticism.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I will second this since I work at an insurance company. Insurance companies are heavily regulated and their costs and earnings are on display, and for good reason since many have tried to pull insurance scams in the past. Insurance companies are there to help soften the blow of an unexpected loss. In the past insurance companies that were good at figuring the odds of loss could spread the cost of that loss around many insureds and cover it.

Now, with state departments of insurance not willing to let rates rise too fast (or in some states, not at all) insurance companies are refusing to cover some types of risk. Wildfires, Hail, and Hurricanes, all of them are changing because the climate is changing. A warming climate is making all of these stronger and harder to predict, and insurance companies can't charge enough to cover the predicted loss.

So the company's unwillingness to cover those types of risk are because of the regulations by the State?