- Thread starter
- #61
Climate Change
- Thread starter Kenneth82
- Start date
- 25,912
Hell, you only have +- 50 years. Go for it.
Here is a pretty cool interactive map of the earth over millions of years. You can easily see now why they have found fossils of whales and other sea creatures in the mountains.
Ancient Earth
Ancient Earth
- 5,460
You're so funny Todd. Everyone knows that the earth is only a several thousand years old. The bible says so. Silly Todd.
- 789
This definitely spiraled out of control, I just wanted to know with the suspected increase in claims for commercial insurance if I should endeavor in it or not.
Claims come with the business, whether it be commercial or personal lines. What would a 'suspected increase in claims' have anything to do with you getting into this business? If anything, it is a positive for Agents.
I just read today that hurricane Dorian + California wildfires will cause a 15% increase in reinsurance rates for all, surely to be passed down to the policyholders. Commercial Auto market is in terrible shape and some Carriers are expected to increase rates 20% next year. What this means for me is more commissions. Bring it!
On the flip side, rates for auto insurance in the future may be a fraction of what they are today due to driverless cars and collision avoidance. Some carriers predict 80% less. Granted this is 20 years away, but still, who wants to have a large personal auto book to see it get eaten away by lower premiums. Let alone, auto insurance it is a terrible market to compete in today.
If you should endeavor this is up to you, not the climate.
Good Luck!
- 5,884
That's a good one. We think we know how the earth look over 60 million years ago, and we where telling folks just a few short years ago not to eat eggs because they were bad for us. Are we still using the same science?
TheMedicareWizard
Super Genius
- 113
Bruh, nutritional science and climatology are two completely different things. Your humble egg analogy does not help whatever point you're trying to make.
- 5,884
As I would expect you to respond. Your lack of making the connection speaks volumes of your thinking process. And this is why we are where we are, using science to make our case rather than observing science to see what it is saying.
Science is being bent and formed to create public opinion. This is poor intellectualism is void of the proper use of logic at best and an evil intent of controlling the masses at worst. The egg is a very clear example of bad science used to bend and manipulate human behavior.
And I would add... in the strictest sense of the idea, science is science as gravity is gravity. The laws of science apply irregardless as to what field you my study, and in that regard they are not completely different but part of the whole. This type of thinking is why politics so often color the science we see.
TheMedicareWizard
Super Genius
- 113
I made the connection just fine. You're the one applying partisan beliefs to science. I mean, you almost made a good point in the first sentence of your last paragraph. Science is science. You can read and interpret the studies yourself instead of paying heed to public or political opinion about the studies. Only fools modify their diets based on news headlines (barring things like e-coli outbreaks). Anyone with a decent understanding of nutritional science, whether they lived in the 1950's or now, would be able to see through news media's black & white conclusions about particular foods.
A lot of climatology studies are available to the public as well. Unfortunately, there are so many hair-brained conspiracy theories about climate change that the painfully partisan among us have their minds made up before they even consider looking at the actual science. And look, I get it, a person with an average education (or a nonexistent education like axeman), probably can't make much sense of the studies. But they exist, and they're real. Science isn't high fantasy world building. Climatologists don't sit around rubbing their allegedly money-grubbing hands together, pulling carbon dating models out of their rears. The scientific community doesn't laugh folks out of the room for refusing to drink the hypothetical kool-aid you all seem to believe in. They welcome questioning the established models. They welcome evidence that might be contrary to the consensus. It makes it that much stronger.
I think the only somewhat convincing conspiracy anthropogenic climate change deniers have to hang their hats on is the notion that the super wealthy elite are cooperating among themselves to hoard the last remaining oil. Maybe that's enough to cook up a supposed hoax that humans are destroying the planet and convince them to adopt renewable energy. But claiming the actual science, not its interpretation, is bent to form public opinion? Get outta here with that nonsense.
- 5,884
Thank you for agreeing with me.
I now identify myself as being understood by you and you agreeing with me.
Similar threads
