One Clear Sign of Climate Change, Not That Retards Won't Still Be Retards

[martin]

Of course, higher urban density creates a much greater urban heat island effect that is far worse than Gorebal Warming ever was.

Ah, of course, those “urban heat islands” the scientists never heard of, and Al Gore got the science wrong, a gift if you're a denier that as the decades roll by keeps on giving, so it’s hard to imagine, isn’t it, why scientists aren’t listening to website posters, many of whom even went to college, but instead insist on keeping on with their research and publishing findings that just upset people who can take it when their swimming pools get hot to the touch.

 

[Diogenes]

Ah, of course, those “urban heat islands” the scientists never heard of, and Al Gore got the science wrong, so it’s hard to imagine, isn’t it, why scientists aren’t listening to website posters, many of whom even went to college, but instead insist on keeping on with their research and publishing findings that just upset people who can take it when their swimming pools get hot to the touch.

UHI is real. Cities are warmer than surrounding rural land because of pavement, buildings, waste heat, and reduced evapotranspiration. Nighttime minima rise more than daytime maxima. Station records in growing metro areas pick that up if you don’t adjust or if you overweight urban sites. Scientists have known this for decades; it’s not a secret website posters discovered.

Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data - Berkeley Earth

There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and...

berkeleyearth.org

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018509

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209552200133X

 

[cawacko]

Before people will change anything they have to believe it is needed. That change is what needs to be done.

Thinking about this further, it completely reminds me of housing in California.

A lot of people will acknowledge we have a housing crisis and housing is unaffordable for way too many people.

But propose new housing, anywhere near them, and they will fight life and death to stop it from being built. And since that happens throughout the entire state, we have our current crisis.

So simply getting people to acknowledge the crisis isn’t creating change. And the same goes for climate change people can acknowledge the issue, but it doesn’t mean they will agree on the measures to address it. And as I’ve shown with density, even if they know it will help they still fight against it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Ah, of course, those “urban heat islands” the scientists never heard of, and Al Gore got the science wrong, so it’s hard to imagine, isn’t it, why scientists aren’t listening to website posters, many of whom even went to college, but instead insist on keeping on with their research and publishing findings that just upset people who can take it when their swimming pools get hot to the touch.

Well, those that claim the environmental high ground on this listen to people like James "Hockey Stick" Hanson who based his theories on climate change on his mediocre master's thesis...

Just because someone is in a position of "scientist" doesn't mean they know what the hell they're talking about. Proof is in results. As stated earlier in the thread, If your predictions are wrong, you hypothesis is wrong. Climate is more than CO2 and in any complex system it is often difficult to impossible to figure out all the causes and issues.

Urban heat island effect is a well demonstrated principle. People like Brad Lancaster in Tucson have come up with alternatives that the usual crop of urban planners overlook because that's not what the mainstream teaches them at university.

Moderate urban density with a lot of greenbelt involved is far superior to high urban density in terms of climate. We have left the Industrial Age and are in the Electronics Age. More people today can work from wherever they are. The need to concentrate labor for factories and administrative facilities is no longer a need. Packing people into a dense urban landscape is no longer necessary.

 

[martin]

Proof is in results. As stated earlier in the thread, If your predictions are wrong, you hypothesis is wrong.

Fair point, thank you. This is a thread about insurance companies adjusting their fire damage (prediction) coverage in response to a heating climate (hypothesis).

 

[martin]

The anti-climate change argument is pathetically stupid. Always has been stupid. Because it is a problem of science confronted with considerations based on wishful thinking. So its advocates look for science based or at least science dressed counter arguments to nick at the margins, the Internet their ideal home. All the while the science itself marches on, firm or firmer today as it was twenty years ago that the climate is heating.

 

[Lionfish]

A last-resort insurance policy with fewer homeowner protections and less government oversight is booming, a Washington Post analysis finds, as traditional insurers continue to back away from areas of the country most vulnerable to extreme weather.

The policies are growing fastest in California, Florida, Texas and South Carolina because increasingly intensifying weather and massive disasters are putting more insurers on the hook for substantial claim payouts. Last year in California, insurance companies paid out $23 billion in homeowners claims, according to industry data.

The amount of premiums written under what is known as “surplus” or “excess” insurance lines has nearly tripled nationwide in the past five years, from about $1.5 billion in 2021 to $4.1 billion in 2025, according to data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) — which insurers submit to the organization — and analyzed by the independent firm Weiss Ratings and provided to The Post. The Post reviewed the data and the Weiss analysis.

While this represents only a small share of the total $187 billion in premiums written in the United States each year, according to the Weiss data, industry experts say they reflect a problem where Americans living in the most weather-exposed places are becoming harder to insure.

In 2025, the Treasury Department’s Federal Insurance Office released a report showing how, due to climate-related events, millions of Americans were finding it harder to obtain insurance and had to pay more for it.

And as more insurers pull back or limit coverage, more Americans have struggled to find it and have sought out surplus line plans. Independent brokers often steer homeowners to surplus policies when they cannot obtain a traditional plan, though carriers also advertise directly to consumers.

These once-niche policies, which date to the late 1800s, historically covered commercial, high-risk or unusual properties.
They can sometimes be more expensive and often have more limitations and restrictive clauses, including arbitration clauses stating that homeowners cannot select their own contractors or price adjusters.

Experts said they have fewer consumer protections, prompting some advocates and state regulators to warn that homeowners may get lower payouts in the event of a disaster.

California’s surplus line industry is expanding more than almost any other state, according to The Post and Weiss analysis of NAIC data, which only includes insurers based in the U.S. Since 2021, the amount of surplus premiums written in California increased tenfold from $135 million to nearly $1.3 billion, now accounting for 7 percent of all homeowners premiums in the state compared with just 1 percent five years ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2026/08/31/extreme-weather-escalates-this-last-resort-insurance-policy-is-booming/

 

[martin]

just the Right color.

 

[cawacko]

The anti-climate change argument is pathetically stupid. Always has been stupid. Because it is a problem of science confronted with considerations based on wishful thinking. So its advocates look for science based or at least science dressed counter arguments to nick at the margins, the Internet their ideal home. All the while the science itself marches on, firm or firmer today as it was twenty years ago that the climate is heating.

You obviously don't have to answer this and I'm not trying to fight you, but I am asking for the sake of discussion.

If someone says the climate does change and humans contribute to it but completely disagree with you on what should be done, is that ok because at least they acknowledge it?

Or going back to the housing density battle, are the people who say climate change is an existential crisis but fight against climate friendly housing policies like increased density near public transportation given a pass because they acknowledge climate change?

Because ultimately dealing with climate change involves trade offs and costs, and people who think climate change is real can disagree on what the best course of action should be given that.

 

[martin]

You obviously don't have to answer this and I'm not trying to fight you, but I am asking for the sake of discussion.

If someone says the climate does change and humans contribute to it but completely disagree with you on what should be done, is that ok because at least they acknowledge it?

That's a different discussion, maybe just slightly different, because again the arguments about "what should be done" are driven by immediate economic/political considerations supported by not facing up to what the science is telling us.

p.s. A more honest position would be for "deniers" to accept the science as is but argue the future is not their problem. In an underhanded way this is what they already are doing.

 

[Teflon Don]

A last-resort insurance policy with fewer homeowner protections and less government oversight is booming, a Washington Post analysis finds, as traditional insurers continue to back away from areas of the country most vulnerable to extreme weather.

The policies are growing fastest in California, Florida, Texas and South Carolina because increasingly intensifying weather and massive disasters are putting more insurers on the hook for substantial claim payouts. Last year in California, insurance companies paid out $23 billion in homeowners claims, according to industry data.

The amount of premiums written under what is known as “surplus” or “excess” insurance lines has nearly tripled nationwide in the past five years, from about $1.5 billion in 2021 to $4.1 billion in 2025, according to data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) — which insurers submit to the organization — and analyzed by the independent firm Weiss Ratings and provided to The Post. The Post reviewed the data and the Weiss analysis.

While this represents only a small share of the total $187 billion in premiums written in the United States each year, according to the Weiss data, industry experts say they reflect a problem where Americans living in the most weather-exposed places are becoming harder to insure.

In 2025, the Treasury Department’s Federal Insurance Office released a report showing how, due to climate-related events, millions of Americans were finding it harder to obtain insurance and had to pay more for it.

And as more insurers pull back or limit coverage, more Americans have struggled to find it and have sought out surplus line plans. Independent brokers often steer homeowners to surplus policies when they cannot obtain a traditional plan, though carriers also advertise directly to consumers.

These once-niche policies, which date to the late 1800s, historically covered commercial, high-risk or unusual properties.
They can sometimes be more expensive and often have more limitations and restrictive clauses, including arbitration clauses stating that homeowners cannot select their own contractors or price adjusters.

Experts said they have fewer consumer protections, prompting some advocates and state regulators to warn that homeowners may get lower payouts in the event of a disaster.

California’s surplus line industry is expanding more than almost any other state, according to The Post and Weiss analysis of NAIC data, which only includes insurers based in the U.S. Since 2021, the amount of surplus premiums written in California increased tenfold from $135 million to nearly $1.3 billion, now accounting for 7 percent of all homeowners premiums in the state compared with just 1 percent five years ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2026/08/31/extreme-weather-escalates-this-last-resort-insurance-policy-is-booming/

You are conflating two separate issues to push your partisan agenda.

Yes, premiums are going up for places that are prone to hurricanes, earthquakes, floods etc.

As we head into peak hurricane season, we will hear more from the climate alarmists. But the issue is that people keep building in places they probably shouldn't build which creates more insurance burden. Couple that with inflation and the higher costs to build it gets very expensive.

The issue is whether the WEATHER is caused by "MAN MADE" climate change. Again, this is where you marxists try to conflate issues. Nobody disagrees that the climate changes. It has for millennia. What is in dispute is whether man and any of his activities has or can impact.

I argue it hasn't and it cannot.

If I asked you tomorrow to go out and melt an iceberg, how would you do it?

The left has taken a natural phenomenon and turned it into a political issue. The right made the biggest mistake in the world by merely laughing at them when Al Gore started this bullshit in the 90s. But, this crap got pushed in our schools and now we have a whole generation that has bought into a complete scam.

Not one prediction from the climate alarmists has come to pass. Not one. Yet they shamelessly peddle their nonsense.

 

[Nordberg]

Corporations and the military knew that global warming, as scientists said, was real and a serious problem to deal with. Corporations are ignoring the anti-science types and proceeding as well as they can with preparing for it. The military was well advanced in taking on global warming until Republicans forced them not to. Global warming,just as scientists said, is real, and we have to deal with it.

 

[Teflon Don]

That's a different discussion, maybe just slightly different, because again the arguments about "what should be done" are driven by immediate economic/political considerations supported by not facing up to what the science is telling us.

p.s. A more honest position would be for "deniers" to accept the science as is but argue the future is not their problem. In an underhanded way this is what they already are doing.

There is ZERO science behind what you peddle. ZERO.

Everything that you believe is predicated on models. Models that are predicated on ASSUMPTIONS. Trust me, I can make a model say anything I want it to say by fucking around with the assumptions.

You have bought into a scam. Of course you are too far gone now and can never admit you were wrong.

 

[martin]

As a climate change "denier" Teflon Don knows the drill.

 

[Crepitus]

Most threads on climate issues on here turn into the same partisan bickering and don't actually go anywhere.

With the obvious caveat that nothing we say here changes anything in the real world, what would you like seen done here?

Because I'm passionate about the need for new housing I'll speak about that and the Bay Area, but it's by no means exclusive to us. We have a housing shortage and a lot of people care about the environment. One way to deal with both is building higher density housing in areas near public transit.

Yet you will find a lot of people who fight that tooth and nail. And the result is less housing built and often when it is built it's built further and further out meaning more people in cars and much longer commutes.

That's just one example but it speaks to real world realities trumping ideological beliefs. Getting people to change their lifestyle is a lot easier said than done.

What needs doing is for the government, both sides, to start paying attention to the actual science and not the oil industry lobbyiests.

That leads to this kinda stupidity:

There is ZERO science behind what you peddle. ZERO.

Everything that you believe is predicated on models. Models that are predicated on ASSUMPTIONS. Trust me, I can make a model say anything I want it to say by fucking around with the assumptions.

You have bought into a scam. Of course you are too far gone now and can never admit you were wrong.

 

[cawacko]

That's a different discussion, maybe just slightly different, because again the arguments about "what should be done" are driven by immediate economic/political considerations supported by not facing up to what the science is telling us.

p.s. A more honest position would be for "deniers" to accept the science as is but argue the future is not their problem. In an underhanded way this is what they already are doing.

I'm struggling with the idea that economic considerations and tradeoffs mean we're not facing what the science is telling us. Tradeoffs are inevitable.

If reducing our impact on the climate were the only consideration we wouldn't drive cars, fly on planes and do countless other things we do that contribute to emissions. Taken to the logical extreme, the planet would be better off if none of us were here.

My point is that no one makes every decision based on what is best for the planet. We balance that against economic costs, quality of life and other things.

That's where the debate over the policy comes in.

 

[cawacko]

What needs doing is for the government, both sides, to start paying attention to the actual science and not the oil industry lobbyiests.

That leads to this kinda stupidity:

Ok, so what should be done?

I gave the example of housing density around public transportation as a policy way to get people out of their cars and helping to stop sprawl, but even people who say climate change is an existential crisis will fight against it if its in their neighborhood.

That's just one example of course but it shows the challenge of what we're dealing with.

 

[cawacko]

What needs doing is for the government, both sides, to start paying attention to the actual science and not the oil industry lobbyiests.

That leads to this kinda stupidity:

And since you brought up the government, I'll bring up politicians.

We regularly hear politicians talk about kitchen table issues and affordability and bringing down prices. But if we're being honest, addressing climate change is going to mean some things will cost more. That is part of the tradeoff.

It's a lot harder to get elected of course running on a platform that says you will pay more to deal with climate change, but if it's an existential crisis shouldn't they be doing that?

 

[martin]

I'm struggling with the idea that economic considerations and tradeoffs mean we're not facing what the science is telling us. Tradeoffs are inevitable.

If reducing our impact on the climate were the only consideration we wouldn't drive cars, fly on planes and do countless other things we do that contribute to emissions. Taken to the logical extreme, the planet would be better off if none of us were here.

My point is that no one makes every decision based on what is best for the planet. We balance that against economic costs, quality of life and other things.

That's where the debate over the policy comes in.

Tradeoffs certainly are inevitable. What the tradeoffs should be, however, ought to be determined in light of the science rather than in a dishonest minimization of it.

 

[cawacko]

Tradeoffs certainly are inevitable. What the tradeoffs should be, however, ought to be determined in light of the science rather than in a dishonest minimization of it.

I understand that in the abstract but what does 'determined in the light of science' look like in the real world?

Not to belabor it, but I keep going back to the housing density example. How should the government decide on that 'determined in the light of science' compared to the pushback from people who put them in office who don't want it in their neighborhood?