'Risks aren't worth it': QBE says parts of planet becoming uninsurable due to climate concerns

Originally posted by Scott th Ratbag: ↑

zipperdidodah, I'd love to join in the chuckle but unfortunately you are trying to make light of being tumbled off your fave hobby-horse of blaming the whole prob on over-population. This is a matter of a "ratbag(s) who want to believe a guess is a fact a possibility"... its what you're doing zip.

Its not a matter that can be diverted from. Its the actuality that needs to be addressed and you're simply trying be wag th dog dear boy.

Today the Lancet (medical journal) published the WHO he report, titled A Future for the World's Children?, (which) warns climate change,... threaten the health and future of children worldwide. I've taken this from the ABC report site but you can read the whole report https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32540-1/fulltext

"Researchers analysed data from 180 countries and compared performance on child survival and wellbeing, based on health, education, nutrition, equity and sustainability measures.

"Australia ranked 20th in the global "child flourishing" index for its performance on child survival. But it lagged on sustainability, coming in at 174 — putting it among the top 10 worst greenhouse gas emitters." (my bold) https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-02-19/lancet-commission-child-health-climate-change/11978048

So hey zip-dude its not a chuckling issue especially here in Aus. We've got to take this seriously and forget our past legacies and vested interests.

174/180 is pretty damned crap don't yer reckon?

Expand

If you set the correct parameters the statistician will give you your desired result, Scotty?

If I don’t look at who is below or who is above us dirty, thoughtless, un-caring, slackers of taking up the batten to lower our emissions and strive for lessen pollution types who sit on our hands at the bottom end of your particular graph/index would my guess be that USA-China-Russia-Trinidad/Tobago are higher on the list than us?

Dear Chap, these factors have always been relevant to the success of raising children even back when Moses was in short shorts.
Apparently he was a big believer in CC.

But can you please tell me how we can quantify these two pieces of information with a scientifically defined premise that does not suffer from personal/media bias and doesn’t suffer from the stench of special dispensation to others who may not be recognised because they’re poor or certain commitments are classed as outta bounds when looking for the next promotional sound bite to keep the faithful on their toes and their inner alarms ringing (no rest for the wicked and no rest for the pure of heart).

Do you ever see/read anything that claims to be a great reason as to why CC is responsible for something and think, WoW they’re drawing a very long bow with that statistically generated answer base on a premise that seems, a tad weak?

I may not be a believer but does that mean I reject everything that a believer believes?
Those who attack and ridicule others because they fail the zealots test may not be possibly helping the cause that they hold dear.
It is a fact!
You don’t catch as many monkeys with vinegar as you do with sugar and bully boy tactics and bombarding the population with media releases of fluff/opinion pieces dressed up with inspiring titles that pull at heartstrings, highlighting how bad we are with the obvious point being to give the faithful something to throw back at those monkeys who laugh at ya vinegar

PS I’m all for a cleaner world and for our societies to advance with healthier children (I have 3) but not believing the theory that you do, isn’t a crime is it?
Could you tell me how many scientists have signed up to your cause again, please?