Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 10 Feb '11 08:33
    ProClim- is the Swiss forum for climate and global change issues. It seeks to facilitate both integrated research activities and the necessary linkages among scientists, policy-makers and the public at home and abroad.

    They have issued, in concert with a major insurer Swiss Re, a well organised examination of GW skeptic arguments, grouped into three categories.
    A good resource based on science. It is a PDF.

    http://media.swissre.com/documents/rethinking_factsheet_climate_sceptic.pdf
  2. 06 Mar '11 21:22
    Originally posted by Taoman
    ProClim- is the Swiss forum for climate and global change issues. It seeks to facilitate both integrated research activities and the necessary linkages among scientists, policy-makers and the public at home and abroad.

    They have issued, in concert with a major insurer Swiss Re, a well organised examination of GW skeptic arguments, grouped into three catego ...[text shortened]... nce. It is a PDF.

    http://media.swissre.com/documents/rethinking_factsheet_climate_sceptic.pdf
    google only gets a few hits on this document.

    http://www.google.com/cse?cx=002683415331144861350%3Atsq8didf9x0&
    q=rethinking_factsheet_climate_sceptic.pdf&ie=utf-8&sa=Search

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/25/zorita-on-sea-level/

    Laurent Cavin
    Posted Jun 25, 2010 at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Unrelated (sorry to post it in this thread….)

    Swiss Re (Reinsurance company) published a refutation of skeptics arguments. If anybody’s interested, see http://media.swissre.com/documents/rethinking_factsheet_climate_sceptic.pdf

    It contains for instance a short discussion of Mann’s Hockey Stick and makes short work of Steve’s work:

    The alternative results presented by MM as well as by Soon/Balliunas were shown to be biased by omitting relevant data and application.[...] the results of MM show a warm period in the 14/15th century, ie during the beginning of the Little Ice Age. This is in contrast to all other independent reconstructions.


    Regards,

    Laurent

    *
    BillyBob
    Posted Jun 25, 2010 at 5:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Doesn’t Mann’s Hockey Stick show 1350 – 1425 as the 2nd/3rd warmest pre-1900 period?

    Isn’t that the 14th and 15th centuries?

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg
    *
    David S
    Posted Jun 25, 2010 at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve
    You might want to think about demanding a retraction. The Chief Executive is Stefan Lippe and the Chairman is Walter Kielholz. Oddly enough, the marketing director is called Lies.
    *
    Tom Gray
    Posted Jun 25, 2010 at 9:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It appears that these people have no understanding of Steve mcIntyre’s work.
    *
    Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Jun 25, 2010 at 11:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Laurent Calvin. Swiss Re fail at Figure 1. The reference term of years 1961-1990 is below zero for all graphs given, when it should average to zero by convention. What is more, data from various sources should give the same average (zero) over the reference period. They do not.

    Why read further when the first test fails? Elapsed test time to first error, 3 minutes.
    o
    Laurent Cavin
    Posted Jun 26, 2010 at 7:42 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Well, I did not say anything about them being right or wrong. I just wanted to share the link with all of you, and especially Steve as his work is criticized..

    One thing I must say however – even if I am not convinced by their document – is that Swiss Re puts its money where its mouth is.

    Let me explain: one could pretend scientists have an advantage of supporting the “consensus” in order to get another grant or a better position. But the Insurance company is basing its policy, i.e. its forecasts and its calculations of premium, on the reality of Global Warming. They have no specific interests for that, and one could argue that they could loose money if they bet wrong. For me that a slightly more “neutral” opinion, and if they are convinced enough to publish a (definitively not neutral) refutation of skepticism, that’s a strong statement.

    My 2 cents…
    +
    BillyBob
    Posted Jun 26, 2010 at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “They have no specific interests for that”

    Using one example, the AGW side claims it will increase the number of hurricanes. It that was so, claims for huricanes will rise. And therefore insurance companies wil raise rates and/or offset some of their potential claims by buying reinsurance from a reinsurance company.

    If fearmongering leads to more business but no more claims, then its a big financial win for a reinsurance company.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance
  3. 06 Mar '11 21:22
    it appears the insurance industry has the AGW Warmists wrapped around their little fingers.
  4. 06 Mar '11 21:23
    what a way to jack up premiums! and look good while doing it!