Study Highlights Industry’s Potential Climate Change Liabilities

May 29, 2007

  • May 29, 2007 at 7:30 am
    Gill Fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Has anyone noticed that every year or two it is a new \’crisis du jour\’? Why is that? Am I too cynical because I notice that newschannels must have a lead story to sell advertising? And we all just follow along without questioning the validity or veracity of the so called news. Something like 70% of Americans say they are dissatisfied with life in the US. What a joke. Our lives are better today than at any time in our history, yet those polled make it seem like we have some kind of worries, thanks in large part to the media. I read a newsweek story about global warming and insurance. Now when has Newsweek ever concerned themselves with insurance? I googled the author, from San Francisco, and found that she had worked the Clinton white house as a beat reporter, and was a big fan of Al Gore (she even did a radio interview I listened to about Gorebal).
    Coincidence that a Gore fan would write an article about Gorebal warming and insurance? Maybe it is coincidence.
    I tend to think at the end of the day its about money. People now have something to talk about (Gorebal Warming), but who has changed anything about their lives with the questionable news? Even my tree hugging Big D friends still do the same things they did before this latest, predictable, and by no means the last great revelation. Heretofore referred to as \’crisis du jour\’.

  • May 29, 2007 at 7:39 am
    adjusterjoe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nice to see a competent level headed discussion about something here at IJ. Although it is easy to see why, as the triumvirate of ignorance is not involved in the discusion.

    To those in support of global warming being a fact, have you never read opposing views and/or studies? Why dismiss opposing views so quickly? It is far from being a settled fact that human made greenhouse gasses are causing global warming.

  • May 29, 2007 at 8:41 am
    Gill Fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    We are inundated by the \’sky is falling\’
    mantra, but nothing has changed. Memorial Day weekend still had tons of traffic, folks still had campfires, more monster trucks on the road than ever, with every gasoline powered toy known to man on trailers. Are we to just wring our hands for a few months about Gorebal warming, then back to doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING WE HAVE BEEN DOING? Hell yes, thats what will happen. Because change is very difficult. And where are the real leaders, those who would make a workable policy, tell us that this is the program, and off we go? People ***** about gas at $3.50 a gallon but wring their hands about Gorebal Warming. I pray it really is about money, and the inconvenient theory is incorrect, because if we really did have to make changes we are in a world of ****. When pithy, one of a kind remarks are outlawed, only outlaws will have pithy, one of a kind remarks.

  • May 29, 2007 at 9:34 am
    Tyrone Colbert says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Check out this website for more info….
    http://www.aajasf.org/boardbios/pattitom.html

  • May 29, 2007 at 1:45 am
    Skeptical in WA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What crap. A field day for the attorneys looms.

  • May 29, 2007 at 1:58 am
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This whole global warming crock of $@%^ will all be a big joke in five years.

    Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel\’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. \”\”Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” \”Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming\” and \”it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 \”will not dramatically increase the global temperature.\” “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don\’t add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.

  • May 29, 2007 at 2:55 am
    tiger says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    When is this bull$%^& going to stop? Don\’t these insurance companies know that institutionalizing this crap is just going to make it harder to undo after everyone figures out global warming is nonsense? We should sue insurance carriers on behalf of policyholders for wasting their money (or policyholder premium) on meetings, research and \”new\” insurance products for a freaking myth.

  • May 29, 2007 at 3:02 am
    Tiger says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is not the insurance companies, it is this publication. The insurance companies I talk to are not concerned about this as a long term issue, religious movements are not part of their actuaries.

  • May 29, 2007 at 3:09 am
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Everything must be politicized – retirement (Social Security), health care (Medicare/Medicare, next: Hillarycare), education (govt schools), wages (as in minimum), employment (ya gotta hire anyone who walks in the door), the family (\”Heather Has Two Mommies), now the dang weather (global warming). Hubris knows no bounds.

    Insurance Journal would be doing its readers a huge favor by presenting the side of those who know that it is all bunk. Apparently they think that alarmist leftwing drivel generates responses and readership, because the truth is just too boring.

  • May 29, 2007 at 3:18 am
    gill fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Follow the money, and lets make some too!
    Can\’t you see the motive here? Probably the big drivers in this movement have a lot invested in the Gorebal Warming ruse.
    Lets jump on board as well. We can start by investing in auto makers who put out the hybrids (half gas, half ripoff). Do that for 9-12 months while this ponzi scheme plays out. Also anything with the word \’green\’ in it. But don\’t wait too long to get out. When it tanks it will tank quickly.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features