Political Forums - The insurance companies are not science challenged

Page 1 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)

- Economy (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=27)

- - The insurance companies are not science challenged (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=1990)

d-ray657

12-01-2010 08:33 AM

The insurance companies are not science challenged

I heard a story on NPR's Marketplace last night about how the insurance companies are true believers in global warming. It is now a central part of insurance company coverage and underwriting decisions. They see the effects of global warming in their bottom line. Accordingly, they hire the scientists to study the risks, and they have determined that the risk is real. It appears that industries will only turn a blind eye to science if the scientific conclusions hurt their bottom line - isn't that right Big Oil?

Just do a Google search for "Insurance and global warming" and you will find dozens of stories.

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal

12-01-2010 08:46 AM

gee, maybe the oild companies have a motive to believe as they do?:rolleyes:

piece-itpete

12-01-2010 10:37 AM

The climate changes all the time. The issue in doubt is how, and most important why.

Pete

d-ray657

12-01-2010 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete (Post 45968)

The climate changes all the time. The issue in doubt is how, and most important why.

Pete

The weather changes all of the time; the climate not so much. They're taking into account more and more severe storms because the temperature of the ocean has gone up and greater concern with flooding because of the higher sea level. We're not just talking about one mild winter or one rainy summer.

Regards,

D-Ray

Charles

12-01-2010 12:20 PM

Just another excuse to jack up your rates, or deny your claim.

If you ever read your policy, you will find that the party best protected is the insurance company itself.

Chas

finnbow

12-01-2010 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles (Post 45995)

Just another excuse to jack up your rates, or deny your claim.

If you ever read your policy, you will find that the party best protected is the insurance company itself.

Chas

+1. The answer to this and all similar questions is "follow the money."

piece-itpete

12-01-2010 12:32 PM

So we're on the same page D, I'm not either (talking about one or two events).

The climate does change, sometimes rather suddenly, with catastrophic consequences. We've been pretty lucky the few hundred years all things considered.

And geological events as well. One thing I can think of, they believe there is a super volcano awaiting under Yellowstone, that has erupted before. And the whole CA thing. NO was bad, but not violent. Wait till a major city gets wiped out.

Anyway even assuming the humans-did-it crowd is correct (although they have no proof), it took all of human endeavour to do it accidently. There is no way to reverse it, we're talking terraforming on a scale beyond anything conceived before, beyond most folks comprehension. Probably beyond our ability into the forseeable future. And consider that China is bringing a new coal fired power plant online every week.

My take, if the sea level is going to rise, it's time to move to higher ground.

(where's the blah blah blah smiley when you need it? :))

Pete

finnbow

12-01-2010 12:56 PM

I think you're on to something, Pete. I'm inclined to believe that global warming may exist, but from a pragmatic point-of-view I'm not sure we have the money or the technological capability to do anything meaningful about it (particularly if China and India don't play).

If you look at it in terms of dollars spent per live saved, there are lots of things that are better investments than spending gazillions to ensure that sea level doesn't go up a couple of feet in the next century (if the expenditure of gazillions could even guarantee that result). Providing clean drinking water and child immunizations to African nations comes to mind.

merrylander

12-01-2010 02:25 PM

At 400 feet above sea level - what me worry? Since there are so many bull shit artists convincing the public otherwise, I imagine Wall Street will go under - the waves that is.

piece-itpete

12-01-2010 02:46 PM

Finn, do you watch RTs' crossfire? It's kinda no holds barred, very entertaining.

They pitted a climate change skeptic, a wild looking English scientist (is it the hair?), against a very polite Nordic believer. The Brit said just about that.

I'm for clean for clean's sake, I love the outdoors. But they are talking so much money. I'm with you. Build to prepare for the rise? Start cleaning up the heavy metals becoming prevalent worldwide? [Male sperm count is way down, and frogs are dying off.]

And growth in income is the last word in pollution control and population control - 'they' (don't remember who) say at a given income level, folks start to worry about A, then B, etc. Makes sense, who cares about the planet when you're starving. But then, when you're at 100k apparently you have to buy a 3500 sf house & accessories, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Or terraform Mars :D Rob, we'll leave Wall Street behind lol.

Pete

d-ray657

12-02-2010 09:14 AM

You think the US is a large energy consumer?

http://i642.photobucket.com/albums/u...902b34ab71.jpg

Somebody turn the lights off when we leave.

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete

12-02-2010 12:33 PM

The report appears to be aimed at contingency planning: "The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable—to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security,...”, "We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately."

Far, far from no doubt. Regardless, what do you think we should do?

Pete

piece-itpete

12-02-2010 12:35 PM

Btw D I love those types of pics. It shows that the Greater Cleveland area, or perhaps the 'northeat Ohio region' (Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown, Ashtabula) is much larger than people think :)

Isn't the northern seaboard amazing?

Pete

finnbow

12-02-2010 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete (Post 46034)

Btw D I love those types of pics. It shows that the Greater Cleveland area, or perhaps the 'northeat Ohio region' (Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown, Ashtabula) is much larger than people think :)

Pete

Speaking of Cleveland, are you going to the Lebron-athon tonight? This game (Miami - Cleveland) is getting as much hype as his decision to sign with Miami in the first place. Give it a friggin' rest, Cleveland (and ESPN).;)

piece-itpete

12-02-2010 01:44 PM

Data, hmm. The data says the temp went up. The data does not say why.

He says repeatedly that we need to look at the science, as if they have proof. They do not.

As a matter of fact, the models so assuredly 'proving' things are wrong. And one thing he doesn't mention - they don't run backwards accurately.

So the two ways they could prove their accuracy - accurately predicting the future, and accurately corresponding to the past - they fail at. They don't have enough data :)

But it would come as no surprise to me that human activity is influencing things. Heck, we're destroying the planet regardless.

So OK, say humans are changing the planet temperature. What then? Kyoto is an unmitigated failure - basically, the signatories lied or were at least full of crap. And even if they didn't, it wouldn't have stopped a darn thing!

Yes, it looks bleak, and I think the data says it IS bleak :)

.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Finn, I was going to post about it! No, I'm not going. But what an uproar. Let's see what happens, riot? interesting crowd chants? perhaps a shot or two?

I hope it's the chants.

Pete

finnbow

12-02-2010 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Sahib (Post 46039)

There is no doubt about it. Science is based upon empirical evidence, not opinion. Here is an article by Joseph Romm entitled "The cold truth about climate change" which addresses the issue:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...arming_deniers

As Dr. Romm put it: “What matters is scientific findings - data, not opinions.”

OK, I'll stipulate that climate change is for real and caused by man-generated CO2 emissions. What then?

Charles

12-02-2010 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 46042)

OK, I'll stipulate that climate change is for real and caused by man-generated CO2 emissions. What then?

Perhaps we should all slit our wrists. For the good of the planet, doncha know?

Chas

d-ray657

12-02-2010 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles (Post 46044)

Perhaps we should all slit our wrists. For the good of the planet, doncha know?

Chas

Nah, all that blood would soak up too much oxygen.:eek:

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander

12-02-2010 04:02 PM

Relax, Mother Nature will take care of us, and I have the feeling she is kinda pissed with us.

Charles

12-02-2010 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merrylander (Post 46046)

Relax, Mother Nature will take care of us, and I have the feeling she is kinda pissed with us.

Unless we beat her to the draw.

How do you like my cowboy rhetoric Don?

Chas

finnbow

12-02-2010 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Sahib (Post 46048)

"Nunquam aliud Natura aliud Sapientia dicit."
- Juvenal

What is needed is to restore the natural balance. All life depends on a delicate balance of the great forces of nature. With these elemental forces, it only takes a small change to result in catastrophic meteorological events causing destruction and devastation across the continents. What the scientists are saying is that we must reduce the carbon emissions or face the consequences. The earth has the capacity to restore the depleted ozone; but it will not happen unless we stop spewing industrial gases into the atmosphere at the current rate. We must act now, for it will be late to counsel then or pray when the consequences of our delay have been visited upon us. The earth is speaking to us and we should listen, for “wisdom ever echos nature’s voice.”

OK. Then how should we and the rest of the world achieve this lofty objective realistically?

d-ray657

12-02-2010 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles (Post 46047)

Unless we beat her to the draw.

How do you like my cowboy rhetoric Don?

Chas

You mighta been fast at one time, old man, but there's a faster gun in town now.:cool:

Regards,

D-Ray

Charles

12-02-2010 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657 (Post 46050)

You mighta been fast at one time, old man, but there's a faster gun in town now.:cool:

Regards,

D-Ray

Don't sell me short, I'm entirely capable of being a back shooter.

Hell, I might even go to work for the insurance industry.

Naw, I'm afraid if I ever got in a room full of those bastards, I would go postal. And after figuring out that I'm looking at 33K of premiums just to continue in my podunk state for another year, I'm beginning to get a SEVERE case of the ass.

As I've said before, if it weren't for the government and the insurance companies, I wouldn't need them.

Chas

Charles

12-02-2010 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 46049)

OK. Then how should we and the rest of the world achieve this lofty objective realistically?

We can all slit our wrists. I'm beginning to think it's a hell of an idea.

But I'll slit a few throats first, just to have someone to light my way to the next world.

I wouldn't want to get lost.

Chas

Charles

12-02-2010 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Sahib (Post 46057)

Two things must be initiated: (1) reducing population growth; and (2) reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. The world must take action on both fronts now. If we don’t take decisive action now, we are very likely to starve. The evidence indicates that the global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate. It’s time that we face up to the facts; or come face to face with the reality of global warming at the grocery store when we are fighting in the isles for the food on the shelves. If mankind is to survive, we need to stop denying the facts and resolve to change our ways.

Chicken Little, is that you???

Chas

Charles

12-02-2010 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Sahib (Post 46061)

It’s no joking matter. Look at the evidence. The overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate caused by hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere, and that anthropogenic activity is a significant contributing factor. What we know is that the polar icecaps are melting as evidenced by satellite imagery and decrease in mass verified by scientific measurements in situ. We also know that climate change occurs naturally as evidenced by core samples of the earth's surface. However, what we are seeing now is abrupt climate change; which the evidence links to the growth of the earth’s human population and activities over the past 250 years; and, most dramatically, in the last half century. What we know is that there is only a thin layer of ozone that shields the earth from the sun’s rays; and that it is being depleted by industrial emissions into the atmosphere resulting in the rise of the ocean temperature that generates the earth’s climate conditions. Just a small change in ocean temperature will affect the thermohaline conveyor leading to more harsh winter weather, reduced soil moisture and more intense winds in regions that provide the significant portion of the world’s food production, and cause a dramatic decrease in the human carrying capacity of the earth’s environment. The true test of science is empirical evidence - not political correctness. We must stop playing politics with this issue, and resolve to do something about it.

I'll agree, it's not a joking matter. Now whether the situation is as dire as you point out is another matter.

I realize that there are very intelligent people who have devoted their lives to this matter. I also realize that there are very intelligent people who have an agenda.

If you feed flawed data into a computer you will get flawed results. And, to the best of my knowledge, nothing that is happening now hasn't happened before. Or worse.

Whether or not this is the end of times is a moot point. Green energy just doesn't work at this time. Unless we want to go back to living in caves, burning wood, and raising turnips with a stick, we are going to require carbon fuels.

And I've said before, make green energy dependable and affordable, and I'll be the greenest SOB on the planet. But that will take time.

It's happening, only not quick enough to suit you, is my estimation.

We're on the same page, we just have different timetables,

Chas

finnbow

12-02-2010 07:22 PM

Pukka - I've already stipulated its existence. The question is, from a realistic and pragmatic point-of-view, how to we do something meaningful and cost effective that every industrialized country is going to buy into or for which similar expenditures in other critical areas won't yield more tangible benefit?

finnbow

12-02-2010 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Sahib (Post 46057)

Two things must be initiated: (1) reducing population growth; and (2) reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. The world must take action on both fronts now.

I'm good with the second point, although the "how" is the tough part. As for your first point, just how is this done? Besides, the wealthy, industrialized nations pumping out all the greenhouse gases have, for the most part, exceedingly low birth rates. In western Europe, birth rates are low enough to cause concern about excessive population shrinkage, below what is necessary to maintain their standard of living. I'm not sure overpopulation in Niger or Burundi has a global impact in terms of pollution or global warming.

Study this chart for a moment and you'll discover that the countries pumping CO2 into the environment are not the same countries overpopulating the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...fertility_rate

JJIII

12-03-2010 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Sahib (Post 46078)

I told you that. See Post# 27, supra. The time for debate is over. It's time to take action now. Unless we reduce the pollution, the water temperature will continue to rise, which will have inevitable consequences. Still, we refuse to act, and go about oblivious to what is happening. Indeed, one would think that man had but small brains for refusing to see the cause of his own destruction.

Who woulda thunk Al Gore would join our group?:)

piece-itpete

12-03-2010 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657 (Post 46045)

Nah, all that blood would soak up too much oxygen.:eek:

Regards,

D-Ray

Lmao!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles (Post 46056)

Don't sell me short, I'm entirely capable of being a back shooter.

That's a GREAT tag line!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Sahib (Post 46057)

Yes and empirical evidence - agree or be ignorant? Way too simple.

Anyway we do agree about one thing (I think), the planet is doomed. Fusion and space colonization is the only answer I see, unless the Chinese model of strapping women down and aborting their 9 month fetus is the new American way :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJIII (Post 46109)

Who woulda thunk Al Gore would join our group?:)

Bam! :D

Pete

merrylander

12-03-2010 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete (Post 46136)

Anyway we do agree about one thing (I think), the planet is doomed. Fusion and space colonization is the only answer I see, unless the Chinese model of strapping women down and aborting their 9 month fetus is the new American way :p
Pete

I disagree, we have screwed up this planet, why should we be allowed to screw up another?:p

BlueStreak

12-03-2010 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles (Post 45995)

Just another excuse to jack up your rates, or deny your claim.

If you ever read your policy, you will find that the party best protected is the insurance company itself.

Chas

Correct,

And this is why we must trust them more, and regulate them less.

Dave

BlueStreak

12-03-2010 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles (Post 46063)

And I've said before, make green energy dependable and affordable, and I'll be the greenest SOB on the planet. But that will take time.

Chas

How do we do this without continuing to fund research and stressing the importance of it? If we continue to poo-poo "global warming" until it has become a dirty word, eventually it will become impossible to advance the technology.

The folks who are against "global warming" also have a less that pure agenda, methinks. Why is it that so many people think only one side is capable of harboring a sinister agenda?:confused:

Dave

piece-itpete

12-03-2010 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles (Post 46063)

.... I'll be the greenest SOB on the planet. ...

I'll probably stay a kinda pale whitish pinkish.

Pete

finnbow

12-03-2010 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Sahib (Post 46153)

Along with the problem of global warming, a concomitant (and politically incorrect) subject is overpopulation.

Sorry, but it seems that world overpopulation is a myth.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2..._crash_ext2010

Moreover, population growth in the industrialized democracies, particularly Europe is too low.

http://www.globalenvision.org/library/8/1776/

Facts are stubborn things.

BlueStreak

12-03-2010 09:53 AM

I was riding in the car with my brother one day. He looked out the window at farmland being converted into McMansionland and asked; "How long can that go on?"

A simple but profound question, I should say.

Problem is; What do you do about it? Sterilize people? Good luck with that.

Dave

noonereal

12-03-2010 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 46155)

very interesting links

thanks again

finnbow

12-03-2010 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak (Post 46157)

In this particular instance, the problem isn't overpopulation, per se, but overconsumption. Do couples with no kids (or 1-2 kids) really need 7000 sq. ft. houses on 1/2 acre lots located 30 miles from where they work (along with a Lincoln Navigator for the commute)?

finnbow

12-03-2010 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Sahib (Post 46161)

It amounts to rampant overpopulation. Like lemmings, we shall breed ourselves out of existence. The unspoken truth, when you do the math, is that we are just one crop failure from starvation.

If this were even remotely true (it isn't), why are we converting our grain surpluses to ethanol or feeding it to livestock?

BTW, crop failures don't happen worldwide at the same time. For every place getting too little rain, another is getting too much and another just the right amount. Winter in the southern hemisphere is summer in the north. If Russia (or Australia) has a poor wheat harvest, we have a good one and vice versa - not to mention our vast reserves.

Calm down, sir.

noonereal

12-03-2010 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 46162)

Calm down, sir.

Maybe
mossbacked
scared him?

I know he spooked me. :D

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 PM.

Page 1 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page