Insurance Industry Looking Hard At Climate Change 156
A recent paper in Science (abstract) examines the insurance industry's reaction to climate change. The industry rakes in trillions of dollars in revenues every year, and a shifting climate would have the potential to drastically cut into the profits left over after settlements have been paid. Hurricane Sandy alone did about $80 billion worth of damage to New York and New Jersey. With incredible amounts of money at stake, the industry is taking climate projections quite seriously. From the article:
"Many insurers are using climate science to better quantify and diversify their exposure, more accurately price and communicate risk, and target adaptation and loss-prevention efforts. They also analyze their extensive databases of historical weather- and climate-related losses, for both large- and small-scale events. But insurance modeling is a distinct discipline. Unlike climate models, insurers’ models extrapolate historical data rather than simulate the climate system, and they require outputs at finer scales and shorter time frames than climate models."
Lots of money... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of technical use cases... (Score:3)
Who knew... (Score:5, Insightful)
God forbid someone actually get some actual benefit from their insurance...
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? That's how insurance works? I always thought we were just giving them money out of the goodness of our hearts. Charity, if you will.
Re:Who knew... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course in a most twisted way they could prove useful. Those pollution producing corporations are becoming a bit too much of a profit burden, which would be cheaper, eliminating them or paying out of the damage they are generating. When targeting the cause is order of magnitude cheaper than paying for the damage. Strange things can happen out there in corporate wars lobbyists land. Politically you can already see distinct corporate alignments forming, copyright versus technology, financial versus energy (only certain forms) and, development versus military. How violent will the corporate wars become?
Re: (Score:2)
Those pollution producing corporations are becoming a bit too much of a profit burden, which would be cheaper, eliminating them or paying out of the damage they are generating.
There's another option: raise insurance premiums on everyone and continue making profits.
We're all going to pay the costs of climate change one way or another, the only question is whether the money spent will be to prevent disasters or to clean up after them.
So far, we've been content to keep paying megabucks to clean up after disasters, since there is no political will to force through even more expensive solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a distinct limit upon insurance premiums at which point paying them is pointless. So with excessive risk, insurance cover ceases, so risk must be pushed back into manageable ratios else insurance companies cease to exist. So they must take more and more affirmative action in order to reduce risk and profitably survive. So insurance companies via their lobbyists can create political will in order to reduce risk and do so very profitably.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, I'd rather NEVER have to use my insurance, any of it.
Yes, but when you do need to make a claim - after perhaps years of paying a lot of cash over time - wouldn't it be nice not to have your claim initially rejected out of hand? Wouldn't it be nice *NOT* to have to hire an attorney to get your insurance pay-out?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait 'your' emergency is somehow obvious and more important than everybody elses?
Re:Who knew... (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you rather your insurance company just hand out cash willy nilly?
Mo, of course not. But guess what? Insurance companies hire these people call - get this - Insurance Adjusters, who are - get this - "professionals" at evaluating claims.
But you know what? Most of them only look for reasons *NOT* to pay out on legitimate claims.
Oh wait 'your' emergency is somehow obvious and more important than everybody elses?
What an angry ignorant statement.
My claim is no more or less important than any other legitimate claim. Perhaps you need to look into how insurance companies deny legitimate claims?
Or perhaps you are one of these assholes that insurance companies hire to bullshit people out of making legitimate claims?
We're not talking about "entitlements" here, we're talking about paying for a service and not getting it.
But please, fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
we're talking about paying for a service and not getting it.
No you're complaining that a company charged with paying for tragedy...in an industry that is rife with fraud....denied your claim, that you paid for.
You're still arguing 'your' situation obviously merits response over others.
Re: (Score:2)
You're still arguing 'your' situation obviously merits response over others.
No, I'm arguing that my claim merits a legitimate response like everyone elses.
What's YOUR problem?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work like that and you know it...assuming you read your policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Mo, of course not. But guess what? Insurance companies hire these people call - get this - Insurance Adjusters, who are - get this - "professionals" at evaluating claims.
But you know what? Most of them only look for reasons *NOT* to pay out on legitimate claims.
Well, either I've been very fortunate (more than once, alas), you're buying into the ambulance-chasing lawyer commercials, or you're getting insurance from a company whose "Lower Price Everyday[TM]" comes from making what you pay on difficult to collect. Because the adjusters I've dealt with have worked with me to get a decent job done even when some of the alternatives would have been cheaper. So they're not all worthless parasites, at least.
Re:Who knew... (Score:4, Insightful)
We're not talking about "entitlements" here, we're talking about paying for a service and not getting it.
I don't how the Republicans got "entitlements" to be a dirty word, as if getting an "entitlement" is getting a handout. If I pay for a service, I'm entitled to that service, whether insurance or Social Security.
It is indeed an entitlement. You paid your money, you are entitled to the payout.
Re: (Score:2)
People withdraw more from Social Security than they pay in, plus the interest earned. It is designed as a "current payer" system, where people are drawing out not the money they paid in, but the money currently being paid in by today's workers.
The big problem is this method is sustainable only if you have an ever increasing working population, which we don't. The Baby Boomers paid in more than the Greatest Generation withdrew, but the Gen X group is *smaller* than the Boomers. If Gen Y is smaller still, the
Re: Who knew... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance is a bit like a casino
Without a doubt insurance is legalized gambling. The OP is just complaining because he bet and lost....
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I'd rather NEVER have to use my insurance, any of it.
Your insurance company agrees with you whole-heartedly.
Insurance exists, however, because occasionally people do have to use it, given that the alternatives are mostly even worse.
Death throes of climate alarmism (Score:4, Interesting)
We've had a bunch of climate related stories on /. lately. My theory is that when IPCC AR5 comes out officially, the jig will be up. The alarmists are having to make hay while they still can.
For the blessed few who haven't been following the climate wars, IPCC AR5 is the United Nations latest report on global warming. It has several important findings including that shown in Figure 1.4 . The global climate has warmed less than all the IPCC's previous projections. They also conclude that the global temperature will warm about an additional degree in the 21st century. Dry places will get slightly drier. Wet places will get slightly wetter. Extreme weather events will not be more extreme or more frequent. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been cancelled.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/ [wattsupwiththat.com]
Re:Death throes of climate alarmism (Score:5, Informative)
Nonense. The comparisons that have been done with the original IPCC report vs current data are showing their predictions were suprisingly accurate.
http://www.livescience.com/25367-first-ipcc-climate-report-accurate.html [livescience.com]
as a non–scientist, I presume (Score:3, Informative)
This is how you do science: you repeat the method to test the hypothesis. The article hints at what these adjustments entail:
This is similar to Hansen's 1987 (iirc) papers, which were based on a random prediction of a volcanic eruption in a particular year but it turned out to guess the year
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, when you adjust your theories to match the data after the fact, you can hit the target every time.
Re: (Score:2)
If your system is a computer model when you predict the future you have to predict it based on various events you predict. If different events occur and you put those events in instead of what you guessed would happen and your model products the correct outcome then the model does work.
No model is going to be accurate if you don't guess that a volcano is going to erupt. It is certainly completely okay to plug new data into existing models and run the simulation to check the result against reality.
The proble
Re: (Score:2)
Except they didn't change the model (not theory, that's the wrong term entirely). They changed the inputs from their estimates to the real figures and found that their predictions went from being close, to even more accurate. That CONFIRMS that the model is accurate--if you put in real inputs, you get real outputs.
The THEORY is basic radiative hydrodynamics (conservation of mass, momentum, and energy) with a REALLY complicated equation of state. A computer model of radiative hydrodynamics is as accurate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh yeah, the smoking gun. This "leaked" graph is definitly proof that all the alarmists are wrong.
http://www.fool-me-once.com/2010/09/temperatures-are-below-projections.html
Deniers have only one goal, lie to fool dumb people into thinking there are serious doubts.
But their whole case is built on hot air, they say the alarmists made the whole thing up while they themselves have nothing but nonsense. There are a few skeptics, but they never claim what the deniers claim they say.
Re:Death throes of climate alarmism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you listen to people that take Methane feedback, and the carbon release from Peat and drought damaged forests seriously, then you will occasionally hear that we have to reduce carbon emissions by 80%. Given the large fossil fuel contributions to our energy budget of around 80%, we would have 36% of our energy budget left. The question is how many deaths such a reduction would cause now vs how many deaths global warming would cause in the future.
There are a number of reasons why people will not do anythin
Re: (Score:3)
We've had a bunch of climate related stories on /. lately. My theory is that when IPCC AR5 comes out officially, the jig will be up.
We've had a lot of creationism stories too. My theory is that flame wars drive page hits.
I haven't tracked it, but I get the impression that they usually get posted on slow news days - weekends and holidays.
Presumably you read the Daily Telegraph (Score:2)
hurricanes that blow (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Try October 1780 for a month to remember.
Westboro Baptist Church says that was payback because we didn't ban gays in the Declaration of Independence.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why are climate change skeptics, who call climate change global warming, still taken seriously?
Indeed, what else would you call "global warming", but the obvious term, "climate change"?
As for myself, I too suffer dearly from climate change. Due to the warming of the past century, my bid for Supreme Galactic Emperor has fallen into shambles. Damn that nefarious Industrial Age! And now with all this extreme weather, I had to give up on the consolation prize, the Most Excellent Emir of the Orion Arm position. You wouldn't think that US flood insurance policies have intergalactic implications. Well, t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Death throes of climate alarmism (Score:5, Insightful)
it's those who scream the loudest about global warming that want us to wait twenty years until we can switch to renewable power sources.
Straw man. Ask most actual scientists who know anything about the topic, and we'll tell you we should be building nuclear power plants as fast as possible. (And yes, I would happily live near one, although since I live practically on top of a fault line it would be a pretty stupid place to build it.)
Re: (Score:3)
My beef is when they argue that nuclear is 'safer' than coal. Not true in any sense unless you exclude what 'could' happen.
The tiger by the tail situation is that we need to get off fossil fuels basically yesterday, and the only available option for grid scale right now is nuclear. But we need to be investing in renewable now at the same time and usually the argument is that nuclear is the 'answer' and it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Long term, If I were a multi billionaire, I would be setting up shipping/pipeline systems for water, desalination facilities, and solar power. Using solar power with desalinated water can be used to produce hydrogen as a fuel source... From here we have a fuel that is portable, and ca
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear will be a necessary evil for the next 50-100 years.
What's "evil" about clean, safe, cheap power?
My beef is when they argue that nuclear is 'safer' than coal. Not true in any sense unless you exclude what 'could' happen.
It's true in the very real sense that coal causes thousands of deaths worldwide every year, while nuclear doesn't. What's the horrible death toll from Fukushima again?
Here's an article [forbes.com] compariing various energy source's mortality rates.
Here's another [newscientist.com] touting nuclear as much safer, pointing out that coal pollution claims over 13,000 lives a year just in the US.
The tiger by the tail situation is that we need to get off fossil fuels basically yesterday, and the only available option for grid scale right now is nuclear. But we need to be investing in renewable now at the same time and usually the argument is that nuclear is the 'answer' and it isn't.
Nuclear is a fine answer, especially the next-gen and thorium based plants. I'm all for end-user solar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to build LFTRs [wikipedia.org], I'm all for it. But I would NOT build another pressurized water plant. That technology has run its course; it's time to move on.
Re: (Score:3)
My view is that our primary solution should be things like insulation. We throw away about half of all the power we generate do to poor insulation. Not just insulation on houses, apartments etc but also on things like refrigerators, freezers, ovens etc.
So long as we throw away half the power that means we need to generate twice as much. If we did a better job of insulating it would not only make alternative power more viable it would also dramatically cut CO2 emissions from having to burn less fossil fuels
Re: (Score:2)
The good side of science in pursuit of profit (Score:4, Funny)
Already happening in Belgium (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardles of the who and what, but the climate is changing noticable. Normally at these part in this time of year it is freezing but now we are getting temperatures in the range of 15-18 degrees. We also have more floods then in the previous years. It may be warmer, but we also have a lot more rain.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Regardles of the who and what, but the climate is changing noticable.
Ever hear of confirmation bias? Just because you think you notice something doesn't mean you do.
Besides we have yet to use the proper methods for determining whether weather is due to climate change. Here's a simple test. Take your suspect weather event and throw it in a pond. If it floats, then it's a witch^H^H^H^H^H climate change induced extreme weather event.
pfft (Score:2)
On the other hand... (Score:4, Insightful)
...using climate change as an excuse to raise rates? A win-win.
If the scaremongers are right, they cover possible extra expenses... which have not - in any sense - shown up. No extra bad weather, hurricanes, et cetera. Just higher payouts from covering more people.
If they're wrong, the insurance companies get more money for free, and they get the environmental folks to help them get the rate increases approved from various government entities.
"We need to raise our rates to allow for extra payouts from climate change."
"Do we get a refund if you don't have to pay out more?"
"No. But don't you feel better knowing that we might?"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Result: Huge rises in insurance rates while hurricane numbers and intensity went down.
Big result: Huge profits for reinsurance companies
Re: (Score:3)
Good policy, even for deniers (Score:2)
Insurance needs fear to sell (Score:3, Insightful)
It used to be rational fear e.g. you might have a car accident that turns out to be expensive to repair and pay for damages. However here is a fear that is irrational Climate change the climate always changes, day to day , year to year, century to century. And the difficulty will be was the damages caused by climate change or were you in a flood zone anyway. and fearful governments afraid of being sued are complicit in this. A recent example I have is a local council declaring a flood zone in an area that would only flood if sea levels rose 2-3 metres insurance companies without question simply rose all premiums in the area $3000 -$7000 if you wanted flood insurance. It did have an effect as people in this area were generally concerned about climate change now many I spoke to have seen the money maker it really is
They also need premiums to exceed payouts (Score:2)
You know, that whole solvency thing is pretty important. I think you're thinking of the gun industry.
Also, Sandy's storm surge, plus the Spring Tide, and the 1 foot of mean SLR since 1900, added up to that 2-3 metres. And also bear in mind: ice sheets are all melting far faster than expected; and also because of ocean currents and other effects, that "mean Sea Level Rise" can very dramatically depending on where you are. In a capitalist society, high flood insurance premiums are the appropriate signal
Re:Insurance needs fear to sell (Score:4, Informative)
Insurance needs fear to sell.
No it doesn't. People buy insurance because MOST don't have enough funds to cover things like car crashes, unexpected serious illnesses, etc. . These things happen and the LOGICAL response is to be prepared for them. At worst, that could be considered cautious.
However here is a fear that is irrational Climate change the climate always changes, day to day , year to year, century to century.
Weather != Climate. Climate changes TYPICALLY happen over 100's to 1000's of years, sometimes even longer. And the impacts of those changes on the life forms existing on the planet depend on how string and how fast those changes happen.
The changes, as indicated by all the research, observations, and data we have show that the climate is changing, and rapidly (decadal scale). There is no irrational fear here. The science says A is going to happen, evidence shows A is happening, and that there are consequences for A happening. Groups that are interested about these consequences and what their effects will be such as the DoD, DoE, insurance companies, agribusiness, etc. are incorporating the science into future plans to prepare for it.
And the difficulty will be was the damages caused by climate change or were you in a flood zone anyway.
What your describing is called attribution, an it's pretty easy to filter out such basic cases. Attribution of weather event to climate change is more difficult, but that's another matter. As water levels rise, flood zones will increase (at least in coastal areas). Storm surges will become more dangerous and travel further inland.
That's just an example, but these are things city planners and others need to be aware of when making long range plans. Otherwise, when those 1 in a thousand year events start becoming one every ten years there's going to be a heavy bill to pay.
and fearful governments afraid of being sued are complicit in this. A recent example I have is a local council declaring a flood zone in an area that would only flood if sea levels rose 2-3 metres insurance companies without question simply rose all premiums in the area $3000 -$7000 if you wanted flood insurance.
You don't seem to understand coastal flood zones very well. Storm surges, even those not driven by hurricanes, can easily exceed 2 or 3 meters. Even coastal winds can drive waves that size depending on where you live. And if such events have been shown to be happening more frequently in your area due to a combination of increasing extreme events, ocean rise, coastal erosion, etc. then it only make sense.
It did have an effect as people in this area were generally concerned about climate change now many I spoke to have seen the money maker it really is
You're going to need more than emotional appeal to win an argument. You have to get some real hard data and show WHY you think the increase is unnecessary. How often does the area flood? How much value does the area have? What is the projected increase in flooding events as sea levels rise? What is the projected increase of conditions that would lead to probable flooding? Insurance companies use a lot of information to estimate risks and determine premiums. If you don't have a solid provable case you basically just whining that your premiums had to go up to cover the increasing risk due to a changing climate.
This shouldn't be a surprise to you, as scientist have been saying these types of things would likely happen 30 years ago.
Carelessly picked buildsites (Score:3, Interesting)
The main problem is not climate change, but rather poor judgement of what to build where. A beachhouse used to be within minutes of the beach, now it is directly on the beach and the building is a lot more expensive. This means the risk of damage is not only greater than it used to be, it is also more expensive when it happens.
Another problem is draining. Swampland is drained and houses are built there. However nature intended such places to be swamps and they tend to reappear when exposed to heavy rain.
Land is claimed from rivers, making them narrower, which prevents heavy flow. When rain makes heavy flow needed, waterlevel raises instead and causes floods, often just before the block, which means the owners of the flooded houses wasn't the one to make the mistake. This was the main problem with the flooding in Germany and Czech Republic in the 90's as well as the major Mississippi flooding.
There is a pretty good example of this on the street where I live. Houses were built on all free plots in the 1950s, except one. This one vacant plot didn't have any house on it until the late 1980s. Turns out that whenever it rains heavily, a lake fills up, sends all the water over the top of the hill, down to the road and then it travels on roads all the way to the ocean. The problem is that whenever the water goes downhill it goes through this new house and no amount of dams and ditches appears to work. It has been flooded twice in the last 10 years alone and none of the other houses have ever been flooded. One has to wonder why this plot was left unused in the first place.
Another fine example is a train repair shop built recently in a moist plot with a stream nearby. The politicians forced the engineers to make the building lower than the engineers recommended because otherwise the roof would be too tall compared to the trees and that wouldn't look nice. Now it has to use a pump to keep dry and they will have water on the floor if the pump stops and they fail to restart it within a certain amount of hours. I bet it completely fails the flood resistance demands set by the same politicians.
Such poorly protected (and often expensive) buildings is a major concern for insurance companies. It's a far greater issue than climate change. However it might be a whole lot easier to get everybody to pay more if it's stated that it's due to climate change than if it goes to "poorly located houses".
Another interesting note about this is one "proof" of climate change is the increasing amount of money paid by insurance companies. Those numbers can't be used to proof worse weather because you can't isolate the costs for climate change and the costs caused for the reasons I mentioned here.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a relatively old problem, though. Certainly housebuilders have been building homes on flood plains here in the UK for at least a decade, probably longer. I saw a really hilarious incident a while ago when they insisted that their new homes weren't at risk of flooding and the building site flooded spectacularly part-way through building them - and the company kept on insisting there was no problem!
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious insurance industry solution... (Score:2)
... is to deny insurance to people with pre-existing climate issues. :)
Trillions in revenue? Profit is what matters (Score:2)
The insurance industry is a necessary evil just like government. The only way they stay in business is to make a profit. If you are paying too much either change providers or stop being such a high risk.
Until Obamacare came along insurance was not mandatory.
Re: (Score:2)
Auto insurance isn't mandatory? Home owners insurance isn't mandatory?
you really underscored you ignorance and stupidity just to make an incorrect dig at Obama.
You should take a good look at yourself and decide if you want to wallow in ignorance, or light the candle of knowledge.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
wrong. Hitler attack Germany first by making an internal enemy.
Hurricane Sandy.... (Score:5, Informative)
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/07/csu-researchers-say-sandy-wasnt-influenced-by-global-warming/ [nationalgeographic.com]
Ferret
Re: (Score:3)
http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/grayklotzbach2012.pdf [colostate.edu]
That's the paper.
A) they aren't climatologists
They are meteorologist. Those STILL aren't the same thing.
B) The article is horrid. It's quote mining and cherry picking.
C) They contradict themselves.
first this:
"The researchers acknowledge that human activity has led to an increase in carbon dioxide being released into the Earth’s atmosphere and an increase in average temperature."
then:
"Hurricanes draw their power f
Climate change may be real but... (Score:2)
Putting businesses 8' (and LESS) above sea level in a 100 year storm zone, means you are going to get clobbered on average every 100 years (and have good odds of getting hit in a 3 generation period).
Insurance companies have got to assume any low lying areas next to the ocean will be flooded.
Actuaries (Score:2)
Have been taking climate change data and model predictions into account for years. Quite accurately, and quite successfully.
This alone should have convinced the non educated cynic..but it involves math, and math is hard so we will just deny anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Math is hard, but you think they could read an executive summary that basically says, "the wonks say things are going to get worse".
This is why we need tort reform (Score:2)
So we can limit the liability on insurance companies when you try to sue them to get the insurance money they said they would pay in the event of a disaster. We need to realign the legal system and remove regulatory burdens to allow free market solutions to flourish. Then they will be incentive to monitize maximal corporate governance personnels' performance revenues.
BTW, if you didn't catch it, that was sarcasm.
Externalities come home to roost (Score:4, Insightful)
Global warming has already been forecast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review [wikipedia.org] to cost much more than slowing it down/preventing it would cost.
I guess those externalities in economic models (and fossil-fuel price and fossil-fuel-based product prices) weren't so external after all.
Who would have guessed that the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment?
Feynman coming home to roost (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Feynman coming home to roost (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude here is what you don't get. The insurance industry does not give a rats ass on the foaming mouths of those who are for or against climate change. The only thing that the insurance industry cares about is making money. Let's say that California is in an earthquake zone, which it is, the insurance company says, "hey guess what you are going to pay more for earth quake insurance." When the big one hits they really don't care because they should have covered their butts.
This is why if some hurricane were to flatten New York the only question that the insurance industry will ask is, "how much money will we make or NOT?" Thus by seeing that climate change is starting to hurt their pocket books you can be sure as American Greenbacks being green that they will begin to pay attention and charge you more for insurance.
Re: (Score:3)
Excessive hurricane insurance claims where I grew up had more to do with poor building codes, muckheads d
Re: (Score:2)
It's why we SHOULD have had more regulation on wall street to cover the financial meltdown but didn't, so we got the meltdown. Regulation does increase prices - because we actually want them t
Feynman died 25 years ago (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up, please and thanks
Let me google that for you (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh look, I found an interesting discussion [yahoo.com] about that very post from John Christy of UAH, posted on notorious denier Roger Pielke Jr's blog. The great thing about blogs as compared to scientific journals is that you get to choose your "pal review"! Who will notice if you mis–represent the original data, and use a flawed dataset?
One comment really nails it, and I can't link to it individually, so I'll just include it here:
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words, it's no
Re: (Score:2)
So one has to wonder,
Even the worst case scenarios didn't see us pumping out the amount of CO2 which we are pumping out at the moment
What were these CO2 numbers and their measurable impact during the Age of Coal? When London had a deadly fog? Or During WWII ? When Industry planet wide was not only churning out aircraft, bombs, tanks, and summarily attempting to burn as much fuel getting to point a to point b as quickly as possible to set everyone's crap on fire?
How can our level of much more efficient industry and not destroying everything we get our hands on ever top the levels of "Carbon Emissions" that came from p
Re:Feynman coming home to roost, linked (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not just the Cargo Cult speech, which actually fits many CAGW claimants to a T, but this speech: http://management.curiouscatblog.net/2012/05/17/richard-feynman-explains-the-pdsa-cycle/ [curiouscatblog.net]
Richard Feynman: “If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong, in that simple statement is the key to science, it doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make a difference how smart you are (who ma
Re:Externalities come home to roost (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing is, it's not about overall cost to prevent vs to allow. It's about which is more predictable and easier to be profited from.
Tanking a well run company is a tremendous profit for those in the know, and turning things around at the right time doubly so.
A war is extremely expensive and wasteful, but extremely profitable to those well positioned.
Bubbles are manufactured, the follow predictable patterns and allow profits on the upside and the downside.
Allowing these things to happen is just another example of privatizing profit and socializing losses.
The real question is, how many deniers are secretly believers?
Re: (Score:2)
Bubbles are manufactured, the follow predictable patterns and allow profits on the upside and the downside.
Indeed they are, usually in the ABSENCE of rigorous regulation of the industry in question. More regulations mean less ability to fudge the numbers and create said bubble.
Of course too much regulation isn't good either, but as we saw in the financial meltdown, sometimes less is definitely not more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be quite the irony if we ended up 'needing' the coal plants to keep us from freezing
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that our modern industrial society largely formed in the last 200 years or so, while the climate was relatively constant. At the same time, we've grown our population at insane rate, and clustered most of it tightly packed in narrow areas. Something that has the potential to significantly upset the balance (land and water availability, food supply etc) in those areas can seriously fuck our merry life up. Not to the point of extinction, mind you, but definitely not something we can easily fix
But you can't prevent it.. (Score:3)
Here's the whole problem. Even if we reduced CO2 emissions to ZERO, it could still take hundreds of years for the oceans to uptake the excess CO2 and transfer it to the bottom. So, right now, mitigation and risk management are the strategy.
Re:Mitigation and risk management (Score:2)
Say you're fighting a fire.
One of the best mitigation measures is to stop pouring gasoline on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Otzi, the "ice man"?
Or at around the same time, a good proportion of the Egyptian and Babylonian gods who were devoted to the relationships between flooding and next year's food. Or ... well pretty much everyone apart from the last couple of centuries of westerners who have got away from the habit of starving to death every time the environment had a little wobble, like the 1783 Laki eruption or the 1815 "year
Re: (Score:2)
The odd thing here is that people think TFA is news, insurance companies have been including climate change into their risk calculations for at least a decade now (spurred by the 1997 IPCC reports). Insurance companies think long term, a large building can be expected to last a century or more, if "once in a century" floods start appearing once every decade, they will watch the trends an
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think the right-wing pro military would think it was something important (ala the 'green fleet initiative'), but no they say it's political pressure on the military
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're ignoring the physical product industry.
I don't know about that. Take a cheap shoe, made by underpaid workers, stick a logo on it, and now it's a designer item. Not all physical items have low profit margins.
Re: (Score:2)
And somehow, despite the fact that they are on two different sides, neither one of them will manage to actually provide information that clears up the matter definitively.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 has no effect on the Earth's temperature, this has been clearly proved time and time again.
Look at the second plot on this page [skepticalscience.com]. It's a direct measurement of the amount of the reduced re-radiation from planet earth at 1996 vs. 1970, and shows substantial dips for CO2 (far left) and methane (far right).
Re: (Score:2)
I should have said, "dips at the absorption frequencies for CO2 (far left) and methane (far right)."