global warming- what's your take?

[Ver hut gazugt]

How is that relevant to an insurance company’s underwriting behavior?

All the insurance has to do is change the name of the risk category from tropical storms to climate change tropical storms. They do not need to change any actual risk assessments.

I am not one of their actuaries so I have no idea what there calculations are but it is pretty simple to claim something to help with pr.

[Euclid]

All the insurance has to do is change the name of the risk category from tropical storms to climate change tropical storm. They do not need to change any actual risk calculations.

I am not one of their actuaries so I have no idea what there calculations are but it is pretty simple to claim something to help with pr.

I have knowledge of internal discussions in my company about climate change wrt catastrophe coverage. As does the poster I quoted above.

This isn't something they're talking about bec of some PR move.

[Ver hut gazugt]

I have knowledge of internal discussions in my company about climate change wrt catastrophe coverage. As does the poster I quoted above.

This isn't something they're talking about bec of some PR move.

How are they assessing the risk?

[Euclid]

How are they assessing the risk?

I'm not an actuary but they have modeling tools for it.

Maybe something similar to https://actuariesclimateindex.org/

[Ver hut gazugt]

I'm not an actuary but they have modeling tools for it.

Maybe something similar to https://actuariesclimateindex.org/

I don't see much there. All I saw was a storm and see level rise index and I don’t think those types of indexes are anything new. The big question is where are they getting their projections from. Saying that they take climate change into account can mean anything from nyc is going to sink to the same sea level rise we have seen for the past few hundred years.

I can’t comment on what is going on in your company but I would need a little more meat on the bone before making any conclusions.

[S209]

Saying that they take climate change into account can mean anything from nyc is going to sink to the same sea level rise we have seen for the past few hundred years.

Source? IINM levels were actually declining until around 150 years ago, and more than a third of the rise has been in the last 25 years.

Regardless, these are the type of statements that are definitive and either truthful or not. Science will arrive at the truth on clear factual matters, which has been my point.

[aygart]

I know some blue chip energy companies that publicly make a big show about sustainability and climate change but their weather normalization formulas are all for it to cool down.

[whYME]

Regardless, these are the type of statements that are definitive and either truthful or not. Science will arrive at the truth on clear factual matters, which has been my point.

LOL

[S209]

LOL

Your nuanced perspective has shed much light in this matter. Thank you for your contribution.

[Jellybelly]

Source? IINM levels were actually declining until around 150 years ago, and more than a third of the rise has been in the last 25 years.

Regardless, these are the type of statements that are definitive and either truthful or not. Science will arrive at the truth on clear factual matters, which has been my point.

When are they arriving at the truth on evolution?
🙄

[S209]

When are they arriving at the truth on evolution?
🙄

It is well known and undisputed that many evolutionary principles are true and have been proven conclusively through the scientific method. Is this news to you?

Do you know how viruses spread?

[haltkup]

I don't see much there. All I saw was a storm and see level rise index and I don’t think those types of indexes are anything new. The big question is where are they getting their projections from. Saying that they take climate change into account can mean anything from nyc is going to sink to the same sea level rise we have seen for the past few hundred years.

I can’t comment on what is going on in your company but I would need a little more meat on the bone before making any conclusions.

Most of the industry will rely on outside modeling firms that have expertise in meteorology & geology etc. They study weather patterns and ocean warming and create models that predict the frequency and severity of extreme weather event. I can also tell you that these models are than heavily scrutinized by most rebuttable insurance companies and brokerage firms. 2 of the most respectable firms in the industry are RMS & AIR.
Here is a report that AIR produced on "Climate Change Impacts on Extreme Weather" http://w3.air-worldwide.com/Climate-Change-Impacts-on-Extreme-Weather

[whYME]

It is well known and undisputed that many evolutionary principles are true and have been proven conclusively through the scientific method. Is this news to you?

"many evolutionary principles ... have been proven conclusively"

Yet what hasn't been proven conclusively through the scientific method is the ability of one species to evolve into a more complex species. (or even into any other species for that matter)

And that's without even getting into where the first cell came from...


So in other words, even if your post is true, it in no way addresses his point.

[yuneeq]

That doesn't change the fact that scientists are still free to analyze all of the data that exists, and create new data through experiments and discovery. They can even publish it in scientific journals, which are generally available to anyone who wants to read them. The science is what it is. That some people or corporations with agendas try to control the narrative doesn't change the science.

Scientific journals are available to read by anyone, but you can’t publish in it without approval of the editors. And perhaps the journals may still publish studies against their agenda as long as it’s backed by solid data. However, try publishing your valid scientific theories that aren’t backed by solid data. You’ll get labeled a conspiracy theorist and convicted of wrongthink. IMHO, suppressing scientific theory is a suppression of science.

[yuneeq]

How did the lab leak theory reach the mainstream? Simple. Enough evidence accrued so as to point science in that direction. It appears there were indeed enough “self respecting” scientists who managed to conduct inquiries just fine.

The lab leak theory was viable since at least February 2020, backed by plenty of evidence and not a single reason to believe it was not possible. This was not a secret either, every scientist knew about this theory and not a single reason to refute it. Yet it was still shot down for a long time. And finally the theory has gained some traction, yet nothing changed except the politics.

Makes you wonder - how long would it take the scientists to reverse course if the politics remained the same? The answer isn’t pretty.

[S209]

So in other words, even if your post is true, it in no way addresses his point.

My post is true, no qualification needed.

What do you consider his point?

[Lurker]

Scientific journals are available to read by anyone, but you can’t publish in it without approval of the editors. And perhaps the journals may still publish studies against their agenda as long as it’s backed by solid data. However, try publishing your valid scientific theories that aren’t backed by solid data. You’ll get labeled a conspiracy theorist and convicted of wrongthink. IMHO, suppressing scientific theory is a suppression of science.

I don't know enough about that world to say whether you're right or wrong. I think the scientific community loves a good argument as much as DDF, and controversial theories get plenty of attention. Just during Covid we've seen a lot of studies printed which were quite controversial.

[aygart]

It is well known and undisputed that many evolutionary principles are true and have been proven conclusively through the scientific method. Is this news to you?

Do you know how viruses spread?

This comment leaves 3 options

1. You thought he was referring to there being any evolution of any sort
2. A dumb straw man argument
3. Things having to do with emuna

Which is it?

[Lurker]

The lab leak theory was viable since at least February 2020, backed by plenty of evidence and not a single reason to believe it was not possible. This was not a secret either, every scientist knew about this theory and not a single reason to refute it. Yet it was still shot down for a long time. And finally the theory has gained some traction, yet nothing changed except the politics.

Makes you wonder - how long would it take the scientists to reverse course if the politics remained the same? The answer isn’t pretty.

Shot down by who? It was widely panned in the media, but the theory never went away, and many scientists never dismissed it. They can't control what the media reports or how they report it. IMO, if you're going to say that they would have changed their minds and abandoned the theory if the media/politics had stayed the course, you should need to show where this has happened before. Otherwise, you're essentially accusing the scientific community of being a bunch of spineless hacks whose thoughts and opinions are controlled by politics and MSM, and all without a shred of proof.

[aygart]

I don't know enough about that world to say whether you're right or wrong. I think the scientific community loves a good argument as much as DDF, and controversial theories get plenty of attention. Just during Covid we've seen a lot of studies printed which were quite controversial.

Printed or pre print?