http://www.insurance.wa.gov/climate_chan...
your reflection please.
60% 3 Votes
Other Answers (4)
-
It seems to me that change in policy-writing argues FOR insurance companies believing in global warming, not against it. If a company does not believe in global warming, they can write policies that undercut the prices of companies that do, and snatch business away from them. Then the market will be the arbiter of which policy was better.
0% 0 Votes
-
Old news.
Insurance companies for some time have said they won%26#039;t cover industries who emit greenhouse gases for liability because of that. Their point is that global warming is scientifically proven and so damages caused by industries are deliberate acts, which are not covered; not accidents, which are covered. 20% 1 Vote -
No, that would have been Al Gore%26#039;s carbon trading company but this is a close second. My main worry is that after this hoax is exposed, the media may turn on all scientists that might be complicit and that may undermine public faith in science. The consequences of that are unclear but probably not positive. It%26#039;s been 10 years since the warmest year and they still say we%26#039;re doomed, which is becoming tiresome and sad. Now it appears we%26#039;re in a long-term cooling trend and they%26#039;re the ones who are deniers. If you choose to build on the coast or under sea level near a coast, you%26#039;re in the same boat as someone in a mobile home in an area frequently hit by tornadoes. The government should not bail out people who make poor choices in buying or building a home than they do with stock market losses. If you can%26#039;t get private insurance, you%26#039;re out of luck. If you choose not to get it when you could have, you%26#039;re both out of luck and stupid.
20% 1 Vote
-
Let us instead put that money where it will do some good like into a new and better reusable earth to orbit shuttle and a moon base to begin the production of orbital factories and power stations. We need to put the money where it will generate practical solutions to real problems rather than a lot of divorced from reality ivory tower failures pampering themselves and wasting money on feel good concepts that never mature into practical solutions of any kind. Spend the money on real life engineering let us get on with exploiting the new frontier!
Key point to be made on this subject, all of the major proponents of the AGW scam are against high tech answers to the energy problem. A few of the will support nuclear but they all seem to reject the real solutions to be found by going into space. If Jimmy Carter had not made his anti technology edicts the US today would be exporting cheap space generated electricity to the world and oil usage mostly for the making of plastics would be less than a tenth what it is today. There would be no call for reducing Co2 because with virtually no excess output people would recognize that it is solar activity not Co2 that brings about warming and cooling of the planet.
0% 0 Votes