Friday, December 28, 2007

Just in case anyone cares

Although this may appear obscure, and remember you are reading words written by a Rabett so don't complain, in view of recent events (the silly, not the tragic), we point our reader to a Classic Rabbet Run Post establishing the virtues of pseudonyms and the nature of blogs

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gee, I wonder why Roger Pielke Jr. hasn't blogged on this?

Natural catastrophes will grow with climate change: re-insurer

I guess because it doesn't fit with his "you can't tie natural disasters with climate change" song and dance.

Mus musculus anonymouse

Anonymous said...

Good points, Mus.

The insurance industry is way ahead of everyone else on this stuff -- because they have the most to lose.

On the other hand, people like Pielke have nothing to lose. They can not even be proved wrong because "you can't tie natural disasters with climate change" - -at least not with certainty.

But when it comes to preparing for such disasters, it's about probability, not certainty. The insurance industry has learned this the hard way over the years.

--T

Anonymous said...

I read the Classic post Eli.

Interestingly, the first poster there advocated setting up a smear page over at SourceWatch for Pielke not properly toeing the AGWPC line.

And, interestingly enough, he/she appears to be the first poster here.

==Natural catastrophes will grow with climate change: re-insurer==

"I guess because it doesn't fit with his "you can't tie natural disasters with climate change" song and dance." - anonymouse

The biggest natural disaster in 2007 was the Japanese earthquake, surely even you won't attempt to tie that to climate change anonymouse.

That Munich Re lumps earthquakes together with other possibly climate related disasters provides us with no useful data as far as your link is concerned.

- Paul S

Anonymous said...

Paul S

Only an idiot would interpret "natural disaster" or "natural catastrophe" in this context as including an earthquake.


BTW, how are the surface station post card sales coming along?

Anonymous said...

Hey, take it up with Munich Re. They're the ones who include earthquakes in a press release about climate change.

- Paul S

Anonymous said...

Paul S.

You didn't read the piece that was linked to, or if you did you did not understand it. You do know how to read, right?

The last two paragraphs made it perfectly clear (to th literate non-idiot, at least), that the remark applies to "storms and floods" (not earthquakes)


"Floods in Britain were the second costliest event to insurers and Munich Re said the high incidence of floods and storms in 2007 was a sign of things to come if global warming continued unchecked.

"These events cannot, of course, be attributed solely to climate change, but they are in line with the pattern that we can expect in the long term: severe storms, more heavy rainfall and a greater tendency towards flooding," said Peter Hoeppe, head of the company's Re's Geo Risks Research Department.

John Goetz said...

If I were a re-insurer I would be all over any excuse to raise my rates. Global warming / climate change - real or not - is a godsend to anyone marketing an insurance product.

Anonymous said...

John Goetz:

In some cases (eg, auto insurance) it is true that insurance companies need to justify (ge, the government who is controlling them) raising their rates.

But in most cases -- including that of natural disasters -- that is simply not the case. If an insurance company wants to raise its rates, it is free to do so.

It is also free to risk losing customers to other insurance companies that do not raise their rates.

In the absence of government control over rate setting, your argument really depends either on there being only a single insurance company or on all insurance companies conspiring to raise their rates.

If neither of those assumptions is true, your argument does not hold much water.

Anonymous said...

In reference to Mus Musculus anonymouse, Paul S. wrote: "Interestingly, the first poster there advocated setting up a smear page over at SourceWatch for Pielke not properly toeing the AGWPC line."

Actually, I was just pointing out that Pielke is now profiled at Sourcewatch. It was already set up. So how could I be "advocating setting up...."?

Do you bother to even read before you type?

And why do you find it a smear to point out that Roger Pielk Jr. likes to travel with right-wingers?

I guess pointing out that Pielke Jr. is getting kind comments over at News Busters is also a smear?

I don't really see what's wrong with pointing out that Pielke Jr. is lovingly embraced by right-wingers and seems to enjoy courting their approval. It's America and Pielke Jr. should be free to engage in any type of behavior that he chooses.


Mus musculus anonymouse