tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post2879131117653155110..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22626528177549221352008-01-02T13:54:00.000-05:002008-01-02T13:54:00.000-05:00In reference to Mus Musculus anonymouse, Paul S. w...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."<BR/><BR/>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...."?<BR/><BR/>Do you bother to even read before you type?<BR/><BR/>And why do you find it a smear to point out that <A HREF="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roger_Pielke_Jr." REL="nofollow">Roger Pielk Jr.</A> likes to travel with right-wingers?<BR/><BR/>I guess pointing out that Pielke Jr. is getting <A HREF="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/01/01/nyt-takes-al-gore-climate-alarmists-happy-new-year" REL="nofollow">kind comments</A> over at News Busters is also a smear?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mus musculus anonymouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12148833036042787642007-12-30T19:59:00.000-05:002007-12-30T19:59:00.000-05:00John Goetz:In some cases (eg, auto insurance) it i...John Goetz:<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>It is also free to risk losing customers to other insurance companies that do not raise their rates.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>If neither of those assumptions is true, your argument does not hold much water.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-64955993995719923032007-12-30T19:41:00.000-05:002007-12-30T19:41:00.000-05:00If I were a re-insurer I would be all over any exc...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87341569035823486032007-12-30T18:19:00.000-05:002007-12-30T18:19:00.000-05:00Paul S.You didn't read the piece that was linked t...Paul S.<BR/><BR/>You didn't read the piece that was linked to, or if you did you did not understand it. You do know <I>how</I> to read, right?<BR/><BR/>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)<BR/><BR/><BR/>"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.<BR/><BR/>"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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42454641505072697212007-12-30T14:34:00.000-05:002007-12-30T14:34:00.000-05:00Hey, take it up with Munich Re. They're the ones w...Hey, take it up with Munich Re. They're the ones who include earthquakes in a press release about climate change. <BR/><BR/>- Paul SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52802669262659003782007-12-30T13:10:00.000-05:002007-12-30T13:10:00.000-05:00Paul SOnly an idiot would interpret "natural disas...Paul S<BR/><BR/>Only an idiot would interpret "natural disaster" or "natural catastrophe" in this context as including an earthquake.<BR/><BR/><BR/>BTW, how are the surface station post card sales coming along?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12971962311419257352007-12-30T02:36:00.000-05:002007-12-30T02:36:00.000-05:00I read the Classic post Eli.Interestingly, the fir...I read the Classic post Eli.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, the first poster there advocated setting up a smear page over at SourceWatch for Pielke not properly toeing the AGWPC line.<BR/><BR/>And, interestingly enough, he/she appears to be the first poster here.<BR/><BR/>==Natural catastrophes will grow with climate change: re-insurer==<BR/><BR/>"I guess because it doesn't fit with his "you can't tie natural disasters with climate change" song and dance." - anonymouse<BR/><BR/>The biggest natural disaster in 2007 was the Japanese earthquake, surely even you won't attempt to tie that to climate change anonymouse.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>- Paul SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23916027766425497192007-12-28T18:47:00.000-05:002007-12-28T18:47:00.000-05:00Good points, Mus.The insurance industry is way ahe...Good points, Mus.<BR/><BR/>The insurance industry is <I>way</I> ahead of everyone else on this stuff -- because they have the most to lose. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, people like Pielke have nothing to lose. They can not even be proved wrong because "you <I>can't</I> tie natural disasters with climate change" - -at least not with certainty.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>--TAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19581573492027602322007-12-28T18:01:00.000-05:002007-12-28T18:01:00.000-05:00Gee, I wonder why Roger Pielke Jr. hasn't blogged ...Gee, I wonder why Roger Pielke Jr. hasn't blogged on this?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iQxlA4tDrSvLFjsxCfy9oZ1GwjjA" REL="nofollow">Natural catastrophes will grow with climate change: re-insurer</A><BR/><BR/>I guess because it doesn't fit with his "you can't tie natural disasters with climate change" song and dance.<BR/><BR/>Mus musculus anonymouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com