Don't insurance companies compete with each other anymore? If they did, a company that was overcharging customers would be undercut by competitors. Maybe the media broke economics. But maybe something else is going on.
Nicely done, thank you. Your remark that “the NSF and NOAA have agreed to subsidize the reinsurance industry’s climate risk modeling needs” disturbs me. Given that these agencies are among the greatest perpetrators of the “noble lie,” can the insurance industry, and more important the consumer, afford to trust their results? Roger Pielke's post of 25 July focuses on the noble lie, and the damage it's done.
Something is rotten in NOAA. They steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that increased whale deaths in the NE are being caused by wind turbine construction, despite nearly overwhelming evidence.
Agree! Their refusal to retract their claims of "billion-dollar disasters" is additional evidence. Ms. Weinkle doesn't see anything sinister (see below), and I would really like to believe her, but I've seen agencies follow their leader in complete disregard of regulations, so I am not optimistic.
I think it's a big deal that NOAA and RAA are working together. I wouldn't characterize it as sinister but it is problematic. Imagine if the American Petroleum Institute had an MOU with USGS to develop products useful to oil companies or if the National Association of Realtors had an MOU with FEMA for flood analysis. All of these groups are 501c6 orgs. The only reason people don't see it as an issue is because of the 'noble lie' as you and Roger point out.
I really wish I could believe that, but experience with agencies and agendas has taught me to be suspicious. Personally, I don't question the source of funding. Hopefully, the integrity of the researcher will guide her findings, not the paper trail. I believe in most cases, that remains true. But NOAA's refusal to backtrack it's "billion dollar disasters" fiasco has me suspicious of its motives.
That said, I really enjoy your work, and ask sincerely that you keep it coming.
I have to add on the increased insurance rates - mine went from $234/mth, July 2023 to $435/mth last year to $610/mth this year (Aug) just for home owners.... interesting that my new car which was quoted at $1,700 when I bought it , 3 weeks later when the new annual policy came due at $2,200 - so where in 3 weeks did that price come from, $500 more?? This is ridiculous!
They say there are more homes being covered, but then there is more money they are also collecting.
Then they talk climate change and we need renewables - well that joke is on us, weather dependent, weather vulnerable, useless forms of generation! The scam of the century and the delusion of the multitudes. How much have they paid out this year for hail damaged solar panels, tornado ravaged turbines and the like - climate my behind! Normal weather here in Texas! But don't get me started down that road. This is all due to insurance companies and banks - guess they feel they all need to make more money!
Yep, they're monetizing our electric bills through the climate scam. And now the insurance companies are getting in on the swindle by sucking more money out of our home ownership.
Notice they attack things that are inelastic demand for consumers. Elastic in that fewer people can afford them, but inelastic for those already in a home. And everyone pays utiltities.
If you think that's bad wait until they institute their Carbon Allowance legislation which will be part of the Digital ID (a part they will likely slip in there quietly). People who don't use all of their Carbon Allowance, can sell that to rich folks like Bill Gates so they can operate their 100gal/hr yachts and fuel guzzling private jets. This will be effectively a devious, greenwashed form of feudalism.
Cancel these communists | Eva Vlaardingerbroek rejects carbon credits to curb climate change, GBNews:
this is basically what has happened with oil and gas - and renewables offsetting their dirty carbon - old scam - new agenda... let's throttle us instead! A great plan for lazy people to get onboard and never realize what happened to them.!
That is the dumbest thing I've heard. Insurance companies understand what's going on with the increased risk of extreme weather events caused by global heating. Your made up term "Climate Change Hyperbole" has nothing to do with it.
The purpose of your post is unclear - is it to criticize the insurance industry, or to say that climate extremes and climate change are clearly the cause of higher rates? With all due respect, I would suggest you find and read Roger Pielke, Jr, postings on extreme weather. They come in four parts, and have been published in the Honest Broker over the past couple of months. In part 4, Pielke states that formal detection of AGC in the statistics of extreme weather is extremely unlikely anytime soon. He goes on to state that the ubiquitous claims that hurricanes, floods, and drought (and various other extremes) have become more intense or frequent (regardless of cause) in the context of documented variability are simply wrong.
When Swiss Re claims that Insured losses exceeding USD 100bn [per year] will be fueled by “climate change” is not supported by evidence or scientific doctrine.
In 2020, a paper published by Klotzbach, et al said that “trends (if trends can be found at all) in the most severe and damaging weather events (tropical cyclones and flooding) cannot be definitively attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions, and in any case may be declining in frequency over the industrialized period.”
Indeed, I believe Ms. Weinkle’s term “climate change hyperbole” is exactly correct.
In the Climate topic, people mentioning that the insurance companies aren't offering insurance to natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires. How much true there is in it?
One big issue you didn't write about it is indeed wildfires, especially in places like California and Canada, how do the insurances companies are dealing with it?
Climate change is a very serious crisis for life on this planet. Finding a few instances where there is no proof of cause is counterproductive to the message that is necessary to address this crisis.
When Not If Climate Change (CC) significantly enters your life like CC has entered my life and my son's life, I'd love to hear how You spin your way out of it. You and the rest of The BI are just BS. You all besmirch the greater Berkeley area reputation. Boy, you guys can sure waste a lot of ink. Are you getting much smoke where You are....we sure are. I'm one of 60 million U.S. citizens with a lung condition requiring medical attention. Cali is so Hot...it burns. You are doing such a disservice to humanity. I have many unprintable hopes for The BI. May Climate Change and the Blue Bird of Paradise meet you sooner than later. Best Regards!
There is no evidence that Climate Change is causing an increase in wildfires. What most assuredly is causing an increase in wildfires is bad forest management. Greenies screwup everything they touch, I've come to the conclusion they can't get even one thing right. Whenever they try to improve something, they inevitably make it worse.
The insurance industry has a long history of finding ways to overcharge for risk (especially in less-competitive, higher-perceived-risk markets with lots of asymmetric information), getting fat and happy, feeding the insurance cycle by aggressively pursuing lower-perceived-risks, taking big losses, and then rinse and repeat.
And then they blame the insurance cycle on you and me and everyone but themselves. The biggest risk is their own mismanagement.
They have to find an excuse to make up for all their losses due to the 40% increase in death & disability rates in workers caused by the Covid injection.
We need to set insurance rates according to the best predictive weather models. These are related to and should be consistent with economic-physical models used to estimate the optimal adaption and mitigation policies, but are not the same things. They are not designed to and cannot show how much of the risk is due to previous increases of CO2 in the atmosphere
Don't insurance companies compete with each other anymore? If they did, a company that was overcharging customers would be undercut by competitors. Maybe the media broke economics. But maybe something else is going on.
This is a really great question that I cannot answer. This is a great post:
How Long Can State Farm Lose Money? A Long, Long Time!
https://iansbnr.com/how-long-can-state-farm-lose-money-a-long-long-time/
Nicely done, thank you. Your remark that “the NSF and NOAA have agreed to subsidize the reinsurance industry’s climate risk modeling needs” disturbs me. Given that these agencies are among the greatest perpetrators of the “noble lie,” can the insurance industry, and more important the consumer, afford to trust their results? Roger Pielke's post of 25 July focuses on the noble lie, and the damage it's done.
Something is rotten in NOAA. They steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that increased whale deaths in the NE are being caused by wind turbine construction, despite nearly overwhelming evidence.
Agree! Their refusal to retract their claims of "billion-dollar disasters" is additional evidence. Ms. Weinkle doesn't see anything sinister (see below), and I would really like to believe her, but I've seen agencies follow their leader in complete disregard of regulations, so I am not optimistic.
I think it's a big deal that NOAA and RAA are working together. I wouldn't characterize it as sinister but it is problematic. Imagine if the American Petroleum Institute had an MOU with USGS to develop products useful to oil companies or if the National Association of Realtors had an MOU with FEMA for flood analysis. All of these groups are 501c6 orgs. The only reason people don't see it as an issue is because of the 'noble lie' as you and Roger point out.
I really wish I could believe that, but experience with agencies and agendas has taught me to be suspicious. Personally, I don't question the source of funding. Hopefully, the integrity of the researcher will guide her findings, not the paper trail. I believe in most cases, that remains true. But NOAA's refusal to backtrack it's "billion dollar disasters" fiasco has me suspicious of its motives.
That said, I really enjoy your work, and ask sincerely that you keep it coming.
I have to add on the increased insurance rates - mine went from $234/mth, July 2023 to $435/mth last year to $610/mth this year (Aug) just for home owners.... interesting that my new car which was quoted at $1,700 when I bought it , 3 weeks later when the new annual policy came due at $2,200 - so where in 3 weeks did that price come from, $500 more?? This is ridiculous!
They say there are more homes being covered, but then there is more money they are also collecting.
Then they talk climate change and we need renewables - well that joke is on us, weather dependent, weather vulnerable, useless forms of generation! The scam of the century and the delusion of the multitudes. How much have they paid out this year for hail damaged solar panels, tornado ravaged turbines and the like - climate my behind! Normal weather here in Texas! But don't get me started down that road. This is all due to insurance companies and banks - guess they feel they all need to make more money!
Yep, they're monetizing our electric bills through the climate scam. And now the insurance companies are getting in on the swindle by sucking more money out of our home ownership.
Notice they attack things that are inelastic demand for consumers. Elastic in that fewer people can afford them, but inelastic for those already in a home. And everyone pays utiltities.
If you think that's bad wait until they institute their Carbon Allowance legislation which will be part of the Digital ID (a part they will likely slip in there quietly). People who don't use all of their Carbon Allowance, can sell that to rich folks like Bill Gates so they can operate their 100gal/hr yachts and fuel guzzling private jets. This will be effectively a devious, greenwashed form of feudalism.
Cancel these communists | Eva Vlaardingerbroek rejects carbon credits to curb climate change, GBNews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLsRo1Bxdsc
this is basically what has happened with oil and gas - and renewables offsetting their dirty carbon - old scam - new agenda... let's throttle us instead! A great plan for lazy people to get onboard and never realize what happened to them.!
Before it's too late! That's what they are counting on.
That is the dumbest thing I've heard. Insurance companies understand what's going on with the increased risk of extreme weather events caused by global heating. Your made up term "Climate Change Hyperbole" has nothing to do with it.
The purpose of your post is unclear - is it to criticize the insurance industry, or to say that climate extremes and climate change are clearly the cause of higher rates? With all due respect, I would suggest you find and read Roger Pielke, Jr, postings on extreme weather. They come in four parts, and have been published in the Honest Broker over the past couple of months. In part 4, Pielke states that formal detection of AGC in the statistics of extreme weather is extremely unlikely anytime soon. He goes on to state that the ubiquitous claims that hurricanes, floods, and drought (and various other extremes) have become more intense or frequent (regardless of cause) in the context of documented variability are simply wrong.
When Swiss Re claims that Insured losses exceeding USD 100bn [per year] will be fueled by “climate change” is not supported by evidence or scientific doctrine.
In 2020, a paper published by Klotzbach, et al said that “trends (if trends can be found at all) in the most severe and damaging weather events (tropical cyclones and flooding) cannot be definitively attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions, and in any case may be declining in frequency over the industrialized period.”
Indeed, I believe Ms. Weinkle’s term “climate change hyperbole” is exactly correct.
In the Climate topic, people mentioning that the insurance companies aren't offering insurance to natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires. How much true there is in it?
One big issue you didn't write about it is indeed wildfires, especially in places like California and Canada, how do the insurances companies are dealing with it?
Climate change hyperbole?? Really??
What planet are you living on?
Climate change is a very serious crisis for life on this planet. Finding a few instances where there is no proof of cause is counterproductive to the message that is necessary to address this crisis.
If that's so, then why is NOBODY seriously addressing the problem? The scams are going through the roof. But real solutions are being ignored.
Hi Jessica
When Not If Climate Change (CC) significantly enters your life like CC has entered my life and my son's life, I'd love to hear how You spin your way out of it. You and the rest of The BI are just BS. You all besmirch the greater Berkeley area reputation. Boy, you guys can sure waste a lot of ink. Are you getting much smoke where You are....we sure are. I'm one of 60 million U.S. citizens with a lung condition requiring medical attention. Cali is so Hot...it burns. You are doing such a disservice to humanity. I have many unprintable hopes for The BI. May Climate Change and the Blue Bird of Paradise meet you sooner than later. Best Regards!
There is no evidence that Climate Change is causing an increase in wildfires. What most assuredly is causing an increase in wildfires is bad forest management. Greenies screwup everything they touch, I've come to the conclusion they can't get even one thing right. Whenever they try to improve something, they inevitably make it worse.
The insurance industry has a long history of finding ways to overcharge for risk (especially in less-competitive, higher-perceived-risk markets with lots of asymmetric information), getting fat and happy, feeding the insurance cycle by aggressively pursuing lower-perceived-risks, taking big losses, and then rinse and repeat.
And then they blame the insurance cycle on you and me and everyone but themselves. The biggest risk is their own mismanagement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_cycle
They have to find an excuse to make up for all their losses due to the 40% increase in death & disability rates in workers caused by the Covid injection.
We need to set insurance rates according to the best predictive weather models. These are related to and should be consistent with economic-physical models used to estimate the optimal adaption and mitigation policies, but are not the same things. They are not designed to and cannot show how much of the risk is due to previous increases of CO2 in the atmosphere