Slashdot Mirror

But if you look at all the data without cherry picking a start date, they are still going up...

If you look at their source data. You will notice that they removed the first 10 years and started with 1990 instead of 1980.

Looking at all the data it's clear that they are increasing, even compared with GDP.

That is how you and your deniers site lie with statistics.

What a surprise, a denier links to a denier site and gets a deniers answer.

Both links in the summary talk about data since 1980. Your link claims to use the same data from here but comes up with the opposite conclusion.

Why did they throw out the first 10 years of data? Is it because when you put them in you don't get the deniers answer that you and your link were looking for?

They threw out the first 10 years of data from their source so they could get the answer deniers like you are looking for.

No, disasters are getting more expensive.

They threw out the first 10 years of data from their source so they could get the answer deniers like you are looking for.

Yes it does change things, the trend is reversed and disasters are getting more expensive. Even if you stupidly compare them with GDP for some strange reason.

Seriously you stupid moronic retarded as swipe cancerous STD ridden canker sore fuckheads. YOU! destroyed the relationship between advertisers and consumers. I don't want to blow my cap on my smartphone so I can download 40 megabytes of shitty advertisements and malware graciously provided by you assholes.

I don't want to have to pay ransomware just so I can get stupid ads. Your paradigm is broken, fix it.

FUCK you very much - you brought this shitstorm upon yourselves, by making 80 percent of the data advertising http://www.munichre.com/en/gro..., and now you are upset because we don't want you ramming your utter shit the wrong way up our asses?

Go fuck yourself. I'll stop using the internet before I turn my adblocker off.

Other than that I have no strong thoughts on the issue.

Is there a Powerpoint (*shudders*) or other materials you could link to? (Or search terms I might try? Name of insurance company if you recall and would care to share?)

I'm not doubting one bit, but it would be an interesting perusal nonetheless.

It was quite a long time ago, but here is Munich RE, a re-insurer company http://www.munichre.com/en/gro... Interestingly enough, they first warned of the impact of global warming on insurance in 1973.

How do you internalize the cost of a rare catastrophe (which would probably bankrupt any insurance company)?

There is a report by russia today that fukushima has cost $105 bn. Greenpeace (which hates nuclear power) claims a damage of $205 bn. So, the range of nuclear meltdown damages is in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, the insurance company munich re reports that they had to pay $31bn in 2014. I really think that it is doable to scale their business. So basically, there is one nuclear incident every 20 years world-wide. Lets be generous and say it costs around $400 bn. Now, the nuclear industry would have to pay $20 bn every year for such an insurance, world-wide. With a number of 438 reactors, that's $44 million per year. Energy companies make much much more with nuclear power on reactors in average than this amount, don't you think?

Why don't we start by internalizing the external costs of fossil fuels? That will drive us to alternatives REALLY quick.

Full agree. This is improperly internalized.

Funny that you should characterize climate change as a plot against the oil companies. If you check the position papers of the petroleum industry associations you will find that not only do they understand climate change, they also admit their carbon from their products are part of the cause.
http://www.api.org/environment-health-and-safety/climate-change.aspx

In addition to the petroleum industry itself, the worlds largest insurance companies, who's entire business is based on determine fact and risk, have long acknowledged climate change and its mankind's role in accelerating it.
http://www.munichre.com/corporate-responsibility/en/management/environment/climate-protection/default.aspx

So if the petroleum industry and insurance (banking) industries are part of the same conspiracy with scientists...perhaps it is not a conspiracy?

Perhaps the only conspiracy are pundits making a money by exploiting a niche? You can launch a site expressing some counter factual, our counter cultural position and you will be guaranteed a small but loyal audience by people who get a sense of self-worth by being "outside" or "bucking the trend" or a "rebel" or whatever.

You're acting under the false assumption that one weather event is the only outlier in an otherwise regular world. Setting aside rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting ice, etc, severe weather events are much more common now. The number of weather-loss related events has quintupled over the last three decades, with climate change anticipated to be the major driver of increased costs for insurers in the foreseeable future. So yes, we can and should already be talking the new climate norms and alerting people to how our climate will continue to change.

On the one hand, we've got the world's largest reinsurance agency, Munich Re, frankly describing not only how global warming has increased the severity of weather in North America including heatwaves, droughts, floods, and tropical cyclones, but also the trend of weather related losses. Their report goes on to describe the stark risks insurers will need to address in the new earth climate.

On the other, we've got snotty ignoramuses and John Birch conspiracy theorists that can't even be bothered to RTFA.

Guess we'll never know who's right.

You've got the logic reversed. Large population centers wisely do not locate themselves near volcanoes.

See: Pompei

A stream is chaotical system, too. Almost every little thing in the whole universe is chaotic.

And then there are people, who've heard from some butterfly and will bash the poor guy(girl?) to death by blaming it all on it and displaying their general lack of knowledge on chaos theory.

Chaos does not mean unpredictable.
It means non-deterministic or limited predictability and possibly unpredictability.

The river is chaotic and fairly unpredictable in its behaviour. Still, no one is amazed to see it streaming downwards.

The magnetic pendulum with two magnetic attractors, another classical example for chaotic behaviour in physics. Is it unpredictable? I think: "It will stop on either magnet" is a fairly accurate prediction. On the other hand it is nearly impossible to predict which.
The human body is pretty much a multitude of chaotic systems.

> I think its foolish to believe that we can predict the [...]

I think, it is foolish to think you know it better than people who are actually working at it.
You know, there are actually smart people out there. And imagine, some of those do work besides CS. Furthermore, the most knowing people in this field are actually climatologists and imagine, they know about chaos theory.

They do not claim to determine the future climate in all its eternity. What they predict is a increase of several degrees in the mean temperature in a fairly restricted amount of time (200y). Your exhilaration on the title may be reduced on the misconception that global warming is the opposite from ice age.
It is not. Global warming is the name for the rapid change of global climate (Rapid for a global climate change). In contrast, Ice Age is the name for a global climatic period.
The abrupt increase of temperature may well trigger a Ice Age. That is what the article is about.

The problem is, the short period of time is for us a lot of time.

> Global warming theory [...]
No, you are assuming that global warming theory assumes.
Actually, global climate models are much more complex. and incorporate several components. Additional to the reflective and absorptive properties of atmospheric water vapor,they include among others greenhouse gas emissions, ozone and sulphate aerosol levels, solar variations, and volcanic aerosols, ice boundaries, earth, and not to mention the ocean in heat absorption, reflection and transportation.

>a change of that magnitude can set off a chain reaction then we would have been gone a long time ago.
Well, we actually see the effects quite clearly. It's not the hot summer this year, or El Nino some years ago.

Have a look at the stats of Munich Re, one of the world largest reinsurace companies.
Have a look at the glaciers.

Do you have the same position towards M.D.s and medicin concerning the chaotic behaviour of the human body?