Slashdot Mirror
What the Insurance Industry Thinks About Climate Change
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Joseph Stromberg reports at the Smithsonian that if there's one group has an obvious and immediate financial stake in climate change, it's the insurance industry and in recent years, insurance industry researchers who attempt to determine the annual odds of catastrophic weather-related disasters say they're seeing something new. 'Our business depends on us being neutral. We simply try to make the best possible assessment of risk today, with no vested interest,' says Robert Muir-Wood, the chief scientist of Risk Management Solutions (RMS), a company that creates software models to allow insurance companies to calculate risk. Most insurers, including the reinsurance companies that bear much of the ultimate risk in the industry, have little time for the arguments heard in some right-wing circles that climate change isn't happening, and are quite comfortable with the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is the main culprit of global warming. 'Insurance is heavily dependent on scientific thought,' says Frank Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America. 'It is not as amenable to politicized scientific thought.' A pronounced shift can be seen in extreme rainfall events, heat waves and wind storms and the underlying reason is climate change, says Muir-Wood, driven by rising greenhouse gas emissions. 'The first model in which we changed our perspective is on U.S. Atlantic hurricanes. Basically, after the 2004 and 2005 seasons, we determined that it was unsafe to simply assume that historical averages still applied,' he says. 'We've since seen that today's activity has changed in other particular areas as well—with extreme rainfall events, such as the recent flooding in Boulder, Colorado, and with heat waves in certain parts of the world.' Muir-Wood puts his money where his mouth is. 'I personally wouldn't invest in beachfront property anymore,' he says, noting the steady increase in sea level we're expecting to see worldwide in the coming century, on top of more extreme storms. 'And if you're thinking about it, I'd calculate quite carefully how far back you'd have to be in the event of a hurricane.'"
I'd trust insurance companies.
In fact, I'll one up them. You know how nobody's ever responsible for acts of god?
Well, I will be. For $1m/year, I will insure anything against acts of not only the Judeo-Christian god, but any god*.
(* Gods restricted to beings of divine origin only. Music is not your god, nor will we cover damage from sitting too close to the speakers of a cover band in your local dive bar. Coverage not applicable to damage caused by angels, demi-gods, exalted servants, or other quasi-divine beings.)
My take is that if the US just dropped federal flood insurance, you'd see a considerable drop in "climate change induced" extreme weather events and of course, damage from such events.
It almost sounds like you're against the poor inland people subsidizing the insurance on the wealthy's beachfront palaces. Commie.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
No significant warming from 1970 to 1977
No significant warming from 1977 to 1987
No significant warming from 1987 to 1997
No significant warming from 1997 to 2003
No significant warming from 2003 to 2013
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics_v_Realists.jpg