Natural Disasters in Past Decade Broke Records for Economic, Insured Losses: Aon

January 22, 2020

  • January 22, 2020 at 11:51 am
    Jon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 10

    The rate of environmental catastrophes keeps increasing, and the right-wing boomers kepe their fingers in their ears yelling about hoaxers. We’re lucky to have younger generation leaders like Greta to stand up to their kind of climate denier, because us younger generations are going to have to fix the dinosaurs’ mistakes.

    • January 22, 2020 at 2:42 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 9

      Dude! Everyone reading this started laughing when you cited GRETA! Hilarious. Even liberals are making fun of her now.

      • January 22, 2020 at 3:23 pm
        Jon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 4

        LOL your generation sure likes to try and make fun of a 16 year old girl, pretty sad when a grown man can’t control himself enough to avoid being schooled by a child :)

    • January 23, 2020 at 8:30 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 5

      NatCat frequency increases have already been analyzed by multiple, qualified analysts. Most analysts agree they are largely due to: 1. exposure growth in NatCat prone zones and 2. economic inflation rates leveraged by the excess threshold that defines a Cat.

      I should add that wildfire frequency increases are partly due to forestry management practice changes over the last 5 decades that allow decaying kindling to remain and accumulate rather than clearing it as had been done in the past. Home wildfire loss increases are due to new construction in wildfire zones that were previously too remote for housing.

      • January 23, 2020 at 12:37 pm
        Jon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 0

        Provide evidence of your statement. You’re making contradictory claims, so prove them. Except you won’t, because this information is I’m guessing from an offshoot biased opinion site that you are trying to present as fact. Are you going to try and pretend that the australian wildfires are all arson, too?

      • January 24, 2020 at 10:50 am
        Phil says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        I hope that “most analysts” also agree that the losses, measured in dollars, are only an indicator of the damage from the natural disasters. All the stick-raking in the forests won’t reduce the impacts (losses) from “unprecedented” and “record-breaking” droughts, let alone damage from inland flooding, sea level rise, and wind damage (from increased velocities and reduced recurrence intervals). Science is real.

        • January 25, 2020 at 4:07 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 5

          Science is real. How about “settled science”. Is THAT real? Because Obama and others told us climate change was settled science.

          If that is so, then why have all the prediction to date from the climate scientists been wrong? Truly.

          And does the media EVER produce news that discounts the doom sayers? No.

          (How about the one about Glacier National Park had a display put up by the Feds. in the visitors area saying that all the glaciers would be gone by 2020. Oops. They took the signs down in 2017, and changed that to “gone in future generations”.

          Settle Science.

          • January 27, 2020 at 2:32 pm
            Well... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            Cite a scientist that has used the term settled science.

            Obama, Gore, Greta, AOC, Bert, Ernie, Craig. This is a list of people that are not scientists. We should not listen to them regarding the impact of climate change.

            We should however listen to the scientists who are actually researching and providing empirical data. Empirical data, it should be noted, does not care about your feelings. Right, left, or indifferent.

  • January 23, 2020 at 2:42 pm
    chuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 3

    The climate change hoax has yet to raise anything. We wont need to worry about 2030 when we only have 8 years left …”How daaaaare you ”

    • January 23, 2020 at 3:59 pm
      Andrew says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      “Wettest 12-month stretch in the contiguous U.S. on record dating to 1895 with river flooding across the Mississippi River watershed causing more than US$20 billion in economic losses.”

      Why don’t you go for a swim, Chuckleberry Finn.

      • January 25, 2020 at 4:04 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 4

        The economic damage is largely a consequence of spreading construction in hazardous areas, along with inflation.

        And NO self-respecting climate scientist would try to tie a one year anomaly solely to climate change.

        Let me guess: you are not a climate scientist and you don’t read anything other than what CNN and the NY Times tell you to read about climate change.

        • January 28, 2020 at 3:52 pm
          CommLinesAgent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Let me guess: you are not a climate scientist and you don’t read anything other than what FOX and Trump tell you to read about climate change.

        • January 28, 2020 at 5:29 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Again, you are not a climate scientist. You keep loudly proclaiming that you know what climate scientists think about every situation, but you clearly misrepresent them. Back things up with facts instead of your opinion masquerading as fact. Oh wait, you can’t.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*