BlackRock Says Investors Must Weigh Climate Change Like Insurers Are Doing

By and | September 7, 2016

  • September 7, 2016 at 1:21 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 5

    Let the science denial begin!

  • September 7, 2016 at 2:22 pm
    insurance is fun! says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 4

    …not just science denials.

    The insurance industry is a very conservative industry. Its leaders are very conservative. AND THEY BELIEVE WHAT THE SCIENTISTS SAY!!!!! Why? Because it affects their bottom lines.

    Why can’t lowly agents understand that?

  • September 7, 2016 at 3:16 pm
    integrity matters says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 16

    It does not matter how many people will believe a lie. A lie is always a lie. There are still millions of people who still believe HilLIARy did not lie about Benghazi, her emails, etc, etc. It does not make it the truth.

    The insurance companies buying into the man made global warming is based on flawed science. Just because they believe and change their underwriting appetite, it does not make the science true.

    Feel free to be a lemming and believe whatever they tell you. I will weigh ALL the evidence and make up my own mind.

    • September 7, 2016 at 5:08 pm
      insurance is fun! says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 4

      Ouch! You hurt my feelings, and the feelings of all those lemming insurance executives that see 200 year CATs changing to 50 year CATs.

      • September 8, 2016 at 1:46 pm
        integrity matters says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 10

        Insurance – Sometimes the truth hurts.

        What you and the insurance exec’s are failing to recognize are:
        1) The climate changes naturally, and
        2) The climate is cyclical but not consistent enough to be make credible predications from year to year.

        Additionally, the CAT loads now have to contemplate the dramatic increase in additional exposed property in areas where property never existed due to increased construction.

        • September 13, 2016 at 11:14 am
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 4

          Integrity, do you believe humans evolved from primates, and how old do you think the earth is?

          • September 13, 2016 at 11:13 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 4

            Your questions you are asking here you already know the answer to.

            What you are trying to state is that Integrity is a religious extremist.

            Knock it off.

          • September 13, 2016 at 11:15 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            Also: That is unrelated to the topic of climate change.

            Your methods remain the same. Try to paint someone out as a clueless person on an unrelated topic, to disregard them on the current.

            Usually, you seed this in with groups and bigotry. If he is part of X group, he can’t possibly know what he’s talking about correct?

            Disprove the facts, not this tar.

          • September 14, 2016 at 2:54 pm
            integrity matters says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            UW –

            1. No. “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:27

            2. I don’t know. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

            I have not done the math lately, but, man’s existence on earth is documented in the bible. The earth’s existence is five days older than man.

            I know “science” says it is millions of years old based on carbon dating, but there is likely an explanation how both can be true. Since the earth was without form prior to creation, God likely used existing material that was millions of years old to form the earth.

            What is your explanation for science determining that the universe and our galaxy is “perfectly ordered” as though it was done by design? Do you really think that there could be an explosion that would put everything into existence, in perfect order so that the planets would not run into each other by accident after millions of years?

            If there was an explosion, where did that stuff come from that caused the explosion?

        • September 13, 2016 at 2:29 pm
          insurance is fun! says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 4

          Integrity – Sometimes truth hurts.

          What you and the science denying lemmings are failing to recognize are:
          1) Climate is changing naturally and the change is assisted in a small way by pollutants…but CLIMATE IS CHANGING
          2) It’s sad to hear that you put zero faith in the leaders of, I assume, your industry.

          CATs are hurricanes, quakes, floods, etc… Whether there are 5 homes or 500 homes involved in the destruction, that does not contribute to how often CATs will occur. So yes, insurers must contemplate loss in their appetite, but that doesn’t have anything to do with how often weather-related losses will occur. If you won’t believe science, believe your industry leaders. These things will happen more often than ever before.

          • September 14, 2016 at 3:07 pm
            integrity matters says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Well, Insurance is fun, I hate to shine a spotlight on your ignorance of what I presumed was also your industry. but…

            Cat modeling is used to determine what the potential losses would be as a result of a cat event. It absolutely takes into account the number homes, businesses, etc in a given geographical area.

            The leaders in our industry are very intelligent. But they can make bad decisions if it is based on bad data (i.e. GW Bush’s decision based on the data that WMD’s were in Iraq. Secret intelligence and logic said they were there, but they were never found.)

      • September 8, 2016 at 3:59 pm
        Jax Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 9

        “200 year CATs changing to 50 year CATs.” Really ? And that data would have come from…….your little 20 questions cube ? Listening to Barak Obozo speeches played backward ? Yes, of course, because the National Weather Service has been documenting weather phenomena since right before Washington crossed the Delaware River – that’s how we have 200+ years of data to fall back on. Yes, that Delaware River that was nearly frozen solid due to global warming cause by man-made emissions.
        I don’t suppose there is any chance that our planet experiences cooling and warming periods all on its very own ? And since we only have (according to you) 200 years of data to rely on, it would be difficult for us to say with any hope of being in the ball park that ‘yes, the planet is warming, but it does this from time to time and in another 100 years it’s going to cool again’.

        Man-made emissions. You have any idea what a volcano belches into the atmosphere every time one of them goes ‘boom’ ? Read about it. It makes the ‘man-made emissions’ argument seem pretty lame.

    • September 8, 2016 at 7:54 am
      Ron says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 16
      Thumb down 11

      integrity matters,

      You said, “I will weigh ALL the evidence and make up my own mind.”

      If that statement is true, why do you completely disregard the evidence of 97% of scientists who specialize in climate study?

      A more accurate statement from you would be, “I will weigh ALL the evidence from sources which I believe and support my narrative, and make up my own mind.”

      • September 8, 2016 at 2:07 pm
        integrity matters says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 9

        Ron,

        No, my first statement was accurate. I weighed the evidence based on the reports of 97% of scientists and those scientists of opposing views and evidence.

        I used my God-given intelligence and common sense to reasonably determine that there are too many holes in the 97%’s theories to consider it credible.

        From the scientists using estimated temperatures around the world to the conclusion that the temperatures are rising an average of a half degree over a ten year period. There are too many variables in the analysis that produces a negligible result. My common sense tells me that the data and conclusion falls within the margin of error.

        Add to this that the “scientists” completely disregard the effect of the increased solar activity. The one natural source that emits immense heat and heats our planet can’t possibly be the reason for global warming (if it is actually warming) but they are going to believe the actions of humans and industrialization is the cause. Again, my common sense tells me that the object that is over 27 million degrees Fahrenheit and is mostly responsible for life to exist on earth, is probably, if not mostly, responsible for any perceived increase in the Earth’s temperature.

        • September 8, 2016 at 2:22 pm
          etifosi says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 5

          Integrity Matters,

          Maybe this will help you understand the difference between “science” and “opinion”

          Science:

          noun

          the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

          opinion

          noun

          a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

          Your opinion is NOT science.

          • September 9, 2016 at 2:18 pm
            integrity matters says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 6

            etifosi – maybe this will help you understand the difference between fact and theory

            Fact: noun

            1. something that actually exists; reality; truth

            2. something known to exist or to have happened

            Theory: noun

            1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena

            2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact

            A theory is not fact or truth.

            We begin with the “theory” that global warming actually exists. This is not fact, it is theory. The data gathered to assume this theory has been based on temperatures gathered throughout the world. Some of those temperatures are “true” temperatures and some of the temperatures are “estimates” (another best guess). The conclusion that the globe is warming is partially based on theoretical (not factual) information resulted in warming trends that are negligible and can just as easily be explained as naturally occurring climate change. History (fact) has confirmed this.

            The “scientists” further “theorize” the cause of theoretical global warming is manmade carbon emissions. These same “scientists” are ignoring the “fact” that the suns solar activity has demonstrated increases in the earth’s temperature. The global warming “scientists” are “theorizing” with their opinion.

            My opinion, as you call it, is based on the “facts” presented by the science community. The plausible facts outweigh the flawed theories based on estimated data.

        • September 8, 2016 at 3:56 pm
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 11
          Thumb down 5

          integrity matters,

          Does your God-given intelligence allow you to consider how additional carbon being released into the air due to human activities, pollution added into the earth by humans, and the decrease in trees and rain forests due to human expansion could have any impact on climate change?

          Based on your past comments, you have ignored this and have focused solely on how the climate changes cyclical regardless of human influence.

          • September 9, 2016 at 2:29 pm
            integrity matters says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 6

            Ron,

            Yes, I have considered that. I have said in previous posts that we all need to be good stewards of our planet. It is very possible that man could impact natural resources that could possibly (eventually) impact the climate.

            The data used is suspect because of the estimates and possibly even the consistency in which the data has been gathered. The conclusions are negligible enough to fall within the margin of error allowing for other plausible explanations.

  • September 9, 2016 at 5:07 pm
    etifosi says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 2

    Integrity….

    “I weighed the evidence based on the reports of 97% of scientists and those scientists of opposing views and evidence.”

    So you are saying that you have not only read (and understood) ALL of the anthropomorphic climate change studies and that they are all based on simple temperature readings when available, and guesses when not?

    That’s pretty stunning right there.

  • September 12, 2016 at 10:53 am
    integrity matters says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 7

    etifosi – Of course not…have your read every single piece of evidence for and against?

    I have read some summaries for and against and have also read NOAA’s report on how they are determining the average earth temperature. It states in the report they are using estimates and averages of averages (you have to be able to comprehend that aspect).

    What is your basis of belief? MSNBC, NBC or some other spoon-fed BS?

    • September 12, 2016 at 4:10 pm
      etifosi says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 4

      integrity – I have not read every single piece of evidence, but I didn’t state: “I weighed the evidence based on the reports of 97% of scientists and those scientists of opposing views and evidence.”, either.

      I’m sorry I got confused…you have such strong feelings about this and seemed to indicate you have done a LOT of research. But then you say you’ve read a few summaries, for and against. Have you read 33 reports concluding there is something there for every 1 denying it? Have you looked into who “sponsored” either the 97% or the 3%, to figure out who’s dog is in the hunt?

      I guess one thing I missed in my “Science v. Opinion” post, was that Science evolves, but Opinion does not.

      Thanks for the “Theory v. Fact” post, but your statements seem more “opinion” than “science”.

      • September 12, 2016 at 5:36 pm
        Jax Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 4

        etifosi; since there is very little science on this subject; remember, we are talking about climate changes to the entire planet – not just seasonal, but patterns that we ‘believe’ may last for several hundred years at a time, but we don’t know that for sure because………there is very little recorded, measurable scientific data that can use to confirm or refute this belief. So an awful lot of what there is available to read on the subject is, someone’s opinion. Granted, it’s someone whose middle name is ‘Scientist’, but that doesn’t change the facts.
        There is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that from the mid fourteenth century till the early nineteenth century that our planet experienced a ‘mini-ice age’, but there is no usable meteorological data from that time period to help explain it.
        Is our planet now warming ? That seems to be the conclusion. But we don’t know if that warming trend will continue for another 100 years or for the next 2 years. And we probably won’t be able to answer that with any certainly until about another 50 to 100 years out. Do we know with certainty that mankind is contributing to this current warming trend ? That also seems to be the conclusion, but we don’t know with any certainty to what extent. We don’t even know if our most ambitious ‘green house gas emission control polices’ if enacted to perfection would slow, alter, change, reverse, etal, adnauseum the current trend.
        Is our planet in trouble ? Possibly, but neither of us will be here to see what ultimately happens ….. So between now and …..then, every unusual weather phenomena that takes place will cause the ‘sky is falling’ crowd to run through the streets screaming ‘climate change’ or whatever the next impending disaster du jour happens to be called. As for now, Science vs Opinion are two schools of thought that are much closer to each other than many of us would like to believe.
        Best,

      • September 13, 2016 at 11:08 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 2

        Etifosi, you are debating an ideologue who will support and idiotic claim to support his belief. It is literally a religious belief for him and cannot be changed.

        He incorrectly claims, “It states in the report they are using estimates and averages of averages (you have to be able to comprehend that aspect).”

        That is incorrect, as I’ve previously explained, and he has either ignored or failed to understand.

        What he is referring to is taking measurements and then comparing them to both long-term and short-term averages to see how much variamce there is from the mean. He has shown over and over he doesn’t understand basic statistics. He has shown he also doesn’t understand probability distributions (frightening for a person in insurance, and disqualifying from any position other than possibly an agent, imo). He has cited studies about elevation that have been debunked for 5 years. If you keep going his argument will eventually be that they don’t have enough observation stations, and every inch of the earth must be covered going back into eternity, and then he still won’t accept it.

        • September 13, 2016 at 11:38 am
          etifosi says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 4

          UW,

          Thank you for helping me realize I’m just feeding & feeding into trolls. As the saying goes, “play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

          I’ll accept my prize this time!

        • September 13, 2016 at 1:08 pm
          Jax Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 3

          UW – you smacked integrity pretty hard there and yet you are guilty of doing much the same, just on the other side of the argument. I guess it would be fair to say that both sides of this argument feel strongly about their position and neither side is willing to concede points to the other. I don’t think there is any question that the planet is warming. I do think there are lots of questions as to why, how much more will it increase, for how much longer, and what impact those changes will have on life on the planet.
          Anyone who states unequivocally that they know these answers is either an arrogant narcissist or they might best be committed to a safe place somewhere. You and I may not live long enough to see how this all plays out as this kind of science could take decades to fully show it’s hand.
          Best,

          • September 13, 2016 at 2:03 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 5

            No, this is the typical, “both sides do it” BS idiots push. There has been debate on this for decades, and the scientists who supported anthropogenic climate change have been proven correct. Nobody is claiming they know 100% how long it will go, to what level, etc., because it’s impossible to predict what the future technologies and variables will be, but people like you and the group of clueless people pushing this crap nonstop here are actually saying the opposite; if you don’t exactly predict the future into infinity your science is invalid.

            You can say basically all the science, and basically all the climate scientists, and almost 100% of the scientific studies are wrong, but you need to publish peer reviewed work that disproves decades of established science, otherwise you are just full of crap.

            Anybody who dismisses what 97% of the people who are experts in the field think after decades of work is an idiot, or needs to be committed to a room. Why aren’t you arrogant for dismissing and overturning decades of research by thousands of independent scientists, without reading almost any of it (if you have read any, which I doubt), because you just don’t believe it?

          • September 13, 2016 at 9:05 pm
            Jax Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 3

            UW – so everyone that disagrees with you is ‘clueless’. Typical of liberals. “You have to be tolerant of everyone’s opinion, but we will not be tolerant of anyone else’s opinion and if you don’t agree with us, you’re a ‘clueless idiot’.” Buckle your chinstrap Alice, you’re about to get schooled, even if you’re too stupid to follow what I’m about to share with you (and I suspect you are).
            Science today only has about 70 years of meaningful data to use in measuring climate change. 70 years, you dumbass. 70 years to measure changes that we ‘believe’ take hundreds of years to happen and more hundreds to run their course. Are you following me at all here ? Do you want me to type slower for you ? Do you need Hillary or Al Gore to confirm this so you can accept it ? You said, “Nobody is claiming they know 100% how long it will go, to what level, etc., because it’s impossible to predict what the future technologies and variables will be”…..what? Whoa, I’m not sure what you mean by that……..did you blink ? Is that not what I’ve been saying all along ? Umm, yes, it is. Oh…and that’s not all they don’t know !!

            I never said that the scientific community was wrong (you said that) but I did say, and you said too, THEY DON’T KNOW. What part of 400 year weather cycles don’t you understand ? How can you be so gullible ? You throw out big words but you surround those with the dumbest comments ever seen on this or just about any other website. And you keep throwing out ‘97%’ as though that is the actual number of ….. of what, scientists accredited by the liberal democrats? “Anybody who dismisses what 97% of the people who are experts in the field think after decades of work is an idiot, or needs to be committed to a room.” You, are the idiot. You believe all this drivel and you are certain it will happen …….share the date with us, UW, we all need to prepare for the end!
            You’re a liberal tool. You can’t think for yourself -zero common sense but an absolute certainty that Huffington, Hollywood, and the DNC are telling you the truth. Pathetic lemming……..we’ll see you at the bottom after you’ve followed your clueless leaders and jumped off the cliff. You should try to learn some things on your own…..don’t be so dependent on what your political party tells you to believe. Broaden yourself; read history, read ‘actual’ science and draw a few of your own conclusions….it’s ok, no one is going to take your Hillary bobble-head doll away if you have an independent thought.
            You might learn something……scary, I know, but it’s worth it. BTW, your ‘thousands of independent scientists’ is a much smaller number and for what it’s worth, any scientist that questions the ‘lemming’s climate change agenda’ is subject to be ostracized by their peers ( a very liberal minded way to treat anyone who dissents) because it’s not popular.
            Try to form a thought of your very own, just once, UW, and don’t assume that everyone who doesn’t subscribe to your narrative is ‘clueless’ or an ‘idiot’. You get all worked up about a subject that you know very little about and when you do, your argument goes to hell in a hand basket. Have you considered seeking professional help ? They have medicine available today that can help you with some of your angst and it really carries no stigma or other socially negative implications. In fact, your employer can’t even find out about it……….unless you go blabbing it to everyone in the lunchroom….in conjunction with your other ramblings. Just sayin…….Do try to be more diplomatic in the future and I’ll redouble my efforts as well.
            Best,

        • September 14, 2016 at 3:26 pm
          integrity matters says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 1

          UW – If you actually read the NOAA report, you obviously cannot interpret what was actually done to arrive at their conclusions.

          Please answer the following questions..
          1) Are probability distributions fact?
          2) If the variables in the calculation of a probability distribution are increased, will that make the projected outcome more or less credible?

          Let’s see how smart you are.

  • September 14, 2016 at 12:37 pm
    JB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 1

    Points to Ponder:

    Fact: The earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old. If represented as 24 hours, the entire history of mankind would be one second. Industrial mankind would be just a fraction of the one second.

    Fact: The geologic record shows that the earth has gone through many dramatic, sometimes sudden, shifts in weather/climate. From highly active volcanic activity with molten lava flowing everywhere to ice ages covering the entire planet.
    The climate has changed dramatically many times, with a variety of possible explanations – complicated even further by evidence for one trend thought to be caused primarily by one variable, and another trend thought to be caused primarily by another.

    Fact: Weather/climate is affected by many variables. It’s thought to be primarily affected by the sun: the distance from the sun; sun activity (many scientists believe the sun has “seasons”)
    But weather and climate will also be affected by friction caused by the gravitational pull of the planets and the sun on each other, producing tectonic activity and heat; all flora and fauna have an affect on their environments (not just mankind); ocean water temperatures, which will obviously be affected by underwater volcanic activity and heat vents, and probably many other variables.

    Fact: Climatology is a relatively new science, and not fully understood…by the scientists themselves. It may always remain a theoretical science due to the many variables involved, and the almost infinite ways in which they are interrelated.

    So, climatology is now settled science? No, it is not.
    Good scientific research demands that as long as there are other possibilities or explanations they should be explored. My daughter is a scientist, earning degrees in biology/microbiology and a PhD in neuroscience from an ivy league school, so although I am not a scientist, I do know first-hand what good science involves.

    Observations: Does anyone find it rather odd that anthropogenic caused climate change is usually promoted and publicized by politicians and lawyers? Do you often see or hear about the supposed peer-reviewed scientists answering questions of the media/reporters/public? If they are truthful, they would have to admit that it’s all still just “theory”. I don’t believe you would find any real scientist claiming that it is truly “settled science”, only “our best models predict..” or “evidence seems to point to…” and other such indefinite unverifiable conclusions.

    Does anyone find it rather odd that nobody ever finds anything positive to say about a warmer climate? I mean, seriously, almost everything has a positive spin, such as “he ran his car into a tree, but at least no one was hurt”, or “opiates to the point of addiction is bad, but when taken in prescribed doses under the care of a physician is good”, or “alcohol consumption in large quantities is bad, but in moderation is good”, or “he’s an axe murderer who killed ten people, but at least we caught him before he could kill again”. But climate change? Nothing. No “well maybe heating and energy usage will go down”, or “maybe some of the melted ice will release water to make currently barren land arable” or “it’s still better than an ice age, which would really cause us trouble”…nothing good or positive, ever? Why? Rather odd, indeed.

    My observations are not intended to answer any questions, only to suggest that we need to ask more. And think more, rationally and logically.

    Wouldn’t it be a tragic irony if, a few years from now, after accepting anthropogenic climate change as fact, and acting on it without further questioning or scrutiny, we discover “oh no, it wasn’t anthropogenic caused, it was some other variables which were primarily responsible!”…too late.

    Am I a science denier? No, I am not.
    Are you a science denier? I hope not.

    • September 14, 2016 at 2:27 pm
      Jax Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 3

      Well said. The ‘Sky-Is-Falling’ crowd will pay little heed to it because it’s not part of the script.

  • October 4, 2016 at 12:33 pm
    Jax Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    October 3, 2016
    Global Warming Guru Disavows Climate Change
    Robert Jonathan
    Influential scientist, futurist, and inventor Dr. James Lovelock, often called the godfather of the environmental movement, continues to walk back his previous doom-and-gloom predictions of a global warming climate change catastrophe.

    In 2014, however, he described the environmental movement as becoming more like a religion that is not based on facts. He added that, “It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You can’t be certain.”
    In a newly published interview with the Guardian, he again deemed the green movement a “totally unscientific” religion.

    “I’m not anti-green in the sense that I’m in favor of polluting the world with every damn thing we make. I think we’ve got to be careful. But I’m afraid, human nature being what it is, the thing gets exaggerated out of all proportion, and the greens have behaved deplorably instead of being reasonably sensible.”
    Lovelock also claimed that one volcano eruption could make obsolete all the computer models that man-made global warming advocates rely upon for their climate disruption forecasts.

    Interesting.

    Waiting for the hysterical and easily led to respond.



Add a Comment

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

*