Judge Rules Government, Not President, Can Be Sued Over Climate Change

By | October 16, 2018

  • October 16, 2018 at 7:18 am
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 24
    Thumb down 21

    It’s truly sad that US and other Socialist nation teachers have brainwashed youths to believe every bit of Climate Change is in the control of humans. Worse, they have blamed the US government while China is a much worse purveyor of greenhouse gasses and is not subject to any controls over their production of such gasses until almost 30 years out.

    • October 16, 2018 at 8:48 am
      ??? says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 14
      Thumb down 7

      It’s crazy how education can affect a person’s reasoning, right!? Unbelievable, how dare people learn and educate themselves on topics of the world. College and Universities are just a breading ground for this behavior. Almost like getting an education and subjecting yourself to 100s of different world views could change your opinions…

      • October 16, 2018 at 12:04 pm
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        Types of government =/= types of world views

      • October 16, 2018 at 3:52 pm
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        He’s right, they don’t present enough world views. In reality they push almost exclusively corporatist capitalist theories, although he doesn’t know that because he just lies and says he has a degree in statistics, which is pretty relevant when discussing the university system.

        They should also look into Maoism, actually study Marxism and neo-Marxism, and even look at Leninism and Stalinism, which has many interesting ideas as well as many bad ideas, and could hold that a class traitor like him should be purged. Better to just make up a Fake Education! Yell about what your don’t like, call or a fact, and attack anybody who disagrees I guess.

    • October 16, 2018 at 11:19 am
      SWFL Agent says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 14
      Thumb down 2

      Well if greenhouse gases aren’t contributing to climate change then why bother to mention China’s output. Really doesn’t matter. Right?

      • October 16, 2018 at 5:01 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 10

        It’s largely moot, except that China could actually significantly step up its production of GH gasses… which should matter greatly to Hoaxers… but it doesn’t. Hypocrisy.

        • October 17, 2018 at 2:53 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 6

          China signed an agreement to lower output and was ahead of the timeline before Trump ripped it up. They have a giant population and recognize the effects climate change will have on it: economically, health wise and through natural disasters, not to mention widespread famine, so they are actually doing something about it.

          Meanwhile, people like you make the Republicans in the US the only major political party in the world who don’t believe in climate change. No wonder many in that group create fake credentials.

    • October 17, 2018 at 2:23 am
      AJJJJ says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 0

      Yes even the guys at Exxon Mobile are crazy left wing tree huggers these days ( https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position) . PolarBearRepeal, you must be right!

  • October 16, 2018 at 1:24 pm
    Agency says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 18
    Thumb down 15

    The Climate Change agenda has lied over and over again, they also have made a number of predictions that have never materialized. Why people still believe this agenda is beyond me.There is no denying we have had a warming trend, however such cycles have always occurred throughout history and opportunist are taking advantage of this because they don’t like our capitalist system and this is there way of trying to destroy it.

    • October 16, 2018 at 3:56 pm
      UW says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 13

      Great point. Hey, since Republicans have predicted for years lower taxes on the rich will create a rising tide to “lift all boats” and that has failed miserably you probably support massive tax increases, maybe even back up to the 90%+ marginal rate, right?

      Many predictions have been off, mostly underestimating things like how much the oceans would warm, the total increase in temperature, etc.

      • October 17, 2018 at 1:10 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 8

        Actually, since the Trump tax cuts, the CBO has revised the estimated of the impact on the deficit downward by 80%.

        You read that right: the added GDP growth from the tax cuts will raise tax revenues to the point that it will drop the original, straight-line projection of deficits by 80%!!!!!

        Supply-side works (or if you prefer, trickle down works).

        • October 17, 2018 at 2:50 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Probably don’t want to take Craig’s statistics as fact just because he claims they are. To wit: according to him, an $11B reduction on $793B comes out to an 80% reduction.

        • October 17, 2018 at 11:50 pm
          Andrew G. Simpson says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Posts having nothing to do wth the article topic will be removed.

        • October 18, 2018 at 8:25 am
          CL PM says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 2

          Craig – I would love to believe your 80% number. Where did you get that? The late June projection from CBO that I found does not say that:

          https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53919

          That projection says the deficit will continue to grow.

          • October 18, 2018 at 1:38 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 4

            The IJ deletes most of my posts. I don’t swear, I try not to insult people unless in response an insult, I try to tell the truth, and I admit when I make a mistake.

            But if I post facts and ideas that lean right, IJ deletes them. . . so why bother? You can look it up if you try; not hard to find.

          • October 18, 2018 at 2:23 pm
            Andrew G. Simpson says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 0

            It is not true that most of your posts are deleted. If they are on topic, they remain.

          • October 18, 2018 at 3:43 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 4

            It is true.

            I have witnessed several on topic deleted. I have seen the original comment which I have replied to, on topic to that comment, remain while mine have gone.

            And if you really care about the peace here, you would realize whether or not this is true from my point or Craig’s perspective (and it is) you are causing more fighting by removing posts by default because it gives that image.

            You now have UW enraged, Craig commenting on your bad tactics, and myself as well. You’re not helping anyone get along, you once on this page said how it took all you had to stop the fighting here. You aren’t stopping fighting. You’re not making peace. If you want to come in and instead of delete, direct comments with a short reply that would be more efficient and better PR. You have to think of PR when you’re a mod. That’s kind of the point to stop flow of issues on an intra communicative basis (as in between you and them and them and each other)

          • October 18, 2018 at 7:51 pm
            Andrew G. Simpson says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 0

            I repeat….
            The editors of Insurance Journal appreciate your interest in our website and that you have chosen to participate in our comment section.
             
            We are trying to clean up the forum and would welcome your cooperation along with that of all other regular posters. Please help us by setting an example.

            First, please stay on topic. If someone else strays from the topic of an article, there is no need for you to follow that person down that path. Off-topic comments will be deleted. We may miss some but that is no excuse to post another.

            Not every article, news item or argument is political. This comment section is not a place for you to repeatedly flex your partisan political muscles or engage in tit-for-tat exchanges with a handful of others.

            We seek commentary from an insurance perspective from insurance professionals wanting to educate, clarify, contextualize or counter a story or other opinion.

            We respectfully request that all commenters refrain from insults towards one another, avoid profanities and show respect for others at all times. If you or anyone else can’t make your point without insulting another person’s intelligence, morals, ethnicity, character or other trait, then please don’t post it. Those who engage in such behaviors ruin the forum experience for the majority who follow the rules of civil discourse. Comments that disrespect others will be deleted.

            Some of you complain that your comment was deleted while so-and-so’s comment was not. We don’t have the staff or the desire to monitor this comment section 24/7. It is meant to be self-regulating.

            Andrew Simpson
            Chief Content Officer
            Wells Media Group

  • October 16, 2018 at 1:58 pm
    J.S. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 5

    Here it comes. All the idiots who don’t know what they’re talking about acting like they are experts. Blah, blah, political opinion, blah blah. What a joke.

    • October 16, 2018 at 3:03 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 4

      Everyone is an “idiot”. Except J. S. . . .

      • October 17, 2018 at 4:24 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 2

        This is always said when a topic of importance comes up that you want to silence one side.

        This debate is needed. Stop trying to silence people.

      • October 18, 2018 at 9:08 am
        J.S. says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 3

        To Craig: No, on this topic, I am just as utterly uninformed as you are. I just don’t feel it’s necessary to provide my opinion on this website. Why would I? It’s an insurance website and nothing anyone says here on this topic is of any importance whatsoever and extremely unlikely to change anyone’s opinion.

        To Bob: (If you were talking to me) No, while I am sure no one on this website has anything of importance to say on this topic. I want the people who are fully educated on the topic to have vigorous discussions regarding their viewpoints so that, as a species, we can hopefully come to the correct conclusion, and if necessary, make any needed changes early enough to make a difference. What the uninformed people here are doing is just giving their political opinions on a scientific question.

        • October 18, 2018 at 1:40 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 5

          I almost certainly know more about this topic than you do. And your assumption that I am as ignorant as you on the subject is not only arrogance on your part to assume something you can’t possible know, but it is also illogical. If you know little, that does not mean others don’t know more than you.

          • October 19, 2018 at 2:17 pm
            J.S. says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 2

            Craig, Please excuse me. I’m so sorry. I didn’t know I was talking to an expert on the topic.

            So, I’m curious, since you are so well informed, why do you waste your time on a small insurance site comment section instead of working with the other experts on the subject helping all of humanity benefit from your wisdom?

    • October 18, 2018 at 1:53 pm
      Jax Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 4

      So, J.S., your opinion is a really good opinion, but anyone that doesn’t concur with that opinion is…… is an idiot ?
      I’d submit to you that when it comes to climate change, even the best informed scientists are still learning and trying to figure out what exactly happens next. Since there is no recorded history that would allow us to establish a benchmark for warming/ cooling/ etc. all the scientific community, except Al Gore, are learning on the fly.
      The poles are flipping…….maybe we could agree on that ?

  • October 18, 2018 at 1:47 pm
    Jax Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m guessing you’ve saved a spot for yourself in the ‘intelligent posters’ group ? Except that you continue to post……so if the ‘intelligent posters’ were chased off, but you continue posting……..

    Plus, I love the reference to the ‘ white supremacist conspiracy theory forum ‘. Does that make you racist ?

  • October 18, 2018 at 1:59 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    I agree! Anyone who posts insults about others like “lying, ecomonic illiterates” or “retarded” posts should be banned for life.

  • October 18, 2018 at 2:52 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 8

    Andrew Simpson: have some pride, man. You KNOW you delete tons of my posts that I are perfectly on point. Eg. the article on the Trump and Stormy Daniels court case was over whether Trump had slandered her by lying about her. The issue was lying. I went on to list – in an amusing way, with no insults or swearing – the facts about the lies of prominent Democrats, including our favorite Native American senator. That got deleted. Please. I could give lots of other examples. Your “not on point” excuse is partisan nonsense. You leave up lots of ridiculous, pointless comments from your political team mates.

    • October 18, 2018 at 3:35 pm
      rob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 0

      I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that 99.9%of the posts that get deleted have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. Not EVERY article is about “right vs left”, yet you, Agent, Polar, etc tend to make them political. Between Yogi with his constant conspiracy theories about bots censoring conservatives, Agent with his Hannity-parroting ignorance, misogyny, islamophobia, and blatant bullying of Rosenblatt and others, and you with all of your constant insults, people are sick of it. I’m honestly surprised Andrew hasn’t just pulled the plug on the whole comments section because of you three, as I’m sure the comments section has become a daily headache to him.

      We get it…you guys don’t like “lefties” or other people with whom you disagree. You’ve made that point very clear. You, Agent, and Polar all claim to have extensive insurance experience; why not share that wisdom with everyone instead of coming on here on a daily basis to tear down others? There are literally thousands of other sites that you can go to for political discourse.

      • October 18, 2018 at 3:39 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 4

        Agent is uppity, but he is not bullying any more than Rosenblatt and Ron do him.

        We get it, you don’t like righties, as you just blamed them and none of the left here who clearly have to do with this. You also neglected to say anything about UW, who is calling everyone here white supremacists including the journal itself, and is harassing everyone calling them murders of Muslims in my case and Timothy Mc Veigh, as well as said I supported sexual assault even though I have been assaulted, which Insurance Journal deleted, on a me too post (which makes it by default on topic)

        Comments are meant to start on topic and then expand out. It usually goes that way. And yes, a lot of the stuff here does link politically, though not always. If you make a post about climate change and me too, chances are people will get riled up about the political aspects of it.

        The over policing of comments is not a good thing. You act like stopping the topics from expanding is a good thing. I disagree.

      • October 18, 2018 at 4:02 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 5

        I wouldn’t take pride in failing to see what others see and then calling it “insight”. Instead, I would try to open my mind to the possibility I am missing something and can learn something new.

        The overwhelming bias in the media – and on IJ in particular – is dividing the country and most of us hate to see it.

        What does Trump and Stormy have to do with insurance? Nothing. And so I post responses in protest, pointing out the ludicrous Democrats in the Senate (and it gets deleted!).

        What do the myriad Climate Change scary monster stories have to do with insurance? Some of them are relevant. Most are not. And you will never see an article on IJ (or most media) casting real scientific doubt on some of the Boogey Man stories that are everywhere. There are LOTS of Climate Scientists who don’t think millions of deaths are imminent. And the solutions offered on IJ and elsewhere? Nearly all have to do with more government control of our money and our lives. Meaning they are politically and practically never going to happen.

        And there are LOTS of other, real solutions never talked about on IJ or almost anywhere else.

        I could go on. But I am probably wasting time.

    • October 18, 2018 at 3:40 pm
      Bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 3

      Yes, yes they do delete things totally on topic. More the right than the left, and it’s I believe to stop UW from losing his mind as well as others on the left here.

      They create a bigger response to it, and Andrew is aware of it.

    • October 18, 2018 at 8:06 pm
      Andrew G. Simpson says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 0

      If there is a story you don’t think has any connection to insurance, please don’t comment. If you don’t think how a court defines defamation or libel or other terms has anything to do with insurance, please just move on. Problem solved.

      • October 18, 2018 at 8:48 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 5

        You are supposed to be a journalist who publishes articles on insurance. What does a lawsuitsagainst the government over Climate Change have to do with insurance, other than to push the Agenda? It has nothing to do with insurance at all.

        I love your brave, non-journalist answer: just go away if you don’t like me, I’m going to print the garbage I want to even it not on point with insurance (and then I will delete your comments that I don’t like because they aren’t “on point”.)
        Just hilarious, the blindness.

        • October 19, 2018 at 7:57 am
          rob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 0

          Craig–It’s ANDREW’S site…ie, HIS rules. If you, Polar, Agent, Bob, UW, etc don’t want to play by them, then go somewhere else. If Andrew says he’s sick of the partisan politics, personal attacks, conspiracy theories, and blatant insults, you need to respect that or post somewhere else. Argue with him all you want, in the end you’re not going to win.

          • October 19, 2018 at 11:05 am
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 4

            Congratulations! You are on the side of the censors.

          • October 22, 2018 at 2:40 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            We can debate his tactics, to say that we don’t get input when he talks about how to solve problems with us, is absurd.

            He is wildly incorrect in how to handle it, and the people here should be able to talk among themselves. He is often exaggerating the problem I might add.

            Otherwise people here wouldn’t be upset with him. Your list of unreasonable people is growing, and has an etc at the end. This means Andrew is failing. Swallow your ego Andrew. You’re a part of this problem, talking down to others here, saying they bicker, is haughty. Sometimes people debate, and that’s how it goes. When you post a post about climate change and the me too movement, some people will bicker. Your censoring however has turned preemptive. You remove comments you think will offend people, when they don’t have insults and are on topic.

            Why did you remove the comment when I revealed I was sexually assaulted on a relevant me too post topic?

  • October 19, 2018 at 8:29 am
    Rosenblatt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    All the ‘deleted post’ comments are off-topic. This is why we can’t have anything nice guys :)

    So the court ruled that it was okay to replace the heads of the agencies that Obama put in place with the names of Trump’s heads, but not okay to replace Obama with Trump themselves. Although the validity of the suit can certainly be questioned, can anyone try to explain to me why they think the plaintiffs were allowed to edit the suit with the new agency heads but not the new president?

    • October 19, 2018 at 11:08 am
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 5

      The article itself is off-topic. Has nothing to do with insurance in the INSURANCE Journal.

      I find it funny. Lefties love pushing their agenda. But when you push back? OH, the HORRORS! Must be hidden from sensitive eyes!

      • October 19, 2018 at 11:56 am
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 0

        Andrew G. Simpson says: “If you or anyone else can’t make your point without insulting another person’s intelligence, morals, ethnicity, character or other trait, then please don’t post it.”

        • October 19, 2018 at 12:57 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 3

          Laughable rule when the reality is that posts get deleted for criticizing Obama, posts that have nothing but truth in them, no insults to anyone’s intelligence or morals. Just truthful criticism of the Great One. (Oops! Did that insult your intelligence? Your morality? After all, one poster is allowed to routinely refer to Trump as “Tramp”. . .)

          • October 19, 2018 at 1:13 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            The rules are not to insult one another. Public figures, on the other hand…Besides, all I’m doing is following the president’s example. He has a nickname for everyone.

            Speaking of, do you think if all of a sudden Fox and Friends changed their tune on climate change, Tramp would as well? It seems he just reiterates whatever he watches on TV that morning. Heck, sometimes he even calls into his State Radio. I’d be curious to see how his stance on climate change would alter should conservatives actually stop denying and start acting for the good of the lives who will inevitably follow ours.

  • October 19, 2018 at 1:44 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 5

    “Denying”. Such a simpleton. Climate Change has several scientific issues. Some are “settled”. Most are not. People who call others “deniers” are usually the most ignorant about Climate Change. All Religion; no brains.

    • October 19, 2018 at 3:08 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      Andrew G. Simpson says: “If you or anyone else can’t make your point without insulting another person’s intelligence, morals, ethnicity, character or other trait, then please don’t post it.”

      • October 19, 2018 at 5:09 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 2

        Calling people names is insulting. Like “denier”. “Denier” accuses you of knowing the truth and pretending you don’t. Lying in other words. But “denier” comments never get removed by Andrew for some reason.

      • October 22, 2018 at 2:44 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 2

        This is to save face.

        No one here insults ethnic, and it’s him parroting a mantra. This is all we need to see to see he is an ideologue in his application of methods. And I’m sure that will be seen as an insult, whereas it is reality.

        The issue here is what Andrew sees as insults, vs who is insulted. People will show emotion during debate, sometimes insults come out, silence someone saying owie and claim you are better in a mantra, and people will push back,

        People will leave Andrew, you may not get it but I do. What has happened to the sites that shut of commenting to stop arguing? They go down.

        Our founding fathers believed in not policing speech for a reason, and you don’t follow suit on it. In the criticism, and yes, sometimes insulting comments, comes true debate.

        You’re the zealot, not those here who debate. Not me, not Rosenblatt (though he’s an ideologue) when he insults people, or Ron, when he does, all you need to do is get them on topic, not delete posts.

        If you cannot handle debate, and restrict it, you’re not a hero. You’re a villain. And I and others here will leave.

      • October 22, 2018 at 2:48 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 2

        https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/political-insults-in-american-politics-are-as-old-as_us_59dc22c9e4b0a1bb90b8308e

        Our founding fathers. This is what YOU don’t get Andrew. I’m not talking the mantra of free speech in the same concept.

        Our founding fathers understood that all speech, including offensive insulting speech, was good.

        Sometimes the insult caused the recipient to grow. Sometimes, it was wrong and other people saw they should self improve. Sometimes a topic gets expanded, and in a free market of ideas that becomes growth.

        Your limited approach at this limits people. You wouldn’t regulate your children to only groups who talked how you wanted (or, you’re in enough denial to think they would still be wise).

        It really is time for you to knock it off. You aren’t the hero, the people here insulting people are rarely the villain through insults (more so by ideals but that is different) with the exception of UW.

        If an idea can be made and needs to be made insulting someone, our founding fathers would have done it.

  • October 19, 2018 at 3:11 pm
    Joseph S. Harrington, CPCU says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    If you want to consider the importance of this topic to insurance, go to the website of the Actuaries Climate Index, an initiative supported by four actuarial organizations in the US and Canada.

    So far, the ACI indicates that North America has been subject to more frequent occurrence of extreme heat, drought, and wind speeds in the most recent 30 or so years than in the period from 1960-90. The index suggests that the trend correlates to increased ECONOMIC losses, but is not yet shown to correlate to INSURANCE losses; more claims data is needed. (Keep in mind that drought often leads to higher crop losses but lower property losses. Wildfire is an exception to that, but wildfires do not repeat themselves like storms, floods, and earthquake can, because wildfires destroy their own fuel.)

    The ACI is new, but if its findings continue to hold and are found to relate to insurance losses, the implications are enormous. To the extent that increased catastrophe losses are the result of increased construction in cat-prone areas, the increased exposure will presumably be reflected in increased premium. But if weather volatility is increasing undetected, the increased risk may not be reflected in property rating plans.

    • October 19, 2018 at 4:10 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Thanks for the tip, Joseph. There’s a lot to digest on that site so I don’t have any feedback on it right now – just wanted to thank you for another weather / insurance resource!

    • October 19, 2018 at 4:23 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 4

      Where is the reference to suing the government as a tool to stop Climate Change?

      Is anything referring to Climate Change necessarily connected to insurance? How about city council meetings on whether to continue to add sand to the shore for summer visitors? Are the city council members worried about insurance?

      How about discussions nuclear power? Carbon capture technology? Are the actuaries studying the impact as we speak?

      Please. This is an Agenda article. Suing the government is so pointless and irrelevant to insurance. Let alone Climate Change.

      • October 19, 2018 at 4:47 pm
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        Craig – regardless of your stance that this article has nothing to do with insurance, do you see a connection between weather and insurance based on Joseph’s referencing of the Actuaries Climate Index? Here’s a link for you. http://actuariesclimateindex.org/home/ Do you think that site is attempting to connect the dots explaining how they feel weather impacts us in the insurance field??

        • October 19, 2018 at 5:06 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 3

          Yes, I do see the strong connection between weather and insurance. But his comment following this article is not “on point”, and should have been deleted by Andrew by now. (That’s a joke.)



Add a Comment

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

*