From Banks to Telecoms, Large Firms Disclose Risks, Opportunities of Climate Change

By | January 22, 2019

  • January 22, 2019 at 11:48 am
    craig cornell says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 16

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • January 22, 2019 at 2:07 pm
      Jack King says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 6

      So what? Coke will taste a little saltier as they use ocean water. Disney will put in a few giant fans in the walkway aisles. And if higher temps cause less travel and border crossing, then illegal immigration will go down and the wall won’t be needed and the shut down is over. Good stuff!

    • January 22, 2019 at 2:58 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 6

      craig, the last time I checked, if trees are growing, they are absorbing C02 and giving off oxygen. Been that way for millions of years. Coca Cola should gather up all that ice and snow in the Midwest and N/E and melt it down for water to make their beverage. By the way, the North Pole ice is getting thicker and thicker as we speak.

      • January 22, 2019 at 3:46 pm
        Alison Craig says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 0

        I think you are mistaken about North Pole ice. There is bound to be some annual variability but the trend is definitely down not up: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
        (Re)insurers have been concerned about climate change for more than 20 years. Happy to provide references if you like.

      • January 22, 2019 at 4:10 pm
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 0

        “As 2018 came to a close, Arctic sea ice extent was tracking at its third lowest level in the satellite record, while sea ice in the Antarctic remained at historic lows. Slightly faster growth in the first few days of the new year, mostly in the Pacific sea ice areas, has the daily sea ice extent at fifth lowest as of this post.”

        http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

        • January 22, 2019 at 4:12 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 0

          “Arctic sea ice extent for December averaged 11.86 million square kilometers (4.60 million square miles). This was the fourth lowest December average in the 1979 to 2018 satellite record”

          http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

          • January 22, 2019 at 4:13 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            “Overall, sea ice extent during December 2018 increased 1.63 million square kilometers (629,000 square miles). This is 358,000 square kilometers (138,000 square miles) less ice gained than the December 1981 to 2010 average. The linear rate of sea ice decline for December is 47,200 square kilometers (18,200 square miles) per year, or 3.7 percent per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.”

          • January 28, 2019 at 5:26 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2361/study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/

            This is probably what he was referring to.

            Which I think we should be calling out the left on this far more than Agent.

            Politicians should be held to a higher standard than some random agent on an insurance journal, after all. And we should probably believe humans are prone to error when recollecting things, and not use that to discredit them on all posts. Agent also makes good points. You don’t list those however. It is more about what meets your agenda.

            I once told UW I completely agreed with his concept, but thought it needed more clarification, for example. He was in one way right, at least in the point he meant to make, so I “helped” him so to speak.

            You might want to try to see what Agent is really saying and listen rather than listen to prove wrong as you do.

            He’s basically saying: People are lying about climate change. And they are, to win votes and for corruption. What are you trying to stop? Stupid people?

            That’s stupid.

          • January 28, 2019 at 6:37 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Is also less thick than in previous years, so exactly opposite what the clueless guy is saying above.

          • January 28, 2019 at 7:33 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            “Is also less thick than in previous years, so exactly opposite what the clueless guy is saying above.”

            You can’t resist can you? By the by, the area I agreed with you on was inconsistencies in the opioid comments with the conservatives here.

            You are essentially screaming like a brat at a moderate. The only moderate here. I’m not for the death penalty. I am ok with a day care for all program, because it focuses to get people back to work, whereas say free healthcare limits on income in WA state are the reason I kept my wife out of work combined with the tax rates Obama did not expand. This harmed in WA state specifically people who have two earners, one college educated and one not, or two medium skilled workers like two accountants. It would be better for a family with 3 kids, the average, as an accountant to keep the wife at home, get the tax breaks, and the free healthcare. Two of them would not get free healthcare, and would likely pay half the premiums at their job, about $5,500 per year, in addition to dental bills and check ups, $2,000 per year, no joke. I’ve been a parent, I’ve gone through this. You fight with me constantly on far left issues, again, I am a moderate.

            Regarding your ice comment: No. It specifically says that the losses world wide are offset due to this, because the growth offsets all losses. They then try again to scare you, by stating that if the gains slow down in 2020-2030 we will have net losses and they find that dangerous, however, the public at large sees constant barrages of warnings of less ice, and we have yet to hit that in the aggregate.

            I am not clueless.

            Read the full article, before calling me clueless.

            This is why Trump won. If he is the wrong guy, then stop coming in making garbage arguments calling people clueless making obviously untrue statements, and then degrading them after the fact to shame them into submission and call them not credible or too stupid to speak, as you do often.

            I mean it was in the headline UW:

            “Mass gains of Antarctic ice sheet greater than losses ”

            “The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.”

            So it says this research CHALLENGES what the IPCC says, that Antarctica is overall losing ice. NASA says, not so.

            “According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008”

            A net gain of 82 billion tons.

            Also, the video I sourced said that the satellite data even has issues. Why? It’s hard to weigh snow fall into the equation, they don’t have enough monitoring locations etc.

            I have made this same argument before, you refuse to look at the methodology. You go off of source wars, and I tend to say why the NOAA data cannot be relied on.

            My youtube guy went over this well, they admit themselves the flaws.

            I am not clueless, I do not follow like a blind sheep like you do.

          • January 28, 2019 at 7:39 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Well, I should say “Antarctic wide” not world wide, but that’s a speaking error rather than a content error.

            The news has been reporting non stop that the Antarctic ice is shrinking promising insane rising sea rates.

            I mean really UW, at what point do you see this as a religious guy who tells prophecies that never come true?

            https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/sea-level-rise-may-not-become-catastrophic-until-after-2100/579478/

            Do you think that just doesn’t happen on the left? Your blindness here is the issue.

            I am not blind to the issues of the religious right. However, education is the cure. Now what is the cure to this on the left? As we have seen, the more education people go through, the more they support this nonsense, the more they support ANTIFA, and the more they support group think in dangerous ways. So where is the method to keep the left in check on zealotry in society?

            I don’t see it. Fox News? They already have all kids saying “Faux News” and have since I was in high school, (and that’s intentional by the way)

            I’m not a drone, but you are. You spout nonsense like all the rest of the kids in high school and college. It’s time to grow up kid.

          • January 28, 2019 at 7:46 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            I will reiterate again to your comment to Agent;

            “He’s basically saying: People are lying about climate change. And they are, to win votes and for corruption. What are you trying to stop? Stupid people?”

            I do not think you know what I meant by this. Agent isn’t making the correct argument here. You didn’t reply with a good one either. If you had instead said here are the ice numbers, but unrelated, do you think insurance companies shouldn’t try to take into consideration risk in this regard? It would have been reasonable. On it’s own, and when you said you just wanted to call out wrong comments, it instead disregarded his argument, or rather side stepped it.

            Agent has a legitimate concern. The reliability of these reports. You could address some areas you see as unreliable, and then mention that companies still have to assess risk.

            I see you as correct. I see agent as correct in other ways.

            I often come at you on the left because you dismiss the right so much here it is insane.

        • January 22, 2019 at 4:33 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 5

          So what? If you REALLY cared to learn about climate change, here is what you would know:

          Atmospheric warming over the past 20 years is basically non-existent, contrary to all predictions of the climate change computer models that tied increasing CO2 production to rising global temperatures.

          Ocean temps. have risen, but the Scary Monster stories all assume that the ocean will stop absorbing the warming and then, BOOM, warming atmosphere. But so far, that is not happening. And is all a theory and may never happen.

          Arctic sea ice melts and then freezes. Just like always. While there appears to be more melting now, since the winter temps. in the arctic appear warmer than in the past; the summer temps have not appeared to be warmer.

          The media (read religious liberals) ALWAYS grab onto the most SCARY reports, and never – I mean never – report on news that will cause people to stop and think that maybe we don’t know that much about climate change after all.

          Like the brand new report endorsed by many reputable climate scientists that trees might actually warm the planet, not cool it like we have been told forever. Don’t look for THAT report in the media – or in Insurance Journal.

          • January 22, 2019 at 4:46 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            I thought my replies were pretty self-evident, but I guess not. In layman’s terms: Agent once again posted information that was easily fact-checked and turned out to be false. He made up “facts” to “support” his argument.

            Yes other people do that too, and they should be similarly called-out for posting falsehoods, but nobody on IJ does it as frequently as him nor does anyone else make it as easy as he does to refute said false statements.

        • January 22, 2019 at 5:39 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 4

          How long is the satellite record? How many millions of years? “historic lows” only goes back about 140 years. Not a very long record at all.

          • January 23, 2019 at 9:21 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 1

            So “the satellite record” of 140 years is not long enough, but other times I’ve used “Holocene epoch” as a time frame and you argued that’s too long of a time period to consider. So pray tell Craig … exactly how many years will hit your sweet spot until you’re honestly willing to consider the data points are valid?

        • January 28, 2019 at 4:41 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          While we are on this topic, the government, or NASA, either or, have shown they are pushing an unreliable measure on this.

          This person is actually pro helping the environment.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhX2KQs3v5w&t=456s

          He doesn’t even do the argument justice either, but, I use him to illustrate that even those active in helping the planet do not subscribe to the nonsense global warming argument, as the NOAA and NASA have proved unreliable on the topic.

          I’ve explained why the NOAA cannot be reliable with their own numbers.

          I’ve explained why there is no 97% consensus.

          They push lies again and again, it’s time for you two to stop, Ron and Rosenblatt.

          • January 28, 2019 at 4:55 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            bob, do you agree with me when I posted “Regardless of your stance on anthropomorphic climate change, business are right to think of the future risks they’ll have to deal with, and how to avoid them or reduce their severity. Insurers must do the same — worried there might be more wildfires? Stop renewing/writing policies in CA or raise rates. Concerned of increased hail? Get out of the hail belt and/or price accordingly. Got to look ahead or you’ll fall behind!”?

          • January 28, 2019 at 7:41 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            I agree with your comment. I also agree with the intent of Agent’s.

            I do not see you often agree with the intent of Agent’s. This is why I criticize you.

      • January 22, 2019 at 5:16 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 1

        Imagine that, snow and ice in the Midwest and Northeast in January. Who would have thunk it? What you fail to notice, Agent, is for 3+ years running now, Midwesterners have had year-round golf. Never happened 30 years ago. Guess what, I’m pretty confident the snow will melt in February to keep the streak alive. I played twice in January up here. 30 years ago, the clubs would have been put in the basement at the end of October and wouldn’t be coming out until at least late April. I can’t believe you are pointing to the fact there is snow and ice in the middle of winter to dispute anything about climate change. Actually, strike that, yes I can believe you are.

        • January 22, 2019 at 7:18 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 4

          And you are pointing to a 3 year pattern to claim what exactly? That is called an anomaly, a statistically insignificant deviation. And therefore meaningless. You think it proves Climate Change is true, serious, deadly, scary? HA HA HA HA.

          Captain Climate Scientist.

          • January 23, 2019 at 10:51 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 1

            Nope, I’m simply pointing to the fact Agent is explaining a weather event whereas I am showing how over 30 years, something greater is going on. And, over the course of these 30 years, the golf clubs stay out later and later each year. It doesn’t prove anything Craig, other than here in Iowa, winter arrived much sooner 30 years ago than it has in the last 10. And, over those last 10, warmer and warmer temps happen here year-round. I never said anything about deadly or scary. But, thank you for deflecting yet again. You truly are a sweetheart and I hope I get to give you a hug someday.

    • January 22, 2019 at 3:30 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 4

      craig, our newly minted Ocasio-Cortez said we only have 12 years left if we don’t give her a 70% Tax Rate to combat Climate Change. Gee, that sounds a bit like Al Grrr saying the Polar Caps would be completely gone by 2014.

  • January 22, 2019 at 4:54 pm
    Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 5

    Ecclesiastes 10:2 applies to you Rosenblatt. I know you are Atheist, but truth is truth.

    • January 22, 2019 at 5:05 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 2

      Holding just as much relevance towards political affiliation as your scripture comment does, “D” is for drive and “R” is for reverse so that must mean Democrats move forward and Republicans move backwards.

      • January 23, 2019 at 4:58 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 3

        Moving forward with a radical leftistl agenda is not where the American people want to go. The Democratic Party has been hijacked by very extreme lefties.

  • January 22, 2019 at 6:11 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 4

    Andrew’s rules for getting comments deleted:

    1. Criticize Obama or point out how liberals reveal racism in their actions: delete.
    2. Comments posted that mock my dead son: cool. Leave it up.

    • January 23, 2019 at 8:09 am
      Ron says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 1

      If this is actually true, and if you had any integrity, you should stop commenting and find a more suitable forum.

      • January 23, 2019 at 11:15 am
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 2

        I should stop? WHAT? Someone else mocked my dead son. And Andrew left it up!!

        But criticizing Obama is out of bounds? Man, you got some screwed up values.

        • January 23, 2019 at 11:43 am
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 1

          I am not defending Andrew’s decisions, but it is his decision, fair or not. So you either leave or deal within his parameters.

          I am sure IJ’s rates for advertisers is based on a combination of click counts and comments. If you really want to punish them, the free market thing to do is leave.

          • January 23, 2019 at 12:15 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 5

            No doubt the IJ has swung far left over a period of years. Used to be a respected insurance publication. Not so much anymore. Started back during the prior POTUS administration and got gradually worse. Needs to be some serious changes at the top.

          • January 23, 2019 at 1:30 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            If they have, and it is working, why not? Isn’t that what the free market is all about?

            Sounds like Conservatives should send a message and stop coming to their site.

          • January 23, 2019 at 1:41 pm
            craig cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            That’s exactly how the Left plays the game, trying to intimidate conservatives into backing down with name calling (racist, homophobe, denier . . .), or flat out hatred (high school kids with MAGA hats).

            Not me. Not playing their game.

        • January 23, 2019 at 11:50 am
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 5

          Craig, when Liberals lose an argument, they resort to mocking, name calling and try to stop free speech. Happens all the time. IJ agrees with them and therefore we see all the downvoting of Conservatives and deletion of posts from this forum. By the way, the big Tech firms are in a heap of trouble for setting up their platforms to go after Consevatives. Hope they get broken up into little pieces.

          • January 23, 2019 at 12:15 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 2

            And Conservatives here have shown to be open-minded and courteous towards those with whom they disagree.

            No one is forcing ya’ll to come to IJ nor post comments. Send a message and stop coming here. If visitors go down, so does revenue. You know, free market capitalism and all.

          • January 23, 2019 at 2:08 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            But then, Ron, they’d have to find new bridges to troll.

          • January 23, 2019 at 2:40 pm
            Stush says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            actually that sounds like that great conservative D. J. Trump more than nameless and faceless “liberals”. Name calling? check. mocking? check. Attack the press, to stop free speech? check.

        • January 23, 2019 at 2:06 pm
          Captain Planet says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 1

          Uh, he has taken down many posts which have criticized Tramp and even Andrew has stated time and time again, he doesn’t have time to monitor all the postings. Your conspiracy theory doesn’t hold much water, bud.

          • January 23, 2019 at 2:17 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            Okay, let’s test your theory. Racism was clearly at play in the rush to judge the white high school students; we all know that if they were black kids, they would have been ignored while wearing MAGA hats. (See White House reception for MAGA hat-wearing black honor students. No hatred from the Left at all.)

            And the racism is even more clear today. The media refuses to criticize the anti-semitic, homophobic, racist rantings of the Black Israelites because they are black.

            And the left refuses to criticize the Native American who laughably says he was trying to “get between” the Black Israelites and the white high school kids. Somehow, he didn’t come anywhere near the Black Israelites while banging his drum in the middle of white kids waiting for a bus.

            Think his being non-white is the reason no one is laughing at his silly allegation? But of course it is.

            Racism from the Left. Treating people differently based on skin color. Obviously. Just the Truth.

          • January 23, 2019 at 3:31 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            If Craig’s “let’s test your theory” post is removed, I’d argue it’s most likely because it’s completely off-topic — this is a story about climate change, not racism.

          • January 25, 2019 at 12:30 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            He certainly seems to have time to take down Conservative comments, sometimes within minutes of the posts and leaves your hateful comments up. You just called our President another name, but I am sure your comment will be left up.

          • January 25, 2019 at 1:16 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Agent,
            How many names did you have for President Obama? I’m simply calling the man what he has admitted to being and what his track record with women evidence.

    • January 28, 2019 at 6:40 pm
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      Yeah, that’s why 90% is the leftists have abandoned the site and the same 4 people who have threatened people, claimed they were revealing confidential info, and spam BS all day are still here.

      Andrew shouldn’t remove posts though, he’s proven he’s incompetent at this.

  • January 23, 2019 at 2:32 pm
    Stush says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 0

    Just because you have an opinion, doesn’t mean it is worth something. I am amazed at how many folks think they know more than the scientific community. So instead of listening to those who studied this for decades, you want to debate an outcome you don’t like. Well, I have news for you, do you think all these large corporations would spend money without doing due diligence for their stockholders? So what if you don’t believe, others do and put their MONEY on it. What do you have to lose either way? You’re not a player but a kibitzer. Take you opinions to the news outlets that want it.

    • January 23, 2019 at 3:12 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 7

      Well, what makes your opinion so well-informed? You don’t think corporations are capable of saying PC things they don’t really believe in order to make more money? Seriously? Of course they do, every day.

      You don’t think corporations ever lie on an organizational basis?

      Hello? Is that you Pollyanna?

      • January 23, 2019 at 3:33 pm
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 0

        Still waiting for your on-topic reply to my sincere question, Craig:

        You said “the satellite record” of 140 years is not long enough, but other times I’ve used “Holocene epoch” as a time frame and you argued that’s too long of a time period to consider.

        So pray tell Craig … exactly how many years will you consider the sweet spot of data so you’re willing to honestly consider that the data points are valid?

        • January 23, 2019 at 3:52 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 4

          Not worth it, Rosenblatt. You are a partisan hack, and ill-informed on the issue.

          • January 23, 2019 at 4:28 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            Thank you for admitting you have no interest in rationally discussing climate change as you refuse to believe any of the data (either the sample size is too small at 140 years or the sample size is too big looking at epochs – there is no “sweet spot” where you’d start to accept the data as valid).

            Just know things are happening even though you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and go “na na na na, I can’t hear or see anything.”

            Ignorance is not bliss. It is dangerous to future generations.

          • January 23, 2019 at 6:16 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            Congratulations. You might have seen that snark as just simply being a bit edgy, but you just earned my first dislike on this page.

            Well done.

            There level of condescending crap in the above post is unbelievable, and the amount of “I’m going to tea bag you as you go down” is unbelievable. If you believe you proved him wrong, state as such, stating “thank you” is a bit like being Negan on the walking dead and saying “I just slid my @%@ down your throat, and I made you thank me for it!”

            The level of narcissism you have, while you debate here calling others out, is insane. I am constantly flabbergasted that Rosenblatt supports you and your nonsense. No amount of Craig being an idiot justifies how you talk with him.

          • January 24, 2019 at 8:18 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            You’re flabbergasted that Rosenblatt supports Rosenblatt? Well, I can’t believe bob lets bob get away with his posts! And Ron supports Ron too! I bet Agent supports Agent as well. What a total farce! (end sarcasm)

          • January 24, 2019 at 8:34 am
            rob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            i dunno, Rosenblatt….i tend to disagree with a lot of my posts. in fact, I’m not sure I agree with this one.

          • January 24, 2019 at 9:11 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            Hahahaha, thanks for the laugh rob (NOT sarcasm!) Back to the topic at hand …

            “The Walt Disney Co. is concerned its theme parks will get too hot for vacationers, while AT&T Inc. fears hurricanes and wildfires may knock out its cell towers.”

            Regardless of your stance on anthropomorphic climate change, business are right to think of the future risks they’ll have to deal with, and how to avoid them or reduce their severity. Insurers must do the same — worried there might be more wildfires? Stop renewing/writing policies in CA or raise rates. Concerned of increased hail? Get out of the hail belt and/or price accordingly. Got to look ahead or you’ll fall behind!

          • January 24, 2019 at 2:08 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            I’m not reading the nonsensical replies below where I posted.

            You idiots constantly come after me, and lump me in with Agent and Craig, despite the numerous times I have called their arguments completely amateur, not linked with facts, and just now called Craig an idiot. He is debating poorly, and you lump me in with it.

            Ron could have said here, as I do: You’re an idiot, debate the facts. I would have accepted even that, but instead, he takes out his faux thank you for admitting you have no argument and will not debate facts, and then says a childish remark at the end.

            It is boyish, school grade boyish, and stupid.

            If you want to be a man be one. Call Craig an idiot, call him wrong. It takes all of two sentences. Your little feathers dance you did there is narcissistic, and stupid.

          • January 24, 2019 at 2:20 pm
            rob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            bob–

            for the record, I would NEVER lump you in with Craig or Agent. I have always respected your arguments. It is clear that you put a lot of time into your thoughts and strive for originality. I’m not attempting to patronize you, just stating my thoughts.

          • January 24, 2019 at 3:34 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            bob, do you agree with me when I posted “Regardless of your stance on anthropomorphic climate change, business are right to think of the future risks they’ll have to deal with, and how to avoid them or reduce their severity. Insurers must do the same — worried there might be more wildfires? Stop renewing/writing policies in CA or raise rates. Concerned of increased hail? Get out of the hail belt and/or price accordingly. Got to look ahead or you’ll fall behind!”?

          • January 31, 2019 at 12:12 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Craig, wonder how Rosenblatt and buddies on the frozen tundra are enjoying their Polar Vortex. Amazing how their agenda has exploded in their face. Great Lakes frozen over, Artic Ice Cap thickening at a rapid pace, Al Gore in hiding. Hmm, we were right after all.

        • January 23, 2019 at 3:54 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 4

          PS, EVERY Climate Change story is about whether or not the truth is being told. Every single one. And so my comments on the high school kids are TOTALLY relevant, revealing how universally liberals will lie for political purposes, no matter who they are hurting (I mean so long as they are hurting white conservatives.)

          • January 29, 2019 at 9:25 am
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Yes, is all air hurting white conservatives. Seriously, get mental health help and step away from politics and what you can the news, this isn’t sane.

  • January 24, 2019 at 3:10 pm
    Stush says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    I’m not going to go around with Craig about this so let me part by saying that just because they’ve made a dispute out of climate change, it doesn’t give your arguments any legitimacy. You can believe what you want to believe but an underwriter I know from North Carolina once said, “climate change: as plain as the boat in your front yard”. While you can’t argue with facts, I’ve found that you can’t change people’s opinions with facts either. And you can stop with the name calling; it doesn’t help.

    • January 24, 2019 at 4:04 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 3

      You are clearly trying to persuade to your belief that Climate Change is something serious (I guess, not very clear on your position).

      Arguments gain validity when based on fact and reason. The FACT is that atmospheric temperatures have not gone up over the past 20 years. The FACT is that the computer models created by climate scientists ALL predicted atmospheric temps. WOULD go up as CO2 emissions increased in China, India, elsewhere.

      Get it? The FACTS are that the predictions have all been wrong. They didn’t even predict the increasing temps. in the ocean (which are happening). They got EVERYTHING wrong.

      And so you believe them now because why? Climate Change MIGHT be everything the Doom and Gloomers say it is. But the FACTS do not support them.

      • January 25, 2019 at 12:40 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 2

        Correct craig. These guys have their religion of doom and they are sticking by it. No better than Ocasio Cortez saying the earth has only 12 years left. No matter what their facts say, the real facts are a complete renunciation of their agenda.

        • January 25, 2019 at 1:25 pm
          Captain Planet says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          Man, AOC sure knows how to get a rise out your party, huh? She’s playing you.

          • January 25, 2019 at 1:38 pm
            rob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            I honestly don’t get either side’s obsession with her. She’s too young to run against Trump in 2020. She’s no threat to him.

  • January 25, 2019 at 9:42 am
    UW says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    The sooner these Boomer climate change deniers die off the better the world will be.

    • January 25, 2019 at 11:17 am
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      Clown comment. Try facts for a change. If you do, you lose.

      • January 25, 2019 at 1:22 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        JANUARY 21, 2019 AT 2:05 PM
        Craig Cornell says:
        LIKE OR DISLIKE:
        1
        1
        Says the guy who has nothing interesting to say, ever.
        The point is the same as . . . oh, never mind.
        Reply

    • January 31, 2019 at 12:05 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      The sooner the Man Made Climate Change hoaxers die off, the better the world will be.

  • January 25, 2019 at 10:45 am
    Robert H says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    As an insurance agent, my philosophy on this and most other things is simple: “remain calm and sell policies….”, :)

    • January 29, 2019 at 9:26 am
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      Great advice for someone who doesn’t have to pay for losses or analyze risk.

  • January 25, 2019 at 1:15 pm
    Bob Burke says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    At some point in the not to distant future of personal and commercial insurance coverage, the loss effects resulting from global warming will become specific named coverage exclusions to both property and business income losses through specific exclusions and or significant increases in loss deductibles. Consider this, a six inch rise in sea level will flood the entire City of New York.

    • January 25, 2019 at 4:07 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      I don’t doubt that Bob, but will State’s still send out notices to carriers saying things to the effect of “We know it was a named storm, and the policy has a percentage deductible for named storms and that’s how you determined the premium, but we’re requiring you to only apply the regular deductible because this is a catastrophe.”?



Add a Comment

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

*