Jack you don’t really care, as you probably won’t be around in 50 years anyhow.
That’s the underlying problem about these long-term projections. These are legacy problems, the implications of which – especially if they aren’t handled correctly – will impact on the next generations.
The only crystal ball that works is the one that only shows the past, not what lies ahead. The cost of getting it wrong probably outweighs the cost of getting it correct.
50 years ago I was in elementary school in the suburbs of Chicago. The climate threat, according to the experts at that time, was global cooling. Within a few generations much of the earth would be covered in ice as the environment cooled dramatically. Teachers taught it, we had to read books on it, we were told scary stories about it. I was young and just believed it.
For the last few decades it’s all been about global warming. Teachers teach it, books are written, we are told scary stories. Earth will be covered in water as temps rise dramatically.
This old dog just aint going to hunt… I was around in the 60s. There was no serious belief that there was ever going to be some big freeze… That was just a Leonard Nimoy TV show! Truth is climate panels warned Pres Johnson back in the 60s that GW and only GW was a real threat. The pop of earth was significantly less back then. As the pop grew so did this well known threat… This fake cover stories are just big oil propaganda!
One thing to keep in mind is that the recent past does not predict the future. We are seeing an increase in property losses in many parts of the world. For property insurers that means that traditional actuarial methods may not adequately predict future consequences. It also indicates that regulators must allow for insurers to adjust to those future consequences. In California, for instance, current Prop 103 rules for ratemaking do not adequately compensate insurers for the risk. Rather than hire a climate change executive who most likely does very little, their actuarial team needs to revise the process to allow insurers to assume the risk and bring back a strong and healthy markets.
I bet people will be reading this same crap 50 years from now, and they won’t be underwater.
Jack you don’t really care, as you probably won’t be around in 50 years anyhow.
That’s the underlying problem about these long-term projections. These are legacy problems, the implications of which – especially if they aren’t handled correctly – will impact on the next generations.
The only crystal ball that works is the one that only shows the past, not what lies ahead. The cost of getting it wrong probably outweighs the cost of getting it correct.
50 years ago I was in elementary school in the suburbs of Chicago. The climate threat, according to the experts at that time, was global cooling. Within a few generations much of the earth would be covered in ice as the environment cooled dramatically. Teachers taught it, we had to read books on it, we were told scary stories about it. I was young and just believed it.
For the last few decades it’s all been about global warming. Teachers teach it, books are written, we are told scary stories. Earth will be covered in water as temps rise dramatically.
We’ll see what happens.
This old dog just aint going to hunt… I was around in the 60s. There was no serious belief that there was ever going to be some big freeze… That was just a Leonard Nimoy TV show! Truth is climate panels warned Pres Johnson back in the 60s that GW and only GW was a real threat. The pop of earth was significantly less back then. As the pop grew so did this well known threat… This fake cover stories are just big oil propaganda!
The evidence suggests that the threat is real.
One thing to keep in mind is that the recent past does not predict the future. We are seeing an increase in property losses in many parts of the world. For property insurers that means that traditional actuarial methods may not adequately predict future consequences. It also indicates that regulators must allow for insurers to adjust to those future consequences. In California, for instance, current Prop 103 rules for ratemaking do not adequately compensate insurers for the risk. Rather than hire a climate change executive who most likely does very little, their actuarial team needs to revise the process to allow insurers to assume the risk and bring back a strong and healthy markets.