Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Businesses

What the Insurance Industry Thinks About Climate Change 385

Posted by samzenpus
from the hedge-your-bets dept.
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Joseph Stromberg reports at the Smithsonian that if there's one group has an obvious and immediate financial stake in climate change, it's the insurance industry and in recent years, insurance industry researchers who attempt to determine the annual odds of catastrophic weather-related disasters say they're seeing something new. 'Our business depends on us being neutral. We simply try to make the best possible assessment of risk today, with no vested interest,' says Robert Muir-Wood, the chief scientist of Risk Management Solutions (RMS), a company that creates software models to allow insurance companies to calculate risk. Most insurers, including the reinsurance companies that bear much of the ultimate risk in the industry, have little time for the arguments heard in some right-wing circles that climate change isn't happening, and are quite comfortable with the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is the main culprit of global warming. 'Insurance is heavily dependent on scientific thought,' says Frank Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America. 'It is not as amenable to politicized scientific thought.' A pronounced shift can be seen in extreme rainfall events, heat waves and wind storms and the underlying reason is climate change, says Muir-Wood, driven by rising greenhouse gas emissions. 'The first model in which we changed our perspective is on U.S. Atlantic hurricanes. Basically, after the 2004 and 2005 seasons, we determined that it was unsafe to simply assume that historical averages still applied,' he says. 'We've since seen that today's activity has changed in other particular areas as well—with extreme rainfall events, such as the recent flooding in Boulder, Colorado, and with heat waves in certain parts of the world.' Muir-Wood puts his money where his mouth is. 'I personally wouldn't invest in beachfront property anymore,' he says, noting the steady increase in sea level we're expecting to see worldwide in the coming century, on top of more extreme storms. 'And if you're thinking about it, I'd calculate quite carefully how far back you'd have to be in the event of a hurricane.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What the Insurance Industry Thinks About Climate Change

Comments Filter:
  • by Chemisor (97276) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @08:03PM (#44966157)

    Insurance companies are always looking for an excuse to raise rates. They are not going to look for evidence against global warming when they can pretend that it has all been totally proven and tell clients that the risks are now sky high and, oh, by the way, your rates are now 60% higher to account for that.

    • by ILongForDarkness (1134931) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @08:10PM (#44966215)

      At best the types of data that insurance companies would collect would be measurements of effects not proof of a cause. All you can say about more storms hitting areas that you insure is that for some reason there is more storms lately. You can't say whether or not it is due to man made reasons, geological cycles, purple space gods that are angry that 30 Rock went off the air etc.

      • by IAmR007 (2539972) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @08:27PM (#44966323)
        Weather models and climate models look at an entirely different scales. Both involve complex fluid dynamics and such, but look at a different scale. Weather forecasting tries to predict the chaos. Climate modeling, on the other hand, concerns the patterns. A model of the Earth in current conditions can then be modified to have increasing greenhouse gases, geological cycles, etc. Some of those, like geological cycles, occur at a rate several orders of magnitude slower than what we are currently seeing. Just because computer models are virtual doesn't mean they can't be used to experiment. Computer models are vital for our understanding of things at extreme scales. Source: Masters in High Performance Computing
        • by ILongForDarkness (1134931) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @10:07PM (#44966935)

          I actually personally think global warming is happening just I doubt the insurance companies care one way or another other than the direction and magnitude of expected adverse events.

          With climate modelling the problem is a hugely nested group of models all of which can be off by a lot. They have a model of how various greenhouse gases interact with longterm weather patterns (general air currents, typical ocean currents etc) but also the different layers of the atmosphere. So they end up with a model of how the gases work, a model of how they are produced, and a model of how the interrelated weather patterns behave.

          I have a bachelors and a few publications in physics doing computer modelling and we were happy if we could get the direction right and within an order of magnitude. I suspect climatologists are the same way especially since it is such a cross domain problem (fluid dynamics, chemistry and when it actually affects people demographics).

          Demographics/social side of things will be key IMO and often ignored. I see all sorts of maps showing where the water level will be and where the population centres are. The thing is people can move and generally are much less tolerant of death tolls than the actual economic cost of the death tolls (ex: people in the US panic that a few thousand people died due to terrorism in one year which works out to about 0.0001% of the population and hasn't since been repeated). If things get too bad near the shore they'll move further in land and I'd suspect 90+% of the existing population will be survivors. You still have things like droughts and such but storms are another matter. Deaths due to storms as they are predicted pretty much assume people will continue living where they do and that governments won't invest in better infrastructure to be able to detect early and efficiently evacuate areas before the storm hits. Sure there are little island nations that might get wiped out but the thing is they are little and thus a relatively small percentage of people. The LAs and New Yorks of the world will figure out what they need to do to balance the risk/reward for living there or will become vacate wastelands a la Detroit which they have proven is possible in the time scale we expect global warming to take hold as it has happened before (see Detroit :)).

          In terms of storms insurance companies will care because they'll have to pay for the lost infrastructure. It will be an emotional trying time for people dealing with a Katrina every year but the actual species cost I suspect will be pretty low. Of course insurance companies also insure crops and people need to eat and drink ... that is what will kill us from global warming. Weather patterns in the sense of 100 year storms not so much.

          • by plover (150551) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @10:45PM (#44967179) Homepage Journal

            I actually personally think global warming is happening just I doubt the insurance companies care one way or another other than the direction and magnitude of expected adverse events.

            And that's basically the short term direction. According to TFA, they don't really care if there's long term global warming or not, because they usually sell policies one year at a time. They just want to know how variable the next year might be so they can set the rates to offset the risk.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              I actually personally think global warming is happening just I doubt the insurance companies care one way or another other than the direction and magnitude of expected adverse events.

              And that's basically the short term direction. According to TFA, they don't really care if there's long term global warming or not, because they usually sell policies one year at a time. They just want to know how variable the next year might be so they can set the rates to offset the risk.

              Most insurance policies have a lifespan far longer than one year. They merely renew each year. If people let policies lapse or cancel them, then an insurance agent has to go out and actively solicit for business instead of simply soliciting for new business. And there's a lot of risk that one-shot customers would bounce around rather than remain loyal. As it is, Y2K was a relatively small issue for a lot of insurance data. When I worked in the business, there were customers with active policies born in the

          • by IAmR007 (2539972) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @11:13PM (#44967297)
            Climate modeling is definitely hard to do, but they definitely aren't worthless. So far, the models seem to have been underestimates, which may be problems with the models, or may indicate that we are underestimating global warming. Perhaps, if we can model the climate at or beyond the exascale, we will find that we don't need to be as cautious. For the meantime, though, I think it best to err on the side of caution.
          • by sjames (1099)

            And the insurance companies are indicating that they certainly are noticing an increase in frequency and severity of adverse events, contrary to claims from the deniers.

            Simulations can be terribly fiddly things, but due to wide interest, there has been a lot of work done over a period of decades to refine weather models on all time scales. It is also common to run several and compare their output, particularly for severe events like hurricanes (the weather underground shows 5 or 6 and an average with error

      • by golodh (893453) on Friday September 27, 2013 @07:23AM (#44969001)
        You claim two things here, namely that we can't produce a preponderance of evidence that:

        (1) that more widespread and severe weather extremes aren't related to an global change in weather patterns (i.e. climate change), and

        (2) and that this global change is related to human activity

        Well, that's an improvement on earlier positions taken in this debate in that you implicitly acknowledge that there are measurable and impactful weather changes. That used to be denied too (and still is by people who don't follow the news and by people who's thinking is faith-based rather than fact-based).

        As to whether climate change is happening, the successive IPCC reports are remarkably consistent. It is.

        As to the linkage between human activity and climate change, it's just the paragraphs aimed at the public and policy makers have been rephrased. Not the underlying observations and thought.

        New Scientist has a readable and accessible discourse on how people deal with the message.

        http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929360.200-climate-science-why-the-world-wont-listen.html [newscientist.com]

      • by nospam007 (722110) *

        'At best the types of data that insurance companies would collect would be measurements of effects not proof of a cause.'

        Exactly. That's also why they don't insure nuclear reactors.

      • by tgibbs (83782) on Friday September 27, 2013 @11:12AM (#44971091)

        It's not just a statistical trend. We have a well validated body of theory that predicts increased damage as a result of rising seas, as well as rising temperatures feeding more energy into storms. And the statistical trend agrees with those predictions. An insurance company would be foolhardy not to take this seriously.

      • by minstrelmike (1602771) on Friday September 27, 2013 @11:13AM (#44971109)

        At best the types of data that insurance companies would collect would be measurements of effects not proof of a cause.

        Exactly. That is ALL they ever collect.
        Sheesh. They know a bad credit rating doesn't _cause_ traffic accidents, but the population of bad credit risks has a higher accident rate than the other populations.
        It's called Statistics. It's the essence of the insurance industry. Reinsurers--the groups that insure the insurance companies you and me buy from--are the ones who first paid for the researchers who discovered that global warming means we get 5 disastrous hurricanes per decade instead of 3. Cause-effect on a storm level scale is too hard to pick out. But measuring the effect of a single volcano's emission of CO2 is easy. Extrapolating that to what humanity puts out which is about the same amount every three days means you take some guesses.

        And it you're smart, or have money on the line, you try to take educated guesses. The best guess is called statistics. In fact, a standard regression over almost any set of data points will beat the expert opinion.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26, 2013 @08:15PM (#44966247)

      Well, I work for an insurance company and I can tell you, the difference between the actuaries correctly predicting future claims and incorrectly is the difference between a product making money and costing money. We try and produce new marketable products every few years and the failure rate is high, with millions in up front investment down the drain. Actuaries have a vested interested in getting it right, so they're not priced out of the market whilst still being profitable. Just ignoring that traditionally insurance companies don't make money on premiums but on investing the money before the insurance is claimed against... of course, that tradition is not very alive any more... but that is how it once was.

      • So does that mean insurance companies run by right winger climate deniers will have lower rates?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'd trust insurance companies.

      In fact, I'll one up them. You know how nobody's ever responsible for acts of god?

      Well, I will be. For $1m/year, I will insure anything against acts of not only the Judeo-Christian god, but any god*.

      (* Gods restricted to beings of divine origin only. Music is not your god, nor will we cover damage from sitting too close to the speakers of a cover band in your local dive bar. Coverage not applicable to damage caused by angels, demi-gods, exalted servants, or other quasi-divi

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26, 2013 @08:19PM (#44966273)

      If you really believe that, then your path to fortune is clear: start your own insurance company to compete with these bandits. If you think you can estimate risks more honestly and accurately than they do, you should be a billionaire within ten years.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by saleenS281 (859657)
        Except for the part where they've sufficiently lobbied the government so as to make it nearly impossible for a "startup" to get into the insurance gig. You might as well tell someone if they think they can do a better job of providing internet access for a cheaper price than the incumbents, they should do so. History has proven it's ENTIRELY possible to provide a better service at a cheaper price - in a vacuum. In the current state of lobbied government officials putting up roadblocks and endless court b
    • by sirwired (27582) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @08:26PM (#44966315)

      If another insurance company thinks climate change is a bunch of bunk, they can lower rates and steal business from the company that has reached the opposite conclusion.

      • Or just go with the industry and make more profit. Why would a business want to undercut itself? And make less profit?
        I think it would be more logical to assume that businesses will look out for their own best interest and try and get as much profit as possible.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by deimtee (762122)
        These policy prices are largely determined by the re-insurers, not the insurance companies you deal with directly.
        This is a much smaller group of much larger companies. I would have no difficulty believing they were colluding to raise prices.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "If another insurance company thinks climate change is a bunch of bunk, they can lower rates and steal business..."

        Which works until it's time pay for the damages.

        Insurance is about smart risk management not buying market share.

        Loading your book with cheap junk is surest way to lose money.

        • by Molt (116343)

          If there's no climate change though then there's no extra damages to pay. If they believe firmly in climate change they weight it heavily in their predictive risk models, if they're certain that climate change is incorrect then they can ignore it in their predictions.

          Either way it's going to hurt if you're wrong should other insurers have different predictions. If you think climate change will occur and it doesn't then those who predicted correctly will will been able to sell cheaper than you and you'll h

      • by mysidia (191772)

        If another insurance company thinks climate change is a bunch of bunk, they can lower rates and steal business from the company that has reached the opposite conclusion.

        This would be ill-advised, because there probably is indeed a trend the insurance companies are recognizing. However, this is not necessarily "climate change caused by fossil fuels" as argued by some; there are various possible causes or changes that might impact risk to insurance companies ------ such as people becoming even mo

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        If another insurance company thinks climate change is a bunch of bunk, they can lower rates and steal business from the company that has reached the opposite conclusion.

        Yes, because after all, we have wildly varying prices on gas from city to city, with some cities only charging $2 a gallon, while others charge $4, right?

        Give me a break. The first thing that insurance companies will do with this kind of bullshit is collude together to ensure that everyone can charge obscene amounts for insurance, thereby guaranteeing a healthy new revenue stream based off little more than speculation.

        Don't worry though. The worst is yet to come. Wait until insurance companies start coll

    • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @09:36PM (#44966749) Homepage Journal

      Insurance companies are always looking for an excuse to raise rates.

      Go past the headline, and you'll learn that there's a lot more to insurance companies' reaction to climate change than rate increases.

      Insurance companies, energy companies, pharmaceuticals, even military contractors are all planning for climate change. For anthropomorphic climate change. The biggest companies worldwide are baking climate change into their plans for their future.

      So I guess you can say that even John Galt believes in climate change. But not publicly, because it's useful for the rubes to think it's all some bogus nonsense that the 95% of scientists who are obviously liberal cooked up to take away your freedoms.

      • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @09:39PM (#44966773) Homepage Journal

        Oh, you know else who is making business decisions based on a future of anthropogenic (sorry, I typed wrong) climate change?

        ADM, Monsanto, Dow Chemical. Companies that are involved in worldwide agribusiness. They're all betting heavily on climate change (the anthro-something one).

        But not you, because you know better and the AM radio told you so.

        • the processes of financialization [motherjones.com] and growth through increased consumption. They will back these trends to the hilt until *after* they start seeing damage, and even then they will limit their cautionary guidelines to very specific circumstances (i.e. beachfront property, and now property with high fire risk).

          They remain conservative and give not a damn about conservation, much less the plight of poor and normally uninsured human beings who are in the path of environmental destruction. The people who run and

      • Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson said last year that AGW is happening. He went on to argue that we should adapt to it rather than preventing it, but a "should" argument doesn't contradict the science.

    • by WindBourne (631190) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @10:07PM (#44966939) Journal
      amazing.
      Scientists proclaim that climage change is occurring. Scientists are doing this for making money.
      American DOD studies it and proclaims that it is occuring and they need to be ready. Obviously, it is about making money.
      Insurance companies procmain that it is occuring and show evidence of it. Obviously, it is about making money.

      Then the oil companies and the GOP claim that it is not happening, and you claim that it is not about making money.

      Really? I guess that explains why we have creationism being pushed into schools.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26, 2013 @08:20PM (#44966277)

    Seriously, you take their estimate of risk as gospel? Their goal is to collect as much as possible, and pay as little as possible. They are simply trying to hedge their bets on the collection side. Duh.

    And for the record, the Atlantic hurricane intensity has not increased one iota. That is a complete outright lie which they should know if they spoke to an actual expert on Atlantic basin hurricanes. The reason for larger payouts from damage in the past is that MORE people and expensive property are near the coast lines. They have been subsidizing bad behavior. Climate change is not the culprit there.

    • by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmhNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday September 26, 2013 @08:50PM (#44966443) Journal

      This is wrong. Not that they want to collect as much as possible while paying as little as possible, that's true, but the idea that they do so by "hedging their bets on the collection side." This would put them at a disadvantage. The more accurate their estimates, the more they can fine-tune prices to maximize profit.

      When they do spew fear-based rhetoric, like the IIHS does 24/7, it's not so they can jack up rates, it's so they can make the world safer. Jacking up their rates makes them less competitive, making the world safer is good for their whole industry because the price decrease can lag behind it, and there's more profit margin to be had on safer risks.

    • by u38cg (607297)
      Sorry, no. Reinsurance is murderously competitive - there are vast sums involved so it's not exactly hard to find people that want a piece of it. And yes, they want to charge as much as they can, but they sure as hell want to understand exactly what the risk is they're taking on.
  • No opportunity (Score:4, Insightful)

    by manu0601 (2221348) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @08:29PM (#44966341)

    Insurances are ready to accept global warming as it will help them adjusting their prices, but that does not mean they will do anything to prevent it, nor even to get it accepted by everyone.

    • Re:No opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday September 27, 2013 @01:01AM (#44967687) Journal

      https://www.genevaassociation.org/media/616661/ga2013-warming_of_the_oceans.pdf [genevaassociation.org]

      3.2. External: maintaining insurability through promoting risk mitigation

      As shown, ocean warming implies that the threat of natural catastrophes is ambiguous. At the same time, it can be shown that the ambiguity aversion of rational individuals may increase self-insurance but decrease self-protection (Alary et al. , 2010). The interplay between the potential of rising risk levels and insurance demand, but decreasing self-protection, could create a risk environment that is uninsurable in some regions (Herweijer et al ., 2009). Examples for markets with this potential are U.K. flood or Florida wind storm insurance.

      In general, the only way to ensure that ambiguous risks remain insurable is to promote risk mitigation today (Ranger and Surminski, 2012). The insurance industry should play an active role in raising awareness of risk and climate change through risk education and disseminating high-quality risk information (Ward et al ., 2008).

      They're saying that insurance (and re-insurance) isn't enough anymore.
      If people aren't mitigating their risks, there will be no insurance.
      That means taking steps like hurricane straps on your roof or bolting the house to its foundation or not building in a flood plain or the yearly path of a hurricane.

    • by Sloppy (14984)

      Why would a gambler want their opponents to have improved estimates of the odds?

  • by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @08:34PM (#44966369)
    I sat in on a presentation given by an insurance industry executive a couple years ago, and he said in general, there are a couple things going on.

    People are building in places where they probably shouldn't build. Many of the good places to build are used up, and people have an almost irresistable pull to build in dangerous places.

    More people

    And yes, there are a lot more catastrophic events happening that are causing a lot more damage

    He said that even when the first two events are taken into consideration, there is something quantifiable happening, that makes the industry tend to believe that warming is taking place, and probably man has a hand in it.

    I wish I still had the presentation, because it had a lot of facts and figures, without the cherry picking that deniers love to employ. Pretty scary actually.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      People are building in places where they probably shouldn't build. Many of the good places to build are used up, and people have an almost irresistable pull to build in dangerous places.

      What exactly defines a "good place to build"? If you define it as somewhere with low flooding risk, low earthquake risk, low hurricane risk, etc., there are lots of places in the middle of the U.S. that fit that standard. There are even places with all of that and low risk of wildfires and low risk of tornadoes as well, though one has to be a bit choosy to avoid those things in the middle of the U.S. And of course freak weather is always a possibility.

      Nevertheless, there are thousands upon thousands of

      • by Fjandr (66656)

        All areas have disasters. It's pretty easy to tell that building on a mountain in California where dozens of houses have collapsed from unstable geology defines "bad place to build." So does building on a coast which is actively eroding, or building within a 10-year-average flood plain.

        There are eminently "good" places to build, in that they are not almost guaranteed to be destroyed by predictable (in the average, not in specifics) natural phenomenon.

      • by fermion (181285)
        It is not about the presence of risk, but the ability to mitigate risk. There is no place where risk is not present. In rural areas snow can be quite dangerous. In other area tornadoes. In rural areas, far from medical and emergency services, what is a minor incidence in the city can be a major disaster. For instance, I know people who live in rural lake areas. They were talking to their insurance agent about fire insurance rates. They wondered if they got together and put some fire service infrastru
    • by khallow (566160)

      He said that even when the first two events are taken into consideration, there is something quantifiable happening, that makes the industry tend to believe that warming is taking place, and probably man has a hand in it.

      Sure it does. How much did he talk about the role of below cost public flood insurance? That's the third "event".

      For example, suppose I can afford to burn $10k on insurance for my dream cottage on the beach and it gets washed away once every ten years. If insurance is priced exactly so that the expected cost of the insurance matches the price I pay, then I can afford to insure $100k of cottage. If insurance is priced exactly half as much, then I can afford $200k of cottage.

      That increase in amount is r

  • Insurance companies are all about collecting the highest premium and not paying claims. "Global warming" helps justify higher premiums, maybe create fear and uncertainty to buy mire insurance, and perhaps can help palm more claims off to the taxpayer in the occasional big event years.
  • by PPH (736903)

    Climate change might be happening. But who or what is responsible?

    'I personally wouldn't invest in beachfront property anymore,'

    That runs counter to the industries best interests. Selling high priced insurance on expensive property. So if I was in the insurance business and I thought that risk could be mitigated by changing behavior, I'd be lobbying for that. On the other hand, if I thought that the change was inevitable and there was nothing to bee done, I'd tell people to avoid the risk.

    • Re:Maybe (Score:4, Informative)

      by Fjandr (66656) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @10:29PM (#44967073) Homepage Journal

      Except insurance premiums won't cover the actual losses. Insurers only make money when the premium averages exceed loss payouts. That's why they typically absolutely refuse to cover certain circumstances. When the actual average risk of loss outweighs the area's premiums, it's a fundamentally stupid idea to cover those areas.

  • I've read some of the comments, one way and another, and would like to make a couple of observations:

    1. Insurance companies collect money whether a claim is paid or not.
    2. Collecting higher premiums is good (from the insurer's perspective).
    3. If, after having collected said higher premiums, the claims against policies are not higher, this is even better (for the insurance company).

    The only thing preventing the insurance companies from raising rates is competition. If they can point to something like GW as justific

    • This would imply collusion between them to peddle this as an excuse to uniformly raise premiums. Otherwise, one would do so, and others would just laugh as they keep theirs the same and watch the customers come their way.

      • by Fjandr (66656)

        That's the problem so many whiners miss in this thread. It requires collusion to "raise rates and make more profit, muahaha."

  • All this proves is insurance companies have finally figured out they have a "scientific consensus" to hang their premium hikes on.
  • by paiute (550198) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @10:56PM (#44967237)
    Money talks and bullshit walks.
  • by russotto (537200) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @11:29PM (#44967375) Journal

    Since Wilma, there have been no major hurricanes which have made landfall on the US mainland. Zero. Sandy was not a "major hurricane"; it did a lot of damage because of where it hit, but it was still only Category 1 in strength. This is the longest major hurricane drought on record.

    • by cforciea (1926392) on Friday September 27, 2013 @03:55AM (#44968291)
      I find that a kind of odd statement. First of all, I wonder what you mean by "major" hurricanes and making landfall. Is "major" category 3, 4, or 5? Does it take into account things like diameter? Is that ever, or just when it makes landfall in the US? I mean, it sure seems like you are carefully crafting you wording to exclude some pretty notable storms, like Dean, Felix, and Ike. And Sandy is a pretty dubious non-major hurricane, given that it had the largest diameter of any Atlantic cyclone, which was a large contributing factor to how damaging it was. And what's with the US mainland only caveat? Climate change only counts if the hurricanes happen to make landfall within artificial boundaries on a map? Felix didn't turn north after slamming into the Yucatan the same way WIlma did, so it didn't happen? Besides, I think if you actually applied your criteria prior to 2005, you'll find that it eliminates so many hurricanes that an 8 year gap isn't statistically anomalous at all.

      When you have to get that oddly specific, you should be at least a little worried that you are cherry picking data to create "proof" of your already decided upon conclusion. If you instead just look at more general trends in quantity and strength of storms, it's pretty clear that we have had more and stronger hurricanes over time.
  • The irony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quantaman (517394) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @11:58PM (#44967493)

    Is anyone else basking in the irony of all these pro-business AGW denialists suddenly trying to come up with excuses for why the market disagrees with them?

    You don't need regulation for anything, market forces keep companies honest and well behaved!! Except now... because insurance companies are somehow able to charge unnecessarily high premiums without being undercut by a competitor, or the government is making them overcharge or something...

    The market is right, unless is disagrees with you, and then it's wrong.

Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb

Working...