You have to be kidding me VCU

[Billiken Rich]

3 hours ago, willie said:

Congratulations. I was wondering how long it would take for the first ridiculous denier to respond. I guess science makes you vomit. 

The holy catechism of climate change brooks no dissent.  We must all bow down to "the science" no matter how fickle and capricious.  Science as a holy writ rather observation and experiment and free exchange of ideas and theories does make me want to vomit.  How many times in history have the ridiculous deniers been proven right? 

[slu72]

6 hours ago, Billiken Rich said:

The holy catechism of climate change brooks no dissent.  We must all bow down to "the science" no matter how fickle and capricious.  Science as a holy writ rather observation and experiment and free exchange of ideas and theories does make me want to vomit.  How many times in history have the ridiculous deniers been proven right? 

Anyone know if you can get climate change insurance? 

[dennis_w]

11 hours ago, willie said:

Just wait baby. 

Been waiting nearly 60 years, the narrative has changed multiple times, likely a new scarier one will come along soon 

[Old guy]

1 hour ago, slu72 said:

Anyone know if you can get climate change insurance? 

Insurance plans are contracts (policies) designed to pay benefits when certain events causing specific kinds of loss, both as defined in the contract, happen. In theory, you can get any type of policy you want or are willing to pay for. All you need to do is to find a company willing to issue such a policy. However, you should know that the policy you get for "climate change insurance" will probably define "climate change" and what constitutes climate changes in very restrictive ways that will make proof of this change very difficult, also the policy will probably define in equally restrictive fashion what personal damages qualify for benefits payable to you by the policy. If you think you have too much money and want to take insurance against climate change, go for it. I am sure some company will feel they can meet the challenge and come out ahead. Make sure you read the fine print, all of it, before you sign.

This type of thing has occasionally worked in real life, read "The Big Short." Contracts were issued by banks (not insurance companies) that would pay benefits for losses to mortgage backed securities and derivatives, prior to the 2008-9 crash. The firms buying them made billions in the crash. If you feel you would like to try this with "climate change insurance" go for it. Read the fine print, all of it, before you sign.

[slu72]

I should have put my comment in blue. Sorry. 

[slu72]

3 minutes ago, dennis_w said:

Been waiting nearly 60 years, the narrative has changed multiple times, likely a new scarier one will come along soon 

What we ought to be worried about is nuke tipped missiles flying all over the place. 

[Old guy]

11 minutes ago, slu72 said:

What we ought to be worried about is nuke tipped missiles flying all over the place. 

Nothing happens until they blow up, correct?

[wgstl]

19 hours ago, Pistol said:

It would be covered under a cyber security policy, basically a rider to their larger commercial policy. These haven't been around all that long and you'd be surprised how few large organizations opt for this coverage.

They might not have the smartest people at every desk in the school, but they have a good insurance agent.

Cyber is popular right now, I'm selling those policies like hot cakes. 

[Old guy]

9 minutes ago, wgstl said:

Cyber is popular right now, I'm selling those policies like hot cakes. 

This is the usual cycle with  new products, they sell like hot cakes. The loss comes later on. Remember LTC?

[CBFan]

13 hours ago, willie said:

Congratulations. I was wondering how long it would take for the first ridiculous denier to respond. I guess science makes you vomit. 

Congratulations you brought politics into our happy place.

Take your politics somewhere else.

[willie]

1 minute ago, CBFan said:

Congratulations you brought politics into our happy place.

Take your politics somewhere else.

Why is the fact that the world is warming politics ? 

[RUBillsFan]

6 minutes ago, willie said:

Why is the fact that the world is warming politics ? 

Exactly.  Global warming isn't even a question at this point, right?  It is / has been happening.  The political debate at this point is over whether / how much human activity is impacting global warming and what if anything government can / should do about global warming.  Regardless, insurance companies still have to deal with the fall out.

[billiken_roy]

2 minutes ago, willie said:

Why is the fact that the world is warming politics ? 

over the last 100 years the average temperature of the earth has increased about 1 degree.   it is predicted by the year 2100 it might increase another degree.   

ironically you and i wont be around to experience this "roasting"   i hope my great grandchildren can handle it. 

[cheeseman]

7 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

over the last 100 years the average temperature of the earth has increased about 1 degree.   it is predicted by the year 2100 it might increase another degree.   

ironically you and i wont be around to experience this "roasting"   i hope my great grandchildren can handle it. 

Data?

[slu72]

Ah, boy, politics infests the board. Please cease. We get enough thrown on our plates 24-7. As CBfan said, this is our happy place. 

[billiken_roy]

9 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

Data?

just google it.  

[Old guy]

Cyber security is something that can be discussed objectively, and the need for coverage against attacks is significant. It should be noted that cyber security attacks and major breaches have increased exponentially in the US since the Ukranian war started. A lot of it is apparently directed against companies involved in military work, for example Lockheed Martin. I assume the Russians, which appear to be the source of the increased attacks to US companies, are experiencing a similar increase in attacks and breaches from US cyber war sites. So, yes, at this time big companies are subject to increased risk and need to cover losses for possible attacks and breaches. This is real, the stuff with the Nigerian scam and VCU is stupidity.

Insurance and  cyber security may not be fun things to deal with but they can be discussed objectively.

[HenryB]

34 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said:

Exactly.  Global warming isn't even a question at this point, right?  It is / has been happening.  The political debate at this point is over whether / how much human activity is impacting global warming and what if anything government can / should do about global warming.  Regardless, insurance companies still have to deal with the fall out.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/

 

[dennis_w]

the planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended, one needs to do the research

[RUBillsFan]

14 minutes ago, HenryB said:

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/

 

This is just an listicle that cherry picks 50 "doomsday" headlines.  It also cites Brietbart which...er...nevermind I doubt that point will stick here. 

Global warming / climate change are real.  Levels of hysteria about them may vary by source.

My general take here is that scientists make forecasts / predictions all the time.  The overall forecasts tend to not be very specific / cover a wide range of outcomes.  Media tends to latch on to more sensational forecasts and those are usually wrong.  Think of it like people on the board predicting the Billikens record this upcoming season.  Just like if you aggregated everyone's predictions, it would give you a range of possible finishes for the Bills - say worst case bills finish 10-21 & miss the tournament & best case we make a run to the Final Four.  Average is probably a good season & making the NCAAs.  Media could latch onto that & say either "SLU predicted to have disappointing season, finish below .500" or "SLU expected final four team".  Neither would be technically wrong, but either would be very misleading.  If you did this for every season, you could go back, cherry pick one particular MBM's guess each year and say that Billikens.com's is 0 for 20 (or whatever) in predicting how SLU will do in any given year.  That's terribly misleading though.  SLU usually doesn't finish far off from the general consensus.  You just cherry picked wild predictions.  You can also add in the fact that things can / do change after predictions are made that would cause people to change their minds / predictions (ex: Perkin's injury last year or governments banning CFCs to protect ozone layer), but if you go back & look at original predictions they'll look wildly off.

[cheeseman]

1 hour ago, billiken_roy said:

just google it.  

Well you should be able to share a link - I am not the one who is making the claim.  You should google it and post the link - that is how it works.

[billiken_roy]

do your own research.   or if you prefer to play the part of chicken little have at it.  

[Lord Elrond]

from researchers at the University of Arizona Dept of Geosciences.  The warming from the last ice age ended about 6-8 thousand years ago. The recent increase over the last 100 years is spiking at a higher rate than ever.

https://news.arizona.edu/story/global-temperatures-over-last-24000-years-show-todays-warming-unprecedented

 

 

[cheeseman]

Ok - the article listed above is from the AEI - a noted right wing think tank that has aligned itself with Koch - noted climate denier - and even the tobacco industry.  So, any info from them has to be carefully examined.  Roy, all I asked for is your data from your claim - I didn't make a judgment nor claim one way or the the other.  I simply am looking to learn but apparently you are not willing to support your claim.   You are the one who made it personal.  If you have the data to support your claim post the link if not then keep it to yourself.

[HenryB]

17 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said:

This is just an listicle that cherry picks 50 "doomsday" headlines.  It also cites Brietbart which...er...nevermind I doubt that point will stick here. 

Global warming / climate change are real.  Levels of hysteria about them may vary by source.

My general take here is that scientists make forecasts / predictions all the time.  The overall forecasts tend to not be very specific / cover a wide range of outcomes.  Media tends to latch on to more sensational forecasts and those are usually wrong.  Think of it like people on the board predicting the Billikens record this upcoming season.  Just like if you aggregated everyone's predictions, it would give you a range of possible finishes for the Bills - say worst case bills finish 10-21 & miss the tournament & best case we make a run to the Final Four.  Average is probably a good season & making the NCAAs.  Media could latch onto that & say either "SLU predicted to have disappointing season, finish below .500" or "SLU expected final four team".  Neither would be technically wrong, but either would be very misleading.  If you did this for every season, you could go back, cherry pick one particular MBM's guess each year and say that Billikens.com's is 0 for 20 (or whatever) in predicting how SLU will do in any given year.  That's terribly misleading though.  SLU usually doesn't finish far off from the general consensus.  You just cherry picked wild predictions.  You can also add in the fact that things can / do change after predictions are made that would cause people to change their minds / predictions (ex: Perkin's injury last year or governments banning CFCs to protect ozone layer), but if you go back & look at original predictions they'll look wildly off.