Lloyd’s of London Latest Insurer to Warn on Warming, Mocks Deniers

October 16, 2013

I’ve made the point often.  If you want to know if climate change is real, check with the people who actually have money on the table, skin in the game – the big insurance companies. These folks have more money than God, (almost as much as Exxon) and hire the smartest number crunchers in the world to assess their risk exposure.  They are factoring in climate change, and pricing their coverage accordingly . As Eli Lehrer points out below, if they don’t get it right, someone will come in, undercut them,  and eat their lunch.

Munich Re, the big euro re-insurer, has had climate on the radar since the early 1970s.

From a powerpoint by Munich Re’s Peter Hoeppe. Munich Re publication from 1973 warning of impacts of extreme events due to climate change.


The head of exposure management at leading insurer Lloyd’s has slammed attempts to dismiss the latest UN climate science report, and says he’s unconvinced by claims the world is cooling.

“The sceptics are just trying to push the debate and they start at 1998, which was one of the hottest years on record,” says Trevor Maynard in a blog titled ‘Silencing the Sceptics‘.

“It’s a bit like someone breaks the world record for running 100 metres and then in the next ten races people say, ‘Runners are getting slower’.”

He added:  “In some parts of the world we expect there will be more flooding and drought and food shortages, we just don’t know where exactly. It means all regions need to think about becoming more resilient.”

Eli Lehrer, of the Conservative R Street think tank:

Indeed, if free-market conservatives really want evidence of climate change, they ought to look towards the insurance markets that would bear much of the cost of catastrophic climate change. All three of the major insurance modeling firms and every global insurance company incorporate human-caused climate change into their projections of current and future weather patterns. The big business that has the most to lose from climate change, and that would reap the biggest rewards if it were somehow solved tomorrow, has universally decided that climate change is a real problem. An insurance company that ignored climate change predictions could, in the short term, make a lot of money by underpricing its competition on a wide range of products. Not a single firm has done this.

NYTimes – Flood Insurance Costs Rise:

MIAMI — Sharp increases in federal flood insurance rates are distressing coastal homeowners from Hawaii to New England and are starting to hurt property values and housing sales in areas just beginning to recover from the recession, according to residents and legislators.

In recent weeks, the hefty flood insurance rate increases brought about by a 2012 law have stoked widespread alarm and uncertainty, prompting rallies, petitions and concern among state governors.Mississippi has sued the federal government to try to block the law. The issue has even garnered the attention of lawmakers, otherwise mired in the acrimonious government shutdown. A bipartisan group of senators and House members from Gulf Coast states are pressing for significant adjustments to the law once the Capitol returns to normal.

The law, officially known as the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, is being rolled out in stages, with a major part having gone into effect on Oct 1. It removes subsidies that keep federal flood insurance premiums artificially low for more than a million policy holders around the country — a discount that was applied to properties that existed before the drawing of flood insurance rate maps.

An estimated 20 percent of the property owners with federal flood insurance received these subsidies as the new law went into effect, and their premiums will rise, in some cases precipitously, either now, over the next several years or whenever they sell their properties. The exact amount of the increase depends on the home’s elevation above flood level.

Rising Sea level eats away at Miami beaches

Jeff Goodell in Rolling Stone – “Goodbye Miami”:

iami is the most connected city in America, a place where the entire economy is geared toward the next big banking deal, real-estate deal, drug deal. As Wayne Pathman, a land-use attorney in Miami, put it to me, “The biggest question for the future of Miami is how investors will react when they understand the risks of sea-level rise.” The rivers of cash that are flowing into the city right now are pretty clear evidence that few investors are worried about that risk. Brickell, the hot new neighborhood where the $1 billion Brickell CityCentre, one of the biggest new developments in the city, is currently under construction, is a few blocks from the water – streets are already nearly impassable during big storms. “It’s partly denial and ignorance, and partly a feeling that they can beat the odds,” says Tony Cho, the president of Metro1 Properties Inc., a large real-estate firm in Miami.

One thing that may change that is insurance rates. After Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992, many large insurers stopped offering property coverage in the state, citing the high risks of hurricane insurance. That left Florida in a dangerous position, with only small regional insurers to underwrite storm coverage for homeowners. But in the event of a large storm, the small insurers don’t have sufficient capital to cover the claims they would receive. To remedy the situation, the state began offering its own low-cost insurance under the name Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, which has become the largest insurer in the state. By subsidizing insurance, lawmakers hoped to keep costs down and development booming. The problem is, Florida is now on the hook for billions of dollars. “A single big storm could bankrupt the state,” says Eli Lehrer, an insurance expert and president of the R Street Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.

Flood insurance is likely to skyrocket, too. The National Flood Insurance Program is currently more than $20 billion in debt, thanks to payouts related to Hurricane Sandy and other extreme-weather events. In 2012, Congress passed the Flood Insurance Reform Act, which jacks the price of insurance up for people living in known flood zones. More reforms of this sort are sure to come. For a place like Miami, where virtually the entire city is a flood zone, the economic costs could be in the hundreds of billions.

The financial catastrophe could play out like this: As insurance rates climb, fewer are able to afford homes. Housing prices fall, which slows development, which decreases the tax base, which makes cities and towns even less able to afford the infrastructure upgrades necessary to adapt to rising seas. The spiral continues downward. Beaches deteriorate, hotels sit empty, restaurants close. Because Miami’s largest economies are development and tourism, it’s a deadly tailspin. The threat of sea-level rise bankrupts the state even before it is wiped out by a killer storm.


72 Responses to “Lloyd’s of London Latest Insurer to Warn on Warming, Mocks Deniers”

  1. Martin Lack Says:

    Denying reality does not change it. Even worse, successful denial (such as we have seen in recent decades) is guaranteeing a worst-case outcome for all.

    The recently-published ‘Climate Departure’ research of Camilo Mora et al has been criticised for relying on supposedly-unreliable climate models. However, the only basis for thinking that warming will not continue is rejection of 150 years of atmospheric physics. However, even if we allow that accuracy of absolute predictions (of Mora et al) are questionable, the relative conclusion is not: Failure to take aggressive action to decarbonise the World’s power generation systems ASAP (RCP4.5) results in same level of warming happening sooner requiring same adaptation costs to be expended faster if we burn all fossil fuels (RCP8.5).

    Anthropogenic climate disruption is underway. If we continue to argue about it, change will still happen and, critically, both mitigation and adaptation will become progressively harder the longer our politicians fail to acknowledge reality.

    • Not just power generation systems.  Roughly 60% of the world’s energy goes into transportation fuels, space heat and process heat.  Those must be addressed in the bargain.  Then you have non-CO2 GHGs like methane, N2O, and so forth which have a variety of sources.

      It may be somewhat easier to handle it in an integrated fashion, because the demands of one process are often served by something else which must also be dealt with.

      • Martin Lack Says:

        All very true but, I think we should focus on the low-hanging fruit. Aviation fuel will be hard but not impossible to substitute. For example, higher mixed alcohol fuels – which can be produced from any solid liquid or gaseous waste product containing hydrocarbons – have the potential to replace almost any hydrocarbon (and recycle CO2 as well).

        • There’s low-hanging fruit, and there’s picking a set of options which play poorly with each other and/or hit outright blind alleys far short of where we need to go.  Where we can see integrated solutions which are likely to work better than separate efforts, we should pursue the ones with the better long-term prospects.

  2. omnologos Says:

    “LOOK AT THE INSURERS” isn’t an argument – they have every interest to justify high premiums.

    Of the three reinsurers dominating the market only Munich Re is fully warmist -that’s more significant .

    Besides anybody putting all skeptics in same bunch is an ignoramus of the real debate.

    • Martin Lack Says:

      A conspiracy theorist is someone who invokes a more complicated, less plausible explanation for something, when there is a less complicated, more plausible one that they don’t like. Suggesting that Munich Re has a financial motive for over-hyping the risk is 100% based on conspiracy theory and 0% based on fact.

      I suspect Munich Re decided a long time ago that it would be best not to posit poorly-supported arguments and/or appear to be anti-progress. They also generally avoid making counter-factual statements and/or appearing to be anti-science. You could do a lot worse than learn from their example.

      • omnologos Says:

        Martin – as usual you don’t understand.

        1. The INSURERS have it all to their advantage to increase premiums – there is no conspiracy involved. It’s the nature of the business, getting paid as much as possible and repay as little as possible.

        2. The REINSURERS don’t work like that – it’s a handful of them and constantly at the risk of folding if their clients (the INSURERS with RE at the front) disappear.

        3. This makes the REINSURERS’ message much more meaningful.

        4. Unfortunately of the three big REINSURERS, only one is worried about climate change. Another is vaguely interested, the third one doesn’t care at all.

        This means that in the REINSURANCE market the topic of climate change has NOT (YET?) hit the bottom line. IOW the INSURERS who hype it know they can get a larger premium without having to pay anything additional to the REINSURERS who keep them afloat.

        This has ZERO to do with the reality of climate change. It just shows that REINSURERS are still free to decide if the topic is important or not. Who knows, maybe next year all three will join forces, and this argument will have to change.


        I have seen no response to the above, despite having made this argument many months ago. There are only a couple of losers who keep trying to move the discussion completely O/T, to myself. Well guys I have no business interest in insurance, reinsurance, the stock market, the bond market, oil, gas, energy, zilch.

        Perhaps you can petition Peter to write a blog about me, and then I can entertain you for hours about how many candies I had at the age of three, or the size of my feet. This information will then be reinterpreted by the aforementioned losers as some kind of internet-based phrenology.


        PS As for Maynard anybody that says “The sceptics” is a complete ignoramus of the debate. It is perfectly possible to be no skeptic at all and still remain unimpressed by flawed arguments based on the interest of Big Business.

        • greenman3610 Says:

          I thought this blog was about you.

          • Logically, omnologos is aethereal and does not exist. Neither does his fabulous ‘argumentum ad providentiam’. Time to call in Father Merrin and Father Karras to perform an ‘argumentum ad exorcizandum’. Per omnia saecula saeculorum!

        • jimbills Says:

          Lloyd’s Re:

          Number 5, Berkshire Hathaway, does have mixed messages about climate change:

          Buffett is more a peak oil guy than a climate change guy (it’s why he thinks gas should be taxed very high). He thinks climate change is real, but he’s doubtful it should be hedged against.

          So, your statement about the top re-insurers being vague about climate change is simply not accurate. They’re not. To this, your response is, so what, they do what they want to do, anyway. Again, it’s a refusal to look the horse in the face on the issue.

          Of course reinsurers don’t decide whether climate change is valid or not. But their position is valuable to note as towards those with a financial stake in the game.

          The reason why telepsychiatry is practiced on you is that you are consistently misleading, which begs the question: why? I doubt anyone here thinks you directly make money on these issues, so there must be another reason. Peter’s response above is both a joke and a true statement.

          You’re very good at focusing on other people’s motivations, but you refuse to look at your own. You deflect any and all arguments that affect your beliefs, and you constantly nitpick other’s beliefs (every once in a while having a valid point, but most of the time being misleading – revealing far more about yourself than about the subject at hand).

          I point this out not intending to be malicious, but helpful. They are meant for you to ask questions of yourself. With that, I personally will bow out of practicing telepsychiatry on you (yes, for good) and wish you the best.

          • omnologos Says:

            jimbills – only Munich Re keeps talking climate change. Hannover Re has a run-of-the mill CSR strategy on sustainability, like every other company in the western world, not a business one on climate change.

            Swiss Re has paid lip service, once or twice. Lloyds is not primarily a reinsurer. Berkshire Hathaway must be taking a giant risk by focusing elsewhere.

            So I am not misleading at all. Anyway, if climate change had hit the reinsurers we would be reading hard figures instead of trying to interpret documents from 2011. For a deeper look at the state of play (for insurers) this link from the site you provided could be helpful


            PS And to show I am misleading, surely it is far better to provide links and information (as you tried) rather than behave like creationists and astrologers (the other two types of people who constantly try to switch the focus to myself instead of the topic at hand).

          • jimbills Says:

            I didn’t really expect a breakthrough and acknowledgement. But I tried.

            Anyway, just so you know, here what I see in just this thread, but similar trends are in most of your comments.

            Peter starts by posting an article about how the insurance industry is acknowledging and adapting to climate change. You post the comment “LOOK AT THE INSURERS” isn’t an argument – they have every interest to justify high premiums.”

            1) That’s a deflection. Peter is just reporting on how the insurance industry (and a lobbyist) are treating climate change. But okay, I could see how a corporation would do anything and everything to increase profits (although insurance agencies ALSO compete with each other in the form of premiums, so they also have an incentive not to egregiously overestimate climate change).

            2) That’s just a bizarre statement from you. You spend so much time denying that fossil fuel companies would seek to affect the climate change ‘debate’ for self interest, and then you say another industry would do the same? The dichotomy there is weird.

            Martin then posts a comment about how it’s more probable to see Munich Re evaluating climate change realistically, to which you deflect by saying that he doesn’t understand – you were talking about insurers, not reinsurers. But here’s the thing – Peter’s article talks first about Munich Re and then talks about Lloyd’s. So, your original post, after all, was just misleading. YOU were off-topic.

            You then get upset by people looking at yourself (and after using the terms “cretin”, “losers”, “stupid”, and “ignoramus” when describing others), and suggest the topic refocus on the main point, the reinsurance business and climate change – to which I post 6 links, 4 of which do exactly that (the 5th shows Buffett’s views on climate change). All of these are basically blown off as unimportant, as well as Peter’s original post.

            To you, only Munich Re is really “warmist”, despite what those links show, and there is still great uncertainty in the reinsurance industry as to whether or not climate change should be a concern. You then post another link (mostly with insurers instead of reinsurers) showing that there is concern in the insurance industry about climate change and that several companies are adapting to it. You follow that up by saying I should really provide links instead of acting like a creationist.

            Your earlier statement “Unfortunately of the three big REINSURERS, only one is worried about climate change. Another is vaguely interested, the third one doesn’t care at all” isn’t true. For one, you’re almost certainly mentioning Berkshire as the one that doesn’t care at all, when they acknowledge climate but they just don’t how to handle it, and they aren’t a top 3 insurer. Secondly, the major reinsurers ARE looking at, acknowledging, and planning for climate change – Berkshire alone just isn’t sure how to approach it.

            BTW, Berkshire is taking a risk:

            And here’s one final link:

            Click to access adaptation-underwriting-risks-for-reinsurers.pdf

          • omnologos Says:

            Jim – I’ve posted a link with insurers talking climate change a few months ago, and the challenges still present even if everybody in the room believed in an upcoming catastrophe. Too bad you completely bypassed that for yet more telepsychiatry.

            Since am not a troll by any stretch of the imagination, rather than seeing you guys become trolls by discussing me rather than Peter’s topics, I shall reply to all further attempts with a “SBAT” for “stop being a troll”.

          • dumboldguy Says:


          • omnologos wrote: “Swiss Re has paid lip service, once or twice.”

            That’s a bizarre claim. This was posted a couple of days ago on their web site:

            “Swiss Re is recognised for its leadership on climate change

            “Businesses play a key role in reducing carbon emissions and curbing climate change. Every year, companies at the forefront of this important effort are recognized by the Carbon Disclosure Programme (CDP), the world’s preeminent reporting system tracking climate performance. This year, Swiss Re took one of the most prestigious positions.

            “In 2013, Swiss Re appeared in CDP’s Global 500 Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI). Achieving this ranking is no small feat as only the top global performers are accorded CDLI membership.”


            omnologos wrote: “Hannover Re has a run-of-the mill CSR strategy on sustainability, like every other company in the western world, not a business one on climate change.”

            From Hannover Re’s web site: “We have identified the reduction of CO2 emissions as the most important goal for our company.”
            omnologos wrote: “Lloyds is not primarily a reinsurer.”

            That may be, but they are the fourth largest reinsurer in the world, writing over 15.7 billion in gross premium last year – so your point is unpersuasive.

          • omnologos Says:

            Stephen -this post was about the insurance and reinsurance markets, not CSR? Of course many companies try besting themselves wrt reducing environmental impact.

          • Your claim that Swiss Re only pays “lip service” to climate change is hard to fathom.

            Swiss Re’s Senior Climate Advisor Andreas Spiegel addressed the Copenhagen Climate Summit, citing the same reasoning as Munich Re:

            “Weather-related insured losses are rising and the intensity of weather-related events such as hurricanes is going up as well. We are integrating these risks in our pricing.”

            If you have questions his phone number may be found on their site. Your idea that their commitment to a low-carbon corporate profile is merely standard boilerplate is belied by page after page on their web site:

            “Re/insurance plays an important role in managing climate and natural disaster risk, and that’s why it’s part of Swiss Re’s core business.

            “Disaster risk mitigation and climate adaptation are keys to strengthening the resilience of communities around the world. Re/insurance plays an important role in achieving this goal.

            “Swiss Re understands the relationship between climate and natural disaster risk and the societal impact of both. We’ve been shaping the global climate agenda through dialogue with our public and private sector partners, cutting-edge research and innovative risk transfer solutions for over two decades.

            “Managing climate and disaster risk is part of Swiss Re’s DNA.”

          • omnologos Says:

            Lip service, exactly -lots of meaningless words. Compare to Munich Re’s continuous push for new studies.

          • So your claim is that Swiss Re “integrating these risks in our pricing”, as they put it, is mere “lip service”? And that if they’d only “push for more studies” it would mean that they’d really be “worried about climate change”? Whatever “pushing for more studies” may mean – THAT sounds indeed like lip service – they are aligning their pricing with the new reality we face.

            Not incidentally, there is a Q&A about AR5 on their web site, in which among other things the canard about “no warming since 1998” is addressed. No waffling – they present AR5 as the guideline for our climate future:

            “Based on climate impact scenarios derived by the latest IPCC findings and economic projections we quantify the potential climate-related loss to our economies and societies over the coming decades. ” They are referring to their partnership with the Economics of Climate Adaptation Working Group, a partnership that includes Swiss Re and the Global Environment Facility, the Rockefeller Foundation, ClimateWorks Foundation, the European Commission, and and others, whose recent report “Shaping Climate-Resilient Development” applies the findings of AR5 to, among other issues, “What is the potential climate-related loss to our economies and societies over the coming decades?”.

            You said “only Munich Re keeps talking climate change”; this is plainly false. Swiss Re not only “keeps talking climate change” but has taken significant concrete actions beyond its bottom line to influence the actions of corporate and governmental decision makers. But whether or not a reinsurance company is “talking climate change” or not is inarguably less significant than how much money they charge for a policy.

            Hannover Re lost 261 million euros on Superstorm Sandy; but recouped 23.5 million of it in increased rates on those insurers. Of the three largest reinsurers, they are the least vocal in “talking climate change”; but increased rates – and increasing rates of uninsurability – will drive the political and business dialogue more surely than any “talking climate change” can.

          • omnologos Says:

            Interesting -.ar5 has woken up Swiss Re again . If their interest doesn’t decrease like after .ar4 I’ll stand corrected

        • dumboldguy Says:

          O-log just won’t quit, will he? He says:

          “Perhaps you can petition Peter to write a blog about me….This information will then be reinterpreted by the aforementioned losers as some kind of internet-based phrenology”


          In his ranting and thrashing, he again confuses us with things like “internet based phrenology”, which is an oxymoron of sorts because one can’t feel the bumps on his head via the net—only the “bumps” in his logic and in the persona he presents via his comments.

          Having some small familiarity with things “psychiatric”, I for one am fascinated by the personality and mental processes of one who is such an attention seeker that he invites Peter to “write a blog about him” (especially when Peter has already pointed out that he thought this site WAS about O-Log LOL). If you don’t want others to perform “telepsychiatry” on you, O-Log, just stop inviting it.

          I for one have enjoyed discussing various aspects of climate science and climate politics with everyone I have encountered on this site, and am interested in continuing to learn from that dialogue and contribute where I can. I will again ask O-Log to get serious and STOP being a distraction by being such a “magnet” for “telepsychiatry”.

        • “The INSURERS have it all to their advantage to increase premiums”

          So in addition to being a climate change denier, you also don’t believe in capitalism?

          • daryan12 Says:


            Recent events in congress where a tea party/climate denial crack suicide squad attempted to hold the state to ransom, putting at risk the whole US economy, should tell you that they don’t give a toss about the economy.

        • daryan12 Says:

          Here’s a thought, insurers will offer different insurance rates based on a person’s age, sex, where you live (in the UK a small difference in how you park your car can drive up the rate by 50%), etc. Why not include a little tick box for deniers.

          If they tick it they are insulated from future premium hikes due to AGW…but in the event of an extreme weather event wiping out their house, they get nothing. Let’s see how many would walk the walk how and tick that box.

          • omnologos Says:

            So the fact they don’t offer such a package yet means…?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Maybe it means they just haven’t gotten around to it? Or they tried and got no takers?

            It is already common for folks to hold down their car and home insurance premiums by electing a bigger deductible and assuming more of the risk themselves.

            Perhaps the “deniers” do not really believe what they say and are all too happy to let others cover their losses? Spouting rhetoric is one thing, looking at the results of cost-benefit analysis and acting on it is another.

          • omnologos Says:

            If CAGW hasn’t entered insurance contracts it’s because for all the posturing, insurers haven’t been hit by it. It’s fairly simple.

          • They have, and it has. I agree that “it’s fairly simple.”

          • dumboldguy Says:

            CAGW and insurers is not O-Log’s message.
            He is “simply” saying “look at me”
            SBAN, O-Log—it is really getting old!

          • omnologos Says:

            Once again I’ll have to point to the link I’ve posted some days ago where insurers talking climate change agree they don’t know how to add it to bottom lines (premium increases making some people forego insurance)

  3. daveburton Says:

    Insurance companies have a strong financial incentive to over-hype risk. It encourages people to buy insurance, and helps them justify higher prices. That’s why they fund the most extreme alarmists. Why do you think Rahmstorf and Munich Re are joined at the hip?

    • greenman3610 Says:

      re read Eli Lehrer. He used to work for Heartland, but couldnt take it any more.

      • omnologos Says:

        So what? Why should anybody care about Heartland

        The issues are elsewhere …how much to pay for what exactly concerning climate change -considering that every initiative so far has failed to deliver, leaving a worse world than before – ethanol bringing famine, windfarm subsidies transferring money from the poor to the rich, ets enriching Big Energy, palm oil causing deforestation and dispossessions, and now insurers making even more money on top of the mountains already in their hands.

        And you worry about Heartland?

        Like in Serenity the well meaning are destroying the world and can’t even tell what’s been happening.

        • You seriously believe that you are making sense here, saying something cogent?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            It would appear that O-Log’s intent is not to make sense or be cogent, but to deflect, divert, and distract us as we seek truth.

            O-Log has made my crap detectors wiggle before, and he has them vibrating nicely with his two comments on this thread. As you know, crap detectors are those invisible “antennae” that folks like policemen and judges develop as they work to separate good from evil in the world.

            Why should anyone care about Heartland? Maybe because they are leaders in the dirty game of climate change denial and are a front for fossil fuel interests and the Koch brothers? That a one word description of them and their behavior might be “despicable”?

            The one thought that makes the most sense to me after reading O-log’s two little rants is that O-log is a troll for the fossil fuel interests. Why else would he defend Heartlands and make a feeble attempt to confuse the insurance issue?

            May I suggest that we instead focus on meaningful things like Martin’s earlier statement rather than be diverted by O-Log?

            “Failure to take aggressive action to decarbonise the World’s power generation systems ASAP (RCP4.5) results in same level of warming happening sooner requiring same adaptation costs to be expended faster if we burn all fossil fuels (RCP8.5)”.

          • omnologos Says:

            you guys are priceless…canned responses, onanistic thoughts, conspiracy theories. In the meanwhile, google for “palm oil rainforest”.

            In fact it’s people like you who have helped the rich get richer on the back of climate change. If I were a tenth as stupid as you are, I’d have all the evidence to declare that you are obviously being paid by dark interests.

            I always envy the ordered world of the cretin.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            As one might predict, O-Log responds to charges of not being cogent and not making sense with (…..wait for it…..) yet ANOTHER comment that is not cogent and makes even less sense. A double down on a bad bet?

            O-Log does a nice job of climbing up on his high horse of indignation—complete with figurative sputtering and a nice display of “high dudgeon”. Unfortunately, in his rage at being questioned by mere mortals, he loses it totally and descends into name-calling and insults. He calls us Stupid and Cretins? And uses the WAY out of line “onanistic”? Lord love a duck, O-log!—get control of yourself, man!—you are an embarrassment.

            Yes, all that and the throw-off “google palm oil rainforest”, “help the rich get richer”, “canned responses”, and “conspiracy theories” references constitute yet another attempt to deflect, divert, and confuse the debate. I will again attempt to get O-log to focus by quoting:

            “The head of exposure management at leading insurer Lloyd’s has slammed attempts to dismiss the latest UN climate science report, and says he’s unconvinced by claims the world is cooling”.

            If you can’t up your game and honestly deal with what this thread is about, O-log, why don’t you go troll on some other site and leave us in peace?

        • jimbills Says:

          Woah, Omno’s a Firefly fan. Okay, okay. Kudos for that.

          The basic message of the Reaver story in Serenity is that technology can have horrific consequences. Which we see every day, in every way – and not just from corn ethanol, but from Macondo to Fukushima to the streams outside Luoyang Zhonggui:

          A potential horrific outcome to climate change would be large-scale geoengineering – which is highly probable if we don’t act now.

          You spend a great deal of time justifying the destruction from one sort of technology, and decrying the destruction from another type of technology. Why?

    • Your inability to understand the science doesn’t imply that scientists are fraudulent patsies within a global conspiracy to help insurance companies increase their premiums, Al Gore to increase his wealth, or governments to tax emissions.

  4. ““LOOK AT THE INSURERS” isn’t an argument – they have every interest to justify high premiums.”

    Really? Who would you buy insurance from – someone hyping high premiums, or someone offering the exact same coverage for a lot less? No cutthroat competition in the insurance industry, right? Yep, that’s one industry where price is not an issue at all, just ask the gecko!

    LLoyd’s of London – successfully offering overpriced insurance through the use of hyperbolic scare tactics based on faulty science for more than 300 years!

    What a maroon!

    • greenman3610 Says:

      amazing how these “free marketeers” have not the slightest idea about how markets function.

      • daryan12 Says:


        As I mentioned above recent events in congress do sort of prove the tea party types are much acquainted with free markets.

        And what do the actual people who work in the city think. Well I’ve been making contact with some (research related) and they think the tea party types are absolute nut jobs (again, as recent events have shown). If Ron/Rand Paul or Palin ever got on an electoral ticket, they tell me they’d be dumping everything American that they own, cutting their losses and running.

  5. […] I've made the point often. If you want to know if climate change is real, check with the people who actually have money on the table, skin in the game – the big insurance companies. These folks have more money than God, (almost as much as Exxon) and hire the smartest number crunchers in the world to assess their risk exposure. They are factoring in climate change, and pricing their coverage accordingly . As Eli Lehrer points out below, if they don’t get it right, someone will come in, undercut them, and eat their lunch.  […]

  6. Wes Says:

    Denial is its own reward. The politicians in Miami are hoping that they can preserve the status quo long enough for them to retire gracefully to a home on higher ground. There’s no political future in announcing “Miami is doomed” even if the evidence for that is overwhelming. And it is. This detailed Rolling Stone article spells it out very well:


    If the link’s broken, just search “Goodby, Miami” The insurance industry doesn’t have the luxury of denial to fall back on.

    • skeptictmac57 Says:

      They, like the subprime mortgage mis-investors are playing at a dangerous game of musical chairs,and hoping to ‘hear’ the signs of the music stopping just before it happens,leaving those left as the greater fool.

  7. […] in areas just beginning to recover from the recession, according to residents and legislators. Lloyd’s of London Latest Insurer to Warn on Warming, Mocks Deniers | Climate Denial Crock of t… Sign in or Register Now to […]

  8. Nice comments by dumboldguy and jimbills. Trolls live under bridges. They hate logic and reasoning. Their purpose is to confound enlightenment with a fog of emotion and distraction. You two have discovered their purpose and in so doing have defeated the angry demons. Congratulations! You have joined the legendary mythical realm of troll hunters extraordinaire. Welcome! Pssst. Here is a secret. They hate humor and do not understand satire at all.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      “Here is a secret. They hate humor and do not understand satire at all”. That’s not a secret to me. I learned that about trolls early on in my encounters with them.

      An anecdote you will appreciate.. I used to spend some time on a libertarian website, to see their viewpoint but mainly just to joust with the many trolls that lived there. The discussion was mainly political, and many thought it was so very intelligent and cute to refer to our President by such handles as “Obummer”, “Obumshit”, and ObaMauMau” (the last one at least being a play on words and a reference to Kenya that showed a bit of cleverness).

      I took them to task for that and started calling the President “Barry O’Bama” in my rejoinders because it was more “Murican” sounding than Barrack Hussein Obama. One of the “patriots” finally said “He’s NOT Irish, why do you keep calling him O’Bama?”, at which time I explained that new research indicated that he was descended from one of a boatload of Kenyan explorers who were shipwrecked and marooned on the Irish coast in 1527, and that he was one of those “black Irishmen” people were always talking about—credentials almost as good as Reagan’s. That produced a flurry of demands for sources and complaints that they “couldn’t find any links”. LOL

      It was also fun to quote from Onion articles and watch them froth at the mouth. It was even better fun to quote from some other rabid right wing site that had treated an Onion article as truth and passed it around the circular firing squad of right wing commentary—THAT confused them greatly.

  9. Aw Peter, we are just sticking to the topic title. It says so, ” Mocking the deniers” right?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: