# Why Would Insurers Tell Untruths About Global Warming? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2012, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928 "2012-03-06T13:45:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/41 "2012-03-07T18:52:09Z")
It you are interested in peer reviewed literature on costs from weather events, then you should become familiar with the work of Roger Pielke **Jr.**. Remember the Jr.. Sr. is his father and he is a climate scientist. I found this confusing until I figured out they were two different. Professor Pielke has been very critical of Munich Re: [Munich Re Goes too Far](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/09/munich-re-goes-too-far.html) [A New Study on Insured Losses and Climate Change](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-study-on-insured-losses-and-climate.html) He also points out that the marketing department at Munich Re has a much different message than the actual peer reviewed science they publish: [Mixed Messages from Munich Re](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/11/mixed-messages-from-munich-re.html) [An Embarassment of Riches](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/03/embarassment-of-riches.html) His actual specialty is damage caused by extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes and floods. [Hurricane Damage Risk and Predictions](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/hurricane-damage-risk-and-predictions.html) BTW, people who think the Reinsurance industry is independent and doesn’t have a dog in this fight: > [@](#): > > Swiss Reinsurance and the Reinsurance Association of America teamed up yesterday with a few US Senators to call for the US government to adopt policies to protect their industry from extreme events resulting from climate change. They also ite the NOAA billionz analysis and explain via press release ““From our industry’s perspective, the footprints of climate change are around us and the trend of increasing damage to property and threat to lives is clear,” said Franklin Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America.” ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/42 "2012-03-07T19:49:16Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > And this is exactly the point. We can argue about the causes of climate change, we can have productive discussions about what, if anything, we should do about it, but denialism is stupid. Those entities whose bottom line is dependent on the climate have recognized climate change and are trying to mitigate its effects. So go ahead and try to draw distinctions between human caused and human influanced; moving the discussion to this would be a victory for my children IMHO. I just would like to put the nail in this corporate funded, anti- science denialism that is running rampant right now. I think we’re mostly on the same page on climate change, at least with regard to the science. What I get annoyed with, is sometimes people who I mostly agree with on an issue (for example I mostly believe scientific consensus on things like climate change) will leap to conclusions that the real scientists aren’t really making. It’s one thing to accept published reports on climate change. It’s another thing to make the slight jump from “influencing” to “causing.” It’s absolutely true there are very few scientists who are saying “human carbon emissions are causing more destructive storm seasons and natural disasters.” Of the reputable stuff I’ve seen on it, some scientists quoted in a non-scientific journal will make _very_ qualified statements like “it’s definitely possible that a change in global temperature could impact weather systems and create more frequent and serious hurricanes.” But that is basically a “clean pass” that a “doomsayer” will run with and say “human caused global warming will lead to mega hurricanes to end the world.” ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/43 "2012-03-07T20:35:38Z")
I work at an insurance company. People here are eager to blame anything other than their own incompetence for our falling stock market index. It really is as simple as that. Well, that and desiring something external to blame when policyholders bitch about rate increases. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/44 "2012-03-07T20:39:59Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > It’s another thing to make the slight jump from “influencing” to “causing.” It’s absolutely true there are very few scientists who are saying “human carbon emissions are causing more destructive storm seasons and natural disasters.” Of the reputable stuff I’ve seen on it, some scientists quoted in a non-scientific journal will make _very_ qualified statements like “it’s definitely possible that a change in global temperature could impact weather systems and create more frequent and serious hurricanes.” But that is basically a “clean pass” that a “doomsayer” will run with and say “human caused global warming will lead to mega hurricanes to end the world.” Even if the doomsday scenario is true, I doubt that there would be any event which anyone could point to and say “climate change caused that.” But that means that an extreme denier can use this to deny that climate change is even indirectly responsible for increased numbers of severe events. It is a kind of subtlety easy to reject, just the way tobacco companies denied the link between smoking and cancer for so long. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/45 "2012-03-07T20:46:15Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Even if the doomsday scenario is true, I doubt that there would be any event which anyone could point to and say “climate change caused that.” But that means that an extreme denier can use this to deny that climate change is even indirectly responsible for increased numbers of severe events. It is a kind of subtlety easy to reject, just the way tobacco companies denied the link between smoking and cancer for so long. Exactly. The way to beat deniers here is the way science eventually beat the tobacco companies: with falsifiable predictions that leave no wiggle room. ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/46 "2012-03-07T22:47:09Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > That’s probably so, but perhaps a better question to ask is where the odds lie. Because that’s what underwriters care about. > > So, assuming for the sake of argument that the CAGW hypothesis is correct, how should insurers adjust their rates to take into account the change in probability of damage from snow, ice, pipes freezing, etc.? Lower? Higher? Same? Obviously, as for other extreme weather events, they will follow the science, which is increasingly linking recent cold/snowy winters across much of the Northern Hemisphere to record Arctic sea ice loss (for this winter, in the [Barents Sea area](http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.6.html), which has been previously linked to cold European winters; the link isn’t surprising when you ponder the effects of a significant part of the Arctic being [dozens of degrees above average for months on end](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_90b.fnl.html)): > [@](#): > > [A new study](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/28/433834/warming-arctic-fuels-cold-surges-snowy-winters-another-study-finds/) led by the Georgia Institute of Technology provides further evidence of a relationship between melting ice in the Arctic regions and widespread cold outbreaks in the Northern Hemisphere… Current climate science is increasingly on determining links between climate change and extreme weather, as opposed to climate change itself (many scientists are starting to openly state that recent increases in extreme weather are due to climate change). Also, I see that references to the likes of Pielke, et al have been made upthread; their claims are mostly baseless (see example [here](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/01/04/207288/munich-re-pielke-extreme-weather-damages-climate-change/)). [See also](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/06/1062174/-Jeff-Masters-the-Climate-Has-Shifted-to-a-New-State): > [@](#): > > In isolation, the strange winter weather of 2011 - 2012 could be a natural rare occurrence, but there have been way too many strange atmospheric events in the past two years for them all to be simply an unusually long run of natural extremes. Something is definitely up with the weather, and it is clear to me that over the past two years, the climate has shifted to a new state capable of delivering rare and unprecedented weather events. I myself follow weather/climate news and am always seeing headlines like “all-time record…”, “unprecedented”, “worst ever” (sometimes months after the previous worst) etc, including records that were decades old or more, especially as of late, much more than one might expect (e.g. did Australia expect to see a repeat of their record 2010-2011 flooding so soon; did the U.S., especially considering much improved warnings and a falling trend in tornado deaths (until recently), a tornado outbreak much bigger than the 1974 super tornado outbreak (which would have been much deadlier had it occurred back then)?). Note also that increases in population can’t explain the increase in weather/climate disasters simply because non-climate disasters haven’t increased as much. FWIW, saying that climate change will produce events (especially those which are physically impossible, like in Hollywood sci-fi flicks) like super-hurricanes and the like is more like what the deniers claim that “alarmists” say. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/47 "2012-03-07T22:59:31Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > Obviously, as for other extreme weather events, they will follow the science, which is increasingly linking recent cold/snowy winters across much of the Northern Hemisphere to record Arctic sea ice loss (for this winter, So you are saying that with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, we can expect colder and snowier winters in the Northern Hemisphere and therefore more and bigger claims for damage resulting from snow, ice, and cold? > [@](#): > > I myself follow weather/climate news and am always seeing headlines like “all-time record…”, “unprecedented”, “worst ever” Can you give me 3 examples of this from the past year or two? TIA ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/48 "2012-03-07T23:39:10Z")
I’ve a policy that’ll pay me a million dollars if I get a black eye. There are some conditions, though… ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/49 "2012-03-08T01:31:29Z")
What happened to “_only peer-reviewed articles by respected climate scientists in world-famous publications_”? This is one of those situations where the veil of ignorance would’ve been great. I would’ve love to see what the answer to “Insurers are claiming an effect (positive or negative) on GW in their claims?” ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/50 "2012-03-08T03:44:50Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > So you are saying that with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, we can expect colder and snowier winters in the Northern Hemisphere and therefore more and bigger claims for damage resulting from snow, ice, and cold? > > Can you give me 3 examples of this from the past year or two? TIA Not indefinitely; eventually Arctic ice loss will become great enough so that a different circulation pattern will be favored. Of course, natural variability will always be in play; compared to the previous winters, the U.S. had a very mild winter because the Arctic Oscillation was in a different phase (but Europe still saw extreme cold, but then it wasn’t cold all winter, just some major cold outbreaks). [For example](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117114028.htm): > [@](#): > > “Our simulations reveal a rather pronounced nonlinear response of air temperatures and winds to the changes of sea-ice cover,” Petoukhov, a physicist, says. “It ranges from warming to cooling to warming again, as sea ice decreases.” An abrupt transition between different regimes of the atmospheric circulation in the sub-polar and polar regions may be very likely. In other words, the pattern favors colder winters initially but then eventually it reverts to warmer winters. Now, we can’t be absolutely sure that this is what will happen, but due to obvious impacts, a lot of research is being done in this area and they pretty much show the same general picture. Note also that this is referring to regional cooling (which influences public opinion far more than it should), even as it warms overall; in this case, high positive temperature anomalies over the Arctic are (mostly, since it is warmer than average overall) offset by negative anomalies elsewhere. As for the latter, if you follow Jeff Master’s blog on Weather Underground, he posts plenty of examples of extreme weather events and usually tells how they are/aren’t related to climate change (or may be influenced by such), as does Joe Romm on Climate Progress (with scientific explanations; some people claim that links to blogs like these are invalid but since they mention and link to scientific articles they should be reliable; heck, I have even seen claims that links to RealClimate, from the scientists themselves, are invalid!). ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/51 "2012-03-08T06:22:14Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > As for the latter, if you follow Jeff Master’s blog on Weather Underground, he posts plenty of examples of extreme weather events and usually tells how they are/aren’t related to climate change (or may be influenced by such), as does Joe Romm on Climate Progress (with scientific explanations; some people claim that links to blogs like these are invalid but since they mention and link to scientific articles they should be reliable; heck, I have even seen claims that links to RealClimate, from the scientists themselves, are invalid!). One thing to keep in mind is that Climate Science is a wide and complex field where most scientists only work in one specialized area and may be no more than a intelligent layman in other areas. It would be sort of like having an ENT comment on a brain tumor. As far as I know, there is a no scientist that has a wall to wall in depth understanding how all climate science works. This is one of the reasons that the IPCC job is so difficult. You have 1000s of scientists who often can barely communicate with each other and you are trying to create a continuous narrative when what you really have is a bunch of guys that really know their little piece of the puzzle works, but the can’t really synthesize a complete picture. The point I’m trying to make is that when you read something by a climate scientist, you need to check his background and make sure he has actual expertise in the particular area he is talking about. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/52 "2012-03-08T11:00:46Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > Not indefinitely; eventually Arctic ice loss will become great enough so that a different circulation pattern will be favored. Of course, natural variability will always be in play; compared to the previous winters, the U.S. had a very mild winter because the Arctic Oscillation was in a different phase (but Europe still saw extreme cold, but then it wasn’t cold all winter, just some major cold outbreaks). That’s not an answer to the question. Insurance companies need to assess probabilities and set rates accordingly. Let’s suppose you are an underwriter at an insurance company and the boss asks you to make a recommendation for raising or lowering rates to take into account changed probabilities of loss due to snow, ice, and cold. If you insisted on giving those sorts of evasive non-answers, you would get fired. Of course, these kinds of shenanigans are symptomatic of the problems **Waldo** was complaining about. CAGW predicts more snow and ice – except when it predicts less snow and ice. CAGW predicts warming – except when it predicts cooling. A hypothesis which doesn’t make specific predictions is not a hypothesis at all. It’s garbage. > [@](#): > > As for the latter, if you follow Jeff Master’s blog on Weather Underground, he posts plenty of examples of extreme weather events Sorry, but I’m not your research assistant. It’s not my responsibility to go searching for specific examples of the generalizations you make. You asserted that you are “always” seeing headlines concerning unprecedented events. It should be very easy to describe and link to three of them. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/53 "2012-03-08T13:55:20Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > That’s not an answer to the question. Insurance companies need to assess probabilities and set rates accordingly. Let’s suppose you are an underwriter at an insurance company and the boss asks you to make a recommendation for raising or lowering rates to take into account changed probabilities of loss due to snow, ice, and cold. If you insisted on giving those sorts of evasive non-answers, you would get fired. > > Of course, these kinds of shenanigans are symptomatic of the problems **Waldo** was complaining about. CAGW predicts more snow and ice – except when it predicts less snow and ice. CAGW predicts warming – except when it predicts cooling. A hypothesis which doesn’t make specific predictions is not a hypothesis at all. It’s garbage. Yep, even this guy does understand that the argument was a “tails scientists win, heads deniers lose”, unfortunately that is not what scientists are saying, claiming that the scientists are contradicting themselves is just a straw man, unless they can deny (and typically deniers will never drop these kindergarten arguments) that seasons still take place and not all areas of the earth have the same climate, this point of ignoring local conditions to claim that scientists are contradicting themselves is really silly. > **[U.N. Panel Finds Climate Change Behind Some Extreme Weather Events (Published...](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/science/earth/un-panel-finds-climate-change-behind-some-extreme-weather-events.html)** > > The report predicted that certain types of weather extremes would grow more numerous and more intense as human-induced global warming proceeds in coming decades. > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, the report predicted that certain types of weather extremes will grow more numerous and more intense as human-induced global warming worsens in coming decades. > > “It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur in the 21st century on the global scale,” the report said. “It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe.” > > By the end of the century, if greenhouse emissions continue unabated, the type of heat wave that now occurs once every 20 years will be occurring every couple of years across large areas of the planet, the report predicted. In other areas and on places with rainy seasons then another mechanism, the increase in water vapor (that is not evenly distributed over land masses) influences the precipitation of snow and rain to make them more severe. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/54 "2012-03-08T14:31:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yep, even this guy does understand that the argument was a “tails scientists win, heads deniers lose”, unfortunately that is not what scientists are saying It’s not what I’m saying either – and I’m not sure it’s what he’s saying about me. Sure, he’s right that I’m saying you and yours have made an exceedingly modest prediction that’s correct regardless of whether snowfall increases or decreases, and regardless of whether it gets warmer or colder for a good stretch of time. But I want to _ **again** _ emphasize that your prediction can be falsified if that predicted tenth-of-a-degree change from 2007 to 2017 doesn’t show up. I think brazil84 knows that, and invite him to correct you on that point. > [@](#): > > claiming that the scientists are contradicting themselves is just a straw man, unless they can deny (and typically deniers will never drop these kindergarten arguments) that seasons still take place and not all areas of the earth have the same climate, this point of ignoring local conditions to claim that scientists are contradicting themselves is really silly. I’m not talking about “local conditions”, and I’m not sure brazil84 is either. I’m talking about temperature – and, at that, snow and ice – on a _ **global** _ level. I believe you’re predicting that next year may well be cooler than this one (which may well be cooler than the previous one, which in turn was cooler than the previous one) as a matter of global average temperature. I believe you’re predicting that tenth-of-a-degree change as a matter of _ **global,** _ not local, average temperature (which, in turn, may well occur even if both are cooler than the global '98-'05-'10 mark – but that’s irrelevant to falsifying your claim or proving it true). So much for where I stand. Where does brazil84 stand? Did you have both of our positions wrong, or just mine? Let’s find out. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/55 "2012-03-08T14:42:37Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Where does brazil84 stand? My position is that if we want to know what insurers believe, we need to see what they are willing to give discounts for. Any insurance company can jack up rates (or ask for a rate increase from regulators) and blame it on global warming. But if they really believe in global warming, they will offer discounts for insuring risks which can be expected to go down as a result of CAGW. Of course, it’s remotely possible that CAGW will increase every last risk – the risk of damage from snow; from ice; from cold; from fire; from hail; from locusts; from frogs falling from the sky. But this is not very credible to me. It’s also remotely possible that CAGW will not affect any risks at all. But this runs into the falsifiability problem you keep raising. Probably I overstated my case when I said that such a hypothesis is “garbage,” but it is a big problem. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/56 "2012-03-08T14:52:48Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > But this runs into the falsifiability problem you keep raising. Probably I overstated my case when I said that such a hypothesis is “garbage,” but it is a big problem. And I apologize if I’ve been unclear: I raised the falsifiability problem in other threads to get a perfectly good prediction from GIGO – and when it became increasingly likely it wouldn’t come to pass, he moved the goalposts, prompting me to raise the problem again until GIGO came up with another perfectly good one – and when he again moved the goalposts, I again raised the problem until GIGO came up with another perfectly good one. But I want to stress that it _ **is** _ a perfectly good one, just like its predecessors: it predicts that, while temperature declined from '98 to '99, and remained cooler through '99 and '00 and '01 and '02 and '03 and '04 before returning to the plateau in '05 before cooling off again for '06 and '07 and '08 and '09 before returning to the plateau in '10 before cooling off again for '11 – and may, in fact, for decades yet to come, keep doing likewise – it’ll rise by maybe a tenth of a degree from '07 to '17; that’s _ **entirely** _ falsifiable, and so I in no way see it as garbage. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/57 "2012-03-08T15:22:24Z")
The idea from brazil84 is the one that is garbage, and at the kindergarten level, what I notice from the recent reply is that now there is a “lets bat our eyes” look innocent and pretend that "CAGW predicts more snow and ice – except when it predicts less snow and ice. CAGW predicts warming – except when it predicts cooling. A hypothesis which doesn’t make specific predictions is not a hypothesis at all. " was not said. The intention is clear, declare that the scientists are being contradictory, and as pointed before, this is possible only by ignoring and misrepresenting what the scientists are really saying. One has to think globally and act locally, locations will not be affected the same by the global change. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/58 "2012-03-08T15:30:27Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And I apologize if I’ve been unclear: I raised the falsifiability problem in other threads to get a perfectly good prediction from GIGO – and when it became increasingly likely it wouldn’t come to pass, he moved the goalposts, prompting me to raise the problem again until GIGO came up with another perfectly good one – and when he again moved the goalposts, I again raised the problem until GIGO came up with another perfectly good one. Ok, well I gave up a long time ago on trying to figure out what **GIGOBuster** ’s position is. My comments were not directed to him. I’m simply discussing the problem of figuring out what insurance companies believe. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/59 "2012-03-08T15:37:50Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Ok, well I gave up a long time ago on trying to figure out what **GIGOBuster** ’s position is. My comments were not directed to him. I’m simply discussing the problem of figuring out what insurance companies believe. That reply was dealing with the kindergarden level “I still have a chip on my shoulder” compaint against me, as me and TOWP agreed before that the IPCC reports and predictions should be what we agreed upon, this idea that my positions are relevant is also a very silly idea to still have after all this time and discussions. As I do agree with what most of the experts and researchers report, it is indeed with them and the evidence that you should have your childish beefs with. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/60 "2012-03-08T16:11:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That reply was dealing with the kindergarden level “I still have a chip on my shoulder” compaint against me, as me and TOWP agreed before that the IPCC reports and predictions should be what we agreed upon, this idea that my positions are relevant is also a very silly idea to still have after all this time and discussions. It merely goes a long way to explaining why – as he’d said – I apparently keep raising the falsifiability problem; if you’d skipped straight to the IPCC’s tenth-of-a-degree prediction back when, I wouldn’t have made all those posts asking for a second goalpost after you backed away from the first one, and I wouldn’t have spent all those posts asking for a third one after you backed away from the second. I wouldn’t have, because I _ **couldn’t** _ have. Instead, I’d just be the guy who asked a question that got answered – and I probably wouldn’t have become at all memorable as, y’know, The Falsifiability Guy. I simply wish to note that my objections persisted until you supplied the tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade claim and declared yourself for it; to the exact extent that you could have done so sooner, my objections would have dwindled in direct proportion. And while I suppose I can see why you might figure I’d have a chip on my shoulder for all the unnecessary time and effort, such a conclusion would be incorrect; I eventually got the answer I wanted, and it was entirely worth the wait, which is why I find your position both relevant and satisfactory. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928.md?page=4)