Thanks to the help of many readers, I’m off to cover The 2013 AGU meeting, and I’ll be in San Francisco this week. I’m in transit today.
Readers might want to peruse the AGU Meeting program and see if they have topics/questions they’d like to see covered.
For those attending and wish to contact me, you can either use the WUWT contact form, or the AGU member messaging system from their web page.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“climateace says:
December 9, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Just had a quick squizz at some industry figures: building premiums have tripled in just over a decade. Phew.”
Inflation!
“climateace says:
December 9, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Patrick
Who said it was a tax? You might explain to non-Australian readers just where Abbott is going to get the $3,000,000,000 of other peoples’ money.”
You said it (DAP) was funded by the taxpayer! You might want to explain why ~AU$8bil is being paid to “polluters” under the carbon tax. Hydro Tamania, ~AU$50mil, profit windfall as a direct result of the carbon tax, or “other peoples’ money”. Let’s not forget the 10% going to the UN.
Patrick
‘Who said it was a tax? You might explain to non-Australian readers just where Abbott is going to get the $3,000,000,000 of other peoples’ money.”
You said it (DAP) was funded by the taxpayer! ‘
Oh, I see where you have got it wrong.
The DAP is a program, not a tax. The progam is being paid for by taxpayers – you and me. The reason you are confused is probably that is exactly what Abbott intended.
‘patrick
“climateace says:
December 9, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Just had a quick squizz at some industry figures: building premiums have tripled in just over a decade. Phew.”
Inflation!’
No, even adjusted for inflation, and adjusted for the increase of property values, premiums far outstrip inflation. If you owned a home in Australia you would know exactly what I am talking about, BTW.
Ed Mertin says:
December 9, 2013 at 8:43 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/open-thread-agu-week/#comment-1496429
=======================================================================
I bet you an “A” in your American History Revisionist class.
To quote Bugs Bunny, “What a Maroon!”
bobl
‘Based on climate aces fire descriptions and the likelihood of increased premiums due to undoubtedly being in green idealogical territory, I’d place him/her in the Australian Capital Territory. Fortunately half a continent away from my place.’
I don’t know what ‘green ideological territory’ is but I assume that you believe that it must mean something bad.
The general pattern in the region where I live is that most of the area that gets burnt is cattle and sheep grazing country, forestry plantations, and conservation areas, occasionally with lots of houses, infrastructure and stock going up in smoke as well. Again, and again and again.
‘Ps Climateace, have you got the point yet that carbon taxes, the RET , and global warming hysteria serve only to drive up your costs, and premiums, and the sooner the whole green mess is brought back to reason, the sooner your risk premiums can be made to fall. Or thought of another way, a carbon tax and more excuses talking up higher risk premium by climate councils saying bigger fires are the new norm are not likely to reduce your insurance risk premium or make you more insurable.’
I bet you can’t demonstrate to anyone that carbon taxes, the DAP, the RET, or global warming hysteria, and/or climate science tomfoolery, are driving up my premiums. What actually drives up premiums are: inflation, vast tables of probabilities, the cost of capital, the costs of payouts, the proportion of people in a risk category willing to pay premiums, a time frame, competitive profits and in the case of AGW, increased risks.
The big factor in driving up premiums is tens of thousands of houses being flooded or burned and these are climate-related phenomena.
You seem to be unders some sort of delusion that the insurance industry is not competitive. It is very competitive. Insurers are not charities, and they are not there to subisidise climate change denialists who ignore the increased fire risk in the Australian bush consequent to AGW.
If you want the industry viewpoint, just have a look at the Deoloitte report I linked upstring. If you want bushfire trends, read the Bushfire Report, also linked above.
And never forget, our whole society is based on the logic of money.
“climateace says:
December 10, 2013 at 3:26 pm
I bet you can’t demonstrate to anyone that carbon taxes, the DAP, the RET, or global warming hysteria, and/or climate science tomfoolery, are driving up my premiums.”
No, because “fear” does (Please take my money to stop floods etc). And I got mates at QBE too.
“climateace says:
December 10, 2013 at 3:05 pm
Patrick
‘Who said it was a tax? You might explain to non-Australian readers just where Abbott is going to get the $3,000,000,000 of other peoples’ money.”
You said it (DAP) was funded by the taxpayer! ‘
Oh, I see where you have got it wrong.
The DAP is a program, not a tax. The progam is being paid for by taxpayers – you and me. The reason you are confused is probably that is exactly what Abbott intended.”
I did not say DAP was a tax, i said it was a “plan”. A plan that does not need to be implemented. DAP would be, IF IMPLEMENTED, funded by taxpayers. UNLIKE the carbon tax which is imposed indesciminantly across production, ie, EVERYONE pays (eventually)!