The Disastrous Future of the U.S.

The insurance industry is fighting back against the kind of articles which accuse it of price-gouging, especially when it comes to natural disasters in general and hurricanes in particular. Yesterday Munich Re held a webinar for journalists, and wheeled out a lot of statistics relating to natural disasters in the first half of 2008. And they're pretty compelling when it comes to the hypothesis that natural disasters are getting more frequent and more damaging.

Here, for instance, is a chart of H1 natural disasters in the US going back to 1980. While the number of geophysical disasters has remained very low, the number of climatological disasters has more than doubled. And it's still growing fast: the number of disasters in just the first half of 2008 was bigger than the number of disasters in any of the full years between 2001 and 2005.

The global trend is also clear:

Of course it's not just the number of disasters which is increasing: It's also their severity, and the insured losses associated with them. Here's what's happened to US thunderstorm losses in the first half of the year, going back to 1980:

These losses, it should be noted, do

not

include any damages from the devastating Midwest flooding in June: Floods and thunderstorms are two different things, for insurance purposes.

There are similar charts available for wildfires and winter storms too, but clearly by far the biggest natural-disaster risk facing the US is hurricanes, which over the long term have historically accounted for roughly half of total insured losses. It's hard to find a climate scientist who'll claim that the risk of severe hurricanes isn't growing - even as the insured value of property on the US coast is rising fast. Insured coastal exposure in Florida, for instance, was $1.9 trillion in 2004; by 2007, that number had risen to $2.5 trillion, with total coastal exposure in the US reaching $8.9 trillion, largely as a result of the boom in construction activity.

These are enormous numbers, and help put the insurance industry's policyholder surplus of just over $500 billion into some perspective. Yes, that's an enormous amount of money. But if a hurricane hit Miami, or Houston, or New York, it's not hard to imagine how quickly the bills could add up - bills which would be paid overwhelmingly by private insurers.

Does it even make sense for private insurers to take on that kind of hurricane risk? I'm not sure. Certainly attempts to offload the risk onto the capital markets, using catastrophe bonds, seem to be going nowhere any time soon: total cat-bond issuance was less than $8 billion in 2007, and that was by far a record year. But if private insurers are to take on this kind of risk, then I can certainly understand why they'd want to raise insurance premiums in anticipation of increasing hurricane frequency and severity.

Homeowners won't like it, and regulators won't like it. But increasingly-severe natural disasters are an inevitability at this point, and they'll hit the US just as much as they'll hit the rest of the world. In other respects, the US is actually in a fortunate position with respect to global warming: Other, poorer countries are at much greater immediate risk. But when it comes to potential insured losses from hurricanes, the US is by far the world leader.

Comments

[Tom B]

There are still plenty of morons and Exxon apologists-- and politicians-- who deny climate change, but, ultimately, Reality doesn't give a f*** about our personal preferences.

[huangjin]

How much of the increase in disasters is caused by increasing property values and increased development? If nobody lived in California, there would be almost no geophysical events on the list, but that doesn't mean there would be no earthquakes.

As for hurricanes and global warming, it will reduce the number of Atlantic hurricanes, which is what Americans are concerned about.
news.mongabay.com/2008...

The real problem is that insurance is heavily regulated and the costs are not borne by those who receive payments. It has led to overdevelopment in dangerous areas, causing higher losses. Force people living in earthquake/hurricane/f... zones to pay more for insurance, and they will build less home or move to safer areas. Then we can read an article that argues climate change has lowered the incidence of natural disasters.

[satelliteradio isdead]

Tom B, thanks for posting your idiocy for all the world to see

[truthinvesting]

AIG is finally in arange where it is safe to sell the puts to get long. I have a whole thread about AIG with my worldwide forum. Nice article

[Tom B]

"Tom B, thanks for posting your idiocy for all the world to see"

So which are you, among my various categories, and can I see your scientific credentials?

[Pent updemand]

huangjin is right on the money. Let's control those numbers for the real estate bubble, which was worst in the hurricane/earthquake prone areas.

Tom B, I hope you like crow. Your ilk are going to be eating a lot of it as global temperatures continue to moderate.

[Tom B]

"Force people living in earthquake/hurricane/f... zones to pay more for insurance, and they will build less home or move to safer areas."

They already pay more. Compare coastal insurance rates along the eastern seaboard to inland. Also, building codes in fire prone areas reflect the danger. It is true that many people live in places they shouldn't live, but you might have a hard time convincing people that a property beyond the 500 year flood line (like some along the Mississippi, recently) is too dangerous. The climate is changing pretty rapidly now.

[barnburner]

Of course "climate change", aka Global warming by the rest of the civilized world, continues "pent up demand" and "huangjin" will not eat crow but continue to be apologist for the lunatics in the Bush administration.

[notsosmart]

the "stars" that own the homes along the shore in malibu could not care less.all those homes should not be there. the insurance co's should refuse coverage there & any other disaster prone area.there should be a national disaster policy funded by policyholders with at least a 20% ded. & a $250,000 max.now everyone in a prone area would know the financial responsibility.2 losses no more coverage.this would mitigate it but the homebuilders & real estate people wont like it.

[helplessobserver]

I invite all those worried about global warming to take some time and learn about a time of global cooling. From 1350 to 1850 we had cooling and huge human disasters occurred almost every year. Prior to that from 850 to 1350 the earth warmed, food supply and populations increased. Great cathedrals were started for prayer to insure the good times rolled on. But they didn't.

[TAS]

The largest disaster in our country is the public school system along with the Stalinist teacher unions. We can insure out way out of property losses. We cannot fund our way out of ignorance.

I appreciate your efforts on this topic, but perhaps your data is too compressed in time. I prefer to see cycles of at least twenty-five years or more. A century is even better.

[fabricator]

Actually, Tom B is right on target. Anyone who t this point still doesn't get it is either napping or gulping the Faux News Kool-Aid.

For a real eye-opener, quit drinking at the fount of ignorance and get acquainted with the Greenland glacier melt and its implications for the next few decades... then brace yourselves for the indifferent reality Tom mentioned.

[Tom B]

"The largest disaster in our country is the public school system along with the Stalinist teacher unions."

How quaint! There are people who are still afraid of lurking Stalinists!

[fabricator]

Heck, Tom, I find the profit-at-ALL-costs quarter-by-quarter hypercapitalists to be scarier than any Stalinist.

Moderation in all things... well, those within our control anyway. ; )

[mdmrjsds]

First, a brief comment on the article at issue here. The US population has increased by approximately 50% in the time frame of the study. Now, you don't say what the definition of a "Natural Disaster" is so the graph is meaningless. Anyone can make some definition and produce whatever graphic outcome they desire. But if cost enters into it at all, then a 50% increase in population is going to scale to a 50% increase in cost in all likelihood. I'd be interested in seeing the same graph for 20 year periods back to the founding of the country. I wonder why they didn't think of that? They wouldn't have an ax to grind, would they? The prior data wouldn't refute their thesis, would it? Noooooo. Of course not. :-)

As far as climate change goes and how it pertains to this article.

If you've read any of the reports of climate change, you will know that the authors take great pains to stress that year to year fluctuations are *not* due to long term climate change. And if you have any scientific training what will strike you is the level of ignorance that is professed (or sometimes not professed) by those same authors.

In the last several years, it has been shown that the melting of Kilimanjaro is due to a shift in the jetstream over the Indian Ocean, not CO2 buildup (at least not directly). The arctic melting is due to the increased particulate pollution from China, not CO2 buildup. The melting of the Himalayan glaciers is due to the perpetual brown cloud of particulates over the Indian subcontinent due to overpopulation and the burning of dung and wood as fuels, not CO2 buildup.

The models are predicting changes over the next several decades to centuries. If they are so wrong as to be off by decades in their prediction of effects, how can we trust any of the results they produce?

For example, there are some scientists predicting that the North pole might be ice free this year. Models weren't predicting that to happen until 2040 or 2050. What did the model miss that made it so wrong? What isn't being taken into account? And given the inadequacy of the model, can we trust any conclusions drawn from its output?

If you look at the middle ground, between the "true believers" and the "load of bunk" camps, you will find that there is no way to know at this point whether global climate change is due to CO2 or not. The time frame of good data is way too short, and our ignorance of the underlying processes too great.

The reasonable course would seem to be to continue the research in order to gain better understanding and to take reasonable measures to mitigate effects that might occur.

Tom B A 500 year flood is a statistical measure, it doesn't mean that a flood of that magnitude only occurs every 500 years. It means that there is a 1/500 chance that any given year will have a flood greater than that magnitude. Questions I would ask are, 'Where did the 500 year number come from?' 'Is the 500 year number wrong?'. We obviously don't have 500 years of experience of the Mississippi basin, so we are judging this from geological data, I would guess. And if that is the case, the fact that the river is now completely different because of levees and that the drainage basin is completely different because much of the forest has been removed might have something to do with this as well. The fact that there was an ice age in the recent past could also bear on this. And it could just be a fluke occurrence, like flipping a coin and getting 9 heads in a row. 2**9 is 512, so the likelihood of flipping a coin and getting heads 9 times in a row is 1/512.

[Pent updemand]

You people want to bet the future of the global economy (and political system) on a computer model, and "deniers" are the crazy ones? Right...

[notsosmart]

gotta add on asteroids,yellowstone erupting,earths magnetic pole shifting,calif. breaking off & falling into the sea(that will put the fires out) etc. & how is all that priced nto premium?

[Tom B]

"The arctic melting is due to the increased particulate pollution from China, not CO2 buildup. The melting of the Himalayan glaciers is due to the perpetual brown cloud of particulates over the Indian subcontinent due to overpopulation and the burning of dung and wood as fuels, not CO2 buildup."

The polar ice caps and the Himalayan glaciers don't care WHY they are melting, but the economic impact of these events is huge. Ice cap melting leads inevitably to coastal flooding; the Himalayas feed the Ganges and other rivers in India.

Oh-- and by the way-- atmospheric CO2 is increasingly. maybe it's coming from comets from outer space or from the Tooth fairy, but, gee, cars and power plants make CO2 and CO2 is increasing-- what an amazing coincidence!


"you will find that there is no way to know at this point whether global climate change is due to CO2 or not."

Methane and CO2 trap heat because of their physical properties; because of the way they absorb infrared radiation. This is old science.

"The reasonable course would seem to be to continue the research in order to gain better understanding and to take reasonable measures to mitigate effects that might occur."

As the price of oil goes up, wind and solar power plants become more attractive. Conservative Capitalist T. Bone Pickens is betting hard cash that way, with his wind project. Using electricity to replace or supplement gas in cars is established technology, and getting better with research. I'd say we can do a LOT more and still be within the realm of "reasonable"... I think, even nuclear might be part of the solution, though I find the mining and waste issues troubling. World population is 7 billion and growing; the planet isn't getting any bigger.

[fabricator]

Regarding mdmrjsds' disingenuous comments about CO2: first, Tom B is correct again that the "whys" don't matter to an extent-- we are ill-prepared (at best) for the naturally disastrous consequences of massive ice melt. Second, Antarctic ice cores show an undeniable direct correlation between long-cycle historic climate cycles and CO2 concentration. Now, of course we all know correlation does not necessarily mean causation but the link is indisputable. If nothing else, CO2 goes along for the ride. But to dispute your assumptions, the latest evidence does indeed point to CO2 as a significant contributor to retained heat.

As to pent-up demand's naive blathering: forget models, okay? Even those of us who recognize the reality of global warming understand that, despite their actual scientific value, they are imperfect. Again, use your own powers of observation and reasoning (I'm giving you some benefit of the doubt) and cogitate over what things like the massive (and escalating) Greenland ice melt mean. These processes were considered linear until even conservative scientists had to begrudgingly accpet the latest data: the change is anything but. Brace yourself-- climate change doesn't care if you're educated or not, and it's gonna be an equal opportunity pain in the ass. Unless you live on Mount Everest, maybe.

Oh, and as for energy: solar, tidal and wind are great for starters, but let's get serious about geothermal. It's basically free energy, baby, and it's more useful and available than many suspect. Even in the US.

[patrius]

"For a real eye-opener, quit drinking at the fount of ignorance and get acquainted with the Greenland glacier melt and its implications for the next few decades... ."

Ah, Greenland..isn't that the place that used to be so warm that Europeans settled there and raised livestock until it became too cold in the 1600s or so? How about all those glaciers that melted to form the Great Lakes thousands of years ago? Now THERE was some warming, no doubt caused by cave men building fires.
Man-made global warming is a myth that depends on ungrounded people not grasping that day-to-day or year-to-year weather changes are affected by forces far bigger than tiny increases in CO2. A couple of solar flares or a volcano will totally overwhelm any minute man-made effects on the weather. This is so obvious it shouldn't have to be stated.

[patrius]

fabricator: "For a real eye-opener, quit drinking at the fount of ignorance and get acquainted with the Greenland glacier melt..."

Ah, Greenland. Isn't that the place that was once so warm that Europeans migrated there and successfully raised livestock and crops before it got so cold they all disappeared around the 1600s?

And something caused the Great Lakes to form from melting glaciers thousands of years ago. Must have been cavemen campfires.

Weather patterns change. There are huge natural forces that completely outweigh any minute effects of a little extra CO2 that itself is only a tiny portion of the atmosphere. Duh.

[notsosmart]

the problem is that if you dont believe all the people & their machines are causing these problems if you are wrong what happens to you & your future generations?if you are right it doesnt matter that much.

[User 223834]

That is an excellent article. I wonder if continued building in disaster prone area is the cause of this? The beach does not seem to be a great place for a house when hurricanes come round; yet truely a house is a disposable assets and it may be more economically effecient to build it cheaper and replace it than to build it twice as expensive and twice as strong. Certainly insurance industry will have plenty of business going forward.

[fabricator]

patrius, in your blithe rush to pointless sarcasm you blow right past the critical point. Typical of the naysayers.

And Greenland's glaciers date back much farther than the 1600s. You can dance around what their collapse means all you like, but the danger they portend exists, nonetheless. Ain't life crazy?

[fabricator]

Oh, and patrius: don't confuse weather with climate. If you want to truly discuss the subject (and I doubt you actually do, given your snide comments), please learn the difference.

[Pent updemand]

Your moniker is well-chosen, fabricator. You chastise my "naivete" while refusing to acknowledge that the so-called solutions proffered for climate change will wreck the world economy. Whether the climate is changing or not, or if the cause is manmade or not, we are better off spending our resources on adaptation rather than trying in vain to put the world back to some arbitrarily chosen ideal. Apparently sometime around the mid-19th century the climate was "correct", so any deviation from this state is evidence of man's sin.

The climate models are not simply imperfect, they are worthless. They can't even do a decent job of backfitting the data they have, much less make valid predictions that can be proved. Before I subscribe to a radical CO2 reduction program (which will drastically reduce the standard of living of every person on Earth), I'd like a bit more proof that it would actually reverse the warming we've seen thus far.

"Climate change" is a political & religious movement, not science.

[ksmithdc]

Global warming is not a myth. Global warming because of human beings is a myth. If you take a look at this issue from a macroscopic viewpoint, you'll learn that these things occur in cycles. We have warming & cooling trends. These occur not because of us, but in spite of us. Al Gore is, in my opinion, the greatest con man of the last 100 years.

[TERN]

Climate change debate aside, the *perception* of increasing natural disasters should be a long term positive for the insurance industry.

[Thomas F.]

Before I comment on the common sense of the ”sky is falling, no its not argument” that seems to be the common thread here. I have some questions for the author:

1) H1 Climatalogical (temperature extremes, drought, wildfire) doubling, how does that affect insurance rates in coastal areas? Any wildfire in Maryland I haven’t hear of? The Carolinas? I know there have been fire in Florida, have they burned down any cities I’ve heard of?

2) The trendline in the US thunderstorm graph doesn’t include 2006 & 2007 which would drive the trendline down significantly depending on the type of regression used. Frankly, it appears they intentionally over fit the line to prove a point. Do a simple linear regression on the line, adjust it for inflation throw in the fact that property values exploded during the last 10% of the graph and in inflation adjusted dollars I’m guessing, not much change.

3) “Insured coastal exposure in Florida, for instance, was $1.9 trillion in 2004; by 2007, that number had risen to $2.5 trillion, with total coastal exposure in the US reaching $8.9 trillion, largely as a result of the boom in construction” Frankly, I’d expect better financial analysis from an article on Seeking Alpha. Was the increase in value from building or from the bubble? Will the bursting of the bubble, with a 20-25% reduction in value reduce this number back to $2.0 trillion? If it does, does the insurance company benefit from having the same premiums but lower exposure?

4) A hurricane hit New York, what’s the likelihood? Particularly of it being above Class III after having left the gulf stream thousands of miles behind? This is a strawman argument, Nor’easters hit New York all the time, the building are built for it. Is there any record of a hurricane stronger than a class III hitting New York…..ever?

Now a word on the “sky is falling…” argument. The glaciers in Greenland have melted? The North Pole will melt this summer? It is July. After having introduced that much new water, how has the east coast escaped flooding? I live in Virginia Beach 8 ft. above sea level. If the Atlantic had risen so much as a foot, people all around me would have notice. So much on both sides is taken as gospel without so much as looking outside or at Google Earth. Seems to me that before believing someone who was telling me the North Pole was melting, I’d go look at a recent satellite shot.

Turns out, North Pole still has some ice and my house is still 8 ft above sea level. On the other hand, oil is a finite resource and isn’t renewing itself as quickly as we are consuming it. It is unethical to use up all the petroleum when there are viable alternatives. What are future generations going to think about us, when our answer to them about why we used up all of a finite resource is, “screw you we got ours?”

For more on this, see www.rightiswrongandlef...

[dbamich82]

LIving in Mich the public schools taught us that 10k years ago an ice age had over a mile of ice covering the state and extending down to Kentucky. The resulting melt formed the great lakes. Now my kids are learning in the public schools that the avg temp probably raised by 20 degrees plus in about a decade to melt the ice. Regardless of the timing everyone must agree that a significant warming event occured to melt ice that covered close to half of the continent. What caused this? No co2 burn. Now temps seem to have increased half degree in 100 years. Lets look to the sun.

I think any level headed person would agree that reducing any pollutants would be good. The only answer I see with 7 going on 10 billion people is to have everyone live in the stoneage or shift to powering the planet with nuclear, but this will be a 50 year shift.

If Gore or the greens seriously believed that warming was a serious problem they would be introducing 55 mph legislation and the such, this is about power and money grab. But , I have to hand it to Gore, coming up with an issue people will fall in line for based on assumptions and computer models, and a hypothosis that will take decades to test is genius.

Bottomline the insurers will be ok, the politicians need them. The govt cannot bailout disasters as the growing entitlement spending built in will eat up the funds.

PS where did the c02 originally come from; the public schools taught me it originally came from the atmosphere, sucked into plants and fossilized into fuel. Are we not returning the earth to its natural state?

[fabricator]

Thomas F said: "Now a word on the “sky is falling…” argument. The glaciers in Greenland have melted? The North Pole will melt this summer? It is July"

Um, Thomas? You may be up to speed on statistical analysis as a science, but do yourself a favor and look deeper into the science of climatology (as well as physics and geology)-- especially vis-a-vis Greenland's melting glaciers. Hint: we're not talking about the results of a typical hot month here. Your comment doesn't even approach the neighborhood of the actual problem.

Do your research. THEN opine. That's just common sense, bud.

[fabricator]

Pent-up demand blathered inanely: "You chastise my "naivete" while refusing to acknowledge that the so-called solutions proffered for climate change will wreck the world economy"

I didn't acknowledge it because your premise is utterly false.

But I'll entertain your silly notion. What will actually "wreck the economy" is the ignorance and inaction displayed by you ostriches. A dramatic shift in climate, despite the causes, will do far more damage than any proactive change in lifestyle. Your unsustainable status quo is at risk, man... wake up. The time to adapt was decades ago, but people with your quaint and out-of-step mindset held us back. Now is certainly not the time to dither.

All hell is just short of breaking loose. Do you propose massive shopping at Wal-mart as the solution? Personally I see it to be more sensible energy choices (particularly thermodynamic), more sensible design approaches (solar cells on shallow rooftops make more sense than high-pitched wasteful roofs decked with shingles) and more emphasis on reuse/recycling/reduct... than pell-mell lemming-like consumption.

Feel free, though, to spout further inanities. That's your right. ; )

[KevinB]

To Thomas F.:

Not that I disagree with your major points, but Hurricane Hazel hit Toronto, Ontario in October, 1954, with winds just a few mph below Category 3 strength - and that's hundreds of miles farther inland than NYC (and more than 1,000 miles after landfall).

So, it is possible, though I agree unlikely, that a Cat III 'cane could hit Manhattan.

[KevinB]

To paraphrase Yogi, you can learn a lot by just looking. As I read up on Hazel, I also read about Hurricane Carol that same year. Carol was a weak Cat II/strong Cat III 'cane that hit Long Island and Connecticut in 1954. So if a Cat III storm can hit within 50 miles of NYC, I'd have to say it's a certainty that such storms COULD hit New York; whether they ever WILL is impossible to predict.

[Derwentwater]

Seems like all the hot air here is making things worse.

[Tom B]

To Thomas F: "Any wildfire in Maryland I haven’t hear of? The Carolinas?"

Apparently: www.lelandtribune.com/...

[Thomas F.]

Fabricator one question, if the Geenland ice sheet has melted and the North Pole has melted and the sea has not risen, where did the water go?

Second point was not that there hadn't been wildefires in the east as Tom B seems to have deduced. In fact, that would fly in the face of the facts, since we in southeastern Virginia have been sucking smoke from a fire in the Great Dismal Swamp that has been buring for at least two months now. Rather the point was that these fire have not damaged great swaths of property that is insured. I have not checked but I am rather confident that while the Great Dismal Swamp has been buring the Insurance industry isn't on the hook for the damage. Remember this comment was in context with the article. Simply because there have been more fires doesn't mean that the insurance companies exposure has gone up in lockstep.

[Tom B]

"f the Geenland ice sheet has melted and the North Pole has melted and the sea has not risen, where did the water go? "

Ice on land is more important with regards to raising sea level because ice floats. Thus; Greenland and much of Antarctica are more key than Santa's workshop getting wet. Note that Greenland and Antarctica have much melting yet to do; they still have lots of ice. And sea levels ARE rising.

[Thomas F.]

Tom B, what you fail to mention is that the amount of ice at the South Pole has actually increased during the period in question...I suppose that wouldn't support the thesis. Sea levels have risen? SInce I live 8ft above sea level I'd sure like to know where you are getting your data? After all my front yard is still dry and as mentioned in previous posts, the Great Dismal Swamp is all 5ft or less above sea level and they sure could use some help putting out those fire....

[fabricator]

"Fabricator one question, if the Geenland ice sheet has melted and the North Pole has melted and the sea has not risen, where did the water go? "

I did not say it had completely melted, Thomas-- please read more carefully and thoughtfully if you intend to participate in the discussion.

I alluded to the melt RATE increasing, a phenomenon that has even conservative scientists worried. The rate increase in the past few years alone is alarming. But instead of asking ME all the questions, here's a better idea: go to the SOURCE.

Also, sea levels HAVE risen; it's well documented. Some islanders have been evacuated due to encroachment of ocean water into freshwater supplies. However, due to the earth's irregular shape, as well as tides and other factors, the distribution is not even, so some areas don't experience the same rise. In addition, so far it hasn't been what we would term catastrophic in general.

Finally, you're flat wrong about south pole ice. Antarctica is a polar desert-- there has been no accumulation of ANY precipitation in a long, long time. And in recent years, a huge ice shelf broke off and disintegrated, which in anyone's book is a LOSS of ice. And after the shelf detached, the glacier behind it began creeping into the sea. If you truly understood this subject, you'd recognize why that is Not A Good Thing.

If you're serious about knowing what's going on, educate yourself. Otherwise, I suggest you avoid embarassing yourself with uninformed observations. Just a thought.

[Thomas F.]

Fabricator: You arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance Here's what the source says: OBTW the source is NOT Al Gore or anyone else for whom this is a religion or a profitable scam.

1) www.pubmedcentral.nih....

Actual average accumulation has been 7.3 cm per year for the last 103 years. Doesn't sound like much, but that is 751.9 cm (25 ft of accumulation). Since Antartica has an area of about 5.4 Million Sq. Mi. That's quite a bit of accumulation in the last 100 years for a desert.

Oh and by the way the accumulation has accelerated by 20% in the last 20 years.

2) bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/S...
3) cat.inist.fr/?aModele=...

Remember how my original post alluded to the fact that all you had to do was look out the window to ascertain the facts...You might want to try that.

Use observation not superstition if you want to convince people. I love the water isn't distributed evenly argument. That's a convenient way to explain why the ocean has risen in remote areas that cannot earily be observed, vs. THE ENTIRE US and CANADIAN coastline. This water must be like so many other superstitions, only the gullible, I mean the faithful can see it.

[sivere]

Please watch these videos from professor bob Carter on the myth of [human induced dangerous] gloabl warming (scroll down to GLOBAL WARMING):

www.siv0.com/Media

[truthinvesting]

sell the 10 strike price with almosta 2 dollar premium

[fabricator]

Thomas F, just more irony from you. I did speak too simply (for your sake) in referring to Antarctica as a polar desert-- that is actually only true for large portions. My apologies for misleading you; it was not intentional. Yes, ice does accumulate in some areas-- hence the Vostok ice core which (if you look at the full chart and not the one that pollute-at-all-cost propagandists edit to fit their agenda) you can see indicates a HUGE rise in CO2 correlating with the advent of the Industrial Age. Yes, correlation does not automatically mean causation BUT in this case the correlation is too strong to blithely dismiss as you ostriches would do.

So your counterargument turns out to be a straw man. If you were able to stick to the true problem, ie, the melt rate and collapsing glaciers, and then approach the subject objectively, you'd recognize the impending danger.

And sivere, you are falling for the same pseudoscientific propaganda as Thomas F. It is impossible for man not to at least *contribute* toward global warming given the changes we have wrought over the centuries, especially the last 3. When you replace natural mechanisms involved in the regulation of climate (such as massive forest tracts) with highways and urbanized areas on the massive scale that we do, you impact climate. To disregard our deep and wide impact is disingenuous... but I realize it makes many people feel more comfortable about their short-term thinking and net-wasteful lifestyles.

[fabricator]

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20...;_ylt=AoApgDRjB1rKS5ou...

news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2...;_ylt=AvC96.9JbF4OvybX...