Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (252459)	12/27/2007 12:44:01 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

And Munich Re telling you that losses from weather related catastrophes yields exactly what? Insane. Proves zero. Want to know why? I'll tell you because I have heard it directly from a CEO of a major insurance company. Weather related losses are higher because people and structures are increasingly located on coasts, where hurricanes hit. Insurers of course blame global warming because it wil allow the profitable rate hikes they desire without having to explain too much, including the essentialy hurricane free season of 2006 and the mild season of 2007. Period. Full stop. Look up the data for increased population and development near coasts over the last century. You'll see the trend. We are flocking to beaches and coasts. Why? Because fashions change. In the past, beaches were not fashionable. No one went to the coast or to a beach to enjoy themselves, or did so rarely. Now, it is the preferred destination for millions. Even as long ago as 50 years, second homes on beaches, condos, etc., were rare. They are now sitting ducks, one on top of the other. No longer. When a hurricane hits, it hits more property and more people and thus costs insurers more. And the trend is not reversing. We voluntarily put ourselves in the way of danger by living near coasts. And more and more of us are doing so. The increased losses sustained by insurers has zero, zip, nada to do with global warming which, according to the data in my previous post, has stopped for reasons no one can explain despite increased CO2. The insurers are tapping into the collective ignorance of regulators and a dumbed-down public who'll buy anything with a religious twist to it, which GW most certainly is. Insurers should be warning folks about the risks of living and building near coasts, but that would be bad for business and rate hikes.