Blog

Despite Climategate, Nations and Media Remain Delusional on “Global Warming”

Ara Trembly
Insurance Experts' Forum, December 21, 2009

What does one do when one is caught—literally or figuratively—with one’s pants around one’s knees? The classic response is outright denial, blatant refusal to acknowledge facts, a la “I never had sex with that woman.” (Ms. Lewinsky)

When recent news reports revealed hacked e-mails that clearly indicated distortion and concealment of climate data that is unsupportive of anthropogenic global warming, you would have thought the scientists involved would simply do a mea culpa and fess up. As climate blogger Marc Morano put it: “The media is now digging and digging into Climategate and they are finding a scandal of the highest magnitude. The media and politicians at this week’s UN summit can no longer pretend that Climategate is not a game changer. It is time to end the denial. Even UN IPCC chair Pachuari now appears ready to throw the key UN Climategate scientists under the bus.”    

But no, some of the scientists involved fecklessly tried to pass off their actions as a “joke,” while others, especially those who had an international global warming event to put on, simply ignored the evidence. This childish and outlandish behavior is apparently what passes for integrity in the scientific community these days, so is it any wonder that surveys reveal fewer people supporting the idea of man-made climate change? 

Among the co-conspirators in this effort at global denial was Associated Press, which droned on for more than 30 paragraphs about the “deal” that was struck in Copenhagen to pour billions more into controlling the climate, but did not once mention the major scandal that has made all this nonsense questionable at best. And while USA Today trumpets a poll of Americans saying that 55% support a global treaty that would require the United States to reduce greenhouse emissions, it also points out that they are “split on the likely economic impact of enacting new environmental and energy laws to address climate change: 42% say they will hurt the economy; 36% say they will help.” Gee, doesn’t a split usually mean half on one side and half on the other? 

But what will all this mean for the insurance industry? Actually, very little. Ours is an industry that caters to the notion of “just in case.” Insurance companies are certainly smart enough to see that the whole climate change fiasco is an ill-conceived political crapshoot at best, but that’s not the point. Insurers and brokers will support climate change efforts “just in case” we might need them (or they might actually work, which is another doubtful premise). It’s a bit like placing a bet on every horse in a race, “just in case” the favorite doesn’t come in. This practice is known as “hedging” one’s bets so that a loss in one area will be cushioned by a win in another area. 

Still, it’s hard to see why an industry so grounded in reality would continue to pay so much attention to a movement that has been compromised by deceit and trickery. It’s also puzzling that we don’t seem acknowledge actual climate figures, which don’t support warming at the catastrophic rates predicted by some models. On the other hand, it wouldn’t surprise me if insurers in Haiti, for example, would invest in protective charms to ward off the threat of voodoo. 

Just in case. 

Ara C. Trembly (www.aratremblytechnology.com) is the founder of Ara Trembly, The Tech Consultant, and a longtime observer of technology in insurance and financial services.

Readers are encouraged to respond to Ara using the “Add Your Comments” box below. He can also be reached at ara@aratremblytechnology.com.

The opinions posted in this blog do not necessarily reflect those of Insurance Networking News or SourceMedia.

Comments (5)

Professor Jones (of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit) and his fellow CRU correspondents have been lying concertedly for more than twenty years. How else can they be expected to comport themselves now? They MUST keep on lying. They have no other course of action available to them.

In 1974, physicist Richard Feynman (a legitimate Nobel laureate) gave the commencement address at Caltech, his speech titled "Cargo Cult Science."

What we have revealed in the Climategate affair is "cargo cult science." What Prof. Jones and Dr. Mann and Dr. Trenberth and that sorry, sordid, stinking crew of pseudoscientists appear to have forgotten is this:

"We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science."

The Climategate conspirators either failed to appreciate or thought-blocked the possibility that they could be found out.

Let's now give them the Tiger Woods "golf clap" they deserve, and bury them all in the federal prison system for the next ten or twenty years.

Posted by: Rich M | December 23, 2009 1:59 AM

Report this Comment


Perhaps the most interesting question is this: If the climate really is going to hell in a handbasket and if mankind is clearly to blame, why was Climategate necessary at all? Just a thought.

Posted by: Ara T | December 22, 2009 2:31 PM

Report this Comment


My mistake: my previous comment was meant to read: "And while NOT ALL reinsurers are willing to link the problem to human/corporate causes..."

Posted by: Kathleen M | December 22, 2009 12:28 PM

Report this Comment


It's funny, I go out to reinsurance websites like Swiss Re's and see an awful lot of information about the cost of climate change to the industry. And while reinsurers are willing to link the problem to human/corporate causes, some are and all note that the issue is at least worthy of debate and research.

Reinsurers have been intensely interested in the risk issues inherent in climate change and have invested massive amounts of time, energy, and resources to its study. In fact, as I recall papers to that effect were presented in Copenhagen by reinsurers.

So isn't it great that they can all shut down their investigations because the "Climategate" outrage (only the latest in the series of outrages that we're all supposed to be consumed with since, oh, I think it was January of this year) has conclusively demonstrated that it's all just a great big plot!

Still, a trip out to some reinsurance websites might be educational for the kneejerk naysayers.

Posted by: Kathleen M | December 22, 2009 12:14 PM

Report this Comment


Fortunately we do no need to rely on "Climate Science" that tries to re-write history by hiding the LIA (Little Ice Age) and warm periods (e.g. Roman

Posted by: Peter M | December 21, 2009 10:43 PM

Report this Comment

Add Your Comments...

Already Registered?

If you have already registered to Insurance Networking News, please use the form below to login. When completed you will immeditely be directed to post a comment.

Forgot your password?

Not Registered?

You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.

Blog Archive

4 Ways to Keep Insurance Data Quality Healthy

Continually building trust and credibility in the data is the key to a successful data warehouse.

Customer Experience Trend Watch

Three recent HR moves demonstrate that large life insurers recognize customer experience as a strategic differentiator.

Insurers Have a Lot of Data, But Too Many Silos

Insurers actually have more data analytics resources than other industries.

Are Data Centers Shrinking or Expanding?

Today's data centers are doing far more with much smaller footprints.

Too Much Manual Effort is a Show Stopper

Examining the administrative burden of doing business in the E&S market.

Becoming a 24/7 Insurer

Insurers should be in the business of making life safer and better for consumers all the time.

Advertisement

Advertisement