A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

California's Fires



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 18th 17, 09:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,441
Default California's Fires

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 12:47:06 PM UTC-7, duane wrote:
On 18/10/2017 11:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:30:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:25:28 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:52:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Unfortunately in the Santa Rosa fire Levi Leipheimer's house was burned to the ground. I can only hope that he is solvent enough to repair since I suspect that the insurance companies are going to play the "mass destruction" card and not pay on their policies.

Why would you say that? Assuming any insurer went insolvent, there is the California Insurance Guaranty Association. http://www.caiga.org/ But I doubt that any admitted California insurer is going to go insolvent because of the fires. Most insurers retain only part of the risk anyway, placing the rest with reinsurers. Adjusting claims will be slowed by the number, but anyone insured by a legitimate, admitted insurer probably has nothing to fear.

My sister lives in Santa Rosa and my brother owns property there. I was getting real-time reporting over the weekend. It seems to be improving, although living in the smoke is hard on the lungs.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, a long time ago I remember reading my insurance policy and there was a clause in it that said if a high percentage (don't remember what) where destroyed in an area that the insurance policies were null and void.


Fire insurance is the most basic coverage there is, and in most states, the policy form is dictated by statute. I've never seen any policy purporting to cancel retroactively if there were too many losses in a geographic area. There are some assessable policies issued by mutual insurers that allow the insurer to demand additional premiums if reserves are wiped out by large losses. Otherwise, large losses wipe out reserve, trigger reinsurance and/or catastrophe bonds and a lot of other risk-spreading devices.

IMO, the worry is not really the fire loss in wine country but that loss combined with all the storm damage for large P&C carriers like Ace or AIG, although most of those guys left the Florida market or issued policies with the usual exclusions for flood, wind-driven rain, etc. Anyway, its the national loss picture that really matters this year on top of the fire losses. Global warming is going to drive up premium big time.


In most of south Louisiana flood insurance is dictated by statute. As a
result, most homeowners have regular homeowners insurance and flood
insurance. After most hurricanes people with damage have to deal with
fights between the two where each claims the damage was caused by the
other. Katrine took this to the limit. Dictated by statute doesn't mean
much when the insurance companies want to delay payment. It took the
feds to get most people coverage after Katrina.

There was no rider that I know of saying the companies didn't have to
pay if there was a large disaster. I can't imagine anyone in New
Orleans buying flood insurance under those conditions. But that doesn't
mean the scumbag insurance companies didn't milk every cent they could.


Private market flood insurance is the exception. Most coverage is provided by the feds -- our tax dollars at work ensuring low premium for people who live in harm's way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...urance_Program The scumbag insurance company is FEMA. Drain the swamp! Get rid of federally subsidized flood insurance!

-- Jay Beattie.

Ads
  #12  
Old October 18th 17, 09:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default California's Fires

On 18/10/2017 4:06 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 12:47:06 PM UTC-7, duane wrote:
On 18/10/2017 11:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:30:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:25:28 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:52:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Unfortunately in the Santa Rosa fire Levi Leipheimer's house was burned to the ground. I can only hope that he is solvent enough to repair since I suspect that the insurance companies are going to play the "mass destruction" card and not pay on their policies.

Why would you say that? Assuming any insurer went insolvent, there is the California Insurance Guaranty Association. http://www.caiga.org/ But I doubt that any admitted California insurer is going to go insolvent because of the fires. Most insurers retain only part of the risk anyway, placing the rest with reinsurers. Adjusting claims will be slowed by the number, but anyone insured by a legitimate, admitted insurer probably has nothing to fear.

My sister lives in Santa Rosa and my brother owns property there. I was getting real-time reporting over the weekend. It seems to be improving, although living in the smoke is hard on the lungs.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, a long time ago I remember reading my insurance policy and there was a clause in it that said if a high percentage (don't remember what) where destroyed in an area that the insurance policies were null and void.

Fire insurance is the most basic coverage there is, and in most states, the policy form is dictated by statute. I've never seen any policy purporting to cancel retroactively if there were too many losses in a geographic area. There are some assessable policies issued by mutual insurers that allow the insurer to demand additional premiums if reserves are wiped out by large losses. Otherwise, large losses wipe out reserve, trigger reinsurance and/or catastrophe bonds and a lot of other risk-spreading devices.

IMO, the worry is not really the fire loss in wine country but that loss combined with all the storm damage for large P&C carriers like Ace or AIG, although most of those guys left the Florida market or issued policies with the usual exclusions for flood, wind-driven rain, etc. Anyway, its the national loss picture that really matters this year on top of the fire losses. Global warming is going to drive up premium big time.


In most of south Louisiana flood insurance is dictated by statute. As a
result, most homeowners have regular homeowners insurance and flood
insurance. After most hurricanes people with damage have to deal with
fights between the two where each claims the damage was caused by the
other. Katrine took this to the limit. Dictated by statute doesn't mean
much when the insurance companies want to delay payment. It took the
feds to get most people coverage after Katrina.

There was no rider that I know of saying the companies didn't have to
pay if there was a large disaster. I can't imagine anyone in New
Orleans buying flood insurance under those conditions. But that doesn't
mean the scumbag insurance companies didn't milk every cent they could.


Private market flood insurance is the exception. Most coverage is provided by the feds -- our tax dollars at work ensuring low premium for people who live in harm's way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...urance_Program The scumbag insurance company is FEMA. Drain the swamp! Get rid of federally subsidized flood insurance!

-- Jay Beattie.


Fema is who bailed out my sister and my parents after Katrina. They
paid them and dealt with the insurance companies.

Draining the swamp is fine if you don't try to build on it after.
  #13  
Old October 18th 17, 10:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default California's Fires

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 12:49:20 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

And yet we have the worst fires on record in California, the worst hurricanes on record in the Gulf (in terms of frequency and severity), broken heat records in the PNW and elsewhere, new pest vectors, loss of fish runs, loss of animal habitat and a multitude of other problems caused by climate change. No legitimate climate scientist denies that the earth is warming. The fact that dire past predictions have been slow to materialize doesn't mean it isn't so.

I'm not going to get into the debate over whether global warming is man-made or to what extent it's man-made. I'll leave that to the PhDs because I don't think that surfing the internet makes me qualified to judge the science.


Firstly "the worst fires on record" is pure bull****. There were years when the great forests in Northern California were burned. There just weren't homes there and people losing everything.

"No legitimate climate scientist denies that the earth is warming." This demonstrates that lawyers are used to speaking drivel because that is what they do for a living.

How about Dr. Roy Spencer - the head of NASA's satellite temperature monitoring project?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

"The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through September 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade."

So are you speaking of the people that actually know or the people that are willing to lie about it to make research grants?

"It was the post war industrialization that caused the rapid rise in global CO2 emissions, but by 1945 when this began, the Earth was already in a cooling phase that continued until 1975. With 32 years of rapidly increasing global temperatures and only a minor increase in global CO2 emissions, followed by 33 years of slowly cooling global temperatures with rapid increases in global CO2 emissions, it was deceitful for the IPCC to make any claim that CO2 emissions were primarily responsible for observed 20th century global warming." (Norm Kalmanovitch) Norm is a 30 year practicing Geophysicist.

Or you can turn to a professional infrared astronomer whose JOB it is to understand absorption:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...d-not-the-co2/

  #14  
Old October 18th 17, 10:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default California's Fires

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 1:06:28 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 12:47:06 PM UTC-7, duane wrote:
On 18/10/2017 11:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:30:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:25:28 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:52:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Unfortunately in the Santa Rosa fire Levi Leipheimer's house was burned to the ground. I can only hope that he is solvent enough to repair since I suspect that the insurance companies are going to play the "mass destruction" card and not pay on their policies.

Why would you say that? Assuming any insurer went insolvent, there is the California Insurance Guaranty Association. http://www.caiga.org/ But I doubt that any admitted California insurer is going to go insolvent because of the fires. Most insurers retain only part of the risk anyway, placing the rest with reinsurers. Adjusting claims will be slowed by the number, but anyone insured by a legitimate, admitted insurer probably has nothing to fear.

My sister lives in Santa Rosa and my brother owns property there. I was getting real-time reporting over the weekend. It seems to be improving, although living in the smoke is hard on the lungs.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, a long time ago I remember reading my insurance policy and there was a clause in it that said if a high percentage (don't remember what) where destroyed in an area that the insurance policies were null and void.

Fire insurance is the most basic coverage there is, and in most states, the policy form is dictated by statute. I've never seen any policy purporting to cancel retroactively if there were too many losses in a geographic area. There are some assessable policies issued by mutual insurers that allow the insurer to demand additional premiums if reserves are wiped out by large losses. Otherwise, large losses wipe out reserve, trigger reinsurance and/or catastrophe bonds and a lot of other risk-spreading devices.

IMO, the worry is not really the fire loss in wine country but that loss combined with all the storm damage for large P&C carriers like Ace or AIG, although most of those guys left the Florida market or issued policies with the usual exclusions for flood, wind-driven rain, etc. Anyway, its the national loss picture that really matters this year on top of the fire losses. Global warming is going to drive up premium big time.


In most of south Louisiana flood insurance is dictated by statute. As a
result, most homeowners have regular homeowners insurance and flood
insurance. After most hurricanes people with damage have to deal with
fights between the two where each claims the damage was caused by the
other. Katrine took this to the limit. Dictated by statute doesn't mean
much when the insurance companies want to delay payment. It took the
feds to get most people coverage after Katrina.

There was no rider that I know of saying the companies didn't have to
pay if there was a large disaster. I can't imagine anyone in New
Orleans buying flood insurance under those conditions. But that doesn't
mean the scumbag insurance companies didn't milk every cent they could.


Private market flood insurance is the exception. Most coverage is provided by the feds -- our tax dollars at work ensuring low premium for people who live in harm's way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...urance_Program The scumbag insurance company is FEMA. Drain the swamp! Get rid of federally subsidized flood insurance!


So what you're saying is that the working man should pay your way instead of you insuring yourself?
  #15  
Old October 19th 17, 12:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default California's Fires

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:41:24 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:30:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:25:28 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:52:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Unfortunately in the Santa Rosa fire Levi Leipheimer's house was burned to the ground. I can only hope that he is solvent enough to repair since I suspect that the insurance companies are going to play the "mass destruction" card and not pay on their policies.

Why would you say that? Assuming any insurer went insolvent, there is the California Insurance Guaranty Association. http://www.caiga.org/ But I doubt that any admitted California insurer is going to go insolvent because of the fires. Most insurers retain only part of the risk anyway, placing the rest with reinsurers. Adjusting claims will be slowed by the number, but anyone insured by a legitimate, admitted insurer probably has nothing to fear.

My sister lives in Santa Rosa and my brother owns property there. I was getting real-time reporting over the weekend. It seems to be improving, although living in the smoke is hard on the lungs.

-- Jay Beattie.


Jay, a long time ago I remember reading my insurance policy and there was a clause in it that said if a high percentage (don't remember what) where destroyed in an area that the insurance policies were null and void.


Fire insurance is the most basic coverage there is, and in most states, the policy form is dictated by statute. I've never seen any policy purporting to cancel retroactively if there were too many losses in a geographic area. There are some assessable policies issued by mutual insurers that allow the insurer to demand additional premiums if reserves are wiped out by large losses. Otherwise, large losses wipe out reserve, trigger reinsurance and/or catastrophe bonds and a lot of other risk-spreading devices.

IMO, the worry is not really the fire loss in wine country but that loss combined with all the storm damage for large P&C carriers like Ace or AIG, although most of those guys left the Florida market or issued policies with the usual exclusions for flood, wind-driven rain, etc. Anyway, its the national loss picture that really matters this year on top of the fire losses. Global warming is going to drive up premium big time.

-- Jay Beattie.


Out of curiosity, do U.S. insurance policies contain "Act of God" or
"Force Majeure" clauses?

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #16  
Old October 19th 17, 12:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,441
Default California's Fires

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 2:49:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 1:06:28 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 12:47:06 PM UTC-7, duane wrote:
On 18/10/2017 11:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:30:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:25:28 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:52:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Unfortunately in the Santa Rosa fire Levi Leipheimer's house was burned to the ground. I can only hope that he is solvent enough to repair since I suspect that the insurance companies are going to play the "mass destruction" card and not pay on their policies.

Why would you say that? Assuming any insurer went insolvent, there is the California Insurance Guaranty Association. http://www.caiga.org/ But I doubt that any admitted California insurer is going to go insolvent because of the fires. Most insurers retain only part of the risk anyway, placing the rest with reinsurers. Adjusting claims will be slowed by the number, but anyone insured by a legitimate, admitted insurer probably has nothing to fear.

My sister lives in Santa Rosa and my brother owns property there. I was getting real-time reporting over the weekend. It seems to be improving, although living in the smoke is hard on the lungs.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, a long time ago I remember reading my insurance policy and there was a clause in it that said if a high percentage (don't remember what) where destroyed in an area that the insurance policies were null and void.

Fire insurance is the most basic coverage there is, and in most states, the policy form is dictated by statute. I've never seen any policy purporting to cancel retroactively if there were too many losses in a geographic area. There are some assessable policies issued by mutual insurers that allow the insurer to demand additional premiums if reserves are wiped out by large losses. Otherwise, large losses wipe out reserve, trigger reinsurance and/or catastrophe bonds and a lot of other risk-spreading devices.

IMO, the worry is not really the fire loss in wine country but that loss combined with all the storm damage for large P&C carriers like Ace or AIG, although most of those guys left the Florida market or issued policies with the usual exclusions for flood, wind-driven rain, etc. Anyway, its the national loss picture that really matters this year on top of the fire losses. Global warming is going to drive up premium big time.


In most of south Louisiana flood insurance is dictated by statute. As a
result, most homeowners have regular homeowners insurance and flood
insurance. After most hurricanes people with damage have to deal with
fights between the two where each claims the damage was caused by the
other. Katrine took this to the limit. Dictated by statute doesn't mean
much when the insurance companies want to delay payment. It took the
feds to get most people coverage after Katrina.

There was no rider that I know of saying the companies didn't have to
pay if there was a large disaster. I can't imagine anyone in New
Orleans buying flood insurance under those conditions. But that doesn't
mean the scumbag insurance companies didn't milk every cent they could.


Private market flood insurance is the exception. Most coverage is provided by the feds -- our tax dollars at work ensuring low premium for people who live in harm's way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...urance_Program The scumbag insurance company is FEMA. Drain the swamp! Get rid of federally subsidized flood insurance!


So what you're saying is that the working man should pay your way instead of you insuring yourself?


No. I said "get rid of federally subsidized flood insurance!"

Plus, the working men and women aren't paying my insurance. I don't live in a flood plain and have private P&C insurance, and I'm not receiving any public benefits or commie Social Security and Medicare like you. I'm a true American, unlike the blood-sucking Social Security stealing, Medicare using commie low-life! Cue music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzW2ybYFboQ

-- Jay Beattie.
  #17  
Old October 19th 17, 12:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,441
Default California's Fires

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 2:47:51 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 12:49:20 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

And yet we have the worst fires on record in California, the worst hurricanes on record in the Gulf (in terms of frequency and severity), broken heat records in the PNW and elsewhere, new pest vectors, loss of fish runs, loss of animal habitat and a multitude of other problems caused by climate change. No legitimate climate scientist denies that the earth is warming. The fact that dire past predictions have been slow to materialize doesn't mean it isn't so.

I'm not going to get into the debate over whether global warming is man-made or to what extent it's man-made. I'll leave that to the PhDs because I don't think that surfing the internet makes me qualified to judge the science.


Firstly "the worst fires on record" is pure bull****. There were years when the great forests in Northern California were burned. There just weren't homes there and people losing everything.


Hmmmm. http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/10/cali...g-worst-record


"No legitimate climate scientist denies that the earth is warming." This demonstrates that lawyers are used to speaking drivel because that is what they do for a living.

How about Dr. Roy Spencer - the head of NASA's satellite temperature monitoring project?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

"The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through September 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade."

So are you speaking of the people that actually know or the people that are willing to lie about it to make research grants?

"It was the post war industrialization that caused the rapid rise in global CO2 emissions, but by 1945 when this began, the Earth was already in a cooling phase that continued until 1975. With 32 years of rapidly increasing global temperatures and only a minor increase in global CO2 emissions, followed by 33 years of slowly cooling global temperatures with rapid increases in global CO2 emissions, it was deceitful for the IPCC to make any claim that CO2 emissions were primarily responsible for observed 20th century global warming." (Norm Kalmanovitch) Norm is a 30 year practicing Geophysicist..

Or you can turn to a professional infrared astronomer whose JOB it is to understand absorption:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...d-not-the-co2/


NASA seems to disagree with you. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ I'll put my money on NASA. They had to be super-smart to fake that whole moon landing thing.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #18  
Old October 19th 17, 12:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,781
Default California's Fires

On 10/18/2017 6:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 2:49:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 1:06:28 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 12:47:06 PM UTC-7, duane wrote:
On 18/10/2017 11:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:30:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:25:28 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:52:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Unfortunately in the Santa Rosa fire Levi Leipheimer's house was burned to the ground. I can only hope that he is solvent enough to repair since I suspect that the insurance companies are going to play the "mass destruction" card and not pay on their policies.

Why would you say that? Assuming any insurer went insolvent, there is the California Insurance Guaranty Association. http://www.caiga.org/ But I doubt that any admitted California insurer is going to go insolvent because of the fires. Most insurers retain only part of the risk anyway, placing the rest with reinsurers. Adjusting claims will be slowed by the number, but anyone insured by a legitimate, admitted insurer probably has nothing to fear.

My sister lives in Santa Rosa and my brother owns property there. I was getting real-time reporting over the weekend. It seems to be improving, although living in the smoke is hard on the lungs.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, a long time ago I remember reading my insurance policy and there was a clause in it that said if a high percentage (don't remember what) where destroyed in an area that the insurance policies were null and void.

Fire insurance is the most basic coverage there is, and in most states, the policy form is dictated by statute. I've never seen any policy purporting to cancel retroactively if there were too many losses in a geographic area. There are some assessable policies issued by mutual insurers that allow the insurer to demand additional premiums if reserves are wiped out by large losses. Otherwise, large losses wipe out reserve, trigger reinsurance and/or catastrophe bonds and a lot of other risk-spreading devices.

IMO, the worry is not really the fire loss in wine country but that loss combined with all the storm damage for large P&C carriers like Ace or AIG, although most of those guys left the Florida market or issued policies with the usual exclusions for flood, wind-driven rain, etc. Anyway, its the national loss picture that really matters this year on top of the fire losses. Global warming is going to drive up premium big time.


In most of south Louisiana flood insurance is dictated by statute. As a
result, most homeowners have regular homeowners insurance and flood
insurance. After most hurricanes people with damage have to deal with
fights between the two where each claims the damage was caused by the
other. Katrine took this to the limit. Dictated by statute doesn't mean
much when the insurance companies want to delay payment. It took the
feds to get most people coverage after Katrina.

There was no rider that I know of saying the companies didn't have to
pay if there was a large disaster. I can't imagine anyone in New
Orleans buying flood insurance under those conditions. But that doesn't
mean the scumbag insurance companies didn't milk every cent they could.

Private market flood insurance is the exception. Most coverage is provided by the feds -- our tax dollars at work ensuring low premium for people who live in harm's way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...urance_Program The scumbag insurance company is FEMA. Drain the swamp! Get rid of federally subsidized flood insurance!


So what you're saying is that the working man should pay your way instead of you insuring yourself?


No. I said "get rid of federally subsidized flood insurance!"

Plus, the working men and women aren't paying my insurance. I don't live in a flood plain and have private P&C insurance, and I'm not receiving any public benefits or commie Social Security and Medicare like you. I'm a true American, unlike the blood-sucking Social Security stealing, Medicare using commie low-life! Cue music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzW2ybYFboQ

-- Jay Beattie.


I said "get rid of federally subsidized flood insurance!"


+1
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #19  
Old October 19th 17, 04:32 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,827
Default California's Fires

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:41:24 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

IMO, the worry is not really the fire loss in wine country but that
loss combined with all the storm damage for large P&C carriers like
Ace or AIG, although most of those guys left the Florida market or
issued policies with the usual exclusions for flood, wind-driven rain,
etc. Anyway, its the national loss picture that really matters this
year on top of the fire losses. Global warming is going to drive up
premium big time.


Not going to, already has. Everyone in America who insures property is
paying higher rates because of climate change. While the deniers
continue to deny, those whose business it is to deal with reality as it
is and crunch the numbers saw this happening a long time ago and have
been bumping up insurance premiums for years.

The devotion of many to advancing the wealth of the few at the expense
of most is an interesting phenomenon.
  #20  
Old October 19th 17, 04:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,341
Default California's Fires

On 10/18/2017 7:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:


NASA seems to disagree with you. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ I'll put my money on NASA. They had to be super-smart to fake that whole moon landing thing.


This artist could have included the moon landing, but he ran out of
space: http://tinyurl.com/y8dc4ebh



--
- Frank Krygowski
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bicycle Fires Frank Krygowski[_3_] Techniques 5 September 13th 12 03:41 AM
California fires raisethe UK 4 October 28th 07 05:34 PM
California fires [email protected] Australia 0 October 25th 07 09:38 PM
Fires around Bright Walrus Australia 17 December 14th 06 09:14 AM
After the fires - a RR Michael Paul Mountain Biking 9 November 11th 03 05:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.