Good!
[I guess the I misunderstood it when you wrote: "You have no clue about anything you are talking about." :) ]

You are correct. I reversed them.'Incredible' rate of polar ice loss alarms scientists

It was found from the average drops in elevation that were detected by CryoSat that Greenland alone is losing about 90 cubic miles a year, while in Antarctica the annual volume loss is about 30 cubic miles. These rates of loss – described as "incredible" by one researcher – are the highest observed since altimetry satellite records began about 20 years ago, and they mean that the ice sheets' annual contribution to sea-level rise has doubled since 2009, say the researchers whose work was published in the journal Cryosphere last week.
"We have found that, since 2009, the volume loss in Greenland has increased by a factor of about two, and the West Antarctic ice sheet by a factor of three," said glaciologist Angelika Humbert, one of the study's authors. "Both the West Antarctic ice sheet and the Antarctic peninsula, in the far west, are rapidly losing volume. By contrast, East Antarctica is gaining volume, though at a moderate rate that doesn't compensate for the losses on the other side of the continent."

You should read earlier comments. We've covered this ground already. I have deep experience in this subject. The re-insurance companies take risk from insurance companies world wide.

The point is this: "No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business". This conversation is not about the nature of re-insurance but about their view of the risk inherant in global climate change. They view it as a serious risk and so do insurance companies.

The concern of insurance commissioners in each of those states is that the insurers in their state remain solvent. You seem to imply that some artifical bias is pushing insurance companies to see risk where none exists. It's the direct opposite. The insurance commisioners are making sure that the companies do account for all valid risks, so they don't go out of business. The regulation is to prevent insolvency, not some do gooder desire to back global warming.

Jane, I will agree that the insurance industry is heavily regulated. They are regulated on the subject of capital reserves and what they must cover. But given my personal experience in this precise industry, I must say that you traffic in myths. On the subject of risk tolerance and premium rates they are not regulated and since this directly equates to their ability to survive, they do indeed enjoy a free hand in setting their premium rates and their tolerance for risk.

But since this is now a question of your beliefs versus my professional experience in this precise industry....

You're not accounting for all the methane that gets released from the frozen tundra in Siberia. Once that goes, it's runaway greenhouse warming. Methane is much more climate warming than CO2.

Well, let's consider what you're saying. You are a second tier insurance company and you don't have that much premium income. According to what you're proposing, all the insurance companies have decided to act like climate change is a real danger so they can scam premium income--but since you're a second-tier company, you're not really benefitting from the "cartel" but you can't break it so you just accept that you're going to not really benefit from it much... to benefit the big boys... even though you all know that it's a hoax.
Do you really think that would fly? That nobody would break out of the cartel? I just don't think it's that possible. If it's based on a lie, there's always somebody who won't play ball.

They are regulated on what they have to cover and the reserves they have to keep. They can set their premiums as they see fit. And the re-insurance companies are the most free. The fundamental weakness of that argument is the behavior of the re-insurance companies.

I'm sorry, but that's complete bullshit. Have you ever worked inside an insurance company? I have. They are intensely price competitive. Especially the re-insurance companies. There are very few and they all taking climate change totally seriously.

I agree with you. It baffles me that people don't believe science. What can you do? I trust the scientific method and live in fear of misconduct by scientists.

I am not saying the science is unimportant. I am saying that the insurance industry offers concrete testimony that stands aside from those questions about the veracity of science. I am trying to stand outside those questions by using the bias of the business community against those who trust it. The same people who don't trust science do trust business. So, pointing to the opinions of the insurance industry is a way to use the biases of the right--trusting in the free market--to show them that they are being inconsistent. If they believe in the free market, they must see that the insurance industry believes that Climate Change is real.

I agree we are losing the debate. By pointing to the obvious beliefs of the insurance industry I am opening a new front. Listen, it is too late to convince climate change deniers that the science will ever be objective. The Kochs have won that argument. But how do they explain the actions of the insurance industry? This is a new front and I bet you that some eyes were opened by that argument.

Jane,
Okay, to me it's very clear. The insurance industry is a balance of risk versus premium income. If they misjudge risk, they go out of business paying for huge losses. If they misjudge their premium rates, they go out of business because their insurance is too expensive. For that reason, all insurance companies have armies of highly paid actuaries who get fired if they are wrong about either risk or premium rates. Do you disagree with me so far?

So, don't you find it strange that not one insurance company, not one re-insurance company is willing to gamble with their cash horde that you're right? Doesn't that mean a thing to you? They don't care what anybody else thinks. They don't care what the world's climate scientists conclude or don't conclude. If they're wrong, they stand to lose billions of dollars. Do you disagree with me so far?

If you're with me so far, don't you find it even slightly curious that not one of these big, deep-pocketed insurance companies or re-insurance companies is willing to sell cheap insurance against that "hoax" called Climate Change? Why not? Wouldn't that seem like a way to make a killing? There are no laws or regulations stopping them from doing that. Why don't even the re-insurance companies buy your logic?

What are you talking about? Do you know shit about the insurance industry? It is intensely competitive. They are constantly at war over premium rates. They employ armies of actuaries to compare risk against premium prices. They are not charities--if they assess risk, they are convinced there is risk.

So are you really trying to suggest that corporate lobbying is pushing insurance companies to fake that climate change is real? Are you kidding me? There is real money on the table. Let's look at the companies with the real risk on the table: the Re-Insurance companies--the ones that backstop the primary insurance market: "No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business".

These are huge corporations with shareholders and greedy owners. They don't screw around. They don't have to prove anything to anybody--they insure the insurance companies themselves. Even they--the Re-insurance companies believe that climate change is a real problem.

Shakespeare had a good phrase for your objections, Jane: "Methinks thou dost protest too much" .

Okay, genius. You're saying that Global Warming is a hoax--and that insurance companies are all--across the board--raising their rates to take advantage of the alleged hoax.

Well, according to the free market, surely there must be at least one contrarian who is willing to buck the alleged alarmists and sell cheap insurance. If there were one big insurance company willing to do that--they could collect every insurance dollar on the planet and destroy the other companies. Why isn't that happening? Hmm?

Here's the problem with that line of reasoning. If--as you say--the entire Climate Change thing is bogus and the insurance companies are using it to raise premiums--where is the free market? Where is the one insurance company bucking the crowd? Surely, if this is a big myth, there has to be at least one big insurance company willing to sell cheap insurance. They could make a killing, were it true.

The only problem with your theory is the missing contrarian. No insurance company is willing to buck the science. Not one.