Global warming profiteers infect inurance business in US and abroad--governments roll over and give taxpayer dollars

"Over the past year, Australian insurance companies increased their rates to cover the damage costs from predicted "extreme weather events".

• Note that we're not talking about any extreme weather events in particular, or events predicted to occur at any precise time or location.
  
• Just, you know, extreme weather events. Due to, um, climate change.

Everyone's talking about it, so, like, it's bound to happen. Better jack up those rates. The climate change is upon us.

• Rate increases for household and car insurance were practically industry-wide.

As my Daily Telegraph colleague Andrew Carswell reported last week, some companies blew things out by as much as 10 per cent, driven by insurance industry claims that "severe weather events ... are

• now no longer unusual events, and the pricing models of the insurers must reflect this".

Insurance rates are usually based more on history

• than prediction.

If you've had your car broken into several times, your insurance costs will rise accordingly. But climate change is yet to damage a single house or car.

• No matter; you're going to pay for it anyway.

And Australians did. One company alone, Insurance Australia Group, the owners of NRMA, increased rates to cover an expected $166 million in payouts for "natural peril" claims. As Carswell reported, however, payouts fell $45 million short of that sum.

• Why? Because catastrophic climate change events didn't happen. Therefore, that $45 million became profit.

Insurers Suncorp-Metway, QBE and Allianz also enjoyed similarly massive payoffs thanks to climate change's no-show. You've got to hand it to them; in the middle of a global financial crisis, these businesses turned nothing into gold.

• Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is hot for regulating big-business profiteers.

This case is almost perfect for him. Check it out, Kev. You've got your fear mongering, your industry collusion, your poor blameless consumers being shaken down. What's holding you back?

• At a guess, one thing. Rudd and his Government have led the climate change panic that these insurers are cashing in on.

In January 2009, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong warned that "the number of heat-related deaths in our capital cities is projected to double to about 2300 a year" by 2020. As well, infectious diseases, bushfire-related injuries, food-safety related illness and dengue fever would all soar.

• With Australia becoming a toxic, burning fever-swamp littered with boiling corpses, it's only reasonable to expect some slight increases in property damage along the way.

Someone driving to the dengue clinic could catch fire and crash into a house, if it hasn't already been burned to the ground by Peter Garrett's roving incineration installers.

• That's a bunch of payouts right there. Insurance companies have got to be alert to these issues. They're also awfully worried about how much they'll be charging people to insure beachside properties. Lots, probably, on account of the sea-level rises that will wipe out coastal Australia. The Government is fond of talking about this, too.

Strange thing, though. While insurance rates increase, so do beachside property values. If these places are such death traps, why are they so expensive?

• If the government-insurance complex is convinced that coastal Australia is just a holding pen for the doomed, how come there isn't a rush for the inland?

It's not as though high property prices in, say, Orange are holding anyone back. There's a nice little three-bedroom place available right now in North St for just $140,000, which is just slightly less than you'll pay in Sydney for a mailbox. And, by virtue of its inland location, it's completely safe from climate change. Sadly, however, even Orange isn't safe from universal climate change-related insurance increases.

• And if you think insurance is where is ends, consider where your taxes are going.

In Britain, a report recently found that the Government's taxpayer-financed Climate Challenge Fund had spent nearly $A16 million on idiotic stunts intended to alert citizens about global warming and the like.

• Not only were these stunts stupid, they didn't work. Public opinion in the UK, as everywhere else, is trending against climate change alarmism.

The same capers are under way here, beginning with the Department of Climate Change. Your money is being stolen by artists of the con variety. And unless an elderly German fag-bandit is somehow responsible for all of this, you're never getting any of it back."

• 3/1/10, "Merciless pirates of disaster run amok" The Daily Telegraph, AU, Tim Blair via Tom Nelson
  

SEC forces climate regulation on business, ignores that UN disaster data admitted fake

• It is unlikely businesses even know the disaster/hurricane projection data was fake, as the main media refuses to report it. It was only the claim used to demand billions in 'climate reparations' from US citizens.The average business person in the US spends most of his time working. He is therefore unaware that many others spend all their time trying to break him.
• This is easily done by endless legal measures.
  

The UN Climate report used unverified data about climate disasters which was promoted repeatedly by the media and is being used by the SEC to regulate businesses. Since the report now has no merit, why is the SEC continuing to force businesses to elaborately address a crisis that doesn't exist?

• This error was in plain view, a matter of form, so anyone could have found it were they looking, and was acknowledged and reported on 1/24/10 by TimesOnlineUK by Jonathan Leake.
  

"The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC's 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had "suffered

• rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming

• and cited the unpublished report, saying:

"One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim

• had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

• Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month.

It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.

• The claim will now be re-examined and could be withdrawn."...

from TimesOnlineUK, "UN Wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters," by Jonathan Leake, 1/24/10

• For those interested, report from the UK Register, "Now IPCC Hurricane data is questioned,"
• by Andrew Orlowski, 2/15/10

Efforts to shakedown US business by using the SEC

Our priority is billions in carbon trading, not the environment. Gordon Brown, UK

"No less chagrined must be Gordon Brown, who sees the carbon market as key to the global response to climate change, and to the economic fortunes of the City of London. As Brown told WWF in 2007, the government wanted binding limits on developed country emissions in a post-2012 climate agreement, because London was the world's carbon trading capital, and "only hard caps can create the framework necessary for a global carbon market to flourish".

• Thus he made it clear that the health of the carbon market took a rather higher priority than the health of the climate system."...

"The great achievement of the (Kyoto) protocol was not to reduce carbon emissions –

• they actually rose at an increasing rate under its watch,
  
• three times faster in the early 2000s than during the 1990s –

but to create a market in emissions rights and notional emissions reductions worth tens of billions of dollars a year.".. (paragraph 3 in article)

• Guardian UK, "Don't let the carbon market die," 1/25/10, by Oliver Tickell.

This from 'climate central,' the UK. The useful idiots drawn into the global warming scam are salesmen of hate for billionaires peddling the biggest crime in history. The NY Times and Washington Post refuse to report this scandal, much less make it front page news. Too much money involved. Anyone who cares to look will find carbon trading's roots had nothing to do with saving the environment. You remember of course, Enron? ed.

$60 billion coal deal between Communist China and Australia. Evil US taxpayer to pay billions though had nothing to do with it.

• Only a vague passing reference to the environment--late in the article. No mention of the Maldives sinking close by, well promoted as reason to hate Americans and destroy their civilization. The White House said fine and rushed to rip billions from US taxpayer wages and "hand over" cash for 'climate' reparations, (you know due to evil coal and stuff). Now:
  

BBC: "An Australian firm has signed a $60bn (AUS$69bn; £38bn) deal to supply coal to Chinese power stations.

Clive Palmer, chairman of the company, Resourcehouse, said it was Australia's

• "biggest ever export contract".

Under the deal, the firm will build a new mining complex to give China Power International Development (CPI) 30m tonnes of coal a year for 20 years....

• But the lucrative Sino-Australian deal will
  
• almost certainly
• disappoint some environmental groups, says the BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney.

They believe Australia's reliance on plentiful reserves of coal, both for domestic electricity generation and for export, should be reduced in favour of renewable sources of energy."...

• How polite and unstrident they are now....whatever happened to urgent climate holocaust caused by burning coal especially near the Himalayas, the Maldives and others?

Photo above president of the Maldives holding a widely publicized meeting underwater (October 2009) to dramatize how cruel US citizens were causing his island to sink (near the Himalayas) and his people to die. AFP photo.

• Now that Copenhagen is over, China goes back to belching coal into the atmosphere non-stop.

The so-called leaders of the US continue blaming its citizens for the world's problems, punish US families by stealing food from their table and
"hand it over" to corrupt dictators, UN crooks, and billionaire hedge fund slobs. ed.


China uses coal for 80% of its energy needs! BBC. photo ap.

Obama wastes billions more on carbon scams that could be spent on the poor

• What lucky '5 to 10' corporations will get paid off by Obama for a non-existent problem that over 20 years (due to lax US leadership) has turned into the world's biggest industry?

" “US President Barack H. Obama issued a presidential memorandum creating an inter-agency task force to develop a comprehensive carbon capture and storage strategy. …

• While the CCS initiative will have a bigger direct impact on coal producers and users, it potentially will affect oil and gas producers, several of whom already use carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery. …

US Department of Energy and

• Environmental Protection Agency officials
  

will chair the task force, which will develop within 6 months a plan to overcome barriers to widespread CCS deployment within 10 years, the White House said. It added that the group’s goals also will include

• bringing 5-10 commercial demonstration projects on line by 2016.” “Obama memorandum creates CCS task force""****

Even the UN decided to exclude so-called 'CARBON CAPTURE' from its bottomless pit of approved carbon cures (12/09 at COP15). The 'big oil' villains Obama, Gore and others refer to are of course very much in on the cash behind the carbon scam. Royal Dutch Shell is in line for 'carbon capture' cash.

via Tom Nelson