Thank You Katie:
I think the best idea would be to put a Carbon tax on cars first, and wait for the seas to rise later. This would at least make the Automotive Industry more attentive to the needs of the driver. Four dollars for a gallon of gas should be here soon. We have already saturated the
atmosphere with enough CO2.
KIPP

Kipp;
How gullable are you?
The insurance industry is just using the sealevel rise myth to gouge customers.

There is no unusual sea level rise and is not going to be any.

I think a gullible tax on all believers of AGW would be very effective method of getting the cobwebs out of their heads so they can see what a scam this really is. If you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk and feel better about yourselves while leaving the rest of us sane people alone.

Well first things first. Insurance companies are not in the business to insure properties that have a great chance of becoming a partial or complete loss. Having lived on two bodies of water I can say this much. I lived once on a small lake that had little or no difference with rainfall. We were very, very close to the water. The worst that was going to happen to that lake was that it eventually dry up because it was slowly filling in. Later I would live on a river and that was a BIG mistake looking back. I would not do that again EVER. I was lucky that nothing bad happened but I can't tell you how many storms cause that river to rise by MANY, MANY feet and once again that river was filling in also due to farmland run-off. I have a great appreciation for bodies of water. That property was determined to be somewhat risky and thus the need for flood insurance which is very costly. I want to say that many on that river did not have flood insurance and yearly were evacuated from their homes. Our home was much higher and never a drop of water in our basement. Still....

I think a lot of properties today in areas of high risk should be the sole responsibility of the owner to bear the risk of losing everything. After the earthquake in CA some years back, everybody promised to build homes/buildings with the utmost earthquake technology which we all know would be quite costly. That never happened. So those areas are once again going to see buildings topple over or the foundations so damaged that houses will be complete losses. New Orleans is another city that should not be rebuilt in those areas of extremely high risk. This congressman in this video talked about moving huge volumes of the population when global warming makes it impossible for people to keep their homes. Well...isn't that what happened in New Orleans and still we are putting people back into harms way. STUPID.

The auto industry will hear the people when the people decide to change their lifestyles and be content with small, more lightweight cars that get twice the gas mileage of the big heavy weight cars. I say that owning a small truck that now travels about 5 miles a day in town, and also owning a big huge truck to haul my horses around if necessary. I am a rural owner with a farm and frankly it is really hard to always do the right thing for the environment.

looks like real climate is now "changing" tactics as well
http://climatesci.org/2008/04/11/real-climates-agreement-that-the-ipcc-multi-decadal-projections-are-actually-sensitivity-model-runs/
looks like there finally admitting that the models are hyped up computer games.
Also the hurricane admission from the top gun at the IPCC. Just wait for the April temps to see them scrambling lol

Kipp said: "I think the best idea would be to put a Carbon tax on cars first, and wait for the seas to rise later." Kipp, what are you trying to say????

Insuring homes and businesses built in coastal areas vulnerable to hurricanes has been controversial for a long time.

Insurance companies already refuse to insure structures built inland in known 100 year flood plains and have done so for many years. Why would anyone build a house there knowing that? Yet many do and demand help when the floods come.

With tropical cyclones in an up cycle, why is this any surprise to anyone? If insurance companies are forced to write policies for homes on the hurricane coasts, the rest of us will have to subsidize it through higher premiums overall or through higher taxes if the States decide to subsidize it.

Personally, I'm not overly sympathetic that people who live or have vacation property on the Atlantic or Gulf coasts are having to pay higher home insurance premiums. They build on the coast and fervently hope that probability will be kind to them. I don't think the rest of us should subsidize that.

DC

Living on the Gulf Coast, while I haven't yet heard a verifiable story about denying coverage directly, I've definitely talked with people who have had their insurance rates get jacked up to the point where it is uneconomical to pay them, like where if they banked the payments and didn't have a hurricane in the next few years, they would have enough money in the bank to replace the house. Like I've said before, the only reason a little Gulf hurricane like Dennis got its name retired was because of repeat insurance claims from Ivan jacking up the "cost" of Dennis.

Hi Kipp,

How does raising the price of cars help the "needs of the driver?" Interesting thought process .....

Given that sea level is rising at exactly the same rate as it has been for the last 100 years, that landfall hurricane frequency and intensity is down from fifty years ago, and that the last category five hurricane to hit the US was seventeen years ago - one can only assume that some insurance companies are using Al Gore and James Hansen's crusade to increase their profits.

Same idea which the government and UN has - use the global warming myth to steal people's money.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png/700px-Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

kipp up here in Calgary we are paying $ 1.19 a litre or about $ 4.80 for a US gallon & surprisingly it doesn't seem to bother the vast majority of people except for the obvious bitching. There will be poorer folks that are really feeling the high prices & to my reasoning that is a large problem as lower income folks try to get ahead / raise a family but the greens seem to be content to ignore these issues with a let them eat cake attitude.

I put together a short presentation showing how UAH and GISS data have diverged over the last 30 years. I think you will enjoy it.

http://docs.google.com/Present?docid=ddbr44ks_135gdvb2ffh

Anonymous:
I know what you are talking about and get the same bills that we all get. It's getting expensive out their. What I was really referring to was that if there was a carbon tax people would immediately put this responsibility on the car makers to make more fuel efficient cars, with less emissions. I just had a flood in my basement, and my Insurance company tried every trick they could think of not to pay out. After this was settled,they dropped me. So I share your pain. What about truck drivers and poor people. They are really getting shafted.
When I see the fresh water melting from Greenland, the melting of the Alps, the loss of permafrost in the arctic, I worry about desalination and the conveyor belt. Europeans are worried about very cold winters to come.
They have a great Picture of Richard Nixon,On utube after an Insurance executive whispered into his ears HMO,s. You,ve got to love it.
KIPP

PH:
Great illistration.
I find it absolutley amazing that Hansen is aable to keep his job. Even more amazing that anyone pays attention to his "adjusted" data.
What a farce.

PH

Thank you for not doing what some have done and start your graphs at 1998. I know you are trying to show the difference between GISS and UAH, but whats troubling for me is BOTH show a 30 year temp rise. Lets hope the next cycle will be downwards.

I live two miles from the coast as the crow flies in Florida. I live high enough where I dont have to evacuate for even a cat 5. However after the 2004, 2005 hurricane seasons and without EVER filing for any claims, my insurance company dropped me and many others in the state (granted some did take heavy loses which hopefully their insurance companies covered). Now the state has been forced to go into the insurance business ( Citizens Insurance, AKA, insurer of last resort )and covers over 1.2 million people for property damage and rising due to mainly all the dropped policies and to some extent new ones. Most are homes/businesses in higher risk areas that were dropped recently. If the state is hit with another major storm, the state will fall into a financial nightmare having to find a way to cover all its insured people.

I understand that insurance companies are in the business to make money. The question is how much? What is a "high risk" area and who determines these areas? What happened to all the money that people put into premiums year after year and never got a dime back from a claim but were dropped anyway? What if they dropped anyone living along the entire coast of the US, the midwest with all its tornadoes. The entire states of California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Tennessee valley because of earthquakes. The western mountain states and northern states due to possible snow causing roofs to collapse. Anyone within 10 miles of a river or has any trees nearby because of fires, etc? My point is EVERY property owner has some type of risk or they wouldnt need insurance. Therefore its easy to say, "I dont feel sorry for anybody because we ALL live in risky areas".

As for automobiles, back in the early 70's when OPEC cut off a percent of the US oil supply and long lines formed at every gas station due to shortages, the people cried and the carmakers started producing smaller cars with better MPGs. When the current cost of gas gets too high the people will cry again. Thats how a capitolistic society works. The fact that this didnt happen when prices went over $3.00 tells me we have a resilient economy.

I don't understand how making fuel more expensive through a carbon tax will make the auto industry "more attentive to the needs of the driver".

In a free market, companies that aren't responsive to the needs of their customer don't survive anyway. The American auto industry has been slow to respond to rising gas prices and is losing sales to companies that make more efficient cars. Ford and GM must adapt to changing market conditions to survive. Does that make a carbon tax unnecessary?

Kipp -- Are you sure it's the needs of the driver you're concerned about?

Insurance companies are in business to make money. The premiums they charge are based in their assessment of risk. If they won't offer insurance on something, it's a sure thing the risk is unacceptable.

Now if only our federal government had the same kind of sense, imagine how many billions of dollars the tax payers might save! Many of the homes on the coast and along lakes are rivers are vacation homes owned by the wealthy. Why should working people be taxed so the well-to-do can enjoy luxury homes? There is no sensible reason whatsoever for spending tax dollars to rebuild any home that can't get private insurance.

Jep:
I am not only concerned for the driver, but am also concerned about the environment. Your depiction of Insurance is a joke.
KIPP

"How does raising the price of cars help the "needs of the driver?" Interesting thought process ....."

Mandating that cars have seat belts increased the price of automobiles about forty years ago. You're right, let's scrap that requirement so car manufacturers can cut production costs and increase their bottom lines.

Oil approaching $114 today. Remember, kids, don't let Communism go into extinction. Fill up your gas tanks today!