The trend is becoming fatal

Not true.

Not even close. Recent developments have raised questions as to the exact level of contribution AGW has to do with temperature increases; which comprise a whopping .136C/decade.

Actually, it forrest fires, not AGW; and there's no correlation among the two. Poorly manage Forrests are the major cause.

Actually I denied it was a catastrophe or such.[/quote]

 

null

 

I've met at least one with an epistemology degree that fits that description.

 

Sad, but true.
Unfortunately- We have some who think that if you don't agree with them, you are a "denialist". Or a racist, or an extremist, of any of a hundred phrases used to moot your opinion.
I always look at those people as a major barrier to society's understanding of the realities- and to making legitimate improvements.

Countless "End of the world" predictions have come and gone. Not a ripple.

I found the Y2K prediction telling. Supposedly, due to computers not being able to cope with a date shift to a new millennium- everything that depended on computers would lock up. Utilities wouldn't function, banks would not be able to process transactions; the world would come to a halt. Literally, people were stocking up on long shelf life foods, preparing to go survivalist. The moment came and went with not so much as a hiccup, and that was followed by- total silence by all those who championed the panic, as if it had never existed.

We've been working on the corrections for human contribution to climate damage intensely for a very long time, and have made huge gains. It's not being ignored at all, and panic responses invariably are the worst choices, ignoring problems they create in the rush to solve those they target.

Human nature needs more help than the climate.

 

CA won't let them increase the premium to the amount they want, so they are leaving.

 

They only care about keeping power. They only care about the citizens who keep them in office. Hence, the pandering. The rest of us can lump it, or leave the state. The latter will bite them in the ass one of these days from lost tax revenues. You mark my words.

 

Ignoring the fact that people worked to prevent disaster and succeeded.

 

I'm running your OP through the AI program. This is what I wrote at the prompt (PDS):

Also, Caveat, I put my name on anything it outputs and make them my own. So, if you find fault (IF it is a fault) I'll take the blame.

feel free to critique the AI, but it will respond (if I find the time to do it).

Caveat, some are saying AI is fallible. Occasionally, but on data points. When receiving a data point, a fact, the AI advises us to fact check anything it offers. But, on critiques of essays, OPs, etc, because of the nuance, we are not dealing with data points, but human expression evaluations, and in that arena, AI excels, and uncannily so.

Look, it's just like anyone else's opinion, take it like that, and it's just another viewpoint, and a darn good one, most of the time. Sometimes, particularly for those who do not articulate themselves very well, that makes it much tougher for AI to evaluate. So, the more precisely articulated your writing it is, which is to say, the more specific and focused your writing is, the more razor sharp it's output is. It's scalable, commensurate with what it's fed. Fog in, Fog out, Concrete in, Concrete out. Simple, but robust when the input is robust. It's a computer configured to mimic humans. I will comment that it's amazing, at times.

Spiritguide, I cannot find fault with the AI's critique, but I will make it my critique, and own anything with it you may or will disagree with, so, fire away, if you can. Noting that when I say 'critique' I'm using that synonymously with 'argument'.

I'll be looking forward to your counter argument.

 

One thing insurance companies are really good at is projecting losses. It's not perfect, but good enough they can trust them enough to set premiums that are competitive and still produce a profit.
What they can't predict is the political regulations that governments might throw at them. That depends on the common sense of people in power, to be rational and reasonable.
The only thing I can see as predictable about the rules California politicians will impose is that they will not be rational or reasonable, and that creates an environment that is simply not safe to do business in.
California isn't alone in that trend, but they seem intent on leading it.

One would think that all would learn from experience. People, corporations, governments. Smart people do of course.... but the dumbing-down effect that has been going on since around the time the internet came into being seems to be winning- or at least, taking a huge toll.

 

I'm pretty sure you don't know what "epistemology" means. Getting a degree in epistemology and not knowing how science works would be like getting a degree in Chemistry not knowing what chemical elements are.

 

Correct. So I'm pretty sure they've factored in the fact that Climate Change is not going to revert on its own and that any measures we take now won't have an effect... maybe for 10 years. So they are hoping that regulations are implemented, but they'll wait it out. With no regulations, they know it will just continue to get worse. But profits beyond 10 years is not something that is going to help much any current CEO looking for their annual bonus today. It is only going to help people who expect to still be alive 10 years from now. And their children... But... why would Insurance company CEOs care about that! Worst case scenario, they'll just retire in 9 years.

The shortcomings of nearsightedness are perfectly exemplified here...

 

Like you said, a degree does not guarantee understanding.

 

So you say. But your demonstrated lack of knowledge of the scientific method suggests you may need a refresher. Couple that with the egregious errors you've made discussing climatology does speak well for you.