Feel strong enough about AGW to BET on it? I didn't think so.
raylopez99
[Anthropogenic Global Warming--human-caused GW] will be catastrophic
for the economy, then why not bet on it? Start by shorting the public
companies named below, including Warren Buffett's company, Berkshire
Hathaway. For those of you that don't know (and that's probably most
reading this NG, since you all have no money), Warren Buffett is the
most successful investor of all time and the world's second richest
man behind Bill Gates. And Buffett successfully bet that 2006 would
be a "low hurricane" season, and made a ton of money, when AGW 'tards
were saying the opposite.
Go ahead, short the insurance companies. We'll see you in the
poorhouse. (I am not going to explain shorting, except to say that
you bet the company's stock price goes down rather than up).
Chickened out, eh? I thought so. Talk is cheap, like your spending
habits, AGW cultards.
RL
The environment
A flood of claims
Sep 13th 2007
>From Economist.com
Insuring against climate change
IT WAS a very wet summer in much of England. Floods in central and
western parts of the country, the worst in decades, resulted in
widespread misery: around 60,000 homes and businesses were damaged or
destroyed. Insurers, which are facing at least £3 billion ($6.1
billion) in claims, have said they expect household premiums to rise
next year.
Amid the long process of drying out and sorting through claims, a
group of leading insurers gathered in London on Thursday September
13th to unveil a joint initiative to address climate change. Hailing
what it called "a new era" in industry action to deal with the issue,
the Association of British Insurers (ABI) put forth a series of
principles-ranging from greater engagement in public-policy making to
incorporating climate change in members' investment strategies-that it
dubbed ClimateWise. The goals are worthy, but the likely impact of the
plan remains to be seen. The complexity and global nature of climate
change calls for long-term, broad-based solutions.
Aside from the victims themselves, the insurance industry is among the
first to feel the after effects of extreme weather. It is no surprise,
then, that some of the biggest names in the business-firms such as
Swiss Re, Munich Re, American International Group, Aviva and AXA-
already offer an array of insurance products tied to climate change.
These offerings include premium discounts for hybrid vehicles in
countries including Ireland and Canada, coverage tailored to renewable
energy projects. And insurance companies themselves are investing in
financial products that tap into markets for tradable carbon-emission
credits. Weather-derivatives contracts are meant to protect small
farmers in Africa from food shortages and famines caused by drought.
The nature of insurance means that companies can generally control
their exposure to catastrophic risks: most property and casualty
policies last only one year, and many firms have limits on exposure.
Premiums are adjusted to account for claims. Thus if catastrophe hits
"it is a one-time surprise", says Thomas Hess of Swiss Re. "A house
can only be destroyed once and then you have to buy a new policy." New
money has flowed into the sector after some of the biggest losses in
recent years, ranging from the terror attacks of September 2001 to the
devastating hurricanes of 2005.
Government plays an important role as well. This can include clearing
drains, improving storm barriers and coastal defences, or putting in
place planning regulations to discourage development in high-risk
areas such as flood plains. Intervention in pricing can be
particularly dicey. In America, where insurance is regulated on a
state-by-state basis, caps on insurance premiums have prompted firms
to withdraw coverage in high-risk areas such as Florida. In Britain,
meanwhile, insurers have struck a deal with the public sector: they
will provide cover to homes in flood-prone areas as long as the
government continues to maintain and improve flood defences.
Discussing the ClimateWise initiative this week, the ABI's executive
director, Stephen Hadrill, said the current arrangement would hold as
long as the government does its part. "They keep flood risk in check
at a certain level," he said, "and we provide cover." This arrangement
is almost unique in Europe. In the long run, though, policyholders in
other parts of the country may question why they are subsidising those
in places that get flooded repeatedly.
Talk-n-Dog
> Talk is cheap. Making mouth bets is for losers. If you believe AGW
> [Anthropogenic Global Warming--human-caused GW] will be catastrophic
> for the economy, then why not bet on it? Start by shorting the public
> companies named below, including Warren Buffett's company, Berkshire
> Hathaway. For those of you that don't know (and that's probably most
> reading this NG, since you all have no money), Warren Buffett is the
> most successful investor of all time and the world's second richest
> man behind Bill Gates. And Buffett successfully bet that 2006 would
> be a "low hurricane" season, and made a ton of money, when AGW 'tards
> were saying the opposite.
>
> Go ahead, short the insurance companies. We'll see you in the
> poorhouse. (I am not going to explain shorting, except to say that
> you bet the company's stock price goes down rather than up).
Be careful here, I have some BRKB I liked Dairy Queen and it's owned by
them. Warren Buffet gave 41 Billion to the Bill Gates' save Africa fund.
Why pray tell, would he waste it there if we're all going to die of
Global Warming, doesn't Buffet and Gates want their children to survive?
Of course they do, they would have spent it on GW if there were any
truth to the story.
--
http://OutSourcedNews.com
I suppose I could buy meteor insurance too, to help rebuild on that
impact crater, destined to be where my house is.
Our constitution protects criminals, sexual deviants and U.S. Senators.
Which at times are, one and the same...
The problem with the global warming theory, is that a theory is like a
bowl of ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bullshit to ruin the
whole thing. - Gump That -
How to outsmart Global Warming -- Plant your corn when the oak leaves
are as big as a squirrels ear.
Insanity is only synapses deep.
It's not if, it's just when, No one gets out alive.
Tunderbar
> raylopez99 wrote:
> > Talk is cheap. Making mouth bets is for losers. If you believe AGW
> > [Anthropogenic Global Warming--human-caused GW] will be catastrophic
> > for the economy, then why not bet on it? Start by shorting the public
> > companies named below, including Warren Buffett's company, Berkshire
> > Hathaway. For those of you that don't know (and that's probably most
> > reading this NG, since you all have no money), Warren Buffett is the
> > most successful investor of all time and the world's second richest
> > man behind Bill Gates. And Buffett successfully bet that 2006 would
> > be a "low hurricane" season, and made a ton of money, when AGW 'tards
> > were saying the opposite.
>
> > Go ahead, short the insurance companies. We'll see you in the
> > poorhouse. (I am not going to explain shorting, except to say that
> > you bet the company's stock price goes down rather than up).
>
> Be careful here, I have some BRKB I liked Dairy Queen and it's owned by
> them. Warren Buffet gave 41 Billion to the Bill Gates' save Africa fund.
> Why pray tell, would he waste it there if we're all going to die of
> Global Warming, doesn't Buffet and Gates want their children to survive?
He's investing in vaccines. He creates the foundation and puts all his
money in it and thus makes it a tax write off. Then he buys lots of
stock in key vaccine manufacturers. The Foundation promotes the use of
vaccines and writes that money off as charity. They underwrite the
purchase of vaccines with poor third world countries. Then when the
third world countries takes the donations and throws their money in
for massive purchases of vaccines to vaccinate everyone and his dog,
the companies stock goes thru the roof and Gates makes more billions,
Unfortunately the vaccines are useless and in many cases causes more
disease than it prevents. Bill and Warren get rich and third world
countries get poor and sick.
> Of course they do, they would have spent it on GW if there were any
> truth to the story.
>
Talk-n-Dog
Maybe they should try distributing vaccines in the DQ shakes?
--
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> Talk is cheap. Making mouth bets is for losers. If you believe AGW
> [Anthropogenic Global Warming--human-caused GW] will be catastrophic
> for the economy, then why not bet on it? Start by shorting the public
> companies named below, including Warren Buffett's company, Berkshire
> Hathaway. For those of you that don't know (and that's probably most
> reading this NG, since you all have no money), Warren Buffett is the
> most successful investor of all time and the world's second richest
> man behind Bill Gates. And Buffett successfully bet that 2006 would
> be a "low hurricane" season, and made a ton of money, when AGW 'tards
> were saying the opposite.
>
> Go ahead, short the insurance companies. We'll see you in the
> poorhouse. (I am not going to explain shorting, except to say that
> you bet the company's stock price goes down rather than up).
>
> Chickened out, eh? I thought so. Talk is cheap, like your spending
> habits, AGW cultards.
>
> RL
(Exelon, and Rio Tinto in this case) organizations list of partners
include large multinational corporations (some widely held in many
peoples stock portfolios) who are voluntarily making market based
changes that reduce emission of green house gas emissions.
http://www.us-cap.org/media/release_090607.pdf
U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PARTNERSHIP ANNOUNCES ITS FOURTH MEMBERSHIP
EXPANSION
Exelon, Rio Tinto Join Effort to Enact National Climate Change
Legislation
WASHINGTON, D.C., September 6 ,,
The Exelon Corporation and Rio Tinto have joined the United States
Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), the landmark coalition said today.
This business-NGO alliance, which has called on Congress to quickly
enact national economy-wide legislation to address climate change, now
comprises 33 organizations, including 27 of the world's largest
corporations and six highly respected non-governmental organizations
Exelon, one of the nation's largest electric utilities, has a long
history of support for action on climate change, and has established
its own voluntary emissions reductions. Rio Tinto, one of the world's
leading mining and exploration companies, has a long-standing and deep
commitment to sustainable development worldwide, and is pursuing a
number of technology solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve energy efficiencies.."
Talk-n-Dog
Talk-n-Dog
raylopez99
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rio Tinto is just window dressing. Same with Exxon.
They are betting GW will "blow over" like a downgraded tropical storm.
RL
James
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189801281.9...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Talk is cheap. Making mouth bets is for losers. If you believe AGW
[Anthropogenic Global Warming--human-caused GW] will be catastrophic
for the economy, then why not bet on it? Start by shorting the public
companies named below, including Warren Buffett's company, Berkshire
Hathaway. For those of you that don't know (and that's probably most
reading this NG, since you all have no money), Warren Buffett is the
most successful investor of all time and the world's second richest
man behind Bill Gates. And Buffett successfully bet that 2006 would
be a "low hurricane" season, and made a ton of money, when AGW 'tards
were saying the opposite.
Go ahead, short the insurance companies. We'll see you in the
poorhouse. (I am not going to explain shorting, except to say that
you bet the company's stock price goes down rather than up).
Chickened out, eh? I thought so. Talk is cheap, like your spending
habits, AGW cultards.
RL
The environment
A flood of claims
Sep 13th 2007
>From Economist.com
Insuring against climate change
Good one. Now you can bet on the insurance industry depending on the next
U.S. election. We currently have three democrats so far with ideas about the
future of health care. Two have been outlined in general but who knows how
serious they are. Mrs. Clinton on the other hand has ideas, some of which
were are undoubtedly based on her previous attempt at socialisation. I
suppose we will get a preview next week. Now would be a good time to start
tracking insurance compamies. She seems to be a determined woman and health
care would be a priority to cement her standing as a true president,
therebye paving the way for future ideas. She may even make it the base
subject for the election but I don't see that in the cards. It would start
something too specific for election shenanigans.
But should she win the nomination for her party, it could sound the clarion
call if no opponent has a plan. Insurance companies might tumble on
expectations of her election and profits galore might come about at her
defeat so the lucky ones could make out like a bandit on the anticipation of
her winning and again on her defeat. What a country.
BrunoR
do YOU have in mind? Not the holy one, do YOU?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Btw. Why did the government get involved in health care in the first place?
My parents had no health care, neither did their parents. All of them
raised
a bunch of healthy children that lived merrily thereafter without health
care
or insurance. When I first needed a doctor he came to my house, charged
me $5.00 (Five! US$) and he brought along the needed supply of Penicillin
as a matter of courtesy.
One month ago I needed to see the local emergency room at a local
hospital.
They charged the insurance carrier one thousand five hundred US$ ($1,500)
for practical very little (mostly incompetent?!) service to prescribe a
medicine
that I had to go out to fetch for myself, and pay an additional amount.
IMHO, medical services are *grossly overpriced due to governmental
meddling*.
It's a political racket where much is promised, little delivered, but a
few racketeers
clean up a fortune at taxpayer's expense.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
is just window dressing. Same with Exxon."They are betting GW will
"blow over" like a downgraded tropical storm.RL"
Glad you could subjectively offer your opinion characterizing the
members of a group who are motivated to voluntarily reduce their own
emissions green house gasses, but wouldn't it then be logical to reply
to you characterizing your words as an opinion that should be
downgraded, based the fact that it is simply rhetorical in nature...