Insurance industry may be confronted with rising sea levels

[skookerasbil]

And Trakar.........you are so damn naive which is amazing for a guy pushing your age...............

So.....wealth redistribution is a strawman argument, not supported by reality???

The UN disagrees dummy...................


What the hell do you think THIS means on the cover to their guide to nations for "mainstreaming" climate change............

A guide to assist UN Country Teams in integrating climate change risks and opportunities

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Environment%20and%20Energy/Climate%20Change/Capacity%20Development/UNDP-Guide-Mainstreaming-Climate-Change.pdf



Ummmm.............."opportunities"



What we have here folks are fools who live in a perpetual world of fantasy. They'd buy a bag of dog doo for $1,000 a pop if it was packaged just right!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Trakar]

And Trakar.........you are so damn naive which is amazing for a guy pushing your age...............

So.....wealth redistribution is a strawman argument, not supported by reality???

The UN disagrees dummy................(...)A guide to assist UN Country Teams in integrating climate change risks and opportunities

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/und...t/UNDP-Guide-Mainstreaming-Climate-Change.pdf

I see nothing in this document that supports your assertions or insinuations.

 

[skookerasbil]

And Trakar.........you are so damn naive which is amazing for a guy pushing your age...............

So.....wealth redistribution is a strawman argument, not supported by reality???

The UN disagrees dummy................(...)A guide to assist UN Country Teams in integrating climate change risks and opportunities

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/und...t/UNDP-Guide-Mainstreaming-Climate-Change.pdf

I see nothing in this document that supports your assertions or insinuations.

trust me s0n...........knew you wouldnt...............

 

[Trakar]

And Trakar.........you are so damn naive which is amazing for a guy pushing your age...............

So.....wealth redistribution is a strawman argument, not supported by reality???

The UN disagrees dummy................(...)A guide to assist UN Country Teams in integrating climate change risks and opportunities

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/und...t/UNDP-Guide-Mainstreaming-Climate-Change.pdf

I see nothing in this document that supports your assertions or insinuations.

trust me s0n...........knew you wouldnt...............

Snipe hunts rarely result in actual snipe.

 

[eflatminor]

Do you approve of every venture solely on the basis of whether it earns a profit?

Every business venture, yes. That you put down the entire insurance industry because they, horror of horrors, are trying to make a profit is...revealing.

Second, to state that "Many insurance companies have begun preparing for the impact of stronger storms" is just ignorant. Insurance have always monitored their exposures subject to strong storms and do so on a continual basis. This hasn't a damn thing to do with man made global warming, it's just managing exposure.

New Flood Insurance Policy Provides Up to $15 Million in Limits

Excess Flood Insurance from Chartis in the United States

http://www.firemansfund.com/Documen...aterFlood_WebBrochure_C_60351-A-ltr-12-08.pdf

Not a full listing, by a long shot, but these are the major private flood insurers in the US.

Every carrier you listed there specializes in HIGH NET WORTH insurance and they only write that coverage in excess of the federal program. The federal government has a monopoly on the first dollar of flood coverage.

Over the last decade major insurance companies have recognized and acknowledged the role AGW is having, and will have in the future, in enhancing the damages and decreasing the odds of weather events.

Bullshit. Carriers don't give a flying shit what causes weather patterns to change, they just know they change because they always have. They're managing exposure, nothing more.

 

[Trakar]

Do you approve of every venture solely on the basis of whether it earns a profit?

Every business venture, yes. That you put down the entire insurance industry because they, horror of horrors, are trying to make a profit is...revealing.

So prostitution, child labor, slavery, drug dealing, extortion, racketeering, gambling, etc.,. You are fine with these as long as they are profittable ventures?
I don't put down insurance companies because they earn a profit, I do so because they capitalize on the misfortune of others to earn that profit. My beef is primarily with health insurance, but it carries over into other forms of insurance to a degree.

Second, to state that "Many insurance companies have begun preparing for the impact of stronger storms" is just ignorant. Insurance have always monitored their exposures subject to strong storms and do so on a continual basis. This hasn't a damn thing to do with man made global warming, it's just managing exposure.

New Flood Insurance Policy Provides Up to $15 Million in Limits

Excess Flood Insurance from Chartis in the United States

http://www.firemansfund.com/Documen...aterFlood_WebBrochure_C_60351-A-ltr-12-08.pdf

Not a full listing, by a long shot, but these are the major private flood insurers in the US.

Every carrier you listed there specializes in HIGH NET WORTH insurance and they only write that coverage in excess of the federal program. The federal government has a monopoly on the first dollar of flood coverage.

Irrelevent to the statements of the OP and contradictory to your earlier unqualified proclamations and assertions.

Over the last decade major insurance companies have recognized and acknowledged the role AGW is having, and will have in the future, in enhancing the damages and decreasing the odds of weather events.
(http://www.insurancenetworking.com/n...s-30007-1.html)

- From our industry’s perspective, the footprints of climate change are around us and the trend of increasing damage to property and threat to lives is clear,” said Franklin Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America

Cynthia McHale, the insurance program director at Ceres, issued a more unequivocal statement: “Our climate is changing, human activity is helping to drive the change, and the costs of these extreme weather events are going to keep ballooning unless we break through our political paralysis, and bring down emissions that are warming our planet. If we continue on this path, extreme weather is certain to cause more homes and businesses to be uninsurable in the private insurance market, leaving the costs to taxpayers or individuals.”

AIG's statement -
Climate change is increasingly recognized as an ongoing, significant global environmental problem with potential risks to the global economy and ecology, and to human health and wellbeing. AIG recognizes the scientific consensus that climate change is a reality and is likely in large part the result of human activities that have led to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. At the same time, market-based environmental policies and potential new investments provide business opportunities for AIG to address the problem. We will pursue these new opportunities where we have the expertise and capacity to do so in ways that mutually benefit AIG, its shareholders, employees, customers, and the global community.

AIG companies continually factor in changes in climate and weather patterns as an integral part of its underwriting process – a systematic approach to measuring weather risk that includes, among other methods, sophisticated catastrophe exposure modeling. The underwriting process constantly recalculates and revalues risks for our clients, and adjusts coverages and rates accordingly, while simultaneously managing our exposures. We do this to provide the best possible risk management services to our clients while protecting long-term shareholder value. Perhaps no other industry responds as quickly to changes in climate patterns as the insurance industry..."

Bullshit. Carriers don't give a flying shit what causes weather patterns to change, they just know they change because they always have. They're managing exposure, nothing more.

You can call them opportunistic liars all you wish, I don't much care for them as it is,...in case that wasn't clear from my previous statements.

 

[American Horse]

Granny wonderin' what dey gonna do when alla Australia under water?...

Rising seas create crisis for Australia’s beachfront
Mon, Jul 23, 2012 - When Elaine Pearce left Sydney for the seaside peace of Old Bar 12 years ago she was assured her new house was a solid investment, with a century’s worth of frontage to guard against erosion.

But three neighbors have already lost their homes to the rising ocean and there are scores more at risk as roaring seas batter the idyllic beachside town, ploughing through 40m of foredune in just eight years. “I wanted water frontage, and frontage I’m going to get,” Pearce joked. Property values have dived along her once exclusive cul-de-sac, with homes once worth A$1.5 or A$2 million (US$1.5 or US$2 million) now abandoned and offered for A$300,000. Weathered “For Sale” signs dot the sidewalk.

UNWANTED

Insurers will not cover homes for erosion and long-time local resident Allan Willan said the banks were even struggling to sell off the land on which the repossessed homes stand. “They can’t even give it away,” said Willan, who estimates that another 5m of frontage could “easily” be lost in the next storm period. “If it continues at this rate in seven years it’s going to be at the front door,” he said.

Old Bar is the most rapidly eroding and at-risk piece of coast in populous New South Wales (NSW) state, losing an average 1m of seafront every year and far outstripping other areas in terms of property at risk. Andrew Short, director of Sydney University’s coastal studies unit and a government planning advisor, said the 4,000-person town was among the worst erosion sites in Australia, with huge volumes of sand routinely lost in storms.

HOT SPOTS

Currently there are 14 similar “hot-spots” along the densely populated NSW coast — a region home to some 5.8 million Australians — with about 100 properties at risk. However, Short said “many hundreds of properties, if not thousands” would be at risk in the next 50 to 100 years as sea levels rise due to climate change, with planning authorities factoring in a 1m increase over the next century.

Australia’s government estimates that more than A$226 billion in commercial, industrial and residential property and road and rail infrastructure is at risk from erosion and inundation by 2100. That forecast includes 274,000 homes.

Old Bar has been in the grip of an unprecedented storm period, in terms of both frequency and strength, and University of New South Wales oceanographer Matthew England said it was a trend likely to intensify. “The sea level rise is one thing, but we’re expecting storms to become more intense and storm surges are what really hits these low-lying coastal communities,” England said.

RISING WATERS

It may well be only a matter of time, now, before property insurance as we have grown used to it over the last century, is no longer a viable industry. This will have economic ripples across the board.

Could Climate Change End Property Insurance? | Earthtechling

...
The actuarial industry has depended on a statistically fairly predictable limit to the likelihood of catastrophic events over time, in order to not lose money. For centuries, that has worked fairly well, because the odds of disaster could be bet on, based on experience. The past likelihood of disaster was a good bet on its future likelihood.

Historically, when the expenses of covering catastrophic losses rose, then insurance rates were raised. When more people with more money moved to dangerous wildfire regions, for example, their insurance rates were raised.

But in a future world of increasingly bizarre and unpredictable extreme weather events, there could come a point where claims cost more than the premiums that insurers could reasonably charge over that time period. At that point insurers would have to close up shop...

This will make mortgages riskier propositions,...and not just on the coasts. Floods, wildfires, blizzards tornadoes, shear winds,...as we pump up the moisture and energy the atmosphere contains on average, the more intense the differentials we potentiate.

This is nothing more than what one would expect; new development or greater concentrations of population in higher risk geographical regions wil be discouraged by the prohibitive cost of hazard insurance, particularly for owners with mortgages. Those with mortgages will not be able to "self insure" because mortgage holders, due to regulations, cannot allow it.

Since they could self insure, the very wealthy could go ahead and build. Also, since they could afford to, they could build entirely of concrete and elevate their home to make them relatively invulnerable for years to come. Their investment in reinforcing their buildings is substituted for insurance costs. A drive along Florida's coast shows this exchange is already being done.

Insurance companies will not be harmed in any event; they will merely take the new risks into account and charge accordingly. If politicians do their duty, they will not interfere with insurance companies appropriately setting rates as appropriate to the risk in differing locals within a state. If they do, they will be removing naturally occurring financial incentives and maximize loss of life and property.

 

[Trakar]

...Historically, when the expenses of covering catastrophic losses rose, then insurance rates were raised. When more people with more money moved to dangerous wildfire regions, for example, their insurance rates were raised.

But in a future world of increasingly bizarre and unpredictable extreme weather events, there could come a point where claims cost more than the premiums that insurers could reasonably charge over that time period. At that point insurers would have to close up shop...

This will make mortgages riskier propositions,...and not just on the coasts. Floods, wildfires, blizzards tornadoes, shear winds,...as we pump up the moisture and energy the atmosphere contains on average, the more intense the differentials we potentiate.

This is nothing more than what one would expect; new development or greater concentrations of population in higher risk geographical regions wil be discouraged by the prohibitive cost of hazard insurance, particularly for owners with mortgages. Those with mortgages will not be able to "self insure" because mortgage holders, due to regulations, cannot allow it.

Since they could self insure, the very wealthy could go ahead and build. Also, since they could afford to, they could build entirely of concrete and elevate their home to make them relatively invulnerable for years to come. Their investment in reinforcing their buildings is substituted for insurance costs. A drive along Florida's coast shows this exchange is already being done.

Insurance companies will not be harmed in any event; they will merely take the new risks into account and charge accordingly. If politicians do their duty, they will not interfere with insurance companies appropriately setting rates as appropriate to the risk in differing locals within a state. If they do, they will be removing naturally occurring financial incentives and maximize loss of life and property.

I would agree with most everything that you've stated, and for multimillion dollar Coastal estates, I'm sure there is still plenty of room for the companies to increase their rates, and builders to adapt their techniques of managing environmental extremes.

I don't think we can afford to safely anticipate that the next century or two is going to reflect the types of conditions we've grown used to expecting over the last century or two. I am concerned about the potential to drop too far behind the curve. Global civlization is a precarious construct in the best of times.

 

[eflatminor]

Do you approve of every venture solely on the basis of whether it earns a profit?

Every business venture, yes. That you put down the entire insurance industry because they, horror of horrors, are trying to make a profit is...revealing.

So prostitution, child labor, slavery, drug dealing, extortion, racketeering, gambling, etc.,. You are fine with these as long as they are profittable ventures?

Oh for christsake, every legitimate business venture, yes, profit and growth drive a competitive operation. Now, are you really comparing an insurance carrier to slavery and child labor? You win the over-the-top award tonight. Only a desperately unprepared debater would resort to such childish comparisons.

I don't put down insurance companies because they earn a profit, I do so because they capitalize on the misfortune of others to earn that profit. My beef is primarily with health insurance, but it carries over into other forms of insurance to a degree.

You have no fucking idea how insurance works and how important it is to the economy. Let me ask you this, if you owned a bank and were considering loaning money to someone to buy a house, wouldn't you require that the homeowner had insurance? Assuming your not totally insane, let's assume you would require the homeowner to insure the home. So when he goes to acquire coverage, why would you deny him a competitive marketplace, with all kinds of coverage from basic to specialized? How do you expect those carriers to compete against one another, be it on service or price, if they are not to make a profit from their efforts? Who is going to invest in an operation void of profit?

The carriers aren't there to capitalize on misfortune, they are there to make the policyholder who has suffered misfortune whole. This creates a greater level of certainty in markets. When a shop owner suffers a fire, he can still make payroll. When your car is stolen, you get money for another one and when you get hit by a bus, you have the medical attention you require. It's really not an evil business, it's an essential one for any modern economy.

You can call them opportunistic liars all you wish, I don't much care for them as it is,...in case that wasn't clear from my previous statements.

"Opportunistic liars"? What in the fuck are you talking about?

Lastly, 99.9% of flood insurance is written by the federal government. The flood policies you referenced are excess to the fed's primary coverage. There are literally a handful of those Chubb/Fund policies for a few extremely rich people. If I implied "all" flood insurance was written by the federal government, mea culpa.

 

[Trakar]

Translation??

"I hate capitalism and will bend over backwards for the rest of my days trying to stick it to the successful guy!!!"

Not at all, Capitalism has contributions to make to modern economic considerations. It is not the holy grail that those with little more than jingoist understandings are prone to advocating, but it does provide tools and settings that are one of the foundational pillars upon which successful modern economic policy depends upon.




that is you strawman/confusion, not something based within or supported by reality.

These people............they spend their lives in misery, trying to fuck up the lives of the rest of us due to their own fucked up personal decisions. Its always the same...........but thatnk God they are losing.

you not only call "night" "day," but you apparently can't read, which can prove dangerous, (particularly in an election year).

Record Heat Wave Pushes U.S. Belief in Climate Change to 70% - Businessweek

fAiL genius............. so says The New York Times..................

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/science/earth/23warm.html?_r=1


I can read well enough to find the poll which cites concerns about global warming DEAD LAST.......22 out of 22.

But you apparently can't read well enough to see that your poll occurred 3 years ago while the one I referrenced was released a couple of weeks ago. That's the problem with conservatives, always trying to relive your distorted memories of yesterday instead of planning for tomorrow.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Will the acidic oceans eat away the bottom of all our Navy vessels?

 

[Trakar]

Do you approve of every venture solely on the basis of whether it earns a profit? If not, then our positions are the same, we merely disagree upon which profit earning ventures we approve and disapprove of.

Every business venture, yes. That you put down the entire insurance industry because they, horror of horrors, are trying to make a profit is...revealing.

So prostitution, child labor, slavery, drug dealing, extortion, racketeering, gambling, etc.,. You are fine with these as long as they are profittable ventures?

Oh for christsake, every legitimate business venture...

So how do you determine what is legitimate? is it solely according to whether or not it is legal? Child labor is legal in several nations around the world. Is it only according to whether it is legal in the US? Prostitution is legal in Nevada. As an individual do you feel that it is improper to uphold a standard and code of preferred ethics that is higher than merely whatever the state you live in allows? As I stated originally,..."our positions are the same, we merely disagree upon which profit earning ventures we approve and disapprove of."

I don't put down insurance companies because they earn a profit, I do so because they capitalize on the misfortune of others to earn that profit. My beef is primarily with health insurance, but it carries over into other forms of insurance to a degree.

You have no fucking idea how insurance works and how important it is to the economy. Let me ask you this, if you owned a bank and were considering loaning money to someone to buy a house, wouldn't you require that the homeowner had insurance?...

It really doesn't bode well for your argument that I don't know what I'm talking about, when you turn around and repeat everything I've already said:

...This will make mortgages riskier propositions,...and not just on the coasts. Floods, wildfires, blizzards tornadoes, shear winds,...as we pump up the moisture and energy the atmosphere contains on average, the more intense the differentials we potentiate.

And that was the issue of the post. Construction becomes more expensive, insurance harder to get, mortgages more difficult to come by, these are all across-the-board expenses and costs that are being incurred not from attempts to address climate change but from the ignorant attitudes of those delaying action and acknowledgment of the consequences of past and present actions. As a businessman, this is unacceptable and quickly reaching the point where it is becoming intolerable.

If I implied "all" flood insurance was written by the federal government, mea culpa.

if by "imply" you mean baldly and insultingly asserted repeatedly, then yes, you did, and if you had simply corrected your misstatement when I called it to your attention it would have eliminated a lot of unnecessary interaction.

 

[skookerasbil]

Not at all, Capitalism has contributions to make to modern economic considerations. It is not the holy grail that those with little more than jingoist understandings are prone to advocating, but it does provide tools and settings that are one of the foundational pillars upon which successful modern economic policy depends upon.




that is you strawman/confusion, not something based within or supported by reality.



you not only call "night" "day," but you apparently can't read, which can prove dangerous, (particularly in an election year).

Record Heat Wave Pushes U.S. Belief in Climate Change to 70% - Businessweek

fAiL genius............. so says The New York Times..................

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/science/earth/23warm.html?_r=1


I can read well enough to find the poll which cites concerns about global warming DEAD LAST.......22 out of 22.

But you apparently can't read well enough to see that your poll occurred 3 years ago while the one I referrenced was released a couple of weeks ago. That's the problem with conservatives, always trying to relive your distorted memories of yesterday instead of planning for tomorrow.

Ooooops.......my bad. Actualy, global warming was scored higher back in 2007 s0n..............


Heres the 2012 poll................Dead Last FTMFL.............in fact, in 2012, it doesnt even make the list!!!!


yuk.............yuk..............

Global Warming: A Divide on Causes and Solutions - Pew Research Center










Always fun to pwn the smartass intellectuals!!!

 

[bobgnote]

Earth to retard: What means "Environment?" It got a 51%. You might want to publish details, about the sample and the exact dates, not just when your tardy graphic was published.

What means, "sucksassandballs?" Why, then! It means some yutz, who lives in New Yawk sucks ass and balls, both, at the same time!

 

[American Horse]

This will make mortgages riskier propositions,...and not just on the coasts. Floods, wildfires, blizzards tornadoes, shear winds,...as we pump up the moisture and energy the atmosphere contains on average, the more intense the differentials we potentiate.

This is nothing more than what one would expect; new development or greater concentrations of population in higher risk geographical regions wil be discouraged by the prohibitive cost of hazard insurance, particularly for owners with mortgages. Those with mortgages will not be able to "self insure" because mortgage holders, due to regulations, cannot allow it.

Since they could self insure, the very wealthy could go ahead and build. Also, since they could afford to, they could build entirely of concrete and elevate their home to make them relatively invulnerable for years to come. Their investment in reinforcing their buildings is substituted for insurance costs. A drive along Florida's coast shows this exchange is already being done.

Insurance companies will not be harmed in any event; they will merely take the new risks into account and charge accordingly. If politicians do their duty, they will not interfere with insurance companies appropriately setting rates as appropriate to the risk in differing locals within a state. If they do, they will be removing naturally occurring financial incentives and maximize loss of life and property.

I would agree with most everything that you've stated, and for multimillion dollar Coastal estates, I'm sure there is still plenty of room for the companies to increase their rates, and builders to adapt their techniques of managing environmental extremes.

I don't think we can afford to safely anticipate that the next century or two is going to reflect the types of conditions we've grown used to expecting over the last century or two. I am concerned about the potential to drop too far behind the curve. Global civlization is a precarious construct in the best of times.

At least here, in the USA, capitalism will enable us to cope. If, unlike in present day Florida, insurance rates are allowed to properly reflect risk the coping mechanism will work to prevent loss of life and property.

Here's how: The small property owner will not be able to build on the beach, and the houses they do build, because the risk factor will lower value on their land, ordinary people will build cheaper less permanent homes (what they can afford) that won't be a great loss, and which will only be a phase in the evolution of the civil geography. But the large concerns, single family or multi-use will build with the life-span, includiing gradual depreciation to zero being taken into account.

This would make the pleasures of the coastal shores available to all comers, rich down to middle class and below, without the distortions that presently exist to public safety.

What distortion presently exists? - Presently the politicians in Florida (as a prime example, being low country just barely above mean sea level) artificially control hazard insurance rates, forcing properties in the interior of the state, far from the coast, to subsidize the coastal rate, making one rate, and the same through-out the state. This discourages people from occupying the interior, and motivates them to take the risks of building right up against the shore-line, concentrating the most vulnerable in the most dangerous locations.


Reflecting on another comment you made in an earlier post:

[...]I don't put down insurance companies because they earn a profit, I do so because they capitalize on the misfortune of others to earn that profit. My beef is primarily with health insurance, but it carries over into other forms of insurance to a degree.
[...]

It depends on ones point of view. Insurance companies don't capitalize on the misfortune of others to make a profit. They ameliorate the misfortune of those who wish to insure against the risk of casualty. They make more profit for their service if nothing bad happens to their customers, and they make good their customer’s losses if and when they do occur. This is an essential and powerfully beneficial service to the public good, and in the case of real property its provision actually makes the purchase of real property with improvements possible with the instrument of a mortgage so that the individual has a growing equity/savings in a home. Without an insurance company being willing to ameliorate that risk of loss to the mortgagor, lending rates would be much higher, and fewer borderline buyers would be able to borrow and own real property with improvements - virtually anywhere.

Incidentally, for the homeowner without a mortgage there are two major expenses; (1) property taxes and (2) hazard insurance.

If one fails to pay their property taxes for a year the local government will seize the property and sell it at auction.

If the hazard insurance is kept current and the house is destroyed by some act of god, the monetary value of the home is paid to the unfortunate owner. The cost of hazard insurance is about one third the cost of property taxes. (Notwithstanding, of course, coastal regions where due to predictable risks, rates are [or at least ought to be] higher.)

It appears to me that the insurance company is a much friendlier presence than the taxing authority to the borderline homeowner.

 

[eflatminor]

So prostitution, child labor, slavery, drug dealing, extortion, racketeering, gambling, etc.,. You are fine with these as long as they are profittable ventures?

Oh for christsake, every legitimate business venture...

So how do you determine what is legitimate? is it solely according to whether or not it is legal? Child labor is legal in several nations around the world. Is it only according to whether it is legal in the US? Prostitution is legal in Nevada. As an individual do you feel that it is improper to uphold a standard and code of preferred ethics that is higher than merely whatever the state you live in allows? As I stated originally,..."our positions are the same, we merely disagree upon which profit earning ventures we approve and disapprove of."



It really doesn't bode well for your argument that I don't know what I'm talking about, when you turn around and repeat everything I've already said:

And that was the issue of the post. Construction becomes more expensive, insurance harder to get, mortgages more difficult to come by, these are all across-the-board expenses and costs that are being incurred not from attempts to address climate change but from the ignorant attitudes of those delaying action and acknowledgment of the consequences of past and present actions. As a businessman, this is unacceptable and quickly reaching the point where it is becoming intolerable.

If I implied "all" flood insurance was written by the federal government, mea culpa.

if by "imply" you mean baldly and insultingly asserted repeatedly, then yes, you did, and if you had simply corrected your misstatement when I called it to your attention it would have eliminated a lot of unnecessary interaction.

Wow, what a monumentally desperate FAIL on your part. I noticed you didn't respond to anything regrading how insurance works. All you can do is dodge the point with talk of child labor and prostitution...in a thread about insurance and global warming. How sad for you. Then you claim a 'win' because 99.9% of flood insurance is government controlled and I claimed "all". Wow, that's quite a reach there pal.

You really suck at debating. I mean REALLY suck.

 

[Old Rocks]

Will the acidic oceans eat away the bottom of all our Navy vessels?

Now Frankie Boy, will the acid you have already ingested ever leave you capable of a revelent post?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wasn't Florida supposed to be underwater a few decades ago?

 

[Old Rocks]

Wasn't Florida supposed to be underwater a few decades ago?

no