The Insurance Tech Guru

It is fine if you choose not to believe in global warming. But such questionable political views certainly should not appear in the politically neutral National Underwriter.

Quite frankly, it is an embarrassment to see the blog associated with NU.

They're just hoping he'll have a shot at the Presidency. They think that if he has the prize, then it will aid in that.

Consider that, although there may be nine inaccuracies in the movie, that the movie has by far more accurate information than inaccurate. So although it may not be 100% accurate, the perponderance of the evidence supports his assertions.

Consider that the vast majority of scienctists, over 95% by most objective counts, agree that global warming is man made.

Consider that global warming consequences will have a disastrous consequence on shorelines and low lying countries and increase poverty in many countries.

Consider that poverty leads to unrest and unrest leads to war.

Consider that Al Gore has NOT been campaigning for global warming in order to obtain the presidency--that he has been at it for the past 30 years and that he is NOT running for any office now, nor will he run for President in 2008.

Consider that while virtually all of Europe and other established industrial powers, except our own US Government and Australia, have recognized the perponderance of scientific evidence and are taking positive steps toward reducing CO2 emissions and that only the US and Australia governments still have their head in the sand.

There are a few logical fallacies in Mr. Berkompas' entry that we must deal with.

First, the alleged fact that there is more accuracy than inaccuracy in the film--even if that's true--tells us nothing. The inaccuracies are key inaccuracies of fact, which calls into question the veracity of Mr. Gore and his helpers. But then, why would one question the veracity of the man who claims he invented the Internet?

Second, I have not seen any objective count of scientists' opinions on the global warming question. I have, however, viewed the scientific information on this topic provided by NOAA, who may know a thing or two about it. Since NOAA admits that we really don't know all the causes of global warming (in the areas that are growing warmer, while some grow cooler), I guess NOAA must be part of the rebel 5 percent.

Third, in science fiction movies, global warming causes disastrous consequences. In reality, we don't know what it will cause, or when it will cause it.

Poverty leads to unrest, and unrest to war? So why didn't the unrest in the U.S. during the Great Depression spur us on to attack someone? At best, this is a gross generalization.

Only the U.S. and Australia "have their heads in the sand on global warming?" Have we forgotten about the most rapidly-industrializing country on earth, China? Is China taking steps to reduce emissions? Just ask those who are there training for the Olympics. Oh, and by the way, the U.S. has done a tremendous amount to cut CO2 emissions--just not enough for some people's liking.

Also, I have a hard time believing the political assertions of Mr. Gore with regard to future plans. It's hard to believe, but some of us just don't take politicians at their word.

Finally, there is just no plausible link between global warming--no matter who might cause it--and peace among nations. The choice of Mr. Gore is an insult to those dedicated souls who truly are at the noble work of brokering peace in the world.

The Nobel PEACE Prize? I do not understand the relationship of Mr. Gore's contribution to PEACE! For a long time I have felt that the politicizing influence in the selection of candidates and award winners is more prevalent with each pronouncement. Sad, another meaningful effort gone sour by politicians!!!

I think we should remember that this is a political award, not a true award for those working for true peace. They pick the "sexy" pick of the year, regardless of true work. How else does Arafat win? The man never backed off of his rhetoric when talking with his own people, he just used moderate talk when speaking with outsiders. Gore is the spokesperson for the man-made global warming agenda, which automatically gave him the award. My thinking is we need scientists whose funding does not rely on the climate change crisis to review all of the data in order to get a truly objective look at the issue.

In Mr. Tremblay's article, he argues that the conclusions that the earth in in fact warming and that human activity is a major cause of that warming are "unproven at best and downright wrong at worst." He goes on to characterize Gore's campaign advocating that we do something about human activities that contribute to global warming as "a questionable cause."

Mr. Tremblay's position seems to amount to this: "Continuing to release more and more carbon dioxide MAY not really be a problem, and we therefore shouldn't try to do anything about it." I have to wonder if he and National Underwriter would advocate this reasoning as a general principle for risk managers to follow - "If something may or may not be a hazard, don't do anything about it even if the consequences would be catastrophic if it does turn out to really be a hazard."

I think Mr. Tritz assumes too much about my position on global warming. I don't recall advocating continued release of carbon dioxide. My idea would be to find out what the actual danger is and what we can effectively do to ameliorate said danger--assuming there is a danger. Then, we can formulate a reasonable strategy.

After all, that person pounding on my bedroom door COULD be an intruder. It could be catastrophic for me if it really IS an intruder, so maybe I should pull out my shotgun and blast a few holes in the door--just in case.

On the other hand, that could be my 6-year-old son knocking on the door, looking for a glass of water. Prudence, it seems, would be the wisest course. So let's open the door and get a look at what's out there before we start firing away.

I really have no respect for Al Gore and what he is or isn't doing. For someone who claimed that he "invented the internet" and various other ridiculous positions he has touted, I don't find him a credible advocate or resource.

As for global warming, I know that it exists whether or not it is confirmed by scientists. Even considering the normal weather fluctuations, just the multiplication of major catastrophies in the world over the last century is enough to confirm the problem. We have lived in N. Oklahoma and know in the last 30 years the weather has made some remarkable changes. My parents live in Alaska where the effects may be more visible, also.

I can't feel that this is a large factor in PEACE, at least right now. In the future, it may be very relevant to people living in the areas where food can't be grown and hunger would be magnified. Look at the growth of desert areas. Oil isn't the only thing that people will go to war about.

I think we could surely recognize some of the truly gifted people that devote a large portion of their lives to bettering mankind over someone that just found a cause (within the last few years) and is beating a drum whether he is running for office or not.

Isn't it obvious? This was a consolation prize for the "theft" of poor Al Gore's big prize -- the U.S. presidency. Somehow, maybe a Nobel Peace Prize will ease the pain of all those who just can't bear the thought that an intellect like Al Gore was cheated out of the presidency by that simpleton George Bush. After all, if Gore HAD taken his rightly place as President, the world would be at peace. But, since that war-monger stole Gore's job, we have to deal with Iraq and the threat of terrorists. Oh -- and George Bush caused global warming, too...didn't he? (Tongue firmly implanted in cheek.)

Ara, you should be ashamed. Please don't be so wanton expressing your political affiliations. Not only do you not acknowledge that he was a co-recipient (the other being that bastion of politicization itself--The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which is an extremely important point, but then you lament the fact that Al wasn't campaigning for peace. I understand that part of your goal on this blog is to generate discussion (even if it means taking untenable positions like this one), but let's be fair and dispense with the misinformation and ad hominem attacks. (By the way, if you read the NY Post, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, article you cited, it said the judge actually agreed the film was "broadly accurate" and that he agreed that CO2 was contributing to the warming of the earth--hmmm, I guess you forgot to mention that. Oh well, it's only a couple of words, right? And, c'mon the guy is a judge and not a scientist so what does he know?)

There have been numerous former winners of the Peace Prize (e.g., 2006 recipients Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank, 1999 recipient Doctors without Borders, and [my personal favorite], the 1970 recipient Norm Burlaug, who received it for research at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), who weren't considered "peace activists" or "peace brokers", yet I don't see any screeds about them and their non-peaceful activities. Further, who would you have nominated instead? I'm sure with the level of disgust you exhibit above that you have a plethora of deserving candidates, right? I'm sure it was mere oversight that you didn't directly name an alternative to Gore and the IPCC--maybe the platitudes got in the way? I personally would think, like many others, that there are many, many more people doing fantastic and crucial work who, to be quite frank, are more deserving than Al Gore--I'm just not familiar with them or their work (that's a whole different topic). Just because someone does not directly broker peace accords or label themselves a humanitarian or peace activist doesn't mean they don't deserve the Peace Prize. Am I naive enough to think that reputation and name/issue recognition have no effect on the nominating committee--hardly. Also, could you imagine the uproar from yourself and others on the right if Al Gore did pursue peace accords or call himself a humanitarian. You would again call him out for being an opportunistic politician rather than applauding him for declining the lucrative lobbying contracts readily available on K Street.

I can't begin to fathom your position on Global Warming--it sounds like something from George Bush's speechwriters. Seriously, as an insurance and risk management professional (despite having a tech tilt), you should be considerably more concerned about the potential fallout from Global Warming (e.g., D&O claims), rather than castigating those of use who decide to heed the warnings and take appropriate action. The let's-wait-and-see approach has all the makings of something from a cartoon. I wonder if my insureds would appreciate that advice from me or any other risk/insurance professional. How about this? "Well, we don't actually know if the peril will cause damage, so why not wait until it happens and then we can discuss what would be the most appropriate course of action." That approach goes against everything we've learned for the past 125-years regarding risk. The first step in Risk Management--Identify the exposure. I most certainly consider Global Warming an exposure that is caused by humans, as do many CEOs, the G8 leaders, The National Academy of Sciences, as well as the greater scientific community. By the way, your outlandish claim that Global Warming is the subject of debate is incorrect (I couldn't search your website for your other posts on this topic. It told me an error occurred while processing this directive). There is not one paper in a peer-reviewed journal that has refuted the consensus position. Of course, there are highly respected scientists (e.g., MIT's Richard Lindzen) who disagree with the consensus position, but that's nothing new and it's actually good for live science. (Please note that Mr Lindzen is also skeptical that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer.) Remember, that as recently as the 1920s the preeminent geophysicist Harold Jeffreys disputed Plate Tectonic Theory, which is now considered an extremely pedestrian idea (thanks to my wife who is a geophysicist for the example). Just because one admits that Global Warming is real (as does Mr. Lindzen) doesn't mean that you have to buy into the Armageddon scenarios. Now, what should be done about Global Warming and it's potential impacts is an area rife with debate and rightly so. But to completely discount Global Warming as some lunatic fringe idea lacking any scientific merit is irresponsible and utterly false.

Also, for the previous posters who are too quick to trot out tired, incorrect information rather than do 2-minutes of research, I will do my best to disabuse you of your misconceptions regarding Al Gore and his purported claim of inventing the internet. The quote that has led to the brouhaha was, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Is his original quote an exaggeration--sure it is, but it is a far cry from saying he invented the internet.

Ah, where to start in responding to Joey Hayles?

No, I am not ashamed of approaching problems in a cautious and thoughtful way, no matter what political motives may be ascribed to that strategy.

I don't lament the fact that Al Gore wasn't campaigning for peace. I do lament the fact that the committee chose a person whose accomplishments are unrelated to peace to win the Peace Prize. As to others who have won the prize with non-peace-related credentials, I would criticize their selection as well. Common sense, don't you think?

Who else what have been a good choice? How about Bono (suggested by my brilliant wife), well known for his activism in trying to lift poorer nations and individuals out of their misery? Not peace-like enough? Perhaps the Dalai Lama would be a viable selection. While one could argue the merits of both of these, one can also see that their activities clearly seek to contribute to the cause of peace.

You are correct in saying that you cannot begin to fathom my position on global warming, but it has nonetheless been clearly stated on this blog. I go with NOAA, which tells us, among other things, that while the earth taken as a statistical whole seems to be growing very slightly warmer over time, we do not know all of the causes of that warming, and that not all of the globe is growing warmer (in fact, some parts are cooling). Further, it is not known how much of the slight climate change we are seeing in some areas would have happened the same way climate changes in the past have happened--despite man's "interference." I don't believe this amounts to dismissing global warming as a lunatic fringe idea. It is, instead, vitally important to acknowledge what we do not know.

Finally, I am hard pressed to find much difference in Mr. Gore saying that he took the initiative to create the Internet vs. saying that he invented the Internet. Both are blatantly false.

I've always thought it was not such a remarkable coincidence that anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-industry liberals should show such fondness for the it's-all-man's-fault global warming nonsense. After all, most so-called GW solutions would impact and restrict primarily those sectors that liberals have always targeted anyway.

As any climatologist will admit, the Earth's climate has never been static, rather it has always been in a state of dynamic flux. The reason we no longer have glaciers covering Chicago and most of the upper midwest is simple: global warming - thousands of years before I bought my first SUV. Must have been those Neanderthal campfires or at least out-of-control mammoth elephant flatus!

Yet the global warming true-believers act as if the .7C increase in global average temperatures over the past century is not only unprecedented but that the current climate is somehow the ideal for which we must strive, at all cost, to maintain. Who decided that the 20th century represents the perfect and ideal climate?

Certainly humanity should work to reduce pollutants, but the knee-jerk almarmists would have us replace or redo most of the industrial world's infrastructure at a cost of trillions.

The money and the effort would be better spend adjusting to what is probably inevitable: The climate is going to change regardless of our puny efforts.

For those that believe there is an actual "consensus" on GW, one pundit has put together a good list of 221 links of authoritative disenters - and the list grows daily: http://schnittshow.970wfla.com/globalwarming.html

Keep up the healthy skepticism Ara!

With regard to Allan's Oct. 12 posting: I don't recall saying I don't believe in global warming. Please see my other comments and articles on this site.

It is interesting that you consider non-belief in global warming a political view, as opposed to a scientific opinion.

I'm not sure you could say that NU is politically neutral. Its columnists certainly aren't.

If someone is embarrassed about having this blog appear, I have yet to hear about it. I suppose you mean that I should be embarrassed, but I must admit that I am not. Sorry.

Joey is disappointed in Ara Trembly? Why? Because Ara has the temerity to express his views--and those views are not in sync with Joey's. The nerve of the guy.

Here's a thought--when Gore decided to lead the charge on this dubious "crisis," it became a political issue. Ara did not mention politics at all--he merely expressed a)doubt that Gore's certitude is warranted, and b)that, in any case, dressing in black and being whatever it is Gore is claiming to be, does not make him a candidate for anybody's "peace prize."

Next time a "crisis" pops up--I would offer this helpful suggestion to Joey and his fellow travelers--find a credible leader--not a political has-been who lost 2 out of 3 debates to George Bush--and, in whom 50% of the population has little or no faith.