Thinking about the weather

When you look around, it's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between fact and fantasy. Take something as trivial as a birth certificate. Who would have thought we would have to cut down do many trees and burn so much oil to fuel the news coverage of where our President was born? Yet the Birther controversy has been one of major news stories of the last two years, and it continues even though the President has released the long version of his certificate. It seems a good conspiracy theory will continue with a life of its own no matter what evidence is available. Which brings us to the question of climate change.

For once, the battle lines between fact and fantasy have been very clearly drawn. On one side we have the world's scientific community. On the other, we have the industrial and commercial interests that see no point in changing the way they run their businesses. The scientific view was captured in a major analysis published under the terms of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The broad conclusion of this work was that we are responsible for the changes in the weather patterns and, unless we change our ways, the world will undergo a period of disruption. The commercial interests attack this work as "wrong". One or two errors have been identified and used as the basis for undermining the credibility of the entire document. Indeed, if you look around the news media and follow the opinions of all the major politicians, you'll find broad agreement we have no need to make any changes to the way we generate power, move around the country, or generally live our lives. This is a simple denial of responsibility from decision-makers who would be forced to make unpopular changes to laws affecting our lifestyles.

Somewhere lower down in the newsworthy stakes, insurance companies have been looking at the evidence. These are hard-headed businessmen. They are responsible for running a highly profitable industry. If they ignore the evidence, they will end up paying out more than they collect in premium income. So there's been a steady trend of rising premium rates. Politicians in Washington might say this is no more than a coincidence. Sure there have been more serious weather problems, but insurers face rising costs (whatever they are) and so their rates rise. Well, the bad news from our point of view is that insurers have been steadily rewriting their policies over the last ten years.

It's increasingly difficult to find private insurers who will offer cover for flooding. It's just a coincidence we've had more rain over the last ten years. Cover for wind damage is growing more expensive. It's just a coincidence this year has been the worst year for tornadoes since 1953. We could go on but you should have the message by now. You're paying for the effects of climate change. The politicians and corporate interests may be in denial, but your rates continue to rise. Normally, we write "shop around" at this point. Cheap home insurance is no longer available. All the insurers use the same basic evidence. They are convinced. Everyone's rates are rising just like world temperatures.