Insurance executive speaks out strongly against the global warming hoax

Roundtable: Climate change - 
what are the 
implications?- 21 Feb 2012- Post Online Feature

Paul Maynard, chief placement officer at Willis, offered an outspoken response to the climate change argument.

He claimed: “The insurance industry is supposed to be based on statistics and the first thing it’s done is to ignore all available science and it’s been caught up in the World Wildlife Fund’s own climate change agenda.

"Polar bears can swim hundreds of miles, there’s no threat to polar bears, Alaska has just had record cold temperatures — there was one town that had to receive oil from an ice-breaker.

“The industry is supposed to be based on data and it has completely thrown it out as an issue. If you adjust for inflation and growth then there is no trend, there’s no [obvious climate change] trend linked with hurricanes or tornados. The increase in claims is a result of the fact that in Florida and the South East US, a place where the wind blows, the growth in beach front property has 
been phenomenal.”

Maynard went on to suggest that the reason behind spiralling levels of climate change “alarmism” can be directly linked to the role played by industry models.

He added: “My experience of the market is that virtually all of the climate change alarmism is driven by models that cannot be validated. As soon as they try and run them forward they are all predicting the end of the world and the observationalists simply don’t agree with that outcome. If you talk to underwriters about models you get hollow laughter. They have to use them, but they know that the model output is invariably wrong.”

In an ideal world insurance based on data would be a logical – if not blindingly obvious – practice, however, questions remain as to how far back recorded data can be considered credible.

Maynard responded: “The quality of all data sets are reasonably robust for the past 100 years in terms of thermometer measurements. The evidence of the ‘little ice age’ is there to be found. Rainfall is very difficult, if you talk to our modellers at Willis they’ll all agree that rainfall is a very tough thing to model.

“What would I expect the industry to do? I would expect it to shut up on the subject, but it’s not going to happen. There’s deeper and deeper cynicism on the subject.”

John Moore: A peek into the climate denier industry | Full Comment | National Post

In fact, the advancement of junk science is at the very core of the Heartland Institute’s mission. The centerpiece of this craven effort is an annual denier-palooza event that gathers together some of the world’s greatest cranks to chortle over non-peer reviewed papers, false premises and debunked theories. Heartland is a slightly more sophisticated iteration of Canada’s Friends of Science, a pro-oil shill group that pays the hapless pretend climatologist Tim Ball to peddle a travelling anti-climate-change road show to naive right-wing radio shows and senior citizens’ homes.

...Here’s the reality: Of the 200 most significant climate scientists in the world, precisely two dissent on the consensus theory of climate change. But the media has been bullied into presenting the issue as a he-said, she-said affair. And so in a public debate on the issue, you end up with a quarrel between an internationally respected scientist and a blogger who quotes Ayn Rand.

Bad science and faux dissent produce a paralysis that allows the implementation or perpetuation of bad public policy. How many millions of people died as a result of those who denied the dangers of smoking? Global warming is following the same pattern.

Heart of the matter: Climate world divided on Heartland case - reneweconomy.com.au : Renew Economy

Corey Goodman, a member of the Pacific Institute’s board of directors, told Politico that Gleick’s confession was characteristic of his commitment to honesty.

A social engineering story - Computerworld Blogs

I'm surprised that the Internet security aspects of the Heartland Institute document leak haven't gotten more attention. There's a good lesson here.

The person who received the documents, Peter Gleick, an environmental scientist and MacArthur genius grant winner, used social engineering to get them. His technique was Kevin Mitnick 101.