Assuming climate change might happen, and taking action to do what we can to prevent its impact, is like buying insurance or having a fire department. Insurance can be very expensive but it is worth paying for protection against potential liability exposure. I pay large premiums for auto insurance and hazard insurance on real estate that I own and hope I never have to file a claim. If I am lucky I can live the rest of my life and not file a single insurance claim. Would all the money I paid in insurance premiums be a waste if I never filed a claim? We pay a lot of money to maintain a fire department. Which would be better, having the fire department on the ready and not have fires, or have lots of fires just to get our money’s worth? Taking steps to address climate change might or might not work. There might not be anything we can do to affect climate change so would it be worth trying to control it? Would it be better to “buy” insurance by addressing the problem or take a chance and hope it never happens? Assuming we can control climate change and working to contain it would be costly, but so are insurance premiums.
I have never posted to this board and maybe after some of you see this video you will agree maybe I should go away and not return, that said:
Please view this video in its entirety and then forward. It's a guy presenting an argument for taking action vs. not talking action re global climate change (global warming) whether or not one believes that it is happening or not. I could not find any fault with his logic, which he challenges the viewer to do. There are no surprises, it's very calm and straightforward, i.e., it is not a joke email where something screams out at you at the end. It takes about nine minutes at most. Thanks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
because only a virgin in fact and in mind would first announce his legality, then second, ask people to pay attention and consider something logically, and third, offer to go away.
We believe you are toast, is what we believe. We believe you are not a plaintiff's lawyer, nor any divorce lawyer. Probably one of them liberal public defender pussies.
I've been making this argument for some time now.
Thanks for the post, hope you stick around.
Assuming climate change might happen, and taking action to do what we can to prevent its impact, is like buying insurance or having a fire department. Insurance can be very expensive but it is worth paying for protection against potential liability exposure. I pay large premiums for auto insurance and hazard insurance on real estate that I own and hope I never have to file a claim. If I am lucky I can live the rest of my life and not file a single insurance claim. Would all the money I paid in insurance premiums be a waste if I never filed a claim? We pay a lot of money to maintain a fire department. Which would be better, having the fire department on the ready and not have fires, or have lots of fires just to get our money’s worth? Taking steps to address climate change might or might not work. There might not be anything we can do to affect climate change so would it be worth trying to control it? Would it be better to “buy” insurance by addressing the problem or take a chance and hope it never happens? Assuming we can control climate change and working to contain it would be costly, but so are insurance premiums.
buying insurance?
Would you drive your car without liability insurance? The only people who don’t care about liability exposure are people who have nothing to lose.
how could an insurance company fail or refuse to pay out? I mean, it's the law, isn't it? Surely a company as big as say Enron would pay out.
You don't seem to realize that you didn't answer the question.
Let me put it another way. How do insurance companies make money? Think of all the ways.