> Sam wrote: > No, because you're taking normal weather patterns and attributing it > to GW.
I'm not saying that at all - I'm saying that the insurance industry is factoring in the *risk* of GW changing weather in an adverse way. That's it. It's not me saying anything about the weather. The point is to say that actuaries think the GW evidence and theory is strong enough to factor it into your payment. And the broader point was on the carbon tax, which I called insurance. So, the broader point is that is the insurance industry is already factoring in GW, why shouldn't we in the form of a carbon tax? Do we have different more accurate risk calculations than they? If so, where are they? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get involved in the latest ColdFusion discussions, product development sharing, and articles on the Adobe Labs wiki. http://labs/adobe.com/wiki/index.php/ColdFusion_8 Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:240127 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
