Post New

Interesting, bold take by Ajit. Probably common sense obvious. But still surprised it didn’t get more attention. It got mine. Hearing him say it so matter of fact…

When you think about it..

A.) Climate Change Fear creates positive pricing (risk is permanent its either priced or it’s not priced—we get price). The more DIRE the forecast (unknown result) the HIGHER the rate (guaranteed & locked in upfront)

B.) Inflation turns 1-2% Float into 5.4% Float.

Rewind pre climate change hype when the climate actually MAY have been changing and we didn’t know it,rates stunk, competition for ReInsurance was everywhere, and float earned 2%?


Today: much money up front, much more money holding it.

Climate change is a hoax but do like the increased pricing

Great point. So nice that we renew the rates and policies annually and can relatively quickly match the rates with risk. Ajit was terrific.

Btw, I felt reassured that it seems like he is very happy and “nerdy”-loves the “game” and it’s unique problem solving 😁at age 73? I doubt he will enter retirement for many years. It’s great to keep hearing Warren’s recurrent and sincere compliments of Ajit. I hope this will Xtra motivate him to stay in his role for a long time & maybe do a slow handoff when the time comes to transition (to Joe Brandon or whoever). You can tell, Ajit Really looks up to WEB as an employee, and a loyal friend and sees WEB almost 94yo, often working 6 days/week & sincerely loving what he does. Gosh, it is hard to overstate Ajit’s incredible value to BRK over 38 years!

Does Ajit have any connection to the AmGUARD sub? They completely withdrew from the CA homeowners market last year. Maybe they didn't get the word.

Given the way California reacts to problems, I wouldn't want to be writing business there no matter what the rates.

And I say this as a California native that moved out and is happy he did. The town I grew up in was a wonderful place, but now it's a shithole.

"Rewind pre climate change hype when the climate actually MAY have been changing"

The earth's climate has always been changing. Always has. Always will.

Study the earth's geological record over any time period and it will become apparent.

The idea that we mortal humans can somehow stabilize the earth's climate is hubris and a fool's errand. Think Icarus.

Doesn't mean Berkshire won't jack up premiums to take advantage of the mass hysteria.

Buffett has been quoted on the fact that hurricane occurrence has been stable to declining over the last several decades.

"“I have not seen anything yet that would cause me to change the way we look at evaluating quakes, tornadoes, hurricanes by atmosphere. Now, that may happen some day,”
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/27/warren-buffett-glo...

Historical NOAA hurricane data:

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

These facts haven't precluded media, politicians and environmentalists from promoting mass fear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A24fWmNA6lM

I'm an agnostic nonscientist. I say heads we win, tails we win.

Climate Change Real: Price for Climate Change--get reasonable price for risk. Contracts Adjusted /re-visited annually.

Climate Change Hoax: Price for Climate Change and get excessive rates. Hope our customers remain concerned at renewal :)

But how can you be certain history's presumed most radical climate change--global warming that caused the world to melt from essentially a mega glacier to human inhabitable mild --wasn't caused by pre-human I.C.E. low mileage Chevy Suburbans? We can't say that for certain :) So I remain agnostic on the theory--but comfortable our insurance folks are disciplined on pricing. Which is the only thing CONTROLLABLE and fixed.

And if the headlines of the 1970s are right "Prepare for Global Cooling...the Ice Age of 2030"---we've got utility businesses for that...

Buffett has been quoted on the fact that hurricane occurrence has been stable to declining over the last several decades.

It might be problematic to post this, but on this issue there is a very interesting 1:20h documentary:

"CLIMATE - THE COLD TRUTH" --- THE DOCUMENTARY MOVIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Tfxiuo-oM

Problematic, because it's against what is nowadays the mainstream narrative. When a good friend recommended I should watch it I was extremely sceptical, but must admit I was impressed. It's definitely not something that can easily be brushed off as BS by crazy conspiracy theorists. It's about interviews with a winner of the Nobel price in Physics, with the former vice-president of Caltech and other eminent (mostly) physicians.

I was so impressed by them clearly having very good points that do not comply with the usual narrative that I spend many hours afterwards researching and reading arguments and counter-arguments between them and their scientific antagonists - which I found do also have very good points.

Not being an expert I don't dare say this side is right, or that side. But my digging deeper led me to one definite conclusion: That climate science today is not "scientific" (anymore), is polluted, with voices not agreeing with the mainstream not only being ignored but being suppressed. For example it was shocking for me to find out that on a website for discussions among scientists highly reputable scientists which do not agree with the narrative (and are brushed off as "Deniers") are blacklisted and unable to post there.

I don't want to ignite a political or ideological debate (wrong board), but that mentioning of hurricanes reminded me on this documentary.

It's definitely not something that can easily be brushed off as BS by crazy conspiracy theorists.

It appears that you're wrong about that.

Not being an expert I don't dare say this side is right, or that side.

That's a very sound instinct. Stick with it. I suggest that you ask that your repost be removed.

Jim

It's definitely not something that can easily be brushed off as BS by crazy conspiracy theorists.

It appears that you're wrong about that.

Not being an expert I don't dare say this side is right, or that side.

That's a very sound instinct. Stick with it. I suggest that you ask that your repost be removed.


I respectfully but strongly disagree. I watched this documentary a couple of weeks ago and thought that many of its arguments were persuasive. But the scientific agnosticism advocated by said and Jim is, I think, the correct attitude, while the censorship or self-censorship suggested by jim is not.

Prominent among the film’s points are that (i) the Earth has warmed considerably less than 1.5 deg C; (ii) CO2 levels are still towards the low end of what the Earth has known in the last 10,000 years (the dawn of the agricultural revolution); and (iii) the debate has become so politicized, arguments going against the consensus, even when advanced by leading scientists including Nobel prize winners, are suppressed at all levels of academia.

We can perfectly well debate points (i) and (ii) here without replicating point (iii).

Regards, DTB

https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1778150186910466...

We can perfectly well debate points (i) and (ii) here without replicating point (iii).

Yes, but not on this board.

I've been a part of a group of long term BRK shareholders for now approaching 30 years. We discuss BRK, the markets, and sometimes life. But our one rule is that we don't debate politics or religion.

Otherwise, I doubt we could have held it together. And we've mutually benefited by holding it together.

But our one rule is that we don't debate politics or religion.

That's the problem. That (i) and (ii) are not about politics nor religion --- but treated this way.
No worries. Shocked by Jim's post. Done posting.

Thank you Said for posting this video. I too had seen it and shared with friends and family.

I think anything that presents well argued facts is doing a service to the advancement of science and the understanding of our world.

It doesn’t matter if you agree with the content or if it’s pro or contra the consensus. In fact, Charlie would probably agree that anything that challenges the consensus is of even greater importance (always challenge your own most cherished ideas etc).

It’s a shame that we still believe sometimes that the best way to get people over to our side of thinking is by censoring or bullying. The world will never change on this I’m afraid and I think we can all admit to having fallen for this temptation in one way or other.

But please don’t let this stop you from continuing to post. I often disagree with your posts but always enjoy reading them and you contribute together with countless others to making this a great board.

Also a big late thank you to Manlobbi who made posting possible in the first place!!

"I think anything that presents well argued facts is doing a service to the advancement of science and the understanding of our world."

From what I understand the problem with the video is that it isn't presenting well-argued facts at all but simply repeating in bad faith climate myths that do not match what the science actually says. Its a similar pattern to what we see from Ancient Aliens and other Pseudo-archaelogy but with a much graver impact.

https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/what-media-wont...

<From what I understand the problem with the video is that it isn't presenting well-argued facts at all but simply repeating in bad faith climate myths that do not match what the science actually says. It's a similar pattern to what we see from Ancient Aliens and other Pseudo-archaelogy but with a much graver impact.>

Nailed it!
"Fake graphs and daft conspiracy yarns in Durkin’s latest propaganda film"

"British propagandist Martin Durkin is still trying to fool the world with bogus claims, doctored interviews and fake graphs to say the most reputable scientific organizations, including NASA, the Met Office and Royal Society, are all wrong on anthropogenic climate change. Pallavi Sethi and Bob Ward pick apart his latest film, Climate: The Movie."

"The Movie recycles many of the same falsehoods that featured in his earlier film, The Great Global Warming Swindle. But many independent organisations and fact-checkers have already debunked the many bogus claims that appear throughout the film."

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/fake-....

PS For extra credit check out his other film about Silicone breast implants. Silicone implants, it insisted, reduced the incidence of breast cancer! Almost unbelievable amirite?

https://www.theguardian.com/Columnists/Column/0,,1...

The Last dramatic warming of the planet was 56 Million years ago, called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. In 20,000 years, the average temperatures increased 5-8C. The result was that there were tropical rainforests at both poles with ocean temperatures of 20C. We are currently raising temperatures on the planet at a faster rate than during the PETM. Aside from hurricanes and other storms, how are we going to maintain a world economy as cities around the equator become uninhabitable and coastal cities drown? To say nothing of the upset to the world's food production as dry land farming becomes upended.

Adjusting to the changes ahead will be catastrophic at best.

Historical NOAA hurricane data:

Is there a reason you only posted US hurricane strikes? This may support US insurance rates but it says nothing about global climate change. Perhaps total hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones could better support your thesis.

Aussi

“From what I understand the problem with the video is that it isn't presenting well-argued facts at all but simply repeating in bad faith climate myths that do not match what the science actually says. Its a similar pattern to what we see from Ancient Aliens and other Pseudo-archaelogy but with a much graver impact.”


Hi Indefensible. You may be right. I know very little about climate, but if I’m not allowed to hear from both sides I fear that I will never get much smarter! :)

When a Nobel price winner talks I am at least prepared to listen and ponder over his opinions. Just as I’m pondering yours.

I would certainly not want anyone else deciding for me what my supposedly less capable mind should be allowed to be exposed to.

It’s a little bit funny because I guess even the people calling it climate myths must have been allowed to see the video at least once in order to make that judgement?

Censorship can have big unwanted effects but may still be warranted in some cases. I guess I just don’t think it was warranted in this case.

I’m fine to disagree on that if others think differently and under no circumstance would I suggest that anyone’s post be removed because of this disagreement.

Have a nice day and hope this reads in the non confrontational tone that the writer intended.

This thread, which I introduced following Ajit’s remarks, underscores the almost religious furor of both proponents and opponents THEORY.

Theory becomes fact. Subjective becomes objective. The bizarre and highly unlikely becomes objectively impossible. For Insurance, this is no than the Golden Ticket. See 100% of reason for 1Q Op Earnings beat.

This created the sort of reinsurance/cat pricing environment that woke Ajit & Warren up from a dozen year nap to write every policy they can get the hands on. We ALWAYS have had risk. Now, this DEBATE has given us PRICE. Now if we price the risk as risk morphs into hysteria—well, now we have a wet dream.

Berkshire Hathaway is a very simple proposition over 50 years: act rationally in an irrational world.

"Rewind pre climate change hype when the climate actually MAY have been changing"

https://twitter.com/HicksKiwi/status/1769494198917...

“ This created the sort of reinsurance/cat pricing environment that woke Ajit & Warren up from a dozen year nap”

Well put. I was thinking exactly this when listening to Warren on Saturday. Charlie was always more cautious in expressing support for this and Warren has mentioned in the past that he was yet to see any impact on cat events. This year he was happy to talk about the impact on business. A few snippets:

“ And we’ve seen actions in a few states where some of the costs associated with climate change, they’re not being regarded as cost of the utility”

“ But in utilities, the trade has been, the compact has been that you get a modest return and climate change comes along and it causes way more fires.”

And Ajit:

“ But the fact that we are making bets that tie us down to one year at a time certainly makes it possible for us to stay in the business longer term than we might have otherwise because of climate change.”

Insurance is of course the business that has given us the Berkshire of today. Over 15 years as shareholder I have continuously underestimated the value of this part of the business. May it continue to prosper.

For the record Mr. Buffett actually said: "Climate change increases risks and in the end it makes our business bigger over time. But not if we mis-price them, we’ll go broke." ~Warren Buffett

Other interesting quotes from the annual meeting:

Jain: "Climate risk is certainly a factor that has come into focus in a very, very big way more recently. Now, the one thing that mitigates the problem for us,
especially in some of the reinsurance operations we are in, is our contractual liabilities are limited to a year in most cases. So as a result of which, at the end of a year, we get the opportunity to reprice, including the decision to get out of the business altogether if we don’t like the pricing. But the fact that we are making bets that tie us down to one year at a time certainly makes it possible for us to stay in the business longer term than we might have otherwise because of climate change."

Jain: "I think the insurance industry, in spite of climate change, in spite of increased risk of fires and flooding, it’s going to be an okay place to be in."

Jain: "The only thing I’d add is that climate change, much like inflation, if done right, can be a friend of the risk bearer." (If done right!)

Buffett: "All of climate change, it’s a terrible problem just in the fact that the United States particularly has been the one that’s caused the problem the most.
And then we’re asking poorer societies to say, well, you’ve got to change the way you live, because we live the way we did. But that really hasn’t been settled yet.
It’s a fascinating problem to me, but I don’t have anything to add to how you really slice through the world."



https://www.thegoodinvestors.sg/insights-from-berk...

Here is the quote I couldn’t find earlier. From 2017 meeting:

"I have not seen anything yet that would cause me to change the way we look at evaluating quakes, tornadoes, hurricanes by atmosphere. Now, that may happen some day,"

It is very interesting to me that it seems he now believes that day has come.

In that year’s letter he also wrote that climate change had not up until then "produced more frequent nor more costly hurricanes nor other weather-related events covered by insurance."


https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/02/27/warren-buffett...

Ajit has placed us in a wonderful position of great strength and power. Like last year, rates for Florida wind policies became sensible and we made a bundle. He is in complete control to only offer policies only when we receive nice premium & it’s nice we don’t Need the business!

I asked Warren a question via Becky at the AGM following the pandemic about writing further pandemic coverage after COVID shock and of course, Warren said it is all about matching rate and risk and (paraphrase) for the right rate, we will consider writing policies on nearly anything, including future pandemics.

Btw, one of my favorites years ago was when we covered was the a potential billion dollar giveaway through Pepsi. Fortunately the winning customer did not win the billion dollars, but We got paid handsomely!

I think you are misusing the work "theory" in its most strict meaning. In common parlance, when we say we have a theory, we mean I have an unsubstantiated guess, and I'm working on finding corroboration. In scientific literature, we would call that "hypothesis".

A theory when referring to scientific study is the best explanation of observed data which gives useful prediction. Theories can change. Newton's theories or motion are replaced by Einstein's but that does not make Newton wrong, only less precise at extremes of motion.

The theory of climate change should be regarded with the same level of skepticism as the theory of gravity. Neither is perfectly well defined, but they are both more than hunches or guesses thrown about with scant corroborating data. More research will refine both but it is highly unlikely that the understanding of either will be upended by new findings.

Perhaps that’s correct, yes.

But the hypothesis of gravity, in terms of its impact and the pricing of risk (ALL that’s relevant in THIS format) is widely understood. Climate Change hypotheses or theories run the spectrum from “cyclical impact” to “57 million year event,long term catastrophe”…with most thoughts somewhere between :)

From a Berkshire shareholder perspective, however you want to categorize this, Climate Change is a lot more difficult to calculate than gravity from a risk analysis perspective. IOW, all that really matters…HERE. On THIS business topic.

Another annual meeting quote that caught my attention, and that I just went back to review:

Greg Abel in responding to a question regarding Pacific Power and the Oregon 2020 wildfire suits: "The first thing we have to recognize is that there’s now going to be situations where we prioritize de energizing the assets, and that’s completely different than we’ve operated those assets, as I’ve highlighted, for 100 plus years. So we start with the culture. We had to change that. The second thing is we’ve now changed our operating systems so that we can turn off the power very quickly. If there’s a fire that’s increasing, approaching, we will turn off our systems now and we’ll go, the minute the conditions are safe again, we’ll reenergize it."

In 2020, the energized power supply not only exacerbated the fire(s), but caused them: "Some 2,500 properties were damaged by four wildfires that ignited during the Labor Day 2020 windstorm, prompting a class-action lawsuit against PacifiCorp. The company lost in the initial trial last summer involving 17 fire victims, and the latest decision covers just nine plaintiffs...Based on the jury’s findings in the first phase of the trial, PacifiCorp’s responsibility for the fires is no longer in question"(1)

Certainly a step in the right direction, but what I'm hearing is that Pacific Power is now committing to not throwing down any more lit matches AFTER a fire has started.

The September 2020 catastrophic Almeda and Obenchain fires are the ones I'm most familiar with, and I know for a certainty that each started some time after the US Weather Service had activated a rare Red Flag Warning, stating that wind, temperature, grass dryness and humidity combined to make an extreme risk of rapidly spreading and possibly uncontrollable fires.

Conversely, suddenly cutting power to the grid as a precaution "only" because of a red flag warning would not be a popular move. Hospitals, fire stations, and other public safety facilities have backup generators, bit that's not the norm for most nursing homes, or the coolers and freezers at the local grocery stores, much less (almost all) homes. And pretty much by definition, red flag days are among the hottest, driest days of the year. And, they're not *that* rare: NYC had a twelve-hour red flag about a year ago.

So, my conclusions are:
- Pacific Power is between a rock and a hard place: liable for starting fires, but presumably also liable for casualties/property damage if they're retrospectively judged for having cut the power unnecessarily
- I need to up my backup generator game

--sutton

(1): Seattle Times 24 Jan 2024 "Oregon jury slaps PacifiCorp with another $62 million damage award for 2020 wildfires"

Basking in all that "Global Warming Goodness".

-80°C: Antarctic Vostok Station Records “Extreme Winter Cold”…Not Even Winter Yet! – Watts Up With That?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/09/80c-antarct...

From the article referenced by CrankyCharlie.

“On April 29, almost minus 80 degrees were measured at the Russian Vostok research station. Such extreme cold is rarely reached this early in the year,” reported wetteronline.de.

The record, -89.3°C, was recorded in the middle of winter, on July 21, 1983, thus making the last week’s late April reading very unusual.

“Values below minus 80 degrees in April are also extremely rare at the Earth’s cold pole and have only been recorded three times in the last 60 years,” wetteronline.de adds.

So, two questions spring to mind?

Does this one reading invalidate the previous research about climate change?

Was this a real reading or Russian misinformation to sew disharmony in the debate about climate change. (Note, Russia has been reported by multiple government agencies a significant contributor to misinformation about several topics).

Aussi

From the article referenced by CrankyCharlie.

Please don't.

Fact: We have valid climate statistics from 1 to 2 full meteorological cycles (roughly a century long) out of thousands of cycles, yet you pretend to know what was transpiring 56 million years previously and hyperbolically say that's repeating.

And those "on the other side" are told to go away. Their thoughts should not be read. Or should be withdrawn.

This is Political Correctness. A kind term for insanity. In its ugliest form.

While the general concept of anthropomorphic global warming is well established, the factors affecting BRK are indeed more in the theoretical phase. There are well reasoned theories predicting warming will bring more extreme weather events, but meteorological observations have not shown many statistically significant changes yet. There is a trend in the media of attributing most major storms at least in part to climate changes. This article summarizes what the IPCC has concluded about the present day state of changes which could affect the insurance business. The full IPCC summary is online and worth reading if you find the article a bit snarky. Pielke is an honest researcher and perhaps the most left wing climate scientist out there.

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipcc...

Here are two recent publications wrt anthropic climate change.

The first one is more relevant to this board. It's a link to the .pdf released by the Federal Reserve yesterday, reporting on the results of an exercise to (I'll let them tell it) " ...learn about large banking organizations’ climate risk-management practices and challenges and to enhance the ability of large banking organizations and supervisors to identify, estimate, monitor, and manage climate-related financial risks".

Invited banks were Morgan Stanley, BAC, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPM and WFC.

Executive summary: they dunno

Here's the link to the download: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/climat...

-------------------

The second one is not directly related to underwriting, just a report of a survey of nearly 400 climate scientists, published in the lay literature this week. I include it here because the banks above commonly wanted more data, more assessment, more models.

This isn't exactly that, admittedly. It's just a poll of a bunch of smart people worldwide, who spend their professional time looking at this topic and thinking about the data.

Executive summary: these 380 scientists are along the spectrum from disillusioned to despairing. The general attitude (a "consensus" of 380 scientists is not a physical possibility) can be summed up as "The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.” (A South African scientist who chose not to be named)

Here's the link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interac...

Circling back to make this more BRK-specific: "if there is only a 1% chance the planet is heading toward a truly major disaster and delay means passing a point of no return, inaction now is foolhardy". That's Mr Buffett, in the 2015 annual letter to shareholders.

------------

My takeaway: Ajit's year-to-year policy underwriting seems sensible, kind of like bare-bones term life insurance. Make an annual bet, then renew underwriting next year.

Anything beyond that would give me the fantods (1)

--sutton

(1) a *great* word, taught to me by an older rural Southern patient years ago: "that MRI machine give me the fantods"

India joins China in doing their part to honor Paris Climate Agreement:

'Historic milestone': PM praises India's record coal, lignite production

"A remarkable feat. Crossing 1 billion tonnes in coal and lignite production marks a historic milestone for India, reflecting our commitment to ensuring a vibrant coal sector. This also ensures India's path towards Aatmanirbharta (self-reliance) in a vital sector,"

-Narendra Modi

https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/pm-modi-p...

"Fact: We have valid climate statistics from 1 to 2 full meteorological cycles (roughly a century long) out of thousands of cycles, yet you pretend to know what was transpiring 56 million years previously and hyperbolically say that's repeating."

You should look up what the word "fact" means. You misrepresenting what is going on scientifically isn't a fact. It is a joke.


"And those "on the other side" are told to go away. Their thoughts should not be read. Or should be withdrawn."

That is a gross mischaracterization.

It is more along the lines of if you are going to participate you should bring intellectual honesty as well as at least a basic knowledge of the topics involved, especially if you are going to be strident in your views. Any person participating in any conversation owes at least that much (intellectual honesty and basic knowledge) to the other participants.

Otherwise you are not really engaging in the conversation, you are just peeing in the pool and making it harder for more knowledgeable and more intellectually honest people to even have a conversation.

It is like this, let's say you have a rare brain disorder that doctors are unsure about. You and your doctor work to get word out into the greater medical community to see if anyone has any ideas. A meeting is called where world class brain surgeons and researchers are going to get together to discuss your problem and try and find solutions. However there is a bunch of other people who are interested in coming to the meeting. There is a pediatrician who makes YouTube videos about injecting disinfectant into people's skulls to solve depression, he wants his voice heard. At least he is a doctor right? Then there are the new age spiritual gurus who think your problem can be solved by meditation and crystals. They think the brain surgeons are just part of the medical industry looking to cause and profit over continued health problems and not solve them. Then there are some religious people who think your problems can be solved by dedicating your life to Jesus.

All of these people want to be invited to the meeting where your rare brain disorder is going to be discussed. So when that meeting is held, the world class brain surgeons and researchers from John Hopkins, the Mayo Clinic, Stanford, and other world class institutions start to discuss your problem and their voices immediately get drowned out by all of the cranks who are pushing for meditation or prayer as the solution. Then the meeting gets sidetracked while everyone argues about injecting disinfectant in the brain. There is no collaboration and valuable discussion. It is a bunch of cranks peeing in the pool making harder for any real discussion between educated and intellectually honest people to take place.

If you had the brain disorder, would you want the YouTube guy and the new age crystal nuts there polluting the conversation with nonsense? Or would you want to hear the discussions of the experts who have dedicated a majority of their lives studying the brain using rigorous scientific methods and not let them get lost in the commotion? Your life is on the line. Are you going to go with the YouTube guy?

My point is we (collectively) have somehow started to think that all opinions are equal and valid and deserve equal footing with other opinions. The YouTube guy's opinions are somehow just as valid as the person who has studied and educated themselves in the field. Then put in long hours putting together hypotheses, testing and modelling those hypotheses against real world data, publishing their findings in peer reviewed journals. But also demonstrating intellectual honesty by adjusting their hypothesis to valid criticism from peers.

To your point, I don't think all of the cranks and nuts should be shut up. I just think that any sane rational person would recognize them for who they are and ignore them. Any rational and sane person wouldn't want them in any substantive discussion because they wouldn't add anything of value and would only distract and take away from real substantive discussions. The fact that so many people think that their nuttiness is a valid opinion and deserves to be heard and widely discussed is insanity and makes me sad for the future. Especially here on this board. I know that there are quite a few posters here who have backgrounds as engineers, professionals in medical related fields, researchers, and other type professions that require rigorous thinking who thought and yet still posted positively about that video. posters who really should have known better despite climate science not being in their circle of competence. That really saddens me.

"This is Political Correctness. A kind term for insanity. In its ugliest form."

I have pretty much found that anyone using the term "political correctness" is just a person who is looking to shamefully play the victim in order to have their ignorance, irrationality, and ugliness be given equal footing with others simply because they know it cannot stand there on its own.

Is it politically correct to want to marginalize and ignore people who think other humans are inferior due to the amount of pigmentation in their skin? Sure. I also think it is smart and rational for intelligent people to do just that. Why waste time on such nonsense?

Is it politically correct to want to marginalize and ignore people who think all opinions are valid no matter what the credentials of the people giving them? Sure, if you want to make that argument I can accept it is politically correct. I also think it is smart and rational.

People who fail at getting others to accept their arguments on their merits (because the arguments have no merit) resort to whining about political correctness. Put more bluntly, Charlie Munger didn't whine about political correctness. I am pretty sure he would have called anyone trying to defend nonsense by making the "Politically correct" slander to be a fool.

I am sorry thst you think it is insane to only want to listen to experts when you have a rare brain disorder. What would really be insane is litening to the YouTube nuts and new age crystal people over the experts.

Umm, what do you do if after filtering out all the cranks and nuts, you find 97% of the experts agree you have a brain disorder but the recommendations of the experts range from minor medications to removing the brain to try to save it?

Facts?

I’m going to disregard the name calling, condescension, and insults and stick to JUST facts. They matter.

I equate FACTS with hard data, statistics. I’m old school. We have hard data dating back to about the mid 1800s. Climate “cycles” are acknowledged to run roughly about a century or so. That equals, by my calculation, about 1.5 to 2 full climate cycles to analyze FACTUALLY. Which is almost statistically insignificant. All climatologists and meteorologists concur 100% that variations in climate cycles occur and variation has likely been extreme. Subjective historical observation but clear anecdotes there. The unanswered question and source of this whole issue —is WHY? The answer is not 1 size fits all. There are a myriad of sources/variables. But to some one with a hammer…the complex becomes simple.

So if we limit discussion to facts, as determined by hard data, we have 175 years to examine.

I’ve limited my comments to what is KNOWN factually, not a consensus of beliefs. Or what some one pretends to have been told occured 57 million years ago.

Like Buffett and Jain and especially the late Charlie Munger (who didn’t soften his comments as diplomatically as Ajit and Warren) I’m an agnostic who acknowledges some impact of modern industrial era behavior on present climate. This is basic science. And sure, fearful this may be the long tail, black swan that’s the start of something catastrophic…if there’s 1% chance of that…we need to alter our behavior! Yes! What’s the harm in reducing carbons? Even in reducing general pollution? Zero. If you eat a healthy diet and it prevents colon cancer when your intent was prevent to prevent heart disease— that doesn’t make a good diet a bad thing. Berkshire invests more than anyone in renewables, I personally recycle, avoid plastics. I’m pro environment. Pro health.

But in terms of this INEVITABLE path to self destruction… Jain and Buffett are now placing the largest bets of their long lives BY FAR: $10 Billion + bets Quarterly…on the OTHER SIDE of this speculative furor. Does it at least raise your curiosity that THOSE WHO ARE THE SMARTEST AT PROBABILITY analysis, namely the stewards of our capital, are willing to make every bet possible reasonably priced ON THE OTHER SIDE? Surely you must notice? Buffett’s advice to Jain last spring “keep writing!”

So, like Buffett, I remain selfishly hopeful citizens, states, municipalities, and other Insurers seeking to sell off risk tranches—continue to buy what’s being pitched as gospel. It’s been an economic bonanza to our bottom line. It’s making US rich. Reviewable annually. Actions speak louder than words. And the actions here are unmistakable.

Facts matter.

<<Like Buffett and Jain and especially the late Charlie Munger I’m an agnostic who acknowledges some impact of modern industrial era behavior on present climate.>>

Warren and Ajit are not "agnostic" like you...

Buffett: "Climate change, it’s a terrible problem just in the fact that the United States particularly has been the one that’s caused the problem the most.
And then we’re asking poorer societies to say, well, you’ve got to change the way you live, because we live the way we did. But that really hasn’t been settled yet.
It’s a fascinating problem to me, but I don’t have anything to add to how you really slice through the world."

Buffett: "Climate change increases risks and in the end it makes our business bigger over time. But not if we mis-price them, we’ll go broke."

Jain: "I think the insurance industry, in spite of climate change, in spite of increased risk of fires and flooding, it’s going to be an okay place to be in."

https://globalwarmingdeception.com

I don’t get your point… I’m a believer in a climate change.

As are Warren & Ajit (not sure about Charlie though).

That’s not the issue.

I and believe THEY are agnostic on the DEGREE of change, possible/probable outcomes and its cyclical AND non cyclical components. They ALL exist. And have forever. That matters a lot. This puts us in the rational FACTS based camp vs. the “it’s a myth” and “we’re headed to 57 million year doom” crowd that dominates message boards.


I think you might want to connect the words you quote versus the ACTIONS of those quoted. They don’t mesh. And when in doubt I take actions over words.

I know this rational, fact based commentary seems so bizarre on this topic. I know what you’re saying….I feel it.

Take it outside.

This has nothing to do with Berkshire.

Not only does global cooling/global warming/climate change/climate crisis/climate EMERGENCYOMGWEAREALLGOINGTODIE have nothing to do with BRKs stock, nothing that is discussed or debated here about it will make any difference.

Last one from me on this topic, I promise!

For fun I asked AI Charlie Munger:

"What would you say to a climate change denier?"

AI Charlie Mungers response:
"Invert, always invert. Assume you're wrong and imagine the consequences if you ignore climate change and it's real.
The potential downside is catastrophic. Do you really want to take that bet?
If you think the overwhelming scientific consensus is a hoax, you might also believe the Earth is flat.
Read the data, understand the science, and stop wasting people's time.
Wake up and smell the carbon dioxide."

https://beta.pickaxeproject.com/axe?id=Charlie_Mun...

Great quote. Full agreement.

My last comment, too,I promise. Monikers tell us a lot: we self identify.

Mine is LongTermBRK

Yours is a passive aggressive political hit.

That’s cool. Perspective is everything. You made your case. Eloquently and intelligently, too. Sincere appreciation.

" Or what some one pretends to have been told occured 57 million years ago."

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

You think it is a fact that scientists are pretending about what happened 57 million years ago.

I don't know what nuttiness led you to have the idea that we only know about climate for 175 years buried in your brain, but it is clear you aren't going to reexamine that non-fact.

You may speak a good game about only dealing in facts, but your actions betray you. This isn't the place to educate you though, especially since you aren't interested. You already have your "facts" (LOL).

"But in terms of this INEVITABLE path to self destruction… Jain and Buffett are now placing the largest bets of their long lives BY FAR: $10 Billion + bets Quarterly…on the OTHER SIDE of this speculative furor. Does it at least raise your curiosity that THOSE WHO ARE THE SMARTEST AT PROBABILITY analysis, namely the stewards of our capital, are willing to make every bet possible reasonably priced ON THE OTHER SIDE? Surely you must notice? Buffett’s advice to Jain last spring “keep writing!”

So, like Buffett, I remain selfishly hopeful citizens, states, municipalities, and other Insurers seeking to sell off risk tranches—continue to buy what’s being pitched as gospel. It’s been an economic bonanza to our bottom line. It’s making US rich. Reviewable annually. Actions speak louder than words. And the actions here are unmistakable."

Uh, this means exactly the opposite that you think it means. What does the fact that they (and all insurers) are raising their risk premiums mean to you? Insurers do not care if risk increases as long as they can increase the premium they charge for that risk proportionally. Insurers are more than willing to insure even the riskiest bets as long as they can be compensated appropriately. The fact that insurance premiums are increasing means risk is increasing.

It isn't like the combined ratio is increasing.

"Facts matter."

Indeed. So does proper understanding of them.

"Umm, what do you do if after filtering out all the cranks and nuts, you find 97% of the experts agree you have a brain disorder but the recommendations of the experts range from minor medications to removing the brain to try to save it?"

I doubt that is highly unlikely to play out like that. There would generally only be two or three major recommendations that would have large factions behind them.

I know you are trying to tie this back to climate change, but it should be noted that in that case, scientists do not make policy recommendations. They should be identifying and proving the problem (mankind's actions are putting enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that it is affecting the climate). Then identifying and showing the different effects of the problem. Policy makers (who are elected by the public) can then use that information to decide on a course of action. Maybe it is subsidizing energy sources that do not produce greenhouse gases, maybe it is subsidizing removal of greenhouse gases. Maybe it is penalizing the "Tragedy of the Commons" effects that carbon producers rely on to cheaply produce their product. Maybe it is just getting the public to accept the effects of higher greenhouse gases (rising seas, higher asthma rates, different weather patterns, etc.).

There will be winners and losers in either case so that is why policy makers need to make those decisions.

<<I don't know what nuttiness led you to have the idea that we only know about climate for 175 years buried in your brain, but it is clear you aren't going to reexamine that non-fact<<

It’s a direct reference to the argument/claim made..HERE. That kind of “nuttiness”.

But perhaps, as you allege, my misunderstanding of this quote, hard data, and facts are improper.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.