Insurance premiums may be about to feel the aftershock of Climategate, the science scandal played down by the mainstream media at the tail end of 2009. The powerful and influential National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) has concluded that leaked emails from the premier Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, prove an elite core of climatologists had secretly expressed grave doubts over the science of global warming.Skeptics were quick to link the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit to Climategate.
NAMIC have issued a stinging rebuke against climate alarmist supporters and politicians for seeking to cover up the implications of a science scandal that first broke on November 19, 2009. This will come as a further headache to Washington hot on the heels of bad tidings from Massachussets where Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA), became the 41st vote against the Democratic administration’s massive healthcare bill.
Evan Lehmann of ClimateWire reveals that insurers are stuck in a quandary over future policy considerations for their business and are making a plea for candor from the scientific community. In a frank letter to his members, Robert Detlefsen, Ph.D., Vice President of Public Policy at NAMIC has rebuked alarmists for, “facilely dismissing the email scandal as a plot hatched by malevolent “contrarians.” NAMIC members underwrite more than 40 percent of the property/casualty insurance premium in the United States.
In his letter Detlefsen says the
“emails show that a close-knit group of the world’s most influential climate scientists actively colluded to subvert the peer-review process … manufactured pre-determined conclusions through the use of contrived analytic techniques; and discussed destroying data to avoid government freedom-of-information requests.”
“Viewed collectively, the CRU e-mails reveal a scientific community in which a group of scientists promoting what has become, through their efforts, the dominant climate-change paradigm are at war with other scientists derisively labeled as ‘skeptics,’ ‘deniers,’ and ‘contrarians,’”
Dr. Detlefson goes on to criticise alarmists who, “personified the doctrinaire partisanship and intolerance toward dissent that is so clearly displayed in the CRU e-mails.”
Detlefsen then refers to the 2006 report to Congress prepared by a committee of statisticians led by Dr. Eugene Wegman of George Mason University. The Wegman Report examined the body of research behind the widely publicized “hockey stick” graph, which purported to show a dramatic and unprecedented increase in average global temperature during the twentieth century.
After thoroughly discrediting the hockey stick graph, the report observed that “authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.” The report further noted “the isolation of the paleoclimate community,” concluding “even though they rely heavily on statistical methods, they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.”
For more than a century, NAMIC has been respected for making a significant and lasting impact on the property/casualty insurance industry. In the real world of finance, hard headed NAMIC have had no other choice than to find that the science of climate change is far from “settled.”