Hi, Regarding "not paying for insurance is just a stupid financial decision". Only 60% of the annual income of the average insurance company goes back to the punters as honoured claims. The other 40% covers their advertising, wages, utilities, consumables, depreciables, shareholder's dividends, lawyers arguing why claims should be rejected, etc. That's why "self insurance" is so appealing to organisations large enough to bear/cushion the risk. If I'd bought full-coverage car insurance all my life, I'd have spent enough to buy a few new cars outright. Of course, I protect myself against getting sued a million bucks for giving someone whiplash, but I never buy insurance for anything that I own. The money's =much= better spent on having impartial experts come in and conduct fire audits, security audits, and safety audits. Money can't bring Nana or the old family photos back. Carl On 24/04/14 11:55, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:27:40 Lev Lafayette wrote:
Having reviewed a great deal of the literature on the subject, I have a very high level of confidence (over 90%) that the mainstream scientific view of global warming is correct.
When discussing these things we should consider the consequences of being wrong.
What happens if we are wrong about climate change and we reduce coal use anyway? Well we have less pollution in the air, lower cancer rates, less destruction of farmland (mines are big), and fewer injuries and deaths in mining.
What happens if we do nothing about climate change and it turns out that we needed to do something? Then we get sea level rises destroying a lot of valuable property (most of the most expensive land in the world is near the coast), floods, new deserts, lots of destroyed farmland, famine, and war.
Doing something is the prudent thing to do.
My confidence in not having a serious car crash or house fire is much greater than 90% but I still pay for insurance. Not paying for insurance is just a stupid financial decision.