Calls NCAR a "cornerstone of the nation’s open, scientific infrastructure for tracking and understanding weather and climate risk" and asks administration to reconsider its plans
Thanks for this - interesting insight. One, didn't know there was an Academy of Actuaries, but makes sense. A former math department chair always talked about how math graduates working in actuary were some of the best paid career paths in our college. And I had thought that actuaries worked more with human lifespans than other risks. We'll see if their economic argument carries any weight over the dogmatic and ideologic rationale for dismantling NCAR.
One of my best friends from high school/college became an actuary so I gained some familiarity with the profession and have a lot of respect for it. He ended up going a difference career path but he is a paid subscriber, maybe he will comment. 😇
The solution seems obvious to me: The U.S. is $39 TRILLION in debt; getting worse every month.
The insurance industry is rolling in dough. Let the insurance industry fund NCAR if it is so valuable to the industry. The U.S. P&C industry, alone, had income of $170 BILLION last year, per Grok.
Or, could NCAR be "valuable" because their interests align? More climate alarmism = more justification for higher rates?
I don’t disagree the insurance industry should pick up more of the tab. But we aren’t having the complex conversations needed about that as I allude to in the post - we are just alternating between wild spending and tearing stuff down without constructive rationale. And I have had a lot of conversations with scientists in the insurance industry in recent years, and they at least are not worried about generating higher rates and profits. They are worried about the future of insurance as a concept given what they can see with limited understanding of potential future impacts and truly want better science to understand what the potential risks are.
To be clear: My comment was directed toward the upper management of the insurance industry not the scientists. I know some of the scientists in that industry and they are excellent (and they recently lost one with the untimely passing of Steve Drews).
As you note, it is a fact that papers are being written about topics of direct utility to the insurance industry by NCAR/UCAR and others yet the rest of us are expected to pick up the tab. It is easy for the actuaries to write statements to support NCAR but I don't notice any offer to contribute to its upkeep.
There is precedent for this: the insurance industry used to fund Underwriters Laboratories* to find safer products so -- for example -- there would not be as many house fires. Rates stayed lower than they otherwise would have been and people certainly did not want to burn down their homes. Everybody won.
NCAR has made many valuable contributions over the years. But it is not a sacrosanct entity. It is the job of any administration, R or D, to spend tax dollars in the wisest way possible based on their best judgment. I want to see some sort of plan that would leave NCAR's primary capabilities in place while cutting dollars or a reorg that would make it more valuable while spending the same or fewer dollars.
*It is now an independent company with a similar mission. It is called UL Solutions.
Thanks for this - interesting insight. One, didn't know there was an Academy of Actuaries, but makes sense. A former math department chair always talked about how math graduates working in actuary were some of the best paid career paths in our college. And I had thought that actuaries worked more with human lifespans than other risks. We'll see if their economic argument carries any weight over the dogmatic and ideologic rationale for dismantling NCAR.
Have a good vacay.
One of my best friends from high school/college became an actuary so I gained some familiarity with the profession and have a lot of respect for it. He ended up going a difference career path but he is a paid subscriber, maybe he will comment. 😇
The solution seems obvious to me: The U.S. is $39 TRILLION in debt; getting worse every month.
The insurance industry is rolling in dough. Let the insurance industry fund NCAR if it is so valuable to the industry. The U.S. P&C industry, alone, had income of $170 BILLION last year, per Grok.
Or, could NCAR be "valuable" because their interests align? More climate alarmism = more justification for higher rates?
I don’t disagree the insurance industry should pick up more of the tab. But we aren’t having the complex conversations needed about that as I allude to in the post - we are just alternating between wild spending and tearing stuff down without constructive rationale. And I have had a lot of conversations with scientists in the insurance industry in recent years, and they at least are not worried about generating higher rates and profits. They are worried about the future of insurance as a concept given what they can see with limited understanding of potential future impacts and truly want better science to understand what the potential risks are.
To be clear: My comment was directed toward the upper management of the insurance industry not the scientists. I know some of the scientists in that industry and they are excellent (and they recently lost one with the untimely passing of Steve Drews).
As you note, it is a fact that papers are being written about topics of direct utility to the insurance industry by NCAR/UCAR and others yet the rest of us are expected to pick up the tab. It is easy for the actuaries to write statements to support NCAR but I don't notice any offer to contribute to its upkeep.
There is precedent for this: the insurance industry used to fund Underwriters Laboratories* to find safer products so -- for example -- there would not be as many house fires. Rates stayed lower than they otherwise would have been and people certainly did not want to burn down their homes. Everybody won.
NCAR has made many valuable contributions over the years. But it is not a sacrosanct entity. It is the job of any administration, R or D, to spend tax dollars in the wisest way possible based on their best judgment. I want to see some sort of plan that would leave NCAR's primary capabilities in place while cutting dollars or a reorg that would make it more valuable while spending the same or fewer dollars.
*It is now an independent company with a similar mission. It is called UL Solutions.