Does Andrew Bolt, the Herald Sun columnist, insure his house against fire?

Why should he? The probability of a modern house in Melbourne burning down is small. Surely it is better to save the insurance premiums than to waste money on such a remote contingency?

I'm sure that as a prudent man Andrew Bolt has insured his house against fire. It may be a remote contingency but if it happens a fire would have catastrophic consequences.

Why is this relevant? Why should we care about Andrew Bolt's fire insurance?

Andrew Bolt is a persistent debunker of theories about human induced global warming. Here is a link to his latest column on the subject.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21788999-25717,00.html

In it he names scientists who he says are climate change sceptics.

Let's be clear on something. We cannot be certain how the Earth's climate will respond to increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. The climate system is too complex for us to model with any degree of confidence. The only way to be certain is to keep pumping out CO2 and see what happens.

What climate models have established is this. There is a RISK, a REAL risk, that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 could result in horrible outcomes. I am sure that even the climate change sceptics that Andrew Bolt cites would agree. The risk is real.

What do we do when faced with a risk of this magnitude?

We buy insurance.

And that's why we should be taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions. Because we can't be sure of the outcomes but we know we face a real risk. The cost of CO2 emission reductions is our insurance premium. The amount of the premium, 1% of GDP according to Sir Nicholas Stern, is peanuts in comparison to the magnitude of the risk. At current global growth rates we're sacrificing less than six months of growth.

That's the real inconvenient truth. We need to pay an insurance premium.

If Andrew Bolt carries fire insurance he's being just a tad hypocritical.

Steven, I agree with what you are saying and thought your post was originally thought out, thank you.

The first thing that came to my mind when I read your title was:
Yeah, if my name was "Bolt" I'd opt for insurance!

Will keep an eye on your thread, just don't have much time to post right now but you have raised a great point.

you left out motivation.

bolt probably has fire insurance. but it pays him to decry global warming. his career is built on saying what some very rich institutions, and some very insecure people, want to hear.

what he actually believes is not necessarily what he says, but he believes certainly in maximizing his income, just like you and me.

Andrew Bolt prefers to influence his readers by banging on about global warming.

I challenge him to write an article on global pollution. Now that's a real science which he is unable to dispute, unless he wants to be certified insane!

Problem is Bolt wouldn't know a VOC from a sock, so he sticks to his inane tripe about global warming.

However, the strategy for mitigating global pollution and the resultant deaths of humans, animals and the eco systems, is the same for global warming - stop polluting!

The recidivist polluters must indeed be in retreat when they employ the very ignorant Bolt to insure against any mitigation in their unethical and obscene profits!

I received the following response from Andrew Bolt:

>>I insure my house against fire, but not against destruction by herds of wildebeest. I also don't pay premiums in excess of the damage insured against.>>

My reply:

Hi Andrew,

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Are you asserting that the risks posed by pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are on a par with the risk of wildebeest destroying a house in Melbourne? In other words, are you saying that the risks are effectively zero?

If that is your position you are, scientifically speaking, on very shaky ground. I don’t think there are many reputable scientists who put the risks at zero. Even the most sceptical of scientists want, at the very least, to see more research just in case.

OR

Is it your position that the net economic damage that increasing greenhouse gas levels could cause are less than 1% of GDP – that in effect Nicholas Stern's suggested "insurance premium" is too high?

Honestly I don't know. If the worst case scenario is 1 – 2% of GDP loss due to increasing greenhouse gas levels then we probably don’t need insurance at all. However even the sceptics seem to agree that if rising greenhouse gas levels pose any threat at all, then the damage would be a substantial position of GDP.

What would you consider a REASONABLE insurance premium?

Of course climate changes will have winners and losers. At the moment the German tourist industry seems to be on a role.

See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6632615.stm

CELIVIA

thank you for your kind words.

DEMOS

I cannot read Andrew Bolt's mind. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I'm assuming that he believes what he writes.

A lot of waffle just to tell everyone that you disagree with Andrew Bolt. Bolt will not change his mind, I will not change my mind and, you will not change your mind.

I think that Mr. Bolt and I probably sleep much better than you do, though, assuming that you are genuinely worried about all that ghastly CO2 - which I believe - as probably does Mr. Bolt - has nothing to do with cyclic, natural climate change.

The main difference is that Mr. Bolt and I believe a different set of scientists from the ones you do. Now, I don't know anything about you, but the difference is probably more a matter of politics than it is with facts (on both sides, of course). I am too old to live long enought to see who was right (we are talking 20-50 years according to your gurus), but I have been around long enough to know that the left-inclined members of our society, when they feel ignored, like to stir up things and frighten people.

I think that this nonsense is just another case of that.