Canceled policy = you've got an opportunity to get another one when your current one runs out.
Denied claims are of course a problem.
Houston has significant hurricane risk, whether or not you've actually had a problem.
The problem is that it's capital-intensive; people need to eat and make rent for quite a while before the subscriber base is large enough to support them
Failure is indeed possible, though it does look like activism moved the estimates of how hot it's likely to end up by 2100
I tried it. It produces reasonably accurate results a meaningful fraction of the time. The problem is that when it's wrong, it still uses authoritative language, and you can't tell the difference without underlying knowledge.
That's still not into the realm where I trust it; the underlying model is a language model. What you're describing is a recipe for ending up with paltering a significant fraction of the time.
The bots are mostly langauge models, not knowledge models. I don't regard them as sufficiently reliable to do any kind of fact checking.
Basically, the total cost of ownership went up, so the set of potential buyers shrank, and the overall value went down, so the right amount to charge people for taxes is lower.
That's fairly uncommon; what's been happening instead is large-scale non-renewal of insurance policies.
Written by Gavin Schmidt whose career has been defined by heading one of the long-term temperature measurement projects
Edit: auto-correct gave me something other than "measurement" so fixed it.
view more: next ›
When appointing people who have absolutely no clue, he's tended to do better than when appointing those who are actively malicious. Rick Perry famously wanted to abolish the Department of Energy, despite not being able to remember his name, but was probably one of the least-awful Trump appointees, since he seems to have been unaware of its primary mission of nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship until after he was appointed.