Insurance Business forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Insurance Business | 27 Apr 2015, 08:25 AM Agree 0
An independent Australian council has said that the damage sustained in New South Wales from last week’s storms was exacerbated by climate change, as the ICA releases its latest batch of figures.
  • A Broker | 27 Apr 2015, 10:22 AM Agree 0
    Can you please stop quoting these Lunatics.
    We are sick and tired of hearing of all this nonsense and the educated punters fully understand that our Climate is cyclical and will always be cyclical. The issue we need to deal with is that a large number of geographies are now more densley populated that the past and that obviously creates more exposure to losses from Floods, etc.
    These same Lunatics are the ones who told us that all our dams would dry up and there would be no more rain and we were all doomed, which led to billions being spent on a Desalination Plant....the greatest white elephant for Sydney of recent times.
  • Phil | 27 Apr 2015, 01:17 PM Agree 0
    Totally agree. As a young bloke growing up in Sydney I vividly remember NSW flooding many times in the 50's & 60's, particularly around Maitland. It's nothing new. Our weather records going back 150 years tell us very little about how cyclic our Australian weather patterns are so its time we stopped blaming this so called climate change event which has happened many times over hundreds of thousands of years and guess what, it was not man made back then and is not now.
  • Opinions | 27 Apr 2015, 01:36 PM Agree 0
    Dear 'A Broker', what evidence do you have that Climate Change does not exist? Are you well educated in Weather Science, or someone who closes their eyes and hopes it goes away, rather blaming the cycle?

    A bit strong to call people lunatics without fully understanding the complexities of this issues.
  • The West Australian Perspective | 27 Apr 2015, 02:14 PM Agree 0
    Whilst agreeing that we don't need to get down to name calling, it is however disconcerting that this article appears at best to be irrelevant to the actual event that occurred.
    I am not a meteorologist, but somehow the severe "rain and windstorm event" that occurred have little to do with storm surge and rising oceans in this case or did the media just miss that bit.
    By all means include external experts into a conversation if they are relevant to what we are talking about, but in this case really?
    Just another example of journalistic licence it would seem?
Post a reply