Still not a solid argument when you consider they charge a premium based upon the risk and they're a for profit business.
So if they take extra premiums without paying out, guess what?
If after say 3 years of charging extra because of climate change associated risk and they haven't made record profits industry wide. Well then you might have anecdotal evidence, correlation again not you know what.
However if you have record profits as a result of charging extra premiums for climate change risk which doesn't eventuate. Then what would people view that as a sign of?
It still won't convince anyone but the already believers.
