Post

When I talk about how the risk modelling that underpins insurance (among other things) is socially constructed and directly influenced by the corporate interests of insurers, this is what I mean. It's not a conspiracy undermining the science of risk; it's just business-as-usual.

Jathan Sadowski

@jathansadowski.com

Here we have two anonymous whistleblows—a report from (re)insurance executives and an op-ed from an insurance risk modeller—both sounding the alarm about the ways that corporate interest are applying pressure on how climate risks are modelled and priced. • www.insidetrack.org.uk/releases/ins... •

theguardian.comI work for a major insurer. Much of my industry is fudging the numbers in the face of the climate crisis | AnonymousInsurers are taking on more risk than they should. If – or when – a major disaster hits, the catastrophe will have far-reaching consequences, says an anonymous modeller and whistleblower

14/10/26, 11:42 pm3 reposts10 likes

Jathan Sadowski

@jathansadowski.com

We should not be shocked that science and technology have political economy. We should stop pretending otherwise. The stuff of insurance — especially in the face of catastrophic risk and climate change — is far too important to be left to the insurance industry

sebasrowan.bsky.social

@sebasrowan.bsky.social

My dissertation was on flood risk modeling. If you actually read the methodologies for the most state of the art flood consequence models for building damage they are no where near as sophisticated as their marketing materials would have you believe.

Max Lindquist

@maxincontext.bsky.social

How do you fit FEMA/NFIP and state insurers into this, who also often suppress the translation of modeled risk into price, but for affordability/political rather than profit reasons? Is the broad problem that any institution use risk models has competing imperatives that shape what counts as risk?