Climate Change Not Something Insurance Is Likely To Cover

Ocean warming from climate change could make some parts of the world “uninsurable,” according to a new report from global insurance trade body, the Geneva Association.

It warns that the speed at which global oceans are warming is threatening the industry’s ability to sell affordable policies around the world, with parts of the United Kingdom (UK) and the U.S. state of Florida already facing “a risk environment that is uninsurable.”

And these areas are unlikely to be the last that will experience such problems.

But in the UK, hundreds of thousands of homeowners in areas at high risk of flooding will still be able to insure their properties, after the government struck a deal with the industry.

The deal—introduced as part of the government’s new water bill—comes just weeks before the current agreement is set to expire and follows lengthy negotiations with the Association of British Insurers.

The agreement will cap flood insurance premiums, linking them to council tax bands so that people in high risk areas will know the maximum they will have to pay, while a levy on all UK household insurers will be used to create a fund to cover claims for people in high-risk homes.

The new bill also includes plans to increase competition in the water market and improve drought resilience. Meanwhile the government announced an extra £370 million of flood protection funding for 2015-2016 and committed to increase funding each year to 2020—adding to the £2.3 billion they say is currently earmarked for flood defenses.

There has been rising friction in recent years between the insurance industry and governments around the world who are struggling to shore up flood protection.

The Geneva Association—which is overseen by executives from some of the world’s largest insurance firms—warns that governments will have to step up their action to protect their towns from the effects of climate change.

Warming oceans have already locked-in shifts in climate, even if countries’ attempts to reduce greenhouse gases proved successful.

John Fitzpatrick, secretary general of the Geneva Association said:

Given that energy from the ocean is a key driver of extreme events, ocean warming has effectively caused a shift towards a “new normal” for a number of insurance relevant hazards. This shift is quasi irreversible—even if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions completely stop tomorrow, oceanic temperatures will continue to rise.
As oceans warm, they expand, contributing to rise sea levels. Melting ice sheets and glaciers are also contributing.

The average global sea has risen nearly 20cm  over the past century—with faster rises seen in more recent years. In its most recent report in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the sea levels rose an average of 1.8mm per year from 1961 to 1993 and 3.1mm from 1993 to 2003.

As well as rising sea levels, scientists believe warmer oceans contribute to an increase in evaporation from the surface of the seas, leading to heavier rains and the potential for more storms.

Such factors may have contributed to Hurricane Sandy, which hit New York and New Jersey last year, costing the U.S. economy about $65 billion, warns the Geneva Association.

Earlier this month, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a $20 billion plan to protect the city from future storms including building flood walls, levees and gates as well as funding for flood proofing measures for property owners and hospitals.

The number of weather catastrophes, including storms, heatwaves and forest fires have risen from around 300 a year in 1980 to around 900 in 2012, according to figures from reinsurer, Munich Re.

The new report calls on governments to invest more in flood defenses and tighten building restrictions in risky locations to mitigate the fallout of extreme weather hazards. They warn of the growing trend for an increasing number, and value, of properties being built along waterways and coastlines—pushing up the cost when disaster hits.

ecowatchEditor’s Note: EarthTechling is proud to repost this article courtesy of EcoWatch. Author credit goes to TckTckTck.

EcoWatch

EcoWatch is a cutting edge news service promoting the work of more than 1,000 grassroots environmental organizations, activists and community leaders worldwide. The site is honed in on the issues of water, air, food, energy and biodiversity, and promotes ongoing environmental campaigns including climate change, fracking, mountaintop removal, factory farming, sustainable agriculture and renewable energy.

    • jnffarrell1

      Not uninsurable, just uncollectable by the insured. Incompetent state insurance boards continue to underestimate the probability of disastrous floods, winds, heat, cold etc. treating events that will occur repeatably within one generation as “improbable” is a disservice to their state, and the US taxpayer. Weather varies over decades and centuries, but when it gets on a nasty roll civilizations that are built on unconservative assumptions fail.

      It would be nice to predict that weather will revert to the mean before it breaks the taxpayers’ bank, but it won’t. Aided and abetted by state Public Utility Commissions building and zoning laws are people are building deadfall traps for themselves. E.G. people who should know better are betting their life savings on beach-front property.

      • ed57

        Your ending is probably true but its neither the state insurance boards, the weather bureau, nor private insurers fault when a calamity strikes. Blame all of us consumers as well as automobiles, ships, trains and factories as well as overpopulation in general.

    • Joe Jones

      I nominate this for a Carl Sagan Junk-Science award. As you may recall, Sagan is the “scientist” who popularized the nuclear winter global cooling hysteria in the early 1990s. He was an early and avid advocate of self-promotion and “popular” science, subsequently to become more accurately and descriptively known today as “Junk-Science”. Junk-Science was valued by Sagan and his followers because it allows an advocate to feel “good” about himself without requiring a factual basis. Sagan has since been eclipsed by Al Gorezeera and BoBama as the preeminent advocates of Junk-Science for the masses as a basis for political power and $$$ grabs.

      • Greg George

        Just make sure your “thought bunker” is above sea level. As the great Bob Dylan said, “Something’s happening here and you don’t know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?”. The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

      • ed57

        It amazes me that there are still so many people like Mr Jones spouting their dribble when the telltale signs are all around. They’ll problably be repeating it right up til the flood or the heatstroke ends their miserable existence.

      • Pete Danko

        Sagan brought attention to the “Nuclear Winter” concept in the early 1980s, and by the late-1980s it had been largely dispelled by the wider scientific community. Your point is?

        • crygdyllyn

          Nuclear winter refers to the winter like weather that would happen after a nuclear war. Nuclear winter concept has not been dispelled. I do not want nuclear war to prove Sagan right, though.

          • Pete Danko

            I know what nuclear winter refers to, thanks. I suppose (given your note) that I should have said it was “largely dispelled.” Thompson and Schneider tore the idea a new one in 1986, allowing for the possibility of a “nuclear autumn,” although they seemed pretty skeptical about that. And Penner, that same year, offered the critique that the Sagan-crowd theory only worked within a very narrow set of variables, and that the best that could be offered as a prediction would be an extremely wide range of possibilities, with extreme cooling only one of the possibilities.

      • ReduceGHGs

        Why the quotes around scientist when referring to Sagan. He WAS a scientist. From Wiki… a bachelor of science in physics in 1955, and a master of science in physics in 1956 before earning a PhD in astronomy and astrophysics in 1960.
        As for Gore… He’s been informing hundreds of millions about climate change for over 30 years. No, it’s not “junk science” silly. It’s what EVERY respected scientific institution around the world concluded when the considered the issue; HUMANS are warming the planet and the consequences are not good.
        The $$$ grab is that of the coal industry and billionaires like the koch oil brothers. They spread propaganda to confuse the public, to inject doubt where no credible doubt exists. Wake up joe. or you’ll risk sounding like joe dirt.

      • Ted

        Joe Jones, such a pro climate denier AstroTurfer you are! How much do the Kock brothers pay you per post anyway? Though you may want to step up your game, you’re getting lazy, just take a look at your Discus profile. Copy and pasted the same Carl Sagan spiel to 5 different sites? ( you can also google “I nominate this for a Carl Sagan Junk-Science award.” and see all the sites) You may want to ask your supervisor for fresh material! But hey it’s all going down the shit can, may as well get paid while you can!

        • Peter Horak

          Nobody pays him, he’s just plain brainwashed. That’s normal. It is just like belief in god. You pick your god, and then you believe. No questions asked.

    • Mark Goldes

      Revolutionary new technologies promise rapid replacement of fossil fuels.

      See examples at http://www.aesopinstitute.org

    • Tony R.

      Quoting the IPCC as an authority on climate change in this article has about as much weight as quoting Daffy Duck.

      • ReduceGHGs

        The IPCC is very credible. They considered hundreds of studies from around the world. Sure, the vested interests use effective propaganda on the uninformed, the gullible, and those that prefer denial. It doesn’t change reality. Reality… ALL our respected scientific institutions from NAS to AAAS to AGU to MET agree on the core issue. Humans are warming the planet mostly by burning fossil fuels and clearing the land. This is well established. Not WANTING to believe may make some feel better about the world they live in but that denial won’t stop our only habitat from degrading. We need to change the ways we generate and use energy or future generations will suffer for our ignorance and greed. Don’t be an Elmer! http://www.nonstick.com/characters/elmer.html

        • Riiight . Like when they published that the Himalayan glaciers will all melt in 30 years . And they don’t even follow their own rules on the much vaunted “peer review” .

          • ReduceGHGs

            So because some predictions didn’t turn out just they they thought the science supporting human-caused climate change must also be wrong? Really?
            Science is about observing what’s taking place and constantly adjusting theories to reflect reality. This uncharted journey we’re on will have many surprises, many unexpected events. I recommend not looking for ways to deny reality.

            • Tony R.

              Science is not about adjusting the data to fit a political agenda. You seem to have missed that subtle distinction.

            • ReduceGHGs

              Part of the conclusions coming out were political. To get China and the U.S. to sign off the IPCC warnings/risk factors had to be softened. If the IPCC had been allowed to just report the review of the hundreds of studies their conclusions would have been that humans are MORE at risk.

              But say you don’t like the IPCC at all. Toss their finding out. What are you left with?

              Try finding out what the experts have been saying for years rather than being distracted by the IPCC.

            • Roger Bird

              ReduceGHGs, if you want to reduce GHG, stop breathing.

            • ReduceGHGs

              Yea, I hear that from adolescents.

            • Some predictions ? An absurdity like that shows either total ignorance or utter sloppy incompetence .

            • ReduceGHGs

              Yea, it’s easy to be critical especially when such propaganda is spread by vested interests (and it is).
              But rather than beating the dead horse, if you really want the latest science, review what the many other scientific institutions around the world have been saying.

            • You talking about the torrent of propaganda coming out of the incredibly well funded watermelons ? This battle for rationality and the scientific method is waged by billions in State funds versus millions plus an incredible amount of uncompensated time by many of us disgusted by this willful stupidity against the building block of life .

              I actually don’t know any presentation on the web of the most basic quantitative physics of planetary temperature than my own website .

            • ReduceGHGs

              So YOU are the expert that knows more about climate change than does NASA, NAS, AAAS, or AGU? Good one!
              .
              Sorry but the foundation of our respected scientific institutions is their “integrity” and “credibility”. Without it they could not exist. And what of the many scientists that complete the work? They would not risk their hard-earned careers by falsifying data and/or conclusions. To believe you there would have to be a global 30+ year conspiracy with ALL of the scientific bodies in on it! Another good one!

              But you on the other hand risk nothing by making baseless accusations. If you actually believe them, I’m no doc, but it sounds delusional.

            • I know how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball — which is more than you do .

            • ReduceGHGs

              Your perspective of what I do and don’t know is too limited to make ANY determinations.
              But clearly you THINK your skills are superior to that of the experts at NASA.
              Yea, keep calculating!

            • Not the NASA people I’ve met , but then those I’ve met are realists too .

              It’s all about calculation .

            • ReduceGHGs

              I’ll bet on NASA. Odds are are slim that you know better. It’s all about probabilities.

            • Here are a bunch of NASA realists : http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/ .

              If you work thru the radiative balance computations on my site , you will see Hansen’s claim that Venus is a “runaway greenhouse effect” does not compute . I’m working on a slide show to make this understandable and testable at a high school physics level for presentation this fall .

            • ReduceGHGs

              LOL! Source credibility is basic to research.
              Have a good one!

            • Huh ?

        • Tony R.

          The IPCC has zero credibility — none whatsoever — since it was revealed that they’ve been fudging the data.

    • dlewenz

      The trend is very easy to see, cost to insure will go up significantly
      in high tide areas. Once the cost lines in FL experience a new round of hurricanes
      as 2005-2006 which may happen yet this year, the ability to secure affordable
      insurance will not be an option. Real-estate value will fall like a rock making
      the depression pricings look like a cake walk

    • Dom Deluge

      are there a bigger bunch of dolts on earth than the “climate change” “global warming” set? they claim to have undeniable PROOF and that 99.9% of scientists agree . . . yet MOST people think it’s a hoax. how TERRIBLE can you be at the art of persuasion?

      • Eliot

        Climatologist and related professional vs. a poll of FOX News viewers… …I have some beach property to sell you in Florida…

      • rokidtoo

        Science never claims undeniable truth. However, the over whelming majority of scientists believe we are experiencing global warming and that global warming is caused by human activity. If you want to deny scientific evidence and “believe” something else, that’s your right. I just hope you’re not in a policy making position.

        The fact that some people believe global warming is a hoax is irrelevant. There are also lots of people that believe the earth is only 5,000 years old. It’s not scientists’ fault that people continue to have irrational beliefs.

      • Peter Horak

        As we all know, people believe what they are told. Since owners of GOP also own most of the news outlets (Fox, etc), they provide information that works for them. I mean, imagine sitting on trillions of dollars worth of oil. Wouldn’t you try to convince public, that we simply need that harmless oil ?

        • Roger Bird

          Your stereotypes are absurd.

          First, news organizations do not have the same politics as their stockholders. In fact, 93% of all reporters are registered Democrats. But hundreds of unorganized stockholders would have NO say in the politics of the companies that they “own”; their only rights would be the profits, not the politics of the company.

          Second, “(Fox, etc)”, I notice that you could not expand out the “etc” because if you did you would end up mentioning almost entirely liberal news outlets like ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and others.

          Third, you are also a person who believes what you have been told, only not what you have been told by news outlets by but scientists who have vested intellectual and financial interests in perpetrating the AGW mistake. If you would but look at the evidence, you would realize that you have been punked: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/global-warming-in-a-few-slides.php

          Fourth, it doesn’t matter because LENR/cold fusion is here to stay this time, and it is for real.

      • Dom Deluge

        weak responses. proves my point. keep riding that same tired horse

    • Roger Bird

      The climate may change, but manmade CO2 powered climate change is over: LENR/cold fusion and Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat have been proven to be real. It is getting closer to becoming a commercial product. Check out these websites:

      http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html

      http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/interest-in-lenr-device-resurges-as-independent-report-is-released-2013-06-07

      http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

      And this site gives an excellent round up: http://tinyurl.com/BigPictureOfLENR1

      And here is a good forum about it: http://www.e-catworld.com/

      • Eliot

        This seem to be a nickel to copper transmutation. Does the residual thermal energy make up for the energy input required to create the plasma and the start up heat source? You citation says the start up was before the experiment began.

        I have a hard time believing that is “cold fusion”More likely vaporized metal in a Hydrogen atmosphere with a high voltage charge passing through it, thus knocking the proton from the Hydrogen and turning the nickel to copper. Left behind are some pissed off electrons that turn to photons, e.g., infrared light. I hope I’m wrong and it’s a quantum atom tunneling device that produce unlimited power and a unicorn or two.

        Now, back to the story of how industry is now agreeing with science…

        • Roger Bird

          Eliot, no one is sure how it works. But the 3 tests and many other tests are all black box tests: power out divided by power in, and the result is much greater than 1. I’ll let the boffins figure out how it works.

    • benedizzle

      Even though some people may not believe in climate change, the insurance industry does, and that is a real world consequence that people need to deal with.

      • Peter Horak

        It almost sounds like the insurance capitalists are too liberal in their opinions 🙂

    • mrgaleeboulton

      It’s NO SECRET that Sun Bus of Thousand Palms has been running full-size city buses on Solar/Hydrogen energy, not diesel. Results; NO emissions and ZERO fuel costs. Water is pumped into the fuel tank. Arrays of solar cells on the roof of the vehicle generate enough electricity to operate a device which splits water into

      into its 2 components, hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is compressed in a tank to fuel the retrofit engine, water vapor returns to the atmosphere. IT WAS FEATURED IN STORIES IN THE DESERT SUN OF PALM SPRINGS and on TV

      when I lived there in 2000 to 2005. It was said that ANY University mechanical engineering department can develop these systems.They pay for themselves!!!

      Using off-the-shelf components, buses,trucks and RVs can be retrofitted NOW.

      Dramatically reducing the need for more sources of oil, like the Keystone XL pipeline, off shore drilling with its disasters and hazardous tanker ships.

    • mrgaleeboulton

      As the legal beagles say, TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE, we can’t wait for space buddies to give us the secrets of magnetic propulsion. or nuclear fusion, we have the simple SOLAR/HYDROGEN technology and components at hand RIGHT HERE AND NOW.

      AMERICA NEEDS JOBS, rapidly retrofitting our fleets of trucks and buses to S/H will be a WW2 size effort.

      I HAVE HEARD CHINA AND RUSSIA ARE WORKING ON IT, we must get busy, too.

    • mrgaleeboulton

      IS IT HOT HERE, OR IS IT JUST ME/

    • Brad Arnold

      Don’t worry, because a new clean and very very cheap energy technology is about to emerge onto the market (it is already being sold, but soon a showcase site will be set up in Sweden). People will be forced by the market to switch to this clean energy to stay competitive. Here is a primer:

      Check out this third-party verification of a LENR reactor that will soon hit the market: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
      “Given the deliberately conservative choices made in performing the measurement, we can reasonabley state that the E-Cat HT is a non-conventional source of energy which lies between conventional chemical sources of energy and nuclear ones.” (i.e. about five orders of magnitude more energy dense than gasoline, and a COP of almost 6).

      This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

      “Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical…” –Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center

      “Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry.” –Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA

      By the way, here is a survey of some of the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html

      For those who still aren’t convinced, here is a paper I wrote that contains some pretty convincing evidence: http://coldfusionnow.org/the-evidence-for-lenr/

      • Roger Bird

        Wow, Brad, I am impressed. I am going to check out some of these links in your comment. Thanks!

    • mjonesx

      The article points out the obvious, we have changed the planet, it is a new transformed climate system that is going to continue to morph as we humans continue to pour CO2 in the atmosphere. What we do not realize Physics and Chemistry have their own “laws”, and politics do not factor in them. Seems the branch of government that still is in denial, Congress, will not act. President Obama’s plan only reduces CO2 output to a little under 1990 levels. Worldwide emissions have grown by 50% since 1990. We are not reducing emissions at all and not nearly fast enough.

    • Holy Moly Guacamole

      Insurance won’t cover “Global Warming” because it isn’t real…. it won’t cover Climate Change because its been happening for millions of years and will continue for millions of years…..

      • ReduceGHGs

        It’s real to the world’s respected scientific institutions. YOU may not believe it but your perspective is most likely limited.
        Try researching what the experts have been saying for years. Not WANTING to be it’s true is no excuse for rejecting the overwhelming evidence.

    • Kelfin Planck

      Mark Goldes’ “Aesop Institute” is simply an elaborate fraud.

      Mark Goldes, starting in the mid-seventies, engaged for several years in the pretense that his company SunWind Ltd was developing a nearly production-ready, road-worthy, wind-powered “windmobile,” based on the windmobile invented by James Amick; and that therefore SunWind would be a wonderful investment opportunity.

      After SunWind “dried up” in 1983, Goldes embarked on the long-running pretense that his company Room Temperature Superconductors Inc was developing room-temperature superconductors; and that therefore Room Temperature Superconductors Inc would be a wonderful investment opportunity. He continues the pretense that the company developed something useful, even to this day.

      And then Goldes embarked on the pretense that his company Magnetic Power Inc was developing “NO FUEL ENGINES” based on “Virtual Photon Flux;” and then, on the pretense that MPI was developing horn-powered “NO FUEL ENGINES” based on the resonance of magnetized tuning-rods; and then, on the pretense that his company Chava LLC (aka “Chava Energy”) was developing water-fueled engines based on “collapsing hydrogen orbits” (which are ruled out by quantum physics); and then, on the pretense that he was developing strictly-ambient-heat-powered “NO FUEL ENGINES” (which are ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

      But of course, the laws of physics always make an exception for the make-believe pretenses of Mark Goldes.

      Goldes’ forty-year career of “revolutionary breakthrough” pretense has nothing to do with science, but only with pseudoscience, pseudophysics, and relentless flimflam, in pursuit of loans and donations from gullible people who never mastered physics very well.

      Mark Goldes’ “Aesop Institute” has engaged for many years in the very dishonest and unscrupulous practice of soliciting loans and donations under an endless series of false pretenses, that it is developing and even “prototyping” various “revolutionary breakthroughs,” such as “NO FUEL ENGINES” that run on ambient heat alone – or run on “Virtual Photon Flux” – or on “Collapsing Hydrogen Orbits” – or even on the acoustic energy of sound from a horn.

      Aesop Institute’s make-believe strictly ambient heat engine is ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This has been understood by physicists for at least 180 years. There is no “new science” that has ever determined such an engine to be possible.

      Aesop Institute’s make-believe “Virtual Photon Flux” engine is based on the idea that accessible electric power “is everywhere present in unlimited quantities” – which we know to be false.

      Aesop Institute’s make-believe “Collapsing Hydrogen Orbits” engine is based on Randell Mills’ theory of “hydrino” hydrogen, which every scientist knows to be false.

      Aesop Institute’s make-believe horn-powered engine is based on the pretense that a magnetized tuning rod could somehow “multiply energy” – a ludicrous notion, which is obviously ruled out by the law of conservation of energy.

      Aesop Institute’s very latest make-believe engine is a perpetual motion machine in the form of a self-powered air compressor, which proposes to use a turbine to compress air to spin the turbine to compress air to spin the turbine.

      Aesop Institute has never offered the slightest shadow of evidence that it is actually developing or “prototyping” any of these make-believe physics-defying “revolutionary breakthroughs.” All it has ever offered are mere declarations that it is doing so – unsupported by any proof whatever, of any kind whatever.

      There are no “revolutionary breakthroughs” to be found on Goldes’ fraudulent “Aesop Institute” website. There is only pseudoscience, relentless flimflam, and empty claims of engines that are ruled out by the laws of physics.

      http://physicsreviewboard.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/perpetual-flimflam-machine-mark-goldes-fraudulent-aesop-institute/

    • WillliamJohnsonn

      After founding Magnetic Power Inc in the mid-eighties, Mark Goldes and MPI proceeded to develop most of the fraudcraftings which would serve as Goldes’ offerings in fraudcraft for the next thirty years, not only at MPI, but also at Chava Energy LLC, and at his so-called “Aesop Institute.” Goldes’ partnership with Hagen Ruff, the other Co-founder (as well as CEO) of Chava Energy LLC, gave the Goldes-MPI fraudcraft a new lease on life, and accordingly it may now be termed most properly the “Goldes-Ruff Fraudcraft.” For the past five years or more, while serving as a Co-founder and a Chief Officer of Chava Energy LLC, Goldes used his mgoldes @ chavaenergy dot com email address as his Aesop Institute email address as well, at least until his very recent ejection from Chava Energy. In practice, Goldes made continual use of Aesop Institute to bring investors to Chava Energy, which for five years has based its pretenses on nearly all the same fraudcraft used by Goldes at Aesop Institute. The common fraudcraft included the fraudcraftings of pretended development of water-fueled “Fractional Hydrogen” engines, of generators supposedly powered by Zero Point Energy, of “Ultraconductor” wire and “Ultraconductor” energy storage systems, and of strictly ambient heat engines – along with endless false claims that these concepts were currently being “prototyped,” and would soon provide wonderful alternatives to fossil fuels.

      For five years, Hagen Ruff allowed Mark Goldes, a Co-founder as well as a Chief Officer of Chava Energy, not only to use his mgoldes @ chavaenergy dot com email address to solicit loans to Goldes’ so-called “Aesop Institute,” but simultaneously to solicit loans to Aesop Institute and investments in Chava Energy in the course of discussions and communications with prospects who had reached Goldes by way of aesopinstitute. In effect, Ruff allowed Aesop Institute to become a fund-raising extension of Chava Energy. Starting in 2009, if not before, Goldes posted thousands of fraudulent comments advertising the aesopinstitute website and promoting the Goldes-Ruff fraudcraftings on dozens of different websites. On Huffington Post alone, as the user “Overtone,” he posted over three thousand such comments. When people contacted Goldes after visiting the aesopinstitute website, they would learn from Goldes not only about Aesop Institute but also about Chava Energy, and Goldes would solicit loans to Aesop Institute or investment in Chava Energy, whichever the prospect preferred, at the same time. This was his standard practice for years. By allowing this entangling of Aesop Institute with Chava Energy LLC, Ruff has incurred responsibility not only for the false and fraudulent pretenses of Chava Energy, but for those of Mark Goldes’ “Aesop Institute” as well. For this reason, although neither the Kenneth Rauen strictly ambient heat engine pretense nor the Boris Kondrashov self-powered turbine pretense have been directly used or presented by Chava Energy, as they have by Aesop Institute, they still deserve full recognition within the ensemble of Goldes-Ruff fraudcraftings.

      For five years since it was founded, Chava Energy LLC tried to promote itself chiefly by means of false and fraudulent claims and pretenses, that it was developing “revolutionary energy breakthroughs,” including “Fractional Hydrogen” engines utilizing nonexistent states of hydrogen, magical Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, and magnetic generators supposedly harnessing Zero Point Energy.

      An “MPI Overview And Summary” produced by MPI in late 2008 actually lists Hagen Ruff as the Chief Executive Officer of MPI, as well as a Director of MPI; Mark Goldes, who had been the CEO of MPI for two decades, is listed only as Chairman. This document also shows that a major component 0f the Goldes-Ruff Fraudcraft was already well developed in 2008: namely, the fraudulent pretense that the worthless “revolutionary breakthroughs” claimed by Goldes and Ruff could provide alternatives to fossil fuels and thereby shift the global economy “from one dependent on fossil fuels to one that exists on clean, fuel-free, distributed power” and thereby “help offset the consequences of global warming.” At the time when Hagen Ruff, as CEO of MPI, allowed this and many similar statements to be included in the 2008 “MPI Overview,” MPI was claiming among its “breakthroughs” all but one of the seven fraudcraftings – all but Kondrashov’s self-powered air compressor, which
      Goldes discovered in 2013. Ruff and Goldes knew perfectly well that not one of MPI’s six claimed “breakthroughs” represented anything more than an empty pretense.

      If Chava Energy’s claims regarding their pretended Revolutionary Breakthrough development of “Fractional Hydrogen” “SPICE” engines, Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, “Ultraconductor” wire, “Ultraconductor Energy Storage Systems,” and Zero Point Energy harvesting “MagGen” generators were not false and fraudulent, why did Hagen Ruff suddenly remove those claims from Chava’s website?

      In fact, all of those fraudulent claims came originally from the very same source: Chava Energy Co-founder and Chief Market Research Officer Mark Goldes, and Goldes’ previous company, Magnetic Power Inc.

      We do find and state that Hagen Ruff’s Chava Energy LLC has made a great many utterly false and fraudulent claims and statements, showing very unscrupulous dishonesty, on the matters of “Fractional Hydrogen” engines, Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, and “MagGen” generators that supposedly harness Zero Point Energy. Chava Energy’s claims and statements regarding “Ultraconductor” wire and “Ultraconductor Energy Storage Systems” were also false and dishonest in various ways.

      The relentless and pervasive dishonesty, fraudulence, and unscrupulousness, that characterized Mark Goldes’ use of his company Magnetic Power Inc for over twenty years prior to the founding of Chava Energy LLC, has also characterized Mark Goldes’ and Hagen Ruff’s use of Chava Energy LLC and Aesop Institute since 2009.

      http://fraudcraft-of-chava-energy-llc.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-goldes-ruff-fraudcraft-of-mpi-chava.html