I’m not asking you to do tons of research, i’ve never heard this before, but I think I read up on this myself but are we sure your insurance premiums are directly related to climate change causing more frequent hail or are the increases due to something else? Is it because the insurance company is paying out more claims as larger homes are built? Could it be it’s not so much that the hail storm are more frequent it’s just that the losses are greater because the roofs are larger and more of them?


 Colorado has an extensive hail record due to agriculture.  Roofs are the least of the hail problem as large storms can cripple incomes for many farmers.  There were decades where they believed they could predict patterns in weather, most notable popularized by anecdotal use of The Farmers Almanac.  So hail records are pretty extensive, at least in the Arkansas Valley ag belt that I live in.  This means I can "see" what happens there.

 Why insurance is reducing acceptable roofing timelines and increasing rates has multiple variables.  No insurance company, to my knowledge has said "climate change" is why the roof acceptability changes occurred.  They have however said "more hailstorms"  "increased damage due to larger hail" and "increased frequency".  

 All of those are true.  Hail in CO, in my region, has increased in duration, size and frequency.  That, to me, is change.  I consider hail to be part of the Earth's Climate.  As such, the change in hail is, to me, Climate Change.  I can "see" it, so claiming I do not "see" hail is a poor argument.  Increased cost is a negative impact, and I can also "see" the cost, so claiming I can not "see" increased cost is a poor argument.

 So, to me, the increase in hail damage that I "see" is negative impact based off cost that I can "see", and hail, to me, is climate.  So I can "see" climate change, that has a negative impact.  I have no idea how anyone can claim I can not "see" a climate change that has a negative impact.

I have gone from
Nixon Was a crook to
Well, maybe not.
It took years of seeking little  hints to conclude that he might have been set up.
I'm undecided leaning towards set up.

The Moon...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-_0aYnAcPsY

Aliens did it in cahoots with UL, DFI, FDS, 'tree huggers'  

Newsom BEGGING, and saying, Gimmie, Gimmie, Gimmie,

“There is no success,
American success,
without California’s success,”

I’ve been involved with writing press releases for price increases for companies I’ve worked for. In those we cite all sorts of reasons. Some are valid, so,e are theorized to be valid. An insurance company citing climate change is a theorized reason for increasing insurance. And I’m not sure the claims of more frequent and larger hail storms in rural areas over a timeframe of decades, in which instant communication through email and text was not available for the  majority of that time frame. Communication techniques matter and other historical study, so why wouldn’t it in this one as well? In the 1920s, 30s and 40s, how would we know what the severity of a hailstorm was in a remote area populated only a few farmers and ranchers? And wouldn’t their reports be entirely subjective?


 Of course hail data prior to the modern technological documentation is subjective.  It is plausible that prior to the 1987 data-center implementation that all hail reports were wrong.  Unlikely, but lets say it is true.

 I still consider hail to be climate.  I have personally lived in the region most of my life, or at a minimum been knowledgeable of the weather impacts due to an extensive ag-land exchange that took years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement.  In even that time, I have personally witnessed the direct impacts of more hail volume in the past 13 years.

 Since hail is climate, I have "seen" it change, it seems to be a very poor argument to make that I can not "see" any climate change that has a negative impact.  That's plain ridiculous to claim no human has ever seen a negative impact due to climate change.  That is no different than me claiming you do not "see" the river channel changes that you clearly can see, then claiming it has a positive or negative impact on you.

 Trying to pick apart discrepancies in hail reporting does nothing but avoid the fact that humans can "see" changes in climate and those changes can be negative.  Farmers in my region have "seen" climate changes over time and those changes have not only been positive.