Car Insurance Comparison – Home, Life, Business & Travel Insurance Quotes

Please fill in the form below including the details of the business insurance you require and we will call you back

Alternativly you can ring 1800776445

ANOTHER NEW PLAYER

Just this month, the Australian car insurance market has welcomed another player into its ranks. Progressive Corp is a US car insurance company, and has launched a new internet based car insurance product into the Australian market. The name of the product is Progressive Direct; which has been used to describe its online nature and the ability to bypass call centres and perform every aspect of the car insurance policy online.

The Australian car insurance industry is dominated by two big players: Insurance Australia Group and Suncorp. These two companies control around 75% of the Australian car insurance market, through brands such as NRMA, RACV, GIO and AAMI, as well as a host of other specialist insurance brands.

This market domination; combined with a large market size and rising car insurance rates has spelled the perfect time for other brands to undercut the big boys and capture some of the market share. The entry of Progressive Corp into the car insurance industry follows hot on the heels of a few other major new entrants, such as Virgin, Australia Post and Real Insurance.

It may seem that Progressive Direct is going to have a tough time slugging it out with the other new kids on the block, but their innovative business model and strong financial backing indicate otherwise. Last week they secured an APRA (Australian Prudential Regulation Authority) insurance licence, which indicates they have a tremendous amount of capital behind the Australian venture. Strong financial reserves may allow them to undercut the other insurance companies in premiums to gain a substantial market share.

IS IT ANY DIFFERENT?

The major difference with Progressive Direct compared to the other car insurance companies is the ability to perform all facets of the insurance policy over the internet. This includes signing up and purchasing policies, managing the policy, and even making a claim online. However, call centre support will be available to customers if necessary; especially for large payouts and complex claims.

With almost every other industry listening to customer requests and transforming themselves into more online friendly models, Progressive Direct has taken the first step for the car insurance market. They are specifically targeting customers who prefer to bypass those half hour waits while on hold to call centres, especially for simple matters such as changing an address on a policy.

Online insurance is tremendously popular overseas; particularly in the US where the parent company Progressive Corp is based. They are the fourth largest US motor insurer and have developed a business model based online, which provides them with a superior claims management process and lower costs. Currently only 8% of Australian car insurance sales are made online, which presents Progressive Direct with an excellent opportunity to gain a substantial market share once more Australians make the move to cheaper and more efficient internet based car insurance.

Australians who already perform their banking online are just one of the groups who Progressive Direct will be targeting as their customers. Similar to internet banking, customers will be able to manage their accounts online and save significant money at the same time. With other aspects such as providing quotes and taking policy details no longer requiring expensive staffing costs, Progressive Direct has drastically reduced their overheads. Providing customers with retail outlets is also another major expense which they have managed to cut from their outgoings with an online model.

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?

Although they will probably be operating with the least overheads of all the Australian car insurance companies, Progressive Direct are not expecting a sudden jump to the top of the car insurance market. Instead, they are planning to gradually build their market presence; but at this stage have not revealed their specific revenue or profit targets.

Progressive Direct’s initial focus will be on using digital advertising to build a customer base for private car insurance. From there, they will gradually expand into commercial, motorbike and other vehicle insurance categories. No plans are on the cards to move into the general insurance market; such as providing home and contents insurance. If the move was to occur, they would need to find another company to underwrite the policies, since the parent company Progressive Corp is a specialist motor insurer.

All in all, don’t expect Progressive Direct to tackle the big boys of motor insurance head on, but instead offer a great value for money product that will allow them to carve their own niche in the car insurance market. The entry of Progressive Direct into the Australian car insurance industry is great news for consumers, with its online business model sure to keep the premium hikes under control and possibly even trending on the decline.

Continued from Emails prove Climate Change is Fake – Part 2

THAT’S WHERE THE MONEY IS

Why would Phil Jones and the rest of the CRU staff become involved in the world’s greatest ever scientific fraud? Simple – the answer is money. It is an all too common problem within the scientific community at present, with practically every scientist being forced to prostitute themselves to maintain their livelihood. Phil Jones shouldn’t take too much of the heat, because if it wasn’t him, then it would have been someone else in his position doing the same thing.

The sad fact is that there are basically no real jobs anywhere in the world for scientists, and they are instead heavily reliant on research grants for their funding. Scientific studies are expensive and the scientists demand top dollar for their superior academic minds. Companies and governments don’t request scientific studies to be nice; they request them so they can use the results to their advantage. This means that the scientists are told what results they should come up with upfront, and they have to manipulate the data to come to the required conclusions.

If a scientist dare present the real results of their studies, it effectively prevents them from gaining any research grants in the future. If the Philip Morris tobacco company wants a study done on smoking, do you think they will hire an honest scientist or one who give them the results they want? If the Motorola mobile phone company wants a study done on mobile phone use causing brain cancer, do you think they will hire an honest scientist or one who give them the results they want? Going against the funding company’s wishes spells the end to a scientist’s career. Scientists who have gone against the grain have ended up being shunned by universities and unable to win research grants for the rest of their careers.

WHO PAID THE CRU?

One of the leaked documents details the funding sources and projects of the CRU over the time period from 1991 to early 2006. Almost fourteen million pounds (AUD $25 Million) were listed on the document as research funding, but we do not know whether this is a full list of all funding sources. One thing is for sure, even if this is the only funding sources list, Phil Jones is sure to be a very rich man.

The Department of Environment in the UK kicked off the funding with a near 200,000 pound project back in 1991. Some of the other early requests came from NATO, the EU, UK National Rivers Authority, US Department of Energy, and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).

The EU and the US Dept of Energy were the most frequent donors, mainly requesting models and graphs to detail the environmental effects that future climate change would be responsible for. The biggest single donor was jointly from HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) and JIF (Joint Infrastructure Fund) and totalled almost 7 million pounds.

Some of the project names seem to provide proof that there were deliberate requests for ‘modified’ data to promote the climate change agenda, such as the EU request for ‘Statistical and regional dynamical downscaling of extremes for European regions’. They didn’t like the real data, so they needed the extremes downscaled to suit their needs. Other examples of producing new data to counter the old are ‘Update and re-examination of temperature indices for Scotland and Northern Ireland’, or ‘eliminating climate sensitivity and thermohalene circulation influences’ on Holocene proxy data sets, and also ‘Development of an improved global historic surface temperature dataset’.

The last donor request is an interesting one. It is a near three million pound study called ‘Tyndall Phase 2′ requested by NERC. Tyndall was a 19^th century scientist who was famous for his studies on a variety of subjects, including both heat in the earth’s atmosphere and glaciers. It is quite ironic that his name is used by the CRU, considering that Tyndall’s studies on the absorption of heat by gases in the atmosphere proved water vapour is the main absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and the principal gas which controls air temperature, while all others gases including carbon dioxide have basically no effect on air temperature.

WHY THEY LIED ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE

Considering that the leaked data proves climate change is a scam, many people wonder why the governments of the world and their respective agencies are handing over millions of dollars to companies like the CRU to produce false climate change temperature models. It is all part of an agenda to bring all countries under one global government, and the proof can be found throughout several source documents.

The evidence can be found in UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) papers such as “The UNEP That We Want” and “Proposed Medium Term Strategy 2010-2013″, which both outline the program to implement a global governance system based around environmental laws and regulations. A particular strategy mentioned in the papers is “recruiting a far wider community of support, in civil society, the academic world and the private sector.” and then ensure they are “harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments”. The UNEP just happens to be the regulatory body which established the IPCC, which then appointed itself as the supreme international climate authority.

A leaked email from the CRU back in 2000 also provides confirmation of the IPCC involvement in pushing the globalisation agenda. “It was good to see you again yesterday – if briefly. One particular thing you said – and we agreed – was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO.” This shows that the IPCC has nothing to do with saving the planet from global warming, but rather its main purpose is to advance the pre-determined agenda of the global elite.

CLIMATE FEAR IS THE NAME OF THE GAME

The leaked emails and documents and the respective fallout has become known as the ‘Climategate’ scandal. Establishments such as the CRU, IPCC and UNEP have all been instigated in Climategate, and have played their part in conspiring to hide evidence of global cooling while pushing the world population into an unwanted and unelected global government. An act such as this would normally have fallen short of its goal many years ago, but the global elite behind the agenda have successfully engaged the public support through the use of clever fear tactics.

The ‘Club of Rome’ is a premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations. They have previously been quoted on record presenting a seemingly outrageous plan to use global warming to turn mankind into its own greatest enemy, with “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Unfortunately for the global population, the Club of Rome was successful in making the public believe in a fake climate change problem. The use of lies and deceptions has also been admitted by one of the IPCC lead men, Stanford Professor of Climatology Stephen Schneider, who was quoted as saying “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” The use of fabricated fear tactics was also suggested by Emeritus professor Daniel Botkin when he said “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”

Government figures have also been caught out playing middle-men for the one-world government agenda, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who was quoted as saying “Climate change makes us all global citizens, we are truly all in this together.” Over in Canada, Christine Stewart, the former Canadian Minister of the Environment echoed the same sentiment with “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

THE ELITE END GOAL

Ultimately, the global elite want to usher in their own hand picked world government, which bypasses any kind of democratic election system. At the same time, they will hit the middle class where it hurts most – in their pockets – by introducing a raft of new regulations and laws. Businesses will be affected by having to adhere to impossible CO2 mandates and face restrictions on industries available and technologies they can deploy, while environmentalism will become the religion of choice for most of the world.

A pay as you pollute scheme is on the cards for every human being worldwide, such as the one already put forward in the UK by Britains Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, David Miliband. The man who also maintains regular contact with Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, plans to issue every world citizen with a ‘carbon credit card’; starting in the UK. Every time someone buys petrol, pays an electricity bill or books an airline ticket, they will be forced to swipe their ‘carbon credit card’. The globalist plan is to issue every single person on earth a card and a balance of 1,000 points to spend each year. When you use up your points, you must purchase additional ‘carbon credits’ from a carbon credit trading firm. This crazy idea is nothing more than a socialist international wealth redistribution scheme.

The UN has admitted that the primary source of income for the world government will be the carbon tax. So while the general public and business community are forking out money left, right and centre on their ‘carbon credit cards’, a select few will be collecting the money and living a life of luxury. Private Banks have been financing the carbon cap and trade scheme, which will create a new form of derivatives based on carbon credits. The UN will be in full control of the industry, and have the power to decide who is able to buy and sell carbon credits. This allows a select few banks and brokerage firms to have control over the carbon market and ensure they generate substantial profits.

Climate change has been exposed as a massive fraud designed to transfer more wealth from the poor to the rich. The global elite seem to be following the advice of Adolf Hitler with their climate change scam, which was “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” Science has officially gone to bed with world governments. The only solution to receive unbiased climate change advice is to keep climate science well away from lobbyists, NGO’s, advocates, professional environmentalists, and crooks like Al Gore.

Continued from Emails prove Climate Change is Fake – Part 1

DATA DESTRUCTION AND SUPPRESSION

As the climate change research results presented by the CRU seemed to be fraudulent, there were requests made to view their hard data under the Freedom of Information Act. Once a request is made to view the data, it is illegal to destroy that data; but this is precisely what the CRU did. They had argued that there were problems storing the vast amounts of data, with deleting the data being the only solution. This sounded like a plausible explanation, but a 2005 email from Phil Jones shows that this is a lie, and the data was most likely deliberately deleted. It read “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

Phil Jones also requested other information be deleted in his email to Michael Mann, which read “Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” The subject line for this email was “IPCC & FOI”, which is proof that these characters are guilty of the crime of deleting information subject to a FOI (Freedom of Information) request.

The Caspar referred to in the above email is Caspar Ammann, who was also listed as the cc in another email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann and Raymond Bradley, which read “You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this.” As stated above, the way around this was to delete the emails. Their climate projections have always been questionable, which is why they would never release their data and have now managed to ‘lose it’. Isn’t it amazing how all the raw data they have based their computer generated forecasts, graphs, projections and models on has magically become ‘lost’?

TAX DODGES AND THREATS

In addition to the wealth evidence detailing fraud, there is also proof of further crimes including tax evasion, such as the following email quote “Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.”

One of the more damaging emails was a promise by Phil Jones to ‘spike’ studies showing there is no relationship between human activity and global warming. He wrote to Michael Mann saying “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” In another email, Mann wrote back to Jones saying “This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature.’ Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

Then there was the case of the Wang Fabrications. Both Wang and Phil Jones were investigated for fabricating data back in 1990. Although an investigation cleared Phil Jones of any involvement, he continued to use the same data in his reports, as was detailed in an email which read “Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems with Wang’s claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report from the IPCC. It would be nice to hear the explanation for this. Phil?” The author of the email also admits to attempting to force Wang to issue a retraction, and includes threats such as prosecution; while he also mulls over having a retraction printed in Wang’s name without his knowledge or consent.

AUSTRALIAN INVOLVEMENT

Surprisingly, Australia has managed to become embroiled in the controversy, although only in relation to the weather data used in the climate models. A programmers log details notes criticising the plethora of inaccuracies it contains and is admittedly quite a humorous read.

The programmer describes the multitude of entry errors, duplications and inaccuracies as a “bloody mess”. Some of the problems included missing WMO (World Meteorological Organisation) codes, incorrect co-ordinates and overlapping station names. The programmer went on to rant “Getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data … so many false references … so many changes … bewildering.” His frustration is understandable, particularly when uncovering 30 years of fake data, which culminated in him writing “Now looking at the dates. something bad has happened … COBAR AIRPORT AWS [automatic weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!”

The problems are not limited to Australia, and issues were occurring with the raw historical climate data sent from hundreds of other meteorological stations around the world. Another classic rant read “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar co-ordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.”

Other nations of the world have become embroiled in the CRU controversy even more than Australia, such as in the US, where both their Congress and EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) are taking action to stop global warming based on data from the CRU. Oklahoma Senator, James Inhofe, called for a Senate hearing into the emails. There could be similar situations faced by a number of other nations, since the CRU was the main supplier of data used to create solutions to tackle climate change.

THE RULES OF THE GAME

Another interesting document to make its way into the public arena is called ‘The rules of the game’. Essentially, it is the strategy document for UK climate change promoters, and details the tactics and mindset they should employ to promote their agenda. The document starts off with the question “Why were the principles created?” and is answered with “The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it”. The document features a number of interesting points, such as:

• Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but unimportant.
• Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works. Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise (or remember) that climate change relates to them.
• Use both peripheral and central processing. Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to public transport.
• Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations. Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are all worth investigating.
• Use transmitters and social learning. People learn through social interaction, and some people are better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are transmitted more effectively.
• Government policy and communications on climate change must be consistent. Don’t ‘build in’ inconsistency and failure from the start.
• Create ‘agency’ for combating climate change. Agency is created when people know what to do, decide for themselves to do it, have access to the infrastructure in which to act, and understand that their contribution is important.
• Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice on climate change. We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can call upon to explain the implications of climate change to the UK public.
• Use emotions and visuals. Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions and visuals usually do.

Yes, this sounds like the same climate change misinformation campaigns that are being seen across the globe. They have tried to bring the issue to the fronts of everyone’s minds, using peripheral messages, and emotions and visuals such as those fake global warming world maps for 50 years in the future, videos of glaciers breaking apart and polar bears seemingly unable to swim anymore.

They have successfully created a mindset for people to ‘go green’ and develop a sense of pride in doing so, as well as hopping in bed with the governments and drawing up their environmental policies; and targeted credible people and agencies to promote their messages. But the credible people and agencies have turned out not to be so credible at all. They have won their opinions by offering large sums of money; effectively buying voices and faces for their campaigns. The CRU was the trusted, credible and recognised voice on climate change, but has now been exposed as being a pawn in the global climate change agenda.

Continued at Emails prove Climate Change is Fake – Part 3