Climate nonsense from Munich Re


Blaming everything on “climate change” is the usual response of green hysterics, and shouldn’t be that of the world’s second largest reinsurer. Unbelievably, however, it is (maybe they are trying to reduce their exposure to claims…), and they still wrongly think that warming, even if it is occurring, will cause more severe weather, a scare story that has been debunked thoroughly many times.

The Herald Sun, under the breathless and misleading headling “Record deaths from natural disasters” reports:

Most devastating was Cyclone Nargis, which battered Burma in May to kill more than 135,000 people, and the earthquake that shook China’s Sichuan province the same month which left 70,000 dead, 18,000 missing and almost five million homeless, Munich Re said.

“This continues the long-term trend we have been observing,” Munich Re board member Torsten Jeworrek said.

Climate change has already started and is very probably contributing to increasingly frequent weather extremes and ensuing natural catastrophes.

The world needed “effective and binding rules on CO2 emissions, so that climate change is curbed and future generations do not have to live with weather scenarios that are difficult to control.”

Let’s look at the world’s worst natural disasters. Of the top 10, five are unrelated to climate change (4 earthquakes, one dam failure) and the remaining five all occurred before 1970, i.e. before the global warming hysteria was even thought of – in 1970 we were all getting ready for the next Ice Age, remember?

As for Cyclone Nargis, true, it is the 7th largest death toll from cyclones and hurricanes, however the top 6 all occurred before 1975 (and four before 1881), again, before “global warming” could have had any possible effect. The reality is that the death toll from a cyclone or hurricane has far more to do with its location, and the population density under it, than its intensity…

But hey, who cares about the facts when it makes a good story?

Read it here.

Canberra Times journo can't think of a decent argument . . .


… so resorts to petulant ad hominems instead. Always the last chance saloon for someone unable to counter the substantive arguments of “skeptics”, Rosslyn Beeby attempts the impossible: portraying alarmists as reasonable chaps, always open for debate and discussion (like Al Gore, I suppose, who refuses to debate AGW with anyone who might ask a half-intelligent question, which of course rules out most journalists), and skeptics as the hysterics of the piece.

She spends the first few paragraphs cherry picking a few examples of realists’ frustration boiling over with all the endless nonsense they have to deal with from the alarmists on a daily basis, branding the “name calling” of the skeptics as “grotesque”, and praising Barack Obama’s new science adviser, John Holdren, whose opinions are clear on:

…the climate-change skeptics who infest talk shows, Internet blogs, letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, and cocktail-party conversations.’’ Climate change scepticism is not just “regrettable’’ but dangerous.

“It has delayed – and continues to delay – the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge,’’ he writes on Climate Shift blog.

Spot the hypocrisy there? It’s OK for an arch-alarmist to write on a blog, but a skeptic? Dear me no. Shut them up. Stifle debate. Science is settled, right? By the way, I don’t seen any arguments against the skeptics’ substantive points relating to issues of climate change, however… maybe they come later in the article? (No, they don’t – Ed)

Holdren is a warming fruitcake à la Hansen who, along with doom-monger Paul Ehrlich, spectacularly and embarrassingly lost a very public bet back in the 80s about the prices of metals ten years later (they were wrong on all counts), and whose critique of Bjorn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist was described as:

“strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance.” (source)

See a pattern emerging here? Let’s just remind ourselves of Michael T Eckhart’s email to Dr Marlo Lewis, so that we can fully appreciate what reasonable, good natured and balanced chaps these alarmists are:

Marlo –
You are so full of cr*p.

You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.

Mike

Michael T. Eckhart

President
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

How’s that for articulate and well-mannered, Rosslyn? Truly, this is the silly season.

Read it here (stiff drink advisory)

2008 – man-made global warming disproved


Thanks to Skeptics Global Warming: An article to “warm” the soul, from Christopher Booker in the UK’s Daily Telegraph:

Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph. The first, on May 21, headed “Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts” , reported that the entire Alpine “winter sports industry” could soon “grind to a halt for lack of snow”. The second, on December 19, headed “The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation” , reported that this winter’s Alpine snowfalls “look set to beat all records by New Year’s Day”.

Read it all.

The Age celebrates civil disobedience


Well, anything goes when we’re talking about “saving the planet”. In a barking mad opinion piece, Melissa Fyfe sucks up to the new “people power” (i.e. breaking the law) in order to achieve aims that cannot be achieved through the proper democratic process. As we have seen already, the courts in the UK are quite prepared to turn a blind eye to criminal offences where “climate change” is concerned – coal-fired power stations are fair game.

In the wake of Rudd’s decision, some in the environment movement are talking about a return to people power. They are talking not just about individual action but national campaigns of “direct action”: protests, civil disobedience, making life hard for coal-fired power stations. They are talking about moving out of the boardroom and back to front-line action. They know that they will be risking jail.

I wouldn’t bet on it.

A similar shift is happening globally. As the Crikey website mentioned recently, a man managed to walk into a British coal and oil-fired power station and shut down a whole turbine. “No new coal” was on the note he left.

This glorifying of criminal action is incredible for a supposedly serious newspaper. All I hope is that the courts, at least in Australia, treat such “civil disobedience” as what it is: criminal action that requires suitable punishment. That everyone should be equal before the law is a fundamental tenet of Western democracy, and to lose it for the sake of nebulous “climate change” claims would be a disaster.

But in the end, however, we discover the whole rant is built on thin air, as the sources of her climate (mis-)information are revealed: James “Let’s massage our data retrospectively” Hansen and Al “High Priest of Global Warming, who, by the way, won’t debate the issues with anyone” Gore. She has swallowed the alarmist agenda whole – well, this is The Age after all.

Read it here if you can bear it.

No matter how cool, the alarmists will always find an angle . . .


2008 is shaping up to be the coolest year since 2001, and yet the media can always dig up an alarmist who can spin it into bad news, to keep the AGW bandwagon of doom rolling (and of course, the cash flooding in). The alarmist in question is Prof Barry Brook, whose amusing title is “Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change” at Adelaide University, which the Adelaide Advertiser (probably the worst newspaper in Australia) reports without question, under the doom-laden headline:

“Year of extremes sparks climate woes

The article uses the phrase “on record” no less than seven times, without bothering to point out that “on record” means as a maximum in the last 150 years (many stations being far more recent), which, in geological terms is a gnat’s whisker, and almost totally irrelevant. Self-Interest Alert:

University of Adelaide climate change professor Barry Brook labelled 2008 as “more climatically damaging” in SA, causing incredible stress to plant and animal life.

Professor Brook said 2008 was a year of extremes. “We had that heatwave, of course, in March and yet we had a cool winter,” he said.

“The fact that we had that heatwave makes 2008 more climatically damaging than the past 50 years or more.”

Professor Brook said temperature extremes were going to become more common but annual average temperature records would not clearly portray these extremes and the severe effects of climate change.

So no matter what the temperature records show, the effects of “climate change” would always be hidden, right? And if that’s not enough, don’t forget that even though it’s cooler now, warming is still going on…

National Climate Centre senior climatologist Dr Andrew Watkins said 2008 was still warmer than previous La Nina years, in a sign climate change had caused warmer-than-normal temperatures.

A La Nina event relates to cooler-than-normal sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean.

“Even though this year should have been a relatively cool year, it was warmer than all but two years since the beginning of this century,” Dr Watkins said.

Which is exactly what you would expect, since temperatures have been climbing gently since the Little Ice Age (which no-one ever mentions, of course).

Read it here.

Happy Christmas from ACM


Thank you to all of you who have visited this blog over the past few months – I hope you have enjoyed your visits. I’m taking a short break now and will be back posting in the New Year.

Have an enjoyable and peaceful Christmas and best wishes for 2009.

P.S. I couldn’t let the year end without a great alarmist/Scrooge story from the ABC:

Festive feasts ‘contributing to climate change’

Read it and weep.

It's freezing – it must be global warming


Can’t keep up with the number of stories about records for extreme cold currently being set all over the globe. And yes, I know that weather isn’t climate, but there is a hell of a lot of anectdotal evidence showing that temperatures are heading down. Here’s an example, from ABC radio this morning:

While most Australians can only dream of a white Christmas this week, Canadians are set to experience their whitest in almost 40 years.

The entire country is covered in snow for the first time since 1971.

Alberta is the only province that has no weather warning current and as many as 100,000 people in Atlantic Canada are without power as snow and freezing temperatures wreak havoc.

The prairie provinces are in a deep freeze, with temperatures dipping to under minus 30 degrees Celsius, and even British Columbia is suffering with unusually cold weather.

Eastern Canada is still digging out from back-to-back weekend snowstorms that dumped 50 centimetres of snow and disrupted air travel during the busiest time of the year.

Forecasters say there is more snow coming on Christmas Eve.

Source.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,862 other followers

%d bloggers like this: