Yeb Sano: feeling a bit peckish by now, I imagine…
On the one hand, we have their ABC, breathlessly parroting the mindless hysteria of the UN in its hermetically sealed über-Gruppendenken bubble, like this:
The United Nations meteorological agency has found the effects of climate change are making the impact of severe storms like Typhoon Haiyan worse.
The World Meteorological Organisation’s Michel Jarraud says Australia’s record-breaking summer helped push average global temperatures higher this year, and rising sea levels worsened the situation in the Philippines.
“The impact of this cyclone was definitely significantly more than what it would have been 100 years ago because of the simple mechanical fact that the sea level is higher,” Mr Jarraud said.
“Storm surges have a much more devastating effect than they would have had decades ago.” (source)
and slathering the opinion pages with weepy articles like this:
Sano announced that he will be taking part in a solidarity hunger strike for those “who are now struggling for food back home”, and will continue to fast until the international gathering shows “real ambition on climate action”. The Assembly — with high-level political representations from around the world — met Sano’s speech with a standing ovation.
Abbott’s speech took place in Canberra just 36 hours later. On Wednesday morning our new Prime Minister stood before the freshly sworn-in Parliament and tabled a set of bills designed to repeal the carbon price and — perhaps even more significantly — remove Australia’s limit on carbon pollution.
And the best bit:
Tony Abbott’s voice was steady with resolve; Sano’s voice, on the other hand, shook with the raw emotion of a man witnessing the terrible price climate change is exacting on his country. (source)
Geez, pass the sick bag.
On the other hand, however, we have rational thought, careful analysis and calm reflection from Benny Peiser:
Climate activists claim that tropical cyclone activity, including the frequency and intensity of typhoons, has increased as the global temperature has gone up. Yet empirical observations published in scientific journals show that despite the moderate warming during the 20th century, the number of tropical cyclones making landfall in the Philippines did not increase and has remained unchanged for more than 100 years.
Hours before the typhoon hit the Philippines, authorities moved nearly 1 million people to evacuation centres. Many of these structures collapsed when the tropical storm hit coastal towns and villages, killing thousands. Much of the initial destruction that killed so many was caused by winds blowing at 235 kilometres per hour — and occasionally at speeds of up to 275 kph/h. But it didn’t have to be that way.
A superstorm of similar magnitude, Cyclone Yasi, hit Queensland, Australia, in February 2011. The cyclone hit Queensland with an eye of 100 km in diameter and wind speeds of up to 285 km/h. Yet local disaster management committees had initiated their plans long in advance. Evacuation, including of hospitals, was completed more than four hours before the cyclone struck. Because Australia is an advanced nation that can afford to implement highly effective disaster warning systems, not a single person died as a direct result of this destructive cyclone.
…
As a result of economic development and technological advancement, the world is getting increasingly better at coping with and adapting to the effects of extreme weather events. As Goklany concludes: ‘Currently many advocate spending trillions of dollars to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gases, in part to forestall hypothetical future increases in mortality from global warming induced increases in extreme weather events. Spending even a fraction of such sums on the numerous higher priority health and safety problems plaguing humanity would provide greater returns for human well-being.’ (source)
Which demonstrates even more clearly that wasting those trillions of dollars on pointless GHG reductions will simply make developing countries poorer and less able to adapt. Climate Madness, once again.
Australian Climate Madness 
I heard ABC radio describe Yvo De Boer as a climate expert on the news this morning. The bloke trained as a social worker and works as a diplomat; I can’t quite figure out how that makes you a climate expert when all you are doing is reading a bit from a report by some mob saying this year is going to be in the top whatever hottest years.
Furthermore, I can’t work out how a “trained” social worker is in any way qualified to become a diplomat; no disrespect intended to modest social workers generally, but it hardly seems a background for exerting international influence.
Typhoon Haiyan was certainly devastating but it’s not the first time Naderev ‘Yed’ Sano has made a tearful plea at a COP conference.
Along with his most recent cry-baby antics linking Typhoon Haiyan to climate change at COP 19, last year he also made a tearful plea at COP18 in Doha, Qatar.
Yed seems to be setting a pattern here. Let’s see how he goes at COP 20 in Lima, Peru next year!
Sano seems the same as that friggerentes person from the IPCC. Lots of tears, lies rather than facts.
Only two months ago The Guardian reported that: “cooling waters in the tropical Pacific Ocean appear to be a major factor in dampening global warming in recent years”.
What the?
Mad whirling dervishes, the lot of them. Forget substance; it’s the publicised activity that matters.
The purpose of Yeb Sano’s speech wasn’t to provide calm analysis. It was an impassioned plea for action. Considering he had just seen thousands of his compatriots die and millions more displaced his reaction was appropriate and dignified, yours isn’t. Your inability to understand that doesn’t mean that you’re calm and analytical, it means that you’re stupid.
“…Which demonstrates even more clearly that wasting those trillions of dollars on pointless GHG reductions will simply make developing countries poorer and less able to adapt. Climate Madness, once again.” What gives you the right to speak for developing countries? Why don’t you let them speak for themselves, and listen to what they’re telling you?
If you want to partake in some rational, careful analysis, why don’t you have a go at analysing Benny’s article. You could have a look at this claim for instance:
“Climate activists claim that tropical cyclone activity, including the frequency and intensity of typhoons, has increased as the global temperature has gone up.”
And then look at the latest IPCC report:
“There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.”
You could try and analyse why Benny is misrepresenting the position. You could also analyse why Benny might have failed to discuss the areas in the IPCC paper most pertinent to the disaster in the Philippines, such as this:
”It is very likely that mean sea-level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water levels in the future … There is high confidence that locations currently experiencing adverse impacts such as coastal erosion and inundation will continue to do so in the future due to increasing sea levels, all other contributing factors being equal…The very likely contribution of mean sea-level rise to increased extreme coastal high water levels, coupled with the likely increase in tropical cyclone maximum wind speed, is a specific issue for tropical small island states.”
You could consider whether (a) Benny didn’t read the report, (b) he didn’t understand it, or (c) he is deliberately trying to mislead his readers. You might then want to consider why you have been [snip]