|
Post by louise on Jan 21, 2011 10:44:33 GMT 1
Your 'covering this before' seems to be you claiming that MunichRe must be biased.
MunichRe are an insurance company. They have no axe to grind when it comes to climate change - they're not reliant on research grant. However, they do depend on accurately assessing the risk attributed to extreme weather.
You asked for evidence of increased frequency of extreme weather events. I provided an independent reference to that evidence. You choose to disbelieve that evidence for your own personal reasons.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 22, 2011 11:16:21 GMT 1
"They (Munich Re) have no axe to grind when it comes to climate change" Did you not read the links I provided, Louise? Tut! Munich Re are up to their necks in promoting investment in the Climate Change Industry. There is NO evidence that extreme weather events are increasing. Even the Hurricane Boys have come to a consensus that there is no evidence of growing hurricane activity. Have you read the previous discussions of Hurricanes on this board? This board is supposed to be about science, not commercial interests. Insurers take every opportunity to increase premiums. The claim of more extreme weather is a great opportunity to do just that. See this thread with its links radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=witter&thread=69&page=1 And see your pal, Roger Pielke Jr's blog for the details of the World Meteorological Organisation Review paper entitled "Tropical cyclones and climate change" by Thomas R. Knutson, John L. McBride, Johnny Chan, Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland, Chris Landsea, Isaac Held, James P. Kossin, A. K. Srivastava & Masato Sugi, here rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/updated-wmo-consensus-perspective-on.htmlTry coming up with "scientific" evidence of more extreme weather that does not depend on mere assertion by the Climate Change Industry, Louise. www.theclimategroup.org/our-members/munich-re
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 23, 2011 3:04:54 GMT 1
www.ft.com/cms/s/2/ef8f21c6-2357-11e0-8389-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1BmAlfVTrRe weather disasters and purported "climate change", Simon Kuper writes in FT Magazine: ..... Every time a disaster strikes, some environmentalists blame it on climate change. “It’s been such a part of the narrative of the public and political debate, particularly after Hurricane Katrina,” Roger Pielke Jr, an expert on the politics of climate change at the University of Colorado, told me. “You see the Pakistani floods or even the snowstorm over Paris, and people trot out the connection to climate change.”...
The Stern report on climate change also said greenhouse gases were increasing the losses from disasters. But nothing in the scientific literature indicates that this is true. A host of recent peer-reviewed studies agree: there’s no evidence that climate change has increased the damage from natural disasters. Most likely, climate change will make disasters worse some day, but not yet.
Laurens Bouwer, of Amsterdam’s Vrije Universiteit, has recently reviewed 22 “disaster loss studies” and concludes: “Anthropogenic climate change so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.” Eric Neumayer and Fabian Barthel of the London School of Economics found likewise in their recent “global analysis” of natural disasters. Meanwhile, in his book The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming, Pielke writes that there’s no upward trend in the landfalls of tropical cyclones. Even floods in Brisbane aren’t getting worse – just check out the city’s 19th-century floods. Pielke says the consensus of peer-reviewed research on this point – that climate change is not yet worsening disasters – is as strong as any consensus in climate science.
It’s true that floods and hurricanes do more damage every decade. However, that’s because ever more people, owning ever more “stuff”, live in vulnerable spots. Brisbane, for instance, now has 2 million inhabitants, twice as many as during the flood of 1974. Pielke likes to illustrate this change with two photographs of Miami Beach. The first, taken in 1925, shows an almost empty oceanfront. In the second, from 2006, the whole place is built up. There’s much more to destroy now.
As more gets destroyed, more countries will probably build projects like the Delta Works. According to Pielke: “The most effective responses to disasters are often after disasters occur.” Brisbane will presumably act now; poorer countries might not. Yet the likes of Delta Works needn’t cost fortunes – the average Dutch person spends about €45 a year to stay dry – and if countries protect themselves now, they will be safer when climate change does worsen disasters. The Dutch reckon they will be fine for centuries to come, even if climate change raises the North Sea by several metres....
.............. Engineering solutions, as the Dutch have found, are so much more effective than carbon trading scams and windmills, in protecting us against adverse weather, aren't they?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 24, 2011 13:32:01 GMT 1
Marchesarosa - I read the article that your last post linked to. What do you think of the concluding paragraph?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 24, 2011 14:48:03 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Jan 24, 2011 16:36:51 GMT 1
Louise,
Why did f-all happen in 1917? Was everybody preoccupied in reporting other disasters?
Ands if you wanted to do some science, try a correlation with the numbers of radios & TV sets.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 24, 2011 16:47:55 GMT 1
Ands if you wanted to do some science, try a correlation with the numbers of radios & TV sets. Carnyx - you seem to have missed the point being made in the diagram. If the increase was down to increased reporting/interest (e.g. WWI or radios/TVs) then there would be the same rate of increase for earthquakes as for weather related events. There wasn't. Weather related events have increased at a rate much faster than other natural disasters.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 24, 2011 18:01:53 GMT 1
Yeah, the graph follows the explosion in population and media coverage. I like the ludicrously stretched graph to give maximum hand wringingness. Calm down.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 24, 2011 19:35:00 GMT 1
Yeah, the graph follows the explosion in population and media coverage. I like the ludicrously stretched graph to give maximum hand wringingness. Calm down. Can you explain why the reporting of earthquakes has not risen at the same speed as the reporting of extreme weather events? I would have thought that the 'explosion of population and media coverage' would have treated these the same. Can you explain why they appear not to have done?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 25, 2011 1:30:06 GMT 1
Counting on media reporting as an index of anything is plain barmy and a demonstration of louise's "anti-science" bent .
How do you account for the increased media reporting on putative "celebs", Louise? Does it MEAN anything at all? Do you have a theory about that?
Catastrophes, weather-related or otherwise, are reported because they sell media and therefore advertising space. That is the function of scare-mongering - to make money for someone - including the likes of Muniche Re and the Murdoch press et al.
No-one ever got rich by under-estimating the capacity of the average punter for scandal, catastrophes and boobs.
So far, Louise, you have cited a insurance company claims and media reporting as some sort of valid "proxies" for the incidence of extreme weather.
Can you scrape any more "evidence" of this type from the bottom of your barrel?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 25, 2011 8:54:57 GMT 1
Catastrophes, weather-related or otherwise, are reported because they sell media and therefore advertising space. I agree So why are the rates of reporting hurricanes and cyclones rising much faster than the rates of reporting earthquakes?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 25, 2011 9:34:57 GMT 1
I will say zees only once more.
Counting on media reporting as an index of anything is plain barmy and a demonstration of louise's "anti-science", tittle-tattling bent.
No-one has ever denied there are weather "catastrophes". That is part of the nature of the human beings relationship with their home planet. We are also interested in hearing about them - the perennial "human interest" angle. THE MEDIA has nothing whatsoever to do with NATURE, however. It is not a proxy for natural events - it is a money-spinning scheme - rather like carbon trading, in fact, and extracting funding from gullible politicians to keep a faux-scientific gravy train running.
Geddit, Louise? The media is about money, full stop. The weather is about the physics of water and atmosphere, gravity and the Earth's place the cosmos.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 25, 2011 9:38:16 GMT 1
So why are the rates of reporting hurricanes and cyclones rising much faster than the rates of reporting earthquakes? Do you have any theories that might address the point that I actually made (as opposed to one that I didn't)?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 25, 2011 9:54:53 GMT 1
No, I don't try to construct theories based on the ramblings of an intellectual incompetent.
I have given you the explanation for the surge in weather scare-mongering surrounding the AGW hypothesis. Money! Money for the usual suspects and for a few new ones, too.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 25, 2011 9:57:56 GMT 1
I had thought that the mods on this board were unhappy with posters who used terms such as 'anti-science' or 'intellectual incompetent'.
I have been polite with every posting here.
You have sought to belittle me and accuse me of misdeeds with almost every post you have made.
I really don't understand why you're doing this. Please stop.
|
|