The authors' reference to 'Reducing greenhouse gases being crucially important' does not stack up scientifically. The heating effects of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases logarithmicly as that gases level increases. It is not a linear relationship and beyond 100 ppmv it is largely ineffective as a greenhouse gas. This inconvenient fact is often ignored by the fearmongersbut the phenomenon explains how CO2 gas was up to 20 times the levels of today, even in the middle of ice ages. Check with William Happer and Richard Lindzen for details and the complex mathematics.
If 11,000 people died in weather and climate-related disasters in 2022, and with a world population of 8 billion, I would think that the overall 2022 death rate is about 1.4 and not 0.14 people per million?
Gees, Roger. I had a peek at your Twitter feed and, like most things nowadays, very few people are paying attention. Ambivalence is leading us slowly toward dystopia.
Roger, you are walking a cancellation tightrope so i forgive your hesitancy to call a spade a spade. The temperature data is the only dataset found to be increasing with whatever IPCC confidence level, yet no mention of all the chicanery involved with its calculation. Yet you mention Climategate and are presumably aware of the homogenization and infill calculations and adjustments. Not sure why the uncertainty in the single global average temperature is not discussed. The temp has gone up 1.2degC +/-1.0degC. Thoughts?
While my faith in the U.N. has been declining for many years, I no longer view them as a relevant global institution. From its feckless response to Russia's terrorism in Ukraine and the joke that the Human Rights Council has become (members including China, Russia, Cuba and Somalia), the U.N. has devolved into an illegitimate institution. My view is now cemented with the Secretary General misleading the global community.
Great update, thank you Roger. The media is no longer independent, which is very dangerous in many respects. I rarely see any public discussions about “attribution” simply because, in my opinion, a good understanding of this concept does not serve the narrative. Mitigation, as you note, can and should be part of the global strategy, along side of reducing carbon emissions. They can and should be addressed side by side. New Orleans will be reclaimed by the sea at some point, so why rebuild every time it gets clobbered ?
Here's another critique of uncritical journalists. .it's about carbon and not disasters, but ..
"It’s no surprise when militant environmental groups paint a dire picture so they can attack the Canadian forestry sector. But Canadian journalists covering this beat have a professional obligation to approach such claims with skepticism instead of uncritically parroting them."
Most of us are wondering about why officials are bluntly spreading false information. The answer is corruption at all levels. I can’t believe there is any other credible explanation. Anyhow, funny enough, a few days ago walking in a remote valley in the Italian Dolomites there was a placque describing how in 1966 the valley was subject to a major flooding and how the population adapted by moving the road and new housing in different areas of the valley...maybe being more humble and learning from the past would not be a bad idea.
Having been born in 2000, it’s helpful to get context on how the frequency of disasters has evolved over time. Seeing that disasters haven’t increased despite claims that they have, it reminds me to remember in all aspects of examining problems your statement to the effect of “experience is not an adequate substitute for data.”
To me, the question is “why”? Yes it is complex, but why don’t journalists check, rather than repeat claims? And what is up with Gutierres.. does he not know or not care. What possible motivation could someone have to say something is worse than it is? I’m very curious.
The authors' reference to 'Reducing greenhouse gases being crucially important' does not stack up scientifically. The heating effects of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases logarithmicly as that gases level increases. It is not a linear relationship and beyond 100 ppmv it is largely ineffective as a greenhouse gas. This inconvenient fact is often ignored by the fearmongersbut the phenomenon explains how CO2 gas was up to 20 times the levels of today, even in the middle of ice ages. Check with William Happer and Richard Lindzen for details and the complex mathematics.
If 11,000 people died in weather and climate-related disasters in 2022, and with a world population of 8 billion, I would think that the overall 2022 death rate is about 1.4 and not 0.14 people per million?
Gees, Roger. I had a peek at your Twitter feed and, like most things nowadays, very few people are paying attention. Ambivalence is leading us slowly toward dystopia.
Roger, you are walking a cancellation tightrope so i forgive your hesitancy to call a spade a spade. The temperature data is the only dataset found to be increasing with whatever IPCC confidence level, yet no mention of all the chicanery involved with its calculation. Yet you mention Climategate and are presumably aware of the homogenization and infill calculations and adjustments. Not sure why the uncertainty in the single global average temperature is not discussed. The temp has gone up 1.2degC +/-1.0degC. Thoughts?
While my faith in the U.N. has been declining for many years, I no longer view them as a relevant global institution. From its feckless response to Russia's terrorism in Ukraine and the joke that the Human Rights Council has become (members including China, Russia, Cuba and Somalia), the U.N. has devolved into an illegitimate institution. My view is now cemented with the Secretary General misleading the global community.
Great update, thank you Roger. The media is no longer independent, which is very dangerous in many respects. I rarely see any public discussions about “attribution” simply because, in my opinion, a good understanding of this concept does not serve the narrative. Mitigation, as you note, can and should be part of the global strategy, along side of reducing carbon emissions. They can and should be addressed side by side. New Orleans will be reclaimed by the sea at some point, so why rebuild every time it gets clobbered ?
Here's another critique of uncritical journalists. .it's about carbon and not disasters, but ..
"It’s no surprise when militant environmental groups paint a dire picture so they can attack the Canadian forestry sector. But Canadian journalists covering this beat have a professional obligation to approach such claims with skepticism instead of uncritically parroting them."
https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-forest-critics-are-lost-in-the-woods-on-emissions
Most of us are wondering about why officials are bluntly spreading false information. The answer is corruption at all levels. I can’t believe there is any other credible explanation. Anyhow, funny enough, a few days ago walking in a remote valley in the Italian Dolomites there was a placque describing how in 1966 the valley was subject to a major flooding and how the population adapted by moving the road and new housing in different areas of the valley...maybe being more humble and learning from the past would not be a bad idea.
Having been born in 2000, it’s helpful to get context on how the frequency of disasters has evolved over time. Seeing that disasters haven’t increased despite claims that they have, it reminds me to remember in all aspects of examining problems your statement to the effect of “experience is not an adequate substitute for data.”
Roger, like I said, you are heading for 15 years of fame. Credibility is everything. S
Needless to say, keep up the hard work Roger. I'd like to think you recognize me as trying to cut against the group Gish gallop in climate journalism these days. And you helped, as in 2010 story on LM Bouwer's work, which your blogging led me to): https://archive.nytimes.com/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/study-finds-no-link-tying-disaster-losses-to-human-driven-warming/ and more recently in my Bulletin-to-Substack output: https://revkin.substack.com/p/behind-global-climate-emergency-rhetoric-21-08-06
We name our weather events to identify them, but they live in our memories by their impacts.
To me, the question is “why”? Yes it is complex, but why don’t journalists check, rather than repeat claims? And what is up with Gutierres.. does he not know or not care. What possible motivation could someone have to say something is worse than it is? I’m very curious.