Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
TimG

It's the [Climate Polcy] Stupid!

Recommended Posts

Actually, it is the ONLY question that matters. You run around spouting crap about more water vapour in the air as if that is supposed to prove your assertion that CO2 affected the flood damage. It does not. You are making the assertion here - the onus of proof is on you.

Spoken like a true astrologist. Reject calls for specific evidence and instead wave your hands and insists that "unstable weather" must be bad and it must have a measureable effect on storm damages. Complete BS. The science of AGW could be 100% correct yet the real effect on disaster damages of "more unstable weather" could be near zero.

If you cannot demonstrate with empirical data that real disaster damages have increases as a result of AGW then you have nothing. Remember disaster damages increase for a lot of other reasons and those must be taken into account before any conclusions can be drawn (i.e. don't bother posting a chart that does not factor in population and asset growth).

BTW - the peer reviewed literature says in multiple papers that there is no observable trends in the disaster damages to date. This is the basis for my claim that you don't have one shred of scientific evidence supporting your assertion that CO2 had something to do with the floods.

Here is some data:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/updated-normalized-disaster-losses-in.html

Note how the recent flood damages were above average but about 1/4 of the 1974 flood damages. Such data tells me there is no measureable link between CO2 and storm damages.

As for the rest. I was careful to say that the CO2 obsession was one of many factors. The only claim I made was it was likely had a much larger effect on the damages than CO2 itself. A conclusion that is reasonable given the public statements of many of Austrialia's policy makers and the lack of any evidence supporting the claim that CO2 is having a measurable effect on disaster damages.

Reject calls for specific evidence and instead wave your hands and insists that "unstable weather" must be bad and it must have a measureable effect on storm damages.

Hahaha look whos talking? The guy that posted an opinion piece by some AGW scientist as proof that the people managing hyrdraulic systems allowed the disaster to happen because of AGW alarmism. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hahaha look whos talking? The guy that posted an opinion piece by some AGW scientist as proof that the people managing hyrdraulic systems allowed the disaster to happen because of AGW alarmism.
Deperate aren't you? I was responding to WIP's whinging about my obviously rhetorical 'environmentalists said it will never rain again' claim. A opinion piece from an Austrialian alarmists is a prefectly reasonable response. My statements on the CO2 alarmism flood link were much more nuanced - but you don't understand nuance do you? If someone does not accept every aspect of the CAGW mantra then they are an anti-science denier right?

Obviously the public inquiry will have to get to the bottom of it of why the dam operators did what they did. But, as I said, multiple sources show that CO2 hysteria is likely a significant contributing factor. Another example:

But the debate is well under way. And the public policy issues are equally important. The government's longstanding policy of operating Wivenhoe at 100 per cent full supply level, with 1,150,000 megalitres of water for urban use (instead of a lower volume to give the dam a larger buffer in addition to its 1,450,000MG of capacity for flood storage) is now highly controversial.

The policy saves money on the operation of a new and troubled desalination plant at Tugun on the Gold Coast.

It is a policy that some regard as folly from a public safety perspective, particularly given the change to La Nina, the risk of further extreme rainfall and cyclones this wet season, and the multi-billion-dollar development of Queensland's Water Grid to drought-proof the region. But politicians and many Queenslanders, still paranoid about wasting water after years of severe restrictions, are yet to appreciate that the droughts of El Nino are over.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/the-great-avoidable-flood-an-inquirys-challenge/story-fn7iwx3v-1225992644199

I believe that dam operators would not have ignored the switch to La Nina if they had not been indundated with propaganda telling them that the weather cycles in the past would no longer occur because of CO2. It is obviously not going to be possible to prove this. But that does not mean it is not a reasonable statement to make.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deperate aren't you? I was responding to WIP's whinging about my obviously rhetorical 'environmentalists said it will never rain again' claim. A opinion piece from an Austrialian alarmists is a prefectly reasonable response. My statements on the CO2 alarmism flood link were much more nuanced - but you don't understand nuance do you? If someone does not accept every aspect of the CAGW mantra then they are an anti-science denier right?

Obviously the public inquiry will have to get to the bottom of it of why the dam operators did what they did. But, as I said, multiple sources show that CO2 hysteria is likely a significant contributing factor. Another example:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/the-great-avoidable-flood-an-inquirys-challenge/story-fn7iwx3v-1225992644199

I believe that dam operators would not have ignored the switch to La Nina if they had not been indundated with propaganda telling them that the weather cycles in the past would no longer occur because of CO2. It is obviously not going to be possible to prove this. But that does not mean it is not a reasonable statement to make.

None of your links are prrof for this claim. When you have documents showing that water management policies were based on AGW alarmists you can post it here. Until that happens youre providing even flimsier evidence than you are deride others for posting.

What youre going to find is that this was basically a once in a lifetime whether event that caught virtually the entire southern hemisphere with its pants down. End of story.

Your problem is that you are so emotional invested in the whole (AGW alarmists will destroy us) meme that you see AGW boogeymen literally everywhere you look... in the heart of every child and on the face of every smiling baby :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What youre going to find is that this was basically a once in a lifetime whether event that caught virtually the entire southern hemisphere with its pants down. End of story.
Your skepticism and demand for more compelling evidendce would be more credible if you applied it to the rediculous claims of WIP and others. But you don't. You only weigh in on one side of the debate which suggests you are only resort to such arguments when they undermine your deep desire to justify anti-CO2 policies. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it is the ONLY question that matters. You run around spouting crap about more water vapour in the air as if that is supposed to prove your assertion that CO2 affected the flood damage. It does not. You are making the assertion here - the onus of proof is on you. Spoken like a true astrologist. Reject calls for specific evidence and instead wave your hands and insists that "unstable weather" must be bad and it must have a measureable effect on storm damages. Complete BS. The science of AGW could be 100% correct yet the real effect on disaster damages of "more unstable weather" could be near zero.

If you cannot demonstrate with empirical data that real disaster damages have increases as a result of AGW then you have nothing. Remember disaster damages increase for a lot of other reasons and those must be taken into account before any conclusions can be drawn (i.e. don't bother posting a chart that does not factor in population and asset growth).

Tim, can't you figure it out yet? Raising risk factors cannot be itemized to specific degree of effects when there is a disaster...or an accident. Consider the case of risk factors and car accidents:

Do you, or do you not agree that speeding, taking drugs or alcohol, or lack of sleep, are all significant factors in the number of, and severity of car accidents? If not, there's no hope because you'll be arguing against all of the evidence produced from police reports and insurance data. If you do agree that these are significant risk factors, that does not mean that each of the three can be applied by percentage to every accident that occurs....that is just too stupid to waste any more time with. But, this is exactly what you're asking for when you say you want the specific percentage that warming played in the Queensland floods!

BTW - the peer reviewed literature says in multiple papers that there is no observable trends in the disaster damages to date. This is the basis for my claim that you don't have one shred of scientific evidence supporting your assertion that CO2 had something to do with the floods.

Here is some data:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/updated-normalized-disaster-losses-in.html

Note how the recent flood damages were above average but about 1/4 of the 1974 flood damages. Such data tells me there is no measureable link between CO2 and storm damages.

How closely did you read your own article? That chart that Pielke uses to estimate flood damages at 1.2 billion isn't worth the paper it was written on now that the Government estimates damages at over 6 billion dollars. And it says we have to go back to over a hundred years ago to find worse floods....assuming they were doing accurate measurements back then: Compared with the current disaster, there have been even bigger floods in the past: in 1841 and 1893 when flood waters topped 8.35 meters, some 3.9 m above the latest peak. It doesn't claim that the 1974 floods were worse; but that's neither here nor there since the point that we're trying to make is as basic as climate is about longterm averaging of weather, not each specific weather event! And the conclusions drawn from man-made forcing of climate through raising greenhouse gases is consistently that we can expect more floods, more droughts, more heatwaves, and even heavier snowstorms in the winter in some places!

Also, note that in your link to Pielke Jr. he quotes sources that do not match his own conclusions:

This is not to deny that climate change is a real concern: few continue to believe that only positive outcomes will arise from the continued heating of the planet.

The latest research, however, just published in the international journal Environmental Research Letters by Ryan Crompton, Roger Pielke Jr. and John McAneney suggests that it may be centuries until we can be confident that climate change is influencing disaster losses.

If we truly wish to reduce the scale of future disasters in Australia, we need risk-informed land planning policies with risks appropriately priced by an active insurance market.

So, Pielke quotes the typical equivocating bullshit! Maybe there's global warming but we'll have to wait centuries to find out! What kind of advice is this?

Again, you are trying to focus on individual storms, without acknowledging the overall trends. Pielke is a lying piece of shit on par with the handful of scientists who collect cheques from creationist groups by denying the theory of evolution. Just like the so called "intelligent design" scientists, Pielke has a history of selectively presenting his own, and other climate research to confuse and mislead the public, including misrepresenting the research and conclusions of the majority of climatologists who started seeing a strong link between global warming and human activity over 20 years ago SourceWatch Pielke Sr. doesn't far much better, since he claimed the oceans started cooling in 2004, and hasn't opened his mouth about it since! Climate Progress

As for the rest. I was careful to say that the CO2 obsession was one of many factors. The only claim I made was it was likely had a much larger effect on the damages than CO2 itself. A conclusion that is reasonable given the public statements of many of Austrialia's policy makers and the lack of any evidence supporting the claim that CO2 is having a measurable effect on disaster damages.

And you were complaining about unprovable assertions! What do you call that? I dealt with this claim of "global warming obsession" causing the floods yesterday, which was made by an Australian global warming skeptic (your likely source), and his claim that the concern over the droughts, caused the lack of preparation for the floods is still total bullshit, because the forcing factors involved in raising global temperatures (increased uptake of water vapour etc.) are increasing climate volatility; which means preparing for an increasingly volatile climate requires preparing for both floods and droughts...which was the point made in the government report that dishonest climate skeptic selectively quoted from. The 2050 report may have put more emphasis on droughts because it was written during a period of declining precipitation with no end in sight; but they still noted the risk of floods and cyclones, which that lying skeptic writer deliberately omitted!

Now, if these are the kind of people that you are reading, you are going to find the conclusions you want to accept, but you are not going to find anything remotely connected to the truth, because these skeptic writers, including the few professional scientists like Pielke, have dishonest intentions from the start, and seek to mislead, not educate the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim, can't you figure it out yet? Raising risk factors cannot be itemized to specific degree of effects when there is a disaster...or an accident.
Then you cannot make the claim that CO2 had something to do with the floods. You admit you have no evidence. You admit you cannot quantify the effect enough to show it is significant. Bottom line: your claims have no merit.
Do you, or do you not agree that speeding, taking drugs or alcohol, or lack of sleep, are all significant factors in the number of, and severity of car accidents?
In all of those cases there are statistical studies that control for other factors and show a statistically significant relationship between the harm and the alledged cause. In the case of CO2 and disasters the data says exactly the opposite: there is no statistically significant relationship. Again, you have no basis for you claims of a significant relationship between CO2 and disaster damages.
How closely did you read your own article? That chart that Pielke uses to estimate flood damages at 1.2 billion isn't worth the paper it was written on now that the Government estimates damages at over 6 billion dollars.
And those damages may be exaggerated by the media. The final numbers will take time but even if it ends up being comparable to past mega disasters there is still no trend in the data which means no support for your claim that CO2 had something do to with the disaster. (Aside: the government is now trying to pass a tax which pretty much ensures the damage numbers will be manipulated to support the government's agenda - this will make comparisons with past disasters tougher).
So, Pielke quotes the typical equivocating bullshit! Maybe there's global warming but we'll have to wait centuries to find out! What kind of advice is this?
Its is reality. The effect that your are claiming is tiny compared to other factors which means it takes a lot of data to show that the effect is there. If the effect was significant we would have already seen evidence in the data.

BTW - When it comes to Pielke's work - SourceWatch and ClimateProgess constantly misrepresent it and misrepresent the state of the literature. They are propoganda sites that cannot be taken seriously. I have also looked carefully at both sides of Pielke-Romm spats and concluded that Romm is the one that that is wrong.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you cannot make the claim that CO2 had something to do with the floods. You admit you have no evidence. You admit you cannot quantify the effect enough to show it is significant. Bottom line: your claims have no merit.

Don't lie about what I've written! Especially after you're source materials are proven to be full of lies and misrepresentations. I provided the links to Munich RE, the largest re-insurer in the World, which has published several reports linking climate change with rising storm and disaster costs around the world...did you even notice them? You didn't respond, and just went on to the next liar in the lineup of the 'climate change skeptic' movement.

In all of those cases there are statistical studies that control for other factors and show a statistically significant relationship between the harm and the alledged cause.

And they reach those conclusions based on average totals, not trying to break down the percentage cause of alcohol and drug impairment for each, individual accident....which is what you are trying to pull over our eyes with your demand that the Queensland Floods be broken down to provide what the damage costs would be with and without adding the increasing greenhouse effect of rising CO2 and methane levels. The latest response from the Australian Government regarding the losses, is to impose a tax, and double down on coal by cutting the budgets for green energy . The "let's wait and see" attitude means Australia can expect more of the same in its future.

And those damages may be exaggerated by the media. The final numbers will take time but even if it ends up being comparable to past mega disasters there is still no trend in the data which means no support for your claim that CO2 had something do to with the disaster. (Aside: the government is now trying to pass a tax which pretty much ensures the damage numbers will be manipulated to support the government's agenda - this will make comparisons with past disasters tougher).

If you're aware that that 1.2 billion number was preliminary, and not including total losses that would include loss of economic activity (destroyed farms, flooded mines etc.) why wasn't your expert (Pielke) aware of this before he made the claim on his blog that there have been worse floods in the past, and this is just part of the natural cycle in Australia? Face it; your expert is a lying sack of shit, no different than the scientists and experts who lend their support to creationist groups and cigarette manufacturers in the past.

Many of these scientists, like Fred Sykes and Fred Singer (pioneers of this so called climate skeptic movement) hired out their services to tobacco industry front groups and the SDI missile defense initiative of Ronald Reagan, before the late 80's. They are science mercenaries, who provide a footnote with a PHD for any cause that seeks scientific legitimacy. See: Merchants Of Doubt The Pielke's are no different! Instead of wasting my time going to their links, I'll just assume it's more lies and disinformation intended to fool the average reader, or bolster the faith of the anti-climate change crowd that's motivated by a belief in freemarket fundamentalism, and puts economic ideology ahead of scientific fact.

BTW - When it comes to Pielke's work - SourceWatch and ClimateProgess constantly misrepresent it and misrepresent the state of the literature. They are propoganda sites that cannot be taken seriously. I have also looked carefully at both sides of Pielke-Romm spats and concluded that Romm is the one that that is wrong.

Prove it! Pielke has lied and misrepresented James Hansen's work, which is pointed out in the SourceWatch article. The climate change skeptic scientists cannot be accorded any legitimacy up front because of their past records of using their expertise to mislead the public, and the simple fact that public understanding of science depends so much on the consensus of experts in a field of research, means that these heretics who swim upstream against the vast majority of colleagues regarding climate change, 2nd hand tobacco smoke, evolution by natural selection, the effectiveness of missile defense, or any other issue, means that they have the clear burden of proof, and have to do more than pick at the theories and hypotheses accepted by the majority in their fields -- they have to propose their own hypotheses to explain scientific data for the purpose of developing alternative theories....and this is what the "merchants of doubt" fail to do! All they are interested in doing is to raise the level of confusion on any given subject that they are hired to work on.

Edited by WIP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I provided the links to Munich RE, the largest re-insurer in the World, which has published several reports linking climate change with rising storm and disaster costs around the world.
And I can give you reports published by Tobacco companies that show cigarette have no link to cancer. If all you got are reports by insurance companies then you have nothing - especially when the peer reviewed literature says exactly the opposite.
And they reach those conclusions based on average totals, not trying to break down the percentage cause of alcohol and drug impairment for each, individual accident.
BS. Every factor claimed to have an effect must be isolated from the confounding factors and quantified. If you cannot do that or refuse to do that then you are peddling astrology - not science.

Here is another peer reviwed paper that says the same thing:

Here I present a review and analysis of recent quantitative studies on past increases in weather

10 disaster losses and the role of anthropogenic climate change. Analyses show that

although economic losses from weather related hazards have increased, anthropogenic

climate change so far did not have a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1

As I said: your claim of a link between CO2 and the austrialian flood damages has no merit.

If you want to make comparisons then you are nothing but an anti-vaxer: completely obessed with a hypothetical link and completely impervious to any data that shows otherwise. After 20 years of debunking spurious claims the original study has been withdrawn but the anti-vaxers still insist that the link exists. That is because it is a really a religion. Same for you and CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, Pielke quotes the typical equivocating bullshit! Maybe there's global warming but we'll have to wait centuries to find out! What kind of advice is this?

should we be surprised... at all... that one of TimG's go-to guys is the 'Honest Broker Joker'? Perhaps TimG could elucidate the Pielke Jr. data normalization wizardry that presumes to exclude existing mitigation costs from storm cost estimates and underlying trends. Of course, Pielke lappers like TimG will beak-off about the lack of determined climate change influence on extreme events... relying on Pielke data normalization wizardry that chooses, knowingly, to eliminate all manner of significant mitigating costs... be they related to physical measures (such as dams, detention basins, surge barriers, the widening and deepening of levees and channels, adherence to heightened building code/standards, etc.), or planning measure costs (such as land reuse strategies, rezoning, etc.), or related government support/bureaucracy requirements to manage mitigation strategies/deployment, etc.. Of course, given TimG's predilection toward an adapt-r-us only approach, one wonders whether there is a blurring line between my aforementioned categorization of measures as mitigation versus adaptation... hey, Timmay - does this purposeful Pielke Jr. elimination of "mitigation/adaptation" costs from his "analysis", imply they are mere trivialities - hey? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to eliminate all manner of significant mitigating costs... be they related to physical measures (such as dams, detention basins, surge barriers, the widening and deepening of levees and channels, adherence to heightened building code/standards, etc.), or planning measure costs (such as land reuse strategies, rezoning, etc.)
If you are trying to make the case that CO2 is causing harm then you must show that this harm occurs even after taking into account all of the BAU activities.

By suggesting that BAU adaption efforts should be excluded you show how weak your case for CO2 mitigation really is. i.e. if what we already do is sufficient to completely compensate for any hypothetical damages from CO2 then there is no possible justification for expensive (and futile) efforts to reduce CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I can give you reports published by Tobacco companies that show cigarette have no link to cancer. If all you got are reports by insurance companies then you have nothing - especially when the peer reviewed literature says exactly the opposite.

Of course you could! Because the tobacco companies like RJ Reynolds, were the ones who started the denial industry. Many of their scientists began denying the effects of smoking, and moved on to deny harms of 2nd hand smoke, and ended up with denying global warming. Others started trying to support the case that missile technology could be developed to safely destroy thousands of incoming ICBM's (Star Wars), and then moved on to the next rightwing cause -- the oil and coal-funded campaign to deny climate change. But, if you can't even accept the evidence for the harms of tobacco, no wonder you can't see evidence that pumping carbon in the air is changing the climate!

If you want to make comparisons then you are nothing but an anti-vaxer: completely obessed with a hypothetical link and completely impervious to any data that shows otherwise. After 20 years of debunking spurious claims the original study has been withdrawn but the anti-vaxers still insist that the link exists. That is because it is a really a religion. Same for you and CO2.

Bullshit! You've got the sides in reverse. You are the anti-vaxxer in this example, because it's your side that denies the clear consensus of scientific evidence to accept the wisdom of a handful of hired cranks....just like the anti-vaxxers had one expert of note - Andrew Wakefield, who has now been totally discredited since his published research has been discovered to be based on fraudulent use of data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

should we be surprised... at all... that one of TimG's go-to guys is the 'Honest Broker Joker'?

If an expert is dishonest and shifts their arguments, then their word is no good. They are similar to the "scientists" that creationist groups use, who do no real scientific research, and make different claims depending on who there audience is. The Discovery Institute boys: Behe, Dembski and Wells, have a different story to tell when they have an opportunity to speak before Congress, or to a university crowd, then they do when they go to some church in podunkville. The scientists who have public profiles and write books for the general reader, try as best as they can to educate the public; but the disinformation scientists are only there to reinforce arguments, and they make no effort in their books to explain how their "science" works to the average reader. It's the literary equivalent of a shell game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, Pielke quotes the typical equivocating bullshit! Maybe there's global warming but we'll have to wait centuries to find out! What kind of advice is this?

should we be surprised... at all... that one of TimG's go-to guys is the 'Honest Broker Joker'? Perhaps TimG could elucidate the Pielke Jr. data normalization wizardry that presumes to exclude existing mitigation costs from storm cost estimates and underlying trends. Of course, Pielke lappers like TimG will beak-off about the lack of determined climate change influence on extreme events... relying on Pielke data normalization wizardry that chooses, knowingly, to eliminate all manner of significant mitigating costs... be they related to physical measures (such as dams, detention basins, surge barriers, the widening and deepening of levees and channels, adherence to heightened building code/standards, etc.), or planning measure costs (such as land reuse strategies, rezoning, etc.), or related government support/bureaucracy requirements to manage mitigation strategies/deployment, etc.. Of course, given TimG's predilection toward an adapt-r-us only approach, one wonders whether there is a blurring line between my aforementioned categorization of measures as mitigation versus adaptation... hey, Timmay - does this purposeful Pielke Jr. elimination of "mitigation/adaptation" costs from his "analysis", imply they are mere trivialities - hey? :lol:

If you are trying to make the case that CO2 is causing harm then you must show that this harm occurs even after taking into account all of the BAU activities.

By suggesting that BAU adaption efforts should be excluded you show how weak your case for CO2 mitigation really is. i.e. if what we already do is sufficient to completely compensate for any hypothetical damages from CO2 then there is no possible justification for expensive (and futile) efforts to reduce CO2.

clearly, you've shown past examples of reading comprehension difficulty... this one is just sweeter (and more damning) in that you don't even know the foundations of your Pielke parroting - it's Pielke that's excluding any existing 'mitigation/adaptation' costs from his own data normalization methodology! The wizardly Pielke Jr. data normalization is effectively leveraging money spent on 'mitigate/adapt' (to climate change), to negate the trending impact of the climate change effect the money being spent is intended to offset/combat. Don't worry, says TimG/Pielke... the more you spend the less likely there will be an effecting trend! Hee-haw!!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, if you can't even accept the evidence for the harms of tobacco, no wonder you can't see evidence that pumping carbon in the air is changing the climate!
Can you read? My point is insurance companies have a finacial incentive to exagerrate the harms by AGW because it allows them to 1) justify premium increases and 2) extract subsidies from governments. Therefore reports produced by insurance companies have no credibility.
it's your side that denies the clear consensus of scientific evidence to accept the wisdom of a handful of hired cranks
The scientific consensus on disaster damages is there is no evidence of a relationship. You are one denying it because of your obession with CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an expert is dishonest and shifts their arguments, then their word is no good. They are similar to the "scientists" that creationist groups use, who do no real scientific research, and make different claims depending on who there audience is. The Discovery Institute boys: Behe, Dembski and Wells, have a different story to tell when they have an opportunity to speak before Congress, or to a university crowd, then they do when they go to some church in podunkville. The scientists who have public profiles and write books for the general reader, try as best as they can to educate the public; but the disinformation scientists are only there to reinforce arguments, and they make no effort in their books to explain how their "science" works to the average reader. It's the literary equivalent of a shell game.

oh ya! And both the Pielke's ratchet that up a notch with their plaintive bleats about being improperly categorized as "skeptics"... I trust we'll have TimG come to Junior's rescue - I expect we can have some fun with the niche Junior has attempted to carve out... with his Poli-Sci degree... denigrating real scientists at every opportunity he gets. Your earlier reference to Pielke's treatment of Hansen is textbook - although certainly the Pielke retractions and, ultimately, the closing of the Prometheus blog were a significant countering result to the Pielke Jr. bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The scientific consensus on disaster damages is there is no evidence of a relationship. You are one denying it because of your obession with CO2.

no evidence says TimG... just look at my hero's peer reviewed papers based on isolated data normalization that knowingly eliminates all manner of 'mitigation/adaptation' monies spent... there's no trend here bleats TimG... can't you see... the trend has been eliminated by all the money spent! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The scientific consensus on disaster damages is there is no evidence of a relationship. You are one denying it because of your obession with CO2.

no evidence says TimG... just look at my hero's peer reviewed papers based on isolated data normalization that knowingly eliminates all manner of 'mitigation/adaptation' monies spent... there's no trend here bleats TimG... can't you see... the trend has been eliminated by all the money spent! :lol:

... further to the TimG 'no evidence' claim... one of several brazillion examples to choose from; with this one even following up on the same Pielke Jr. normalization approach:

...the assumption that climate-related changes positively influence losses is confirmed. In Schmidt et al. (2008) we used a method based on the “normalised hurricane damages” approach put forward by Pielke Jr. et al. (2008), and Pielke Jr. and Landsea (1998). Pielke Jr. et al. (2008) adjust the losses to remove the effects of inflation, population changes and per capita wealth. Normalisation is based on changes at the coast only. The authors see no evidence of any long-term trend in losses normalised using this method. In Schmidt et al. (2008) we took this method a stage further and adjusted the losses to subtract increased wealth in terms of material assets. At the same time, changes in material assets (capital stock) were based on all the counties affected by the storm, so that the different levels of wealth inland and between individual states were also taken into account.

The adjusted individual losses were then collated to show annual adjusted losses, and a time-series analysis performed. Any potential trend in adjusted annual losses would not be accounted for by socio-economic developments. A positive but not significant trend was identified for the period 1950–2005. However, a positive, statistically significant trend was identified for the period from the start of the last cold phase (1971) until 2005.

no evidence, squawk!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Schmidt et al. (2008)
Of course you missed the most important conclusion of the paper: "No trend is found for the period 19502005 as a whole." Yes I realize that they claim there is a trend from 71-05 but their results for the longer period repudiate any claims they make about the shorter period. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you read? My point is insurance companies have a finacial incentive to exagerrate the harms by AGW because it allows them to 1) justify premium increases and 2) extract subsidies from governments. Therefore reports produced by insurance companies have no credibility.

And before that you said: "And I can give you reports published by Tobacco companies that show cigarette have no link to cancer.

" Which is true; tobacco companies were the ones that got this strategy started by funding research that provided the results they wanted........and since you mentioned them, do you believe the cigarette-sponsored studies? If not, why do you take the word of oil-funded climate research at face value?

And we all know how greedy insurance companies are....except for American rightwingers apparently....who want to leave them in control of their health services. But, greed aside, many insurance companies are dropping flood and disaster insurance from regions that are becoming increasingly high risk. Why would they be dropping business that's economically viable? (since you're telling me that the costs of natural disasters are not really increasing)

The scientific consensus on disaster damages is there is no evidence of a relationship. You are one denying it because of your obession with CO2.

And where is this scientific consensus? The real scientists I've read, either believe there is a strong relationship between climate change and increasingly unstable weather, or are still non-committal; so where is this majority of scientists who say there's no relationship?

If I'm going to go against the consensus of opinion on this issue, it would be on the opposite side that you are choosing (to minimize the risks). If there are mistakes in the IPCC and other reports, it has consistently been to underestimate the damage...not to exaggerate it as you contend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And before that you said: "And I can give you reports published by Tobacco companies that show cigarette have no link to cancer.

" Which is true; tobacco companies were the ones that got this strategy started by funding research that provided the results they wanted........and since you mentioned them, do you believe the cigarette-sponsored studies? If not, why do you take the word of oil-funded climate research at face value?

And we all know how greedy insurance companies are....except for American rightwingers apparently....who want to leave them in control of their health services. But, greed aside, many insurance companies are dropping flood and disaster insurance from regions that are becoming increasingly high risk. Why would they be dropping business that's economically viable? (since you're telling me that the costs of natural disasters are not really increasing)

And where is this scientific consensus? The real scientists I've read, either believe there is a strong relationship between climate change and increasingly unstable weather, or are still non-committal; so where is this majority of scientists who say there's no relationship?

If I'm going to go against the consensus of opinion on this issue, it would be on the opposite side that you are choosing (to minimize the risks). If there are mistakes in the IPCC and other reports, it has consistently been to underestimate the damage...not to exaggerate it as you contend.

I'm 100% on your side on this... BUT, I'm thinking it may be TOO LATE... The "debate" may soon be over...

The earth has had enough and is now fighting back to get rid of the parasite it has siting on it...

Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Flooding, Hurricanes, etc., etc., etc., are some pretty potent weapons, eh... :blink:

Started shovelling yet? Car start today at -40? Slip off the road or have an accident from the ice storms?

Have a GREAT DAY...

Edited by GWiz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clearly, you've shown past examples of reading comprehension difficulty... this one is just sweeter (and more damning) in that you don't even know the foundations of your Pielke parroting - it's Pielke that's excluding any existing 'mitigation/adaptation' costs from his own data normalization methodology! The wizardly Pielke Jr. data normalization is effectively leveraging money spent on 'mitigate/adapt' (to climate change), to negate the trending impact of the climate change effect the money being spent is intended to offset/combat. Don't worry, says TimG/Pielke... the more you spend the less likely there will be an effecting trend! Hee-haw!!! :lol:
... further to the TimG 'no evidence' claim... Schmidt et al, 2008; with this one even following up on the same Pielke Jr. normalization approach:
...the assumption that climate-related changes positively influence losses is confirmed. In Schmidt et al. (2008) we used a method based on the “normalised hurricane damages” approach put forward by Pielke Jr. et al. (2008), and Pielke Jr. and Landsea (1998). Pielke Jr. et al. (2008) adjust the losses to remove the effects of inflation, population changes and per capita wealth. Normalisation is based on changes at the coast only. The authors see no evidence of any long-term trend in losses normalised using this method. In Schmidt et al. (2008) we took this method a stage further and adjusted the losses to subtract increased wealth in terms of material assets. At the same time, changes in material assets (capital stock) were based on all the counties affected by the storm, so that the different levels of wealth inland and between individual states were also taken into account.

The adjusted individual losses were then collated to show annual adjusted losses, and a time-series analysis performed. Any potential trend in adjusted annual losses would not be accounted for by socio-economic developments. A positive but not significant trend was identified for the period 1950–2005. However, a positive, statistically significant trend was identified for the period from the start of the last cold phase (1971) until 2005.

no evidence, squawk!

Of course you missed the most important conclusion of the paper: "No trend is found for the period 1950–2005 as a whole." Yes I realize that they claim there is a trend from 71-05 but their results for the longer period repudiate any claims they make about the shorter period.

:lol: uhhh... your highlighting the 1950-2005 period is consistent, in that it's the same period that Pielke 2008 is based upon - hey? It is interesting that an ~35 year statistically significant trend (1971-2005) isn't one you'll accept... particularly when you've been the guy in the past trying to flaunt positions based upon ridiculous short-term trending intervals of less than 10 years. Hipppocrite!

but really, c'mon... I belabored the point on data normalization methodology... I even highlighted that Schmidt et al 2008 extends upon the same 'traditional' methodology used by your hero, Pielke. Obviously, self-serving, you're quite content to align with a practice that presumes to remove increased damage costs relative to non-climatic factors (e.g., population & GDP growth)... while ignoring mitigating and adaptive measures intended to decrease damage costs related to climatic factors. How convenient for you... particularly when you so curtly label those mitigating and adaptive measures as "business as usual"! BAU? Really? All the while, effectively cherry-picking your preferred timeframe - oh my!

speaking of which, this is what your hero Pielke had to say in 2006:

Clearly, since 1970 climate change has shaped the disaster loss record.

say what! Huh! Yabut... TimG says there's no evidence!

which brings us to Crompton et al, 2011 (with Pielke Jr. being one of the 'et al')... a study solely targeting U.S. tropical cyclone loss data... but don't let that stop the authors (and the TimG's of the world) from extrapolating that generally and broadly to, "all global weather-related natural disaster losses.". A study that openly states:

Our study ignores future rising sea-levels and related adaptation efforts, both of which will be important for damage arising from storm surge, as well as any future changes in tropical cyclone rainfall

oh my! Say what!!! All of this bundled within the gross generalities being made within the paper... all subject to the whims of hurricane tracking, where a single hurricane making landfall could have totally skewed the claimed result analysis. Of course, this recent past hurricane season is a testament to the study's same gross generalities... where upwards of 3-4 cat 4 series hurricanes failed to make (U.S.) landfall (a generalized landfall failure itself being talked of in terms of a result of climatic influence). There but for the grace of but one additional landfall hurricane goes another Pielke Jr. study result! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is interesting that an ~35 year statistically significant trend (1971-2005) isn't one you'll accept
There are well document ocean cycles such as the PDO which happened to change phase in the 70s. If a trend exists post 71 but not for the entire period then the more plausible explanation is storms follow a cycle. There are many many examples of dishonest alarmists exaggerating their case by ignoring data before the 70s.

I also don't have time to dig into the details of the normalization algorithms. When I have looked into Pielke-alarmist team spats in the past I have invariably found that Pielke is right and the alarmist scientists are wrong because they cannot separate their assumptions from their conclusions. This leads them to make statements of fact that are really not supported by the data. IOW, I doubt this 'adjustment for capital assets' is justified and sounds like a way to rig the numbers and guarantee that a trend will show up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 100% on your side on this... BUT, I'm thinking it may be TOO LATE... The "debate" may soon be over...

The earth has had enough and is now fighting back to get rid of the parasite it has siting on it...

Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Flooding, Hurricanes, etc., etc., etc., are some pretty potent weapons, eh... :blink:

Started shovelling yet? Car start today at -40? Slip off the road or have an accident from the ice storms?

Have a GREAT DAY...

I don't know if you were around pre-internet days, but one I had a regular subscription to for years was OMNI, a magazine created by science fiction writer Ben Bova, that included coverage of science stories along with 2 or 3 SF short stories in each issue. Back in the late 80's, editor in chief - Bova, wrote a relatively long short story back in the days before there was any focus on global warming. In that story, when the nations of the world (led by the United States) are confronted with the kind of reports they started receiving 20 years ago, there is a massive, international Marshall Plan created to convert the world economies from oil, gas and coal, to sustainable energy sources. His story concentrates on the process of how it could be achieved through the existing technology of the day......but, as we are all aware, the political will was totally lacking, and Ben Bova's story turned out to be fantasy, rather than science fiction!

Back in the early 90's, there were a gathering number of scientists who started concluding that human impact was changing the climate, and action was needed soon to prevent catastrophic climate change. Even science fiction writers 25 or 30 years ago, would have figured that everyone would at least be in agreement once the changes started happening, but no one foresaw that the oil companies would create the equivalents of "Baghdad Bobs" to keep the state of confusion going, even at a time when the poles are melting and changing the weather down here.

Last year, I picked up Gwynn Dyer's book: Climate Wars, which was written during the Bush Administration, and details how officials within the Administration and various departments were totally at odds with the official line from the President and Republican cohorts. I started thinking of a conclusion that's not exactly spelled out in the book: top Government officials and corporate leaders are accounting for the effects of catastrophic climate change, and in the process of writing off most of the Third World. If they know the threat is real, but would rather do nothing about it, I'm assuming that they still believe they can fall back to safe locations and save themselves and selected supporters while most of the Earth is convulsed with famines, wars and disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: uhhh... your highlighting the 1950-2005 period is consistent, in that it's the same period that Pielke 2008 is based upon - hey? It is interesting that an ~35 year statistically significant trend (1971-2005) isn't one you'll accept... particularly when you've been the guy in the past trying to flaunt positions based upon ridiculous short-term trending intervals of less than 10 years. Hipppocrite!

There are well document ocean cycles such as the PDO which happened to change phase in the 70s. If a trend exists post 71 but not for the entire period then the more plausible explanation is storms follow a cycle. There are many many examples of dishonest alarmists exaggerating their case by ignoring data before the 70s.

I also don't have time to dig into the details of the normalization algorithms. When I have looked into Pielke-alarmist team spats in the past I have invariably found that Pielke is right and the alarmist scientists are wrong because they cannot separate their assumptions from their conclusions. This leads them to make statements of fact that are really not supported by the data. IOW, I doubt this 'adjustment for capital assets' is justified and sounds like a way to rig the numbers and guarantee that a trend will show up.

oh please... step forward and make your case for PDO - you know actually substantiate something... provide something other than your own personal musings - hey? I mean, surely... there must be something out there - perhaps give your MLW denier cohort, jbg, a shout-out... although he declares a time management constraint, PDO has been his favourite go-to for the longest time. Perhaps you and he can work some magic!

as for the rest of your post, your pompous self knows no bounds - the same Crompton et al, 2011 (with Pielke Jr. being one of the 'et al'), made reference to the Schmidt 2008 paper... yet they never bothered to challenge and/or refute the findings of that stated ~35 year statistically significant trend (1971-2005)... you know, the one you won't accept. Care to speculate why they never bothered to refute the stated trend? Oh, but wait... if only you were on the case... if only you had time to delve into those lil' normalization algorithms. Perhaps you can give your hero Pielke a hand... perhaps you can become one of his "et als" - hey? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh please... step forward and make your case for PDO - you know actually substantiate something... provide something other than your own personal musings - hey? I
Purely natural variations are the null hypothesis. The onus of evidence is on people claiming that it was something other than random noise. Cherry picking starting dates to produce a statistically significant trend does not refute the null hypothesis - in fact, it suggests that they are grossly over stating their case. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...