Thursday, November 22, 2012

Awkward: In an attempt to influence policy at Doha, buffoonish "policy-neutral" IPCC chief Pachauri blatantly misrepresents the contents of his own IPCC reports

Pachauri: Science must drive ambition in Doha | RTCC - Responding to Climate Change
[Pachauri] In the SREX it was clearly stated that economic losses from weather-and climate-related disasters have increased, but with large spatial and inter-annual variability.

Estimates of annual losses have ranged since 1980 from a few $ billion to above $200 billion (in 2010 $), with the highest value for 2005, which was the year of Hurricane Katrina.
Earlier the AR4 had projected major impacts of climate change, such as increased water stress due to climate change and yields from rain-fed agriculture reducing by up to 50 per cent by 2020 on account of climate variability and climate change.
Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: A Handy Bullshit Button on Disasters and Climate Change
A few quotable quotes from the report (from Chapter 4):
"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"...
"The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"
...With this post I am creating a handy bullshit button on this subject (pictured above). Anytime that you read claims that invoke disasters loss trends as an indication of human-caused climate change, including the currently popular "billion dollar disasters" meme, you can simply call "bullshit" and point to the IPCC SREX report.


Otter said...

I posted the following to his article:

question, if I may: I had long heard that increased moisture in the air, due to increasing temperatures, would lead to heavier precipitation in the Indian monsoons, and greater flooding. Yet observation has shown that the Indian monsoon has become weaker, more sporadic, with less precipitation. May I have your take on this?

We shall see if it gets thru.

Otter said...

As expected, my comment has not yet shown up on his article, after 6 hours. I don't suppose it will.

I invite anyone who reads this, to go over and ask similar questions, as to Why the science doesn't match up to the statements made by the IPCC.