Is it appropriate for the IPCC to include a graph of global temperature Rise and US natural disaster spending?
in the IPCC WG II report, Chapter 7, supplementary material?
Is it more appropriate to link rise in natural disaster spending to coastal population trends?
Why does the graph they do include only look at a limited number of years from 1970 to 2005?
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001169this_is_just_embaras.html
@ dana1981
So you DO think its appropriate for a panel that is commissioned to study climate change to link the cost of a supossedly GLOBAL trend in temperature rise to US spending on Natural disasters over a cherry picked time period?
Do you honestly think you can show a credible scientific link that shows that a rise in GLOBAL temperatures are responsible for US spending on disasters?
Don’t you see the poor science behind this graph?
Doesn’t it bother you that a panel that is supposed to review scientific literature and report on the truth would make such an obvious agenda driven graph?
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
7 comments
Andrew O on February 25, 2010 at 9:26 am
I don’t think it’s very good science. They don’t have a strong positive correlation so it’s a bit of picking data to support conclusion you want. Disaster spending is a function of population and capital intensiveness. Global temperature is GLOBAL and has really nothing to do with a local issue geographically. The limited timeframe is also a case of cherry picking data to support a conclusion. Bad science again.
dana1981 on February 25, 2010 at 9:26 am
It’s just a graph, if you don’t like it then ignore it.
Logically there’s nothing wrong with it. Increased global temperatures lead to increased extreme weather events which lead to more natural disasters which leads to more disaster spending.
You could also plot natural disaster spending to coastal population trends, but I wouldn’t expect coastal population to vary wildly.
The recent global warming trend only began around 1960 and there was cooling in the 1970s due to increased volcanic activity and human aerosol emissions, so that’s why it doesn’t make a lot of sense to plot further back than 1970, where the plot is probably relatively flat. In fact looking at the plot, it’s fairly flat almost as late as 1985.
Anders on February 25, 2010 at 9:26 am
I think it’s good so that people can make a conscious choice of what is done with their tax money. The prices for Not doing anything will be much higher, throw natural disasters, then if action was taken now. Plus the cost of human lives.
qncyguy21 on February 25, 2010 at 9:26 am
probably because most skeptics claim that the climate should be observed for 30 years before accepting anything as sound scientific fact.
guess how many years is included on your graph?
if you would like to provide a chart that shows the several hundred years prior, i wouldn’t mind having a look.
Bob on February 25, 2010 at 9:26 am
"The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be."
George Monbiot
truthwillnotbesilenced on February 25, 2010 at 9:26 am
The really inappropriate graph they post is the Hockey Stick.
marc on February 25, 2010 at 9:26 am
yeah