There is “no real evidence” Global Warming causes natural disasters


A selection of short articles from ''

There is “no real evidence” Global Warming causes natural disasters

Gee whiz, it turns out Global Warming isn’t responsible for natural disasters. Who’d a thunk it?

The paper on which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) based its Himalayan Glacier argument — by Robert Muir-Wood (a researcher whose career the IPCC has undoubtably damaged) — is now speaking out against the organization which made him so famous. The IPCC based their claims on Muir-Wood’s article before it was peer-reviewed, and it seems he is no doubt upset that his work would be cited before being verified. Since the controversy, Muir-Wood has made statements along with fellow researchers pointing out that there is no validity behind the IPCC’s claims of global warming causing natural disasters — such as in Bangledesh and Cumbria — which are the basis of arguments for speakers shouting impending doom, like Miliband and Barack Obama. Here an excerpt from the Times Online article:

He found from 1950 to 2005 there was no increase in the impact of disasters once growth was accounted for. For 1970-2005, however, he found a 2% annual increase which “corresponded with a period of rising global temperatures,”

Muir-Wood was, however, careful to point out that almost all this increase could be accounted for by the exceptionally strong hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005. There were also other more technical factors that could cause bias, such as exchange rates which meant that disasters hitting the US would appear to cost proportionately more in insurance payouts. isn’t an AGW skeptic site, but they have an article up today that is a great take on glaciergate. Just the title alone tells you how much fun they have with the subject: 12 more glaciers that haven’t heard the news about global warming. it begins:

The glaciers are melting! The glaciers are melting! The glaciers are…uhhhhh…never mind.

Turns out the IPCC’s chicken little story that all the Himalayan glaciers are melting is just another exaggeration. Or fraud. Take your choice. You know, like the stats coming out of East Anglia CRU. And its claim that Antarctica is melting. And that Greenland’s ice cap is melting. And that sea levels are rising. And that the polar bears are dying. Fact is, some glaciers are retreating, but many others around the world are growing.

“But how is that possible? How can glaciers be growing when the world is warming up like a package of Jiffy-Pop in a microwave?”

Here are a dozen glaciers (or groups of glaciers) around the world that are growing almost as quickly as global warming skepticism.

Hysterical site, and they do enough articles that make fun of warmers to warrant a skeptic’s bookmark.



contributed by John O’Sullivan
Internationally renowned climate scientist, Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the man who broke the ‘Glaciergate’ story run by the London Times newspaper, has issued another startling revelation. Pielke claims that the famous Stern Review, a British government report of the economics of climate change, which discusses the effect of global warming on the world economy, exaggerates its climate calculations by up to a factor of ten and may be 40% fraudulent.
Pielke Jr. accuses the “Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change” a 700-page report released on October 30, 2006 by economist Nicholas Stern for the British government of being a gross misrepresentation of a climate study by Muir-Wood et al (2006).. The Muir-Wood paper was a study of increasing temperatures and rising damages from extreme weather events. The University of Colorado climatologist, on his website blog explains”

“The Stern Review Report of the UK government also relied on that paper as the sole basis for its projections of increasing damage from extreme events. In fact as much as 40% of the Stern Review projections for the global costs of unmitigated climate change derive from its misuse of the Muir-Wood et al. paper.”

 Although not the first economic report on climate change, the Stern Review is significant as the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind.
Pielke goes on to say, “They quietly went and changed a figure by an order of 10 downward with no notice of the change made.”
Professor Pielke noticed the fraud when he had the original papers archived for a study he was doing. The lead author of the paper, Muir-Wood made the following response to the misleading use of his research, “The idea that catastrophes are rising in cost partly because of climate change is completely misleading.“
Although widely accepted as a reliable policy-guiding document by world governments, the Stern Report has received various critical responses. Skeptic commentators and some economists have argued that the Review overestimates the present value of the costs of climate change, and underestimates the costs of emission reduction.
Muir-Wood goes on to explain, “We could not tell if it was just an association or cause and effect. Also, our study included 2004 and 2005 which was when there were some major hurricanes. If you took those years away then the significance of climate change vanished.”
Pielke’s part in unravelling what may be the greatest fraud in the history of science may not end there. He is working with other esteemed scientists to dig deeper into the morass that is the Great Lie of anthropogenic global warming. We at strongly urge that the UK Parliament, in its upcoming inquiry into the Climategate scandal, commits itself to taking testimony from expert climate witnesses such as Pielke and Muir-Wood.

John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website. He offers his services free to the site and is not a site employee. Any opinions he expresses are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the site owner.