Gov. Brown On Climate Risks and California’s Future Based on Junk Science
11/09/2011 1 Comment
Here we go again tackling an non-existing problem, burning up tax dollars that we do not have and must borrow from China, that is if they are leading money to solve junk science problems. Consider this from the Governor’s web site:
SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. and environmental, business and public health and safety leaders will come together on December 15 in San Francisco at “The Governor’s Conference on Extreme Climate Risks and California’s Future.”
The Governor’s conference will focus on the risks of unpredictable and extreme weather events caused by climate change and how our communities can prepare and adapt.
The Governor’s conference builds on the findings of a United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report outlining the link between global warming, extreme weather events and their economic impact. The IPPC report will be released later this month.
The Governor will be joined by Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Rajendra Pachauri and other leaders at the Conference, which will be held at the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park. More information will be made available as event details are finalized.
Now there are several problems here. One the Governor is relying on a UN IPCC Study that has not been released yet, but as we found out the past IPCC Reports were filled with misleading information that was never peer-reviewed, or pal-reviewed, or simply articles from taken from a WWF publications that were written by environmental activists.
Donna Laframboise, at the No Frakking Consensus blog, has found proof that the UN IPCC is using World Wildlife Fund staff members employed by a special unit at the WWF to write and/or edit large sections of the latest IPCC Assessment Report:
. . . there are 23 coordinating lead authors among those 78 names: the coordinating lead authors are in charge of a whole chapter. Note that the other ranks include “generic” lead authors, review editors, and numerous “rank and file” contributing authors. All these types of IPCC members are represented in the WWF panel; however, the overrepresentation of the IPCC’s most powerful people in the WWF structures is striking. More HERE.
The question now remains, who wrote the report that Governor Brown is going to use to scare the citizens of California into coughing up more tax dollars to solve a non-existing problem?
The link between extreme weather and global warming is extremely weak, if it exists at all. The occurrence of tornadoes and hurricanes are down, droughts are more less frequent now than in the past. Temperature observations do not support the computer models, with no warming from the last ten years, and the observations are below all version which forecast increases in carbon dioxide.
Now to the real issue, how many live are been lost to extreme weather events?
Dr. Indur M. Goklany and Julian Morris did a study for the Reason Foundation
Wealth and Safety: The Amazing Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900–2010
Here is a summary of the study with some graphics below, my emphasis added:
Proponents of drastic curbs on greenhouse gas emissions claim that such emissions cause global warming and that this exacerbates the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including extreme heat, droughts, floods and storms such as hurricanes and cyclones. But what matters is not the incidence of extreme weather events per se but the impact of such events—especially the human impact. To that end, it is instructive to examine trends in global mortality (i.e. the number of people killed) and mortality rates (i.e. the proportion of people killed) associated with extreme weather events for the 111-year period from 1900 to 2010.
Aggregate mortality attributed to all extreme weather events globally has declined by more than 90% since the 1920s, in spite of a four-fold rise in population and much more complete reporting of such events. The aggregate mortality rate declined by 98%, largely due to decreased mortality in three main areas:
- Deaths and death rates from droughts, which were responsible for approximately 60% of cumulative deaths due to extreme weather events from 1900–2010, are more than 99.9% lower than in the 1920s.
- Deaths and death rates for floods, responsible for over 30% of cumulative extreme weather deaths, have declined by over 98% since the 1930s.
- Deaths and death rates for storms (i.e. hurricanes, cyclones, tornados, typhoons), responsible for around 7% of extreme weather deaths from 1900–2008, declined by more than 55% since the 1970s.
To put the public health impact of extreme weather events into context, cumulatively they now contribute only 0.07% to global mortality. Mortality from extreme weather events has declined even as all-cause mortality has increased, indicating that humanity is coping better with extreme weather events than it is with far more important health and safety problems.
The decreases in the numbers of deaths and death rates reflect a remarkable improvement in society’s adaptive capacity, likely due to greater wealth and better technology, enabled in part by use of hydrocarbon fuels. Imposing additional restrictions on the use of hydrocarbon fuels may slow the rate of improvement of this adaptive capacity and thereby worsen any negative impact of climate change. At the very least, the potential for such an adverse outcome should be weighed against any putative benefit arising from such restrictions.
In summery, Governor Brown is going to hold a meeting on how his administration can save us from global warming this is not happening, and non-warming that is not increasing extreme weather, and deaths from what little extreme weather is happening due to natural climate variation is near zero. He is about to commit tax dollars that he does not have to solve a non-existing problem. Are you up for that? If not I suggest that you contact Governor Brown HERE.
You can down the full report HERE.
- Tornadoes linked to global warming- FALSE
- Hurricanes linked to global warming- FALSE
- Flooding linked to global warming- FALSE