Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

Oh.... so horrible I made an error and corrected it.  So that invalidates my whole premise and casts doubt upon my ability to construct simple sentences.

 

I was poking fun at BritMan's posts, because that's what he's doing.  It appears you're not reading his posts or your would have gotten the joke.

 

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

So I guess since it's been now found that climate scientists made a huge mistake also...  that invalidates their whole premise and casts doubt upon their ability to do good science.... or even mediocre science for that matter.

 

Yes that is the double standard that is being suggested by BritMan, which is why I made a joking reference to your correction.  It does not necessarily invalidate anything.  It just means a corrections needs to be made and the results get improved.  That happens all the time, and it's how science works.

 

For the record, the authors responded two days ago and have submitted the correction to Nature:

 

"These problems do not invalidate the methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based, but they do influence the mean rate of warming we infer, and more importantly, the uncertainties of that calculation. [...] The revised uncertainties preclude drawing any strong conclusions with respect to climate sensitivity or carbon budgets based on the APO method alone, but they still lend support for the implications of the recent upwards revisions in OHC relative to IPCC AR5 based on hydrographic and Argo measurements."

 

[mogandave]

[my emphasis]
 
No.  You are not understanding the scientific process again.  Studies don't begin with a conclusion.  No study gets funded if it says "we intend to support the theory of AGW".  That's called a fishing expedition and would never get funded.  Why should a research council waste precious resources if they already assume to be true that which the research wants to study?  Try getting a grant to prove the validity of the law of gravity and see how much money you get.  You'll get none, of course.  Does that therefore mean the law of gravity is a hoax?
 
A study starts with a hypothesis based on an observation.  It then attempts to either support or reject the hypothesis, based on the available evidence.  Based on whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected, we can draw a conclusion as to whether the hypothesis supports the overarching theory of AGW.  The researchers might assume or suspect, before they begin, that their research will support AGW theory, but in the end, the results may end up disappointing them in which case they get to throw away their hypothesis and report negative findings.

I’m getting a little confused. In a previous post you indicated (if I understood you correctly) that a study that takes no position abstract would not be included in a collection of studies that support or refute AGW.

Yes, a study starts with a hypothesis, and the results either supports or rejects the hypothesis.

If we can draw a conclusion as to whether the hypothesis supports the overarching theory of AGW, we can draw that conclusion before we actually start the study, than clearly that conclusion would be included in any request for funding.

If what you say is true in your first paragraph is true, funding should only be provided to dispute AGW, and clearly that is not the case.

[attrayant]

Maybe it would be better if you read the abstract yourself, because apparently I am not doing a good job of paraphrasing it:

 

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'."

 

I read that as saying they did a key word search or searched for specific phrases in their initial search for material to look at.  That's how they got their initial cache of studies.  They then went into the studies and looked at the details to see what the studies found.

 

Just because the phrase "global climate change" appears in an abstract does not necessarily mean the study sets of to definitively prove or disprove AGW theory.  That's why there's always more to the study than just the abstract.  

 

If I may attempt an analogy: imagine we want to search the forums to find out whether people generally support of oppose the custom of wearing costumes on Halloween. 

 

Step 1: try to find posts that might be relevant by searching for anything containing the terms "Halloween", "costumes", "wearing costumes" and so on.  By choosing these search terms, we are not biasing the results of our survey.  We are simply sifting through the thousands of posts to find those that are most likely to deal with our topic.  At this point we have made no assumption as to whether people either support or oppose the wearing of costumes on Halloween, so we can't yet draw a conclusion.  We have simply gotten our cache of material from which we will study to reach our conclusion.

 

Step 2: Pore through the results of the keyword search looking at the specifics of each post.  We will no doubt find that some people:

 

• Support the wearing of costumes on Halloween
• Oppose same
• Are uncertain about same
• Take no position on same

 

Now, if I want to secure funding for my study, here's what I'll say to the research council:
 

"I'd like to do a study to see whether people generally support or oppose the wearing of costumes on Halloween."

 

And here's what I shouldn't say if I want that funding:

 

"Everyone supports the wearing of costumes on Halloween, and I'd like to get funding so I can find evidence to support that conclusion."

 

That second sentence is going to send me on a fishing expedition in search of ONLY evidence that supports my predetermined conclusion, and I am most likely going to ignore any evidence I find that is to the contrary.

[honu]

Most of climate change denial discussion is probably just trolling.  Those people have no idea if climate change is occurring or not and really don't care; it works to ramble on a little to get a reaction.  It's just a form of shitposting.

[BritManToo]

25 minutes ago, honu said:

Those people have no idea if climate change is occurring or not

Neither do you.

[mogandave]

Maybe it would be better if you read the abstract yourself, because apparently I am not doing a good job of paraphrasing it:
 

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'."

 
I read that as saying they did a key word search or searched for specific phrases in their initial search for material to look at.  That's how they got their initial cache of studies.  They then went into the studies and looked at the details to see what the studies found.
 
Just because the phrase "global climate change" appears in an abstract does not necessarily mean the study sets of to definitively prove or disprove AGW theory.  That's why there's always more to the study than just the abstract.  
 
If I may attempt an analogy: imagine we want to search the forums to find out whether people generally support of oppose the custom of wearing costumes on Halloween. 
 
Step 1: try to find posts that might be relevant by searching for anything containing the terms "Halloween", "costumes", "wearing costumes" and so on.  By choosing these search terms, we are not biasing the results of our survey.  We are simply sifting through the thousands of posts to find those that are most likely to deal with our topic.  At this point we have made no assumption as to whether people either support or oppose the wearing of costumes on Halloween, so we can't yet draw a conclusion.  We have simply gotten our cache of material from which we will study to reach our conclusion.
 
Step 2: Pore through the results of the keyword search looking at the specifics of each post.  We will no doubt find that some people:
 

• Support the wearing of costumes on Halloween
• Oppose same
• Are uncertain about same
• Take no position on same

 
Now, if I want to secure funding for my study, here's what I'll say to the research council:
 

"I'd like to do a study to see whether people generally support or oppose the wearing of costumes on Halloween."

 
And here's what I shouldn't say if I want that funding:
 

"Everyone supports the wearing of costumes on Halloween, and I'd like to get funding so I can find evidence to support that conclusion."

 
That second sentence is going to send me on a fishing expedition in search of ONLY evidence that supports my predetermined conclusion, and I am most likely going to ignore any evidence I find that is to the contrary.

I submit that people participating in a thread regarding Halloween costumes would be predisposed to enjoy Halloween, with a significant number of people that are indifferent and a smattering of people that despise it.

That said, to use that study to say that the distribution of all people would be similar to those in the the study is not likely, as people participating in survey are already predisposed to have an interest in the topic.

It is like canvassing people to determine whether oh not they support legalization of prostitution. The results will vary wildly depending on where you are canvassing.

But to be clear, you agree that the claim that 97% of Climatologists support AGW is not supported by the study, and that people making that claim are misinformed, correct?

[mogandave]

Most of climate change denial discussion is probably just trolling.  Those people have no idea if climate change is occurring or not and really don't care; it works to ramble on a little to get a reaction.  It's just a form of shitposting.

 

I know intelligent people on both sides of this discussion, and fools on both sides.

 

Constantly condescending to people and discounting their position out of hand is not helpful. It does nothing but generate animosity and make your position appear weak.

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Neither do you.

 

An unnecessary personal remark.  How do you know who understands the issues and who doesn't?  All it takes is a willingness to read the literature.  Having an understanding of basic science equips one with the capacity to understand research.

 

And that's not meant as a disparaging remark against those who don't have an understanding of basic science.  Lots of us haven't touched a science textbook in decades.  I don't blame them for not having the capacity.  I myself have only the most basic understanding of stratigraphy, but do I go around posting on public message boards how plate tectonics is a hoax just because I don't understand the underlying science?  Of course not.  I rely on the scientific consensus that tells me plate tectonics is an actual theory, well supported by loads of evidence.  I rely on scientists to check each other and improve the global knowledge base over time.

[attrayant]

7 minutes ago, mogandave said:

But to be clear, you agree that the claim that 97% of Climatologists support AGW is not supported by the study, and that people making that claim are misinformed, correct?

 

 

People making that claim have probably heard it or read it somewhere in the media (which is well known for sensational headlines and misreporting the facts) and are innocently repeating it.  The correct phrase, that I agree with, is "97% of the published, peer-reviewed research supports the theory of AGW".  Since 1 study ≠ 1 scientist, we cannot therefore conclude that this translates to 97% of scientists.  It might, but we don't know that.

 

Does it really matter?  This seems like a nit-pick to me.

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, honu said:

Most of climate change denial discussion is probably just trolling.  Those people have no idea if climate change is occurring or not and really don't care; it works to ramble on a little to get a reaction.  It's just a form of shitposting.

“...climate change denial...”

        Do you mean those trolls who believe climate should not change and we should sacrifice everything, in order to stop what’s been happening ever since the planet got water and an atmosphere? 

    The climate alarmists ?? 

    Seriously..... how many people in TV believe that climate does not change??   Of course climate changes. And right now it’s changing for the better.  Bit warmer since the colder, nastier 550 years of the L.I.A.    Nice ???? 

[mogandave]

 
People making that claim have probably heard it or read it somewhere in the media (which is well known for sensational headlines and misreporting the facts) and are innocently repeating it.  The correct phrase, that I agree with, is "97% of the published, peer-reviewed research supports the theory of AGW".  Since 1 study ≠ 1 scientist, we cannot therefore conclude that this translates to 97% of scientists.  It might, but we don't know that.
 
Does it really matter?  This seems like a nit-pick to me.

It doesn’t seem like not-picking to me that over half the research generated by Climatologists is not included, and we’re using the balance of research conclude there is a 97% consensus among Climatologists.

I agree this is a myth perpetrated by the media, intentional or otherwise.

If the institutions providing funding generally support AGW, and the institutions performing the studies generally support AGW, what percentage of grants will be approved that are in conflict with what they believe?

[mogandave]

To be clear, I believe that:
1. The planet is warming
2: Significant warming will not be a net benefit for humans
3. Humans likely have some impact on that warming
4. Resources allocated to solar, wind, geothermal and tidal technology is generally wasted
5. The best way to significantly reduce CO2 output is widespread nuclear power generation.
6. As it is (apparently) settled science, the bulk of the resources allocated to to this should be diverted to super-conductor technology

[DrTuner]

Ah research papers. I fondly remember the crap the humanists churned out in the noughts. All you needed to do is to refer each other and hey presto it's all legit. The ones who actually seemed to be sane never published anything. Probably didn't want to be associated with the nutters.

[balo]

I don't have time to read all the crazy long posts in this thread. 

 

Who won ?  Is it a natural climate change or a human made climate change ?   I suspect both . 

 

 

 

 

[attrayant]

5 minutes ago, Catoni said:

“...climate change denial...”

        Do you mean those trolls who believe climate should not change

 

I'm going to need you to cite the people in this discussion who have said that, because I'm not going to go back through 600 posts to find it.  When you do quote them, I'm going to be the first one disagreeing with them.  So please, shine a light on those people for me.

 

5 minutes ago, Catoni said:

and we should sacrifice everything

 

That, too.  Show me who has said that so that I can challenge them.

 

5 minutes ago, Catoni said:

Seriously..... how many people in TV believe that climate does not change??

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say "none".

 

5 minutes ago, Catoni said:

Of course climate changes. And right now it’s changing for the better.

 

Yes it changes.  In science, that's what we call an observation.  What's alarming is the rate of change.  Say something about that, would you?  

 

Humans have been around in our present form only a few hundred thousand years or so.  Prior to that, I imagine that Australopithicus was able to cope with climate change by moving a few kilometers north to a new cave every few thousand years.  When the climate changes slowly, species can adapt.  But when it changes rapidly, beyond our ability to adapt, species suffer huge die-offs or even go extinct.

 

Now we have more than just our animal skins and stone knives to pick up and move to a more hospitable climate.  We have made entire cities and civilizations that can't just be picked up and moved on a moment's notice.  Even if we abandon our cities, we've stubbornly and somewhat stupidly drawn lines on the ground where only my tribe can live, and your tribe isn't allowed to go there.  Too bad for you, I guess.

 

Yes it was much warmer back when atmospheric CO₂ was around a thousand ppm, and consequently there was no ice at the poles and sea levels were about 50-70 meters higher than they are today.  That might sound like a fun holiday at the local water park to you, but if that happens again it'll wipe out nearly all coastal cities.  Here's what North America looked like back then:

 

 

According to the UN, 40% of the world's population lives within 100 Km of the coast.  For scale, I've dropped a red line in the map above that is about 100 Km long.

 

And what about assets?  According to Nichols, et. al (2008), these are the most threatened cities ranked in terms of assets exposed to coastal flooding by 2070:
 

 

Just those twenty urban areas represents a loss of about a third of the world's current nominal GDP.  So while nobody has said that we should "sacrifice everything", it's pretty clear that by doing nothing we're going to sacrifice at least a third of everything.  But don't worry about all that, because it's going to be...

 

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

Nice ????

 

[attrayant]

55 minutes ago, mogandave said:

To be clear, I believe that:

1. The planet is warming
2: Significant warming will not be a net benefit for humans
3. Humans likely have some impact on that warming
4. Resources allocated to solar, wind, geothermal and tidal technology is generally wasted
5. The best way to significantly reduce CO2 output is widespread nuclear power generation.
6. As it is (apparently) settled science, the bulk of the resources allocated to to this should be diverted to super-conductor technology

 

 

Then we are in near perfect agreement, with the exception of #4.  What data has lead you to that conclusion?

[attrayant]

47 minutes ago, balo said:

I don't have time to read all the crazy long posts in this thread. 

 

Who won ?

 

Nobody.  We've all lost (if politicians don't get their act together and do something).

[mogandave]

 
Then we are in near perfect agreement, with the exception of #4.  What data has lead you to that conclusion?

At this point, I think that:
1. The development of solar technology is actually being restricted by government funding and intervention. I think some deregulation would help, but governments habit of “picking winners” will not.

2. Wind, wave and geothermal technologies:
a. Are too location limited
b. Will ultimately introduce their own environmental issue when operated on a large scale.
c. Anything that requires energy to be stored and or transported significant distances will not be economically viable.

I do think that in the US with some deregulation, we could get a good bit more out of hydro, which should we should be moving on.

[VincentRJ]

Nuclear power is too risky. Those who are alarmed about the 'scientifically very uncertain' effects of rising CO2 levels, should be at least equally alarmed about the possible, occasional, disastrous effects of mismanaged nuclear power plants.

 

The two major nuclear power disasters, at Chernobyl and Fukushima, occurred mainly as a result of human incompetence. The Chernobyl reactor was a flawed design operated by untrained staff. The reactor at Fukushima was built below the known historical flood levels of previous tsunamis. That was taking a big risk in order to save the increased construction cost of building the reactor at a level above the 100 year old stone tablets that indicated the height of previous tsunamis along that eastern coast of Japan.

 

There's so much corruption and mismanagement in the world. It would be very alarming if nuclear reactors became the norm in countries all over the planet, including developing countries.

 

We know what has happened in China and India in the interest of economic development. Low cost and high emission coal-fired power plants causing lots of haze and smog with significant health problems. The technology to significantly reduce harmful emissions existed, but it was expensive and rarely used. Now that China is wealthier and more developed, they are using the latest coal plant technology, Ultra-Supercritical, which almost eliminates all toxic emissions and particulate carbon, except CO2 of course, which we all know is a clean, clear and odourless gas. ????

[3NUMBAS]

its all too late ...all them empty taxis driving around bangers will be their death

[attrayant]

Using Chernobyl as justification to worry about the safety of modern nuclear reactors is like using the Hindenburg disaster to worry about the safety of modern air travel.  Nothing is 100% safe; we need to weigh the cost, risk and benefit.  Considering how bad designs were in the past, and that they're only getting better, I feel comfortable with nuclear reactors and other renewable energy point solutions wherever they work best.

 

In related news, China just smashed a record for sustained fusion temperatures in excess of 100 million degrees for ten minutes.  The prior record was about a minute and a half.  Meanwhile Trump is trying to figure out how to get coal miners back into the mines. ????

[Catoni]

On 11/16/2018 at 1:19 AM, attrayant said:

 

Nobody.  We've all lost (if politicians don't get their act together and do something).

   There we go..... someone finally said it... using just a few different words..... but same idea... 

Basically comrade attrayant is saying ....Politicians have to do something to save us...    "Government or the U.N. or someone in "authority".    "There oughta be a law" .....  more bureaucracy.... 

     To basically "save the planet"  would take a world dictatorship.. or for the biggest most powerful countries at least to become dictatorships working together to force people to change to cut the birthrate to almost nothing and to make us all go to bicycles and back to horse and buggy and sailing ships. 

 

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“ – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

  

    A dictatorial socialist/communist/Marxist-Leninist or Fascist world government might do it.   Something like along those lines.      A great excuse to set that system up would be the need to "save the planet." 

 

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

 

The ultimate prize to the eco-activists and their big government benefactors is the control of carbon, which would touch every aspect of our daily lives. Consequently, greenhouse gases and global climate change are of paramount importance to the eco-activist agenda. While much has been written about global climate change over many years, the basic aspects of the issue haven’t changed; we are asked to forget things we once knew and ignore the simplest hypothesis that the earth’s climate is ever changing.

Climate Change Deliberation: Taking Occam’s Razor to Proxy Data — The Patriot Post

 

 

Communism the Best Model to Fight Global Warming/Climate Change:

 

Michael Bastasch – 15 Jan, 2014

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.

*Edited for Fair Use*

 

 

[Scott]

Conspiracy post and reply reported and removed.  

 

[mauGR1]

14 hours ago, attrayant said:

Using Chernobyl as justification to worry about the safety of modern nuclear reactors is like using the Hindenburg disaster to worry about the safety of modern air travel.  Nothing is 100% safe; we need to weigh the cost, risk and benefit.  Considering how bad designs were in the past, and that they're only getting better, I feel comfortable with nuclear reactors and other renewable energy point solutions wherever they work best.

 

In related news, China just smashed a record for sustained fusion temperatures in excess of 100 million degrees for ten minutes.  The prior record was about a minute and a half.  Meanwhile Trump is trying to figure out how to get coal miners back into the mines. ????

What about nuclear waste ?

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

What about nuclear waste ?

 

It's nasty stuff and has to be managed carefully.  Contrast that with fossil fuel waste, which we dump into the air by the gigaton (45 GT last year), causing environmental maladies and reducing human lifespans all over the world.

 

That's not to say Fukushima wasn't an environmental disaster; it surely was.  But just five years after the accident, things are well on the mend.  This report is a summary of the environmental impact (air, water & food) five years after the incident: https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/fukushima/fukushima-2016/Pages/Fukushima-in-2016-environmental-impact.aspx.  You might be pleasantly surprised.

 

We need to learn from past mistakes and do better as we move forward.

 

[mogandave]

 
It's nasty stuff and has to be managed carefully.  Contrast that with fossil fuel waste, which we dump into the air by the gigaton (45 GT last year), causing environmental maladies and reducing human lifespans all over the world.
 
That's not to say Fukushima wasn't an environmental disaster; it surely was.  But just five years after the accident, things are well on the mend.  This report is a summary of the environmental impact (air, water & food) five years after the incident: https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/fukushima/fukushima-2016/Pages/Fukushima-in-2016-environmental-impact.aspx.  You might be pleasantly surprised.
 
We need to learn from past mistakes and do better as we move forward.
 

It is also worth noting that whether it’s a hundred years or a thousand years, at some point fossil fuel will become much scarcer and much more expensive.

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

It is also worth noting that whether it’s a hundred years or a thousand years, at some point fossil fuel will become much scarcer and much more expensive.
 

 

In less than 100 years, we went from horse and buggy and old wood fired steam engine, to putting people on the moon and flying hundreds of people at a time around the world at 40,000 feet and 580 miles an hour. 

      I’m pretty sure that in another 100 years or so, we will find another source of energy that will make what we do now appear ancient in comparison. Now take a look at your smart phone and computers, and G.P.S. accuracy,  and think about it.

[mogandave]

In less than 100 years, we went from horse and buggy and old wood fired steam engine, to putting people on the moon and flying hundreds of people at a time around the world at 40,000 feet and 580 miles an hour. 
      I’m pretty sure that in another 100 years or so, we will find another source of energy that will make what we do now appear ancient in comparison. Now take a look at your smart phone and computers, and G.P.S. accuracy,  and think about it.

I don’t doubt that for a moment, but for the time being, we do have nuclear.

[DrTuner]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

I’m pretty sure that in another 100 years or so, we will find another source of energy that will make what we do now appear ancient in comparison. 

I'm placing my hopes on virtual tourism using VR. No need to travel at all and if the service is bad, you may shoot them with a bazooka. Saves a lot of energy and nerves.

[VincentRJ]

On 11/16/2018 at 11:15 PM, attrayant said:

Using Chernobyl as justification to worry about the safety of modern nuclear reactors is like using the Hindenburg disaster to worry about the safety of modern air travel.  Nothing is 100% safe; we need to weigh the cost, risk and benefit.  Considering how bad designs were in the past, and that they're only getting better, I feel comfortable with nuclear reactors and other renewable energy point solutions wherever they work best.

 

 

I didn't use only Chernobyl as a justification for concern, but also Fukushima. Whilst the Fukushima disaster was probably not caused by old technology and under-trained staff, both incidents highlight the problems of poor decisions being made with regard to human safety, as a result of the pressures of economic development.

 

Consider the absurdity of the situation at Fukushima. Along the coastline there are a number of monuments erected a hundred years ago and more, marking the levels of previous tsunamis. Some of them, or at least one of them, even have an inscription, 'Do not build your house below this level'. Yet the construction of the Fukushima nuclear reactor, way below the level of those warning monuments, close to sea level, was approved. Why?

 

It's not as though those warning monuments were a hidden secret, buried in the earth.
It seems that the Japanese court is also in agreement.
http://www.atimes.com/article/japan-court-shocks-nuclear-industry-liability-ruling/

 

"Japan’s atomic power establishment is in shock following the court ruling on Friday that found the state and the operator of the Fukushima nuclear plant liable for failing to take preventive measures against the tsunami that crippled the facility.

 

The reason for the shock is the ruling has wide-ranging implications for Japan’s entire nuclear power industry and the efforts to restart reactors throughout the country.
 

Judges in the Maebashi District Court in Gunma prefecture ruled that Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco) and the government were aware of the earthquake and tsunami risks to the Fukushima Daiichi plant prior to the 2011 triple reactor meltdown, but failed to take preventative measures."

 

I did a search for historical records of previous tsunamis along that east coast of Japan, and came across the following information which also shows the number of people killed during past tsunamis. Prior to the construction of the nuclear power plant at Fukushima, there had been 4 tsunamis during the previous 100 years.

 

15.06.1896- Sanriku, a wave generated by the Riku-Ugo earthquake killed 20,000-26,000 people
02.03.1933- Sanriku 3,000-6,000 
07.12.1944- To-Nankai 1,223
20.12.1946- To-Nankai 1,330 

 

Unfortunately, this type of situation is prevalent throughout the world, as a result of the political emphasis on economic development. Authorities allow the inadequate construction of homes and infrastructure in areas that are at risk of extreme weather events. The historical record of such extreme events tends to be ignored, and the causes of the disaster are often blamed on Anthropogenic Global Warming, if not directly, then indirectly.

 

At least there are some sensible climate scientists who are prepared to concede that one cannot attribute the cause of any specific extreme weather event to AGW, but the false 'meme' that extreme weather events are on the increase is perpetuated by the news media.