Archives for September 11, 2005

With all the concern about global warming resulting in more deaths due to climate-related disasters, I thought I would see if I could find some statistics on the subject.

Since 1988 the WHO Collaborating Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) has been maintaining an Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT). EM-DAT was created with the initial support of the WHO (World Health Organisation) and the Belgian Government, see http://www.em-dat.net/who.htm .

Following is a graph from this site showing total number of deaths due to disasters from 1900 to 2004,
View image (75kbs).

Many would have anticipated that the graph would trend in the opposite direction.

There is a graph on page 5 of a booklet titled ‘Climate change and sustainable development’ based on this and other information that shows death rate per year and death rate (per thousand) from 1920 to 2003 due specifically to climate-related disasters. The trend is also one of reducing global deaths and death rates, see
http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/cc_sd_final.pdf (750 kbs).

It is predicted in the booklet that “All indicators suggest that similar reductions in deaths from natural disasters will continue as societies become more technologically and economically sophisticated.”

I was sent a copy of Ian Lowe’s soon to be launched book ‘A big fix’ subtitled ‘Radical solutions for Australia’s environmental crisis’ (Black Inc 2005).

I started reading the book yesterday at the beach. It is full of popular mythology dressed up as scientific fact without footnotes or references … and Lowe starts the first sentence, of the first paragraph, of the first chapter, “I am a scientist”.

He then goes on to employ the rules of propaganda every effectively, particularly rules 1,3 and 4, see https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/000579.html .

On page 13 he writes, “There is a great scientific tradition of scepticism, generally a good thing because it keeps us honest and forces us to justify our conclusions.” But then goes on to suggest climate skeptics “… try to win their arguments, sometimes by actually lying, but more often by making statements that are facually correct but misleading.”

He shows himself to be expert at the same including with the statement also at the bottom of page 13, “it is now indisputable that the global climate is changing.”
As though it was ever in dispute that the history of the earth has been, and always will be, one of climate change.

While suggesting skepticism has its place, Lowe provides no example of a contrarian view worthy of consideration and evaluation. Rather he suggests that climate change global warming skeptics who number perhaps 5 (in the whole wide world!) are given a voice because the commercial media loves controversy.

And if you were wondering how many scientists “support the accepted view” – according to Lowe it is about 10,000 (pg 13).