Coffee House

Global warming isn’t to blame for the disaster in the Philippines

12 November 2013

5:15 PM

12 November 2013

5:15 PM

According to news reports, Typhoon Haiyan, which struck the Philippines a few days ago, is now overshadowing the UN climate summit in Warsaw. Some delegates and climate campaigners have been quick to suggest that global warming was to blame for this disaster.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

When it comes to cyclones and tropical storms, something quite remarkable has happened this year. The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season, which forecasters had predicted would be more active than normal, turned out to be a complete washout. For the first time in 45 years, no major hurricane made landfall. This year has also been marked by the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982, and the first since 1994 when no major hurricane formed. In fact, it has been one of the weakest hurricane seasons since modern record-keeping began about half a century ago, U.S. weather experts explained.

So, how can the same alleged cause, global warming, inhibit hurricanes on one side of the world while triggering typhoons on the other side?

[Alt-Text]


Climate activists claim that tropical cyclone activity, including the frequency and intensity of typhoons, has increased as the global temperature has gone up. Yet empirical observations published in scientific journals show that despite the moderate warming during the 20th century, the number of tropical cyclones making landfall in the Philippines did not increase and has remained unchanged for more than 100 years.

Hours before the typhoon hit the Philippines, authorities moved nearly 1 million people to evacuation centres. Many of these structures collapsed when the tropical storm hit coastal towns and villages, killing thousands. Much of the initial destruction that killed so many was caused by winds blowing at 235 kilometres per hour — and occasionally at speeds of up to 275 kph/h. But it didn’t have to be that way.

A superstorm of similar magnitude, Cyclone Yasi, hit Queensland, Australia, in February 2011. The cyclone hit Queensland with an eye of 100 km in diameter and wind speeds of up to 285 km/h. Yet local disaster management committees had initiated their plans long in advance. Evacuation, including of hospitals, was completed more than four hours before the cyclone struck. Because Australia is an advanced nation that can afford to implement highly effective disaster warning systems, not a single person died as a direct result of this destructive cyclone.

People around the world who are exposed to natural hazards are increasingly relying on the effectiveness of warning systems.  Disaster warning systems are most effective for natural catastrophes that develop gradually and relatively slowly, such as floods or tropical cyclones. Only two months ago, a fierce cyclone ripped along India’s east coast. It only killed 25 people as millions of people were evacuated in advance of the tropical cyclone, thus minimising the number of fatalities. 14 years earlier, over 10,000 people were killed in a similar cyclone that arrived without much warning.

Even poor countries such as Bangladesh, which is especially vulnerable to cyclones, have learnt how to prepare for the recurrent threat of cyclones and have succeeded in significantly reducing cyclone-related deaths. The two deadliest cyclones in Bangladesh’s history occurred in 1970 and 1991, killing 500,000 and almost 140,000 people respectively. In the last two decades, Bangladesh has introduced better warning systems that have helped to reduce deaths and injuries from cyclones significantly. A severe cyclone in 2007, for instance, caused 4,234 deaths, a 100-fold reduction compared with the devastating cyclone of 1970.

As the eminent US-researcher Indur Goklany has documented in numerous papers, the average annual deaths and death rates from all extreme weather events has declined by more than 90 per cent since 1920. This decline occurred despite a vast increase in the populations at risk and more complete coverage of extreme weather events. Goklany also shows that, globally, the number of deaths and death rates due to storms (including hurricanes, cyclones, tornados, typhoons) have declined by 47 per cent and 70 per cent respectively since the 1970s.

As a result of economic development and technological advancement, the world is getting increasingly better at coping with and adapting to the effects of extreme weather events. As Goklany concludes: ‘Currently many advocate spending trillions of dollars to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gases, in part to forestall hypothetical future increases in mortality from global warming induced increases in extreme weather events.  Spending even a fraction of such sums on the numerous higher priority health and safety problems plaguing humanity would provide greater returns for human well-being.’


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.



Show comments
  • Mnestheus

    What global warming is to blame for is the implosion to the point of self-parody of Tory– and UKIP– science policy, the discourse of both having been deranged by thoughtless think tanks subsidized by Nigel Lawson’s old pals.

    If recent , ( or for that matter ancient history has anything to teach it is that disparaging science is a sure fire way to lose a culture war.

  • Theiks Merfera

    urgent hiring !!

    Those
    who want to work at home and earn extra income from 350 to 500 a day ..

    Get
    paid by finishing tasks through researching and encoding online every week via
    LBC.

    Qualifications:

    1.
    Must be a legitimate Filipino Citizen and is currently residing in the
    Philippines.

    2. Age
    15 to 45 years old

    3.
    Highschool, College level or Graduate.

    4.
    Basic knowledge on internet and MS Excel, Word & Powerpoint.

    5.
    Accessibility on internet at home is an advantage.

    6.
    Must be residing on a place where money transfer services are available (LBC)

    ————————————————————————-
    Please fill up these information and send to homesfiesta@yahoo.com

    Name:
    Address:
    Phone Number:
    Email Address:
    Age:
    Facebook URL:

    for more details, kindly visit http://www.unemployedpinoys.com/

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    “to 275 kph/h”
    What the hell`s that supposed to mean? kilometres per hour per hour? What Muppet wrote this drivel? Benny, ask yourself, where`s the metre?
    The correct abbreviation is km/h. Look at your car speedo. Should be obvious even to the meanest intelligence.

  • Will Scribe @ RhymeAfterRhyme

    Of course we must pay compensation – how else can we bankrupt the developed world? http://wp.me/p3KQlH-7G

  • Toby Esterházy

    To argue as to whether global warming or climate change, or both, has in fact taken place or not, whether largely man-made or natural, is to miss the point, being that fossil fuels are simply fast running out, and that nuclear is a prohibitively poor substitute, and that the Renewables also prove nothing but an expensive, subsidised damp squib. Humankind has to slowly, gradually, orderly but surely de-industrialise and de-urbanise, and start returning back to a World without electricity (or even coal) by the end of this Century, and return back to the Land to lead shorter, more malnourished and more sickly lives. Our present World of the Computer is ironically fast numbered. The only question remains is, which Country is going to run out of coal last.

  • Alina Aks

    PLEASE READ THIS: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/typhoon-haiyan-climate-change-blame-philippines

    NOT this flawed logic and biased selective choice of facts, bullshit.

    The effects of global climate change will not be felt equally around the globe. Developing countries in warmer regions, with poorer infrastructure and means to protect it’s people will feel the blow a lot harder than we ever will, and their not even the ones with the soaring carbon emissions. Evacuating people is not a solution. It’s much, much more complicated than you’ve portrayed it to be, and that doesn’t mean that people’s homes, land, and livelihood will not be destroyed by our ever increasingly powerful climate change storms.

    • Andrew Dixon

      the guardian, are you kidding?

  • http://orach24463.wordpress.com/ CJ
  • Brian Mulcahy

    So the vast increase in frequency and strength of Atlantic hurricanes, plus the appearance of hurricanes in the south Atlantic (never recorded before in history), are negated by one off season? Second, the Philippine typhoon is the strongest ever recorded to reach land (your figures for the wind speed of the one to hit Queensland are for speeds recorded over ocean, not land; land is where we live). Goklany receiving funding from Exxon doesnt rate a mention either, then?

    • Andrew Dixon

      No Brian, it wasn’t the strongest, once again it was overstated by the warming extremists and people like you were happy to go along without actually checking the facts. It has been shown since that it wasn’t even close (in real terms) to the strongest. Kind of makes you wonder what else nasa and the rest has exaggerated and lied to people about, or at least it should, but unfortunately I bet it doesn’t.

  • El_Sid

    This is worth a read on recent trends in subsurface temperatures east of the Philippines :

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2579

    Tropical storms need a depth of warm water to become powerful, otherwise they just stir up cold water from the depths which dampens them down. Recently the water at 100m depth in the path of Haiyan has been 4 – 5°C warmer than normal, which is why it was such a powerful storm.

    • JabbaTheCat

      Don’t see any references to the Argo depth readings from those areas and those are all surface temperature satellite measurements…

  • BillyCobbett

    ”Global warming isn’t to blame for the disaster in the Philippines”….Yeah, i know. Thanks.

  • Chris

    I can’t agree with it. I think one of the main causes of climate change is global warming and people behavior who waste energy, food and water supply. Here is written http://blog.pulawy.com/en/global-problems-with-water-supply/ that our thoughtless behavior will have irreversible effects. Global warming will be more noticeable, resources of water will be not sufficient to meet the demand of the human population and natural disasters will be more often.

    • Vitaly Klitschko

      Do you spot the difference between global warming and man-made global warming?

      Literally hundreds of millions – which could’ve been used to alleviate poverty – have been consumed by carbon trading, green taxes and scrapping much needed fossil fuel power sources. And yet there has never been evidence that CO2 causes or even contributes to global warming.

      A technologically advanced civilization requires cheap “dirty” energy. Read Fred Hoyle.

      • NiCuCo

        In 1896, Svante Arrhenius published the paper “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.” (Carbon dioxide was once known as carbonic acid.) He stated, “If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.” He included in his calculations the fact that decreased snow cover would decrease the albedo (reflectivity) of the Earth and that a warmer atmosphere would hold more water vapor. His estimates of the ranges of temperature changes due to CO2 are similar to the ones determined now. The fundamentals of his work are valid today.

        You can find his paper here:

        http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

        The following web pages, starting with the last few paragraphs of the first page, are a good summary of the paper and discussions that followed:

        http://stsimonsislandgaguys.blogspot.com/2011/02/svante-arrhenius-part-1.html

        http://stsimonsislandgaguys.blogspot.com/2011/02/svante-arrhenius-part-2.html

        • BobD1

          That’s wonderful, except you missed his 1906 update, that greatly reduced his estimates, putting them back in line with the position held by most sceptics (nominal warming of about 1-2°C per doubling of CO2).

    • Fergus Pickering

      Ah, a puritan. The whole thing is a moral matter. People’s immorality will bring about their downfall. Or if it doesn’t, it jolly well should.

  • Dr Rip

    When the facts change, the arguments change to suit them. Dominant tradition in ideological science, as Karl Popper pointed out. Far too few young science grads have an elementary understanding of the philosophy of science, and are naturally predisposed to supporting the orthodoxy.

    • pp22pp

      Sciences like geology are having the hard science ripped out of them and are now very touchy-feely. Disaster management is in, fluid dynamics is out. I had a conversation with a physicist not long ago who said the trend had even spread to his discipline.

  • In2minds

    Not global warming? You mean the BBC is lying when it says it is?

  • chan chan

    No, but Prince Charles says it’s responsible for the war in Syria.

  • Fergus Pickering

    And when they told us how wonderful they were, we didn’t believe them.Why would anyone believe what ‘activists’ (i e.people with personal problems and nothing better to do) say about anything?

    • telemachus

      Question Fergus
      Is an activist someone who haunts Coffee House?

      • Neotelemachus

        No, they are leftist, numpty, Idiots 1-6, Labtard HQ sponsored Trolls, Idiot #1.

        • http://www.derekwilliams.net Derek Williams

          And all that name calling proves your point, how?

          (or was that sarcasm?)

      • Fergus Pickering

        No. I do all this sitting down.

  • MadelineDesign

    What U.S. tea-billy paid you to write this article?

  • Lungfish

    Uh,I was a lefty student in 1988, um, duh, I still am a bit dumb but have yet to see any evidence of this massive ‘ ice age’ that was coming, oh duh sorry, huge glabal warming, blah, whatever, could I get my grant now?, and is Nelson Mandela claiming his bus pass etc- I’m so confused, who the fuck is Che Guvara an can I vote for him in the Yuro’s?

  • Bonkim

    The big debate should be about world population and how to reduce numbers.

    • tastemylogos

      I assume you won’t be one of the unlucky ones though?

    • http://orach24463.wordpress.com/ CJ

      You First

    • Andrew Dixon

      apparently we already know how to do this, let CC take hold. You actually think lefties would be all for CC, as they seem to be keen to reduce the population.

      • Bonkim

        Why are you opposed to population control measures so over a period people are given incentives not to breed – the human animal is the most destructive of animal species on earth.

  • roger

    The big debate is about the term ‘man made’, we know there is warming, but is it cyclical or unstable . There were ice ages and also hotter periods, we still don’t have evidence if it’s just natural variation.

  • roger

    Forty years ago this precise area was hit by a huge typhoon, but there wasn’t a city of 200,000 people there, there are pathetic unenforced building standards and people build in the wrong places. It’s like all the British people building on flood plains and complaining about floods.

    • Bonkim

      quite right Roger – reduce populations across the globe.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        How about we start with you?

        • Bonkim

          Why not? But you are not in the ‘we’..

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Correct. I’m not the socialist nutter ranting about the “we”. You are.

            • Bonkim

              Thanks – I am still waiting to read something original and interesting from you on the posted reports – not what others have commented. I am a patient person. So still waiting – try harder.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                Yes, I’m certain you’re patiently awaiting your chance to bring on mandatory population reduction. You socialist nutters generally get there, eventually.

                • Bonkim

                  Fascist – subnormal intellect.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, I’d say those clamoring for mandatory population reductions are the fascists, lad, as well as being subnormal intellectually.

                  That would be you.

            • Bonkim

              Why not? Have you got an inferiority complex – being a fascist?

              • the viceroy’s gin

                That’s precisely it… I’m not a fascist. You are. You want to liquidate people, like all socialist nutters.

      • Andrew Dixon

        Or build better infrastructure and warning systems, I don’t suppose that could be an option instead of mass genocide.

        • Bonkim

          The Philippinos can’t pay and the rest of the world will be busy saving temselves soon when the war for scarce water, land, energy, and mineral resources start. The exodus from Africa has already started – now a trickle drowning in the Med – wait till te flood starts.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            Filipinos

            • Bonkim

              knit-picker!

              • Jackthesmilingblack

                nitpicker

                • Bonkim

                  unpicking knittings much safer than picking nits – .

  • emiller7

    Man made global warming is a myth!
    Man made pollution is a fact.

    • HookesLaw

      the web is certainly polluted.

    • Bonkim

      Man is the polluter and pollution on earth.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        You are, for sure.

        • Bonkim

          How do you know wallowing in filth?

          • the viceroy’s gin

            You’re the only one complaining about wallowing in filth, lad.

            • Bonkim

              The one wallowing in filth has lost his olfactory sense.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                Which is why you’re standing up to it so well, lad.

  • ohforheavensake

    Y’know, Benny- if I were you, I’d mention somewhere in this article that you trained as a social scientist.

    And you might also point out (as you told the Times Higher in 2008, that you’re not a climate expert-

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/403382.article

    • Mr Grumpy

      So you’ll be able to give us a list of factual inaccuracies in his article, then?

    • tastemylogos

      Why are you so religiously following the AGW doctrine, then?

      Do you have the insight to discredit peer reviewed scientists like Lindzen, Curry, Niuw, etc????

      You’re on another level,, fella/woman. ‘Thick’ doesn’t cover it.

    • Andrew Dixon

      Were did he say he was an expert, were did he say these things were his opinion, they are the opinion of others, others who actually know a bit about climate.

  • will Browne

    The climate change theory does not predict an increase in the number of hurricanes, but it does predict hurricanes of greater intensity. So why does this Peiser guy claim that the number of hurricanes not increasing is proof that climate change isn’t happening? Does this ‘expert’ not know what he is talking about, or is he deliberately trying to mislead his readers? From personal experience of the country I know that the Filipinos are as prepared as anyone to deal with natural disasters, but no country can be expected to be prepared for something of this magnitude. Of course, when you’re part of the problem, like Peiser, it’s far easier to blame the victims than examine your own conscience. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php.

    • HookesLaw

      What magnitude.
      It was a big storm but not eceptional.
      Local conditions at landfall and storm flood account for the disaster.

      • NiCuCo

        “It was a big storm but not eceptional.”
        From the article: “Much of the initial destruction that killed so many was caused by winds blowing at 235 kilometres per hour — and occasionally at speeds of up to 275 kph/h.”

        “One of the most powerful storms on record devastated the central Philippines, as authorities fear it killed an estimated 10,000 people in one city alone.” [photograph caption]
        http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/11/10/strongest-typhoon-year-hits-philippines/

        Sounds exceptional to me.

        • itdoesntaddup

          On the Saffir-Simpson scale it was a Cat IV. Extreme would be a strong Cat V. There were 23 hurricanes that made landfall in the US of those strengths between 1850 and 2010.

          • will Browne

            It was a Cat V and it was the strongest typhoon ever recorded at landfall. None of the 23 hurricanes you refer to were as strong as the one that hit the Philippines. “Haiyan made landfall as an extremely powerful super typhoon, perhaps the
            strongest ever recorded at landfall, with sustained winds estimated at
            195 mph (315 kph) by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. Previously,
            Hurricane Camille, which struck the northern Gulf Coast in 1969, held
            the record with 190 mph sustained winds at landfall.” http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/haiyan-northwestern-pacific-ocean/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes

            • Jackthesmilingblack

              “195 mph (315 kph)”

              kph? Where`s the metre, Muppet?
              Check your car speedo if you don`t believe me.

              • will Browne

                What are you on about?

            • Andrew Dixon

              BS Will Browne. It was not the strongest, it was not even the strongest to hit the Philippines. The initial report were all BS and overstated like thay normally are these days with all the climate vultures out there trying to tie everything to CC. Go and have a look at the figures given by the Philippines met office. Let me guess, you think nasa knows more then a met office right near the disaster. As for Wikipedia, your F&^%$#@! kidding right (sadly I already know the answer to that)

  • Neotelemachus

    Why is everything associated with so-called global warning bad? Surely there is an upside as well as a downside? Perhaps fewer hurricanes? More fish? Warmer winters? Climates have been changing since the work began and will continue to change long after the last human has departed this mortal coil. We adapt and that is how it should be, rather than trying to create a pre-industrial world that would beggar us all.

    • telemachus

      Wait until London sinks son as the polar ice caps melt

      • Neotelemachus

        London sinks? How so Idiot #1?

        • telemachus

          Look at an indicative map of increasing polar melt, dumbo

          • Neotelemachus

            With your doctorate from Oxford, are you incapable of understanding the difference between rising water and sinking land? Neither are happening in the foreseeable future Idiot #1.

          • HookesLaw

            There is no increasing polar melt.
            Ice is increasing in the antarctic.

            • NiCuCo

              Sea ice is increasing in the Antarctic, not land ic
              “The overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming,” said Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington scientist, studying Antarctic ice. “Why would sea ice be increasing? Although the rate of increase is small, it is a puzzle to scientists.”

              In a new study in the Journal of Climate, Zhang finds both strengthening and converging winds around the South Pole can explain 80 percent of the increase in ice volume which has been observed.

              “The polar vortex that swirls around the South Pole is not just stronger than it was when satellite records began in the 1970s, it has more convergence, meaning it shoves the sea ice together to cause ridging,” the study’s press release explains. “Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth.”

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

          • Peterkar

            i can’t find any such “indicative map”, which is based on fact. I can find a lot of National Geographic/New York Times silliness which ignores the reality, that polar coverage has been fluctuating quite within historical norms…. Give a thought to New Zealanders, who fear that their lovely country will be subsumed in Antartica…..

      • roger

        If Britain had a sensible population size, say 40 million, it wouldn’t be a problem. Earth would be a great planet for 4 billion people.

      • http://owsblog.blogspot.com Span Ows

        polar ice melts and grows every year, always has done. Also magnetic pole moves and as it moves eastwards will be more over land than sea there will be less ice.

        • NiCuCo

          “magnetic pole moves and as it moves eastwards will be more over land than sea there will be less ice.”

          ????????????????????

    • will Browne

      Tell that to the victims.

      • Neotelemachus

        Victims of what? The hurricane? A good friend of mine is in Cebu as I write, but what has that to do with global warming?

        • will Browne

          Events like this and worse are going to become more common as a result of climate change. Countries like the Philippines will not be able to cope with the devastation. Every time it happens we’ll be told that, as this particular event can’t be specifically linked to climate change, it’s not a reason to do anything about it.

          • HookesLaw

            But the facts are this.
            There is not an increase in these events.

            There has not been any global warming now for 17 years anyway.
            Therefor no matter what corruption of science you want to live by the increase in CO2 is not causing global warmoing.

          • Peterkar

            It would be useful to you to deal in fact and not fiction.

          • g1lgam3sh

            Ah, I see you are another who makes a wholly meretricious and completely dishonest attempt to conflate the fact of climate change with the hypothesis of AGW.

            The climate has been changing for around 4.6 billion years and will continue to change for as long as this planet has an atmosphere.

            Try a little honesty.

            • Wendy Fink

              The climate is changing faster. It may affect our biosphere. However, there is no hard science linking ANY individual storm to climate change or global warming, and no definitive evidence of an increase in intensity or frequency. There is some evidence of increased precipitation in some areas with drought in others, but that is all I have seen,

            • will Browne

              Why’s it changing then? Why did it change during the Carboniferous period? What happens if you take all the carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere back then and put it back in? If it doesn’t warm up then how come? If it does warm up, as you concede (i.e. the theory of Climate Change), then how do you explain that?

              • Forcedto Changemyname

                Will, I dunno that it’s worth trying to explain the rudimentary basics of physics and chemistry to folks who are impervious to science and believe all scientists to be paid shills while the fossil fuel industry are simply benign providers of the means to power our iCrap.

        • ohforheavensake

          Climate change will lead- arguably, is already leading- to more severe weather events.

          • Neotelemachus

            Err, no it won’t, isn’t. Be off to the Guardian with all the other Libtard numpties. I see Chis Huhne writes there now – another global warming fantasist.

            • will Browne

              If you have some compelling information that can disprove all the empirical evidence gathered to date can you share it with us please? We’d all like to have our minds put at rest! Or are you just a fantasist numpty?

              • Neotelemachus

                Empirical evidence to disprove? Gawd preserve us from these amateur scientists. Blah blah blah child. Begone with you.

                • will Browne

                  Amateur scientists? Like NASA for instance?

                • http://owsblog.blogspot.com Span Ows

                  simply post proof that there is more extreme weather now than 50 years ago (there isn’t) or that the events are more common (they aren’t).

                • will Browne

                  Sorry mate but you’re the contrarian. If you have proof to the contrary then let us know.

                • http://owsblog.blogspot.com Span Ows

                  QED. I am not the “contrarian”, you mentioned empirical evidence gathered to date, should be a doddle to paste a link to some of it…

                • will Browne

                  John Tyndall proved incontrovertibly that carbon is a greenhouse gas back in the nineteenth century and his experiments have been replicated successfully ever since then. The amount of carbon we’re belching into the atmosphere is about 6 billion metric tonnes a year (here’s your link.) http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/carbon-dioxide-people-produce-year. I don’t have to be a scientist to figure out that that is going to result in warmer temperatures. As for the empirical evidence that it is happening, disparate sources such as the IPCC, NASA, Chinese government scientists etc are all in agreement that it is happening and it is a problem (unless of course it’s all a global conspiracy.) Now, I don’t think I have to repeat Tyndall’s experiment or go up to the North Pole for myself to accept that, in all probability, it is happening. I have an open mind though, so if you have something new that proves them all wrong I’d love to hear about it.

                • HookesLaw

                  You are an idiot.
                  Look at the carbon cycle and see how much carbon nature belches out in comparison.

                • will Browne

                  Here you go! Let me know if you have trouble with any of the big words. http://www.wydea.com/topic/carbon

                • Jimmy R

                  What John Tyndall actually discovered was that water vapour was part of the atmosphere which has the greatest effect of absorbing radiant heat and was the principle gas controlling air temperature. He also concluded that the effect of other gases, which also includes CO2, was “small”. In other words he made no more claim about CO2 being a “greenhouse gas”, a term he would probably have been puzzled by, than the effect of nitrogen, oxygen of any other of the gases making up our air.
                  You really should make the efforts to check your facts will Browne, before trying to feed us Global Warmist Propaganda.

                • will Browne

                  What? Water vapour affects air temperature? How come you knoww that but nobody else does? Hang on, everybody knows! I’ll go check with NASA but I’m sure they have the forsight to take that into account.

                • HookesLaw

                  Water vapour comprises over 90% of greenhouse gases. Even NASA will tell you that.Foresight?
                  Various proponents of AGM have computer models and at the moment they are stumped as to why their billion dollar computers cannot reflect the 17 year pause in global warming.

                • Neotelemachus

                  I think their contention is that all the predicted man-made heat has managed to heat the lower depths of the ocean, without warming the upper part – contrary to the laws of physics. These AGM idiots always fit the fact to their beliefs which is why they almost invariably of the left, whereas we of the right examine the evidence in order to arrive at a conclusion. It is extremely frustrating that the left are so very, very stupid.

                • Neotelemachus

                  Still here idiot? You have yet to provide one fact to support your contention that global warming caused Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines yet you constantly demand that others produce facts to the contrary. You are now officially Idiot #6.

                • g1lgam3sh

                  You are utterly and embarrassingly clueless aren’t you.

                • will Browne

                  While Tyndall did conclude that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat (and than God for that) he most certainly did make the claim that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. and that it has a far greater effect as a greenhouse gas than other gases such as “nitrogen, oxygen or any other of the gases making up our air. ” You really should make the efforts to check your facts.
                  http://understandingscience.ucc.ie/pages/sci_johntyndall.htm
                  “In 1859 Tyndall began to study the capacities of various gases to absorb or transmit radiant heat. He showed that the main atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are almost transparent to radiant heat, whereas water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone are such good absorbers that, even in small quantities, these gases absorb heat radiation much more strongly than the rest
                  of the atmosphere.

                  Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest
                  absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth’s heat back into outer space. He declared that, without water vapour, the Earth’s surface would be ‘held fast in the iron grip of frost’ –
                  the greenhouse effect.

                  The greenhouse effect works as follows. Most of the
                  Sun’s energy is radiated as visible light. This is not absorbed by the atmosphere and passes through to warm the Earth. The warm Earth radiates heat back into the atmosphere as infrared radiation. This is avidly absorbed by atmospheric water vapour and carbon dioxide, trapping
                  the heat and preventing the Earth from freezing.”

                • Vitaly Klitschko

                  Tyndall’s experiments showed only the absorption properties of gases with respect to thermal radiation. Tyndall did not describe a mechanism by which a theoretical atmospheric greenhouse could function. In 1909, Robert Wood’s experiment using halite definitively ruled out Tyndall’s planetary greenhouse by showing that back radiation does not exist.

                • Andrew Dixon

                  You have an open mind, yeah right. There is plenty of stuff out there, you just don’t want to hear about it, its seriously not that hard to find. Does it disprove everything, of course not but anyone with an open mind would realise its not all settled. Your mind is closed tighter then a nuns privates.

                • will Browne

                  “Does it disprove everything, of course not but anyone with an open mind would realise its not all settled.” What do you mean settled? Do you want 100% proof? What I am saying is that Climate Change theory is in all probability true because the evidence shows that it is in all probablity true. On that basis we should do something about it. How does having an opinion based on all available evidence imply having a closed mind? What does having a trenchant opinion that flies in the face of all available evidence suggest?

                • Andrew Dixon

                  There is heaps of evidence out there that CC isn’t happening as the ”experts” say it is, but you refuse to look. This author has provided you evidence that extreme weather events aren’t increasing in number or strength but you refuse to believe it. So we should believe the CC experts but the experts who study extreme weather should be ignored. Everyone who isn’t just following along religiously, including the ipcc, NASA and the rest of the temp collecting places agree there has been no significant warming for 17 years, they just don’t know why. Everyone knows Antarctic ice is increasing. Artic Ice increased this year which proves nothing but wasn’t suppose to be happening. There has been record cold spells which according to the ‘experts’ a few years ago wasn’t suppose to be happening, apparently most places would never see snow again. There was suppose to be a global food shortage because of CC, rice was not going to be a viable food to grow because there wouldn’t be enough rain, but instead we have had record years for rice and food crops overall for the past few years. There is plenty of evidence that a warming of a couple of degrees would not hurt the population anyway, that it would actually help the population, you do know that a colder world is a harsher eorld. Most agree that the models predictions hasn’t come true including the IPCC, so why doesn’t that put some doubt in your mind about what they predict now. Even if it is true, exactly what do we think we should do, are you seriously saying we should destroy economies, sentence developing countries to a life of poverty and hardship by getting rid of the cheapest and most reliable source of energy available, do you have any understanding as to why countries such as india, china and many others have been able to develop and get many of there population out of poverty. Because of cheap reliable energy you idiot. What about all the poor and old, what do you think will happen to them if electricity is unaffordable. Yes we should reduce emissions by sensible measures and develop other fuels but destroying our cheapest and most reliable source of energy is f^%$#@! stupid and defies all common sense.

                • will Browne

                  There is actually plenty of evidence of climate change over the last sixteen years – here for instance. http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years-advanced.htm. Other natural variations that mask the effect in the short term (and will then exacerbate it when these cycles turn) have just been seized upon by obfuscate the issue. The fact that climate change is occurring is now even accepted by most deniers – they’ve simply moved on to arguing over what’s causing it. You even seem to concede the fact yourself in your post having initially argued against it. Now, rather than speaking for countries that are trying to get their populations out of poverty such as Bangladesh and the Philippines, why don’t you let them speak for themselves. You’ll find that their pleas for developed countries to address the crisis are becoming more and more desperate, because they are well aware of the effects for themselves and their economies if nothing is done. As regards energy, what you’re now arguing about is what we should be doing about it. This is the debate we all should have moved on to a long time ago.

                • Neotelemachus

                  What does proof to the contrary mean you idiot? That there has been no change in average temperatures for the last 15 years? That weather changes depending on solar activity, El Niño, or because weather changes? This is a typical charge raised by the idiot left when claiming a non-truth – we non believers have to prove the negative. You are all IDIOTS.

                • will Browne

                  We’re all idiots? Me maybe, but NASA? the Chinese Government? So, your argument is that there are natural cycles such as El Nino, solar activity etc. From this you leap to the conclusion that man-made global warming is a myth. I think that’s what you call a non sequitur. You may be astonished to know that climatologists are already aware of these cycles and factor them into their calculations. Logic doesn’t seem to be your strong point, or thinking things through.

                • Neotelemachus

                  As a matter of fact, I think NASA and the Chinese government have both done a number if idiotic things. As for you, the only clues I have for your idiocy are limited to your posts here, albeit they indicate pretty conclusive evidence. Now provide empirical evidence that you are not an idiot.

                • will Browne

                  If you think you have a point to prove then prove it. The fact that you have to resort to personal insults would suggest you can’t.

                • Neotelemachus

                  I recognise this circular argument. Yours is an alias just created on Disqus for this thread so you are probably that moron sorryforlaughing who infests the Commentator, or one of the teletubbie team of cretins. Anyway, you are boring and very very stupid and I will not waste my genius on you. Bog off numpty.

                • will Browne

                  I would suggest you don’t waste your genius on anyone. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of it to go around. By the way, is Neotelemachus your real name?

                • HookesLaw

                  Who have you lent your brain to for tonight?

                • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                  A rather disgusted Tadpole called Colin who is angry at the resultant diminution of his IQ.

                • Wendy Fink

                  dont feed

                • Victor168

                  Hat tip to CassandraKing in the Telegraph -:

                  “But, when you look at the science for tropical cyclones in the region, such claims don’t even begin to hold up. These two papers show the reality from data – no trend, either in landfall or in total frequency/intensity of storms:

                  Kubota, H. and Chan, J.C.L. 2009. Interdecadal variability of tropical cyclone landfall in the Philippines from 1902 to 2005. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL038108.

                  “Despite global warming during the 20th century
                  the number of tropical cyclones annually making landfall in the Philippines did not experience any net change. All variability was merely oscillatory activity around a mean trend of zero slope”

                  This is also backed up in Weinkle et al., 2012:

                  “From currently available historical TC records, we
                  constructed a long-period global hurricane landfall dataset using a consistent methodology. We have identified considerable interannual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls; but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the
                  presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data”

                  Therefore, our long-period analysis does not support claims that increasing TC landfall frequency or landfall intensity has contributed to concomitantly increasing economic losses.”

                • HookesLaw

                  Garbage.
                  You can say what you like without proof and others have to produce the evidence to disprove you?
                  If you have a theory step up and prove it.
                  All the facts are against you if you care to look.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You Camerluvvies might want to mention all that to your socialist buddy Call Me Dave, who’s in love with the global warming kookiness, and is dead set on destroying the economy accordingly.

                • HookesLaw

                  The govts chief scientist believes in global warming. Science has been bowdlerised.
                  But I thought I was mentioning it all here. Why don’t you mention to your tea party friends they are killing the Republican party.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  So like all socialists, you’re blaming somebody else because you’re a socialist nutter. That’s why your hero Call Me Dave is going to have his head mounted on a spike, 18 months from now.

                • will Browne

                  My theory is the thing you’re actually discussing here – the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. If you’re having difficulty understanding that maybe it’s because you don’t understand what a scientific theory is. If you google the difference between a theory and a hypothesis it might help you get it.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  you mean you assert and other people must disprove.There is a star in Andromeda that is made of Stilton cheese.

                • Neotelemachus

                  Don’t say that or Wallace Miliband will want to build a rocket with our money to go there to solve Tory created cheese poverty..

                • will Browne

                  I don’t think that’s a scientific theory. If you want to prove that a scientific theory is wrong then you do have to disprove it.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Quite the contrary. I you want to show a scientific theory is RIGHT thden you have to be able to prove it. If you can’t, then it remains an assertion you have taken on trust and the global warmists have shown that you can’t trust them at all.Lying and cheating is second nature to them.

                • will Browne

                  It’s a scientific theory not an assertion. Look it up in a dictionary if you don’t understand the difference.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Is theory one of your magic words. Many theories are just plain wrong. YOU look it up. What happened to the theory of the solid state universe/ Do you know or is your ignorance as boundless as your blind faith.

                • will Browne

                  If hypotheses are tested and consisently proven to be right then they become scientific theories. Theories are only proven wrong if new evidence is found that proves they’re wong. Have you any new evidence?

                • Fergus Pickering

                  All scientific theories are in the end proved wrong. Or have you never read Karl Popper. Go off and do so. No science is fixed

                • Guest

                  As with Newtonian Theory and General Relativity they tend to be refined rather than proven wrong.

                • will Browne

                  Quantum Theory. Gravity. Germ Theory, Evolution.

                • will Browne

                  Your logic seems to be that if something is a scientific theory, i.e., the observable evidence confirms that it’s true, then that means it’s not true. That doesn’t sound very scientific to me.

                • g1lgam3sh

                  Clearly you know next to nothing about what science consists of and how it proceeds.

                  You are the one positing the hypothesis of AGW therefore it is incumbent on you to produce evidence supporting it.

                  Can you describe to me an experiment which you could design and carry out which could falsify the null hypothesis of natural variation?

                  Here’s a clue, one of our finest ever scientific minds gives a concise and elegant explanation of what science consists of and how it proceeds, watch and learn.

                  You might actually grasp where and how you are going so drastically wrong.

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

                • will Browne

                  AGW is not a hypothesis. It’s a theory. Look up the difference in a dictionary if you’re confused. You might then grasp why you’re so “drastically wrong.”

                • g1lgam3sh

                  That is just so spectacularly ridiculous that I can only assume you are deliberately lying.

                • will Browne

                  “In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we
                  guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what
                  would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare
                  the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience,
                  compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it
                  disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.” I think your problem is that it does agree with experiment. That is why it is a scientific theory and not a hypothesis as you incorrectly call it. That is why the first sentence in your post is “drastically wrong”, and why the second sentence is also “drastically wrong” You are the person trying to debunk a scientific theory (something that agrees with experiment,) If you belief you can debunk it then can you describe to me an experiment which you could design and carry out which could falsify the established scientific theory you claim is invalid?

                • g1lgam3sh

                  AGW is NOT a theory, it’s merely a hypothesis.

                  It can never rise to the level of a theory, can you guess why?

                  Care to tell us what this ‘experiment’ is that it supposedly ‘agrees’ with?

                  It is perfectly clear that you know the square root of sfa about the fundamentals of the scientific method.

                • will Browne

                  “can you describe to me an experiment which you could design and carry
                  out which could falsify the established scientific theory you claim is
                  invalid?”

                • flaxdoctor

                  Contrarian? Even the IPCC’s SREX report and AR5 say you’re talking drivel. Do some research and please stop lying.

                • will Browne

                  No they don’t

                • HookesLaw

                  NASA scientists’ satellites show no global warming for 17 years.
                  NASA build spaceships they are not climatologists.

              • g1lgam3sh

                There is NO empirical evidence whatsoever supporting the hypothesis of AGW.

                I tell you what though, pertaining to the hypothesis of AGW, can you produce any empirical evidence which could falsify the null hypothesis of natural variation?

                I doubt you actually understand the question and its implications so this should be fun.

              • Andrew Dixon

                Have you read this article you FI. There is no evidence that extreme events are increasing, the experts back this up as does the IPCC

                • will Browne

                  Calling someone a FI doesn’t make them one. Getting things consistently wrong does, and I’m afraid you’re wrong yet again (at least you’ve managed to prove something.)

                  http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/climate-change-when-ignorance-is-a-recipe-for-disaster-20131111-2xccy.html

                  “The IPCC report again: ”It is very likely that mean sea-level rise
                  will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water levels in the future … There is high confidence that locations currently experiencing adverse impacts such as coastal erosion and inundation will continue to do so in the future due to increasing sea levels, all other
                  contributing factors being equal.
                  ”The very likely contribution of mean sea-level rise to
                  increased extreme coastal high water levels, coupled with the likely increase in tropical cyclone maximum wind speed, is a specific issue for tropical small island states.”
                  The chief meteorologist for the Weather Channel in the US,
                  Paul Walsh, asked to summarise the effect of climate change on Haiyan, told CNBC: ”I wouldn’t say that climate change is a direct contributor to this. That’s something that’s still being discussed.
                  ”But one of the things that makes these storms, particularly
                  for the US east coast, more potentially damaging is that sea levels are rising and continuing to rise and even smaller storms can have a devastating impact.”
                  In other words, climate change is working to make ordinary
                  weather patterns more dangerous. It doesn’t seem to be happening through any direct causal link to cyclones. But it doesn’t need to. A rising sea level will intensify the power of cyclonic winds to create bigger storm surges, according to the IPCC.”

            • Nicholas chuzzlewit

              That would be the criminally convicted liar Chris Huhne.

              • Neotelemachus

                Yes, the very same who is getting a nice income from the guardian and the BBC. As is his euro- fanatic, criminally convicted ex-wife.

          • HookesLaw

            No it is not.
            There is no evidence for

            a – global warming, there has been none for 17 years
            and
            b – a rise in extreme weather events

          • Peterkar

            Is it? Can’t find any data, repeat, data, to support that assertion.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Something of a one-way conversation I venture to suggest.

  • London Calling

    I thought exactly the same thing when I saw the News report…..it didn’t strike me as anything to do with Global warming…..just a strong typhoon and if you happen to live in the zones for typhoons then its to be expected………..

    • telemachus

      So you too have fallen under the spell of the Oil Lobby
      They are working fast and furious to make sure we do not link the floods in England, the devastating Bush Fires in Australia and the Catastrophic current typhoon to the greenhouse gasses belched out from their product
      Cannot worry the shareholders

      • Neotelemachus

        Gum trees in Australia evolved to spread their seeds (they literally explode) in bush fires. That evolution was complete before man and carbon fuels were on the scene Idiot #1. Bush fires have been part of nature in Australia for hundreds of thousands of years. More carbon is emitted from volcanoes than cars and more rubbish regurgitated on global warming by leftists numpties like you then all the landfills in Christendom.

        • Andrew Dixon

          There has been numerous bushfires worse and earlier in the season then the ones this year. Many before the industrial revolution, so what caused them dhead. You have no idea what your talking about.

      • http://owsblog.blogspot.com Span Ows

        Areas of the UK have flooded for CENTURIES. In past times the people were so stupid as to build houses on flood plains etc but hey, must be global warming.

        • HookesLaw

          And floods are caused by more concrete and tarmac runoffs, not simply the quantity of rainfall.

      • HookesLaw

        Yet more unuterable ignorance. There was a big storm but not exceptional. Hurricane and Typhoons are not on the increase nor is their strength.
        Trying to sound clever just shows you to be stupid.

        • will Browne

          The biggest storm ever to make landfall wasn’t exceptional? If it’s the biggest ever then by definition it’s exceptional. http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/haiyan-northwestern-pacific-ocean/#.UoPoq-L6R1o
          As you say yourself, “Trying to sound clever just shows you to be stupid.”

          • tomandersen

            you missed the word ‘perhaps’ on the NASA page. Actual wind speeds measured were far lower. The central pressure and other factors puts this hurricane in the top 50 of this century. It was a big one, but nothing out of the ordinary.

            Wind speeds are hard to measure for hurricanes, that’s why they use central pressure.

      • Peterkar

        Nonsense. Do some reading, and collect the facts.

        • telemachus

          See New York Times

          • Neotelemachus

            See Your Doctor Idiot #1.

          • Peterkar

            Please, please. “The New York Times” wants to sell “The New York Times”, and climate alarmism helps it do that. If you have any science in your background, some more rigorous reading will help you. Try Anthony Watts or Joanne Nova – you can ignore their opinions as long as you go look at the data.

      • gerontius

        Those wicked conspirators are everywhere aren’t they? – like reds under the bed, but they don’t fool Telemachus.

        • telemachus

          If the body politic heeded the reasonable life would be better for all

          • Neotelemachus

            Try reading your message before you post it Idiot #1. Better still, read it, then don’t post it. Either way you are still the number one idiot in these parts.

      • g1lgam3sh

        Is there anything you won’t lie about, anything at all?

      • global city

        but, at the end of the day the oil lobby is much more benign than the eugenics/deathcult lobby…don’t you think?

      • tomandersen

        The oil lobby invented the CO2 problem to increase the price of energy. As energy prices rise, profits rise even faster.

        There is nothing that ‘big oil’ would like better than to sell you all of your energy as hydrogen made from solar cells installed in shady areas (so as not to harm the sunny areas).

        In 1973, the ‘energy crisis’ came and went. since then the % of income or GDP spent on energy world wide has dropped. This is stopping, but only because of renewable energy.

        Who owns renewable energy? GE, Suncor, BP, Florida Light and Power…

        • Forcedto Changemyname

          There’s no need to use climate change to affect oil prices when peak oil is doing that anyway. Peak and decline are inevitable with all non-renewable resources, so a post-carbon future is something that needs to be planned for whether you choose to believe in climate change or not.

    • will Browne

      The biggest typhoon to hit land ever recorded is to be expected?

      • http://owsblog.blogspot.com Span Ows

        No, but this wasn’t “The biggest typhoon to hit land ever recorded”.

        • HookesLaw

          And the majority of typhoons never reach landfall anyway and no one is thus interested in their speeds, so the statistic is even more invalid.

          • Jimmy R

            So I take it that sailors, shipping companies, Lloyds Register and the Royal and various other Navies in the world have no interest at all in devastating wind speeds because they don’t affect anybody on land. I rather think the US Navy especially would disagree with that assessment seeing the devastation to ships and the loss of life an unexpected Typhoon cause to one of their major fleets in the Pacific during WW2. In fact, in past centuries, records of weather at sea was probably better recorded than those on land due to the fact the Royal Navy were fastidious about their Captains keeping such details in their Ships Logs.
            Not only that but the typhoon being spoken of did not even reach Cat 5, the highest level and only achieved a lower Cat 4. The simple truth is that, in their haste to create a massive story about it’s size, and no doubt play up the Global Warming Caused It propaganda it’s wind speeds of 235 KPH, recorded by the Philippines Met Centre, were initially claimed to be ridiculously high 235 MPH when they were, in actual fact, less than 150 MPH.
            The typhoon was nothing other than a normal strength typhoon with even stronger Cat 5 typhoons occurring on an average of every three years of so. Even the claimed death toll of 10,000 or more is now shown to be a massive exaggeration with the President of the Philippines, who has every reason to play the figure up rather than down to encourage more aid and assistance, says the death toll is a more realistic 2,000 to 2,500.

            • HookesLaw

              The pacific is a big place and ships steer round the storms.
              Most typhoons do not make landfall.
              As you say this storm has been exaggerated.
              The story is not that the storm is so big but that the Philippines is so backward.

              • Forcedto Changemyname

                Bigot much?

            • Jackthesmilingblack

              “wind speeds of 235 KPH”
              Come on Jimmy. Get your cotton-picking act together.

            • will Browne

              It’s difficult to know where to start with what’s wrong with this post. Lets start with this “Super-typhoon Haiyan, equivalent to a Category 5 hurricane on the U.S.
              Saffir-Simpson scale, struck the central Philippines municipality of
              Guiuan at the southern tip of the province of Eastern Samar early Friday
              morning at 20:45 UTC (4:45 am local time). NASA’s TRMM satellite
              captured visible, microwave and infrared data on the storm.” This is from NASA http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/haiyan-northwestern-pacific-ocean/#.UoUYouL6R1o . But lets continue with this “Even the claimed death toll of 10,000 or more is now shown to be a
              massive exaggeration with the President of the Philippines, who has
              every reason to play the figure up rather than down to encourage more
              aid and assistance, says the death toll is a more realistic 2,000 to
              2,500.” Jimmy R has used the confirmed death count to try and diminish the amount of damage caused by this tragedy. Jimmy presumably knows that the known death count is different to the estimated death count but chooses to use it to deliberatelly mislead readers of this blog. The real death count will be in the tens of thousands

              • Andrew Dixon

                WTF are you on about, HTF will the real death count be in the 10 of thousands, its already being established that the 10000 number was grossly overstated. Seriously your a F.I

                • will Browne

                  It’s still not clear what the final death count will be, but, sadly, the confirmed death count is now considerably higher than the figure predicted by the President.

          • Forcedto Changemyname

            Why is it invalid? I’m pretty sure it was quite valid to the millions affected by it :-/

  • Ben Cobley

    “Some delegates and climate campaigners have been quick to suggest that global warming was to blame for this disaster.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.”

    Nothing could be further from the truth, eh? Here speaks someone who obviously knows the truth about the whole of the world’s climate system and history- quite a claim. Yet one who then admits to ‘moderate warming’ (which means bigger storms) – thereby contradicting himself; and then and proceeds to go on about how it’s all the Phillippines Government’s fault for not taking precautions for this eventuality, which is no less likely than before apparently, and which is not the point of the article.

    It’s pretty rank poor stuff.

    • John WB

      You appear to be completely unfamiliar with the data which supports this article. In fact your post is completely confused.

      • Ben Cobley

        How is my post confused John?

        • Andrew Dixon

          Well lets see, were do we start. To begin with you try to pretend that it is the author who is saying extreme weather events aren’t happening and completely ignore the fact that it is the experts that are saying there are less extreme weather events not the author. Then you say the author admits to moderate warming which causes bigger storms, he does no such thing, he does admit to moderate warming in the 20th century (Who doesn’t, doesn’t mean its out of control or caused by humans) but what he says is that the climate activists (not him) says that the higher temperatures causes stronger weather events, which is not backed up by any of the evidence. Then you finish off by saying the author is blaming the Philippines for the storm, what crap, he is pointing out that poor countries with poor structures and large populations living in event areas more likely to suffer damage and loss of life then richer countries with better infrastructure. On top of that if that poor country has poor warning systems then it will be even worse as people will not get forewarning and can not get out of the way of said event. This doesn’t mean its the govt fault its just, unfortunately part of life, not every countries can afford all these things. Your whole reply is crap, you seem to believe the author is just making stuff up and you ignore the fact that he is actually getting his info from people that should know what there talking about.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        data which support

        • Guest

          N. A. G. A. S. A. K. I.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            Don`t overlook Dresden if you`re listing US war crimes. If you Brits had any integrity or morality you`d be voting down this seriously evil Internet correspondent in droves. But there you go, hypocrites to a man.

            • Toby Esterházy

              Your Countrymen were busy committing ritual suicide in Naha and the rest of Ryukyu/Okinawa and Satsuma in the year 1945, If memory serves me correctly.

              • Jackthesmilingblack

                The only place I`m Japanese is in your deranged mind, Jock. Surely the Job Centre can refer you to Social Services.

    • Russell

      I totally agree…Your comment is pretty rank poor stuff!

      • dalai guevara

        Gents, Lomborg has explained this years ago. His Florida coast example applies here.

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      Philippine
      Gimme a P
      Gimme an h…

      • Guest

        H. I. R. O. S. H. I. M. A.

        • Jackthesmilingblack

          That you, Jock?

        • tastemylogos

          W.E.I.R.D

  • Tron

    Could you or Fraser tell this to the BBC?

    • HookesLaw

      ‘Elaine Dewar spent several days with Maurice Strong at the UN and concluded in her book The Cloak of Green that, “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.” Strong conjectured about a small group of world leaders who decided the rich countries were “the principle risk to the world.” These
      countries refused to reduce their environmental impact. The leaders decided the only hope for the planet was for collapse of the industrialized nations and it was their responsibility to bring that about. Strong knew what to do. Create a false problem with false science and use bureaucrats to bypass politicians to close industry down and make developed countries pay.’

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here