Skip to content

Fifth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

April 14, 2017

By Paul Homewood

 

image

image

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

 

There is no doubt that the “extreme weather lie” is one of the most fraudulent aspects of the whole climate scam.

Even the IPCC’s SREX report could not find any evidence that that extreme weather was increasing.

 

National Geographic’s claim is based on the above graph from Munich Re, showing the number of “global natural disasters”. But how are these defined?

Clearly every single flood, storm and so on is not counted. According to Munich Re themselves:

Taking very small events out of the equation, 750 relevant loss events [in 2016]such as earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves were recorded in the Munich Re NatCatSERVICE database.

So what determines a “relevant event”. The answer of course is heavily weighted to economic cost. While this may have relevance to the insurance industry, it has little bearing on climate trends.

As the European Environment Agency explained in their “Damages from weather and climate-related events” report in 2012:

  • The observed damage increase is primarily due to increases in population, economic wealth and human activities in hazard-prone areas and to better reporting.
  • It is currently difficult to determine accurately the proportion of damage costs that are attributable to climate change.
  •  

    Roger Pielke Jnr, a leading expert on the cost of disasters, has repeatedly shown claims that extreme weather is getting worse to be worthless. His graph below sums the whole topic up well.

    Note that it is based on Munich Re’s own database.

     

    image_thumb33

    https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/684740869707071488

     

    Of course, Munich Re have a vested interest in pretending that weather disasters are on the increase, as it allows them to push up their insurance premiums.

    Despite a supposedly calamitous year for disasters, Munich Re actually made a profit of Eu2.6bn in 2016, well ahead of its target of Eu2.3bn.

    Most of this profit came from the reinsurance business, which made Eu2.5bn.

    Advertisements
    17 Comments leave one →
    1. quaesoveritas permalink
      April 14, 2017 10:48 am

      IMHO, using financial data to prove whether climate is changing either one way or the other, is pretty futile as there are so many other factors involved.

    2. HotScot permalink
      April 14, 2017 10:52 am

      With catastrophic weather events in decline, and insurance premiums going up, the insurance industry looks like a promising investment.

      Do they use the same logic for car insurance premiums?

      The cheapest quote my 17 year old daughter could get was £2,500 (we did find a car and insurance deal that was more reasonable) but so far the only claim she could reasonably have made was £300 for a new wing mirror, kicked off her brand new car by a passing thug, just because he needed a busted mirror. Needless to say, the excess was more than the cost of the mirror.

      Sorry, a bit off topic but the whole industry is a scam.

    3. Ian Magness permalink
      April 14, 2017 11:23 am

      Whatever the reality of the weather scenarios, those graphics are obviously fabricated. You can’t even say they are gilding the lilly around the edges to make their story look better – they are downright lying. According to that graph, “global natural disasters” have gone up from around 200 in 1980 to around 700 now – a mere 250% increase. Where on earth is this supposed to be happening? Why is not even the BBC reporting it? If this were true civilisation would have all but ended! It obviously a pack of lies! NG should be ashamed of itself.

    4. Joe Public permalink
      April 14, 2017 11:34 am

      Roger Pielke, Jr: “Economic growth, including greater concentrations of people and wealth in periled areas and rising insurance penetration, is the most important driver of increasing losses… loss trends have not been conclusively attributed to anthropogenic climate change.”

      Try this site – click ‘All continents’ tab:

      http://www.emdat.be/disaster_trends/index.html

      Or there’s “Benign climate: UN says natural disasters caused 70% fewer deaths in 2015”

      http://www.cfact.org/2016/02/12/benign-climate-un-says-natural-disasters-caused-70-fewer-deaths-in-2015/

      “The Indonesian forest fires were the costliest single economic loss event of the year and were triggered by local slash-and-burn tactics that quickly spread out of control.”:

      http://thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/20160113-ab-if-annual-climate-catastrophe-report.pdf

    5. April 14, 2017 12:15 pm

      No empirical evidence that extreme weather is related to emissions or that they can be moderated by cutting emissions.
      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2929159

    6. dennisambler permalink
      April 14, 2017 12:40 pm

      Munich Re became involved with Lord Stern in 2008 when the company co-founded a new Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, chaired by Stern, within LSE’s Grantham Climate Institute. Munich Re is constantly pushing the global warming theme and is also involved on the other side of the coin, dealing in carbon credits relating to developing countries.

      https://www.munichre.com/en/media-relations/publications/press-releases/2008/2008-10-06-press-release/index.html

      http://www.cccep.ac.uk/event/evaluating-the-economics-of-climate-risks-and-opportunities-in-the-insurance-sector-five-years-of-research-under-the-lse-munich-re-programme/

      In 2009, Peter Höppe, head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research division, said:
      “We should make no mistake: despite the lack of severe hurricanes and other mega-catastrophes, there was a large number of moderately severe natural catastrophes.” In particular, the trend towards an increase in weather-related catastrophes continues. “Initial analyses indicate that, apart from socio-economic factors, this is already due in part to climate change.”

      Pushing Paris:
      https://www.munichre.com/topics-online/en/2016/topicsgeo2015/cop21-hoeppe

      Höppe is still on the CCCEP Advisory Board, Bob Ward is on the management board.
      http://www.cccep.ac.uk/about-us/advisory-group/

      This is the sort of stuff coming from CCCEP:

      http://climate.leeds.ac.uk/news/extreme-weather-linked-to-climate-change-is-damaging-britains-favourite-places/

      “Lord’s has become the first cricket ground in the country to run on 100% renewable energy, as new figures reveal the increasing disruption to cricket caused by extreme weather patterns linked to climate change.”

      CCCP without the E used to stand for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

      These days CCCEP is funded by The Economic and Social Research Council, whose slogan is “Shaping Society”, http://www.esrc.ac.uk/

    7. Broadlands permalink
      April 14, 2017 1:09 pm

      5. Weather has been wreaking havoc. No. 6? …and in the 1920s! CO2 less than 300 ppm?

      Weather of 1921…press comments outside the US:

      BRITISH ISLES: London, July 10. England is sweltering and suffering the worst drought in a century. Today was the seventy-eighth virtually rainless day. For the third successive day temperatures have exceeded 100. The rainfall for the year is less than one-third normal to date.

      FRANCE: Paris July 12. The Senate yesterday… cancelled the usual July 14 military review in Longchamps owing to the extreme heat.

      GERMANY: Berlin, July 27. The potato crop has been the hardest hit of any in Germany by the prolonged dry weather..

      RUSSIA: July 17. Twenty million persons are on the verge of starvation in drought-stricken sections of Russia, subsisting mainly on moss, grass and the bark of trees, according to the Vossische Zeitung, which quotes information from “reliable Russian sources.” The parched earth, it is asserted, is opening up great crevices, and wells and rivers are drying up. Foliage is asserted to have withered on the trees, and a number of villages are reported on fire

      SWITZERLAND: Zermatt: July 26. The heat has not greatly abated. On the summit of the Wellenkuppe, above Zermatt, and 12,830 feet high, the temperature at 10 o’clock in the morning has exceeded 100°F., and this despite the summit’s being perpetually snow-clad… never do Alpinists remember such a variety of bright-colored butterflies in the high mountains as this year.

      ITALY: July 30. The principal phenomenon…was the intensely hot weather. An unprecedented heat wave continued to develop in its intensity of heat and in its length and duration.

      ITALY: Venice, July 30. The principal phenomena which prevailed [this week] was the intensely hot weather. An unprecedented heat wave continued to develop in its intensity of heat and in length of its duration. For several weeks the heat has increased until the past week the temperature has been up in the high nineties for day after day, and unofficial reports of over 100° have been frequent. The extremely high humidity has practically brought active business to a standstill, and has caused many deaths and heat exhaustions. The principal damage caused by the heat wave is the protracted period of drought which accompanies it. Agriculture is the chief sufferer from the heat and drought and no alleviation appears in sight. Weeks of cloudless scorching days have played havoc with the crops which were in progress when the heat wave began….from U.S. Consul at Venice.

      Under date of October 10, 1922 the U.S consul at Bergen Norway, submitted the following paper to the State Department, Washington, D. C. THE CHANGING ARCTIC by George Nicolas Ifft

      Excerpts:
      “In August, 1922, the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitzbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. Ado1f Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose was to survey and chart the lands adjacent to the Norwegian mines on those islands, take soundings of the adjacent waters, and make other oceanographic.investigations.”
      “Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 80°29′ in ice-free water. Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. At many points where glaciers formerly far extended into the sea they have entirely disappeared.”

    8. R2Dtoo permalink
      April 14, 2017 1:20 pm

      Don’t expect any honesty from the insurance industry. Even Buffet (Geico) admitted that he was laughing because Katrina was used to raise hurricane insurance rates as warmists used it to predict ever-increasing tropical cyclones. Up went the rates, and no major landfall since, so profits soared. What more could you want! The insurance industry was made to order for the scare tactics promulgated by fear mongers. Snowflakes want a life without risk – sheeple easily deceived.

    9. April 14, 2017 1:23 pm

      We’ve been here before with Munich Re, they have ‘form’.

      Scientists Denounce Dubious Climate Study by Insurer [2012]
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/scientists-denounce-dubious-climate-study-by-insurer-munich-re-a-862857.html

    10. April 14, 2017 3:00 pm

      What a disgrace by a supposedly high quality magazine. I hope they find their reputation suffers as a result of this scare-mongering. All credit to you. Paul for debunking this.

    11. April 14, 2017 5:01 pm

      Looks like the sharpest fall in their graph took place in… 2008.

      Perhaps a wise mind could plot global GDP alongside those numbers and see how they compare. My guess is that you could prove that bad weather causes GDP to rise…

    12. April 14, 2017 6:49 pm

      Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
      PART 5 – The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con

      “by most metrics, extreme weather events are becoming ‘less’ extreme as CO2 increases.”

      https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/the-great-extreme-weather-climate-change-propaganda-con/

    13. Dave Clancy permalink
      April 14, 2017 7:26 pm

      Could this post’s author elaborate on how we know that National Geographic’s chart is affected in some way by economic losses?
      I can certainly understand how that could be the case conceptually.
      Here, though, the chart seems (on its face) to simply be presenting the raw number of specified weather events.
      Is there something in the Munich Re database that could be cited/quoted to establish that the depicted number of specified events is greater now than in 1980 because of a definitional issue having to do with magnitude of economic losses?
      Right now the post is asking readers to take on faith that this is the case.
      I do not doubt this, but I would love to see the point be established.

      • April 15, 2017 10:05 am

        Munich Re are actually very secretive about how they define these things, and I have asked them to clarify what the financial threshold is.

        However, they certainly cannot be basing on death tolls, as they had this to say about 2016:

        While the year saw a two-thirds increase in the financial impact of catastrophes around the world, casualties from natural disasters were far lower in 2016
        than the previous year, at 8,700 deaths compared with 25,400.

        https://phys.org/news/2017-01-natural-disaster-year-high-munich.html

        And in 2015:

        Natural disasters claimed 23,000 lives last year, substantially more than the previous year’s figure of 7,700. However, the number of victims was still less than half the annual average for the last 30 years of 54,000, Munich Re said in a statement

        https://phys.org/news/2016-01-natural-catastrophe-losses-total-bn.html#nRlv

        The simple reality is that their database revolves around insured and economic losses, and little else.

      • April 15, 2017 10:57 am

        BTW – I meant to mention this study from EM-DAT, the disaster database:

        cred.be/sites/default/files/DisCatClass_264.pdf 

        They compare their database with Munich Re, and note:

        “The differences in distribution for EM-DAT and Nat Cat (Munich) are due to different entry criteria. For instance, the storm segment in Nat Cat is higher than EM-DAT. One reason is that numerous storm events in Nat Cat are registered due to their monetary impact. These are not registered in EM-DAT since in these cases neither fatalities occurred nor a state of emergency was declared”

    14. RAH permalink
      April 14, 2017 7:35 pm

      National Geographic ruined it’s once excellent reputation when it went to fully supporting climate alarmism. I canceled my subscription long ago.

    15. April 15, 2017 12:26 am

      Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: