Most of their work is predicated on the claim that things are getting worse. Higher temperatures are driving the climate into chaos. Weather events have already become more extreme and will get a heap worse.
But is this assumption true? Do the facts support the chaos, ‘everything-is-getting-worse' claim?
Is New Zealand experiencing deteriorating weather as a result of rising temperatures? There are countless MSM articles, scientific papers, regular statements by people who ought to know supporting the proposition and the country is investing millions in mitigation and defensive projects.
Unsurprisingly, not everyone buys into the popular line. A helpful contact of mine found a very thorough study that mysteriously received no coverage here but disputes the claim of everything-has-already-got-worse angle. You can read it at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17477891.2021.1905595
It is an intensive study of insurance losses from 1968 to 2019, normalised to ensure we are looking at data that is adjusted for the passage of time. ‘Normalisation is a standard device employed in such studies. Here is their conclusion……..
“A key result emerging from our study is that normalised seasonal losses due to extreme weather show no statistically significant trend over time. In other words, once we control the loss data for factors that we know to have changed, we see no residual trend that needs explaining by anthropogenic climate change, or any other cause for that matter”.
This conclusion accords with world-wide work done by Dr Roger Pielke. He points out that a study carried out by Munich Re, a large re-insurance company based in Germany and published by The Lancet showed as the world has become wealthier, the fraction of that wealth that is destroyed by extreme weather has gone down. This trend holds for rich and poor nations, and remarkably across all types of weather phenomena. It also helps us to understand why the focus on extreme weather among climate advocates is badly misguided.
Pielke keeps detailed information on all of the main weather events – cyclones, hurricanes, floods, droughts, wild fires, etc and he shows no negative trends. In fact, many show a positive trend. In a recent published paper he concluded, “since 1990 both overall and weather/climate losses have decreased as proportion of global gdp”.
The findings of the IPCC and the World Met Office are in general agreement with no obvious changes in weather patterns except for relatively minor changes in rainfall and drought conditions in limited areas. That does not prevent them from continuing, year after year running predictions of calamitous changes about to descend upon us.
The insurance industry findings are compelling. Any chance they could justify bolstering premiums would be taken by both hands. They simply cannot find any trends on which to hang their collective hats.
So, why are we bombarded daily with stories of on-going calamity? Its easy. Follow the money. Too many jobs, too many research grants, too many scary, sensational stories that sell advertising are dependent on keeping the catastrophic theme alive and well.
Are we a gullible lot or what?
Owen Jennings, a former Member of Parliament and President of Federated Farmers, maintains a keen interest in ensuring agricultural policies are sensible and fit for purpose.
Unsurprisingly, not everyone buys into the popular line. A helpful contact of mine found a very thorough study that mysteriously received no coverage here but disputes the claim of everything-has-already-got-worse angle. You can read it at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17477891.2021.1905595
It is an intensive study of insurance losses from 1968 to 2019, normalised to ensure we are looking at data that is adjusted for the passage of time. ‘Normalisation is a standard device employed in such studies. Here is their conclusion……..
“A key result emerging from our study is that normalised seasonal losses due to extreme weather show no statistically significant trend over time. In other words, once we control the loss data for factors that we know to have changed, we see no residual trend that needs explaining by anthropogenic climate change, or any other cause for that matter”.
This conclusion accords with world-wide work done by Dr Roger Pielke. He points out that a study carried out by Munich Re, a large re-insurance company based in Germany and published by The Lancet showed as the world has become wealthier, the fraction of that wealth that is destroyed by extreme weather has gone down. This trend holds for rich and poor nations, and remarkably across all types of weather phenomena. It also helps us to understand why the focus on extreme weather among climate advocates is badly misguided.
Pielke keeps detailed information on all of the main weather events – cyclones, hurricanes, floods, droughts, wild fires, etc and he shows no negative trends. In fact, many show a positive trend. In a recent published paper he concluded, “since 1990 both overall and weather/climate losses have decreased as proportion of global gdp”.
The findings of the IPCC and the World Met Office are in general agreement with no obvious changes in weather patterns except for relatively minor changes in rainfall and drought conditions in limited areas. That does not prevent them from continuing, year after year running predictions of calamitous changes about to descend upon us.
The insurance industry findings are compelling. Any chance they could justify bolstering premiums would be taken by both hands. They simply cannot find any trends on which to hang their collective hats.
So, why are we bombarded daily with stories of on-going calamity? Its easy. Follow the money. Too many jobs, too many research grants, too many scary, sensational stories that sell advertising are dependent on keeping the catastrophic theme alive and well.
Are we a gullible lot or what?
Owen Jennings, a former Member of Parliament and President of Federated Farmers, maintains a keen interest in ensuring agricultural policies are sensible and fit for purpose.
7 comments:
Agriculture & food, public health, energy & transport, trade, fiscal & taxation policy, even education. Almost every area of government is now potentially covered by the “climate change” umbrella.
They no longer need a one-world government, they just need a single panel of “impartial international climate change experts” working to save the planet.
Through the lens of “climate change”, these experts would be empowered to dictate – sorry, recommend – government policy in almost every area of life to every nation on the planet.
As president of federated farmers, what are you doing to defend farmers against this insanity?
Great essay Owen. I read the very same insurance report on the normality of these weather events, and as you say, if the risk increased the insurance companies would grab it with both greedy hands. I’m not surprised that the MSM chose not to publish it because it’s in conflict with their propaganda. NIWA knows what side it’s bread is buttered by rewarding their benefactor with a giant falsehood that cyclone Gabrielle’s barometric pressure was the lowest ever to collide with NZ justifying a climate emergency. Always ask the question of those scientists that promote this climate change nonsense, “On who’s payroll are you on,” invariably, it’s the Govts.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Some scientists say that we are heading into global warming which, of course, is man-made. Others say that we are heading for another ice-age. Owen states: "follow the money", to which I might add: "You don't bite the hand that feeds you"! That the weather is changing is a given. When the underwater volcano in Tonga erupted two years ago this month nobody talked about litres or pints of water that it shot up into the ionosphere. They talked about Olympic swimming pools, 150,000 of them, so the water content up there (assuming there is one) has "been increased by 10-15%". I'm looking forward to growing Southland swedes here in Northland sometime in the near future.
Kevan
I would be seriously concerned if the climate was not changing.
History, geology and other sciences tell us that climate change in the known universe is one of the constants.
The only question is whether one of the Earth's entities is actually affecting that climate change.
How can it?
Man (Human, People, Us) are part of the Earth, as are cows, plants, insects, pests (read "climate activists), bacteria, viruses, nasty things (horses, goats, sheep, unhappy (even wild) pigs) ) etc.etc.
Man cannot unduly affect the climate because he is part of that climate!
The only real question in this debate is why the totally discredited communist religionists of the 1980s ans 1990s are now somehow creditable now they talk the about the weather rather than how you must live badly because of Lenin or stalin.
The IPCC is consistently wrong in it's predictions of doom.
None of their predictions have come true:-
1/ No 50 million climate refugees by 2010, as they forecast in 2005.
2/ No increase in rate of sea level rising.
3/ Artic Ice is still there, and not melting away
3/ Antarctic Ice is actually growing.
4/ Extreme weather events, world-wide are NOT increasing.
5/ Forest fires, world-wide, are not increasing.
6/ Yes - the planet is slowly warming, in fits and starts, as it emerges from the Little Ice Age of 300 years ago, when the river Thames and the English Channel almost froze over.
7/ The IPCC has recently admitted that it’s multiplying factor previously used in all their “computer models” is wrong. The IPCC has categorically stated that all their previous predictions up till now have been highly exaggerated and are not accurate. BUT – you did NOT see the msm reporting this !
Added to this, the increase in CO2 levels from 280 to 400 ppm, is a major benefit to the world, because (food) crops are more productive, and previous arid areas in the world are greening up.
The fact is that climate change is a natural planetary cycle, and the planet is currently warming up as it emerges from the Little Ice Age of several hundred years ago. The Medieval Warm Period approx 1100A.D. was about 2 degrees warmer than now. During this time, the Vikings settled in the lush meadows of Greenland, and grew crops etc.
Then the Little Ice Age came in about 1400 - 1700 A.D. and temperatures to about 2 degrees COLDER than now (i.e. a difference of 4 degrees)
Greenland froze over. The Vikings left Greenland, and the River Thames froze over every winter (grand carnivals were held on frozen River Thames) and the English Channel was almost frozen over.
The planet is now emerging from this cold spell. Melting glaciers in Greenland are now exposing relics of Viking settlement that were buried in ice. Also - glaciers in other parts of the world which were formed or showed growth during the Little Ice Age, (For example New Zealand’s glaciers) are slowly melting. A NATURAL CYCLE !!!
could,nt agree more, and we need more influence higher up the food chain to get this information infront of the politicians that act on climate change scaremoungoring.
Post a Comment