Earth begins to kill people for changing its climate

Note: Yes, you read that right. The headline is not mine, but from  the original masters of newspaper propaganda, Pravda. See the URL. Gotta love the classic photo they chose. But then, look at some of the other news stories they have. See the end of the article for some other views that have been published here based on factual data. – Anthony


Earth begins to kill people for changing its climate
Earth begins to kill people for changing its climate

 

04.07.2008 Source: Pravda.Ru

 

At least 2.5 million people have been killed in natural disasters over the recent 48 years. The number of casualties over the recent 20 years made up 1.6 million people, the UN said.

Rob Vos, the director of the Development Policy and Analysis Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), said that the number of natural disasters taking place in the world nowadays has quadrupled in comparison with the 1970s. The disaster-related economic damage has increased at least seven times.

The authors of the report delivered at the UN headquarters in New York at the session of the UN Economic and Social Council did not specify the reason why natural disasters started happening more frequently in the world today. They said, however, that the frequency of catastrophes could be linked with the global climate change. It was also said that the death toll in developing states exceeds the number of casualties in developed states 20-30 times.

“The consequences of disasters become more and more destructive, whereas the countries are unable to overcome them effectively without the assistance from the international community. We believe it is necessary to set up a foundation to help the victims of natural disasters with the budget of 4 or 5 billion dollars,” Vos said.

The official added that all existent humanitarian projects including those conducted under the UN aegis are mostly aimed at overcoming consequences rather than preventing them.

Source: agencies


NOTE: Some other views on the “frequency of natural disasters linked to climate change” are below, follow the links.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/hurricanes-to-global-warming-link-blown-away/

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/increasing-tornadoes-or-better-information-gathering/

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/midwest-floods-and-unjustified-climate-change-fears/

Advertisements

54 thoughts on “Earth begins to kill people for changing its climate

  1. More evidence that environmentalism is a religion with little to no adherence to scientific approach.

  2. A perfect example in how the politicians and media are furiously trying to keep this worn-out hoax up, and how the presence of scientific evidence debunking it is only making them more desperate and shrill. It is making them more powerful in their juggernaut of deceit that keeps finding ways to add another bullet-proof shield. You think this is bad? Just wait till November…

  3. The 2.5 million people killed by natural disasters since the 70’s that would have happened regardless of AGW still pales in comparrison to the 3 million people that starved or froze to death last year because the worlds leading climate scientists couldn’t predict a cold year.

  4. I think that the message is just a reminder to the UN, that they have a good “cause” to spend all this “Carbon Money” that will surely come in a year or so !
    K.

  5. Hmmm, disasters could include earthquakes and (possibly) related tsunamis. I know there’s an Aussie who links such events to global warming, but didn’t think the Russians subscribed to that idea.
    Could it possibly be an ever-increasing population situated in areas prone to hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and seismic activity?
    Nah … it HAS to be climate change.
    Sigh …

  6. I don’t suppose it occurred to anyone that world population was under 3.2 billion in 1962. I.e., less than half that of today. Nor that such deaths are far more likely to go unrecorded the further back one goes.
    In other words they are making the same (stupid, amateurish) error the press was making about equating $storm damage to storm activity over a 100-year period.
    Demographic for Dummies, anyone? (Better make it the .001 remedial course.)
    What are they teaching in these schools? — C.S. Lewis

  7. Honestly speaking, I don’t feel one iota of guilt for these “climate-deaths”.
    If you look at the number of deaths resulting from the DDT ban and UN mismanagement, they are the last who ought to be preaching about responsibility.
    This is nothing more than junk-grade propoganda.

  8. So there is 7 times as much damage today, huh?
    Global GDP ( 1962 ) — $1.2 trillion
    Global GDP ( 2005 ) — $44 trillion (no decimal point)
    (Call it an Ayn Rand moment.)

  9. If you look at the number of deaths resulting from the DDT ban
    Oh, that’d be around 40 million. Malaria was well on the way to being wiped out by 1962. The WHO has finally reversed course and strongly advocates the use of DDT. Not only does it wipe out mosquitoes, but it repels those it does not kill.

  10. Anthony says “The headline is not mine, but from the original masters of newspaper propaganda, Pravda.”
    Actually the the original masters of newspaper propaganda is the NY Times. Pravda started publication in 1912. The NY Times started publication in 1851.

  11. I don’t think there are more natural disasters… our ability to communicate these events is much more rapid and thorough due to technology.

  12. Actually the the original masters of newspaper propaganda is the NY Times. Pravda started publication in 1912. The NY Times started publication in 1851.
    It goes back much further than that. (Anti-Federalist Weekly, anyone?) Probably back before Gutenberg. In the history biz we are advised never to use newspapers as source material, except in certain (limited) circumstances.

  13. How ironic and sad that an entirely beneficial gas is now being blamed for catastrophe and death. It truly is madness on a global scale. How many millions will have to die due to this AGW madness?

  14. The very first sentence in the Pravda article:
    At least 2.5 million people have been killed in natural disasters over the recent 48 years.
    How about that? They arbitrarily picked 48 years? Why?
    Because that avoids the unfortunate killing of tens of millions of people, both abetted by and caused by the Soviets and their puppets, in eastern Europe, especially Hungary, and in Korea, and WWII, and all the way back to 1918?
    Or, maybe people only started getting killed in natural disasters beginning in 1960?
    I’m always suspicious when someone picks a date like this, which is not easily explained.
    [PS: “Pravda” means “truth” in Russian.]

  15. “We believe it is necessary to set up a foundation to help the victims of natural disasters with the budget of 4 or 5 billion dollars”
    And there you have the real reason.

  16. The Pravda headline is clearly a bit of Russian ironic humor lampooning the crackpot UN report which is the subject matter of the story. The OMG introduction, which ends with “the UN said,” does not represent stupid editorial opinion on Pravda’s part. Any Russian reader of Pravda would get the joke and not draw the conclusion that Pravda is breathlessly endorsing the Gaia religion.

  17. I think you’re giving them a bad rap. I mean, with scientific analysis like
    “The world rotates round its axis. This fact does not seem to cause any fear or worry. However, the dangers are lurking about every bend. This rotation system is not mechanically stable as tones of snow fall on the continental platform of Greenland and Antarctica every year. This snow forms a so-called icy dumbbell the, which increases in size every year. This is where the danger is lurking”
    they seem like they’re on the cutting edge.

  18. “[A]ggregate mortality and mortality rates due to extreme weather events are generally lower today than they used to be. Globally, mortality and mortality rates have declined by 95 percent or more since the 1920s.”
    See: Indur M. Goklany. 2007. “Death and Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events: Global and U.S. Trends, 1900-2006,” in The Civil Society Report on Climate Change, International Policy Press, London, November 2007, available at http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf
    Take a look at Figure 1 [with apologies for my inability to transmit figures].

  19. I was surprised to see that article from Russia. I guess Pravda is no longer “in” with the Kremlin.
    Anthony, this also demonstrates how influential this happy band is 🙂
    How’s the weather station analysis going now? When complete, it will be a put Hansen to shame.

  20. First the Sermon; and, then, the Collection Plate.
    But, 4, or 5, Million? The Sermon wasn’t that good.

  21. Diatribical idiot,
    You see, the hysterics were right: The earth IS spinning out of control.

  22. “they seem like they’re on the cutting edge”
    And let us hope they get cut.
    The picture is nice. Does it symbolize two menaces? I’ll take the one that sparkles.

  23. This piece, and most of the responses to it, provides us with a good example of a standard debating trick: misdirection. The idea is to attack an easy target, not the real thing. Go ahead, make a big deal about a stupid article in Pravda. Meanwhile, you’re NOT addressing the real arguments posed by actual scientists in such places as the IPCC reports and the NAS reports. How convenient.

  24. In March last year, Lloyds of London, who know more about natural disasters than anyone else – since they end up paying for most of them, said:
    “The absence of major natural disasters last year (2006) helped insurance market Lloyd’s of London return to profitability after its loss in 2005.
    The market recorded a profit of £3.6bn in 2006, compared with a £103m loss it made the year before when it had to pay out damages on hurricane Katrina.
    Lloyd’s said the “exceptionally low level of catastrophes” had helped it.”
    In March this year they said about 2007:
    “Lloyd’s of London warned yesterday that an absence last year of natural disasters or man-made accidents was putting pressure on firms to reduce premiums in 2008.
    The world’s oldest and biggest insurance market said that though the lack of major disasters had allowed firms to push up profits 5% in 2007, underwriting margins were being squeezed.”
    We are actually going through a quiet period for natural disasters since Katrina, not the other way round.

  25. Ophiuchus,
    While articles like this are published, blaming global warming as a consequence, I see no reason why sites like this shouldn’t highlight their flaws. Perhaps you should direct your anger at the publishers of these articles for sensationalising and diluting your cause, instead of blaming us for highlighting their fallacy.

  26. I see nothing wrong with their stories. Here in the U.S. we have them all the time. I mean, we have our supermarket tabloids, so why can’t Pravda be the Russian equivalent? And don’t get me started on Mr. Gore’s docudrama {or is that docucomedy?}

  27. Good point, Traktion. Yes, it’s fair to point out stupid news stories. But that’s about all this subject deserves: point it out and move on. Hand-wringing about how the MSM is involved in a conspiracy against you is a waste of time. EVERYBODY thinks the MSM is out to get ’em. The pro-AGW people get furious when some MSM gives equal time to an anti-AGW PR person who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And while there are some good anti-AGW points, there are a lot of nitwits in the anti-AGW movement.
    REPLY: It is not an excusive club; plenty of nitwits in the pro AGW movement too. – Anthony

  28. Maybe we should blame the Asian Tsunami on AGW…
    Here in the UK, the press & government are still ranting on about the flooding we had here last year. They, of course, are blaming climate change. I blame the fact that there are more houses built on floodplanes (against the advise of the environment agancy) but, I guess when there is a popular theory to rake in the taxes…
    It seems to me that there is a more logical reason for these deaths. The stupid places that man decides to reside.

  29. Ophiuchus writes:
    “Meanwhile, you’re NOT addressing the real arguments posed by actual scientists in such places as the IPCC reports and the NAS reports. How convenient.”
    Who knew there were real arguments? After all, the science is settled.
    The real scientists are known to the IPCC and the NAS. Since they haven’t sent me a membership card my review of whatever they say means nothing.
    In fact I doubt I could address a person at the IPCC or the NAS. Security guards would be called and hilarity (aka: a severe beating) would follow.
    And why would those worthies ask me for money or agreement? The government will provide the money by taxing it from others and giving it to them.
    BTW: The responses are not a good example of misdirection. Most address the article just as the rules of debate say they should.
    A few comments do wander through DDT politics and whether the NYT or Pravda deserves the Best Liars In Printed Media award.
    The true example and attempt at misdirection comes from you. i. e. we should address other matters and not the topic article.

  30. Scepticism on the extent of AGW has another major advantage – apart from being rational and more in tune with the facts – that has only just occured to me…….We can have a sense of humour about the whole thing without feeling like we have to self-flaggelate for a month in penance!
    Hopefully the data sets will continue to erode the case for disastrous AGW to the point where we can all avoid the real potential disaster that’s looming – that of self-induced economic decline…..because if that eventuates the smile will be wiped from all our faces.

  31. THE Indur Goklany?
    It’s an honor! On behalf of us all, I welcome you.
    Totals from fig. 1 of your citation:
    INCLUDING
    Droughts, Floods, Windstorms, Slides, Waves/Surges, Extreme Temperatures,
    Wild Fires
    TOTALS:
    Deaths per year
    1900–1989: 216,839
    1990–2006: 28,266
    Death Rates per year (per million people)
    1900–1989: 94.16
    1990–2006: 4.87
    REPLY: Evan I’m confused, where do you see him in comments with a citation? -Anthony

  32. Per Pravda:At least 2.5 million people have been killed in natural disasters over the recent 48 years. The number of casualties over the recent 20 years made up 1.6 million people, the UN said.
    Everyone should check out Indur M. Goklany’s article, linked in his post above, to put this particular propagandistic factiod into its proper perspective. [Those particular numbers did indeed sound rather small to me, even at first blush.]
    It’s rather strange that nearly everything the AGW acolytes claim as true turns out to be either irrelevant, unsubstantiated, or flat-out wrong. It’s getting to be quite impressive!

  33. Pingback: Going Down: Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events « Watts Up With That?

  34. To Christopher: Skeptics always have more fun! True Believers know that Laughter has been forbidden by the Prophet, because of course we are all about to be Punished for our Sins and we must Repent! Repent! Repent! from our wicked ways or we will all Perish in Flame!
    I mean how could anyone be joyful when Perishment in Flames is waiting just around the corner, and they know it’s their duty to evangelize the wicked, unbelieving world? Laughter is just one more sympton of what wicked, wicked, godless, gaialess people these skeptics are.
    Of course, the faithful are doing comedy routines all the time, they just don’t know it. “Why are you talking about some Pravda article?” = “Pay No Attention to that Man behind the Curtain! I am the Great and Powerful OZ!!!”
    And then there’s the mental picture of Hansen as Sgt. Schultz when his early data was used to support global cooling: “I know Nut-ink! I know Nut-ink!!!”
    I tell you, there’s a gold mine of material out there!

  35. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate’s Cove — Give No Quarter!

  36. Reid: In 1851, NYT would probably have been owned by Abolitionists, who, if they weren’t Republicans then, would be in a few years. Unless you can show me I’m wrong.

  37. Andrew: My comment about the NY Times was an allusion to their Democratic party bias and AGW bias. Pravda was to the Communist party what the NY Times is to the Democratic party. Science at both Pravda and the NY Times is reported with political bias.

  38. Ophiuchus,
    The story isn’t as important as the fact that the UN is taking an obviously contrived “scientific” report and using it for political and financial reasons. This is an example of what you referred to on 07/05 as “this ridiculous tale” of the “common fallacy that scientists are willfully distorting the science of AGW.”
    You can argue that it is the UN who is distorting the science who created this report. Anything that purports to connect climate change to natural disasters is at least playing scientist.

  39. In 1851, NYT would probably have been owned by Abolitionists, who, if they weren’t Republicans then, would be in a few years.
    Raymond was a Whig, actually (the Republican Party wasn’t around then), but, yes, from the radical antislavery end of that party, and, yes, he was in on the founding of the GOP (1854).

  40. You’re right about the other articles on that page.
    eg. This story hints that the US created an earthquake in Iraq that led to the Asian Tsunami with its subtitle US forces supposedly used a secret weapon in Iraq, which resulted in a powerful earthquake, but we learn in the final paragraph that the earthquake was natural.
    On that link we are asked to go to the Pravda.ru forum. The place where truth hurts. I wonder if they understand that translation.

  41. Excuse to break up the ice here at the contentful discussion over scientific fuss-over arguments you’re having, but me thinks Earth Begins to Kill People for Changing It’s Climate is rather narrowly scoped. See, the humans isn’t the only dwellers of this planet, speaking of animalia kingdom. And earth obviously doesn’t kill people or any other species without no particular reasons.
    Remember this fello homo, 6 billions years of age isn’t a short life span. And yes, planet earth has to defend herself from the cruelty of humans’ civilizations inasmuch as from the universe’s ecosystem.

  42. Pingback: Climate Change Is Not That Hot! « BabaliciouS

  43. I’d rather take my chances with nature. In the 20th century, governments murdered upwards of 200 million of their OWN citizens.

  44. Hah! I told you Global Warming was a joke.
    These numbers don’t even begin to compare with the number of people I’ve killed playing Medal of Honor. And it definitely can’t touch my kill total from Golden Eye. And these have all come in under 10 years.
    I mean as far as comparisons between totally fictitious goes, this article should be about ME. In the world of fiction and fantasy, I am a much much bigger threat to your existence than Global Warming.
    In the real world, the envirowackos should go after the person that wasted paper writing this story…

  45. Has anyone recited the old Soviet Sceptic saying that there’s no truth in Pravda (Pravda, after all, is the Russian word for truth) ? It was paired with there’s no news in Isvestia – so you now know the Russian word for news, too.

  46. It’s not surprising that the UN would make a statement like “the world is killing its people”. Ban Ki-Moon believes in gaia, the earth spirit.
    This is born out by Junksicences own past documents. http://www.junkscience.com/feb07.html (search for “Gaia in the U.N.’s Meditation Room” ). lots of other crazy articles there too.
    Leaders of this world have lost it.

  47. A metaphor if you will:
    the earth is like a giant ape let’s say, and human beings are like flies. A couple flies will not bug the ape too much, but enough of the on him, yes he is surely going to try and swat them away. We are bleeding the earth dry like a parasite, in a million years a new species will be sending a probe to earth from somewhere else, searching for clues to see if there was ever life on this planet.

Comments are closed.