Roger Pielke Jr. announces a new book – In recent years the media, politicians, and activists have popularized the notion that climate change has made disasters worse. But what does the science actually say? Roger Pielke, Jr. takes a close look at the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the underlying scientific research, and the data to give you the latest science on disasters and climate change. What he finds may surprise you and raise questions about the role of science in political debates.
Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, the conviction that climate change is already increasing weather-related natural disaster losses is strengthening. In Disasters and Climate Change, Roger Pielke, Jr. lays out the evidence with his usual cogency and invites readers to come to their own conclusions. A valuable and timely contribution — Prof. John McAneney, Managing Director, Risk Frontiers, Macquarie University
Available on Amazon here.
WHEN will the tide turn in the MSM? Eventually…soon, I hope. That will be the real death of CAGW. How about some real journalism for the MSM? They should read this new book. Thank you Roger!
Find them a new boogey man first. I’d suggest Ebola, but they already blame that on climate change.
Indeed. Until there is a new rallying “political cause”, climate warming will have to do.
My preference would be the “transgender rights” movement championed by a recent Time magazine cover story. Since only 0.1% of the population are, or are likely to be, transgendered, it really doesn’t matter all that much what sort of nonsense, our chattering classes preach at us on the subject.
Unlike the AGW debate, with our liberty as a free people and trillions of dollars at stake, the “transgender rights” issue can only do relatively limited damage while allowing academics and the MSM to pray in public at one another to their hearts content.
They will not stop there! Wikipedia doesn’t yet make that claim, but I wouldn’t bank on it for too long. Even they state terms like “is thought” & the usual ifs, buts, & maybes!!!
I’m with you, John, but I’m not holding my breath. Too many people have sunk every last vestige of their credibility into this failed hypothesis, and they will take the whole ship down with all of us in it rather than admit to the mistake.
Dave– I disagree…
I think once the political hacks that support and fund the CAGW scam realize that such actions are becoming a political liability, CAGW funding and destructive CO2 sequestration policies will be repealed and the demise of this CAGW scam will be quite spectacular and quicker than most people think.
Already the governments of: China, Russia, Canada, Australia and India have, for all intents and purposes, abandoned the CAGW scam and are proceeding with business as usual economic policies. Sure, even these countries make weak noises on occasion giving the impression of some support for CAGW initiatives and implement some face-saving “green” projects to avoid political reprisals from pro-CAGW governments, but these are just for appearances sake…
The irony is that it is in China and India’s best interest to keep the CAGW scam going for as long possible, because the economic destruction caused by pro-CAGW policies of Western countries forces production to move to China and India. The expensive CO2 policies of Western countries also makes Western goods uncompetitive, which increases India and China’s worldwide market shares….
Such economic insanity will and cannot last much longer; the gig is up.
Never. They do not feel encumbered by an obligation to report the facts. They’ve adopted a position and the only response they have is to become MORE strident, not less. I can’t imagine MSM EVER saying (in effect) “Oops, sorry, we’ve been wrong the last 20 years, our bad”
+100 lol
Dccowboy. My guess is that the MSM will say oops, sorry, someday but I will be out shovelling snow that day.
The tide will not change with MSM.
You should know Journalism is nothing more than a Political Project.
Interesting. I’ll withhold criticism until reading it. My knee-jerk reaction is ‘incorrect attribution’, but as an open-minded skeptic I’m certainly willing to listen.
Please delete my comment–I misread the summary!
$4.34 in paperback? How am I supposed to afford that?
Now that you mention it, I haven’t seen my Big Oil stipend yet, either.
What the hell, guys?
I’m still saving up for Sr’s book :
http://www.amazon.ca/Mesoscale-Meteorological-Modeling-Roger-Pielke/dp/0123852374/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1412220664&sr=8-6&keywords=pielke
While you’re buying it, buy “The Climate Fix” too. Pielke is one of the few straight shooters in the theater of the absurd morality play about climate.
No ebook? Seriously? Once you have written the materials, converting the document to Kindle is easy peasy. Same with EPub, PDF, MOBI, etc., etc.
I see the book isn’t available yet. (Goes on sale November 1.) My comment is premature, I’m sure.
“Once you have written the materials, converting the document to Kindle is easy peasy. ”
Try converting tables, heavily formatted text, or material mixing fonts from several languages (e.g. Arabic/Greek/English interlinear texts) into Kindle. If you know an easy way to do that, please tell me.
I look forward to reading it. The climate apocalypse fanatics are so trashing the public square that his moderate well reasoned message gets lost.
Any chance of it being available from somewhere other than Amazon?
Dont know, OldSeaDog. Do know that I have ensured all my ebooks (too expensive to publish print due to images) are availble in ALL ebook formats. You might like the one coming next month.
Whatever amazon has for Kindle, Kobo will have for any tablet or electronic book readwer.
Calibre does some nice conversion epub, pdf etc.
Now if it only had one for warmists. 😉
Any chance of it being available OUTSIDE the U.S.?
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog and commented:
Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, the conviction that climate change is already increasing weather-related natural disaster losses is strengthening.
A book like this is overdue. Maybe Roger Pielke, Jr. will give Anthony permission to post extracts here.
I believe Canadian scientist Madhav Khandekar has reached a similar conclusion:
No evidence of increasing climate disasters.
Costs may increase due to more people living and building on coastlines.
from wiki:
1900 Galveston hurricane
The Hurricane of 1900 made landfall on September 8, 1900, in the city of Galveston, Texas, in the United States.[1] It had estimated winds of 145 miles per hour (233 km/h) at landfall, making it a Category 4 storm on the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale. It was the deadliest hurricane in US history, and the second costliest hurricane in U.S. history based on the dollar’s 2005 value (to compare costs with those of Hurricane Katrina and others).
The hurricane caused great loss of life with the estimated death toll between 6,000 and 12,000 individuals;[2] the number most cited in official reports is 8,000, giving the storm the third-highest number of deaths or injuries of any Atlantic hurricane, after the Great Hurricane of 1780 and 1998’s Hurricane Mitch. The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is the deadliest natural disaster ever to strike the United States. By contrast, the second-deadliest storm to strike the United States, the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane, caused more than 2,500 deaths, and the deadliest storm of recent times, Hurricane Katrina, claimed the lives of approximately 1,800 people.
The hurricane occurred before the practice of assigning official code names to tropical storms was instituted, and thus it is commonly referred to under a variety of descriptive names. Typical names for the storm include the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, the Great Galveston Hurricane, and, especially in older documents, the Galveston Flood. It is often referred to by Galveston locals as The Great Storm or The 1900 Storm.