Roger A. Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who studies disaster trends, said the forum's report was "a methodological embarrassment" because there was no way to distinguish deaths or economic losses related to human-driven global warming amid the much larger losses resulting from the growth in populations and economic development in vulnerable regions. Dr. Pielke said that "climate change is an important problem requiring our utmost attention." But the report, he said, "will harm the cause for action on both climate change and disasters because it is so deeply flawed."Strong comments I know. Shoddy work on disasters and climate change is the norm, unfortunately, and something I've been closely following for well over a decade. I have no illusions that this latest concoction will be repeatedly cited regardless.
Below are my comments to the New York Times upon reading the report (cleaned up and formatted). Caution, strong views ahead.
Comment: The Global Warming Propaganda is ramping up daily. The political machine and psychological marketers now control Climate Science. Every aspect of daily life is coming under worldwide control.
Scientists, climate scientists, solar scientists, statistical analysts, physicists, you name it, all must tow the political line regardless of what their own research tells them, regardless of what common sense tells them, regardless of objective reality.
There are thousands and thousands of scientists and their research and data and analysis that finds the global warming hypothesis falsified. They are called deniers, a dirty derogatory slanderous term that dehumanizes them by equating them with the familiar term used for Nazi Holocaust deniers. A clever move by the psychological marketing team running the show. And now an all too cooperative media commonly uses this disgusting term to belittle and taunt and lower the image of these scientists in the eyes of the world. Why is that okay? Why is it accepted and even encouraged?
Why are scientists everywhere skeptical?
Ian Plimer's recent article here, is a good example explaining just some of the issues as to why skepticism and disgust abounds in the scientific community.