Dang it! I wanted to be first on this, but I’ve internet problems at the moment. We all recall the massive media propaganda a few days ago announcing “If world doesn’t act on climate, 100 million will die by 2030″ It was in all of the tabloids people call newspapers.
An organization called DARA launched a report called “Climate Vulnerability Monitor 2nd Edition. A Guide to the Cold Calculus of a Hot Planet.” (link to links for various reports and the complete report)
I had tried to download the full report, but the internet problems wouldn’t allow for that large of a pdf. What I could download demonstrated a disingenuous nature of wordsmithing. But, I wouldn’t comment until I could get the full report. They make some very dubious connections.
Now most of us are familiar with Lomborg. Here’s what he had to say about the DARA report.
Unfortunately, this message to the public is dramatically misleading. Serious errors or omissions (whether intentional or not) in at least three areas — climate change deaths, economic costs, and the costs of “action versus inaction” — almost entirely undermine the entire thrust of the report.
Let’s be clear. Global warming is real and man-made, and it needs an effective response. But unfounded alarmism and panic are unlikely to engender good and effective policy.
Clearly I don’t agree with the emboldened sentence. But, this demonstrates that my thoughts aren’t clouded by advocacy. He continues….
First, the report is seen to claim that “climate change deaths could total 100 million by 2030.” This is actually not what the report says. It carefully outlines how the “the present carbon-intensive economy” is causing 4.975 million deaths per year of 2010, and how by 2030 the “carbon economy — and climate change-related” impacts will kill 6 million people every year.
Why the cumbersome language of a of “combined climate-carbon” economy? Drilling into the composition of the 4.975 million deaths in 2010, one finds these deaths are not predominantly caused by climate change….
Indeed, 1.4 million deaths are caused by outdoor air pollution, which is almost entirely unrelated to global warming. This air pollution, of course, is still predominantly caused by fossil fuels, but only because that is what we mostly use for fuel in the world. So, while the report is technically correct in saying that these 1.4 million deaths are caused by “the present carbon-intensive economy,” these deaths are in no way caused by climate change. Rebranding air pollution, mostly from particulate pollution, as “carbon” appears both disingenuous and designed to confuse. It was clearly intended to convey the message that these deaths were somehow relevant for the global warming debate.
In fact, there has been no deaths attributable to climate change. None. Lomborg states,
Does It Matter That the Study Was Deeply Flawed?
So, we have a study that inflated deaths by at least 12 times. We have a study that has inflated the costs by at least three times — and probably much, much more. And we have a study that then suggests that to avoid this situation in 2030, we should employ policies that we know will have no measurable impact by 2030.
One could call such a study many things, but clearly not well done, truthful, or good policy advice.
Does it matter? Yes.
You can read more here.
The report was crap. It wasn’t vetted. And the assertions were intentionally deceptive. Which is exactly what the LSM wants to print.