Home | Elected Officials Deny Climate Science as Climate-Related Losses Grow

Elected Officials Deny Climate Science as Climate-Related Losses Grow

It's Time For The Insurance Industry To Step Up To The Plate

By Shawn Lawrence Otto | Aug 26, 2011 | Comments (8)

Last Thursday I took off from Miami as Hurricane Irene hovered offshore, filling the entire eastern sky with an ominous wall of deep gray.

The massive storm that slammed into the Eastern seaboard had at least 65 million people in its projected path through America's most heavily developed area of population. Most hurricanes shouldn't be able to make it that far north -- except for one little detail: global warming -- the same global warming that America's elected representatives are either ignoring or denying it exists. The main argument is being driven by an oil industry funded lobbying effort that has dumped more than $1 billion into defeating cap and trade legislation and convincing the American public that climate change is a "hoax."

The reasons the populous East Coast may be at increasing risk have to do with water temperature. NOAA scientists have identified the surface sea temperature a hurricane needs to sustain its energy as about 80 degrees. Other scientists say 79 degrees. The problem is that surface sea temperatures are warmer, on average, this summer than any other year in recorded history except last summer, and surface sea temperatures in the hurricane-sustainable range have extended both seasons as far north as New Jersey.

When you look at US losses from catastrophic events related to the climate -- storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires -- in 2010 and compare them to 1980, their number has more than quadrupled, but remained unchanged in other categories of loss - charted dramatically on page 7 of the 2010 Natural Catastrophe Review (pdf). Carl Hedde, head of risk accumulation for Munich Re, a major reinsurer of US property insurance companies and publisher of the annual Natural Catastrophe Review, says "The majority of the events are storm related."

Munich RE nat cat 2010

In fact, in the United States, there have been roughly double the events compared with the first half of the decade, a trend that appears to be in a geometric growth curve relative to the Keeling curve -- the measurement of monthly increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.Keeling Curve

At the 2010 natural catastrophe webinar, Peter Höppe, head of Munich Re's geo risks research and Corporate Climate Center, pointed out that "That is in line with the trend of the past 30 years, in which all ocean basins show an increase in water temperatures. This long-term trend can no longer be explained by natural climate oscillations alone. No, the probability is that climate change is contributing to some of the warming of the world's oceans", said Höppe.

"This influence will increase further and, together with the continuing natural warm phase in the North Atlantic, is likely to mean a further high level of hurricane activity in the coming years," Höppe says. In fact, the the North Atlantic is running about 3-4 degrees warmer F (2 degrees C) than the long-term average, placing it in the hurricane zone.

Despite all this, 94 of the newly elected GOP members of Congress either deny climate changes exists or have signed a pledge to oppose cap and trade efforts. "I don't think there's the scientific evidence to justify it," said Marco Rubio while running for one of Florida's Senate seats against fellow Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, whom Rubio called "a believer in man-made global warming." Florida has some of the highest insurance rates in the nation because of its exposure to increasing climate-related risks.

These new denialists are joined by 46 incumbents of even more vehement anti-science rhetoric. "The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. It's all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax," said Michele Bachmann.

The Obama administration, deeming that climate change and global warming are losers, has largely banned them from policy discussions, now speaking instead of the new energy economy. This week it released an environmental impact statement for the controversial Keystone tar sands oil pipeline project -- a project that taps North America's second biggest pool of carbon. The environmental impact statement doesn't mention the words "climate change."

Will a harder hurricane slam to the East Coast change any minds in Washington? The prospects appear doubtful. But what might do it is if the insurance industry gets sick and tired of footing the bill for the lack of D.C. leadership and mounts a multi-billion dollar lobbying and education effort of their own. The hurricane policymakers seem to recognize most readily is the one made of money.

 

Shawn Lawrence Otto is the author of Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America. "A gripping analysis of America's anti-science crisis." --Starred Kirkus Review, 9/1. Like him on Facebook.


Tags: Antiscience, Climate Change, Politics, Environment, Economics, Tea Party

Blog Rules

Comments (8)

  1. Homan:
    Oct 17, 2011 at 09:13 PM

    You obviously lack any scientific background. Graphs that have none zero origins overstate trends. Your basically a fucking idiot. The Scientific method is method than can not effectively answer many broad question. Correlation is not causation, but I would guess your a liberal arts major without any scientific background. The sun radiation is not constant and is the source of the Earths temperature during the mini ice age the aura borelais dissapered go fuck yourself

    Reply

    1. Shenoda:
      Feb 21, 2013 at 08:09 PM

      that you are no mathematician. Kurt Goedel, one of the gertaest mathematicians of the 20th century was a Platonist (or extreme Realist), that is, he believed that mathematical objects existed independently of our minds in a realm of their own. He is by no means the only Platonist in the mathematical community (and just in case you are wondering, no, I am not a Platonist). What special knowledge do you have that these mathematicians are missing?3. Some negatives are trivially easy to prove, for example: “There are no married bachelors”.Trival is right. Word games play games with words and question begging begs questions.I take it that you agree with me that negatives can be proved then. In the example offered, the proof proceeds by showing that it entails a contradiction. Admittedly, it is trivial, but do you have any argument for why non-trivial questions about reality cannot be decided by the method of reductio ad absurdum?Note: for reasons that would take too long to explain, reductio ad absurdum is in a sense the *only* *deductive* method of proof for negative existential statements. This is the reason why I gave the example of unmarried bachelors and the explanation above.In short, the only way to “prove” a negative is to prove a positive that disproves a given claim.This is a joint response to your responses to 2. and 4. How is proving a negative different from proving a positive that disproves a given claim ? Maybe I am misreading what you are trying to say, but what you did say does not make sense because the two are logically equivalent. To prove a positive that disproves a given claim , is to prove two claims:1. Q2. Q => ~(Ex:P(x))But this *is* a proof of ~(Ex:P(x)), a negative existential statement.Furthermore, in classical first-order predicate logic, the negative existential ~(Ex:P(x)) is *logically equivalent* to Ax:~P(x), where A is the universal quantifier. So every negative existential statement can be turned into a universal existential statement, which is about as positive a claim as can be. So are you saying that classical first-order predicate logic is wrong?

      Reply

    2. tdbiynt:
      Feb 26, 2013 at 04:56 AM

      zXBM9c iwbxyxpkghny

      Reply







Allowed tags: <b><i><br>Add a new comment: