http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/06/death_and_disaster.php

Post now updated.

Wow, nice catch. If you are correct (and the evidence sure points that way), then yes, then “hilariously bad” does not even begin to describe the report.

I’m removing the “http://” from my links, so my comments won’t be held for moderation:

Hi Roger,

You write, “The 2002 WHO report concluded that:

[GHG-driven] Climate change was estimated to be responsible in 2000 for approximately 2.4% of worldwide diarrhoea, 6% of malaria in some middle income countries and 7% of dengue fever in some industrialized countries.

For the exact same diseases the GHF report issued last week assumes that greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for the following proportions of deaths (in 2010, from p. 90):

Diarrhea 4-5%
Malaria 4%
Dengue fever 4-5%

Should we conclude that the effect of greenhouse gases on malaria deaths has decreased by 33% from 2000 to 2010 (from 6% to 4%, and apparently has spread from some middle income countries)? Or that the effects of greenhouse gas emission on diarrhea deaths have increased by more than 100% in only 10 years?”

I don’t think you understand just how hilariously bad the Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) “analysis” truly was.

As I was reading through your original post and Brian Schmidt’s response, I was trying to figure out, “Just what the heck was GHF doing? How did they get their numbers?”

I think I finally figured it out. (As Randy Newman sings about Adrian Monk, “I could be wrong now…but I don’t think so. )

Go to the GHF report table on page 90. Here are the GHF estimates of deaths from climate change:

Malnutrition: 154,000 deaths/year
Diarrhoea: 94,000 deaths/year
Malaria: 54,000 deaths/year

Total: 302,000 deaths/year

Now, go to the WHO report:

who.int/publications/cra/chapters/volume2/1543-1650.pdf

What are the death estimates in that report? From pages 1544-1545, they are:

Malnutrition: 77,000 deaths/year
Diarrhoea: 47,000 deaths/year
Malaria: 27,000 deaths/year

Do you see any correlation?

Hint: Every single one of those 3 numbers is exactly HALF of what the GHF report calculated. In other words, the GHF “analysis” multiplied every single number by 2.0.

Why did the GHF report do that? The answer, I think, is because of the bogus Munich Re graph that was posted on your site a while ago:

sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/munichre2.jpg

Notice how the increase in “hydrological events” is about *2 times* the increase in “geophysical events.”

In other words, the GHF “analysis” multiplied the WHO numbers by 2, because of that Munich Re graph.(!!!!! )

You might say, “Well, that’s completely bizarre! Why would they do that?”

I think it’s because everyone associated with the analysis was clueless (at least with regards to performing environmental analyses).

Exactly. You are being very kind. I would be far, far less charitable, as I’m sure you know.

SNIP – THIS IS NOT THE PLACE