You wrote:
“So it would have been correct for Mr. Gore (and us in follow up) to refer to this as a UNEP report prepared by its FI CC Working Group and written by a consultant. Does this make sense?”

Yes it makes sense. And I note that no one did it correctly, that is, in the way you describe. I regret that I didn’t follow through in my efforts to track down the report much earlier. Identifying the UNEP report as a report by Munich RE is about as helpful as identifying this entire posting as Cortlandt’s post because I made several comments to it.

I would call this an error of attribution in Gore’s article. I proposed that a fact checker in a newspaper would have found this error. I see this as ironic given Gore’s emphasis on the importance of peer review.

I am wondering if I am daft, “missed the memo”, or just am the first to state the obvious but it seems that Gore must have misattributed the author of the report when he wrote:
“On Wednesday, the reinsurance giant Munich Re reported …”

He must have been refering to the UNEP FI’s Climate Change Working Group publication of “Adaptation and Vulnerability to Climate Change: The Role of the Finance Sector” which was release Wednesday, November 15.

I could find no such report on Munich Re’s website or by a search via Google. A search for “Munich Re 2040″ landed plenty of hits for the UNEP’s report.

Thanks for your comments and questions.

You ask, “What is the nature of Gore’s misrepresentation in your opinion?”

Answer:

He writes: “And with regards to some of the financial implications suggested by the Stern report, one need only look to the insurance industry for validation of the potential costs of global warming. On Wednesday, the reinsurance giant Munich Re reported, “driven by climate change, weather related disasters could cost as much as a trillion dollars in a single year by 2040″.”

The Munich Re report does not present the “costs of global warming.” In fact it says quite the opposite. Gore is clearly suggesting that the “trillion dollar” figure has some attribution to global warming, when it does not. This is a clear misrepresentation of what the Munich Re report says.

Thanks!

Your comment on this statement Roger was to call it a misrepresentation and refer back to a previous post.

“We discussed this particular misrepresentation in depth in a post last week …”

What is the nature of Gore’s misrepresentation in your opinion? Does it derive all and only from the implication that ALL of the predicted losses are be due to climate change or is it something else? Are you willing to hang the charge of misrepresentation on a reading that that you infer, but is not explicitly stated?

Going back and reading the previous post and referenced literature I am wondering exactly what, in your opinion, that Gore misrepresented.

The post referenced is: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000989more_climate_and_dis.html
and it refers to the “Workshop on Climate Change and Disaster Losses: Understanding and Attributing Trends and Projections” of which you were a key organizer.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/sparc/research/projects/extreme_events/munich_workshop/workshop_report.html

The statements of the consensus report at times read to me as almost contradictory. There are certainly opportunities to “cherry pick”.

[quote]10. There is evidence that changing patterns of extreme events are drivers for recent increases in
global losses.

Statistics of loss events related to weather show both globally and for some regions substantial increases over the past decades. The major contributions are from storms and floods. For instance, in the North Atlantic there has
been since the mid-1990s a higher basin-wide hurricane activity then on average. … Damage in the U.S. related to hurricanes since 1995 (11 years) already exceeds that which occurred from 1970-1994 (25 years), even after adjusting the data for societal factors. [unquote]

Play devils advocate here, but recalling your and your students published work I wonder if “cherry picking” rather than misrepresentation might be the better term of art to describe Gore’s writing.

Indeed, amoung the consensus statements one can find grounds for a catastrophic view. Statement 15 for example:

[quote] 15. Mitigation of GHG emissions should also play a central role in response to anthropogenic climate change …

… Emission reductions, however, influence the future levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and by this an even further increase in global temperatures and the potential for more and more intensive extreme events. Emission reductions are necessary to reduce the risk to reach levels of CO2 concentrations which might lead to abrupt climate changes and/or processes in the atmosphere which could become irreversible … [unquote]

These statements do seem to support a more general concern about the impacts of AGW on storm losses.

“All in all, given the complexities of the issue, the challenges of communicating with the public, and the political importance of the issue, I would say that Gore did an excellent job with this piece.”

Mochton of Brenchly has written a line by line response to Al Gore. It is available on the Junkscience website at:

http://www.junkscience.com/nov06/warm_gore.doc

While readers may not agree with everything in the response, it clearly demonstrates that there is substantial peer-reviewed evidence that does not support the IPCC position on climate change, much less the more dramatic Al Gore position. It also clearly demonstrates the weaknesses of Al Gore’s non-scientific arguments.

Al Gore DOES excel at touching emotional buttons and tapping into peoples feelings. I am always leary of those who choose to persuade by targeting the heart and avoiding the brain.

Thanks for commenting.

Let me see if I have this straight — We should overlook Mr. Gore’s misrepresentations because he is in general more accurate than Michael Crichton who is invoked as an authority by some people that you dislike?

If this is your thinking, then this is a good example of a scientist being complicit in misrepresentations, so long as they are politically convenient.