Comments on: Misuse of Science by UNEP

By: James Bradbury

James Bradbury — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:41:05 +0000

I respect what Dr. Pielke is doing here, because it is important for scientists to play watchdog over how policy makers use science to advance their causes. I also agree that the UNEP’s suggestion that an increase in extreme precipitation events, on a global scale, has been caused by increasing GHG emissions is not well supported by the data.

However, I think that Dr. Pielke was wrong to say that “we simply cannot modulate future damages [from weather extreme events] via emissions reductions,” because this completely ignores the issue of sea level rise. I think that UNEP’s Executive Director, Mr. Toepfer, was correct to point out that, “in the end, many smaller countries like low-lying small island developing states and countries like Bangladesh, can only adapt for so long before they are eventually over come by the impacts of storm surges and rising sea levels.”

I think Dr. Pielke’s declaration that the UNEP “issued a press release last week that clearly misuses science to advance a political agenda,” goes too far. Especially since this eye grabbing quotation is all over the CIRES web page and is making it’s rounds on the Internet (e.g., John Fleck’s weblog at the ABQ Journal).

So, I also tend to agree with Ben Luce that Dr. Pielke was being overly critical of UNEP… at least, in part, by their association with the Bloomberg news article.

]]>

By: Roger Pielke

Roger Pielke — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:52:59 +0000

Ben- Thanks much for your comments! A quick reaction:

1. I encourage you to read the entire UNEP press release.

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=417&ArticleID=4682&l=en

It starts out as follows, “2004 is set to go down in the history books as the most expensive year for the insurance industry world-wide as a result of hurricanes, typhoons and other weather related natural disasters.” It then goes on for several paragraphs on hurricane imapcts, and then has this quote from Klaus Topfer, “Climate scientists anticipate an increase and intensity of extreme weather events and this is what the insurance industry is experiencing resulting in year on year losses.” Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

2. On extreme weather events more generally, beyond hurricanes, please have a look at these papers:

Changnon, S., R. A. Pielke, Jr., D. Changnon, D., R. T. Sylves, and R. Pulwarty, 2000: Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 81(3), 437-442.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-50-2000.02.pdf

Kunkel, K., R. A. Pielke Jr., S. A. Changnon, 1999: Temporal Fluctuations in Weather and Climate Extremes That Cause Economic and Human Health Impacts: A Review. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 80, 6, 1077-1098.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-75-1999.11.pdf

3. And on your assertion about climate change, precipitation and economic impacts, have a look at this paper:

Pielke, Jr., R.A., and M.W. Downton, 2000: Precipitation and Damaging Floods: Trends in the United States, 1932-97. Journal of Climate, 13(20), 3625-3637.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-60-2000.11.pdf

Thanks again for your comments!

]]>

By: Ben Luce

Ben Luce — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:00:52 +0000

I agree with Dr. Pielke that the Bloomberg quote about hurricanes is off base, because its true that the increase in economic damage due to hurricanes is still clearly due to greater economic exposure (more people living on the coasts, etc). But the UNEP excerpt does not mention hurricanes, only “extreme weather events” and “torrential rains”, which could include hurricanes but is clearly not limited to such, and I believe its pretty well supported that extreme temperatures and percipitation due to climate change ARE causing huge economic losses already. Just drop by New Mexico some time and we’ll show you! Moreover, the UNEP excerpt explicitly talks about FUTURE consequences of sea level rise (so again, its not over-reaching here). So I don’t buy Dr. Pielke’s remark that this is an “umabiguous” example of misuse of climate science. Rather it seems that the good doctor is attempting to discredit UNEP by subtly linking their remarks to a sloppy quote by Bloomberg – guilt by association.

]]>

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:13:14 +0000

Sylvia- Thanks very much for your comment. I agree that the comments on vulnerability in the UNEP release are right on target. What I strongly object to is that UNEP asserted in the press release that (a) the economic damages in 2004 are evidence of climate change (they are not) and (b) suggeted that through emissions reductions we can modulate these damages in the future. The Bloomberg article I cited, ans well as this New York Times article

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/19/science/19climate.html?oref=login

both pick up on (a) and (b) from the UNEP release, but completely ignore the comments about vulnerability reduction. As you ask, both reducing vulnerability and reducing emissions are important, but for different reasons. My work shows clearly that if we want to affect the future consequences of extreme weather events, then vulnerability reduction must be the top priority.

Ask me again if this doesn’t help answer your question!

Best regards,

Roger

]]>

By: Sylvia Tognetti

Sylvia Tognetti — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 02:03:54 +0000

I’m not sure that what is in the UNEP press release in any way contradicts your point – while important to make the distinction between reducing vulnerability and reducing emissions, aren’t both important? Or are you arguing that emissions have not increased the odds?

From the UNEP press release, as quoted in your post:
“Reducing vulnerability and helping poorer nations cope with the ravages of climate change is vital. Some experts estimate that for every one dollar invested in disaster preparedness, you will save six dollars in reconstruction costs,” he said. “However, it cannot be an alibi for inaction on emission cut backs. In the end, many smaller countries like low-lying small island developing states and countries like Bangladesh, can only adapt for so long before they are eventually over come by the impacts of storm surges and rising sea levels,” said Mr Toepfer…”

]]>