Thanks. The chapter that you link to is the source of the quote in -11-

Brian Schmidt tells Roger, “You could start by revealing to your readers what percent of the 300k death estimates came from non-drought disasters,…”

Roger, I think Brian Schmidt’s point is that, of the 315,000 annual deaths that the GHF report attributes to climate change, only 14,500 are due to “weather-related disasters.” The other 302,000 calculated annual deaths attributed to climate change (in 2010) are due to malnutrition (154,000 deaths per year), diarrhoea (94,000 deaths per year), and malaria (54,000 deaths per year).

But Brian, why don’t *you* “reveal” to us how those deaths were calculated? How were the numbers in the table on page 90 calculated:

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

Total: 302,000 deaths/year

???

If you’re having trouble figuring out where those numbers came from, I suggest you look at the numbers in this report:

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

Do you notice any correlation?

And do you think that the Global Humanitarian Forum calculation methodology that came up with those 302,000 deaths per year is legitimate?

I just found James Annan’s comments, thanks for the hint — with friends like that . . . Couldn’t locate a post by Connolley.

There is no need to “reveal” anything as the report is publicly available. Perhaps you are referring to how the GHF report relied on the WHO “Global Burden of Disease” report to arrive at estimates of losses from malnutrition, diarrheoa and malaria?

If so here is what WHO has to say about its own methodology that was then subsequently relied on by GHF:

“Empirical observation of the health consequences of long-term climate change, followed by formulation, testing and then modification of hypotheses would therefore require long time-series (probably several decades) of careful monitoring.While this process may accord with the canons of empirical science, it would not provide the timely information needed to inform current policy decisions on GHG emission abatement, so as to offset possible health consequences in the future.”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000674indur_goklanys_reje.html

So, do I feel comfortable saying that the balance of death estimates are based on pretty dodgy work? Yes. If you don’t believe me, take it from the WHO. And this fact about the WHO numbers is well known, which is why most scholars stay away from the 150,000/year number. What is new and different in the GHF report was the disasters/earthquakes comparison, hence my critique.

No part of the GHF analysis stands up to scrutiny, or at least, the sort of scrutiny associated with the “canons of empirical science”. Please feel free to share these comments with your readers on your blog.

Thanks.

You could start by revealing to your readers what percent of the 300k death estimates came from non-drought disasters, as that is the basis for your categorical statement that the study is about how to lie with statistics.

Thanks for the clarification. I actually did not suggest that you were in favor (or against) the report, only my impression that you were saying that its accuracy was not paramount. Your clarification clears that up, and I’ll update the post to reflect your additional comments. Thanks!

Roger,

I think you are mischaracterizing my blog post as being blindly in favor of the GHF report because I agree with GHF’s politics. I said some favorable things about the report because I think such studies in general are a worthy endeavor. However, as I noted, whether undertaking such human impacts research is a good idea does not excuse the production of a poor end product, which seems to be the case with the GHF report. I included your criticism of the report, as well as the perspectives of public health researchers whose views were expressed in Andy Revkin’s articles, so it’s tough to make the case that I wrote a pro-GHF post.

In the section that you quoted, I was stating that it is important to try to identify whether or not there is a clear signal of the human impacts of climate change, and how such impacts may change in the future. GHF should be commended for trying to do that. They should be criticized for failing to do that in a methodologically sound manner, however, which you and other experts have taken them to task for.

I wouldn’t expect RC to address the GHF report as it is not really anyone’s expertise there. But I would expect some discussion in the blogosphere, given the egregious nature of the “analysis.”

Maybe you are reading the wrong blogs I agree there is a lot of chaff out there, but there is some wheat as well.

The GHF document is plenty full of misrepresentations, and as a representation of “facts” from a leading organization endorsed by many esteemed people, I find its faults to be far in excess than that found in an opinion column by an overtly ideological commentator. I don’t see these as remotely close in comparison.

Yes, RC does on occasion address non-reviewed articles and reports. I said it wasn’t their job to do so. And I think that most of the few that they do engage tend to be about RC contributor material, as with the current case where Steig is responding to criticisms of his paper. It’s very different for Michael Mann to address issues regarding the Hockey Stick than to expect them to criticize the GHF report.

Blogs can supplement journals, but I wouldn’t consider them an “excellent” medium for it. The signal-to-noise ratio is just too low. The very slow process of journal correspondence is also admittedly problematic. I’m not sure what the best way to deal with that, but my survey of blogs – whether it be attacks on science by denialsts or claims by some AGW believers that humanity is on the edge of extinction – is that they are more entertainment than substance.

Here is one key difference between Will’s column and the GHF report. Will used as his central thesis a misrepresentation of data in a published paper. When the authors objected to the misrepresentation, he did acknowledge their concern, but did not correct or admit his errors. The error in the GHF methodology did not misrepresent actual work – as far as I know (I only read their metholodogy document).

“it is not the job of working scientists to counter non-reviewed reports from think tanks”

Real Climate would seem to disagree, as they typically engage plenty of material from non-peer reviewed sources. And your claim that they are not willing to debate their own work is news to me … if true, how odd. With the publication process in many journals stretching to months and even years in some cases, blogs are an excellent medium for engaging in scientific debates. Blogs don’t replace peer review but they can supplement it.

However, I don’t seen in any of this discussion a good reason why the GHF report should be treated any differently than an op-ed by George Will.

Thanks, as always.