Quite simply the hurricane and cyclone records demonstrate a decline in the numbers and force. The primary reason insurance losses have increased is migration of people (and therefore increase in property value) to more attractive coastal areas such as Florida in the natural hurricane path.

As your article states what volcanos is doing being included in this junk science report is a matter for investigation as is the fact the research is being shrouded.

The BBC’s journalistic principles (balance, fairness, checking research integrity etc) have fallen throught the floor since they ‘removed’ key personal over the Iraq/WMD issue and the David Kelly affair. On climate science they are tragically biased and entirely one-sided. This is a ‘public service’ broadcaster that pays lip service to integrity and has become frankly corrupt (you should have seen their bias for Obama versus McCain).

Keep up the great work

“[We demand] climate gender justice! … Women and men are differently affected by climate change and they contribute differently to climate change. To give you an example from Germany, it is mostly men who are going by car. Women are going by public transport mostly.

At least in the developing countries, it is women who are more affected because they are more vulnerable, so they don’t have access to money to go outside the country or go somewhere else to earn money and they have to care for their families.

What we are calling for is to take into account more of the social aspects of climate change.”

Here’s the genanet homepage:
http://www.genanet.de/home_news.html?&L=1

And here’s the homepage for gendercc (Women for Climate Justice):
http://www.gendercc.net

Aims: “www.gendercc.net is our response to the growing public attention to climate change, and the increasing need for information about women’s perspectives and gender aspects in climate change policies and measures.”

Climate gender justice… Does this mean all the school-run mums driving gigantic people-carriers in my part of London are willing accomplices of the climate patriarchy? Or are they merely gender slaves to the (male) carbon elite? )

(1) Nothing. That’s the point. We were pointing out a limitation of the ‘bad science’ approach. We’ve argued here that even if the scientific claims of the environmental movement were true, it wouldn’t legitimise their politics. But to criticise the movement for its bad science although useful in many respects, misses the point that people (the general public) are capable of making decisions. In other words, it fails to look at environmental movement as a political phenomenon that can be criticised by anyone. It hides behind science – it’s not constructed from it.

(2) Of course. We’ve pointed out many examples of bad psychology (and psychiatry) in the past.

(1) “We still need a panel of scientists if we want to understand the special politics that has been demanded by exaggerated environmental concern.”
You are political scientists (I think), and I’m not. Please explain what a panel of scientists can provide for an understanding of politics which a panel of simple electors can’t.

(2) “It’s also bad politics, and bad philosophy comprising bad metaphysics, bad ethics, and bad logic. And probably a few other bads in there too.”
Would you accept bad psychology? I’ve just been reading Mr & Mrs Hansen’s plea to Mr & Mrs Obama to save the world. It’s eco-political-correctness squared. Anti-science preached by a high-priest of scientism. This is the philosophy which will guide the world for the next few months or years. God(lessness) help us all.

“Bad science” is a fairly specific thing. It implies (we think) that all we need to know to understand what is going on is the science. We still need a panel of scientists if we want to understand the special politics that has been demanded by exaggerated environmental concern.

We choose ‘Chinese whispers’ over ‘urban myths’, because, the latter implies that the ‘urban myth’ drives the phenomenon of environmentalism. What we’re trying to explain is that the dynamic is not the myths as such, but the hunger for them.

Maybe you’re right that it is ‘bad science’ and definitely it’s bad journalism, but we don’t think this is the whole picture. It’s also bad politics, and bad philosophy comprising bad metaphysics, bad ethics, and bad logic. And probably a few other bads in there too.

Congratulations on the detailed analysis. A simple question: why do you say (in the previous post “A Notional Trust”) “This isn’t really a story about ‘bad science’, or bad journalism..” when it seems to be exactly that? Bad science in the sense that Ben Goldacre uses it constantly in the Guardian, i.e. non-science (wittering in the case of the National Trust, touting for business in the case of Munich Re) masquerading as science. Bad journalism for the reasons you make abundantly plain yourselves. You call it Chinese whispers, I’d say urban myths, (though that tends to suggest something downmarket and Daily Mailish – shall we say Hampstead Myths?) Anyway, you’re right to expose it.

If, in fact, the frequency or impact of said insurance events does not increase then the insurance company makes a bigger profit.

I don’t think either of these statements is controversial.