Global Warming Causes Tsunamis! So Saith The Sages Of Grist

Bradley J. Fikes Bradley J. Fikes 6 Comments


Until  National Review Online posted about this scary story from enviro mag Grist, I wasn’t aware of this frightening new dimension to the catastrophic effect global warming climate change is having.

Already, 2011 is the costliest year for insurance claims due to natural disasters, aided by climate change. The cost so far: $265 billion, greater than the previous record, set in the Hurricane Katrina year of 2005.

The scary facts from Grist on how climate change causes natural disasters

The scary facts from Grist on how climate change causes natural disasters

Well, except for that $210 billion from the Japanese tsunami caused by that monster earthquake, which National Review Online pointed out in a bit of elementary arithmetic.

Add in the $20 billion caused by the New Zealand earthquake, and the total damages that could have even theoretically caused by climate change melts faster than an ice floe in an Al Gore movie, to at most $35 billion. And that’s if you believe all the damage was caused by climate change, which not even the most hard-core warmists would argue.

Hard to believe, but this pixilated story was even worse before NRO wrote about it.  The headline originally blamed the disasters on climate change.

Grist's original headline lingers on

Grist's original headline lingers on

While Grist changed the headline after its mocking by National Review, it didn’t correct the story’s phony correlation. And the original bogus premise is retained in the story’s URL:

Grist's original bogus headline remains in the URL

Grist's original bogus headline remains in the URL

Pretty clever of Grist. Just change “climate disasters” to “natural disasters” in the headline but keep the story with its false premise.  Why quibble about mere factual accuracy when the fate of Gaia hangs in the balance?

Grist has tried before to blame tsunamis on climate change, only to back down with a mealy-mouthed  apology that demonstrates how far its partisans will go to twist the facts to fit their beliefs:

“The intent of this piece isn’t to attribute today’s tragedy to climate change. Apologies to those whom I misled with the headline. It was meant literally, as in: Tsunamis are inundations of shorelines and therefore have impacts that resemble storm surges, which are one of the most immediate threats of a warmer planet. In addition, climate change may cause tsunamis directly, so it’s possible we’ll someday see more images like this as a result.”

Climate scares proven bogus because of inaccurate assumptions long ago became monotonous. But  for skeptics of man-caused catastrophic global warming climate change climate instability like myself, Grist is the self-parodying gift that keeps on giving.


(DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion, and not necessarily that of my employer, the North County Times).


Comments 6

  1. I don’t think that’s what Grist was getting at. Take another look (emphasis added):

    “The price tag for 2011 disasters reached $265 billion. Most of that cost ($210 billion) came from the tsunami in Japan. But flooding in Australia, tornadoes in the United States, and earthquakes in New Zealand also contributed, and the Munich Re insurance giant draws a connection between some of these disasters and climate change.”

    What the piece is saying is that while most of the cost of disasters this year were from the Japan tsunami, other costs were related to disasters that one insurance company, Munich Re, attributes to climate change.

    Your issue here should be with Munich Re. From the MSNBC piece that Grist links to: “Munich Re wasn’t shy about drawing a connection between climate change and what it sees as longer windows for extreme weather.”

    Link to the MSNBC piece:

  2. Post
  3. There’s another unstated assumption here. ALL non-tsunami/earthquake disasters are due to “climate change.”

    Stated differently, and speaking for these so-called scientists — “If we lived in what we [global warming alarmists] deem to be a perfect environmental world, there would be zero such disasters. Indeed, these catastrophes didn’t start occurring until global warming became a problem in the last (x number of) years.”

  4. Post

    Very true, Richard. I think it’s a sign of real desperation in the warmist camp that an enviro magazine like Grist would publish such an easily debunked piece, and even more that they kept the story up with just a headline change instead of retracting it altogether.

    Take away the tsunami and the Gristoids have nothing. The mag must be really confident in the enviro-fanaticism of its readers to try to brazen this out. Unfortunately for Grist, the comments indicate otherwise.

  5. I did read it carefully. You initially take issue with the story itself. Then, halfway down, you point out the headline gaffe: “Hard to believe, but this pixilated story was even worse before NRO wrote about it.” I agree it was an inaccurate headline, but you lead your blog post with an inaccurate characterization of the story itself.

  6. Post

    Out of the $265 billion in natural disasters, 87 percent was caused by earthquakes and had no connection to climate, even by CAGW theory. Why is that number still in the rewritten headline?

    The story itself was based on a faulty premise that makes no sense in environmental terms. The story says this year’s damages exceeds that of the Hurricane Katrina year of 2005, which is true but meaningless in terms of discussing climate change. Take away the earthquake-triggered damages, including the tsunami, and damages this year aren’t anywhere near that of 2005. If you or I made an error like that, I’d hope we would both retract such a story rather than pretend it still has any merit.

    I wonder if the story itself was clumsily rewritten to try to hide those errors. That would explain the strange logic, if you can call it that, in the story.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *