The Economist Peddles Extreme Weather Lies

image

https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/906739904788430848

The Economist has been running this video on Twitter, with the usual fraudulent claims.

The film uses two examples:

  • Hurricane Harvey
  • Bangladesh flooding.

They forget to mention that Texas has had even more intensive storms in the past, notably 1978 and 1979 and that Bangladesh regularly floods.

But the headline claim is based on this graph:

image

The first thing to highlight about this, which should really give the whole away as a giant fraud, is that there were apparently virtually no extreme weather events in the early 20thC. Nobody with half a brain could seriously believe this, but apparently, Economist readers do.

There appears to be no provenance given for this graph, which in itself is utterly damning for a supposedly serious journal. But it seems to be based on a similarly fraudulent claim from the insurance company, Munich Re, which was doing the rounds a year or two ago, again publicised by the Economist:

20150627_stc765

https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21656133-climate-change

As I explained a few months ago, these “disasters” are classified in terms of monetary value. Munich Re only counts the most expensive events, albeit adjusted for inflation. (Note – the only other obvious classification is the death toll – but as the video reveals, this is massively reduced).

But, of course, as has been thoroughly explained many times, as the world’s GDP increases, so do economic losses.

No serious organisation would attempt to blame these increased losses on climate change or any other extraneous causes. But Munich Re has a vested interest in blaming increased premiums on the climate.

It is a sad fact of life that to get to the truth, we have to rely on independent analysts with no vested interests.

For instance, Roger Pielke Jr:

image_thumb33_thumb

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/684740869707071488

It is self-evident that weather-related disaster losses are actually reducing as a proportion of global GDP.

But don’t let simple facts get in the way of propaganda.

Read more at Not a lot of People Know That

Trackback from your site.

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    The Economist is no diffrent then other liberal magazines that lie big time like TIME,ROLLING STONE,POPULAR SCIENCE,NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC,Etc that spew this Global Warming/Climate Change lie

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Frank Guee

      |

      I don’t know that they do, and I take all of them.

      Frank
      Burlington, ON Canada

      Reply

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    In addition to MORE hurricanes, the 1970’s had NO internet or social media. When extreme weather hit, as it did often, it had no hysterical, politically-driven social electronic media to serve as an amplifier and echo chamber.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The Economist is going the way of the death spiral Guardian . Preachy opinionism that is going to cost them their business . Shareholders get out before they clean out the cupboard .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    The leftist jerks who write for
    The Economist
    will continue to do so
    regardless
    of logic, common sense, and totally in ignorance of the

    SCIENTIFIC METHOD

    and continually promulgate
    unfounded leftist alarmism to
    achieve their goals of

    ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT

    and the

    INSLAVEMENT

    of

    ALL MANKIND

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Steve

    |

    This mag is just another NWO mouthpiece, and should be completely ignored.

    More fake news……

    Reply

Leave a comment