[Please note while the content in this post is valid, it’s not necessarily related. Content is derived from drafts sitting quietly on my HD. Post will probably be deleted although I may incorporate content into future posts -hro]
Seems to me that the “climate change” –>>> increased extreme weather meme is a long established (by the IPCC, in accordance with the “needs” of the UNFCCC) factoid that has been percolating and simmering on the back burners of the movers, shakers and hatchet-men for quite some time.
For example, this pseudo-linkage was part of the 2009 “Scoping Paper” for the “three years in the making” (2011) SREX. As I had noted in a post, which includes some text from this “Scoping Paper”, that which the journos and hatchet-men are now flogging and wildly attempting to keep afloat, was probably quite predictable. At the very least, it is very much in keeping with an apparent IPCC/UNFCCC practice of ‘Here’s our next big scare to flog – now go forth and find us some ‘science’ to help us do this’.
Excerpts from the 2009 SREX “Scoping Paper” (all emphases are mine -hro):
Background: The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) concluded that climate change has begun to affect the frequency, intensity, and length of many extreme events, such as floods, droughts, storms, and extreme temperatures […]
However, the AR4 reviewed policies and measures that were specifically identified as adaptation and not the full range of activities undertaken to reduce the risks of extreme events and disasters.
Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledged the relevance of disaster risk reduction to advance adaptation in the December 2007 Bali Action Plan, which calls for enhanced action on risk management and risk reduction strategies, including risk transfer mechanisms such as insurance, and disaster reduction strategies to lessen the impact of disasters on developing countries.
Rationale: The participants [in the scoping workshop] concluded that a Special Report is needed for the following reasons:
The Special Report would contribute to the goals of the UNFCCC […]
The proposed Special Report […] meets the other priority guidelines: sufficient scientific literature exists; the primary audience is the UNFCCC and the target is the development of the post‐2012 agreement and adaptation plans […]
As RP Jr has noted, the SREX did not quite work out as planned, i.e. notwithstanding contemporaneous headlines to the contrary, this scary link was far from established in any remotely scientific manner.
But, as those who followed the orchestrations of the November 2013 Warsaw Concerto (aka the UNFCCC’s COP 19) can attest, this did not stop the movers, shakers and hatchet-men from promulgating recycled myths, legends and memes, such as (those who write the scripts for) the UN’s Ban Ki-Moon:
UN LEADER Ban Ki-moon said a super typhoon that killed thousands in the Philippines was an example of climate change and should serve as a warning to mankind.
The UN chief said the world was facing a tipping point, […]
“We have seen now what has happened in the Philippines. It is an urgent warning,” he said, “an example of changed weather and how climate change is affecting all of us on Earth.”
So, all that is left to the poor beleaguered Hatchet-Mann (and Holdren and quite possibly the resurfacing Podesta) and his allies is to fall back on their time-honoured tactic of reprehensible smear campaigns.
Frankly, I think that Torcello and his opinions are more to be laughed at than to be concerned about.
My view is that – not unlike Lewandowsky and others of his ilk – he’s a third-rate, if not fourth-rate and unforthright, “thinker” trying to make a name for himself by parrotting that which he’s heard from others (e.g. Suzuki, who has voiced a similar opinion, and/or Microsoft’s big hiring mistake, Stephen Emmott – See Geoff Chambers blog).
Others whom Torcello might be relying on for his “views” might include the U.K.Guardian‘s George Monbiot, whose ardent adherence to ill-informed advocacy is legendary, along with that of so many others in the Guardian‘s green advocacy stable.
So, in the pantheon of ignorant partisan parrots, I’d be more inclined to position Torcello in the ranks of the lesser lights (as opposed to the acolytes).
Considering the extent to which the various and sundry tentacles of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) have succeeded in foisting their “philosophy” (for want of a better word) in so many aspects of our lives, over the last twenty years, I am far more concerned about official and/or entrenched declarations such as that of the UN’s Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. ’One of whose “mandated priority areas” is:
Promoting the role of criminal law in protecting the environment
[For source of the above, pls see: https://hro001.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/introducing-the-uns-jolly-green-sustainable-hockey-stick/ ]
The mileage of others may certainly vary, but it seems to me that this “mandated priority area” may well have led to a fairly recent (albeit largely unheralded and unreported – if not unheard of) UNEP joining of forces with INTERPOL:
[T]he 1st Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Committee (ECEC) meeting […] which will bring together executive leaders from around the world to design and develop strategies to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of national and international responses to environmental compliance and enforcement. [Source]
Reading between those particular UN-speak lines, there is a new playbook in the works about which, IMHO, we really should be concerned.