The GHF assertion that specific, or even estimated, death counts and costs can already be calculated is what has been strongly challenged (and not just by "usual suspects"). The report (authors indicated it's not a "study" really) didn't count earthquake deaths as climate-related.
It tried (and by several accounts failed) to find an attribution scheme for deaths from human-caused climate change by comparing earthquake losses to weather-related losses. Kind of like comparing rates of highway accidents and bathtub-slipping accidents, in a way. Much more here (please read the comments, including from WHO folks trying to defend the finding): http://bit.ly/dotWarmDeath The authors say the disaster issue is red herring because >90 percent of deaths occurring from background influence on diarrhea etc. But that analysis is also problematic, particularly in trying to distinguish whatever's happening through "normal" climate change vs. anthropogenic, I've been told. Andy -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 http://www.nytimes.com/revkin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
