Julian states that there are currently 1500 heat related deaths per year in Australia and that this number will increase with global warming. A little more research would tell him that there are currently 7000 cold related deaths in Australia, being the excess mortality in the three winter months compared with the three summer months. Refer http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/winter-kills-excess-deaths-in-the-winter-months/
His statement reminds me of the IPCC’s quote that 30,000 deaths were caused by the European heatwave in the August 2003, a figure that originated from one of the green activist organisations. Again a little more research would have revealed the World Health Organisation’s figures that show an average of 200,000 heat related deaths every year in Europe – but about 1.5 million deaths from excess cold. (WHO’s World Health Report 2004). Statistics in the UK show an increase in the death rate of 1.5% for each degree of temperature drop below 18 degrees C. The only conclusion that can be drawn from these figures is that future temperature related deaths will trend in the opposite direction to that projected in Julian’s piece. I wonder what that says for his other prognostications.

I find it astonishing that a person with academic and presumably therefore research credentials can make such ill-informed statements. Sad may be a better word, sad that people can be so driven by religious fervour in the contentious climate debate as to be blind to the broader range of information and evidence available. How can we expect our politicians to make the right decisions when this type of bias and misinformation is so dominant among supposed opinion leaders and the media?

Very good point about the European 2003 heatwave Malrob. Another factor was that the hospitals were understaffed as the doctors (espc in France) had gone off on hols. I was there. Major scandal.

Also, the government failed to tell older people to drink water and if they take blood pressure tablets (which can interfere with the bods cooling mechanism) to be extra vigilent.

I have been alarmed too at some of the conclusions that these 'eminent' scientists or communicators have made.

Curmudgeon,

Sorry to contradict you but The Federal BOM Report into Cyclone Tracey simply states Tracey was a Catagory 4 cyclone and that

'Estimates based on anemometer readings, pressure gradients, and satellite data are thus well supported and the consistency of these different approaches leads to the conclusion that peak gusts associated with Tracy were most likely in the range 217 to 240 km/h,
corresponding to maximum mean winds (10 minute average) over Darwin of 140 to 150km/h.'

page 45

Due to the thoroughness and professionalism on display in that report I have no doubt that had gusts been up to Cat 5 it would have said so.

With all due respects it is about wind intensity on infrustructure not just interaction between cyclones and housing building.

I am fearful that if a true catagory 5 cyclone the size of Yasi hit's Mission Beach in future we will see damage on an unprecedented scale with Ihgham, Cardwell, Tully Mission Beach and Innisfail utterly flattened, in Darwinesque fashion, by cat 5 Sustained Winds and Gusts, with Cairns and Townsville devestated by at least Catagory 4 Sustained winds and Gusts.

Any suggestions the scale of damage and, by others, the loss of life, in Yasi was minimised by Modern Building Codes and masterful cleanup preparation has the very great danger of creating complacency.

If anybody thinks a Cat 5 Cyclone the size of Yasi inflicts the relatively minimiscle and limited geographically spread damage that yasi did inflict... then they are terribly wrong.

<The Brisbane floods were a lot less extensive than in 1974 and other years... and not because of mitigation.>

That is an interesting point of view, Keith. According to one hydrologist, the Wivenhoe took 1.5 metres off the latest flood, despite it holding so much water at the time. With an extra 1.5 metres, the 2011 flood would have been worse than the 1974 flood.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/brisbane-saved-from-ruin-by-dam/story-fn59niix-1225992598096

So how is it that you think that a dam designed for flood mitigation had no mitigating effect?

Posted for the benefit of Poirot.
Who cleaves to the quaint notion that all that clings or clogs or chokes can only be of human concoction : [ “Oil, in its "natural" state, is enclosed within the earth's crust - not floating about on the surface of her oceans.”]

1)“Oil residue in seafloor sediments that comes from natural petroleum seeps off Santa Barbara, Calif., is equivalent to between 8 to 80 Exxon Valdez oil spills” http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=76955

2)“However, we have found that the biggest source of oil in the sea is natural seepage. We estimate that during the 87 days of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which leaked up to 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, an additional 3 million barrels leaked naturally. This natural seepage has been going on for thousands of years.” http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827810.700-oil-perspective.htm

Keith
yes I know Tracy is classified as a category four, and it was for the most part.. I said that parts got up to five while at Darwin... my source for this was the scientist who led the investigation. He said that it was the only way to explain some of the wind damage. (note this is inferred, not measured - the wind measuring instrument broke). He told me this only last week - now that I think of it, he did say something about his disagreeing with the classification. He also said the smaller wind systems can have sections with more intense winds.

However, if its not in the report its certainly not official and if you don't want to accept it, that's fine. It matters only to the extent that it is the first time I've heard of any claims of category five winds actually affecting buildings, as opposed to being somewhere in the wind system when it hit the coast.

And that was back in the 1970s. The climate apocalypse is getting further away, not closer.