Drew, The author (Delingpole) is doing a bit of cherry picking himself. He comes across a bit confrontational, which I guess is necessary nowadays for anyone to be a popular commentator. Anyway, the chart he is showing is not a chart in support of the argument "Extreme weather events are increasing: yet another green propaganda myth". He is showing a chart of deaths due to extreme weather. This is not the same as the number of extreme events. Is it surprising that more people died of weather-related events in the 1920s-1940s? That was an era of world wars & their aftermath (not to mention a world-wide depression, antibiotics were just being discovered, viruses were not well understood). Many many posts ago, I put up a chart showing the increase in the number of billion-dollar weather events per year. This is also not the same as an increase in the number of events. It is more a function of our development along the coasts and short-term thought when it comes to civil planning. The chart that Delingpole shows is taken from data in the paper "Deaths and Death Rates from Extreme Weather Events: 1900-2008" (I.M Goklany) Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 14 Number 4 Winter 2009. The paper is definitely making the argument that the human costs of climate change are over dramatized. However, just looking at the data from the paper we cannot draw the conclusion that Delingpole is making. From the actual paper: Figure 1: The number of extreme climate events per decade There is likely better reporting of extreme events now as compared to the early 20th century; however this graph clearly shows the events are increasing. Figure 2: Deaths and death rates due to extreme climate events per decade This is the data from Delingpole's graph. He is showing the data from Figure 2 and making a statement contrary to Figure 1. Did he not see Figure 1 (didn't read the paper he is referencing?) or is he selectively reporting the data that fits with his argument? Either way lacks integrity both scientifically and journalistically. Here is a link that might be useful: Link to paper

It is a very important topic that is affecting all of us and as long participant in the discussion bring forth good well founded arguments, that some might disagree on, it is worth it. I am a believer in the sense that I do believe humankind can do something to slow down the global warming. We can limit our emissions of CO2, by depending less on fossil fuels and more on sustainable, environmentally friendly energy sources as much as we can. It will take many decades ...perhaps 50-100 years before we see the results of these efforts. But we have to do it. Like the title of Jim´s daughters movie "The 11th Hour" we have been very slow to react and it is almost too late, but we can act according to the knowledge we have thus far. Different political perspectives must be put aside and a joint effort by every human and nation on this planet must work together on this. Yes there are also other big global problems that needs to be solved. It is my hope that we will work together and put national and political differences aside and make a determined effort to solves these problems. And yes Youngquinn it really is totally beyond the rest of the world that America soon is going to be totally isolated, and is the only so-called developed nation that has not ratified the KP. But It will not be long, everything points in the direction that America will have a new administration, lead by the Democrats ( After an election campaign that is probably going to be the worst charade of smearing each other the world has yet to see ) As if all the counting last time was not embarrassing enough for the so-called leading democracy in the World. And yes I have also noticed that the press in America is very silent ... I really wonder how free the press is. Boycotting those who beg to differ with the political establishment are commonplace ... Perhaps the newspapers in US fear that people will boycott them if the really write what is going on. It may be my relatively optimistic world view that makes me hope that we will find solutions how to deal with the climate change we are witnessing. Just like Bjørn Lomborg I hope the actions we will take is carefully considered, but like most I am afraid we are running out of time. I can only try to give my perspective and share the knowledge I posses. I am willing to listen to reasoned and documented arguments about what solutions and steps we need to take to try to prevent further global warming and how we deal with the climate changes we have to endure. Like I said earlier it is a complex issue and Americans are probably the most divided people, when it comes to debating this issue. The rest of the world pretty much had the discussion 15-10 years ago, they are having now. I am so happy for important movies like "An inconvenient Truth" and The 11th Hour. I do not totally agree Al Gores POWs brought forth in that movie. There are some flaws and errors and it may not become as bad as some of the scenarios in that movie. So we need to do something ... after careful consideration, but we need to think fast. And we need to be wiling to create a world and a planet that can give all humans a good life. We have the resources but lack the willingness, I feel that is worth promoting and fighting for. So thank you Kate And Youngquinn for thinking it is an important issue and for encouraging a reasoned debate. Niels

One minor item I've changed is my lawn. So, at the outset, please realize, my lawn is the size of a large postage stamp, so what I do might not work for everyone. That said, I've got one hell of a crop of Glechoma (creeping Charlie, creeping Jenny, son-of-a bitch-plant) and at one time, I would have taken the necessary steps to get rid of it. In fact I used to do this, which consisted of two applications about ten days apart of your basic phenoxy herbicides. I've also got wood violets just cruising in the lawn, quite a few dandelions, and whatever else I'm forgetting just now. The lawn's a mess. Yet I neither spray nor even fertilize these days. It just doesn't matter. In fact, I'm getting so I like it this way. We also have a sort of "bulb lawn" consisting of a legacy planting of the little bulb Siberian squill which BTW has the most intense cobalt-blue flower of any I've ever seen. So there's all kinds of non-Kentucky bluegrass things happening in my lawn, and I've gotten so I don't mind at all. I will literally hand weed a few bullthistle rosettes out when they appear. But here's the real deal; I would likely still be killing lawn weeds were it not for a very blessed happening within my tribe-the sudden appearance of not one, not two, but three brand-new grand-babies. These kids are going to be playing on our grass, the youngest of them are going to be sticking things from the lawn i n their mouths, and so on. That's the real reason why I stopped with the chemies and fertilizers. And truth be told, since this is an old part of town, with non-stripped-out topsoil, old plant roots growing, living and dying for decade after decade, you really don't have to fertilize the darn thing. Down on the corner, neighbor who picks and picks at stuff, has every cheesy (in my opinion) add-on to his house's trim, etc. waters and waters that lawn when the summer dry time comes. I used to do some of that but this guy takes it to the nth level. So, you all know where this is going right? When good rains come back, our lawns look identical. But my real contribution-as I see it anyway-is in all the land we're reforesting (appropriate for up here), the woods we're managing, both up there and at one son's place who also owns some woods, and in my very career path. I have actually spent my entire working life-one way or another-involved in plants, horticulture, biology, and so on. It's what I do, period. But that would have been so regardless the state of the planet...I think.

Interesting!