No WAY, DUDE!! After Haiyan, Cameron Notes "Evidence Seems To Be Growing" Of Climate/Storm Links

[hatrack]

Evidence was growing that climate change was responsible for extreme weather disasters such as typhoon Haiyan, the Prime Minister said today.

The Philippines government has blamed “climate madness” for the devastating super-storm that has killed more than 3,600 people and left more than 11 million displaced. Asked whether he agreed there could be a link, David Cameron said: “I’ll leave the scientists to speak for themselves about the link between severe weather events and climate change. The evidence seems to me to be growing.”

His words appeared to be the most explicit from any member of the British Government linking climate change to Haiyan. Ed Davey, the Climate Change Secretary, said on Thursday that he was not certain climate change had led to the increased frequency of storms.

Many Conservative MPs actively deny any human contribution to climate change. Lord Lawson, the Tory former Chancellor, said this week it was a “scare” to suggest tropical storms were the result of climate change.

EDIT

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-says-evidence-is-growing-for-climate-change-link-to-storms-after-typhoon-haiyan-8943229.html

[pscot]

1. He's a regular Sherlock Holmes

[Skittles]

2. he's a regular Columbo!

[GliderGuider]

3. He's a regular Miss Marple!

[LouisvilleDem]

4. AR5

Does anyone know why the IPCC backed off claims that there is a link between increased cyclone activity and climate change?

[CRH]

5. IPCC has polítical minders that administers what is in the reports or not, ...

Many countries can influence 'who' writes the reports and the acceptable content as well. It is why there is not much mention of methane oozing carbon sinks in AR5, and why none of the models or pathways consider those future influences. It is probably the largest omission from this report, but does allow the carbon based global economy a couple of more years of deception before the dialog changes to 'zero carbon tolerance' in energy and economy.

Simply put, they 'backed off of claims', probably from political pressure to allow business as usual. With the IPCC, business trumps science, or at least it has in the past.

[LouisvilleDem]

6. Interesting

I'll have take a look at what peer reviewed literature they quote to support the new position. I wonder if any of the authors are outright skeptics.