Disasters report features ‘crudely manipulated data’
By Paul Homewood
Disasters report features ‘crudely manipulated data’
Press Release
London, 17 April – The Global Warming Policy Foundation has called on the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to withdraw its fatally flawed 2022 Disasters in Numbers report.
The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), together with the Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), recently published their 2022 report on “Disaster in Numbers.”
On its front cover, the report deceptively suggests that the 387 reported disasters, the loss of 30,704 lives, affecting 185 million individuals and causing economic damage of $223.8 billion are due to “climate in action” – although the report also covers earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides and wildfires.
The annual review of disasters of all kinds has been examined by extreme weather expert, Dr Ralph Alexander, who has published a strongly worded critique at his website.
Dr Alexander notes that:
* data has been crudely manipulated to suggest that there may be a hidden underlying increase in weather-related disasters
* false claims are made on the basis of statistically invalid comparisons.
GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser said:
“Dr Alexander has shown that the authors of the latest ‘Disasters in Numbers’ report are bending over backwards to provide support for the narrative of climate doom, when the data and trends of weather-related disasters are pointing in the opposite direction.
The Catholic University and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) should be ashamed of what is appearing in their name. This publication is fatally flawed and should be withdrawn.”
More information
* Ralph Alexander: CRED’s 2022 Disasters in Numbers report is a disaster in itself
* 2022 Disasters in Numbers
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Isn’t it utterly ridiculous that the BBC has a science category when it just duplicates the climate one. Gone are the days of interesting science stories. Now ‘science’ is Justin Rowlatt reporting on LTNs and gaslighting critics as conspiracy theorists even though the plans are published in plain sight.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65243274
What’s in it for the BBC. It’s not reliable news it is propaganda, one sided.
Facts are for adults. Who needs facts when you are scaring the children?
Disaster capitalism ?
Label the weather to windy, sunny, wet or icey and you’re half way there. Then comes a business plan followed by a trip to the bank to cash the cheque.
With a never ending revolving door of quangos, aid agencies and media it’s easy work if you can get it.
An interesting sidelight on climate journalism:
https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/climatexchange-to-boost-local-climate-reporting/s2/a1026186/
More crap in that….’ the science is clear’, didn’t read any further after that piece of tosh.
Ice core records prove that no matter what causes warming, open polar oceans promote evaporation and snowfall so that over a few hundred years, more ice is pushed into the ocean and spread over the land such that it overcomes any warming from any source.
This natural force is not being studied; this is longer term self-correction built into the natural climate systems.
During major warmer times when oceans were deeper and warmer, the warm cycles were thousands of years and the massive snowfalls caused cold cycles that lasted thousands of years.
There is enough ice sequestered on Antarctica that the oceans cannot cause another major warmer time and therefore we cannot have a major cold period.
Study history and ice core records, this is easy to understand, but green subsidies keep everyone on the CO2 track, by bribery and trickery.
Study and understand this.
Herman A (Alex) Pope
The modern records go back a couple hundred years as we came out of the little ice age. They do not go back a few thousand years as full alternating warmer and colder time periods cycled through full dynamic cycles. This is the coldest warm period in ten thousand years, this the warmest cold period in millions of years. They understand nothing about natural climate cycles.
Whenever I come across claims like this my default assumption is that they are false propaganda. It has reached the point where I’m in danger of not picking up on something where they actually aren’t crying wolf again.
My general rule is to try educate myself studying history and data and then deciding for myself what meets common sense and look at who is being subsidized with obscene amounts of riches and power.
Common sense has been lacking and groupthink triumphs, at enormous costs and no benefit to people not in receipt of the fraudulently gained
money/grants/votes/power. Consider the cases of Ed Milliband and J. Selwyn Deben Gummer, to name only 2, twisters all.