CRED Finally Admit There Never Was An Increase In Natural Disasters
By Paul Homewood
Well, finally they’ve admitted it! Better late than never.
.
.
https://cred.be/sites/default/files/CredCrunch71.pdf
.
For years, the graphs and data provided by CRED have been misused by the UN and much of our media to try to convince the public that natural disasters are getting worse because of climate change.
.
Headlines like this one:
.
https://unfccc.int/news/climate-change-leads-to-more-extreme-weather-but-early-warnings-save-lives
.
And this one:
.
As some of us have been pointing out for years, there never was an increasing trend in the number of disasters. The apparent increase was simply due to many events not being officially recorded in the past.
.
Will the UN, WMO, BBC or all of the others who have peddled these pretty obvious falsehoods now apologise?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
No, this news will be buried very deep!
“…this news…”
Will not be incorporated into the belief patterns of the already brainwashed.
For, an impression once made, is permanent. As the estate agents say about ‘kerb appeal’ -“All women and most men develop an unbudgeable, irrational, like or dislike, of a house while still walking up the front path. And rationalise it in their minds with idiotic and irrelevant trivia like the colour of the walls.”
Such quick decision-making possibly had survival value – once.
Whenever thinking about natural things it is as well to remember this quote by the Vice-President of the Physics Section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1910:
“Every one has a sense of the absurdity of the idea of reducing the more complicated phenomena of Nature to an orderly system of mechanical law.”
Not now they don’t!
Epidemiology: the branch of medicine which deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases and other factors relating to health.
Epidemiology of Disasters seems contrived to me, a corruption of the term. Disasters are not a medical issue.
“…a corruption…”
Of course. ‘Epidemic’ and related words have precise meanings to the educated. Fools use them, exaggeratedly, for just about anything which amazes them “There is an epidemic of crime in this neighbourhood!”
Ah, but you forget the miasma theory of climate change. It’s like a noxious emanation that wafts in to infect all in its path. What is more, it is extremely catching so very much in epidemiology’s bailiwick.
I’m not being entirely ironic – many reports about global warming etc convey just this sort of mental image.
“Disaster” is anything that can be used to sow panic, for your own good (usually for a noble purpose).
Chances of BBC apologising, lol.
More lols:
“JSO, who have recently targeted major events in the British summer calendar including Wimbledon and the Ashes, said the action tonight came in response to the ‘underwhelming’ coverage of climate change by the BBC.”
Here’s a past reminder of what one of their own stars thought:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html
Click onto the BBC ‘Science’ page and usually more than 50% of the articles are about the terrible effects of climate change. No science, pure propaganda.
Yep, their ‘Science’ tab usually has most of the same content as the ‘Climate’ one, and it’s a rare day when climate stories don’t make up the majority of the top supposedly science articles.
Thankyou for that link. Not being a Mail reader I hadn’t come across it before.
The BBC actually lied (there is no other word) about that notorious 2006 conference. Of the 30 reported attendees only three had any scientific qualifications, none of them relevant; the rest were either activists or BBC apparatchiks plus somebody from the US Embassy (rumoured to be the local CIA spook).
Also Richard North who, according to a later interview, didn’t understand why he was there and reckoned they had invited the wrong Richard North!
It was evident from the list that the seminar was not intended to provide the BBC with a balanced expert view on climate but to provide a fig leaf to hide the BBC’s already decided upon partisan coverage.
None of their “environment correspondents” had/have a clue. (The Telegraph suffered the same affliction for years, in spite of Booker’s efforts in the Sunday edition!)
Thanks for posting the CRED report. It’s not something I would have seen, and that conclusion is one of the most refreshing things I’ve ever read in a bureaucratic publication. They do hate to admit any change or challenge to the “reality” they’ve been promoting. I honestly doubt we’ll see much of a change in the talking-head reporting on television, they so enjoy their ability to wallow in the idea that we horrible common folk are making things worse that they won’t let that go. I often find myself shouting at the television broadcaster “go take a geology course”….. the events they moan about were actually more frequent in eons past, we just were there to count them! Daphne Worsham Texas
Nothing to see here, just move along.
Now! Where were we? Oh yes which (debunked) climate scare story to regurgitate this week…. Polar Bears or maybe the GB Reef…sea level, now there is one we like to push as often as possible. Regurgitation of our pitiful collection of klymutt storwees is important to fix fear in the minds of the impressionable the weak minded and those desperate for a meaning in their lives. Doing this keeps us powerful and most of all to keep the money flowing…yeheah!
Nothing to see here, just move along.
Now! Where were we? Oh yes which (debunked) climate scare story to regurgitate this week…. Polar Bears or maybe the GB Reef…sea level, now there is one we like to push as often as possible. Regurgitation of our pitiful collection of klymutt storwees is important to fix fear in the minds of the impressionable the weak minded and those desperate for a meaning in their lives. Doing this keeps us powerful and most of all to keep the money flowing…yeheah!
“…GB Reef…”
To the gnashing of teeth, it is the healthiest it has been in half a century. It will be hit by a cyclone at some time (it is well modelled as a Poisson process with a rate of about 0.1 per year) and then the damage (usually, half the coral polyps die) will indeed be blamed on global you-know-what.
Thanks, Paul.
On the first chart, the vertical axis is labeled “N° of Disasters”.
I’m having trouble with the ” ° ” – – Of course, I have never been characterized as being the sharpest knife in the drawer. It is still early in the morning over here at 120° W Longitude.
Also, I also wonder about what qualifies as a disaster now versus then. For example, my forecast for today & Sunday has a “Heat advisory” symbol with expected temperatures of 93° and 90°F (33.9 & 32.2 C). This is summer and locals will be out grilling hot dogs and drinking beer – party time.
One adaptation I’ve seen in the last few years are backyard misters. Use an images search to see the variety of those.
Precisely what I have been saying of late. We don’t have a climate crisis we have digital maturity.
Will they apologise?
Never.
They must be challenged and strictly held to account.
If they are allowed to just claim they were misled by their Chat Fekkers, they will keep on piling it on until they destroy us, which is their intention.
It isn’t just disasters. There can be no-one on here who can’t immediately name a dozen topics where BBC deliberately lie, refuse to accept criticism unless forced and even then repeat the same lie after a few months. Zombie lies.
Defund the BBC, WHO, UN now!