Fake News at the UN
Climate Disinformation at the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR)
A recent press release¹ published on Science, climat et énergie website echoed a « draft IPCC report, announcing an “acceleration” of climate “disturbances” by 2050 ».
Thus, a vast offensive by the IPCC and its henchmen will soon begin on the theme : natural disasters will kill us all² !
One of the first salvos of this assault is a communication from one of the UN agencies.
On October 12, 2020, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR³), in collaboration with the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED⁴), released a report entitled :
« Human Cost of Disasters — An Overview of the Last 20 Years — 2000–2019 ».
It compares this period to the previous one, 1980–1999.
Already, with the foreword, the authors are not being too subtle :
« While this report focuses primarily on the staggering rise in climate-related disasters over the last twenty years… It is baffling that we willingly and knowingly continue to sow the seeds of our own destruction, despite the science and evidence that we are turning our only home into an uninhabitable hell for millions of people… A change must come. We hope this report will add weight to the argument for action on climate⁵ ».
Gone are the desire to understand reality as it is, the measure, the prudence, the doubt that one expects from men of science when faced with complex natural phenomena.
We have here a declaration consecrating the birth of a new religion which could be summarized as follows :
« Unbelievers ! Are you sowing the seeds of sin despite our sermons ? Repent, submit, or hell will be your ultimate punishment ! ».
– — — — — — –
But, since the report claims that all of this is happening « despite the science and the evidence », let’s see what the science says and what evidence it relies on.
All the data used in the report comes from CRED, a research center of the Catholic University of Louvain. It is part of the School of Public Health located in Brussels, Belgium.
He collaborates on international studies on the humanitarian and health consequences of natural disasters. To this end, it manages a database, EM-DAT⁶, which records natural disasters occurring all over the planet.
The CRED results are reported by Our world in data⁷, an online publication of the University of Oxford.
– — — — — — –
What does the report say ?
The first table he presents compares the consequences of natural disasters that occurred during the two periods considered, using global figures for each of them
and, speaking of the period 2000–2019, has this comment : « These numbers represent a sharp increase of the number of recorded disaster events by comparison with the previous twenty years⁸ ».
No reservation comes to contextualize these numbers by placing them in a long-term perspective⁹.
The report does speak of « population growth in areas exposed to risk and [of] uncontrolled urbanization » but does not consider them as factors that should be taken into account to relativize the comparisons between the data of the two periods.
Consequently, the use of global figures, as they stand, makes all these comparisons illusory.
Indeed, between 1980 and 2019 :
- the number of reporting countries increased from 76 in 1980 to 126 in 2019, a rise of 66% ;
- the world population rose from 4.5 billion to 7.7 billion, an increase of 71% ;
- the urban population¹⁰ rose from 1.75 to 4.30 billion, ie an increase of 145%, which has led to increasing exposure to risks ;
- the number and cost of the infrastructures built have increased proportionally ;
- progress has generated new potential targets.
The report does not take into account any of these developments.
He considers that neither the population nor the economic environment has changed during these 40 years and that, therefore, we can compare, as is, the absolute data of the two periods¹¹. Staggering !
All the more staggering when, speaking of the consequences of natural disasters, we read:
« From a disasters analysis point of view, population growth and patterns of economic development are more important than climate change or cyclical variations in weather when explaining this upward trend. Today, not only are more people in harm’s way than there were 50 years ago, but building in flood plains, earthquakes zones and other high-risk areas has increased the likelihood that a routine natural hazard will become a major catastrophe¹² ».
Who is at the origin of these findings full of common sense ?
The same CRED, co-author of the report, in a 2015 study, so just a few years ago.
He had not yet embarked then, body and soul, in the crusade¹³ of the Church of Climatology. Another time, another truth !
In fact, it can be safely said, without fear of being mistaken, that the number of deaths, people affected as well as the amount of economic damage resulting from natural disasters have all, in relative terms, decreased or remained stable during all these years. And it is the CRED data that confirms this to us¹⁴ !
– — — — — — –
The report continues : « This is clear evidence that in a world where the global average temperature in 2019 was 1.1˚C above the pre-industrial period, the impacts [of this warming] are being felt in the increased frequency of extreme weather events including heatwaves, droughts, flooding, winter storms, hurricanes and wildfiresare » and, to illustrate this, the following graphic is produced :
Yet, with the best of will, we can only see a decrease, slow but certain, of these extreme events. How can we see this as « clear evidence » of their increase ?
One is probably suggesting that it is in relation to the previous period, 1980–1999, that this increase took place. Why not then show the two successive periods side by side ?
Let’s do it for them, adding the year 2020 and taking into account the « biological¹⁵» subgroup :
There is indeed a rapid increase in the number of natural disasters until the year 2002.
Therefore, why not use this graph, which is much more meaningful than global numbers, to demonstrate the report’s main claim, that of the « staggering increase in climate-related natural disasters » between the two periods considered ?
Because this graph presents several problems for believers.
The first is obvious.
The warmist dogma links the increase in the frequency of extreme events to global warming, itself caused by the increase in the level of CO² in the atmosphere.
However, this rate has increased continuously over the past 41 years¹⁶.
Therefore, while the rise in disasters in the first part of the graph seems to confirm the dogma, their continued decline after 2002 completely contradicts it. Embarrassing!
This decrease is particularly visible on such a graph, which shows the two periods side by side. But disappears completely when using global numbers. This is why the report favors them for all comparisons between the two periods. It’s more convenient to evade an awkward reality that might confuse simple souls.
– — — — — — –
But there is another problem : the claims of CRED itself !
A recent article¹⁷ published on Science, climat et énergie website shows that, in the past, CRED has always attributed the increase in the number of disasters recorded during the period 1980–1999 to « improved data collection ».
There were therefore no more disasters than before, they did not have more consequences¹⁸ than before, they were simply more reported by the different sources, which increased their number during this period.
Thus, in 2004, a CRED report states :
« Figure 2 [similar to Figure 2.1 reproduced below] might lead one to believe that disasters occur more frequently today than in the beginning of the century. However, reaching such a conclusion based only on this graph would be incorrect. In fact, what the figure is really showing is the evolution of the registration of natural disaster events over time¹⁹ ».
Identical assertions can be found in the 2007²⁰ and 2015²¹ reports.
In a 2011 article, about the « increase » of natural disasters during the period 1980–1999, the director of CRED states :
« The data represented in Fig. 2.1 [below] might lead one to believe that disasters occur more frequently today than in earlier decades. However, it would be wrong to reach such a conclusion based solely on this graph… One of the main factors contributing to this apparent increase in natural disasters is improved reporting²² » :
Finally, in February 2021, after the publication of the UN report, in an end-of-study work supervised by the same director of CRED, we find the same statements that contradict the conclusions of the report :
« The number of disasters captured in EM-DAT increased substantially in the end of the 20th century due to multiple reasons. First, data quality and coverage have improved since the 1960’s with increased media coverage of global events, decrease of communication costs, and expansion of the internet… Second, global population growth has increased the likelihood of hazards hitting human communities, and hence more disaster events are reported²³ ».
There are the two themes mentioned above, that of improving data collection explaining the « increase » in the number of recorded disasters as well as the need to take into account, in the interpretation of these data, the growth of world population.
There is therefore perfect continuity between CRED’s statements before and after the 2020 report.
Moreover, in support of all these quotes, we can produce a superb correlation between the number of disasters declared and that of the reporting countries :
Of course, a correlation does not imply causation.
But, if we adopt the principle of parsimony which favors the most economical explanation and asks not to introduce new hypotheses²⁴ as long as those already stated are sufficient and…
if we postulate that the number of disasters varies little annually and is simply proportional to the size of the territory considered as well as to the quality of the information collection then, if more countries report them more exhaustively, more disasters will be recorded.
And this is exactly what we observe during the first period 1980–1999.
Then, in the second period, 2000–2019, the slow decrease in the number of reporting countries coincides with a slow decrease in the number of recorded disasters, which appears to confirm the initial postulate and … reinforce the assertions of CRED, repeated with consistency in its numerous publications over the last twenty years, on the central role played by the collection of information.
Publications in which, moreover, at no time is there any mention of a « staggering rise » of natural disasters caused by global warming.
And, as pointed out above, CRED has always warned against a climatological interpretation of the increase in extreme events observed at the end of the 20th century²⁵.
Nothing remains therefore of the « staggering increase » in the number of extreme events caused by global warming, an allegation contradicted by the data and by claims made by CRED itself.
– — — — — — –
How did we get there ?
Why then that, for more than twenty years, CRED has regularly insisted on the need to take into account population growth, urbanization, economic development in order to compare situations at different times, suddenly, in the report of 2020, he doesn’t take it into account ?
Why then that, for more than twenty years, CRED has consistently declared that the increase in natural disasters that occurred during the period 1980–2000 is essentially the result of better data collection and not of climate change, suddenly, in the 2020 report, he claims that climate change is the cause ?
Why, finally, in the article²⁶ of UN Info devoted to the report, the director of CRED warns :
« If this level of growth in extreme weather events continues over the next twenty years, the future of mankind looks very bleak » ?
It is to frighten and condition populations, to make them more obedient, more docile so that they « are no longer in a psychological position to oppose any authoritarian adaptation whatsoever. Because of course, there is no question of letting man adapt to changes in his environment as he has always done, that is to say through science and technical progress, the fruit of his inquisitive mind, his inventiveness and his desire to improve his condition on earth²⁷».
And this manipulation works. According to a survey²⁸ published by The Lancet, a vast majority of respondents, 16 to 25 year olds, find the future scary :
« Findings : Respondents were worried about climate change (59% very or extremely worried, 84% at least moderately worried). Over 50% felt sad, anxious, angry, powerless, helpless, and guilty. Over 45% said their feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily life and functioning, and many reported a high number of negative thoughts about climate change ».
We thus shape a terrified generation, therefore more malleable, ready to accept any measure, law, tax, restriction of freedoms, limitation of movement decreed by the « authorities » in order to save it from the final catastrophe.
But, by denying everything it has said for more than twenty years, thus compromising itself to satisfy the wishes of its sponsor wishing to manipulate public opinion, CRED not only discredits itself which, after all, is its business, but it is also prejudicial to the scientific community as a whole by taking the backing of science to deceive public confidence and propagate a disastrous ideology.
 But, aware of the fallacious character of such an assertion, the authors of the report try to guard against any subsequent criticism thanks to a small cryptic sentence, drowned in the middle of the report and in the conditional : « While better recording and reporting may partly explain some of the increase in events ». « Partly » ? « Mostly » would be more appropriate, as we will see later !
This is probably the same idea that justifies the publication of the graph showing the decrease in natural disasters. Later, they can always say that the data was there and that everything else was just conjecture, hypothesis, guesswork. A bit like the very small clauses of a contract, which often no one reads, and which are there to be able to discharge all responsibility if embarrassing questions arise.
 An example of taking into account economic development, through the evolution of inflation-adjusted GDP, in the evaluation of the frequency of extreme events in the USA : https://theconversation.com/are-catastrophic-disasters-striking-more-often-83599
 Only the 2019 inflation adjustment in US $ is taken into account for economic damage.
 « The Human cost of Natural Disasters — 2015 — A global perspective » : https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/PAND_report.pdf
 How to hide an inconvenient reality, the constant decrease of natural disasters : https://www.science-climat-energie.be/2021/07/23/le-credo-du-cred-ou-comment-noyer-linformation/
 CRED generally classifies natural disasters in 5 subgroups : biological, geophysical, climatological, hydrological and meteorological. At the request of the sponsor, the UNDRR, the report omits the biological subgroup. No justification is given. Yet climate change has a considerable impact on the biosphere as a whole. For the authors of the study, apparently not.
 The real consequences of climate change are rather beneficial : https://ludwik-budyn.medium.com/earth-becomes-a-paradise-189203e7741e
 « Thirty years of natural disasters 1974–2003 : the numbers » : https://www.preventionweb.net/files/1078_8761.pdf
 « Annual Disaster Statistical Review — The Numbers and Trends 2007 » : « Indeed, justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading… For instance, one major contributor to the increase in disasters occurrence over the last decades is the constantly improving diffusion and accuracy of disaster related information » : https://reliefweb.int/report/world/annual-disaster-statistical-review-numbers-and-trends-2007
 « The Human cost of Natural Disasters 2015 : A global perspective » : « The arrival of CRED in 1973 further improved data recording, while the development of global telecommunications and the media, plus increased humanitarian funding and reinforced international cooperation, also contributed to better reporting of disasters. Thus part of the apparent increase in the frequency of disasters in the past half-century is, no doubt, due to improved recording » : https://reliefweb.int/report/world/human-cost-natural-disasters-2015-global-perspective
 Here it would be the hypothetical influence of climate change on the number of natural disasters.
 While the report, of which CRED is the main contributor, emphasizes the essential role of climate change in the « doubling » of these events. And this is how the report was perceived, as the headline of the UN news agency underlines : « Le changement climatique, moteur du doublement des catastrophes naturelles au cours des 20 dernières années » : https://news.un.org/fr/story/2020/10/1079642
 « Si ce niveau de croissance des phénomènes météorologiques extrêmes se poursuit au cours des vingt prochaines années, l’avenir de l’humanité s’annonce très sombre » : https://news.un.org/fr/story/2020/10/1079642
 « Ne soient plus en mesure psychologique de s’opposer à quelque adaptation autoritaire que ce soit. Car bien sûr, il n’est nullement question de laisser l’homme s’adapter aux évolutions de son environnement comme il l’a toujours fait, c’est-à-dire par la science et le progrès techniques, fruits de son esprit curieux, de son inventivité et de son désir d’améliorer sa condition sur terre » : https://leblogdenathaliemp.com/2021/06/27/climat-afp-attention-dernier-scoop-avant-la-fin-du-monde/