It seems there’s a purge on at the UN to remove failed climate claims. Last week it was the 50 million climate refugees that never materialized and was covered up, this week it’s the poor of Africa they’ve “disappeared”. This one I stumbled upon quite by accident, doing some research for my previous story: World opinion on global warming: not so hot
In it I noted this – Lawrence Solomon makes an observation: 
In Sub-Saharan Africa, where 54% are not aware that their climate is alleged to be warming, a mere 22% have heard of the global warming issue and predominantly blame humans for the warming. In undeveloped Asia, 48% are unaware that the climate is warming and 27% predominantly blame humans.
I wondered about the 54% in Africa saying:
But one has to wonder, if the people that live closest to the earth (such as natives in sub-Saharan Africa) can’t detect changes around them, are we manufacturing a crisis that we wouldn’t notice otherwise?
So I decided to ask the question: How hard is Africa being hit by climate change? I recalled a catchphrase “Africa hit hard by global warming” that I had read before, so I decided to start with that. My first Google search produced the answer in the form of a UNEP report from 2001, except…. the report isn’t there. But, according to Google cache, it was there just a few days ago. See the process of discovery below.
OK so I visited that web page: http://hqweb.unep.org/documents.Multilingual/default.asp
It is a document aggregation page, full of reports and speeches going back to 2000. But I couldn’t locate any press release from February 2001 as stated in the Google search above.
So I decided to search on that title specifically:
And it gives me the same page, where that doesn’t exist that I can find. Odd.
Then I recalled that UNEP provided a site specific Google search on that page under the header, so I tried that, simply searching for “africa hit hardest”
Bingo. It gave me a URL with a document ID:
http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=192&ArticleID=2776&l=en
And when I clicked on that…amazingly, it returned me to the default document page:
http://hqweb.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp
Try it yourself. Hmmm. That sort of redirect to a default page usually occurs when the internal web page engine can’t find the document requested. On some websites, they trap 404 errors, then redirect so the end user isn’t dumped along the side of the information superhighway. I thought, well, it is a 10 year old document, maybe it was simply deleted on the 10 year mark automatically? Well no, they have this from the year 2000 on that page:
So it could not be some sort of date related automatic deletion of a 2001 document.
Then I recalled that my first search attempt showed a “cached” version, so I decided to check that. Sure enough, it was in Google cache, and it was a capture from April 17th, 2011, just a few days ago. Here it is:
Even if you click on the link at the top of the page cited by Google cache, it takes you to the UNEP default page. So clearly, the article has disappeared from the website.
Curiously, just 5 days after the last snapshot taken by Google cache was saved, April 22nd, the Gallup poll comes out:
And in that Gallup poll website, there’s this inconvenient table:
Which begs the question: If Africans are the “hardest hit by global warming” according to the UN, how can only 54% of the people in Sub-Saharan Africa be unaware of it (and only 49% of Middle East and North Africans)?
Of course, the UN helpfully provided the answer by attempting to disappear it right after the Gallup poll came out. They aren’t aware of it because the “hitting hard” of global warming in Africa simply isn’t happening.
Another bogus climate claim rubbished by reality.
===============================================================
For those interested, I have recovered the full report and have placed it in a PDF document here: UNEP_press_release_Feb22-2001
Al Gored said, “This digital disappearing act is the future, and we are so eagerly digitizing everything.”
Begging to differ on this one, Al; I predict sites or apps which will routinely check for any odd digital disappearances or changes in online publications, will register such events and classify them. At a click of a command button we’ll be able to reconstruct entire sites and their histories on demand, with all interesting changes highlighted, even with suggestions for possible causes for their deletion or alteration. Digital …as flaky as our data storage systems may be… is ultimately better than paper, parchment, papyrus, clay or even stone. Keep in mind that we have lost most of the world’s “hard” literature produced throughout history due to fires, floods, destruction, decomposition, theft, rats, whatever.
For the time being, though, we have to rely on Mr Watts and his dogged determination and excellent sleuth work.
Mike Jonas,
I was out for the afternoon, and just got in. You’ve saved me a lot of typing. Thanks.
There was also this WUWT article, showing that the UN/IPCC alarmists used WWF propaganda, while Pachauri was falsely claiming that the IPCC relied on peer reviewed literature.
The IPCC is composed of group-think dissemblers, and the people who swallow their spoon-fed propaganda are naive and credulous.
The only defense is true scientific skepticism: insist that they must publicly archive their methodologies, code and data per the scientific method, and that they must willingly answer any questions from other scientists. Instead, they hide out, censor others, refuse FOI requests, and dishonestly accuse honest scientific skeptics of the very wrongdoing that they themselves are engaging in.
We’re not talking nuclear defense secrets here. It’s just weather and climate data, paid for by the public. But FOIA requests are routinely stonewalled as a matter of policy, and the climate charlatans are protected because they bring in the grant money. The whole UN/IPCC system is corrupt, and the sooner they are cut off from public funding, the better.
It happens more and more often. There are companies solely dedicated to erasing traces and such.
What I do now is make a copy of all relevant documents I find just in case.
That made me wonder if there were any such organized initiatives (document conservation of sorts) but I couldn’t find anything.
It is also true of tv interviews which have a much shorter life span than before on the net, unless it is stored by someone on youtube or elsewhere.
CharlieA: “Does anybody have a copy of the full report?”
As noted above, the report appears to be the WG II volume of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). It can be found online at http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm .
The particular section dealing with malaria in Africa (which you seem to be interested in) is found in chapter 10 (Africa). http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/pdf/wg2TARchap10.pdf
Mike Jonas, it is not worth my time to go through the entire list of 17 references you made (which is a small percentage of the citations in the AR4 so hardly dominating let alone nothing but WWF propaganda), but looking at the first on the list by Allianz and the WWF perhaps it was appropriate. The IPCC referenced the report by saying, “However, in 2006, insurers also began to communicate directly with their policyholders regarding the rising costs of claims attributed to climate change”, which the report by a large insurer (Allianz) and the WWF documented. Hardly inappropriate.
Speaking as an African (born here, lived here for most of my 50-something years): as I write in my part of South Africa, we are having a horrible early winter storm. Proves nothing of course but I can truly say that if I had not heard about global warming through the media and other sources, I would never have noticed any climate change over the course of my life.
A while ago I attended a workshop of teachers from all over the Eastern Cape area of South Africa, many of whom came from poor rural areas where most people are subsistence farmers. I asked these teachers if they had noticed “global warming” or even “climate change” in their areas, and they all said “not at all”. In fact they were completely uninterested in global warming and said “It’s not our problem”. One said “Environmentalists want to keep us poor”.
The second reference (Austin et al 2003) was done by a private company, AGAMA Energy. The IPCC said in reference to this study, “In South Africa, the development of renewable energy technologies could lead to the creation of over 36,000 direct jobs by 2020”
Neither of the first 2 references you made have anything to do with the science of AGW and both would seem appropriate for the way they were used by the IPCC. Hardly WWF propaganda dominating the AR4.
I think Treehugger has the answer to the dissappeared: (http://www.treehugger.com/offshore-wind-farm-clouds-wake-photo1.jpg)
“Page Not Found
We’re sorry, we can’t find the page you’re looking for. We think maybe it’s global warming’s fault. Some of our pages were hosted in the Maldives, where rising sea levels have made them increasingly difficult to keep afloat. And some of our pages are unable to find sufficient prey in their changing eco-systems. It’s hard being a web-page in this unpredictable world of climate change.”
The IPCC AR4 makes thousands of references from BP to Greenpeace. It would seem to be a misrepresentation to label it nothing but WWF propaganda.
Smokey, ” Instead, they hide out, censor others, refuse FOI requests, and dishonestly accuse honest scientific skeptics of the very wrongdoing that they themselves are engaging in.”
Again you state conclusions with no evidence. This was the point of my first post; conclusions are stronger and more believable if evidence is given which support the conclusion.
I live in “sub-saharan africa”, so perhaps i could give an opinion on being hit hard?
It’s autumn, and very chilly this morning, we had above usual rainfall and lower than usual temperatures this summer, being cloudy, we got less than half our usual sunny hot days.
What we’re really being hit hard with, is carbon tax. High fuel prices, high electricity prices, green tax on ALL new cars, and soon to be introduced, toll roads for getting to work and back, a veritable war on personal transport.
So yes, they have to remove these embarrassing war cries before people figure out what a scam it is, and who caused it. Cos there’s a lot of very unhappy people here because of the global warming nonsense.
Jeremy says:
April 27, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Not to get too far OT, but does it seem like this Birth Certificate release is altering the comment population here today?
No, as per usual, I’m still going to have to keep looking for more of those gigantic pods.
Crispin in Waterloo said:
The whole point of science and engineering (like, climate engineering) is to be able to make accurate predictions. Lacking any ability to make meaningfully correct predictions indicates it is not science as ordinary engineers and physicists and geologists and dare I say, climatologists are concerned.
——————————————————————–
The ‘whole point of science’ has nothing to do with making accurate predictions. While some scientific findings make help to predict what will happen in certain, very specific circumstances, that is a long way from being ‘the whole point of science’.
I have great respect for engineers, and would be very surprised if they claimed that what they do has anything to do with ‘making accurate predictions’.
‘make’ should be ‘may’.
This is a classic!!
People living in air-conditioned offices to avoid the increasingly stiffling city heat, commuting miles a day, probably never living more than a few years in the same place before going to the next job in a totally different climate – and certainly taking summer vacations in exotic climes …
telling people are most likely have lived in the same place exposed to all the natural climate for years if not generations … that they are unaware of just how much the climate has changed causing horrendous hardships to them.
And you know what … having finally settled down in one place for the last 14 years … I HAVEN’T SEEN ANY CLIMATE CHANGE EITHER. Ok, if I were some country bumpkin politician going up to live in the capital, I know how much warmer cities are than the surrounding areas and sure they’re going to get the impression that life is a lot warmer now than it was before they were in office.
But surely not all politicians and scientists are so stupid as to equate changes in their own lives – often meaning moving into areas of urban heating – with changes in the global temperature?
Rural people anywhere in the world have a different take on the great cycles of seasons and weather from those who live and work in any of the great cities of the world which tend to have their own climates and the populace of them are thus insulated from the realities of the climate of their country away from their city.
Working inside a centrally-heated building in London, travelling to and from work on crowded public transport and living in a centrally-heated dwelling gives one very little actual experience with the climate, except for the short walk to and from bus stops or train stations and during weekends and holidays. Consequently, city people have a very fragmented and distorted view of weather. I clearly remember my own amused surprise when, not long after arriving in London from New Zealand, some colleagues and I emerged from a meeting into the early evening and a brief, very gentle Autumn shower of rain; one of my English colleagues remarked “It’s chuckin’ it dahn!” I was amazed as, to me, fresh off the ‘plane from living and teaching in a sub-tropical rural area of my country, the shower barely qualified as rain and more resembled fog.
I was equally amazed when my new colleagues would discuss their ‘awful climate’ over morning tea or lunch and talk of moving to Spain, as so many Brits have done, to enjoy the climate there. The climate of South-East England has a lower rainfall than the bits of Europe seen as more desirable. The same people would occasionally discuss the growing menace of Global Warming and the damage us terrible humans were doing to the world; I listened carefully to my colleagues and came to the conclusion that as they had spent most of their lives in London, the reality of life outside that great city was actually a mystery to them. They thought the occasional Summer excursion made them reasonably knowledgable about wherever they had been to; as good and law-abiding city-dwellers they had obviously accepted the authority of the IPCC along with all the other local and national authorities that governed their lives and innocently spread the message of advancing and potentially catastrophic global warming; the government and the best of the world’s scientists were telling them it was true and so therefore it must be.
I cannot imagine any group of rural workers anywhere in the world so innocently accepting an idea that ran counter to their experience. It seems quite unremarkable to me that rural dwellers in Sub-Saharan Africa have not noticed the effects of Global Warming or Climate Change when ‘the effects’ may consist of up to a half of one degree centigrade added to an already warm climate.
One more thing: they’re using two of the most dysfunctional countries in the world as examples – I sincerely doubt that malaria increase in Zimbabwe has much to do with climate at all.
Eventually the UN will realize the only way to permanently disappear documents is to never put them on the web, unless of course they recruit some help from Google.
I don’t think my lead poisoning analogy is false. People may notice the effects of lead poisoning without being aware of and able to understand the underlying physical causes, just like Africans may notice climate disruptions withouth knowing terms like “global warming” or “human-induced climate change”. Isn’t this obvious? The question “If Africans are the “hardest hit by global warming” according to the UN, how can only 54% of the people in Sub-Saharan Africa be unaware of it (and only 49% of Middle East and North Africans)?” is withouth meaning. Seriously, any 12 year-old will be able to dismiss this is as nonsense (that is, unless he is a climate “sceptic” and sees Anthony Watts as his Leader). For sure, UNEP authors on climate change impacts will not feel threathened by this – in this respect -irrelevant poll. Robin Guenier asserts in a previous comment that the poll is dubious, and in any case, polls should always be taken with a pinch of salt.
I don’t know why this old press release appears to have been withdrawn. It could be a result of maintenance on web serves, or it could be that UNEP became aware of inaccuracies or misquotations. So what? And what is so special about this press release, anyway? UNEP/IPCC reports, web pages and official press statements are loaded with statements on climate change impacts – why is this particular press release so special? My bet is that the people working in UNEP couldn’t care less about this outdated press relase. UNEP frequently publishes comprehensive reports, and authors are quoted in the media all the time. If you think the UNEP deliberately withdrew the press release because of a gallup poll, you need to substantiate the claim (you know, this is how most people make arguments).
Robin Guenier says:
April 27, 2011 at 10:49 am
“… it seems, Anthony, that you may be reading too much into this.”
[snip – I’m not interested in the insults from an anonymous coward, if you wish to insult me with such labels, have the courage to put your name to it, otherwise refrain – Anthony]
Being an ex South African, I found this by Will Alexander very informative as far as Africa is concerned.
http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/FB051%20Will%20Alexander%20Climate%20Change%20and%20Africa260706%20with%20picsdraft%20edited%20-%20erin.pdf
I’m not knocking the article. It is interesting from many aspects.
But why does the USA seem to out of kilter with the rest of the world in that 47% believe that rising temperatures are as a result of natural causes – by far the highest figure with Canada next at 24% ? I am sure that some missiles on this are heading your way.
Spend a little more time on places like AllAfrica.com. Read about the desert expansion into Nigeria and Mali. Africa is heavily hit by climate change. Most of them are too young to know what it was like before. But it is not just the innocent victim. Climate degradation is more about water than greenhouse gases. And the story in water is weeds. Nowhere is it worse than in Africa’s Lake Chad, where Typha Australis (a big cattail) is in control. It dessicates a lake. it buries the lake bed in silt. It cuts the lake off from the groundwater, to the destruction of both. Weeds – like Typha or water hyacinth are all biomass, waiting to be biofuel, compost or fiber. A large portion is fit for human consumption, but caution must be exercised because weeds like to collect toxins.
johanna says:
April 28, 2011 at 12:17 am
“…I have great respect for engineers, and would be very surprised if they claimed that what they do has anything to do with ‘making accurate predictions.”
————————————————————————————————
Dear Liberal Arts Major:
Prepare to be very surprised!
When an engineer designs a railroad trestle (or anything else for that matter) he/she is making a prediction that a column or beam of a specified dimension and material will be sufficient to support the weight of the freight train which will travel across it. Should that prediction prove false, a lot of expensive rolling stock, freight, passengers and crew will find their trip and their lives abruptly interrupted.
If it ain’t about making accurate predictions, then it ain’t engineering and it ain’t science!
Klaber obviously didn’t read JayEffDee’s url:
http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/FB051%20Will%20Alexander%20Climate%20Change%20and%20Africa260706%20with%20picsdraft%20edited%20-%20erin.pdf
Will Alexander is no novice in African climatology. So who reads more than they write, alarmists or skeptics? Let’s do a poll. –AGF
“Define then, “hitting hard” in the context of the UN global warming claim. If you live somewhere, and are “hit hard” by some effect, natural, man-made, you usually know about it. The fabricated ones are the ones you miss.” – Anthony
Perhaps, since you are the one making the claim, you should define “hitting hard”. Yes, of course, the use of the term “hit hard” means that all climatic effects of global warming on Africa are fabricated. Your reply was the type of evidence needed to strengthen your conclusion. Thank you.