‘Day Zero’ Wars, and Greening: Africa’s Climate Truth

Guest essay by Vijay Jayaraj

It has long been claimed that climate change has been the reason behind the wars and violence in Africa. Even the recent water crisis in Cape Town was blamed on climate change.

But is it really so? What if the reality was completely different one?

Climate change is real. The world is changing, but not dying.

Africa is probably one of the under-reported continents in the international news section of the mainstream media. The reasons are obvious. Abject poverty, a weak economy, and vast geographical areas seriously lacking in communication facilities.

However, the city of Cape Town in South Africa grabbed global headlines this year, for the wrong reasons. The city faced an acute shortage of water, leading to a Day-Zero countdown, the day on which the city was forecasted to run out of its drinking-water supply.

Climate alarmists (those who believe that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity is causing a dangerous increase in global temperature levels) were quick to blame the Cape Town crisis on climate change.

Their claims turned out to be false. Cape Town survived through the severe drought and is now experiencing abundant rainfall. In fact, the major reservoirs that provide water to the region are more than 55 percent full.

It has since been revealed that the extraordinary claims by alarmists about Cape Town’s current climate were based on a false set of temperature measurements from America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The city had experienced equally high temperature levels back in the 1930s, and the current temperatures are not alarming by any stretch of imagination.

Drought is not the only thing they blame on climate change. In 2017, it was widely claimed in mainstream media that climate change was the chief cause of violence and displacement in East Africa.

Yet a recent scientific paper by University College London has categorically proved that climate change was not the reason. The research indicated that poverty and politics were the key drivers.

It is reasonable to conclude that the dangers of climate change have been exaggerated and blown out of proportion to create mass hysteria among the people.

But on the flipside, climate change has actually made positive contributions that have benefitted the continent immensely in the past two centuries.

Contrary to popular opinion in mainstream media, climate change has been the main reason behind Africa’s greening in the last 20 years. Studies reveal that the growth of green cover in the continent can be directly attributed to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration levels.

Expansive spreads of Savannah grasslands became forests, increasing biodiversity and eventually resulting in increased forest cover.

This is also true globally. Since the Little Ice Age in the 16th and 17th centuries, an increase in temperature levels and carbon dioxide concentration helped the planet become greener and contributed to the agricultural success we enjoy today.

One cannot undermine the positive impact of this greening on the poverty situation in Africa and other poor areas, and on the diversification of natural resources caused by the greening, which can be utilized for progress and development.

This is shocking news to climate alarmists. They can no longer blindly blame climate change and carbon dioxide emissions for Africa’s—or the rest of the world’s—problems.

Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, lives in Chennai, India.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sweet Old Bob
July 19, 2018 1:42 pm

They will use the same old talking points ….they have no shame .
Facts be damned ! Money ! Now !

honest liberty
July 19, 2018 1:54 pm

“Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), ”
Doth my eyes deceive?

This reasonable take would be permitted to be published from someone working at that university? wow!

Reply to  honest liberty
July 19, 2018 2:16 pm

Now “living in Chennai” might explain it.

Reply to  pbweather
July 19, 2018 2:21 pm


Reply to  Chris
July 19, 2018 3:25 pm

So? Do you object to people who have faith in a higher power? Argue with their statements about science, if you are an honest person, but don’t attempt to smear an organization based on something irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
July 20, 2018 12:28 pm

It is relevant. Creationists believe the earth is 6,000 years old. That means they don’t believe in carbon dating and other techniques used to carry out analysis on past epochs. For example, times millions of years ago when temperatures were warm and yet CO2 levels were low – you know, the kind of counter examples used here on WUWT.

(Being ON TOPIC is relevant, try in your next comment) MOD

Frederick Michael
Reply to  Chris
July 20, 2018 12:46 pm

Chris – There are Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists. You are only referring to the Young Earth Creationists.

Reply to  Frederick Michael
July 20, 2018 1:29 pm

MOD – my point relates to posting articles by the Cornwall Alliance on a science site. Creationists ignore huge swaths of science that don’t line up with their beliefs, such as evolution. But hey, that clearly doesn’t matter to WUWT, since Cornwall Alliance posts here regularly.

(YOU bring up a comment about RELIGION in a science/politics only post (NO mention of religion at all in the blog post), which is why you are getting my attention, drop it now!) MOD


(Certain topics are not welcome here and comments concerning them will be deleted. This includes topics on religion, discussions of barycentrism, astrology, aliens, bigfoot, chemtrails, 911 Truthers, Obama’s Birth Certificate, HAARP, UFO’s, Electric Universe, mysticism, and other topics not directly related to the thread.) MOD

Reply to  Chris
July 20, 2018 1:40 pm

Unfortunately, one of the few things about which alarmists are right is that a disproportionate number of skeptics is creationist. This lends credibility to their charge of our being anti-scientific in general, not just opposed to unscientific “climate change” drivel.

I wish that WUWT would quit promoting creationism, as most recently with Tim Ball’s appallingly ignorant anti-evolution rants, but it’s not my site.

(Getting off topic is the bane of many forums and blogs, which is why it is often aggressively moderated, the POLICY is clear, no posting of religious comments are accepted, especially when there was no mention of religion in the blog post, don’t fall for his attempt to create a false trail) MOD

Reply to  Chimp
July 20, 2018 2:41 pm


But WUWT not only does allow religious comments, but even religious blog posts, like Tim Ball’s shameless creationist cant.

Reply to  Chimp
July 21, 2018 12:55 pm

Agreed, Chimp.

Reply to  Chris
July 19, 2018 3:45 pm

Another pathetic attempt by Chris to change the subject.
Proof positive that he knows he has nothing worthwhile to say on the topic at hand.

John in Oz
Reply to  Chris
July 19, 2018 4:32 pm

Most of the world’s population believes in an unseen, unproven deity. Do you discount all that they say or do?

Reply to  Chris
July 19, 2018 4:47 pm


Prove there isn’t a God.

I don’t believe in religion, but I would never condemn anyone for believing otherwise.

As a typical lefty, you sneer at everything not conforming to your idealistic, simplistic perception of reality.

There are two certainties about mankind.

1. It has evolved from the free market economy.

2. Religion has endured every cultural, political and economic intrusion.

But you refuse to recognise that because you believe in a utopian future, which has been proven, utterly barbaric.

Reply to  HotScot
July 19, 2018 5:59 pm

Sorry, you have the cart before the horse there, you ask to prove a negative.

The onus is on the believer to prove their claim, namely, that they’re not just talking to an ‘imaginary friend’ (like some kids tend to do).

The onus is not on the person who sees no ‘imaginary friend’, who you claim is really there.

See the problem?

Not sure what that has to do with politics though.

And not sure what it has to do with the topical subject matter here, but given all this climate-change mantra dross, it slots right in there with the rest of the climate-ism hocus-pocus. lol

Reply to  WXcycles
July 19, 2018 7:15 pm

As you well know, the only evidence is personal experience.

Reply to  MarkW
July 19, 2018 10:44 pm

Which would be fine Mark, if the people involved kept it at that level, and accepted its particular to them, and not to others. But some people seem to want to overshare, get pushy, and of all things, get political. Yuk! Plus they become zealous little neo-missionaries, etc. So unless gawd’s a cosmic snob, there shouldn’t be any need for unsolicited testimonials. Thus the ones who do it just need to be appropriately encouraged to kindly pull their head in, as it’s actually personal, and they’re acting out of line.

Reply to  WXcycles
July 20, 2018 7:21 am

WXcycles, when it comes to pushing their religion onto other, nobody takes a back seat to atheists.

Reply to  WXcycles
July 20, 2018 2:03 am


“Sorry, you have the cart before the horse there, ………”

No, I don’t, my example was quite deliberate, much like, ‘prove climate change isn’t harmful’.

Of course, no one can prove that, so the opposite must be true?

Like anything else, the lack of evidence for something doesn’t prove it doesn’t exist, it merely demonstrates the lack of evidence.

And I’m pretty sure the rest of my post was more political than Chris’s post, or your post for that matter.

Reply to  honest liberty
July 19, 2018 5:29 pm

Studied at University of East Anglia and under scientists from the Climatic Research Unit. It was fun times, because the climategate scandal broke out when I was there.

July 19, 2018 1:56 pm

“The city had experienced equally high temperature levels back in the 1930s”..

Wonder if there’s some sort of ~80 year cycle?

Joel O'Bryan
July 19, 2018 1:59 pm

“The research indicated that poverty and politics were the key drivers.’

Most African societies have what to the western world is a “culture of corruption.”

And that is not just the government officials taking public monies and using it for their own personal use or accepting bribes. It weaves through much of the entire African culture.

Example: If you have a job at a warehouse, it is expected you will occasionally take stuff from your employer, even if you don’t need it and give it to family members who do or who can sell it to support their family. This is seen as expected. Even if one has a good job, taking stuff is expected to give to others in your family. Food and medicine aid from NGO’s is commonly stolen and sold in markets for example. This supports the family.

Supporting the extended family is the cultural pressure, not personal ethics or adherence to some kind of western ideals of honesty or even of politics.
It is a very deeply embedded cultural idea, to support your extended family with occasional or regular theft from your employer, this essentially supplementing an income. Employers of course hire entry exit guards whose sole jobs it is to inspect workers bags and backpacks coming and going. But the guards themselves often are in on it for a % of the take.

The culture has to change for the African poverty to be solved.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 19, 2018 2:24 pm

Things may have been substantially better in the past. See https://www.nas.org/articles/the_case_for_colonialism

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 19, 2018 4:59 pm


Culture change is available in Africa.

Instead of dishing out condoms to unemployed men, take care of their elderly.

Big families are considered desirable so everyone contributes to the family and the elders are taken care of.

Eliminate that problem by providing elderly care and the motivation to steal is much reduced.

Trying to stop poverty stricken people having babies is futile. They need them to take care of the elderly.

Russ Wood
Reply to  HotScot
July 21, 2018 8:27 am

One South African department store and supermarket chain (the OK Bazaars) went bust because they could not control the stock ‘shrinkage’, which led to them operating at a loss. There’s also the concept called the “black tax’ which means that if any family member makes any money, they are expected to share it with all members of their extended family. This even applies to students on grants, eating up their money for food and books, and is often attributed to the huge failure rate at SA tertiary institutions.

Roger Graves
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 19, 2018 5:23 pm

Most factory and warehouse owners, if they have any sense, budget for losses of this kind.

Many years ago there was a company called Pressed Steel in Swindon, England that had a relatively small theft problem. They reckoned they were losing about 50,000 pounds sterling per year due to this, so they instituted a security system of searches and so on. At the end of the first year they found that theft losses were down to 20,000 pounds. Hooray, and gin-and-tonics all round. Then someone asked “How much did the security system take to operate for the year?” 70,000 pounds was the answer. Next year they did away with the security and reckoned that 50,000 a year was just a cost of doing business.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 19, 2018 7:25 pm

Yep, in the “west” the government does all this on your behalf, it is called taxation. I’m not sure which system is more effective.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 20, 2018 12:17 am

Blunt, but factual:

In every instance where blacks & browns are in great numbers, and / or control the governments of cities, counties, regions, states, countries, & continents we see:
massive murder rates
massive crime in general
degraded property
massive disease, especially STDs
massive drug & alcohol abuse
general filth, squalor
massive birthrates
inability / unwillingness to support their own children
massive youth pregnancies rates
massive school dropout rates
incredibly low IQs & test scores
violence as a way of life
fathers nowhere to be found

Reply to  Wally
July 20, 2018 12:06 pm

What you are saying is, they are savages. National Geographic would portray them as authentic, close to nature, proud. However compared to western values, which are the best imho, they are savages.
The sad reality is just as you describe it. The African continent has the most potential of all. They choose tribalism, superstition and corruption as their future, squandering their own destination. Yes they do because all benefit, some in small ways, from this choice. It is their chosen way.
I therefore have no rerason at all to support or even acknowledge their existence. No penny for the chosen poor, for the chosen stupid. All your own fault, live with it.

Reply to  Wally
July 20, 2018 12:35 pm

And you draw what conclusions? From my small familial sample, I’d say ‘blacks’ (as like African-Africans) are awesomely gifted nice people. Now put the race card away. You are right about almost all your facts, but fail to attribute it. Hint. It is not as easy as to grade the color.

American ‘blacks’ are not really on equal footing with others. The reason is a culture. And a cultural problem spreads widely in Africa.

I don’t know why, but African peoples have a very strong male model. How a man does and is. And I think that is in the very core. But, ‘you’ can’t call ‘blacks’ ‘chauvinists’. You may do that for white men only. That’s our problem

Note how late Welsing said whites (or she used worse words than that!) wanted to make gays of the black men. She thought being masculine and cis is in the very core of being African-American.

Reply to  Wally
July 21, 2018 7:11 am

My word you ignorant savages, you and the other replies to this obnoxious nonsense. I think one of the other replies mentions colonialism in passing. Do I really have to list the atrocities? We’ll stay away from the slavery issue viz-a-viz transporting the slaves and just cover that with what Belgium did in the Congo which can be summed up by a photo available online of a rubber tapper sat in front if his 5 year old daughters hands sliced off as he had not cut enough sap. Let us also remember that Mauritius a Muslim country did not abolish slavery till the 80’s

What about the abomination Cecil Rhodes and his private fiefdom, the theft of the Continent’s natural resources which occurred right across the Continent?

What about cash crops? Having to grow products to sell to pay for the security of some toss pot installed by the UK or US or one or more of their alphabet agencies rather than enough food to eat?

I was going to go on a long rant but the list is just endless and sickening, your arrogance sir is mind numbing.

Add to that the vast distances and difficulty of terrain at the level of civil engineering at the time and you have a recipe for restricted growth shall we say.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 20, 2018 6:27 am

Joe, you have it partially right there. My recent experiences in Central Africa point to a total kleptoculture. Everybody from the President through the politicians, the governments officials, local officials and normal workers have an entitled and selfish attitude that they can steal what they can. Virtually no-one builds up an honest enterprise. Their is no charity – that is a mugs game left to westerners and NGO’s. It is all a big sh*&hole.

Reply to  Poly
July 20, 2018 12:39 pm

I’d say there is no foundations of justice, or a republic or a democracy, but rather just a form left by the colonial time. There has never been a concept of a state as in Europe after the French revolution. They call the big boss a president, but really it is usually just a despotic war-lord.

July 19, 2018 2:07 pm

Man made greening of the Sahara desert
Go to Google Earth and zoom in at N22 14 6, E28 44 6 (look at max close up) then pan North up to N22 50 , absolutely amazing. Possibly they found large underground water reservoir.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 19, 2018 2:23 pm

N22 14 6, E28 44 6
and paste into google earth search box, top page left

R. Shearer
Reply to  vukcevic
July 19, 2018 2:37 pm

Aliens be dot matrix printing in the desert.

Reply to  R. Shearer
July 19, 2018 3:40 pm

I knew there was a reasonable explanation.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  vukcevic
July 19, 2018 9:44 pm
July 19, 2018 2:08 pm

In prior decades the blame game was directed at America and the “West” as the cause for all things bad and the CIA caused AIDS to make it worse. That was about the same time that Zimbabwe was held up as the great example of success with change. Now it’s climate change caused by those same deep pocket countries. That is in between trying to flee to those same evil lands.

Paul Burke
July 19, 2018 2:09 pm

OT Anthony… There’s a browser hijacker that has somehow attached to your home page… I was just reading over the list of stories and was whisked away… Windows 10 & Chrome.

Reply to  Paul Burke
July 19, 2018 5:06 pm

Paul Burke

The moral being, don’t use Chrome.

No problems here with Win 10 and Opera, or a derivation of chrome with the snooping stripped out, Iron. https://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

Reply to  Paul Burke
July 19, 2018 8:49 pm

Paul add this …https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/script-blocker-for-chrome/aakchmnmjneadkakfihibdbepehaflop?utm_source=chrome-ntp-icon

Works like a champ. Remember to save/export once you have allowed access to your daily visited sites, and you are good to go.

Andy Pattullo
July 19, 2018 2:15 pm

There is a “crime” being committed that requires the intentional or unintentional collaboration of scientists, environmentalists and policy makers who ignore what observations tell us about climate and instead speak only about their quasi-religious belief that people are a plague on the earth and consuming fossil fuels is the root cause of all evil. The crime allows the UN, World Bank and EU to forbid funding for life-giving, reliable and affordable electricity to those who need it most. It allows the US to divert 40% of the corn food crop into ethanol production for fuel when there is no proven benefit to the environment (probably harm instead) and when it dramatically raises food prices for those with the most marginal nutrition – now there is a great way to start conflict. This conspiracy of ignorance or malevolent antihumanism allows sicence illiterates to believe that clearing rain forrests in Indonesia to grow biofuel is a virtuous act, that particulates with no proven health concern in American cities are more of a problem than the foul, life-shortening aerosols from cooking fires that sicken and kill millions in poor nations.

This stupidity allows people to justify taking tax money from poor people and giving it to rich people so they can purchase electric cars (with larger carbon footprints than traditional sedans), solar panels and wind mills as toys and subsidy magnets, while the poor see their energy costs skyrocket. It allows supposedly sane environmentalists to claim in one breath that the EU is leading the climate charge while they miss all their targets for carbon-dioxide reduction, that the US is the most irresponsible and evil country on earth for backing out of the Paris accord while simultaneously reducing carbon-dioxide emissions faster than any other developed nation, and that China is the golden child of the energy transformation while they have the most rapid rise in fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions of any nation on the planet.

This is the exact opposite of virtue and so, not surprisingly, it is called virtue by all the idiocracy that stuff their mouths at the table of global warming.

Ken Irwin
July 19, 2018 2:17 pm

I live in Cape Town.

The politicians knew this was coming – it was a mathematical certainty – we are in fact statistically only 1 standard deviation below average which means that 16 years in 100 will be drier than this – so all the claims of “the worst drought in 100 years”, “the worst drought in living memory” are simply political B.S.

If this was the worst drought in 100 years then we would be seeing 50 year old trees dying off – as I have seen happen elsewhere in protracted droughts – the Cape is actually quite green (before the rains came) – and from the air looked little to no different than normal.

They even bought off a UCT academic to produce a “model” which says that it’s the worst drought in 1000 years.

Academic crystal ball gazing but using a computer to cloak mysticism in “science” – I call B.S.

I am tired of being lied to by politicians. Like Patricia De Lille banging on about this being the worst drought in 100 years, which to me did not ring true. So after considerable trouble, I gathered the rainfall statistics for Theewaterskloof Dam back to 1975 as these were the most readily available and also that dam represents 53 % of total storage and other dams would be quite similar.
This revealed the following annual rainfall statistics, highest 972mm in 1977, lowest 319mm in 2004. Average over last 32 years is 561mm.
Now if you do a 3 year running average, we get a figure of 485mm for the latest three years (507/420/529). Going back to 1975 we have the 7 other years when the prior 3 year running average was lower than now. 472mm in 2010/2011/2012, 479mm in 2009/2010/2011, 471mm in 2003/2004/2005 and 465mm 2002/2003/2004, 438mm in 1990/19911992, 465mm in 1982/1983/1984 and the worst was 428mm in 1978/1979/1980 . In those years we had, through proper planning, surplus storage. The bad news is that the last two drought cycles lasted 4 years, this is only year 3.
Drought implies a lack of RAINFALL, so this is nowhere near the worst drought and this is only going back 33 years, not one hundred. What REALLY we have is the worst water shortage (storage/person) in a 100 years, if not of all time. We do not have too little water but too many people. The politicians cannot say that, as that implies bad planning. It is far easier to blame the Mother Nature or global warming.
You also cannot blame the experts as they know that there are no quick solutions and that you need to build reserve capacity well in advance of population growth. Unfortunately in 2007/8 they warned of future problems but we had good rain in 2008 of 729mm and they warned again 2012/13 but again we had good rain in 2014 of 729mm. This gave the politicians the excuse to divert the required funds to projects that pleased the electorate rather than on some vital but boring water project.

The D.A. is now trying to hide behind the excuse that bulk water supply is the remit of central government – true – but……..
They have in the past demonstrated remarkable alacrity in taking the ANC/Zuma/government to court over all manner of things but singularly failed to force their hand on this issue.

P.S. I hit the academic (Dr. Piotr Wolski) with this data and he phoned to say he was working off information supplied by the City of Cape Town – goddammit a “scientist” believing politically supplied data – no wonder we have the global warming fiasco. I have seen that data and it is simply cherry picked “bad” data to make a political point.

He has subsequently issued a different report (after gathering more data) in which he says he was previously “working off incomplete data” – that’s as close to an apology as he got. But as you can imagine the politicians keep screaming from the rooftops that this is the worst drought in 1000 years – B.S. !

Reply to  Ken Irwin
July 19, 2018 9:56 pm

Ken Irwin :
I live in Perth……..South Africa’s LARGEST colony in Australia !
We are experiencing “CLIMATIC DRYING CONDITIONS” and our dams are slowly
emptying. We rely greatly on water from an aquifer (The Gnangara Mound )
“The Gnangara Mound is no longer such a giant sponge of groundwater and the desalination plants have taken much of the strain off the Perth water supply. In the year to June 30 2016, desalination supplied 47 percent of Perth’s water, with 46 percent from groundwater and just 7 percent from dams.”
“What is groundwater replenishment?
Groundwater replenishment is an innovative concept where treated wastewater is further treated to drinking water standards, and recharged into our groundwater supplies.
The water can then be stored in the groundwater. Our aquifers store and naturally filter the water until we need it.
It doesn’t rely on rainfall and has the potential to recycle large volumes of water naturally and sustainably.”
had not given in to the “greenies”. AS FAR AS I KNOW , THEY NO LONGER
WE HAVE DESALINATION PLANTS and now you can have
Drink recycled sewerage and get your own back !!
Must be something mystical about a century !
Too much cricket ….standing in the hot sun for too long ??
LOOK AT BRISBANE ! It is always having floods ,
about ONE every 20 years
That is , as long as you don’t count their DROUGHTS !!!
“Timothy Fridtjof “Tim” Flannery (born 28 January 1956) is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist, Australia’s leading conservationist, …”
such authority and everything is doom and gloom and comments such as
“it may NEVER rain sufficiently to fill this catchment ever again…..”
release huge amounts of water which increased the flooding into BRISBANE !
ISSUE THESE STATEMENTS with very little pressure to retract or show
any regret for BEING WRONG ON EVERYTHING !!!
2011…”ENVIRONMENTALIST and former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery
has been appointed to a newly-created position as Australia’s climate commissioner.”

Wallaby Geoff
Reply to  Trevor
July 22, 2018 3:39 am

No, Australia just has a very large lumpenproletariat.

July 19, 2018 2:24 pm

Greening — so, Africa owes us. That’s the way climate justice works, right?

July 19, 2018 3:15 pm

The causes of violence in Africa have virtually nothing to do with climate and everything to do with cultural, political, economic, social and tribal conditions. The idea that climate might be playing a role is, of course yet another unprovable hypothesis coming from the climate alarm industry that exists solely to keep the term “climate change” in the news.

July 19, 2018 4:25 pm

Thank you Vijay, for your objective observations.

Reply to  HotScot
July 19, 2018 5:27 pm

You are welcome!

July 19, 2018 5:14 pm

Why am I not surprised? Thanks for pointing out the well known but hidden facts.

Dennis Kuzara
July 19, 2018 5:32 pm

This is shocking news to climate alarmists. They can no longer blindly blame climate change and carbon dioxide emissions for Africa’s—or the rest of the world’s—problems.

Don’t bet on it?

Kristi Silber
July 19, 2018 6:45 pm

“Climate alarmists (those who believe that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity is causing a dangerous increase in global temperature levels) were quick to blame the Cape Town crisis on climate change.

“Their claims turned out to be false. Cape Town survived through the severe drought and is now experiencing abundant rainfall.”

Why would this suggest that the claims are false? It is not just drought severity that is predicted to increase, it is intense episodes of precipitation (there is strong evidence to support the latter effect; drought is harder to measure, so the evidence is less compelling). Those who have been following the story are aware that it is not just drought that was the problem: the city has experienced drought in the past and had developed a water infrastructure to protect against it, but it was not counting on a drought of this severity. Likewise, the infrastructure to handle high rainfall events was not adequate, and that has led to flooding.

“Drought is not the only thing they blame on climate change. In 2017, it was widely claimed in mainstream media that climate change was the chief cause of violence and displacement in East Africa.

“Yet a recent scientific paper by University College London has categorically proved that climate change was not the reason.”

No half-decent scientist would claim to “categorically prove” anything. I have read no plausible reports suggesting climate change was the chief cause of violence and displacement in East Africa, only that it may be a contributing factor. (Maybe the media have said “chief,” but we all know that the media are unreliable.) Jayaraj’s citation (which is for a press release and not the actual published research) supports this: “Our research suggests that socio-political factors are the primary cause while climate change is a threat multiplier,” said Professor Mark Maslin (UCL Geography)….However the study found that variations in refugee numbers, people forced to cross international borders, are significantly linked to the incidence of severe regional droughts as well as political instability, rapid population growth and low economic growth.” It’s significant that the study is only about East African countries. The problems with Fulani tribesmen killing farmers in Nigeria is an example of how drought can lead to violence. The Fulani have been forced by drought to move their herds into agricultural lands already occupied, and those farmers have not taken kindly to it. In this case, it may in fact be true that climate change is a major cause of violence, but perhaps if poverty and inter-tribal politics were not also factors the consequences would not be so dire.

“Contrary to popular opinion in mainstream media, climate change has been the main reason behind Africa’s greening in the last 20 years. Studies reveal that the growth of green cover in the continent can be directly attributed to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration levels.” Increased CO2 levels is not climate change. (Again the voice of “popular opinion in mainstream media” is put forward as the measure against which reality is tested!)

This article seems to be a nice example of choosing research (or blogs) to support a case based on one’s beliefs, and contrasting that with the blathering of alarmist media. It’s hardly a fair comparison if you are searching for the truth.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
July 19, 2018 7:19 pm

Climate models predict that droughts may become more severe.
Therefore every drought is caused by CO2.
Other climate models predict that there will be more rain, therefore every flood is caused by CO2.

And you wonder why you so called climate scientists are considered a big joke.

As to every one of your examples, you take it as a given that every change, anywhere in the world is caused by CO2 and is therefore proof that CO2 only does bad things.

Reply to  MarkW
July 20, 2018 12:43 pm

MarkW said: “Climate models predict that droughts may become more severe. Therefore every drought is caused by CO2. Other climate models predict that there will be more rain, therefore every flood is caused by CO2. Climate models predict that droughts may become more severe. Therefore every drought is caused by CO2. Other climate models predict that there will be more rain, therefore every flood is caused by CO2.”

False. Post where mainstream climate scientists are saying that.

This article is a good example of how these issues are being responsibly reported: “While there’s no suggestion that the situation in Cape Town will lead to conflict, that may not always be the case….While climate change does not cause conflict by itself, it’s part of a swathe of factors that can contribute to it.”

Reply to  Chris
July 20, 2018 11:27 pm



But one example of “scientists” blaming “climate change” for droughts, to include the Cape Town scare.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  MarkW
July 20, 2018 11:16 pm

MarkW, you’re wrong again. When will you ever learn that you can’t read my mind?

Reply to  Kristi Silber
July 20, 2018 1:40 am

Kristi Silber

I’ll second MarkW’s sentiments. And add that, the open ended generalisation that ‘weather events will become more severe’ gives the alarmist community the facility to blame anything on climate change. Even if weather events are perceptibly better by the people enduring them.

Doubtless the recent hot spell in the UK will be ‘blamed’ on climate change. It’s been gloriously sunny for the last couple of months, a period more usually associated with wet, miserable weather, year in, year out.

The grant seeking scientific community will be all over it, and with the assistance of the Guardian will triumphantly present our unusual spell of good weather on climate change. We’ve already had fake claims debunked, because an ice cream van parked next to a Stevenson screen (which was badly sited in the first place) and the Met office had to retract their claim, triumphantly presented in the media, of the ‘Hottest day eveh’ in Scotland.

Any opportunity at all to present climate change as the harbinger of doom is seized, whilst every positive aspect of increased atmospheric CO2 is ignored, e.g. whilst there is no empirical evidence that CO2 causes the planet to heat up, CO2 is claimed to be the culprit, whist the unprecedented greening of the planet is utterly ignored, even when it was a ‘newsworthy’ event.

It’s utterly depressing dealing with alarmists. You are surely, the most pessimistic, greedy, manipulative collective of humans ever conceived, blind to the stated intention that the whole event has been fabricated to induce social and political change. To what? Well unless Christina Figueres et al are hiding an amazing new political construct behind their backs, it’s going to be socialism.

And you wonder why the majority of people on this blog are right wing? Thankfully it seems there are some who are not prepared to be willingly led, blindly, into a society of elitists, and subjugation by idealogical fanatics who occupy their ivory towers and dream up ways they can make life better for the plebs.

It should be obvious by now that, after over 40 years of fantastic, and illusionary climate predictions, alarmists have been wrong all along. How many more years will it take to convince you that climate change is irrelevant? It happens, there’s nothing we can do about it.

Get on with your life.

John Endicott
Reply to  Kristi Silber
July 20, 2018 6:06 am

“Why would this suggest that the claims are false?”

You have a point, but not the one you think. The claims can’t be said to be false because they are unfalsifiable. As you point out Climate change makes severe drought, except when climate change makes abundant rainfall. Climate change makes it warmer, except when it’s making it colder. Climate change makes less snow (such that children won’t know what snow is) except when it’s making more snow. No matter what happens, climate change is the culprit so you can’t falsify it as there is no conditions in which alarmist like you won’t say “climate change predicts that” even when it did no such thing.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
July 20, 2018 7:19 am


Are you a student and come here to argue the hypothesis of CO2 climate change as part of your grade, dissertation or perhaps being paid to do so? I’m just curious as to your motivation. It’s hard to believe someone one would argue so vigorously when faced with so much evidence to the contrary. You often claim that this evidence is “based on one’s beliefs” but accept (without question) most evidence that supports your “beliefs”.

One more question, what is you area of study? It appears to be more like sociology than earth science. FYI, my area of study is engineering.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  DCA
July 21, 2018 12:13 am

DCA, I have a Master’s in ecology an evolution, left school decades ago and have no financial gain from coming here. I come because it’s stimulating intellectually, and I love to learn. I am not an alarmist. I think Al Gore is an idiot, and despise the media for their knee-jerk biases. I dislike the direction the left is heading, and admire many conservative values – but I loathe Trump. I am an advocate of reason and skepticism in the old-fashioned sense of questioning and debating, and often play the devil’s advocate. People assume they know what I believe, and they are often wrong – especially MarkW, who has some fantasy Kristi in his head and talks a lot about her.

When people throw so many gratuitous insults my way, I’m not inclined to share my beliefs. I don’t care what people like MarkW and HotScot think of me – they have earned my disrespect.

I find bias, assumptions and generalizations are very common at WUWT. Science is rejected even when it’s not understood. Scientists are vilified, and all sorts of nasty things are said about their motivations. As for “so much evidence to the contrary,” I find much (but definitely not all) of the evidence presented here unconvincing and unscientific. Statistics are misused, and their assumptions ignored. Science is often seen through the lens of policy. People with different beliefs and politics are insulted endlessly. (As HotScot offered, “You are surely, the most pessimistic, greedy, manipulative collective of humans ever conceived, blind to the stated intention that the whole event has been fabricated to induce social and political change” – a statement I think is pretty hilarious, so utterly absurd is it.) All of this makes me much less inclined to the skeptics’ point of view – that and the fact that they have no broadly-supported agreement about what is causing climate change (if they admit it’s happening) and tend to ignore evidence that it will have negative effects, instead using silly, simplistic arguments like, “warmer is better” and “CO2 is plant food” to claim AGW is beneficial.

Does that answer your question?

(Why on earth would you think I studied sociology? And don’t mistake ecology for environmentalism. I hate that! Ecology and evolution are “hard” biological sciences.)

Johann Wundersamer
July 19, 2018 7:43 pm

“However, the city of Cape Town in South Africa grabbed global headlines this year, for the wrong reasons. The city faced an acute shortage of water, leading to a Day-Zero countdown, the day on which the city was forecasted to run out of its drinking-water supply.”

“South Africa is a country that continuously struggles to provide basic water and sanitation services to its citizens.”

south africa history water resources:


Fact is : South Africa through history was scarce populated due to lack of water resources – Namib Desert, Kalahari !

john harmsworth
July 19, 2018 8:04 pm

Thank you Vijay! One comment I have to make. The greening of Africa is a result of CO2 fertilization, not climate change. Unless climate change has increased rainfall or changed rainfall patterns so as to cause the greening.
I resist at every opportunity any statement that equates increased CO2 with climate change.

4 Eyes
July 19, 2018 9:13 pm

CO2 caused the greening, not climate change. Climate change is caused by global warming. Temperatures have not risen enough yet to cause marked changes in climate.

Michael in Dublin
July 20, 2018 3:27 am

I posted a comment on the building of the biggest dams in South Africa and how this relates to climate alarmism.
see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/18/remember-when-we-were-told-that-capetown-sas-water-crisis-was-due-to-climate-change-never-mind/

To this I would like to add a comment about how the Western Cape farms have been the most efficient in use of water. They are a good role model for farming in a way that successfully adapts to the climate rather than calling for the impossible illusion that we can significantly change climate. The report below, while depressing in some ways, contains a note of real hope:

With 270‚000ha under irrigation‚ agriculture used 43% of water in the Western Cape‚ but WWF said farms in the province were the most efficient in the country. They used 5‚874m³ of water per irrigated hectare‚ compared with 9‚913m³ in Mpumalanga (a province in the north east of South Africa).

WWF said the Western Cape was the country’s leading farm exporter. “In this province alone‚ agriculture sustains a R530-billion economy‚” it said.

“This sector employs around 180‚000 workers‚ while the agri-processing sector adds another 126‚000 jobs to the economy. Together‚ these sectors employ 15% of the provincial labour force.”


Peta of Newark
July 20, 2018 6:09 am

I’m sorry, but no no no.
Muddled. Confused. Self reinforcing & contradictory.
Primary school science.
Olympian scale conclusion jumping.
Bloated with Good Intentions and ‘concern’ = aka Crony Fodder
We’ve got the full gamut of Climate Science. As such, it’s an absolute beaut.

3 things out of many:
1. We’re told about ‘abject poverty’ (in Africa)
By whose definition? Theirs or yours? Was this before or after you swanked in on a jet aircraft, swanned around in fancy clothes, sold them guns & alcohol and, Point Blank, insulted them by telling them they were ‘poor’ and their lives were a mess.
But then we get the ‘However’ and a serious exposition on Cape Town.
Are we being told that Cape Town is a place of abject poverty, failing economy and poor communications?
Okaaaaaay, Cape Town is physically IN Africa but That Is It.
Another World otherwise.

2. Grassland has become forest, because of carbonoxide we’re informed.
(This one is REALLY bad not least as that Authority of all Authority (NASA) is spouting this junk)

Has anybody got ANY experience of growing stuff or even been out and actually talked to ‘People On The Ground’ about how things grow?
Sorry NASA but, floating a Sputnik over the place and taking a few pretty pictures is just not quite the same.

And if you *have* been out to talk to farmers & growers, you are aware that YOU, as the big swanky rich university all powerful iPhone owning Westerner are their guest.
For the most part they are going to try the damnest to be kind, hospitable and, to their best ability, make you feel comfortable & at-home.
They are going to agree with every word you say. Even when you are verbally trashing their homes, farms and infrastructure. Do you actually *have* a Good Word for these folks? ANY understanding or empathy at all?
Just like Opinion Polls. Always get the right answer, ain’t that a fact Donald?

So just like anyone might be taught in East Anglia or in fact at any/every western university right now = Blinded by Good Intentions & High Ideals

I would suggest that The Simplest Way to convert grassland into forest is to remove any grazing animals that are or were there. That’s it. Just remove the cows, sheep, zebra, gazelle and whatever.
The grassland will become forest.

Oh wait. Where did these ‘abjectly poor people’ get their guns and ammo from? The ones they’re having wars with? Were the guns always pointed at their dearly unloved neighbours or at something else that may possibly fund the purchase of said firearms?
Were they always altruistic? Did standards slip to allow the purchase of whiskey. refined sugar. iPhones. SUVs. Power over others?

Bye the bye – where did all the North America buffalo go?
Silly me. Lack of carbonoxide wiped them out. They’ll be back soon.

3. Carbonoxide Makes The World Green(er). Just carbonoxide. No other factors.
This is soooo true: we learned it at primary school and ‘greenhouses’ do it.

Are we SERIOUSLY suggesting either or both of 2 things?
3.1 That we know what goes on inside commercial glasshouses when the operators of such try to keep it as commercial/industrial secrets – lest their competitors gain any advantage.
(Do be careful where you go with that in this litigious society we now have)

3.2 RU seriously suggesting that the farms, forests and soils of Africa are perfectly pampered and have all their plant-nutrition, fertilisers, pesticides & water requirements already in place – simply waiting for a puff of carbonoxide to spring them into life. wow
2 words= “Liebig Limit”

Otherwise what we have here is the ‘Bob Geldof’ or ‘Live Aid’ effect. Let the Good Times roll.
Rampant good intentions letting the children of the west have a (one night) party and ‘helping the poor and starving’
So how did it pan out for Ethiopia, over the timescale of A Climate?
There are now 3 times the number of people in constant famine in Ethiopia, the 40% cover of forest has been entirely cut down, the place is in permanent drought yet bizarrely, the annual rainfall is the same as it ever was.
The extra carbonoxide worked a treat there did it not?

At least Ethiopia does have *some* decent dirt, have a scratch around any UK supermarket to check that. Also why the Nile Delta is a good place for growing stuff.

Crazy stuff, people, geography and climate.
Even before rose tinted glasses and magical thought bubbles have their effect
Wasn’t the whole idea of skepticism that you binned those things?

July 20, 2018 6:32 am

I just returned from the Sahara desert in Morocco. The government is planting millions of trees around the rim of he desert to take advantage of the increased CO2. The project provides useful work for the very poor people living in the area that will pay dividends in the future. For the rest, they all have smartphones, use Whatapp to communicate worldwide and watch YouTube. Welcome to the new connected world.

John M. Ware
July 20, 2018 7:27 am

Next-to-last paragraph: “One cannot undermine”? Surely the word should be “overstate” or “overestimate.” Anyhow, the greening of formerly desert wastes can be seen from outer space, so it must be real. Good news! (Except to the greenies, of course.)

July 20, 2018 11:26 am

we have a serious problem here in South Africa; there is a new law in the pipeline: see here

please follow the instructions in the above doc to make objections, similar to my own,

shown below;


best wishes


Crispin in Waterloo
July 20, 2018 4:22 pm

I confirm that much was made about ‘climate change’ causing the drought, even though Cape Town has had droughts in a ten year cycle for four hundred years.

Re the greening: the Sahel has moved 500 km north into the Sahara over the past 30 years. That’s good news you didn’t hear on TV.

If the CO2 concentration was reduced to 290 ppm, food production in Africa would drop about 30%. Deliberately causing a drop in food production on that scale would constitute a crime against humanity.

John Ledger
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
July 22, 2018 10:29 am

Thanks Crispin and greetings from cold Joburg.

Good point. There is currently a group of activists in South Africa who have set themselves up to oppose any proposals for independent power producers to build coal-fired power stations. They label themselves as the champions for the ‘End of Coal’. They have the support of a highly skilled bunch of environmental lawyers, who go to the courts at the drop of a hat.

We are now in the situation where learned judges are asked to make decisions on matters in which they have no expertise whatsoever (with respect, of course, Your Honours).

The activists lay before the learned judge a long list of ‘social costs of carbon’. The judge never gets to hear about the ‘social benefits of Carbon Dioxide’.

Food crop production on Planet Earth has never been higher than it is today. While smart farming, better use of fertilizers, insect control and GMOs are part of this achievement, there is little doubt that enhanced Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is also playing a major role. And this benefits subsistence farmers across the African continent, who are getting better crops at no cost, and without paying for the other expensive technologies that more sophisticated farmers incur to feed the burgeoning population of the planet.

As you rightly say, deliberately reducing Carbon Dioxide levels from 400 ppm (should probably be twice that) to pre-industrial levels would probably plunge the world into a food crisis of unprecedented proportions. This would indeed be ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change’.

July 21, 2018 4:31 am

“They can no longer blindly blame climate change and carbon dioxide emissions for Africa’s—or the rest of the world’s—problems.”

They will anyway.

Verified by MonsterInsights