By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Hello, children! Are you all sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin.
Greta, dear, do wipe that nasty, frowning sneer off your face. If the wind blows on it, you’ll look like that for the rest of your life, and that wouldn’t be very nice, now, would it?
Once upon a time, some very naughty grown-ups made up a wicked story to frighten all you little ones with. They said it was going to get hotter and hotter and hotter. It was going to be ever so hot. Really, really hot. Yes, Alexandria, hotter even than Brad Pitt, if that’s possible.
But, you see, children, you can’t always believe what grown-ups say. Part of growing up is learning to work out when you are being told the truth and when you are not.
So today, children, I’m going to have to tell you that quite a lot of what dear old Ms Snorkel, your science teacher, has been telling you about global warming turns out not to be true. Not true at all. Dear me, no.
You see, Miss Snorkel thinks that just because someone says something dreadful is going to happen, then it’s going to happen. Just like that.
But just because someone says they think something bad is going to happen, that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. It might not happen. So you mustn’t just believe it’s going to happen. You must check what you are told. Don’t just believe it.
Miss Snorkel has told you the experts say the weather is going to get a whole lot warmer. So I’ve drawn a nice picture for you, so that you can see whether they’re right.
Observed warming (HadCRUT4: dark green cursor) due to 2.49 W m–2 net anthropogenic forcing from 1850-2011 (lower scale: IPCC 2013, figure SPM.5) scaled to 3.45 W m–2 2xCO2 forcing (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, CMIP5: upper scale: Andrews 2012). The 3.35 K CMIP5 (red cursor) and 4.05 K CMIP6 (purple cursor) midrange Charney sensitivities imply 2.4 K and 2.9 K transient warming from 1850-2011, three or four times the observed 0.75 K and almost thrice the 1 K period equilibrium warming expected from net forcing and radiative imbalance to 2011 (orange cursor). Revised projections (green) accord with observation and expectation.
Deary me, it really doesn’t look as though the experts Mrs Snorkel trusts were right about how much warmer the weather was going to be. My oh my, they seem to have overshot quite a bit, don’t they?
The very first question you should ask when grown-ups like Ms Snorkel tell you the world is going to get hotter is this. In the nicest and perfectest of all possible worlds, what would be the ideal temperature for all the cuddly creatures and pretty trees and flowers?
Has Ms Snorkel told you what that magic, ideal temperature would be? No, I didn’t think so. But look at it this way. If she hasn’t told you that, how can she know that warmer worldwide weather would be a bad thing?
Yes, Greta, dear? What about the cuddly polar bears? Won’t all that melting ice mean they have nowhere to live? Here’s another picture for you.
Lots and lots of lovely polar bears! Isn’t that nice, children?
By now, kiddiwinks, you’ll be wondering why all those experts got it so wrong. Well, here’s the thing. They made some big mistakes. Yes, Greta, I’m saying they screwed up, but we don’t use language like that in class.
There’s that face again, Greta. Just relax. Yes, of course, I’ll tell you what they got wrong.
You see, they forgot the Sun was shining. But if you look out of the window you can see for yourself that it is. Yes, I know it seems strange that they forgot the Sun was shining, but that’s exactly what they did. Silly of them, wasn’t it?
Yes, Greta, there are “feedback loops”. But that doesn’t mean the feedback loops will make the climate run away to a “tipping point”. What it does mean is that the feedbacks don’t just respond to warmer weather caused by the fact that there are greenhouse gases in the air. They have to respond to the fact that the Sun is shining. Not much choice about it.
But the experts more or less completely forgot about the feedback response to the sunshine. They made the mistake of counting it as part of the feedback response to greenhouse gases. And that made them think there would be a whole lot more warming from greenhouse gases than anyone sensible would ever expect.
How do I know? Well, here’s another picture. What it shows is that if there were 4 K global warming, which the experts now predict, the feedbacks would have to make 350 times as much more warming for each degree of greenhouse-gas warming than they did for each degree of the emission temperature that would keep the Earth warm even if there were no greenhouse gases and no feedback loops. And they can’t do that. It’s impossible.
Here’s a picture to show you how silly the experts are.
Unit-feedback-response ratios 
for Charney sensitivities on [1.0,4.05] K and emission temperatures of 255.6 K (IPCC 1990) and 274 K (Lindzen 1994). The CMIP5 3.35 K and CMIP6 4.05 K midrange Charney sensitivity estimates (solid yellow) imply, per impossibile, that the unit-feedback-response ratio ![clip_image012[1]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/clip_image0121.png?resize=15%2C26&quality=75&ssl=1 "clip_image012[1]"){kind=small}
is 80 or even 350.
Why are there two curves on the graph? That’s an excellent question, Nancy. The reason is that no one quite knows how big the emission temperature would be without any greenhouse gases or feedbacks.
But the trouble with the official figure of about 255 K is that the experts calculate it by imagining that the Earth is flat. Then they divide the sunshine by a kludge-factor of 4 in a clumsy attempt to adjust their sums for the fact that the Earth is round. Not very clever, are they, acting as though the Earth was flat?
But that’s not the only mistake they make when they try to calculate emission temperature. They calculate it by imagining there would be clouds in the air, just as there are today, reflecting almost a third of that lovely sunshine harmlessly straight back into space.
But clouds are made of water vapour, and water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and it is only in the air because of feedbacks. But at emission temperature there would be no water vapour in the air and no feedbacks. Oops! Aren’t the experts silly, children?
No, Greta, I’m not an expert. But Professor Richard Lindzen is. He’s the very expertest of all the experts. And here’s what he says about it:
“In considering an atmosphere without greenhouse substances (in order to get 255 K), clouds are retained for their visible reflectivity while ignored for their infrared properties. More logically, one might assume that the elimination of water would also lead to the absence of clouds, leading to a temperature of about 274 K rather than 255 K.”
If the Earth is not flat, and if the emission temperature is really 274 K and not 255 K, then the natural greenhouse effect, which the experts think is 32 K, is really only 13 K. And, since the Sun is shining even though the experts pretend it isn’t, most of that “natural greenhouse effect” is actually the feedback response to the sunshine and not to the greenhouse gases.
And that’s not all that the experts got wrong. You see, children, you can’t just spend, spend, spend without working out whether what you spend is going to make any difference. So the experts did their sums and worked out that the only way it would be worthwhile to spend any money on making global warming go away was to pretend there was a 1 in 10 chance the world would come to an end by 2100 because of global warming.
Yes, Greta, that’s what they pretended. You can look up Dietz et al. 2007 after class. That’s where they admitted they had pretended that global warming might end the world by 2100.
The truth is that there’s no chance the world will come to an end by 2100 because of global warming. After correcting all the experts’ scientific mistakes, there will only be about 1 K of global warming this century, and sea level will rise by about 4 inches, and the world will carry on spinning much as it does now, even if we do absolutely nothing at all to make global warming go away.
Well, that’s all we have time for today, children. But don’t worry, Greta: your future will be a rosy one. The world will be a little warmer, but that’s a very good thing, not a very bad thing. Now, stop worrying about the weather, go out and play, and enjoy the sunshine!
The poor child has been unmercifully used by adults with political motives. It is child abuse, and Greta is not the only child victim of those perpetrators.
I salute Lord M. for attempting to communicate with abused children, but it might be better for him to deal with the abusers — because he is not an expert in child abuse or therapies for abused children.
Children who have been lied to, frightened, exploited, and made to suffer physical and/or emotional distress often exhibit pathologies that can stay with them long into adulthood. Treatments are various and include counselling, medications, and structured activities that are best prescribed by professionals on a case-by-case basis.
It is doubtful that public humiliations will aid this child. It seems that such are more of the same abuse.
The abusers need to be dealt with. My advice is to address them, and show some empathy and real concern for the victims.
Amen!
As someone who has had some experience with a child (now an adult) with Asbergers, I could not agree more. Frighting any children for political purposes is reprehensible, but to do it to ones with mental issues is a heinous crime. Where is the outrage in our leaders, the public and the press?
Not a good sign for the future of Western Civilization.
Poor Greta. She will never know anything about Pelagornis sandersi, the bird with the 28-foot wingspan that had three million years and then died out. Floating along on wings more than twice the span of today’s albatross must have been quite heady for that Big Bird. I doubt she ever sees starlings in a murmuration. It’s like watching a single organism in a ballet.
She will never know the real meaning of “environment”, as in where the geese live in the spring and summer and where they go in the fall and stay in the winter, and why they do that. She”ll never know how the sound of geese honking while they’re flying can just tug at your heart and make you want to grow wings.
She’ll never enjoy the scent of rain coming in from the west, or hear thunder in a snowstorm. As pale as she is, she probably never goes outside for a walk in the woodlands to see fields of bluebells in the spring and swaths of white trilliums and look for May apples about to bloom. She’ll never know what it’s like to watch fireflies signaling each other in the night and maybe even catch them in a jar for a few minutes, then turn them loose, nor will she watch the clouds to see if there are dragons and whales forming in them.
The only thing she knows about is baloney. Sad.
My impression as well.
Anyone who is the outdoorsy type would, if they are observant and well travelled, have to come to the conclusion that the world is far from a death throws type crisis.
Every place I go is very nice…the trees are green, the sky is blue, the clouds are white, the rain is wet, wildlife and plants fill the air and sky is profuse abundance…and there is not crisis to be found.
Occasionally and here and there some adverse events occur, and sometimes theses are truly awful.
But this has always been the case, and will forever remain the case.
And where these bad things happen…then there is healing and regrowth and everything is, over time, restored.
Sometimes, as with wildfires, these adverse events are a necessary prerequisite to renewal and increased vigor and health.
All sunshine makes a desert.
And no place blooms like a desert after a flood.
Christopher wrote, “Has Ms Snorkel told you what that magic, ideal temperature would be?”
This is a very important point! Dynamic systems, such an an internal combustion engine, have optimal ranges of operation. Too low of an RPM and the engine produces little power and gets poor gas mileage; too high and it destroys itself. The optimal range might depend on what parameter one wishes to optimize. Invariably, a car will get poor gas mileage at low speeds. The gas mileage increases rapidly, reaches a peak, and then drops off more slowly than than it rose, as the speed increases. Part of the definition of “optimum” includes where the peak gas mileage, torque, or horsepower occurs. Given that the gas mileage versus speed graph has different slopes before the peak than it does after the peak, one might decide to sacrifice a little gas mileage for a shorter driving time or better throttle response. One might also recognize that since it is impossible to maintain exactly the best speed for peak gas mileage, it is probably better to shoot for a slightly higher speed so that the average gas mileage is higher than would result from transitioning into the steeper slope area below the peak.
What this means for climate is that there are similar trade-offs. A slightly warmer global average might cause a sea level rise that will displace people. However, if it opens up agricultural land that currently is not amenable to growing things like corn, soy, and rice, it will feed more people than the present conditions. There have been concerns expressed about excess deaths from heat waves. However, typically, more people die from cold spells. The trade-off here is fewer deaths overall if Winters are not as severe.
What I have not seen from the doom sayers is a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the effects of warming versus ‘business as usual.’ The unstated assumption is that we have been living in the best of all possible worlds and any change can only be detrimental. I’d like to see an objective analysis to recommend what the optimal global average should be. Unstated assumptions should be avoided.
I am in general agreement with your comment, although I can think of some reasons why the tradeoffs between warmer and colder are not at all symmetric.
I think warmer is decidedly more advantageous than colder.
The evidence is written in all of history.
“Unstated assumptions should be avoided.”
On this point I agree totally.
One of the more egregious among the many assumptions made by the warmistas is that we are all supposed to believe than somehow people, and in particular politicians (not the sharpest of tools in the shed) are in control of the weather or the climate.
I think, to most of us, the mere suggestion that this is in any way true is completely ludicrous.
Even if we accept on faith the entire premise that CO2 concentration in the air is the thermostat of the Earth, none of the so-called solutions offered and imposed by the people that who assert this premise, will or can do much of anything to control or lower CO2 production.
They oppose nuclear, they oppose more hydroelectric dams, and now they even appear to be opposing very strenuously replacing coal or petroleum with natural gas.
IOW, they are against any of the things which are known to be able to lower CO2 production.
They seem to be against anything that actually works and/or does not waste vast amounts of money.
Spot the difference:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZiZplP7VustGfPztAtGPGX9HvWwHKcl2
to this
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1asdNj5GUy_wpCBQjEtKCbHOW89Z4uRke
I think Greta’s anxiety level has increased quite a bit since that first picture was taken. Her picture at the UN was not nearly as pleasant.
Unfortunately, Greta believes every CO2 horror story she has been told. If I believed all that garbage, I would probably be scowling like Greta, too. Fortunately for me, I know it *is* garbage, so I’m quite relaxed about the current situation.
It’s child abuse to be scaring all these children with falsehoods about the dangers of CO2. All these scary stories are pure speculation, yet those promoting CAGW are pushing them as being confirmed. They are outright lying to the children. The head of the WMO says so. The IPCC science conclusions say so. Yet the activists continue to lie to the children and the rest of us.
The lies are criminal and very destructive to many lives.
A rose is just as sweet by any other name.
How dare you speak to her like she’s a child.
Thank you Christopher Monckton of Brenchley! Nice layer cake crafted from wit, sarcasm and realism with some science sprinkles on top for fun.
However, in my childlike innocence, I reply that there IS such a thing as climate change. You see, I live in a faraway land filled with magical creatures like rhinos and elephants (until they can be hunted into extinction) in a city called Johanna. Here the mad English planted lots of trees they brought with them, and mad scientists called metereologists said it was cooler and wetter than the surrounding areas that did not have those trees. However, we did not have a river to water those trees, so much later it was decided to cut them down because they use up too much water. However, nobody thought to consider what happened to the water they use.You see, the tree did not keep most of the water. It “sweated” the water as vapor to the air, and it fell again as rain either in Johanna or in another faraway place. Since that faraway place no longer gets that water vapour as rain (remember, the trees that made it happen were cut) I’m sure the elves and fairies that live there are complaining about it and calling it climate change. What about Johanna, you ask? No happy ending there, they are complaining of droughts and acid mine drainage rising. Oh, and before I forget,
a long, long time ago there was a golden (actually, bronze) age that ended suddenly and catastrophically. I hear that they cut down many, many trees for fuel, smelt ores and all that; It’s a wonder how trees actually survived. In my innocence I wonder whether the trees and the downfall are connected. Sweet dreams……
Speaking from memory, the Snorkmaiden also appeared in “Comet in Moominland”, another tale of global warming.
Readers can relax. The comet missed the earth, and they all went and hid in a cave to escape the temorary heat wave.
Much better, more respectful message to children provided by Scott Adams here:
https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/09/23/a-message-for-children-about-climate-change/
Published two days before the WUWT version. Surely you won’t continue to restrict free speech by not posting this reply, will you WUWT?
Neither this post nor the one you linked to was meant to be read by or to children. The posts are meant to be condescending and to be read by adults (over 30s).
Greta speaking at the UN. I just know I’ve seen that look before.
&imgrefurl=https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/wednesday-addams.html&docid=M2zTWtjv6SnQ8M&tbnid=7OfSGHNllFrYwM:&vet=1&w=865&h=1390&source=sh/x/im
Everyone born yesterday, today or tomorrow should be very, very pleased and moreover thankful for entering a world in which everything is already prepared, organized and handed over by all those billion people preceded for you.
Hmmm! I think Greta does science, not fairy tales… if this was a fairy tale, bear in mind Lord M that you are the big, bad wolf…
I suppose you are going to say you are doing the science, but to me it looks like the sort of justification I see from people who have invented perpetual motion machines.
what about the actual evidence – the temperatures and ice melt of this last summer?
Where in her emotion laden speech did she quote any, real, science?
Most of Griff’s posts are more “Argumentum ad Passiones” than substantive
“griff September 26, 2019 at 12:14 am
what about the actual evidence – the temperatures and ice melt of this last summer?”
Show that evidence?
Here you go griff. The ice melt that reached as low as 2007 levels:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Is Griff a real climate alarmist or is he a sceptic trying to make all climate alarmists look like science denying idiots? Either way, he is doing a brilliant job for scepticism.
Speaking of science, Griff, perhaps you could indulge me by proving your bona fides?
How many genders are there?
(Bonus extra credit questions:
1)At what time does the life growing within a pregnant woman become a human being?
2)Trans women competing in the Olympics against biological women…yes or no?)
Q1 hint
XX – XY
Not so long ago, fetching my kid from school. A very concerned mother and president of the PTA suggests that I should refrain fromhauling my kid by car. It’s better for the environment, can’t I understand?
Oh I see. She’s a climate scientist ? Of course not but that’s what science says, the atmosphere of the earth is burning ! And who am I to contradict science ?
Happens, much earlier this morning we were precisely up there, in the supposedly burning atmosphere and saw nothing unusual over land and water.
And I could animate, free of charge, a Q&A session for kids as PTA activity, even bring a weather guy along?
Panic in her eyes. Hissing voice, yes, she’ll file all kind of complaints if I ever dare !
These green folks are really propaganda fuel critical, trapped in their own spiraling delusion. Made my day.
The response to someone who acts like that, threatens you with complaints, is “Go ahead. Make my day.”
I’ve had similar chastisements from CAGW alarmists about my contributing to “GlowBULL Warming” by driving or flying or (pick a CO2 straw man contributor). My favorite comeback is, “Well, I had to drive because I have to get to the airport right away to fly my next Chemtrail mission“…leaves them speechless.
“Then they divide the sunshine by a kludge-factor of 4 in a clumsy attempt to adjust their sums for the fact that the Earth is round.”
To be honest, that’s not a bad approximation considering the uncertainties involved.
It’s a good approximation of the sun shining on both sides of the Earth at the same time or on a flat Earth. Where I live, it gets dark after the apparent sunset and stays dark until apparent sunrise the way it should on a revolving sphere.
“Then they divide the sunshine by a kludge-factor of 4 in a clumsy attempt to adjust their sums for the fact that the Earth is round”
The area of a sphere is 4 times that of its section. Thats a fact of geometry, and perfectly normal to consider the ear receiving energy as a section and emitting it as a sphere.
“emitting it as a sphere”
Oh my, my… The exact definition of spherical cow hypothesis.
With that many conductivity, homogeneity, convection, refraction, relief, surface state, rotation and much more factors neglected.
That’s how science fair level projects get to govern word’s prosperity. When ignorance becomes a highly sought after professional asset.
The earth only receives sunlight on one hemisphere at any given time, so how can anyone justify treating it as though it receives it on BOTH hemispheres at the same time? It does emit as a sphere.
It’s the mission of gurus to cognitively damage you, rob you of yr precious self-possession , as per Messrs George Soros, Al Gore, Doctors Edward Bernays and Joseph G**bells, Chairman Mao and his down- the- memory -whole Cultural Revolution indoctrinating youth to dob in on their parents, and professors. – it goes wa-aay back, even to Plato, the philosopher king and his ‘noble’ because ‘necessary’ lie.
“It’s the mission of gurus to cognitively damage you, rob you of yr precious self-possession , as per Messrs George Soros, Al Gore,….”
I don’t think so, beth. As I understand it, the mission of a genuine, authentic guru is to cognitively heal you, restore you to full possession of your true self and generally to enlighten and liberate you with original, direct perception of the One Reality.
There are plenty of phony gurus around of course, and it is often not easy to tell which ones are true and which ones are phony. The combination of a true guru with his/her followers is called an “ashram”. The combination of a phony guru with his/her followers is called a “cult”.
I understand there is a photograph of this young lady and George Soros. If that’s true then she is getting “paid ” in some way. Does her family profit from Wind and/or Solar power? Does her family profit from NGOs? I would like to know a little more about her and her family motivations.
the photo is apparently a photoshop job
I havent seen it
but he is very careful by whom and where he is ever pictured
and tracking his “donations” to the activist groups is a laborius and twisted trail from prior reading
No, the original photo is of Greta and Gore. Now someone Photo Shopped Soros head on Gores body…
TASKS: Greta Thunberg will be investigated by Kungsholmen’s social services
original source samhällsnytt
No idea, what type paper that is.
A private, unnamed, person has filed for an investigation and concern of what basically boils down to child abuse. Filed towards the local social services. Greta appears not to be doing so well and a note from Ilan Sadé is included in the filing. Mr Ilan Sadé says in the not (rough translation by me):
När stora delar av vuxenvärlden och etablerade media deltar i masspsykosen kring Greta Thunberg – som helt uppenbart inte har det så bra – är det så att man måste nypa sig i armen. Är detta sant? Vad håller ni på med? Det här är inte sunt.
When large parts of the grownup world and established media participate in mass psychoses around Greta Thunberg – who clearly don’t do so well – is it so one must pinch ones arm. Is this true? What are they up to? It is not healthy.
My experience is that social services has to respond rather quickly to citizens or the police complaint about suspected child abuse. – So, interesting to see what happens.
Sheffield University plan to incorporate a course on climate change in all undergraduate courses. Will it be brain washing or education? The bright students will know what is rubbish, give the “right” answers, get the tick in the box and a pass. Will those on “arts” courses have enough basic science to understand a rigorous course?
I sincerely hope that is not true. Sheffield University is still considered to be a serious one, not one with mandatory undergraduate political indoctrination courses that I read so much about in US Universities.
Joyce Grenfell would heartily approve, but you missed out “George, don’t do that.”
Thankyou, Mr Monckton for an informative and entertaining lesson. Could I ask you to present it to the kindergarten on the Thames by Westminster bridge? Both classrooms, please. The kiddiwinks there really need to learn, as they are preparing to spend all our money on this non-existent problem. By the way, the kiddies are notoriously keen on their nap time, so you may want to take along something that makes a loud noise for when they start to nod off. One of my old teachers used to keep a mallet on his desk for this purpose.
Lindzen comes up with a 19°C difference, I estimated the same at 20.5°… I’ll take it… This is the effect of setting albedo in the SB equations to ground albedo (about 0.15) instead of ground + clouds (which is about 0.305). This is absolutely the correct approach. The effect of clouds, a feedback, is the difference. The Earth’s albedo is not some magic, fixed number, it SETS itself very quickly (in minutes over localized areas) to equalize and balance ocean heat (the largest driver), which drives a very steep evaporation curve. The more heat oceans have, the very much more they evaporate, create clouds and shading, and they radiate out to space. The more effective the cooling is, the more albedo is reduced so that heat gain is restored. This process never stops, and is never in balance as the input (sun) is changing its position throughout the day. It is a brick wall with an extremely steep response (thunderstorms) with a nearly infinite headroom (about 1 million W/m^2 in the case of extremely heavy rain).
It is nonsense to assume we don’t understand clouds. You don’t need to know the exact detail when everything else is boiled down and simplified in a typical Trenberth energy balance diagram. What we do know is the excursion in critical parameters (like turnover and precipitation). In a static diagram, latent heat is about 80 W/m^2, but it is the ONE that sets albedo in a dynamic situation, and can vary from zero (clear day) to 15,924 W/m^2 (rain at 1″ per hour), to 1 million (record setting rain). This is why they don’t show you the dynamic case.
“Greta Thunberg wins ‘Alternative Nobel’ prize for her climate activism”
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-09-25/swedish-climate-activist-thunberg-wins-alternative-nobel
Who didn’t see that coming ?
I look forward to her Hollywood acting career and the many movies where she shall proclaim the world is going to end by Nature!
See Once there was group of people that decided their Red Party wasn’t as effective anymore. They needed a new control keep everything under their thumb.
They created the Green Party. After all saying the world was going to drown wasn’t working, saying the earth was going to freeze everyone to death wasn’t working.
It was time to take Marxist Communism to the new Max…Green Max! Captain Planet and Friends.
The War on Nature and Breathing.
What clever fellows these people are of course they shall use Children to push their agenda.
The great Black Magic is working, every time there is a natural or unnatural disaster everyone cries climate change and see Global Warming is real!
Greta thinks she is really smart. She declared to the UN: “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction . . .”
Her ignorance was on full display. If she looked at a simple chart of the total number of “climate” deaths this century from floods, droughts, storms and the like, she would see how these have fallen considerably over the past fifty years – her parents lifetime – and even more since 1900.
There are numerous gaps and defects in her address – an address that was heartily applauded by UN delegates, politicians and most of the media. They, like her, all claim to “believe in science” but all display a woeful ignorance of how science works. They certainly believe the claims made in the name of science and the artificial models but conveniently ignore a mass of empirical data when this does not further their alarmist narrative.
https://ourworldindata.org/ofdacred-international-disaster-data (Annual global number of deaths from natural catastrophes per decade, 1900-2015)
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit?t=1569498056079 (see video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYxt0BeTrT8)