
The World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) article, “Climate Change Impacts Grip Globe in 2024,” paints a dire picture of a planet spiraling into chaos, with extreme weather events attributed to anthropogenic climate change. While the narrative is emotionally compelling for low-information readers, it falsely conflates short-term weather events with long-term climate trends. It is a fundamental error that undermines the scientific integrity of the claims, especially since the WMO itself actually defines what climate is: “…the average weather conditions for a particular location and over a long period of time.” Furthermore, historical data reveals that humanity is not facing an escalating climate crisis but has instead become more resilient to extreme weather, with weather-related deaths plummeting over the past century.
One of the core flaws in the WMO article is its failure to differentiate between weather and climate. Weather encompasses short-term atmospheric phenomena, such as heat waves, storms, and rainfall, while climate refers to long-term patterns and averages over decades or centuries. The distinction is crucial, yet the WMO blurs the line by implying that individual weather events in 2024 are definitive evidence of climate change. Only long-term trends of thirty years or more in weather can indicate climate change, and no such long-term trends in worsening extreme weather events are found in the data.
As highlighted by Climate Realism, “Extreme weather events have occurred for millennia, often with no connection to human influence.” The site notes that attributing every flood or heatwave to climate change ignores natural variability and fails to account for the complexities of atmospheric systems. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges the difficulty of attributing specific weather events to long-term climatic trends, stating that such attribution requires rigorous analysis and cannot rely on anecdotal observations.
In short, the WMO’s approach is highly misleading, using weather events as propaganda tools to sell the narrative of a climate emergency.
While the WMO’s article focuses on the immediate impacts of extreme weather, it conveniently omits a critical fact: deaths from weather-related disasters have plummeted over the past 100 years. In the 1920s, the global average annual death toll from such disasters was approximately 485,000. Today, that number has fallen by over 98%, to fewer than 10,000 annually. This is not evidence of escalating danger but of extraordinary human progress. See the figure below.

As detailed on Climate at a Glance, the dramatic decline in weather-related fatalities is due to advancements in forecasting, emergency response, infrastructure, and communication technologies. Humanity’s ability to anticipate and adapt to extreme weather has improved exponentially, saving millions of lives and mitigating the impacts of natural disasters. Far from being more vulnerable, we are more resilient than ever before.
Additionally, Watts Up With That highlights that while global news reporting on extreme weather events has increased—creating the illusion of worsening conditions—the actual frequency and intensity of such events remain within historical norms. This underscores the importance of context, reminding readers that cherry-picking extreme events while ignoring overall trends leads to badly skewed public perceptions and expensive government policy missteps.
Another flaw in the WMO’s argument is the assumption that all unusual weather patterns are the result of human activity. While the climate system can be influenced by some anthropogenic factors, it is also highly subject to natural variability. Phenomena such as El Niño, volcanic activity, and solar cycles play much larger roles in shaping weather patterns and must be considered when assessing the causes of extreme events.
For instance, the WMO’s article references record-breaking rainfall and floods in 2024, implying these are unprecedented. However, as noted by Climate Realism, historical data shows similar events occurring long before industrialization. Ignoring this historical context creates a distorted view of current conditions and fosters unnecessary alarmism.
The WMO’s approach is emblematic of a broader trend in climate reporting: using short-term weather events as proof of long-term climate change. This tactic is not only scientifically flawed but also dangerously misleading. By conflating weather and climate, such narratives erode public trust in science and promote policies that are often more harmful than the phenomena they aim to address.
Such alarmist rhetoric has real-world consequences, driving economically disastrous policies that disproportionately harm the world’s poorest populations. For example, diverting resources toward combating exaggerated climate threats can leave communities less prepared for immediate challenges, such as poverty, disease, and actual natural disasters.
The WMO’s “Climate Change Impacts Grip Globe in 2024” exemplifies the misuse of short-term weather events to promote a long-term climate crisis narrative. Such sensationalism not only undermines public understanding of climate science but also fosters misguided policies that prioritize fear over fact. Weather is not climate, and conflating the two is either an act of ignorance or deliberate deception, either of which can lead to misdirected resources, endangering peoples’ lives and well-being.
The public should hold climate reporting to a higher standard—one that prioritizes scientific accuracy over sensationalist headlines. The stakes are too high for anything less.
Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
WMO
World Misinformation Organization?
Cut funding.
700 words of extreme bullshit
4 words and a number, flailing around, looking for something to mean…
The Industrial Revolution started in the UK 1963-
How seas froze over and temperatures dropped to -22°C in Big Freeze of 1963
Gaia be praised the Thames didn’t freeze completely over then.
Listening to the BBC etc today one could be forgiven for thinking this is the first cold winter with snow etc on record.
They’re giving advice on how to cope…
We’ve assembled a team of experts to answer your questions on how best to stay warm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63891697
Pillocks. I blame that Viner bloke….
Yes the whole media has gone into ‘panic mode’ with live blog up dates and photo’s of people walking through the snow and the frost this morning.
I mean to expect ‘frost and snow’ in January, it must be a other example of that extreme weather they keep talking about. 😉
It’s ironic that on Channel 5 tonight they are showing a program about all the snow we had in 1982. There was a helluva lot. It was too deep to plough where I lived and they sent a snow blower.
Wait, now the BBC can remember what snow looks like? They weren’t supposed to be able to do that. Do they remember what women are?
Like- you need somebody to tell you how to stay warm- a team of experts! Meanwhile, today I had an electrician install a very nice generator in Wokeachusetts in anticipation of many outages thanks to green energy. I had no idea how complicated an electrician’s work is. He’s retired so I was his helper today.
What is wrong with these people? They are meteorologists, right? Absolutely mystifying. This group think and conformity are one of the strangest things I’ve ever witnessed. I never imagined it would come to this.
People like getting paychecks. Cancel culture is quite effective at maintaining a narrative.
… or else
Respectfully, it’s not an error in any way. It’s propaganda.
Why is Lomborg’s graph labeled “Climate-related deaths”? Does he not know the difference between weather and climate?
Thank you pointing that out. What’s important is Lomborg has succumbed to the propaganda.
He did that on purpose so responses could emphasize the irony.
The constant disinformation, along with what looks like a cold winter getting a grip on both the US and Europe, may help convince people the world is not “over-heating”. Now add in a Trump presidency ignoring the climate whiners.
We have a nice set up to push more climate facts into the public area.
Stephen Schneider wanted to be honest. He at least struggled with the question of telling the truth or not, and to what degree. Around 15 years after his death, I imagine he would be appalled at what his side has become.
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
Besides his willingness to stretch the truth, however, not as a scientist perhaps, but as a human, he was also wrong in his motivation thinking that his side would make things better. They do not.
On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination.
Well there’s nothing like Hitler Stalin Mao Pol Pot etc to really fire up the imagination and getting everyone on message to make their world a better place. Just have to deal with a few pesky skeptics and Utopia here we come.
” looks like a cold winter getting a grip ….”
Where I live , the rest of this month is forecast to be about 14 deg F below average ….
Where is my global warming ?
I want it NOW!
Dang ! Accuweather just dropped Feb well below avg also .
Two months of cold.
Brrrr.
Weather forecast here says 35ºC today, 37ºC tomorrow…
(glad I have 2 reverse cycle air-conditioners)
… then dropping down to mid 20’s with rain for a few days.
Normal Aussie summer, in other words.
” from mountain peaks to ocean depths ”
I’m going to ponder the impacts to ocean depths for a bit . . .
Okay, after feet have been warmed in front of the wood stove: The average depth of the ocean is approximately 3,682 meters, or 12,080 feet. Someone from the World Meteorological Organization surely can tell us what the gripping impacts in the lower depths have been. Or even 2/3rds of the way down.
“As highlighted by Climate Realism, “Extreme weather events have occurred for millennia, often with no connection to human influence.””
Why say “often?” Is there even one extreme weather event with ANY reliable attribution to human influence? Sure, we influence the level of destructive impact by what we’ve built (or not), but any claim that we have made the atmosphere’s operation more dangerous cannot be substantiated.
Well there was Operation Fishbowl where the USA attempted to nuke the atmosphere. I haven’t looked up any trends from that area at the time.
On the plus side, no country is nuking the atmosphere today for research purposes.
“Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges the difficulty of attributing specific weather events to long-term climatic trends, stating that such attribution requires rigorous analysis and cannot rely on anecdotal observations.”
It should read “impossibility” not “difficulty”. None of the attribution methods being used to make these claims are valid.
As soon as the graph says “Climate related deaths” instead of “Weather related deaths” you know the article is not factual.
You didn’t read it did you.
Yes it’s colder
“The WMO’s approach is emblematic of a broader trend in climate reporting: using short-term weather events as proof of long-term climate change. This tactic is not only scientifically flawed but also dangerously misleading.”
By their reasoning the two “Blizzards of ’78” in the US were proof that “The Ice Age Cometh”.
In the 1930’s we had devastating heat waves. What do they say they proved?
The way to beat them is to use weather history against them.
For as they become more desperate to use weather as a weapon for their cause. The easier it will become to find a example in weather history to challange their claims of ‘extreme weather’.
Because remember we are now in 2025 and there is now a wide source of good coverage of weather events from newspapers ‘etc’ that span back to least the last 100 years. Which can be used to call out their claims.
Did not Joseph Goebbels die in 1945?
“While the narrative is emotionally compelling for low-information readers….”
🙂
Very nice Anthony. The World Meteorological Organization is an agency of the United Nations. The United Nations is a political organization. The United Nation’s desire is to speak with one voice. Although the WMO may have scientists in it’s employ it is still a political organization in my view. My guess is that if the UN became CAGW skeptics the WMO would also.
If climate disasters are supposedly having such dire effects on the planet and humanity, we should also be seeing population declines, lowered life expectancies, reduced agricultural output, widespread decreasing national GDPs, higher rates of infant mortality, extensive population shifts, and more territorial warfare besides just erroneous claims of more deaths associated with extreme weather events. And if such weather is actually causing more expensive structural damage, this is due to the fact that more areas have become built up as populations grow and replacement costs naturally rise. So the article is nothing more than one of the inevitable random alarmist propaganda pieces that the media, is urged to and paid to promote by environmental organizations and governments looking for new income streams.
Another problem with using short term weather events as proof of long term changes, is that we live in a big world.
There is unusual stuff happening somewhere on the planet on an almost daily basis, and always has been.
For example, if you have 1000 stations randomly scattered across the planet, the odds are, you will get 10 once in a century events every year. This has nothing to do with an allegedly changing climate and everything to do with how statistics works.
Meteorologists back in the 50’s decided that for their purposes 30 years was a good time frame for weather forecasting. But with the advent of a focus on climate change beginning about 1990 “climate scientists” projecting what temperature may be a 100 or more years into the future (2XCO2 at 2PPM =100 years) requires a different standard.
The lowest climate information person in the world should be able to understand that weather averaged over100 years, not 30 years is more appropriate in climate analysis.
My personal preference would be at least 300 years to get part of the LIA and the Modern Warming period in the same “climate”. 1000 years would probably be most appropriate. “The climate” between 1924 and 2024, is less than a blink of an eye in geological time. That’s why I like 1000-year climate divisions.
For example: 25–1025 “climate”, should be compared to 1025-2025 “climate”. We need to note the cyclicity between the Medieval Dark Ages, the Medieval Warm Period, the LIA and the modern Warm Period. (Please don’t consider that the LIA and Medieval Warm were only ”Regional”, that’s irrelevant). A 1000-year window would catch all the below (1000 AD-2000 AD)
.
Medieval Dark Ages: 500 AD to 1000 AD
Medieval Warm Period (MWP): 900 AD to 1300 AD
Little Ice Age (LIA): 1300 AD to 1850 AD
Modern Warm Period: 1850 AD to the present day