Last year the UN Secretary-General António Guterres visited the Pacific island of Samoa and was filmed by a deserted house that he claimed had been abandoned due to climate change-related sea level rises and increasing storms. It was a porkie that quickly put its hat on and travelled around the world. The journalist Ola Sandstig reporting on Swedish public radio recently tracked down the owner of the house and found the dwelling was abandoned due to the 2009 earthquake and tsunami. Sadly, Samoa is still experiencing sea level rises about six times higher than previous levels but scientists explain it is due to the after effects of the earthquake. There has been no increase in tropical storms in the area and earthquakes and tsunamis are not caused by humans.
Guterres stood by the house and stated that “if we are not able to stop what is happening with climate change, the problem that we see in Samoa will not stay in Samoa”. The arrogance on display here is astonishing. Most Pacific islands have been inconveniently increasing in size of late due to natural forces such as sand and coral accretion along with land movement. The unfortunate case of Samoa was obviously chosen for maximum psychotic effect. This despite clear evidence that has been presented by the distinguished geophysicist Professor Shan-Chan Han that showed land subsidence in the wake of the 2009 earthquake was causing sea levels to rise up to six times faster. Sadly, this effect is “likely to continue for decades” leading to “regular nuisance flooding”.
This arrogance, common to many climate activists, might be summed up by the attitude: “Come and check us, we don’t care, what are you going to do about it?” It was on display at a recent World Economic Forum ‘disinformation’ seminar when the UN’s chief publicity flak Melissa Fleming stated: “We are becoming more proactive, we own the science and the world should know it.” The science writer Roger Pielke Jr. was unimpressed with Guterres’s Samoa stunt, stating that his photo op and press release “can only be described as an intentional effect to mislead”.
Another misleading UN stat that has been doing the rounds for decades is the claim that women and children are 14 times more likely than men to die in a climate disaster. Needless to say, the claim has been a favourite staple of activists for years. Last May, the alarmist echo chamber the Conversation headlined the 14 times claim and stated: “A growing body of evidence demonstrates women and gender-diverse people are disproportionately vulnerable to the changing climate and the consequences it brings.” Roger Pielke reports that the claim, which can still be found on the UN main website, along with the internet sites of many linked operations, has been debunked by Professor Henrik Urdal of the Peace Institute in Oslo, who called the 14 times figure a “mythical number”. In 2014, he traced the claim back to a 2013 Save the Children report, which in turn cited a 2013 Plan International report, which quoted an article published in Natural Hazards Observer in 1997. This article turned out to be two-page opinion piece authored by Pastor Kristina Peterson of the US-based Church World Service.
The sleuthing Sandstig from Sveriges Radio tracked down Pastor Peterson in Louisiana, who expressed surprise that her unsourced opinion was being touted as scientific fact in 2024 by the UN as well as other mainstream organisations. The journalist is reported to have asked for a comment from the UN, but none was forthcoming, possibly because Ms Fleming was busy elsewhere claiming ownership of all the politically correct facts.
Finally, Sandstig investigated Guterres’s claim in 2022 that the number of weather, climate and water-related disasters had increased by a factor of five over the last 50 years. This was covered by the Daily Sceptic at the time where the graph below up to 2022 was published.
As the graph shows, there is no evidence that the number of major disasters going back to the turn of the century is becoming more frequent. In fact, the evidence presented suggests that recent disasters are around 10% less frequent than those recorded in the 2000s. In reality, the increase in disasters recorded by CRED EM-DAT from 1970 to 2000 was due to vastly improved reporting procedures. Deborati Guha-Sapir, who oversaw the widely-consulted database for decades, told Swedish Radio that you can argue that climate disasters or natural disasters have not actually substantially increased but the reporting has been “much, much” easier, better and quicker.
Antonio ‘boiling’ Guterres’s constant hysterical pronouncements are risible. But he is still the head of the UN – the parent-organisation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – and Roger Pielke worries about the effect of all the false claims and bad science. “The climate science community should care that the UN has been systematically misrepresenting climate science, because it could affect how the IPCC is viewed, fairly or unfairly,” he noted. As reported by the Daily Sceptic in 2022, Pielke noted that he had seen “a concerted and successful” effort by climate advocates to create and spread disinformation about disasters, “knowing full well that virtually all journalists and scientists will stay silent and allow false information to spread unchecked – and sometimes will even help to amplify it”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Boiling oceans require next to no atmosphere whatsoever…
The era of global boiling has arrived,’ says UN boss – CNBC
Hyperbole sans frontieres
To be fair, a measurement above 100º was made in a lagoon near a heated water outlet.
No-one can expect Gutty to know the difference between ºF and ºC !! 😉
Guterres and porkie go hand in hand.
And, as a US senator said “pigs squeel when the fat gets cut ”
😉
Wasn’t the UN creating a new “misinformation” department? Somehow they ignore all the misinformation coming from the UN.
As in Australia where the politicians have absolved themselves from our new misinformation laws, the UN would have given themselves a pass on being accountable to the rules governing we mere peons.
Some twitter from the “Climate Council” had a centrespread feature side article in the Courier Mail claiming that TS Alfred was not normal and sign of more terrible things to come BS. That these clearly false claims were printed by the Courier Mail is disheartening and disturbing. Maybe a suitably qualified person may respond to it … we have a lot impressionable dumbass karens in Brisbane who will be already wailing and selflagelating over this.
What a liar.
I doubt there’s any story the climate propaganda sausage machine likes to churn out more than sea level rise ‘sinking’.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14463477/Alexandria-sinking-rising-sea-levels-climate-change.html
The reality.
https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/africa-archives/sinking-cities-project-alexandria-layers-of-history-levels-of-threat/
They’re wearing out my joie de vie.
You should see a (French) doctor about that.
The doctor is in
https://youtu.be/8LQk_GOBSL0?feature=shared
“that showed land subsidence in the wake of the 2009 earthquake was causing sea levels to rise up to six times faster.”
That’s a nonsensical statement. Sea level is not rising faster in one place, the land is sinking.
Relative sea level is rising up to six times faster. You are correct in the main cause is the land sinking.
If they had used the word “relative”, it would have been better, but they didn’t.
Why should they when alarmism is the goal?
Why should Al Gore and that Swedish woman who aged out of “girl” get all the coverage for hysterical climate claims? Older Latinos should have their fair share of the Climate Porn market, too.
My senses tell me that the claims of the UN and those of the BBC are, broadly, one.
You spelled ‘bullshit’ incorrectly
It is somewhat disconcerting that Dr Pielke after all these years still worries about the IPCC’s reputation. Personally I had ditched that outfit as being totally corrupted after reading Donna Laframboise’s take down of it.
For me, it was the rebuke of Steve McIntyre by Susan Solomon when he asked for data supporting certain studies. It was clear that the IPCC was not about getting to the facts.
Solomon was a lead author of the ‘physical basis’ section in AR4. As someone who was trained in the somewhat archaic discipline of radiative transfer of heat (in planetary and stellar atmospheres) I observed, having read that prose and trying to comprehend it, that she and her team of writers were utterly ignorant of the subject.
Ignorant, or looking for a pre-conceived answer.
Both
• Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly—and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence.
Thomas Sowell
Yes, Alarmist Climate Science is made up entirely of unsubstantiated assertions about a connection between CO2 and the Earth’s weather and climate.
Alarmist Climate Science is all speculation, assumptions, and unsubstantiated assertions.
It’s a crazy situation.
Joseph Goebbels
Goebbels can join Huxley, Kafka and Orwell. Unwitting authors….
Not as warnings, but as instruction manuals?
In this case, a full quote would be more to the point.
“you will even come to believe it yourself”
We see this all the time with the Far-Left Democrats. The Democrat Elites put out a narrative, such as: Trump is Hitler, and the Democrat peons accept it as truth no matter how ridiculous it is, and even the Elites come to believe it themselves. it’s what they want to believe. So they believe it.
Too many times people hear things, and because what they hear is what they really, really want to believe, they never question it.
People look for things that “confirm” their worldview and reject those things that don’t fit their worldview.
We all do it . It is part of trying to figure out the world around us.
But like the man said: You have to be careful with what you accept as true, because you are prone to fooling yourself, in an effort to feel good about your own worldview, to feel like you have it figured out.
You want to figure things out, so sometimes you tell yourself you have it figured out. But you may be wrong. We have to keep that in mind at all times. Don’t fool yourself into believing something that isn’t true. it’s easy to do. Be careful out there! There is a lot of misinformation flying around out there! 🙂
Never did believe the UN on anything. It was created by liars under false pretenses and the US should get out!
The US created it in San Francisco. Isn’t that ironic?
Criminal I should say. Probably more accurate to say it was created by the Soviet Union and one of their US State Department spies, Alger Hiss.
The US and many other countries.
San Fran … not ironic, expected.
Somehow, still fitting. Maybe even increasingly so.
US out of the UN!
UN out of the US!
I just want to clarify this.
Friendly bilateral relations between sovereign states treated with mutual respect is my ideal. Multilateral relations are also fine among sovereign states.
It is rule by unelected, unaccountable globalist bureaucrats that I abhor and resist.
How much do we pay him?
“we own the science” Agreed. All bought and paid for with your taxes. Want to see the receipts?
“…the problem that we see in Samoa will not stay in Samoa”. If only Samoa could be more like Vegas. Problem solved!
The United Nations original charter was created to prevent wars between it’s member nations, and to increase the standard of living for all citizens and nations on the face of the earth by eliminating the scourge of war.
Everyone must decide for themselves if the UN charter is working.
That was the sales pitch. Despite the advertising, the real product was rather less noble and indeed far more sinister.
What’s with this third-party, word-of-mouth history? It was not done in ancient Egypt, for Sphinx’s sake! The contemporary documents still exist in abundance, many are even on teh internetz. Some of those have neat illustrations. Like this:
https://archive.org/details/Life-1943-08-16-Vol-15-No-7/page/17/mode/1up
I have tried to argue for years that it is all about new theosophical nature pantheism and not about Science. We are dealing with Classic fraudsters.https://www.thepostil.com/the-world-economic-forum-is-a-dangerous-religious-cult/
Why theosophical? And why argue for years? The entire thing, whatever it claims to be in the $CURRENT_YEAR, is a theocracy of post-millennial Puritan sects bent on “immanentizing the eschaton”, plain and simple. All the relevant bicycles were invented long ago, and are in public domain.If details are desired, “How Dawkins Got Pwned” by Mencius Moldbug dives into it.
If the mechanism of such turnabout is not clear, G.K. Chesterton in “What’s Wrong With the World” (part 1.3) covered it back in 1910. He clearly noted not only reverse hypocrisy itself, but also its immediate result: false pretences greatly reduce possibilities for actual discussion and negotiation in the affected politics (though not inevitable consequences of this). A little over a century before «not agreement capable» diagnosis got openly handed in the halls of official politics to the great big Prig Suzerain, rather than merely some of its muppet states. Start with the false pretences of reverse hypocrisy and “separation of Church and State” enforced sloppily enough to become mere selection pressure, and theocracy of the most two-faced sect on the market under a fig leaf is almost inevitable.
I think the U.S. Department of Justice should sue the UN and IPCC for obvious climate lies. The USGRP agencies should be disbanded for obvious climate lies in their assessment reports.
The UN promoting lies is not as bad as it gets. Elected representatives promoting lies is far worse and yet it seems to be expected, even acceptable behaviour. It seems to me that the repugnance or acceptance of lies depends on which side of the fence one sits. Aka. selective morality. Who is not guilty of that?
Classic UN errors yet again. The UN should stand down away from scientific decisions.
As should all other Governmental entities.
As I’ve said before, Guterres should simply make a series of climate alarmism recording and just supply them to the mainstream media to play once a month. His credibility went down the pipe years ago, and every climate conference erodes whatever’s left even further.
I think he’s great, he did a brilliant job of looking like an absolute tool, and brought discredit onto the UN. Well done.
We can trust Guterres.
I saw picture of him smiling and shaking hands with the new Syrian leader dressed in a suit and with a tie, not his military fatigues. This is Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the Islamist HTS leader, the same person who is having his militants slaughtering men, women and children who do not agree with his ideology.
Guterres must be right because the Vice-President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas, is promoting EU values globally and blaming those being attacked and massacred in Syria. Another woman, the German foreign minister and Green Party member, Annalena Baerbock, went and met al-Jolani in Damascus so he must be a good guy.
We can trust and believe Guterres as long as we do not believe our eyes and ears.
Interesting, I tried to have Grok make a picture of a chouriço sausage with Guterres’ head on the end, but it just showed the sausage with the end cut off.
Well you get the idea I guess without the image.
The only government worse than federal government is international government. You don’t have to look any further than the United Nations and the European Union. I completely understand the need for the UN to lie and cheat, they have no evidence scientific or otherwise to prop up their lies that added CO2 can cause catastrophic global warming. That worthless Fleming claims the UN owns the science, she is a clown. She is right in one regard the UN and many of its member states do own what science gets reported. That is not the same.
It’s an oxymoron.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far away, Guterres was an engineer (imagine that).
Then he found out politics. So, he’s doing the job he’s being paid for 🙂
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.