Fake News at the UN

Climate Disinformation at the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR)

A recent press release1 published on Science, climat et énergie website echoed a « draft IPCC
report, announcing an “acceleration” of climate "disturbances" by 2050 ».

Thus, a vast offensive by the IPCC and its henchmen will soon begin on the theme : natural
disasters will kill us all2 !

One of the first salvos of this assault is a communication from one of the UN agencies.

On October 12, 2020, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR3), in
collaboration with the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED4), released a
report entitled :

« Human Cost of Disasters – An Overview of the Last 20 Years – 2000-2019 ».

It compares this period to the previous one, 1980-1999.

Already, with the foreword, the authors are not being too subtle :

« While this report focuses primarily on the staggering rise in climate-related disasters over the last
twenty years... It is baffling that we willingly and knowingly continue to sow the seeds of our own
destruction, despite the science and evidence that we are turning our only home into an
uninhabitable hell for millions of people... A change must come. We hope this report will add
weight to the argument for action on climate5 ».

Gone are the desire to understand reality as it is, the measure, the prudence, the doubt that one
expects from men of science when faced with complex natural phenomena.

We have here a declaration consecrating the birth of a new religion which could be summarized as
follows :

« Unbelievers ! Are you sowing the seeds of sin despite our sermons ? Repent, submit, or hell will
be your ultimate punishment ! ».

–––––––

But, since the report claims that all of this is happening « despite the science and the evidence »,
let's see what the science says and what evidence it relies on.

All the data used in the report comes from CRED, a research center of the Catholic University of
Louvain. It is part of the School of Public Health located in Brussels, Belgium.

He collaborates on international studies on the humanitarian and health consequences of natural

1 https://www.science-climat-energie.be/2021/06/23/sce-info-attention-au-projet-de-rapport-du-giec/
2 https://www.lalibre.be/dernieres-depeches/afp/2021/06/23/lhumanite-a-laube-de-retombees-climatiques-
cataclysmiques-R4G3HXEHNNDYXMAAQGM4Y7JCRQ/
3 https://www.undrr.org/
4 https://www.cred.be/
5 https://www.undrr.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Human%20Cost%20of%20Disasters%202000-
2019%20FINAL.pdf
disasters. To this end, it manages a database, EM-DAT6, which records natural disasters occurring
all over the planet.

The CRED results are reported by Our world in data7, an online publication of the University of
Oxford.

–––––––

What does the report say ?

The first table he presents compares the consequences of natural disasters that occurred during the
two periods considered, using global figures for each of them

and, speaking of the period 2000-2019, has this comment : « These numbers represent a sharp
increase of the number of recorded disaster events by comparison with the previous twenty years8 ».

No reservation comes to contextualize these numbers by placing them in a long-term perspective9.

The report does speak of « population growth in areas exposed to risk and [of] uncontrolled
urbanization » but does not consider them as factors that should be taken into account to relativize
the comparisons between the data of the two periods.

6 https://public.emdat.be/
7 https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters
8 But, aware of the fallacious character of such an assertion, the authors of the report try to guard against any
subsequent criticism thanks to a small cryptic sentence, drowned in the middle of the report and in the conditional :
« While better recording and reporting may partly explain some of the increase in events ». « Partly » ?
« Mostly » would be more appropriate, as we will see later !
This is probably the same idea that justifies the publication of the graph showing the decrease in natural disasters.
Later, they can always say that the data was there and that everything else was just conjecture, hypothesis,
guesswork. A bit like the very small clauses of a contract, which often no one reads, and which are there to be able
to discharge all responsibility if embarrassing questions arise.
9 An example of taking into account economic development, through the evolution of inflation-adjusted GDP, in the
evaluation of the frequency of extreme events in the USA : https://theconversation.com/are-catastrophic-disasters-
striking-more-often-83599
Consequently, the use of global figures, as they stand, makes all these comparisons illusory.

Indeed, between 1980 and 2019 :

– the world population rose from 4.5 billion to 7.8 billion, an increase of 73% ;
– the urban population10 rose from 1.75 to 4.38 billion, ie an increase of 150%, which has led
to increasing exposure to risks ;
– the number and cost of the infrastructures built have increased proportionally ;
– progress has generated new potential targets.

The report does not take into account any of these developments.

He considers that neither the population nor the economic environment has changed during these 40
years and that, therefore, we can compare, as is, the absolute data of the two periods11. Astonishing !

All the more astounding when, speaking of the consequences of natural disasters, we read:

« From a disasters analysis point of view, population growth and patterns of economic development
are more important than climate change or cyclical variations in weather when explaining this
upward trend. Today, not only are more people in harm’s way than there were 50 years ago, but
building in flood plains, earthquakes zones and other high-risk areas has increased the likelihood
that a routine natural hazard will become a major catastrophe12 ».

Who is at the origin of these findings full of common sense ?

The same CRED, co-author of the report, in a 2015 study, so just a few years ago.

He had not yet embarked then, body and soul, in the crusade13 of the Church of Climatology.
Another time, another truth !

In fact, it can be safely said, without fear of being mistaken, that the number of deaths, people
affected as well as the amount of economic damage resulting from natural disasters have all, in
relative terms, decreased or remained stable during all these years. And it is the CRED data that
confirms this to us14 !

–––––––

The report continues : « This is clear evidence that in a world where the global average
temperature in 2019 was 1.1˚C above the pre-industrial period, the impacts [of this warming] are
being felt in the increased frequency of extreme weather events including heatwaves, droughts,
flooding, winter storms, hurricanes and wildfiresare » and, to illustrate this, the following graphic is
produced :

10 https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
11 Only the 2019 inflation adjustment in US $ is taken into account for economic damage.
12 « The Human cost of Natural Disasters – 2015 – A global perspective » :
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/PAND_report.pdf
13 https://www.science-climat-energie.be/2021/07/23/le-credo-du-cred-ou-comment-noyer-linformation/
14 https://ludwik-budyn.medium.com/how-much-time-do-we-have-left-12-years%C2%B9-8-years%C2%B2-less-than-
2-years%C2%B3-ae2838cad520
Yet, with the best of will, we can only see a decrease, slow but certain, of these extreme events.
How can we see this as « clear evidence » of their increase ?

One is probably suggesting that it is in relation to the previous period, 1980-1999, that this increase
took place. Why not then show the two successive periods side by side ?

Let's do it for them, adding the year 2020 and taking into account the « Biological15 » subgroup :

15 CRED generally classifies natural disasters in 5 subgroups : biological, geophysical, climatological, hydrological
and meteorological. At the request of the sponsor, the UNDRR, the report omits the biological subgroup. No
justification is given. Yet climate change has a considerable impact on the biosphere as a whole. For the authors of
the study, apparently not.
There is indeed a rapid increase in the number of natural disasters until the year 2002.

Therefore, why not use this graph, which is much more meaningful than aggregate numbers, to
demonstrate the report's main claim, that of the « dizzying increase in climate-related natural
disasters » between the two periods considered ?

Because this graph presents several problems for believers.

The first is obvious.

The warmist dogma links the increase in the frequency of extreme events to global warming, itself
caused by the increase in the level of CO² in the atmosphere.

However, this rate has increased continuously over the past 41 years16.

Therefore, while the rise in disasters in the first part of the graph seems to confirm the dogma, their
continued decline after 2002 completely contradicts it. Embarrassing!

This decrease is particularly visible on such a graph, which shows the two periods side by side. But
disappears completely when using global numbers. This is why the report favors them for all
comparisons between the two periods. It’s more convenient to evade an awkward reality that might
confuse simple souls.

–––––––

But there is another problem : the claims of CRED itself !

A recent article17 published on Science, climat et énergie website shows that, in the past, CRED
has always attributed the increase in the number of disasters recorded during the period 1980-1999

16 https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
17 https://www.science-climat-energie.be/2020/12/07/sur-laugmentation-des-catastrophes-naturelles/#comment-4424
to « improved data collection ».

There were therefore no more disasters than before, they did not have more consequences18 than
before, they were simply more reported by the different sources, which increased their number
during this period.

Thus, in 2004, a CRED report states :

« Figure 2 [similar to Figure 2.1 reproduced below] might lead one to believe that disasters occur
more frequently today than in the beginning of the century. However, reaching such a conclusion
based only on this graph would be incorrect. In fact, what the figure is really showing is the
evolution of the registration of natural disaster events over time19 ».

Identical assertions can be found in the 200720 and 201521 reports.

In a 2011 article, about the « increase » of natural disasters during the period 1980-1999, the
director of CRED states :

« The data represented in Fig. 2.1 [below] might lead one to believe that disasters occur more
frequently today than in earlier decades. However, it would be wrong to reach such a conclusion
based solely on this graph... One of the main factors contributing to this apparent increase in
natural disasters is improved reporting22 »,

18 The real consequences of climate change are rather beneficial : https://ludwik-budyn.medium.com/earth-becomes-a-

paradise-189203e7741e
19 « Thirty years of natural disasters 1974 – 2003 : the numbers » :
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/1078_8761.pdf
20 « Annual Disaster Statistical Review – The Numbers and Trends 2007 » : « Indeed, justifying the upward trend in
hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading...
For instance, one major contributor to the increase in disasters occurrence over the last decades is the constantly
improving diffusion and accuracy of disaster related information » : https://reliefweb.int/report/world/annual-
disaster-statistical-review-numbers-and-trends-2007
21 « The Human cost of Natural Disasters 2015 : A global perspective » : « The arrival of CRED in 1973 further
improved data recording, while the development of global telecommunications and the media, plus increased
humanitarian funding and reinforced international cooperation, also contributed to better reporting of disasters.
Thus part of the apparent increase in the frequency of disasters in the past half-century is, no doubt, due to
improved recording » : https://reliefweb.int/report/world/human-cost-natural-disasters-2015-global-perspective
22 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225207827_Earthquakes_an_Epidemiological_Perspective_on_Patters_an
d_Trends
Finally, in February 2021, after the publication of the UN report, in an end-of-study work
supervised by the same director of CRED, we find the same statements that contradict the
conclusions of the report :

«  The number of disasters captured in EM-DAT increased substantially in the end of the 20th
century due to multiple reasons. First, data quality and coverage have improved since the 1960's
with increased media coverage of global events, decrease of communication costs, and expansion of
the internet... Second, global population growth has increased the likelihood of hazards hitting
human communities, and hence more disaster events are reported23 ».

There are the two themes mentioned above, that of improving data collection explaining the
« increase » in the number of recorded disasters as well as the need to take into account, in the
interpretation of these data, the growth of world population.

There is therefore perfect continuity between CRED's statements before and after the 2020 report.

Moreover, in support of all these quotes, we can produce a superb correlation between the number
of disasters declared and that of the reporting countries :

23 https://www.emdat.be/fostering-hospital-resilience-disasters-lessons-tertiary-hospital-nepal-0
Of course, a correlation does not imply causation.

But, if we adopt the principle of parsimony which favors the most economical explanation and asks
not to introduce new hypotheses24 as long as those already stated are sufficient and...

if we postulate that the number of disasters varies little annually and is simply proportional to the
size of the territory considered as well as to the quality of the information collection then, if more
countries report them more exhaustively, more disasters will be recorded.

And this is exactly what we observe during the first period 1980–1999.

Then, in the second period, 2000–2019, the slow decrease in the number of reporting countries
coincides with a slow decrease in the number of recorded disasters, which appears to confirm the
initial postulate and ... confirm the assertions of CRED, repeated with consistency in its numerous
publications over the last twenty years, on the central role played by the collection of information.

Publications in which, moreover, at no time is there any mention of a « vertiginous doubling » of

natural disasters caused by global warming.

And, as pointed out above, CRED has always warned against a climatological interpretation of the
increase in extreme events observed at the end of the 20th century25.

Nothing remains therefore of the « dizzying increase » in the number of extreme events caused by
global warming, an allegation contradicted by the data and by claims made by CRED itself.

–––––––

How did we get there ?

Why then that, for more than twenty years, CRED has regularly insisted on the need to take into
account population growth, urbanization, economic development in order to compare situations at
24 Here it would be the hypothetical influence of climate change on the number of natural disasters.
25 While the report, of which CRED is the main contributor, emphasizes the essential role of climate change in the
« doubling » of these events. And this is how the report was perceived, as the headline of the UN news agency
underlines : « Le changement climatique, moteur du doublement des catastrophes naturelles au cours des 20
dernières années » : https://news.un.org/fr/story/2020/10/1079642
different times, suddenly, in the report of 2020, he doesn't take it into account ?

Why then that, for more than twenty years, CRED has consistently declared that the increase in
natural disasters that occurred during the period 1980-2000 is essentially the result of better data
collection and not of climate change, suddenly, in the 2020 report, he claims that climate change is
the cause ?

Why, finally, in the article26 of UN Info devoted to the report, the director of CRED warns :
« If this level of growth in extreme weather events continues over the next twenty years, the future of
mankind looks very bleak » ?

It is to frighten and condition populations, to make them more obedient, more docile so that they
« are no longer in a psychological position to oppose any authoritarian adaptation whatsoever.
Because of course, there is no question of letting man adapt to changes in his environment as he
has always done, that is to say through science and technical progress, the fruit of his inquisitive
mind, his inventiveness and his desire to improve his condition on earth27 ».

And this manipulation works. According to a survey28 published by The Lancet, a vast majority of
respondents, 16 to 25 year olds, find the future scary :

« Findings : Respondents were worried about climate change (59% very or extremely worried,
84% at least moderately worried). Over 50% felt sad, anxious, angry, powerless, helpless, and
guilty. Over 45% said their feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily life and
functioning, and many reported a high number of negative thoughts about climate change ».

We thus shape a terrified generation, therefore more malleable, ready to accept any measure, law,
tax, restriction of freedoms, limitation of movement decreed by the « authorities » in order to save it
from the final catastrophe.

But, by denying everything it has said for more than twenty years, thus compromising itself to
satisfy the wishes of its sponsor wishing to manipulate public opinion, CRED not only discredits
itself which, after all, is its business, but it is also prejudicial to the scientific community as a whole
by taking the backing of science to deceive public confidence and propagate a disastrous ideology.

26 « Si ce niveau de croissance des phénomènes météorologiques extrêmes se poursuit au cours des vingt prochaines
années, l’avenir de l’humanité s’annonce très sombre » : https://news.un.org/fr/story/2020/10/1079642
27 « Ne soient plus en mesure psychologique de s’opposer à quelque adaptation autoritaire que ce soit. Car bien sûr, il
n’est nullement question de laisser l’homme s’adapter aux évolutions de son environnement comme il l’a toujours
fait, c’est-à-dire par la science et le progrès techniques, fruits de son esprit curieux, de son inventivité et de son
désir d’améliorer sa condition sur terre » : https://leblogdenathaliemp.com/2021/06/27/climat-afp-attention-dernier-
scoop-avant-la-fin-du-monde/
28 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3918955