Paul Homewood rebuts: "Since 2000, the trend in the number of disasters has actually been downwards, clearly debunking any pretence that weather is getting worse because of global warming. The report even specifically accepts this:
...Put simply, many more disasters are recorded nowadays because of better reporting systems. But this does not mean more are actually occurring."
The row was triggered by the new report on “Human Cost of Disasters”. The report announced a “staggering rise in climate-related disasters over the last twenty years”. However, the same report contains a graph showing that the number of climate-related disasters has actually decreased by 15 percent since 2000. ...
“This is a huge, embarrassing blunder,” said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, a British think tank. “The United Nations must immediately withdraw this report and apologise for misleading the public.” Roger Pielke Jr, a renowned American scientist in the field of natural disasters – and anything but climate denier – also regrets the sharp position by the UNDRR. In an e-mail to De Telegraaf he says that the authors have drawn “flawed conclusions”
Sky News contributor & Former Aussie Senator Cory Bernardi: “Now is the historical moment of time not only to fight the … virus but to shape the system ... for the post-corona era,” Mr. Schwab said. "(Mr. Schwab) admits that COVID is the new excuse to usher in the Green New Deal that climate alarmists, profiteers, and big government have been pushing for years," Mr. Bernardi said. “Think about it, the global response to COVID has been a green socialist's dream."
“After decades of peddling climate change lies and propaganda to force government by the elites, the socialists have used a media-induced hysteria over public health as their latest weapon of economic destruction.”
CBS News: Two climate activists named Gan Golan and Andrew Boyd watched as the display changed into the Climate Clock — the culmination of a two-year dream come true...Now, from left to right, the Climate Clock displays a deadline of sorts: the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds left to curb greenhouse gas emissions enough to give the Earth a two-thirds chance of staying below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, as compared to pre-industrial times. This is the goal of the international Paris Climate Agreement — a level of warming which, if we exceed, scientists say the impacts will become increasingly more disastrous...
Humanity only has a little over seven years to meet this very ambitious, and some would say unattainable, goal. But Boyd says, whether or not we choose to accept this timeline, the laws of physics don't much care. "You can't negotiate with reality. You can't negotiate with science. Scientists are telling us that the next seven years are crucial to the fate of the Earth and to humanity."
Morano: "This is climate ambulance chasing at its core, weaponizing weather events to say, look.' There’s a bad weather event here and we need a Green New Deal.' They are using science to lobby for Politics. Vote for me and I will make the weather better."
Harvard Mag: These are all important questions—but even they ignore a central certainty that no one appears to be addressing: what Dan Schrag calls “climate change’s dirty little secret.” “Even if we could become carbon-neutral tomorrow,” says the director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, “the climate will keep changing for thousands of years, the ice sheets will keep melting, and the seas will continue to rise.”
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: "So now an allegedly esteemed Harvard professor admits that controlling the climate is futile. Are we supposed to be surprised at this 'secret' that climate skeptics have always known? Even the climate activists will now have to concede that the climate will not stop changing if we refuse to enact the UN Paris pact and the Green New Deal."
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London, points out that “climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor [CO2], is as misguided as it gets. It's scientific nonsense."