This fraud, using the *same* data has been going on for a few years now.
We know it's a fraud because you cannot accidentally produce the UN's claim in good faith.
We know it's a fraud because you cannot accidentally produce the UN's claim in good faith.
https://twitter.com/thegwpfcom/status/1316338154258018305
The New Climate Economy report produced by @NewClimateEcon, which is part of @WorldResources and chaired by Nick Stern is a project that cost the UK taxpayer £millions.
I emailed @NewClimateEcon and the @WorldResources to point out their error. I also emailed the UK government department that had given our £millions to them.
No correction was issued. No reply was given.
It's pure propaganda.
No correction was issued. No reply was given.
It's pure propaganda.
Others who noted the same error identified the source of it as billionaire hedge fund manager, Jeremy Grantham's newsletter.
Nick Stern is also chair of the Grantham Institute, which is the sister organisation of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP), which Stern also chairs.
In other words, the public pays £millions more for research that the billionaire gets credit for.
In other words, the public pays £millions more for research that the billionaire gets credit for.
It also means the billionaire gets a huge team of "researchers" to lobby in the interests of his investment portfolio.
That's how it works.
That's how it works.
The report demanded $90 trillion, and said there would be $26 trillion of benefits.
A modest ask, right...
It claimed there would be benefits.
But the only people who would gain are the likes of Jeremy Grantham and his cronies.
A modest ask, right...
It claimed there would be benefits.
But the only people who would gain are the likes of Jeremy Grantham and his cronies.
As I pointed out, that's $12,093 per person in the world. That's more than the average GDP per capita.
In other words, the green billionaires wanted a year of servitude from each and every person.
In other words, the green billionaires wanted a year of servitude from each and every person.
Previously, the researchers at cred.be were cautious about the interpretation of results. But it seems that epidemiologists are bound to bend their science to suit politics.
Here's a vivid demonstration of the fraud. Blue line is drought occurrences from the CRED EM-DAT database.
OMG CASES ARE RISING EXPONENTIALLY!
The orange line shows the mortality of the events, which must be seen also in the context of a +200% increase in population.
OMG CASES ARE RISING EXPONENTIALLY!
The orange line shows the mortality of the events, which must be seen also in the context of a +200% increase in population.
You cannot *accidentally* produce that error if you have a background in epidemiology.
It is *manifestly* bad faith.
It is *manifestly* bad faith.
It is *academics* and *scientists* who are engaged in this *wilful* distortion of reality.
Not orange presidents. Not oil companies. Not uncouth Brexiteers. Not the intellectual dark web. Not the 'far right'. Not deniers.
Not orange presidents. Not oil companies. Not uncouth Brexiteers. Not the intellectual dark web. Not the 'far right'. Not deniers.
But it has been going on for a while. This is data from a 2002 WHO report that the WHO and UN and countless NGOs still use today to claim that "climate change is the biggest problem facing mankind.
And here's my reanalysis of the same data, to put it into order of risk relative to climate change.
That WHO analysis was from 2002. The risk of climate change was calculated from a %age of malaria, malnutrition and diarrheal diseases.
We know that these diseases claim far fewer lives now, even than in 2002. So we know that the risk of climate change has diminished.
We know that these diseases claim far fewer lives now, even than in 2002. So we know that the risk of climate change has diminished.
I often get challenged: "what are your credentials?" -- as I "only" have a BA degree.
Here they are:
* Basic arithmetic.
* Basic comprehension.
* Basic reasoning.
That's all you need to see that academics, scientists and UN agencies bend the facts to suit political agendas.
Here they are:
* Basic arithmetic.
* Basic comprehension.
* Basic reasoning.
That's all you need to see that academics, scientists and UN agencies bend the facts to suit political agendas.
This figure, too, was used by the @LancetCountdown to claim that risks are increasing, to urge political action on climate change.
You don't need a science degree to realise that the data shows the opposite of what the scientists say.
You don't need a science degree to realise that the data shows the opposite of what the scientists say.
They ignore observations, and say things like [paraphrasing] 'the risk of malaria has increased because climate change has created conditions that increase the possible range of the mosquito'...
Or claims like [paraphrasing, again] 'despite annual bumper food crops, the risk of food shortages has increased because extreme weather threatens food production'.
They have to wilfully, consciously, deliberately ignore the data in front of them.
They have to wilfully, consciously, deliberately ignore the data in front of them.
That is pure *ideology* in motion.
It says, "ignore the data, what does our theory say reality is doing?"
It says, "ignore the data, what does our theory say reality is doing?"
Ideology says "the theory is more real than the data. Ignore the facts."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
