Entry 2297, on 2023-10-09 at 17:56:10 (Rating 4, News)
Before I move on from my rants about climate change hysteria, I want to do one last post on it, based on some material distributed in the mainstream media. Apparently our organisation tasked with reducing mis- and disinformation failed to notice this one. You might suggest that they are only interested in repressing free speech when it doesn't suit their own political views, but I couldn't possibly comment!
My local newspaper, the Otago Daily Times, publishes a supplement about once per week, which includes several regular features on "important" topics. One of them is a cartoon, apparently aimed at younger readers (do young people even read papers any more?), about climate change. It is called "A Change in the Weather" and varies from one-sided presentation of selected facts, to outright lies and propaganda.
The latest cartoon was particularly bad. It featured cartoon drawings of several extinct birds, which were giving warnings about climate change and its effects, and finally advice to "vote on climate" in 2023.
Some people would say this is good, because climate is an issue we should be aware of, and to vote accordingly, and I would agree. But I would like to see facts created to help voters' reach informed conclusions, not the lies and propaganda I mentioned above.
So let's have a look at the cartoon and compare it to the facts...
Frame one stated: "Extreme weather events have killed about two million people and caused about $US4.3 trillion in damages in the last half century (according to a 2023 United Nations report)".
But here are the facts they failed to mention: Deaths from natural disasters have been trending down massively since the early 1900s. According to "Our World in Data", in the 1920s, 28 people per 100,000 died from natural disasters. In the decades since then, here are the numbers (per 100,000 for subsequent decades): 21, 16, 8, 6, 3, 2, 1, 2, 1. That final 1 was for the decade of the 2010s, and all stats are rounded to the closest whole number.
So is the statement in the cartoon correct? Well, it might be, but it completely misrepresents the reality. It is at best misinformation, and at worst a deliberate lie.
Frame two stated: "According to the United Nations, there have been 11,778 weather related disasters between 1970 - 2021 with more occurring every year."
And let's look at the facts. Natural disasters peaked about 2005 and have remained fairly stable since then. There is an obvious upward trend between 1970 and 1998, but after that the curve has trended down, or stayed flat (the data is a bit noisy and it's hard to tell for sure).
So the statement again is technically true, but doesn't give the full picture. This isn't as blatantly misleading as the first item, but still worthy of some suspicion.
Here's frame three: "More than 15,000 people died in the recent flooding in Libya and last year about 33 million were affected by flooding in Pakistan, where more than 1700 people died."
As I already said, regarding frame 1, the number of deaths per 100,000 population has taken a massive fall over the last 100 years. As the population increases it is inevitable that more people will be involved when disasters happen, but this is not because of climate change, although climate change (which I believe is happening) does have an effect on the severity of some disasters.
So these numbers sound bad, but if you quote deaths from past disasters, especially in the early to mid 1900s, those would sound even worse. Again, the cartoon uses selective data to imply things are far worse than they really are.
In frame 4, we see this: "Earlier this year climate change-fueled Cyclone Gabrielle killed 11 people and caused about $14 billion in damages.
Last time I heard, experts were reluctant to blame climate change for individual events. I think it would be fair to say it might have made this cyclone worse, but the overall stats don't show this trend to be obvious globally.
Basically, the cartoon takes the interpretation of the events which fit its inherent political bias best, and fails to note any nuance or uncertainty.
In the final fame we see: "-- VOTE -- CLIMATE 2023!"
There's no specific recommendation for a party here, but most people see the left as being more "serious" about climate change, and the Green Party is particularly enthusiastic about it, so this is a clear recommendation to vote in that political direction.
So this is political propaganda, and I've never seen much balance in opinions presented on this subject in the ODT. Of course, knowing my opinion of the mainstream media, you won't be surprised to hear that this bias is exactly what I expected.
Finally, what about the birds who are providing this information? Well they include various extra bits of information, like this...
Don't become extinct like us! - extinct huia.
Of course, the extinction of the huia has nothing to do with climate change, as this seems to imply. It was already in serious decline, thanks to hunting by Maori who used the feathers, before they were finished off after settlers arrived and cleared more bush (but not as much as what Maori had already done).
Extinct giant eagle (poukai).
The Haast's eagle became extinct because of the direct and indirect influence of Maori hunting and other activities. Again, it has nothing to do with climate change, as many might think after seeing this cartoon.
Extinct adzebill.
This is yet another species which were hunted to extinction by Maori, and - you guessed it - their demise was nothing to do with climate change.
Extinct South Island kokako.
It's not clear whether this bird is actually extinct, because some credible recent sitings have been made. But this was a species hunted to near extinction by Maori, then further decimated by European settlers.
Help! im stuck! - extinct moa.
This is yet another species hunted to extinction by Maori. So maybe the message of this cartoon should be what terrible people the Maori were for the environment, rather than what a terrible thing climate change is. I think I would agree with that!
The cartoon is signed "Abe and Bee" and is from "the Weekend Mix, Otago Daily Times" on Saturday, 7 October, 2023. Could I suggest "Abe and Bee, ODT chief propagandists" might be a better choice?
Note that there was noting actually untrue in the cartoon. All the propaganda was created through implication and selection of facts. That's why we need the MSM to show us both sides.
Comment 3 by Jim Cable on 2023-10-11 at 09:35:22:
Your points on species extinction are particularly valid. However, our intractable and now-hellishly-bent media wouldn't ever endorse such actual perspectivse. Such would contest their carefully-touted versions of a glorious, reinvented history where gentle Maori lived peacefully and sustainably, eating only plants and fish, in an Eden-like, cozy wonderland.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2023-10-11 at 10:49:46:
Yes, I particularly enjoy contradicting that little fantasy many people have about pre-colonial Maori. It's the myth of the noble savage which is common in most countries. It is, of course, total BS.
Comment 5 by Anonymous on 2023-10-13 at 15:43:26:
Surely one important role of this type of media is to provoke thought and discussion. I personally don't get my facts from cartoons, but they do make me pause, evaluate, and process. Maybe you should not take them so literally and get offended so easily?
Comment 6 by OJB on 2023-10-13 at 18:10:09:
There was a clear political goal to encourage people to vote for the left, so it's not neutral information. If it was meant to be a political ad for the Greens, it should have said so.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE