Here in Australia, the country’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has been towing the climate alarmism line for quite a while now, and here we present an extremely clear case of the institution’s unethical, illogical and clearly agenda-driven approach to informing the country’s citizens.
The BOM provides many data services and information channels, and of course a key theme of these is climate change, especially in recent years.
It’s just that, do you think such information is presented in a balanced way? Covering all key aspects, and all relevant data?
Of course not!
But don’t take our word for it; we’ll try to lay some of this out for you.
Let’s begin with the BOM Weather Services page…
Notice any trends there, any key themes?
Some may think “actually, that looks pretty normal to me”, but upon closer inspection… let us offer some unbiased, objective commentary to point out a few interesting aspects:
Amidst all the scary, ‘severe’ weather links and topics, doesn’t it seem a bit fire and brimstone heavy?
Any mention of cold weather at all? Of coldwaves, of winter storms, of frost damage, of perhaps a freezing-my-balls-off factor, of essentially anything to do with when the weather turns cold in Australia, as it does?
Cold is the key temperature-related cause of death globally, as anyone with even a modicum of common sense and who has ever slept without a blanket on a cold night could surmise.
This data, of course, includes Australia, and even the generally biased ABC has to admit such facts, as clearly detailed in this article, as just one example – Fact check: Do more people die in Australia than Sweden due to poorly heated homes?.
Depending on how you look at it, and on which figures from those two reports you consider, cold-related deaths are quite clearly 10-20 times higher than for heat…
Yet that doesn’t distract the BOM, which is clearly a heat-only-focused meteorology and natural hazards organisation, it seems…
We wonder why?…
Digging deeper into the BOM website, let’s jump into the good old ‘Heatwave Knowledge Centre’, which stands alone as a section, with no equivalent cold-focused page covering the much more dangerous lower temperature factors.
From there, let’s click through to the ‘Understanding Heatwaves‘ page, again, an outlier with no ‘cold’ equivalent (in fact, the word ‘coldwave’ appears just once on the BOM site!* ‘Cold snap’ appears 34 times… Not surprisingly, ‘heatwave’ appears a cool (no pun intended) 716 times).
Now, we grant that this heatwave information page is clearly an essential community service, particularly given all of those people just dropping like flies from heat on a regular basis (sarcasm – even the most delusional studies can only find about 20 ‘heat-related’ deaths per year in Australia – source – miniscule in relation to cold-related deaths in Australia, as also highlighted clearly in the image below.
But we digress…
So, as we begin our ‘Understanding Heatwaves’ in Australia education, what is this, at the top of the page?!:
Severe and extreme heatwaves have claimed more lives than any other natural hazard in Australia1. Heatwaves can be dangerous because they pose health risks to the most vulnerable, such as elderly people and very young children. Heatwaves can also affect the transport, agriculture and energy sectors and associated infrastructure. So, when is it a heatwave, rather than just hot, and how will you know if one is on the way?
The BOM website
Here is how this big, sweeping statement is presented on the BOM site:
But, but, say what??? Are you referring to ALL natural hazards???
Surely that’s the case, and certainly includes hazards related to cold weather, surely, right?…
A-ha…
Not only has the classy, impeccably-credentialed BOM chosen the wonderfully-titled report “Exploring 167 years of vulnerability: An examination of extreme heat events in Australia 1844–2010” as the source for this sweeping statement about ‘natural hazards’ – but it has even pasted the quote in a nice little highlighted box, with no clutter or distractions close by, to maximize the hypnosis… What a totally balanced and objective source for their key reference on this topic!!!
Perhaps, and we’re just guessing here, such an article is not the best way for the BOM to compare ALL natural hazards, and ensure accurate and balanced coverage, right?!
But wait, there’s more.
Without going through the full reference article (but by all means, please do), we see another level of deception, as Alice continues her descent….
As shown in the table below, even when the authors of that article seek to compare the fatality totals of ‘other’ Australian natural hazards, a seemingly all-encompassing, inclusive approach right (?), do you think that natural hazards involving cold are counted, or even mentioned???
Of course not, don’t be silly.
Here’s the main comparison table used in the article:
Why no ‘extreme cold’, or even perhaps just a snow, or frost, or hypothermia-related category??
We suppose it’s a little cold when it hails and rains and is windy – perhaps that’s supposed to cover some of the cold-related deaths, even if not explicitly…
Either way, to make this very clear, it is quite mind-boggling that the BOM would rely on this article when even the most basic of statistics and data from the government itself shows cold is clearly a more dangerous factor than heat, even in sunny, sunburnt Australia!
But neither the BOM nor its favourite heatwave-researching groupies barely even use the word cold, anywhere.
Imagine our shock!!!
Are we taking crazy pills or something?
Perhaps cold weather (snaps or waves or snow or whatever) is not considered natural? Or not a hazard?
So, trying to get this straight:
We have the BOM, Australia’s top body for climate and meteorology, referencing an article that does not include any analysis of cold-related deaths at all, and barely even mentions cold weather, to make a prominent statement about natural hazards in Australia.
As the mainstream media likes to say, is this all now debunked?
Are the BOM’s claims, by not referencing natural cold-related hazards at all, considered ‘baseless’ and ‘unfounded’ and ‘without evidence’???
Well, perhaps we’re a bit naïve expecting something like that to happen.
What’s worse than all the above, however, is the fact that BOM’s very clear and SEO-optimised statement, which feels a bit like a clarion call, leaves very little doubt that in their fantasy world they really, really, really think, or at least want everyone to believe they think, that heatwave deaths are the most common form of natural hazard-related deaths in Australia. Even in the face of a crap ton of evidence to the contrary, as detailed many times above.
We expect, if questioned, the BOM would say something like:
“No comment, we stand by our website and our experts, and we don’t need to discuss any of this further… And don’t you ignorant, non-sciencey people ever forget that!”
The BOM
But that raises an even more serious issue:
The flow on effect where such a statement, made by a lofty and unquestionably professional institution, is certain to be referenced by other articles and reports, all in the name of climate alarmism.
Multiply and extrapolate many, many times over, across myriad articles, reports and statements, and you start to see the extent of the problem.
Damn. It hurts just to write this, let alone work through the implications, in your head…. seriously….
The more you look into these things, the more it all reeks of corruption and/or ignorance and/or arrogance…
Simple climate alarmism and activism is just the tip of the iceberg once you’ve uncovered these levels of coordination and deception…
*Very interestingly, the only time that the word ‘coldwave’ appears on the BOM site is in a relatively ancient (2013 – pre much of the ongoing climate hysteria…) article called “Defining heatwaves: heatwave defined as a heat impact event servicing all community and business sectors in Australia”.
In this fairly important looking report, the term coldwave even has its own sub-section, plus a few sections covering historic coldwaves:
Isn’t it quite strange that, despite such a sub-section and definition in an official looking report, which uses the world ‘coldwave’ a full 36 times and also describes several extreme weather events, natural hazards it would seem, involving coldwaves, the word appears absolutely nowhere else on the BOM website, the country’s top meteorology reference and information source??
Curious… Almost like there’s been a directive not to use such a term, and/or discuss cold weather…
Looks like the BOM propaganda guardians missed one – and the exception proves the rule, right…
And, just incase this report disappears at some point, here’s the downloaded version:
Primate v. Climate 