The Guardian, a leftist publication based in the U.K., is facing criticism over a Sunday article that seized upon the devastation wrought in North Carolina by Hurricane Helene as an opportunity to belittle locals’ beliefs, attack President Donald Trump, and push a climate alarmist agenda.
The article was penned by the Guardian’s “senior climate justice reporter” Nina Lakhani — a British national who previously suggested that nTrump was a terrorist and a fascist; pushed the Russian collusion hoax; claimed that America’s border wall created “environmental and cultural scars”; advocated for banning white men from positions of power; and called the British monarchy a “white supremacist institution.”
After insinuating that Trump and Elon Musk were to blame for delayed disaster relief, the Guardian reporter expressed concern that in her travels through Buncombe County, North Carolina, “the climate crisis was largely absent from people’s thoughts” in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene.
Resident Twila Little Brave, for instance, told the Guardian about her struggles in the wake of the hurricane, her gratitude about being alive, and how the efforts of her community, not her government, helped her survived the ordeal.
Sharon Jarvis, a 59-year-old woman who lives on a mountain slope on the outskirts of the community, criticized the Biden administration’s disaster relief or lack thereof and noted that Christian relief groups, local churches, and other volunteer or nonprofit groups — not the government — stepped into the breach to help.
David Crowder, the pastor at a Barnardsville Baptist church, discussed tough living conditions along with potential threats to local pride and the storm’s transformation of the landscape.
Since Brave, Jarvis, and Crowder failed to furnish Lakhani with the talking points the foreign reporter needed for her preferred narrative, Lakhani clumsily shoehorned them into the piece herself with the help of fellow travelers.
‘We’ve failed to communicate this in a way that reaches some of the most vulnerable people.’
Lakhani insinuated that Brave and others who “have found comfort from attributing Helene to God’s will” were ignoramuses, noting that “the science is clear: the intensity of the wind and rain during Helene was supercharged by the climate crisis, and the frequency and severity of such storms will increase as the planet continues to warm — driven by the world’s dependence on the burning of fossil fuels.”
While dismissive of locals’ religious beliefs, Lakhani appeared more than willing to accept as gospel truth an assertion from Thomas Karl, the former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information, that might rely on misleading and inaccurate claims.
Lakhani shared Karl’s belief that “these events will become more intense and stronger. But somehow we’ve failed to communicate this in a way that reaches some of the most vulnerable people, while they’re getting false information from places they trust.”
The government watchdog group Protect the Public’s Trust noted in a complaint last year that the NOAA’s Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters tracking project relies on economic data and cannot as a consequence “distinguish the effect of climate change as a factor on disaster losses from the effect of human factors like increases in the vulnerability and exposure of people and wealth to disaster damages due to population and economic growth.”
‘This is a vile, mean-spirited article.’
The so-called Billions Project not only has been been cited in over 1,200 articles but has been characterized by the U.S. Global Change Research Program as a “climate change indicator” and had its data cited in 2023 as evidence that “extreme events are becoming more frequent and severe” in the same federal program’s “Fifth National Climate Assessment.”
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. noted in a study published June in the Springer Nature journal npj Natural Hazards:
NOAA incorrectly claims that for some types of extreme weather, the dataset demonstrates detection and attribution of changes on climate timescales. Similarly flawed are NOAA’s claims that increasing annual counts of billion dollar disasters are in part a consequence of human caused climate change. NOAA’s claims to have achieved detection and attribution are not supported by any scientific analysis that it has performed.
Despite outstanding questions about the veracity of claims of intensifying weather, Lakhani framed Karl’s statement as the “clear science,” then echoed his concern about the germination of alternate viewpoints regarding the storm and broader weather patterns.
Lakhani complained that “false rumors and conspiracy theories,” as well as “fossil fuel-friendly” narratives, appear “to resonate among even those directly hit by floods and fires.”
When criticizing so-called “disinformation,” Lakhani turned to a fellow traveler to shore up her narrative — Sean Buchan, the so-called research director at the leftist censorship outfit Climate Action Against Disinformation.
Buchan appeared to insinuate that rural North Carolinians and other disaster-struck Americans were not smart enough to grasp “climate science” because it is “complicated and nuanced and requires patience.” As a result of locals’ supposed inability to understand what he and Lakhani believe to be true, Buchan suggested that “propagandists and bad actors will show up in person or online to fill the information vacuum.”
Matt Van Swol, a former nuclear scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River National Laboratory, called the Guardian article “absolutely disgusting.”
“This is a vile, mean-spirited article from The Guardian,” continued Van Swol. “Everything mountain-folk HATE about big city reporters is covered in this article.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Read the full article here
