Arguably we should no longer be astonished at the lengths to which journalists will go to blame climate change for problems obviously caused by other things. But even so we were especially struck by a recent piece in Climate Cosmos called “Climate-induced migration: Gaza’s displacement dilemma” because if there were anywhere on Earth where even a credulous observer might think other issues loomed larger than a barely detectable rise in temperature since 1850 it would be that one. Instead after semi-conceding that “The Gaza Strip, already beset by a myriad of challenges, faces an escalating crisis that intertwines climate change with long-standing socio-political issues” the piece proceeds to illustrate just how to write wildly distorted copy with a straight face. Starting with, and admit you saw it coming, “The climate in Gaza is changing faster than in many other parts of the world. The temperatures are rising at a rate 20% swifter than the global average.” Just like everywhere, right? So it’s useful for any journalist suddenly confronted with an editor wanting something plausible on “18 Ways Global Warming Is Reshaping Childhood in the US” or “25 Unseen Effects of Climate Change on Mental Health” and needing tips on somehow twisting the absurdly far-fetched into superficially smooth discourse.

Now someone might ask how anyone knows such a thing is happening. Just how reliable are temperature measurements in, say, Khan Younis today, and how reliable were they in 1929? Or in, say, Hebron, while not too busy staging a pogrom to write it down? But don’t be deterred.

Next comes, yes, obviously, “Gaza’s coastline is under threat from rising sea levels.” Under threat, you’ll notice. Not under water. Actual sea level rise, despite supposedly being relentless and accelerating, hasn’t caused any issues at all. But what are mere facts when speculation is available? Like that “The rising waters could displace communities living near the coast and lead to saltwater mixing with freshwater supplies.” Could. And where would these communities go, given that the strip is at most 12 km wide, and its highest point is 105 metres above sea level?

Then there’s the fact that Gaza is very densely populated despite what some call “genocide”. And of course you link it to climate: “The crowded conditions make it challenging for residents to escape or find refuge within Gaza, amplifying their vulnerability to climate impacts.”

Next, water scarcity in a desert. Naturally the fault of climate change. “Water in Gaza is as precious as gold, yet it’s becoming increasingly scarce. Climate-induced droughts and over-extraction of groundwater have led to critical shortages.” Not to spoil the mood, but Wikipedia says “Annual rainfall is higher than in any part of Egypt at between 225 mm (9 in) in the south and 400 mm (16 in) in the north, but almost all of this falls between November and February.” And wasn’t it always a desert?

Why yes. “In the Acts of the Apostles, Gaza is mentioned as being on the desert route from Jerusalem to Ethiopia.” Desert, you say. Due no doubt to Jehovah smiting its borders with carbon pollution. Or to it being a desert for a long time. Unless it was lush during the Holocene Climatic Optimum that would have been warmer than today except alarmists say it never happened?

It gets worse. “Farming in Gaza is becoming a gamble against the odds. Irregular rainfall patterns and prolonged droughts have taken a toll on agricultural yields.” Well, that and smashing up the irrigation and greenhouse infrastructure that the Israelis handed over intact when they unilaterally withdrew in 2005. Before that no problem. But you turn a few lousy water pipes into rockets and…

Well, and the place gets smashed up. Which surely has nothing to do with climate, right? Wrong. Once you go through the looking glass everything is climate, so “Years of conflict have left Gaza’s infrastructure in ruins, and climate change only compounds the problem.” Ditto health: “The convergence of poor living conditions, inadequate sanitation, and climate factors has led to increased health problems in Gaza.” Among them apparently is drowning: “For many Gazans, the option to move away from danger is severely limited. Blockades and border restrictions trap them in high-risk areas. Imagine living on a floodplain and being told you can’t leave even when the waters rise.” And do the waters rise? Didn’t you say there wasn’t water? But hey, it’s climate.

Another of their 10 factors is “International Proposals for Relocation” though they lack the chutzpah or creativity actually to link that one to climate in the text. But what with the place being run by maniacal terrorists and an eventual stern Israeli response to endless rocket fire and then a genocidal incursion, why, “The convergence of conflict and climate change has overwhelmed humanitarian efforts in Gaza.” And so “Addressing Gaza’s displacement dilemma requires a multifaceted approach that integrates climate resilience, infrastructure rehabilitation, and political solutions to ensure the safety and well-being of its residents.”

It would be an interesting exercise to apply this methodology to the problems of, say, Stalingrad in 1943 and blame them on climate. Or Troy as the Greeks sailed away chuckling about that horse. Or modern American childhood, trying to posit a wave of school closures, asthma (hint: mention smog as if it were CO2 and vice versa), huddling indoors over a device (totally climate), anxiety and stress (ditto), shorter summer ski seasons (no, really, they’ll print it) and so forth. But it wouldn’t tell you anything about climate, just about climate alarmism.