This claim is inaccurate and misleading.
First, the graphics used are from this report I found on the IPCC website. Honestly, I do not feel qualified to interpret the data here in a complete fashion, but I can say this: whoever drew on the red and blue arrows chose not to interpret a clear difference in the data shown. From my understanding the lines show localized, average, temperature data, and it seems clear to me that starting sometime around the late 1900’s and moving into the 2000’s global average temperatures all spiked higher and faster than any of the previous cycles. For the most part, it is safe to assume that claims made by climate change skeptics on the topic are false; Climate Change is happening, and it is greatly influenced by human behavior. This is a particularly ironic example of this kind of claim, because the information needed to disprove it is included in the claim! This isn’t a dig made at anyone who couldn’t see that, like the 157 people who liked this tweet, IPCC reports and sources are great, but they can be hard to interpret for people who aren’t experts. My favorite resource for accessible science information is Crash Course. Its free, made with an audience of middle and high school students in mind (meaning it is very accessible), and they do an awesome job at citing their sources. Here’s a link to the Crash Course page on Climate and Energy, if anyone is interested.
Next, the portion of the claim which says: “The UN exaggerated… effectively convincing people…” seems to imply that the UN is a nefarious actor intentionally misleading its audience and utilizing its position as an international organization to do so. This just isn’t true. The IPCC is a part of the UN, that is true, but the IPCC isn’t just making claims with no supporting evidence. The purpose of the IPCC is to interpret and compile academic literature about climate change. Their process is very transparent and is backed every step of the way by empirical evidence and a clear and open process. I’ll link their about page here, but the IPCC is generally a very reliable source for information about climate science.
Lastly, the account which posted this claim to twitter is highly suspicious. They post generally inaccurate claims on a variety of topics and mix it up with bigotry every few posts. On top of that, the incoherent string of letters which come after “True Science” in the account name seem to me like they are trying to imitate professional credentials, like: “Doctor Jill Smith, MD.” For the most part, I think these acronyms are just gibberish. I cannot find any other information on this account or who tends to it.
Ultimately, this claim is false, and does not come from a reliable source. It was fun to look into, so thanks for posting it Seth!
