Time for the UN to get out of climate change

Negotiators and Secretary General continue to ignore scientists and public opinion


OTTAWA, Dec. 13, 2014 /CNW/ – “Climate change negotiators in Lima, Peru seemed oblivious to the findings of the UN’s ongoing My World survey about what the people of the world really want the agency to focus on,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). “The seven million people polled so far indicate that, in comparison with issues such as education, health care, jobs, and energy, they care very little about climate change.”

“Perhaps most out of touch with reality is the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself who on Wednesday asserted that climate change remains his ‘top priority’,” continued Harris.

ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia explained, “That ‘action taken on climate change’ rates dead last among the 16 priorities the public wants to see action on is not surprising.  They understand that the remote possibility of human activity contributing to climate problems decades from now is unimportant in comparison with the very real problems faced by the world’s poor today.

“During the UN Climate Change Conferences in 2007, 2009, and 2012, hundreds of climate experts endorsed open letters (see here) to Mr. Ban explaining his mistakes on the science,” said Carter. “Among the scientific luminaries signing the letters were Dr. Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists; Freeman J. Dyson of Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies; Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor of natural sciences, Warsaw; and Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“The Secretary General did not even acknowledge receipt of our open letters, let alone address any of our points,” concluded Carter.

New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor asked, “How can anyone take Mr. Ban seriously after he asserted on Tuesday that ‘Science has not only spoken – it is shouting from the rooftops. Our planet has a fever – and it is getting hotter every day.’

“Not only is climate science highly uncertain but there has been no statistically significant global warming for 18 years despite a 9% rise in carbon dioxide to a still miniscule 0.04% of our atmosphere,” said Dunleavy. “As the scientists explained in their 2012 open letter to Mr. Ban, ‘Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years.'”

In his 2014 book “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science“, ICSC science advisory board member and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Tim Ball summed up the situation well: “Climate change has happened, is happening and will always happen. Contrary to the message of the last thirty years, current rate of climate change is well within the bounds of natural variability. Thus, a perfectly natural phenomenon became the biggest deception in history.”

“The UN must get out of the climate field entirely,” said Ball. “In particular, their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Framework Convention on Climate Change have always been biased political instruments and should be immediately disbanded. Then the agency should focus only on issues the people of the world deem important.”

To arrange interviews with ICSC participants (listed here), contact:  

Tom Harris, Executive Director, ICSC

Ottawa, Canada

Email: tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net 

Phone: 613-728-9200


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 13, 2014 2:24 pm

That they’re ignoring public opinion is especially unsurprising, given that the reaction to shifts in public opinion is “the ignorant sheeple don’t know what’s good for them, so we have to decide for them.”

Reply to  LordCaledus
December 13, 2014 7:57 pm

The public policy extortion vector is simple – what can we demand the most money for and have to show the least output from?
“Climate Change” will always be top on that list. There is no other policy issue that can top its extortion ratio (funds demanded / results delivered). I can’t imagine an issue that could top it. Even arming the planet against asteroids – you’d have to actually produce a weapon and test it.
Climate Change output? That is like hanging out at the Craps Table with a rabbit’s foot. Good roll? Rabbit’s foot. Bad roll? Just wait and see. Every alarmist paper/press release is just another Rabbit’s foot.

michael hart
Reply to  Charlie Johnson (@SemperBanU)
December 13, 2014 8:32 pm

“extortion vector”

That’s a nice turn of phrase.

Reply to  Charlie Johnson (@SemperBanU)
December 14, 2014 2:13 pm

michael hart
December 13, 2014 at 8:32 pm
I concur. Lovely. Must use it myself.
It would be good if our elected representative were required to write out (in actual handwriting, – not type once, copy & paste) –
extortion vector – a short definition of Climate Disruption [or whatever might be the watermelons’ preferred meme that hour . . . .]
No sarc. No apologies.

Reply to  LordCaledus
December 14, 2014 5:53 am

There’s no money to be had from addressing the “other issues” that people deemed to be more important.
They still view climate-change funding as a “slam-dunk”, and people like our current U.S. pres continue to add credibility to that belief…

Reply to  LordCaledus
December 15, 2014 5:09 am

The Plan is to get a Climate Treaty that means World Government/International Socialism claiming it’s needed to stop climate change(sic)

Randy Kaas
December 13, 2014 2:27 pm

Far too much money involved for the UN to drop this particular cash cow.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  Randy Kaas
December 13, 2014 4:26 pm

Money is out playing the Science. Climate Change is used as a bargaining market, a nail in the science of climate.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Gunga Din
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
December 14, 2014 12:42 pm

I know that English is your second language. Forgive me for rephrasing your comment and please correct me if I have it wrong.
You said, “Money is out playing the Science. Climate Change is used as a bargaining market, a nail in the science of climate.”
I think what you meant is more like, “Money has overpowered the Science. “Climate Change” is used as a way to make money, a stake in the heart of the Science of climate.”
Again, please correct me if I have the intent of your comment wrong. I’ve no intent to twist your meaning.

Brian H
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
December 18, 2014 3:03 pm

Instead of “out, playing the science”, out-playing the science. 😉

Reply to  Randy Kaas
December 13, 2014 4:56 pm

Actually, it is not money keeping the UN pushing the global warming hoax now. Originally they had hoped to levy extra-sovereign climate taxes on the developed nations and “re-distribute it under a framework of UN global governance”. What they were after was a guaranteed income for their kleptocracy just as they tried with their failed “law of the sea”. It is now clear that they are not going to get a guaranteed income from the global warming hoax. The reason the UN continues to push the propaganda is because they are now in a fight for their very survival.
The UN should have dropped the issue over a decade ago, but they pressed on chasing the dangling carrot of “climate debt”, with no regard to the consequences of pushing a lie this big in the age of the Internet. Now they are stuck with no exit strategy. It’s too late to swap to “Bio-crisis” or “Sustainability”. Manufacturing a “Fresh water crisis” won’t help. They have gone way, way too far to get away with just throwing the WMO and IPCC under the wheels. There is no net radiative GHE on this planet, therefore there can be no “less than we thought” soft landing for the hoax. This gravy train is not going to run out of steam, it’s going to crash.

Jimmy Finley
Reply to  Konrad
December 13, 2014 7:37 pm

One hopes you are correct. And, the sooner the better

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Konrad
December 14, 2014 1:14 am

I don’t think you quite understand the forces behind this scam. Look at what happened in Aus recently when they decided not to pay the UN climate extortion. They paid in the end.
This is extortion by a gang of terrorists called Greenpîss, FoE and WWF lead by the plonker prince and all funded by governments around the world.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Konrad
December 14, 2014 3:53 am

They are behaving just the same as the EU. They are desperate to get their own direct income stream so that they don’t have to keep going cap in hand to the subjugated nations for more money. The auditors have refused to sign off their annual accounts for accuracy for so long that I think the last time they did there was some global warming.

Reply to  Konrad
December 14, 2014 6:55 am

Good point but lets take it a step further: are nation states in this with the UN for the same reason? Take Germany for example: how much money have they taken out of the system and out of their citizens pockets. Does anyone believe for one minute those in power are going to say “Oops, sorry made a mistake”? It will take another mini ice-age and even then the powers that be will try to blame that on AGW.

Reply to  Konrad
December 15, 2014 5:14 am

Greenpiss and World War on Freedom

Reply to  Randy Kaas
December 13, 2014 6:14 pm

Hmm. Just need even more arsenic for that cash cow.
(FMiskolczi2014 from Geodetic and Geophysical Institute):
Some say that is the right potion. I tend to agree.

Frans Franken
Reply to  wayne
December 14, 2014 3:57 am

Thanks for pointing at this beautiful Christmas present. In the prelude to the conclusions of FM’s new paper (p. 49):
“Considering the temporal and areal variability in the local water vapor content of an air column, one has to admit that the Earth’s atmosphere possesses enormous stability against fluctuations in its global average flux optical thickness. In our understanding, the source of this stability is related to two natural causes. One is the favourable orbital parameters of the Earth, and the other is the permanent presence of the three phases of the H2O in the boundary layer.”
In the conclusions:
“The only solution to the Earth’s ground surface temperature is […] = 288.6 +/– 0.1 K.”
15.45 +/– 0.1 degrees Celsius independent of CO2; and that’s it.

old construction worker
Reply to  Randy Kaas
December 13, 2014 6:15 pm

“Far too much money …”
Nope. Its party time on somebodies else’s dime.

December 13, 2014 2:34 pm
Reply to  deebodk
December 13, 2014 4:10 pm


Reply to  deebodk
December 13, 2014 4:26 pm

Can’t play hockey with that stick!

Reply to  Stewart Lovell
December 13, 2014 7:17 pm

You miss the point. Now they are playing ring hockey

December 13, 2014 2:35 pm

They understand that the remote possibility of human activity contributing to climate problems decades from now is unimportant in comparison with the very real problems faced by the world’s poor today.

Not quite. Climate change policies ARE a very real problem for the world’s poor because they are bearing the brunt of the h*ll caused by lack of affordable power preventing from moving themselves into even the 20th century much less the 21st. They are also starved by lack of fuel for agriculture and the absolute crime of industrialized nations forcing their population to burn food in their vehicle fuel tanks thereby driving the price of food even higher.

Gary Meyers
Reply to  nielszoo
December 13, 2014 4:14 pm


Reply to  nielszoo
December 13, 2014 5:16 pm

Thank you for the reminder ! [Biofuels – they are a joke for the poor]

Reply to  nielszoo
December 14, 2014 4:09 am

Next time you read or hear

Thousands of marchers demand just solution at UN climate talks in Lima
Guardian 10 December 2014

remind them that MILLIONS more around the world demand action on good education, better healthcare, better job opportunities, good governance, affordable and nutritious food, crime…..
The climate clamour among ordinary folk in the west is largely a comfortable, Western style luxury some can afford. The world has spoken and it’s time to act on many issues before considering climate. Imagine you are poor and cannot afford to send you 8 year old to school. Imagine you go to bed most evenings hungry. I could go on and on but maybe try not having lunch and dinner and let us know how you feel the next day.

Gary Hagland
December 13, 2014 2:39 pm

The science doesn’t matter with the UN. Climate change is only a pretext for carrying out its redistributionist schemes after taking a generous cut of the proceeds.
““…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”- IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer (2010)
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” — Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Issues and U.S. Senate Chamber temperature adjuster

Reply to  Gary Hagland
December 13, 2014 5:48 pm

I’m missing something pretty big here.
I get the fundamental science and I realize that we don’t understand “climate science” or rather, we who accept it, appreciate that there are multitudes of chaotic systems driven by the sun and the oceans . . . and
I realize that CO2 = bad so coal, oil, natural gas = bad (not true of course, but that’s the agenda) and I realize that those assumptions are not being driven by science but by plastic, idiotic, and ridiculous models that are taken to produce some fictional results that drive policy.
How does this redistribute wealth? (Obviously I don’t do political or social “science”.)
Are we going to take the oil money and give solar to Nigeria (they already have that, but other issues), with UN taking ransom along the way?
Or is it all of our money paying for expensive renewables that is to be taken where??? Just shuffled into the next global derivates gamble?

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 13, 2014 5:58 pm

sorry – derivatives – don’t do spelling well. Originally an English major, ya know?

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 13, 2014 6:03 pm

The money will be shuffled off into Swiss bank accounts as the UN and its many branches are literally accountable to no one, just like the EUSSR.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 13, 2014 7:14 pm

It’s pretty simple: Carbon taxes for CO2.emissions. Fuel taxes on any carbon based fuel. there there are the oddball approaches like the Pacific Island which tried to get compensation for ‘rising sea levels’, and the carbon-credit market. For example, did you know that the only reason Tesla is profitable is because they sell California emission credits to other car makers?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 14, 2014 5:23 am

Impoverish and destroy western capitalism, free enterprise by shutting down cheap energy. Quote from Maurice Strong, the guy who created the UN framework on environment, the Rio conference, Kyoto, and the CO2 bogeyman itself (well he didn’t invent this but he latched on to it as he saw that this was the perfect vehicle to serve his new world order purpose).
“Isn’t it the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
This Canadian guy, who wants elites through the UN as a world government, is very bright and dangerous even though all he got was a high school education. He lives in China, a country he has admired for decades. Google his biography – he was a big player in the mining and oil industries.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 14, 2014 5:36 am

Bubba Cow
…How does this redistribute wealth? (Obviously I don’t do political or social “science”.)…

It has always been about the money. The UN will never let a good ‘crisis’ go to waste.

UN IPCC Official Admits ‘We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy’
….Such was originally published by Germany’s NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:…..
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 14, 2014 5:59 am

You’d first have to figure out where all of the “Money for food” program dollars went in the MidEast, that the U.N. was in charge of.
Good luck with that.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 14, 2014 6:31 am

Bubba. I suggest you try some online research before they censure the web….

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 14, 2014 8:52 am

AS a CANADIAN I am ashamed by Strong who has been hiding in China after the UN oil for food rip off in

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 15, 2014 4:37 am

Thanks to all who have provided the economic background. Really.
I’ve been pretty busy catching up with the real science and the dangerous modelling.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 15, 2014 1:24 pm

Dear Bubba:
The UN wants $200 Billion Per YEAR from the ‘developed’ world as climate reparations. That money (some of which has already be promised by Obama) will be ‘redistributed’ (minus some grease to sticky fingers at the UN) to ‘needy people’… i.e. the friends, relatives, and cronies of the UN members… That’s how.

Reply to  Gary Hagland
December 13, 2014 7:11 pm

sorry that I asked a serious question. uncalled for.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 13, 2014 7:32 pm

still asking for a real anwer

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 13, 2014 8:24 pm

The UN will supposedly redistribute all that tithe from individual carbon taxes to those countries disadvantaged by AGW. Sinking islands, not enough rain, too much rain.
Of course there will be administrative costs along the way that will have to be factored in. Corrupt governments to pay, before any gets to the affected populace etc.

Gary Hagland
Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 13, 2014 10:45 pm

The scam works like this. It’s a direct transfer of wealth. Right now, the UN’s Conference of the Parties being held in Lima, Peru is at the point of collapse because the poorer nations are angry that the richer nations aren’t meeting the $15 billion goal set by the UN for this year that was to go to its Climate Fund. China and India are especially upset. Climate Fund money is supposedly earmarked for projects in third world countries to help them reduce their CO2 emissions. However, only $10 billion has been committed. And I don’t think that will be met as Obama’s contribution was to be $3.3 billion, but he now has to deal with a Republican Congress. In 2009, the rich nations promised to provide $100 billion a year in funding. Doubt that will happen.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 13, 2014 11:05 pm

Bubba — A significant part of the scam is the UN’s urging the formation of a $100-billion-per-year fund (by the “Rich” countries) to be turned over the “developing” countries, since they don’t have fully-developed energy infrastuctures. It’s presumably to help with the costs of developing green systems. If that ever got off the ground, of course any funds left over would be pretty minor after the UN picks off its ‘administrative levies’, and the kleptocrats running about a hundred third-world countries squirrel away the big chunks.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 14, 2014 4:40 am

Bubba: You ask where are the funds to be allocated?
A review of the UN FCC Background Paper entitled “INVESTMENT AND FINANCIAL FLOWS TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE” provides the answers.
This paper describes (as but one of many “funds”) the establishment of a funding transfer vehicle entitled:
China, India and the Russian Federation are likely to receive the most under the RAF formula, followed by Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, followed by a group of countries that includes Argentina, Egypt, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Romania, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Venezuela (GEF, 2005b).”
$100 Billion and that is just the start of the Wealth Transfer plan.
“IPCC Official Climate Policy Is Redistributing the World’s Wealth
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 14, 2014 5:44 am

Bubba, WUWT covered the interview too.

“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” – Ottmar Edenhofer

For those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.

Adam Gallon
December 13, 2014 2:42 pm

They’ve got jack-all else to do.

Walt D.
December 13, 2014 2:45 pm

UN Church of Global Warming – leader Ban Ki-moon – the new “Moonies”.

Reply to  Walt D.
December 13, 2014 2:52 pm

Instead of “Would you like to buy a flower?”
“Thank-you for the bouquet” (stolen at gun-point).
Nah…They would never say Thank-you

Reply to  Fraizer
December 13, 2014 3:49 pm

Cue up the bouquet scene from Sherlock Holmes:
Irene’s exit strategy.
I could not disagree with this article more. The UN has no business in our domestic “education, health care, jobs, and energy” policy. Quite the contrary.
Because of the “Supremacy Clause” in the Constitution, treaties with the UN trump state law and have resulted in a Federal invasion into domestic policies and decisions made by voters, where the feds have no jurisdiction. This gives a dastardly crew of member countries of the UN, which are not economically, politically, or religiously free, the ability to change domestic policy set by the states. Even treaties which are not ratified are routinely used by activist judges to decide cases. I think a proper exit strategy for the US to leave the UN is what is needed. (And we should take the bouquet.)

December 13, 2014 2:48 pm

Dr. Ball is clearly over the target. He should be seen as academic hero for his stance. Flax only comes from guarded positions. He has been tacking it and with honor will likely continue to do so.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  eyesonu
December 13, 2014 5:46 pm

Ball (wrong post) & flax (wrong word); (2 of 3)
Try again, please.

Reply to  eyesonu
December 13, 2014 5:48 pm

I think you meant “flak” (German acronym for Anti-Aircraft Artillery). The “flax” would be the poor moral fiber of those who are *linen* their pockets with our green stuff…

Reply to  eyesonu
December 14, 2014 12:53 am

I missed the boat on that one. Sorry 😉

Stephen Richards
Reply to  eyesonu
December 14, 2014 1:21 am

The boat, the barn, the planet 🙂

Reply to  eyesonu
December 14, 2014 7:14 pm

Fortunately, we have impaled on you to fix it.
[Please do not impale on the very people you have imposed a pale into while fixing a pail upon their pale. 8<) .mod]

December 13, 2014 2:53 pm

One thing to remember is that the ultimate purpose of the UN is to rule the world. Not today or tomorrow perhaps, but someday. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (aka “Climate Change”) is just the sort of global battle to “save humanity” that the UN needs to expand its power over the various nations and thereby over the 7 billion people on this planet. The USA started as a weak, decentralized republic and grew year by year into the world spanning empire that it is today. The US Empire was not built in a day.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
H. L. Mencken

The answer is to dismantle the beast.

Reply to  markstoval
December 13, 2014 3:59 pm

Maybe some UN fanatics have this idea, hardly anyone else. The UN to rule China and USA?
I think they would get their funding cut before any sort of empire was built.

Reply to  ConTrari
December 13, 2014 4:17 pm

Nearly the same thing was once said about the central government of the USA and look where we are now. Nowadays very few even know that at one time the USA was a union of independent states who all felt they could leave the union at any time and also felt that they could overrule any federal law or mandate. Nullification anyone?
The process for the UN is a very gradual one. Step one is to find a way to impose taxes on the various states. Taxation is always key to the process. Carbon taxes anyone?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  ConTrari
December 13, 2014 5:02 pm

Dictatorship 101:
First you take their money.
Then you take their guns.
Then you can easily take their freedoms.

Reply to  ConTrari
December 13, 2014 5:50 pm

Yes! Read Agenda 21. Read UNEP and UNCED UN-WIDER, UNFCCC ‘global warming’ history.
what do handguns have to do with climate? – the UN
Police need armored military vehicles for defense against constitutionalists with firearms.

A C Osborn
Reply to  ConTrari
December 14, 2014 4:28 am

Try reading about UN Agenda 21 and then come back.

Reply to  markstoval
December 14, 2014 9:11 am

We have to kill the people to save the people , I for one say CANADA dump the UN that we helped to start it’s out of control ISIS will be the next member , Wait 6 months and see ;>(

December 13, 2014 2:55 pm

U.N Climate Change Summit Goes Crazy After China Refuses To Curb Its Own Pollution

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Latitude
December 13, 2014 6:59 pm

Latitude, ah, did you notice the ad to the left of the article? Asking to donate “ahem” BAIL MONEY. with a big button labaled “Donate” prehaps it’s just me.

December 13, 2014 2:57 pm

The UN is not a democracy, and they don’t care what “the people” want. Not even in the slightest.
In the eyes of the UN, you are nothing but a potential money source, to be told where you can go and what you can do, and eventually to die, hopefully without leaving any footprints or offspring.
If ever there was a force of pure evil set upon this planet, worse than Communism or National Socialism, it is the horror of the United Nations.

Reply to  CodeTech
December 13, 2014 3:39 pm

Lima Peru, Paris, Copenhagen, CanCun, these are all FUNDRAISERS for UN slush funds that have no accountability! By the way, if humans solidly control world temperatures, did they “Pause”?

Reply to  CodeTech
December 13, 2014 4:56 pm

The United Nations is Communism and National Socialism

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  O H Dahlsveen
December 13, 2014 6:15 pm

It wants to be Plato’s Republic

Reply to  O H Dahlsveen
December 14, 2014 12:31 am

Didn’t Plato see a perfect society as consisting of a large, unarmed proletariat of farmers and commoners, controlled by a professional military, and all ruled by a small aristocracy?
The UN would like to step in as the aristocrisy. They certainly act like it, wanting an unarmed populace.

Reply to  O H Dahlsveen
December 14, 2014 1:31 pm

““all these women shall be wives in common to all the men, and not one of them shall live privately with any man; the children too should be held in common so that no parent shall know which is his own offspring, and no child shall know his parent”” (Plato)
(He didn’t invent it BTW)
Also interesting
“Our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects” (Plato)

Reply to  DirkH
December 14, 2014 4:58 pm

And to think that Plato* is the source of what is known about Socrates. In reality, Karl Popper has done conclusive work in showing that Plato shamelessly used the dead philosopher as a sock puppet.
Socrates believed in the ability of all to become educated and wise, and favored democracy, while Plato wrote his most venomous invective about democracy. He favored a caste system. There are only two choices: either there is complete equality before the law, and laws apply equally to all people, or a caste will apply laws to some and not to themselves.
*besides Xenophon’s writings

Reply to  CodeTech
December 14, 2014 6:08 am

Agreed. This happens anytime you set up a system with no accountability. It is corrupt beyond belief, and is far out of reach of anyone who contributes to this lunacy via taxation, i.e. without choice. Couple that with the “Golden Egg” syndrome. The poor countries far outnumber the rich in the U.N., so it’s pretty easy to attempt to continue the “WE NEED MORE!!!” mantra.
Much like our own government (a special thanks to lawyers here), it’s become so convoluted that it’s beyond the attention span/intelligence of the citizens to comprehend.

Reply to  CodeTech
December 14, 2014 9:43 am

It’s a communist kleptocracy founded by communist spy Alger Hiss; only one non-Communist Secretary General in its history. An evil organization that’s made loans to corrupt 3rd world dictators, not countries, for decades, used UN NGOs to exploit resources and seized natural resources used as collateral on loans. Karen Hudes, former World Bank Whistleblower, has good information on World Bank fraud based on over 20 years experience as IBS senior legal council, and workd with other World Bank whistleblowers.

December 13, 2014 3:01 pm

It is not just the UN that should get out of blindly supporting the AGW propaganda for political ends. So should the US National Park Service which is being used by the Feds to further double down on their Agenda 21 plans.

Patrick Bols
December 13, 2014 3:06 pm

the UN was founded with the objective of preserving/promoting peace in the world. Unfortunately they diverted their energy (and our money) to other purposes while the world is still suffering from cruelty and atrocities galore. but of course, it is easier to cry wolf about a non-existing threat than to do the real job. Ban Ki Moon should go

Reply to  Patrick Bols
December 14, 2014 6:10 am

“Ban Ki Moon should go”
The U.N. should go.
Fixed it for ya…

December 13, 2014 3:16 pm

Never mind getting the UN out of climate change, get us out of the UN.

Mike the Morlock
December 13, 2014 3:26 pm

Oh my, they (the U.N.) seen to be having a problem.
Guess china did not like what the U.S. House did on funding. Oh dear! very LOUD LAUGHTER!

December 13, 2014 3:27 pm

Thanks for the good efforts. There will succeed, soon, I hope.
““The Secretary General did not even acknowledge receipt of our open letters, let alone address any of our points,” concluded Carter.”
Says it all; but no debate = no science.

December 13, 2014 3:34 pm

Australia lead the way and got it right, refusing to pay into the UN Slushfund at the Lima Peru Fundraiser. Now, Canada has come around to declare the IPCC Global Warming Emperor has no clothes. Come on, REALLY, if humans have not cintrolled the weather so far “Did they “Pause”

Reply to  inconveniencetruth
December 13, 2014 7:25 pm

After I read what Mr Moon had to say about both Australia. and Canada in recent days , I am stunned by his (purposely I presume) total ignorance of both countries. Both with small population and very large territories to fill the needs of those people. The fact that Canada has one of the biggest carbon sink forested area’s on the Planet per person seems to have escaped him and the CBC(tv) that let him speak.

December 13, 2014 3:36 pm

A climate gate email from an agent of the World Bank to Phil Jones at the CRU East Anglia ‘ the agenda will continue regardless of the science’. Once we the survivors are securely locked in the Big Green Climate Corral, they might consider dropping the BS as it will have served its purpose. Until then, the attack will continue.

December 13, 2014 3:55 pm

The UN allows nation states to jaw jaw instead of war war.
Diplomacy instead of military interactions.
Negotiating distribution of powers allows a more efficient distribution of resources (trade is efficient for everything – even sovereignty). The UN is a good thing.
But I do agree that the UN is wasting its time with AGW.
And Ban Ki Moon is a failure as UN Secretary General.

O Olson
Reply to  MCourtney
December 13, 2014 4:23 pm

I could be wrong but doesn’t the UN have a history of jaw jawing while war wars were actually killing people?

Reply to  O Olson
December 13, 2014 5:41 pm

+ 10

Reply to  O Olson
December 13, 2014 6:09 pm

And sometimes the UN has actively participated in war, e.g. Korea

Reply to  O Olson
December 14, 2014 12:47 am

O Olson and Dan B. You have answered each other.
Mike the Morlock, immediately below, points out the alternative to trading sovereignty (stealing sovereignty).
The problem with the UN is practical – it does not work.
The problem with the UN is not conceptual – it can work.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  MCourtney
December 13, 2014 7:26 pm

MCourtney I tend to agree. We have not had a repeat of what happened To Haile Salssie in June 1936 at the League of Nations.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  MCourtney
December 14, 2014 1:24 am

The UN has one element that is useful. The Security council.
That should cost nothing to run. No buildings necessary, no admin, no leader. Shut it down NOW

Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 14, 2014 6:13 am

And no effective action either, so why bother?

Reply to  MCourtney
December 14, 2014 5:41 am

And Ban Ki Moon is a failure as UN Secretary General.

Careful what you wish for:

As head of the United Nations Development Programme, Helen Clark is considered one of the most powerful women in the world. Speculation is now mounting that Ms Clark, former prime minister of New Zealand, could be in line for the UN’s top job.


December 13, 2014 3:57 pm

Real scientists would support the proposal but we live in an age of excess government and most “science” and obviously climate science has descended into a leftist, pro-statist enclave. Much of academia suffers the same malady.
This though is the proper tone of debate. The UN should be minimized or better yet eliminated, it’s a force of socialist deterioration in the world as is much of the climate change agenda.

Reply to  cwon14
December 14, 2014 3:44 am

There’s a lot to like with both socialism and capitalism. I think self-serving incompetence and corruption is the main issue regardless of government structure.

December 13, 2014 4:05 pm

It’s all about the opportunity for graft.
There are a lot of sticky fingers out there.
And the money flowing around is big.
So much would disappear in the “rounding error” alone.
This would put a huge smile on the face of many a Swiss banker.

Joel O’Bryan
December 13, 2014 4:17 pm

Far past time to remove US funding from the UN, force the HQ to move to Sweden or Switzerland.
The WHO and ICAO are about the only UN bodies with an executable missions. Fund those.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 13, 2014 4:26 pm

Disagree…Deadhorse Alaska works for me. Hey, just think about it. No unpaid parking tickets to worry about.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 13, 2014 7:36 pm

I think you need to [research] the WHO at least, I too was a young guy once that hoped that good was being done but the corruption in those departments ONCE the aid gets to where it is needed is mostly in the hands of the dictators that become millionaires on the black market.

Reply to  asybot
December 13, 2014 7:39 pm

Sorry about the spelling errors (I wish there was a “preview” setting)

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  asybot
December 13, 2014 8:29 pm

I realize a lot of the WHO fnds gets siphoned off. But they do a worthy mission. Polio, Dengue fever, Malaria, HIV, Influenza, Ebola,…. those pathogens do not follow man’s geopolitical boundaries. We need the WHO. We need the ICAO. Pretty much everything else could go away.

December 13, 2014 4:19 pm

We’ve all got burdens 🙂 , some greater than the dances of the UN.

December 13, 2014 4:25 pm

Well the objective of the UN was to encourage politicians talking rather than exchanging bombs.
We have Utube now, they are not needed.
So they evolved into a grasping self absorbed bureaucracy in no time flat.
What would you expect from a bureaucracy without oversight or function?
The UN or Useless Nutjobs has lasted long past any relevancy or function.
Nevermind getting the UN out of climate change, how about getting them out of my pocket?
For any ethical society to contribute, even one taxpayers dollar, to this cesspool of corruption amounts to treason.
I am neither represented by or able to hold these bandits accountable, why shall I be robbed to support their parasitic existence?

Reply to  john robertson
December 13, 2014 6:13 pm

I am neither represented by or able to hold these bandits accountable, why shall I be robbed to support their parasitic existence?

My understanding is that our ‘betters’ are doing it for our own good because we’re too stupid to enthusiastically participate in our own suicide.

Reply to  H.R.
December 14, 2014 6:15 am

“Our ‘betters’ are doing it for THEIR own good…”
Fixed it.

December 13, 2014 5:04 pm

Mao, during what was termed ‘the cultural revolution’ did for an estimated 30-50 million people
Stalin, murdered and starved to death an estimated 12-15 million kulaks.
Pol Pot, was responsible for upwards of 4.5 million deaths, done in the killing fields of Kampuchea.
I wonder, how many ‘peasants’ Ban Ki Moon’s UN greed agenda 21 – have done for?

Reply to  Athelstan.
December 14, 2014 1:21 pm

“Stalin, murdered and starved to death an estimated 12-15 million kulaks.”
Hey, what about the Gulag system and the Great Purge. Don’t reduce Stalin to just the Holodomor.
Lenin + Stalin = 66 million deaths.

Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
December 13, 2014 5:26 pm

Why not give the UN a continent to dwell upon, Antarctica comes to mind, there they can avoid the coming heat of Climate Change.

Mike Maguire
December 13, 2014 5:56 pm

Planet earth was rescued from catastrophically low levels of beneficial CO2 at close to 280 ppm(parts per million) 150 years ago.
Now, we are at close to 400ppm, with most measures of life on this planet showing, as expected(from real laws of science like photosynthesis) that life on his planet keeps doing better and better as CO2 gets higher and higher.
Stating otherwise contradicts all the evidence.

December 13, 2014 5:57 pm

Bumper sticker: Get the un out of us!

RobertBobbert GDQ
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
December 13, 2014 7:44 pm

noaaprogrammer- Over at the UN world survey you get the option of voting for 6 of 16 Options such as Political Freedoms, action on climate change, reliable energy and job opportunities. Action on Climate change is tailed off in last place and let’s keep it that way and get over to UN Vote World Survey 2015 and keep the fiasco in its rightful place. I notice that a new survey called My Green World Survey 2015 has been recently set up by the UN and the cynic in me wonders if they have instituted this one so as to ensure the correct response and trumpet it to the World unlike the current one which the UN will do its best to ignore.
Incidentally after I voted I noticed there to be a box in which you could suggest another Option not on the current list.
I would have liked to suggest UN disbanded, or at the very least, get rid of all the Political Gangsters War Lords, Rentseekers and Corrupted Agencies. Could anyone oblige?

kent blaker
December 13, 2014 6:03 pm

They say that CO2 is a pollutant. You can live without food for a month, you can live without water for a few days, but without CO2 in your body you can only live for a few minutes. It is the CO2 that is created by the cells that releases the O2 from the hemoglobin. If you hyperventilate, the CO2 level in your body drops, the O2 is not released from the hemoglobin and you pass out. There is more, but the bottom line is if there is no CO2 in the body, there is no life in the body.

December 13, 2014 7:25 pm

OT – this is the latest paper being used by alarmists re. Antarctic glacier melt: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6214/1227
Published Dec 5.
Example here: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/less-ice-or-more-what-you-need-know-about-antarcticas-n265646

Reply to  thebackslider
December 13, 2014 8:13 pm

Their increasingly desprate game resembles ‘Whack-a-Mole’. Perhaps rather than taking the gmbit of refutation of every silly ‘pal reviewed paper that pops up– remember the incentives are huge and the QC minimal– it would be better to take different macro tacks. And get that macro info into political places that can make a difference. Essay Tipping Points was such an attempt concerning ice sheets. That this paper is BS is shown by the increasing Antarctic sea ice extent.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 13, 2014 9:12 pm

The paper has only been out since Dec 5, but if you read the comments in the NBC article you will see that the warmists already take it as Gospel.
The paper maintains that warmer water from the deep dark depths is welling up, thus causing the glaciers to melt.
One of the warmists inadvertently pointed out “The ocean is a little more complicated than that, and the deep layers may take centuries to turn over.”
I thanked him for clearing up for everybody the fact that if it in fact is true it has nothing to do with “anthropogenic global warming”.

December 13, 2014 8:19 pm

All this Global Warming stuff has destroyed the power of the Bermuda Triangle.

December 13, 2014 9:15 pm

You climate deniers. Don’t you realize Florida is being evacuated as people are flocking back to New York? Eureka is the biggest-growth city on the West Coast due to LA hot-climate refugees. San Franciscans are overwhelming Vancouver, BC, and Vancouverites are flooding Anchorage. Phoenix and Dallas “sunbelters” are moving back to Chicago and Minneapolis. Well, they would be, if we could take down fossil fuel, and shut down air conditioning. I have a goose farm, and can provide plenty of human warmth to encourage people to migrate from so. Carolina to the Northern Territories, as Global Warming dictates massive northward migrations. Once we cripple fossil-fueled AC, everybody will move 15-30 degrees (latitude and winter temp) northward. That’s what the IPCC is about,making people mass-migrate northward.

Reply to  Schoolsie
December 13, 2014 10:45 pm

Ok, that was funny……

Reply to  Schoolsie
December 14, 2014 3:41 am

LOL, it could be their true purpose. The reality is that humanity as well all creatures migrate as conditions change, if they didn’t this would have become a fairly barren planet.

December 13, 2014 11:14 pm

UN members agree climate deal at Lima talks
United Nations members have reached an agreement to tackle climate change after negotiations ran into the weekend in the Peruvian capital Lima.
The president of the meeting said delegates had approved a framework for setting national pledges.
Details of a final deal are due to be set out at a summit in Paris next year.
The talks proved tough because of divisions between rich and poor countries over the scale and scope of plans to tackle global warming.

Jed beetle
December 13, 2014 11:40 pm

You people are seriously deranged.

Reply to  Jed beetle
December 14, 2014 12:20 am

jed beetle:
‘You’ people? What people [is] that?

Reply to  Jed beetle
December 14, 2014 1:00 am

Studied planetary science, astronomy, physics, chemistry (I liked to blow stuff up, it’s a boy thing), deranged? Maybe! Educated and informed, certainly!

Reply to  Jed beetle
December 14, 2014 1:12 am

Interesting argument and if true of great concern for us.
Please elaborate on how we are deranged and how you have diagnosed us.

Reply to  Jed beetle
December 14, 2014 3:35 am

Unfortunately for you, you are always looking at yourself.
It might be different if you were as good with insight into yourself as your purported belief of what other people are.

Reply to  Jed beetle
December 14, 2014 2:03 pm

Wouldn’t have it any other way.

December 14, 2014 12:41 am

sunday morning in Lima & down to 4 pages.
developing nations didn’t back down, but the final report is as MEANINGLESS as the CAGW scare itself:
14 Dec: RTE Ireland: Robinson criticises Lima climate change talks
The text appeased developing countries, including China and India, concerned that previous drafts would impose too heavy a burden on emerging economies compared to the rich in a global effort to address climate change.
“We’ve got what we wanted,” said Indian Environment Minister Prakash Javedekar, who said the text preserves the notion that the rich have to lead the way in making cuts in emissions, breaking deadlock at the negotiations.
He said the deal at the end of the two-week talks also makes it clear that rich countries would have to provide financial support to developing countries.
The pledges:
– Should be submitted by the first quarter of 2015 by “those parties ready to do so”, and as soon as possible thereafter by the rest.
– Will be self-determined.
– Must improve on a nation’s current carbon-cutting undertakings.
– May include information on the base year used as a reference for emissions cuts, time frame for implementation, and the methodology for calculating the numbers.
– Will be published on the website of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
– Will be assessed by the UNFCCC secretariat, which will prepare a report by November 1, 2015, on their aggregate effect on the UN goal to curb global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels…
They need not:
– Include information on rich countries’ planned financial assistance for developing nations, as requested by many, though the text “urges” such support.
– Detail assistance for developing nations’ climate adaptation plans. Parties are merely invited to “consider including an adaptation component”…
Least developed countries and small island developing states are exempt from pledging, but may communicate information on low-emissions strategies if they wish.
it doesn’t bear thinking that this farce will continue nonetheless!

Non Nomen
December 14, 2014 12:45 am

Preparing dictatorship by ignoring the people’s will is a start. Hammering in scientifically unsound beliefs is the next step. Control of money will be followed by control of personal “well”-behaviour. We are on the road to “1984”, I’m afraid. I wish those unelected UN bureaucrats who are about to set the word on fire(there is no other way as CAGW isn’t taking place) get lost in a jungle and, please, don’t dawdle doing so!

Malcolm Turner
December 14, 2014 1:01 am

You can buy a scientist and his opinion. The search for unanimity is blinding people to reality. The fact that scientific society has been directed to prove the theory does not leave much, any, room for people to question it (unless they don’t care about funding and their university chairs). Such a phenomenon is evident at the BBC, the British public broadcaster which, self-evidently, has instructed its producers to include AGW positivity in all its output and has banned any questioning of the thesis. For a public broadcaster this is so scurrilous, a misuse of power, to depart from public opinion, which is diverse, to promoting a view derived by, who?, is propagandist and marks the crossing of a line between free speech and bureaucratic imposition.
Similarly, the coercion of scientific opinion will prove whatever the whoever’s wish to prove. Science is good at that. Rather than science girding up its loins to cope with a world whose change is inevitable the discipline is lapsing into a form of Puritanism which resembles the periodic pronouncements of the world’s end. Scientific realists metamorphosing into cranks. Science’s obligation is engineer life in its next evocation and not to merely present as the sandwich board man proclaiming ‘the end is nigh’.
AGW is such a linguistic phenomenon. The diversity of people that propose opinions on the topic, from railway engineers to geneticists, is only admissible because of their conforming in linguistic standards. Their evocation of the dramatic-emotional, the content usually best suited to magazines and novels dealing with relationships, they have managed to anthropomorphise weather. They have taken a norm, that everybody loves the world and its wonders, and professed an ownership, a deeper understanding of the potential for loss which is framed as that loss of a personal bereavement. The more the emotional content can be cranked-up the more ‘experts’ appear talking about inevitability.
In broadcast assertions of the topic we also sense the dramatic appreciation of the topic and switch to the maudlin voice, the epitome of the theatrical adaptation of the English country vicar, the measured tone and simpering sonority. The weepier the topic the more sincere, and in modern terms the better informed. Hooray for sentences that trail away in falling tones depicting world weariness and despair. Contrary to this, the deniers tend to be animated and their tones lively and life affirming, a thing that speaks of energy and industry, while its counterpart is the complete antithesis. The falling tone is obviously heartfelt and the animated signifies what, nuttiness, disconnection? Science is now the mistaken effort of trying to swat a mosquito in a darkened room rather than deploying a spray to end the torment.
Why was Al Gore influential? Because he intoned the cause of despair and the linguistic emotional frustration of the inarticulate, he Disney-fied the topic for easy assimilation against the usual scientific practice of big words and obscure semantics, he just got their first and prevailed. He gave us Bambi after its parents were shot! If the science is not actually certain and cannot be demonstrated, if constant assumptions about the metrics of the issue are continually disproved, there is always the emotional blackmail to fall back on. That thing of the irrational. The medieval fear of the forest, the devil, that kept the Middle Ages in thrall for centuries. (There is a correlation between the decline of religious attachment and the rise of personal insurance (Norman Davies’s ‘Europe: A history’.) We demand certainties, certainties sell. For a developed society that continually applauds itself on its levels of sentience we are devastatingly open to myth, astrology, portents. These things seem part of our DNA, the unknowing insecurity of ancient man and his lack of understanding demanding that he place faith in gods and their appeasement. This is where we are with AGW. It appears that to question what is still a theory is to put us in bad odour with the great deity (of your choosing) and with such gods being omnipotent and, usually, vindictive, our accommodation demands that science and opinion be corralled, silenced, for fear of ethereal powers and their vengeance.

An Engineer
December 14, 2014 2:30 am

The UN is the most important panel at the moment. We need actions to take place on Climate Change. The Earth’s ecosystem is changing due to human activity. People oppose it because they are scared to face up to the facts, and do not understand what is happening. It is clear that more education and outreach is needed, especially in grown adults who cannot think for themselves or understand the science. Let’s just pause for a moment. Consider what has been happening in the last 20 years or so of your life. In the 90’s there were a few floods, hurricanes, and even heatwaves. Turn to the 21st Century and we are seeing more devastating events: more hurricanes, Hurricane Katrina, and one recently in Japan and the Philipines. Even New York was hit. California is suffering from drought due to constant heat, evaporating the water. Florida is slowly but surely going to be under water. More people are dying from these natural disasters. You have a choice, either ask questions about it, or shut up. Do you want to have millions of deaths on your conscience because you are simply unwilling to listen, sticking your head in the sand and actually understand what is happening. If you don’t care and want to leave it to the real scientists and engineers, then let us be and decrease your impact on the planet by doing small things at a time. It is people who are uneducated in climate science and don’t want to hear bad news that are hampering progress.

Chris Wright
Reply to  An Engineer
December 14, 2014 3:20 am

An Engineer,
Your post is complete nonsense. I suggest you look at the actual scientific data rather than newspaper headlines. There’s been no overall increase in hurricanes over the last century, and for the last few decades the overall intensity of hurricanes has been falling. The data also shows that the numbers of people killed by extreme weather has been steadily falling for decades. Oh, yes, and the world is getting greener due to the fertilizing effects of CO2.
The data is quite clear: global warming and CO2 are good for you!

Reply to  An Engineer
December 14, 2014 3:31 am

Listen while you are saving the world from bad weather, maybe you could find the time to tackle war, terrorism, tyranny, world hunger, political corruption, disease, poverty, riots, slavery, and not to mention earthquakes and catastrophic meteorite strikes if large ones hit urban centers.
I mean while you are in the helping hand mood, I thought you know, maybe you could pitch in…
Meanwhile you might not want to go around making statements like, “In the 90’s there were a few floods, hurricanes, and even heatwaves.”, it makes you look like you are a few cards short of a full deck. Actually add improving mental health to the list above.

Reply to  An Engineer
December 14, 2014 5:29 am

If we reduced atmospheric CO2 levels back to pre-1950 levels, do you really want to see an extra billion people fall into starvation?

Reply to  An Engineer
December 14, 2014 5:37 am

I notice that the cost of damage from the recent rain in California was widely reported, but the economic benefit of that water, perhaps worth billions of dollars, wasn’t mentioned at all.

Reply to  An Engineer
December 14, 2014 5:50 am

To your (the uneducated) not wanting to hear bad news and you being an engineer you will probably enjoy these predictions / quotes:

Reply to  An Engineer
December 14, 2014 5:58 am

Then there is this prediction. Wonder if it will make the “Funny” list in 30 years time?
“And what if the Nov 20th ’14 Science and Space Research Corporation (SSRC) prediction of “an important set of climate change predictions dealing with the coming cold climate epoch that will dominate global temperatures for the next thirty years” works out?

Reply to  An Engineer
December 14, 2014 6:25 am

Nice try Patchuri…
I’m a bit surprised you’ve been reduced to trolling at WUWT tho.
Couldn’t get back in to railroads?

Reply to  An Engineer
December 14, 2014 10:57 am

Did you deliberately forget the “sarc” tag?
Cause that was very well done.
A definite ode to the tradition of Gilbert and Sullivan, mocking what you pretend to support.

Steve Keohane
Reply to  john robertson
December 14, 2014 2:28 pm

That was my take as well.

Reply to  An Engineer
December 14, 2014 12:03 pm

‘It is clear that more education and outreach is needed, especially in grown adults who cannot think for themselves or understand the science.’
The irony is its peoples ability to think for themselves and to be able to understand the ‘science ‘ along with their ability to know BS when they see that is really stopping ‘progress ‘ Hence why you see so many in the area make so much use of smoke and mirrors rather than letting others see their data , After all they “only want to find something wrong with it ”
Its actually a lack of honest , not to much , which is displayed by those pushing AGW, that is the problem.

Reply to  An Engineer
December 14, 2014 1:17 pm

An Engineer
December 14, 2014 at 2:30 am
“It is people who are uneducated in climate science and don’t want to hear bad news that are hampering progress.”
You are an idiot impostor because any engineer would point out that it is impossible to predict a chaotic system with an iterative simulation of limited precision over more than a very limited period of time.
Or maybe you just sailed through your curriculum avoiding all maths. Don’t know where you can get an engineer degree with that but I can’t know everything.

Reply to  An Engineer
December 14, 2014 6:13 pm

An Engineer,
Great parody!
I might have believed it, except no engineer is that stupid…
…unless he isn’t a real engineer. Then all bets are off.

Reply to  An Engineer
December 14, 2014 9:09 pm

Like, the kind of engineer that drives a train?

Mickey Reno
Reply to  An Engineer
December 14, 2014 10:21 pm

Gosh, you seem to know everything, An Engineer. Even so, maybe you need to prove yourself. Let’s try a small little project first. When you can balance the U.S. budget then come back and tell us how we’re going to manage the economics of your Progressive solutions to climate change, okay?.

December 14, 2014 2:55 am

“An Engineer December 14, 2014 at 2:30 am Florida is slowly but surely going to be under water.”
So too is London, and the whole south east block of England in fact, but it has absolutely nothing to do with climate change (Whatever that is) and sea level rise.

December 14, 2014 3:21 am

I loved the Federation concept in Star Trek, a unified world under a singular, inclusive, well organized entity, for the benefit of all.
The UN is no Federation however, I would not give the UN control over any of the worlds concerns based on how badly they screwed the pooch on climate.

Reply to  Alx
December 14, 2014 1:13 pm

How did they choose the leader of the Federation, and what did they do with dissenters?

Reply to  Alx
December 14, 2014 9:08 pm

The Federation in Star Trek is the fantasy concept of a deluded mind that believes such things as want and desire can be eliminated (yes, that was the concept) in a population afflicted with free will. All such “benevolent” governing bodies will not just resemble the UN, they will replicate it.

December 14, 2014 3:28 am

This new ‘deal’ involves enormous incentives for ‘the developing world’ to fraudulently manipulate climate data as they will get big payments from the ‘developed world’ if temperatures ‘increase significantly’.
There needs to be brutal sanctions to prevent such fraud and corruption taking place, including the permanent disbarment and bankruptcy of all politicians who vote through such fraudulent data as ‘true’.
I would not trust for one second any future data based on land-based thermometers around the world, because the incentives for fraud are simply too great.

Reply to  rtj1211
December 14, 2014 5:33 am

We might be able to reduce the potential for fraudulently misrepresenting the temperature data by using (and reporting in) absolute (actual measured) temperatures instead of anomalies.

DC Cowboy
Reply to  rtj1211
December 14, 2014 6:35 am

The part I really like about that is that China, the largest economy on earth and, coincidentally the largest ‘carbon polluter’ who shows no sign of even slowing down their increase in CO2 emissions until at least 2030, is counted among the ‘developing nations’ and is demanding billions in ‘reparations’ payments from the EU & US to offset the climate damage they’ve suffered at the hands of the ‘developed’ nations. Seriously?

Reply to  DC Cowboy
December 14, 2014 4:05 pm

And the USA and others will follow, not daring to admit that China now indeed is the Master of The Universe.
Were China to close it’s borders, the rest of the World would be on it’s knees.

December 14, 2014 3:39 am

In UK they got UKIP that are sceptical to AGW. Also in Norway sceptics are beginning to organize, latest attempt is called Liberale i Norge (LiN)
https://sites.google.com/site/liberaleinorge/ (temporary page).
The UN will be held responsible for their fraud on climate.

December 14, 2014 4:55 am

Headline news: Climate change agreement reached
The conference in Peru agreed on a draft where different nations would take on differing responsibilities “in light of different national circumstances.” However there is no agreement as to what that means, and will be worked on “later”. Regardless, whatever agreement is reached will not go into affect until 2020. Five years in terms of global politics and individual nations internal politics which are volatile in terms of AGW, is a long time. The most likely outcome of these summits is a shuffling around of meaningless amounts of money (in global terms), which will have zero affect on climate but will enrich climate entrepreneurs.

December 14, 2014 5:46 am

Pop quiz, what has the UN ever done right?
a) Nothing
b) It did the right thing once or twice but at 27 time the needed cost to cover the rake.
c) It’s a kleptocracy 1st and foremost and wouldn’t know or care if it’s ever done anything right.
And why do they issue ammunition to UN Peacekeepers if they aren’t allowed to shoot anything?

December 14, 2014 6:40 am

It is not just the IPCC that needs to disappear, it’s the whole UN. They have been around for nearly 70 years and have accomplished nothing other than wealth redistribution.
If the US withdraws its support, the UN will collapse. They are nothing but a bunch of liars, thieves and extortionists, maintained mostly by US taxpayer dollars. Time to pull the plug and let the dirty bath water circle the drain.

Reply to  Jbird
December 14, 2014 11:04 am

Misery infinitely prolonged by the “help” of the UN.
Rwanda, a people so well “protected” by these same .
Palestine, refugee camps forever, also fine work by these same “helpers”.
Sort of like a group dedicated to ensuring their clients can never get rid of them, a temporary visitor that never leaves.
Whats that Island called?
Cyprus? Were UN banking practises were carried out last winter..

Reply to  john robertson
December 14, 2014 11:55 am

One thing to realise about the UN that even the top jobs do not go to those who are best suited to them , rather they are dished out on a political basis of ‘whose turn is it now’ So a person can be made the head relief organisation whose only ‘skill’ is their ability to rob the organisation of a lot of money, and they got the job because their the brother of the head of country whose turn it is to have the job , true story that one. And to make it better , the UN never got the many millions back and he was not sacked just ‘moved sideways’

Tom Sullivan
December 14, 2014 7:21 pm

“despite a 9% rise in carbon dioxide to a still miniscule 0.04% of our atmosphere,” ”
The rise in CO2 from 1996-2014 was 37 ppm, that is, since the warming stopped. That is actually 45% more than the CO2 increase 1850-1996 (82 ppm). How can the CO2 theory possibly be true? It cannot be true.
[Rather, “45% of the CO2 increase between 1850 – 1996” .mod]

Reply to  Tom Sullivan
December 14, 2014 9:07 pm

Tom Sullivan
The rise in CO2 from 1996-2014 was 37 ppm, that is, since the warming stopped. That is actually 45% more than the CO2 increase 1850-1996 (82 ppm). How can the CO2 theory possibly be true? It cannot be true.

More properly, more clearly:
CAGW theory claims Man’s release of 82 ppm of CO2 between 1850 and 1996 caused a 0.7 degree global temperature rise over 146 years.
45% of that same CO2 increase over 18 years between 1996 and 2015 caused 0.0 temperature increase.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 14, 2014 9:10 pm

Yes, that’s an improvement on the explanation. Thanks.
Not only is CAGW theory wrong, but CAGW isn’t even a theory, it’s just a repeatedly falsified conjecture.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 14, 2014 9:53 pm

“CAGW theory claims Man’s release of 82 ppm of CO2 between 1850 and 1996 “.
I think that to say that all CO2 increase is anthropogenic is bunkum. To suggest that The Industrial Revolution pulled the planet out of The Little Ice Age is also bunkum.

December 14, 2014 7:35 pm

Tom Sullivan,
Exactly right; impeccable logic. The “carbon” scare is total bunkum.
Despite the rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2, global warming has stopped, and not just for a little while. It has been stopped for many years. Any effect from CO2 (there is probably a tiny amount of warming) is simply too small to measure.
CO2 has risen from 3 parts in 10,000, to only about 4 parts in 10,000 in a century and a half. During that time, global temperature has risen only about 0.7ºC. That is nothing! In the past, just before our current Holocene, global temperatures changed by more than ten degrees! Within only a decade or two! That happened when CO2 remained flat, at about 290 ppm.
The entire global warming scare is based on incredible assertions, not on scientific evidence. In any other area of science, such an abysmal record of predictions would have resulted in the perps being laughed out of the room. But with so much loot at stake, the UN keeps pushing their nonsence.
Getting the word out at every opportunity is the best countermeasure to their carbon tax schemes.

December 14, 2014 7:38 pm

The U N. Just needs to get out period.
7million people surveyed may in fact care about education, health care, and energy but those incompetent bureaucrats can’t do a damn thing about those things except make them worse. So the “top priority” has to be something with no metric, and shifting goalposts requiring trillions of dollars.
If were king that worthless disorganization would be the first thing on scrap heap. Just in front of Al Gore, Obama, Hillary, and Bill Nye the propaganda guy.

December 14, 2014 8:33 pm

There is absolutely no reason for the UN to abandon their global warming propaganda. It’s an integral part of destroying Western industry and preventing development of undeveloped countries. It’s all about wealth transfer in megascale from the wealthy, healthy countries to the poor, bleeding the West dry while stifling and stunting the poor countries. IT’S PART OF AGENDA 21 IMPLEMENTATION, AS IT GIVES THEM A REASON TO RUIN THE WORLD.

tolip ydob (There is no such thing as a perfectly good airplane)
December 15, 2014 2:18 am

I have a better suggestion.
Time for developed nations to get out of the UN!

George Devries Klein
December 15, 2014 6:01 pm

In my view, , it is time to dissolve the current UN, period.

Ulric Lyons
December 16, 2014 6:10 am

“Time for the UN to get out of climate change”
If Greenprice karmically put their foot in it a bit more, that may well happen.

Arno Arrak
December 20, 2014 2:28 pm

I totally agree that this parasitic organization should be disbanded. There is no reason for their existence because there is no warming. There has been none for the last 18 years and there is no evidence that anything earlier was anthropogenic. Add to it the fact that despite lack of warming carbon dioxide keeps increasing and thereby triggers their greenhouse theory into predicting a non-existent warming. This invalidates their greenhouse theory which they still use in their models. With it the models are also invalidated. Their remaining scientific-sounding arguments have no science behind them and are nothing more than obnoxious pseudo-science intended to deceive the public.

%d bloggers like this: