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
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
“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.
Why not give the UN a continent to dwell upon, Antarctica comes to mind, there they can avoid the coming heat of Climate Change.
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.
Bumper sticker: Get the un out of us!
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?
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.
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
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.
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”.
All this Global Warming stuff has destroyed the power of the Bermuda Triangle.
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.
Ok, that was funny……
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30468048
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.
You people are seriously deranged.
jed beetle:
‘You’ people? What people [is] that?
Studied planetary science, astronomy, physics, chemistry (I liked to blow stuff up, it’s a boy thing), deranged? Maybe! Educated and informed, certainly!
Interesting argument and if true of great concern for us.
Please elaborate on how we are deranged and how you have diagnosed us.
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.
Wouldn’t have it any other way.
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.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1214/666707-climate/
it doesn’t bear thinking that this farce will continue nonetheless!
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
If we reduced atmospheric CO2 levels back to pre-1950 levels, do you really want to see an extra billion people fall into starvation?
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.
To your (the uneducated) not wanting to hear bad news and you being an engineer you will probably enjoy these predictions / quotes:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/05/friday-funny-over-a-centurys-worth-of-failed-eco-climate-quotes-and-disinformation/
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?
http://spaceandscience.net/id16.html
Nice try Patchuri…
I’m a bit surprised you’ve been reduced to trolling at WUWT tho.
Couldn’t get back in to railroads?
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.
That was my take as well.
‘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.
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.
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.
Like, the kind of engineer that drives a train?
Mark
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?.
“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.
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.
How did they choose the leader of the Federation, and what did they do with dissenters?
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.
Mark
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Headline news: Climate change agreement reached
Reality:
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.
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?
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.
Haiti.
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..
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’
“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]
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.
RACook,
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.