Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The United Nations has moved on from conducting simple surveys which all too frequently reveal an embarrassing lack of concern about climate change. Now they ask activists to hold conversations with their followers, and claim the reported outcome of those conversations is evidence of public support for climate action.
Global public tells the United Nations: Take action on climate change and the environment
The United Nations is marking its 75th anniversary at a time of great upheaval, as COVID-19 continues to spread, exacting a heavy toll on lives, societies and economies in all regions of the world.
In January 2020, the UN75 initiative launched a global conversation, inviting people around the world to discuss their priorities for the future, obstacles to achieving them, and the role of global cooperation in overcoming these challenges.
As of March 2020, over 13 million people in nearly all UN Member States had taken part in the initiative, with more than 40,000 completing the one-minute survey, and more than 330 dialogues held in 87 countries.
Respondents placed great emphasis on climate change and the environment, with protection of the environment one of the top three priorities. Climate and the environment were also identified as one of the top three global trends, and widely discussed in the dialogues. The vast majority of respondents agreed on the need for closer international cooperation to make progress in these and other areas.
COVID-19 has revealed the vulnerability of global systems to protect the environment, health and economy. There is an increasing recognition of how multiple economic, social and institutional drivers exacerbate environment risks, impacting on human health and increasing the burden on health services.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), as the authoritative voice on the environment within the UN system, is well placed to help its member countries rise to the challenge of delivering a better future. UNEP will celebrate its own anniversary in 2022, having been at the heart of the environmental movement since the Stockholm Conference in 1972.
UNEP is also working with partners to implement the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, particularly in areas that have a direct link to the environment such as hazardous waste, governance, wildlife conservation, climate change and ecosystems. Find out what UNEP is doing to achieve the Goals.
For instance, a key UNEP report is the annual Emissions Gap Report, the most recent issue of which says we must cut global emissions 7.6 per cent every year of the next decade if we are to limit temperature rise per the Paris Agreement to 1.5°C.
A just-released international survey by Ipsos MORI Public opinion on the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic says: “Seven in ten consider climate change as serious a crisis as COVID-19, and a similar proportion feel their government will be failing them if it doesn’t act on climate change now. Two thirds globally support a green economic recovery from the crisis.”
Over the course of 2020, the UN75 team will gather public perspectives on global challenges and solutions on how to tackle them through a one-minute survey (in 53 languages) and dialogues – now the bulk of which will be online online – organized by partners across the world.
Nature is in crisis, threatened by biodiversity and habitat loss, global heating and toxic pollution. Failure to act is failing humanity. Addressing the current coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and protecting ourselves against future global threats requires sound management of hazardous medical and chemical waste; strong and global stewardship of nature and biodiversity; and a clear commitment to “building back better”, creating green jobs and facilitating the transition to carbon neutral economies. Humanity depends on action now for a resilient and sustainable future.
For more information, please contact Lisa Laskaridis lisa.laskaridis@un.org
Source: https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/global-public-tells-united-nations-take-action-climate-change-and
The new UN approach to gathering public views in my opinion echoes the constitutional changes implemented by President Maduro in Venezuela, when his power was threatened by people electing the wrong representatives.
President Maduro’s ingenious solution to his complete lack of democratic legitimacy was to create a sham representative body but control the membership.
Instead of directly elected representatives, he created a “Constitutional Assembly” of largely self appointed community leaders where say labor unions or other government recognised groups were invited to provide a representative. The constitutional assembly almost immediately declared the directly elected national assembly unconstitutional, and declared itself the pre-eminent legislative body. So it still looks like Maduro is listening to the people, but Maduro has an opportunity to choose which groups receive official recognition and membership of the new assembly.
Britain also recently implemented a similar system, a people’s Climate Assembly of mostly self appointed community leaders or other volunteers, in response to demands from Extinction Rebellion and other green groups that they be given an official advisory role. So far the British government backed Climate Assembly has not challenged the legitimacy of the directly elected Westminster parliament, at least not to the same extent as Venezuela’s constitutional assembly challenged the directly elected Venezuelan National Assembly.
Actual statistics shows that 95% of the COVID-19 fatalities are from underlying illnesses. The overwhelming majority of people DO NOT have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19. Why not protect JUST the older, at-risk?
Ron, in answer to your question, recent Covid-19 mortality among the elderly and infirm varies from ~non-existent in some European countries to huge in others.
Europe – Total Mortality Data: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
Dr. Malcolm McKendrick, a Scottish physician, recently wrote:
“However, the hospitals themselves have another policy. Which is to discharge the elderly unwell patients with COVID directly back into the community, and care homes. Where they can spread the virus widely amongst the most vulnerable. This, believe it or not, is NHS policy. Still.”
I say no rational person could be this stupid for this long. It appears that British policy is to kill off the elderly and infirm ASAP – apparently they are just a cost to the economy.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/25/uk-german-governments-plan-to-turn-covid-19-into-a-climate-action-opportunity/#comment-2977859
The Covid-19 death spike in Europe varies from ~non-existent in many countries to large in England. Why the difference?
Is it lockdown? Probably not – Sweden is only doing partial containment vs the full lockdown in England, and has a lower per capita Covid-19 death peak.
Is it population density? This possibly has an impact regarding rate of contagion.
Is it mismanagement of contagion among the elderly? This could be a major factor.
Dr. Malcolm McKendrick, a Scottish physician, recently wrote:
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/04/21/the-anti-lockdown-strategy/
“Unfortunately, it seems that COVID-19 has infected everyone involved in healthcare management and turned their brains into useless mush.
…
[In my view, if we had any sense, we would lockdown/protect the elderly, and let everyone else get on with their lives].
However, the hospitals themselves have another policy. Which is to discharge the elderly unwell patients with COVID directly back into the community, and care homes. Where they can spread the virus widely amongst the most vulnerable.
This, believe it or not, is NHS policy. Still.”
____________________
Allan,
Further insight from Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. (Sp).
“COVID Update – Focus on Vitamin D”
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/04/28/covid-update-focus-on-vitamin-d/
His post’s are very near the knuckle of unacceptable. His latest is taunting the belief in vaccinations, without going too far.
Personally, having considered the mounds of material I have read online, most of it political and entirely unscientific, I conclude that we know virtually Zero about COVID – 19.
It has been revealed that there are an unusually high number of childhood cases of Kawasaki disease amongst young children in Italy. Something never considered a mere few months ago.
What else will emerge from this pandemic?
George W Bush, when POTUS, himself warned the world of a global pandemic, but we stumbled on, ignoring him and spunking $trillions on the climate change wraith. (not that I was ever a fan of his).
Nor is Cornavirus itself the problem. The problem (at least in the UK) is the scandalous lack of Personal Protective Equipment for medics, and the equipment (ventilators) required to deal with the most severely sick. Not that ventilators have helped as I understand that most ventilated patients die.
We have run our NHS for decades now on the concept of Just In Time (JIT) but no disease ever conforms to the principle. Our Masters of Business Administration (MBA’s) need to be taken to task over this monumental failure.
MBA’s (and their ilk) are a business concept, not a public service initiative.
And no doubt I’m preaching to the converted, but the world should have been prepared for Coronavirus.
It seems simply sunbathing would help.
Thank you HotScot my friend. I hope you and yours are all well.
Make sure to keep mom and dad away from the NIH.
Dr. Kendrick recommends Vitamin D3.
I am already taking Vitamin D3 and zinc supplements – probably helps… I hope.
Probably the only true thing about this virus that I’ve read so far.
I wonder if this is because parents are worried that it’s the Chinese Flu, and are therefore going to doctors when they might have ignored it previously.
There have been reports of children being very poorly without specific CoViD19 symptoms, not just heart issues (a form of Kawasaki) but also GI symptoms, high fever that’s unresponsive to paracetamol, cyanosis etc. This has been noted by GPs, Urgent Care Centres and EDs across several sites.
Learning on the hop without hard data-
“Doctors and other health researchers still aren’t certain whether the novel disease causes strokes, but they are quickly trying to figure that out. In addition, news reports have focused on the relative youth of the new stroke patients. Morro says that doesn’t mean these effects are necessarily confined to younger COVID-19 patients, but rather that when doctors do see it in a younger patient, they wonder why. “The importance of it being in young people is that we notice it in young people,” he says. “It’s probably also happening in older people, but we’re just not noticing it because we’re saying, they’re older, that’s what happens.”’
https://www.msn.com/en-au/health/medical/covid-19-is-causing-strokes-in-young-people-and-doctors-dont-know-why/ar-BB13kFW1
Well, Gov Cuomo of NY, Gov Murphy of NJ, and Gov Newsom of CA aren’t much better. Under his orders, ChiCom-19 patients were force onto Nursing homes (you know, those places filled with vulnerable elderly people):
https://news.yahoo.com/ny-nursing-home-forced-covid-090031181.html
Three states hit hard by the pandemic — New York, New Jersey and California — have ordered nursing homes and other long-term care facilities to accept coronavirus patients discharged from hospitals
The most sensible approach for reducing fatalities would be to tightly protect the vulnerable elderly and vulnerable…95+% of fatalities.
NY decided to do the opposite by introducing virus carriers into nursing homes. The result: nearly half of NY’s high level of fatalities occurred in nursing homes…NY nursing homes accounting for 1 of 4 fatalities NATIONALLY.
That didn’t happen in Florida with a far higher senior population. NY 97 fatalities per 100,000. Fla 4 per 100,000. And the Florida lockdown started later.
They were not landing airplanes at these NY nursing homes…nor are these homes located at subway stations. Moving infected patients into these locations was the reason… which is the opposite of keeping nursing home seniors safe. Criminally stupid.
Because protecting the public was never a priority.
I recall that in recent history the government made coal, oil and gas for heating homes illegal. Electricity only, even though there are thousands who cannot pay their current electricity bills.
I also recall some years ago that the elderly were buying books from second hand book stores to burn, because they were cheaper than buying wood.
The government do appear to target the elderly for early retirement.
Nobody could be this stupid for this long. Read my post from 2015, below.
It appears that killing off the elderly and the poor is a British government covert policy.
Regards, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/10/stop-the-devastation-of-peoples-lives-by-speculating-with-no-data-remembering-cattle-and-methane-emissions/#comment-2047092
I suggest the situation is far more serious than increased electrical bills.
I want to bring to your attention a paper recently published by veteran meteorologist Joe d’Aleo and me on the subject of Excess Winter Mortality.
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
Globally, cold weather kills many more people every year than hot weather, even in warm climates. Excess Winter Deaths particularly target the elderly and the poor.
The numbers are shocking. Excess Winter Deaths total approximately 10,000 per year in Canada, up to 50,000 per year in the United Kingdom and about 100,000 per year in the USA. I have been writing and researching about Excess Winter Mortality since ~2009 and I am confident that these alarmingly-high numbers are correct.
It is clear that adaptation is the key to reducing Excess Winter Deaths, specifically flu shots (when they work), home insulation and proper heating systems.
Our study also leads to another conclusion – that cheap, reliable, abundant energy is the lifeblood of all societies, and efforts to drive up the cost of energy (through inefficient “”green energy“ schemes) will cost many lives.
Yours truly, Allan MacRae
__________________
Thank you B.
Here is the situation reported in the UK:
Google “heat or eat” for more…
http://www.energybillrevolution.org/media/1-in-4-families-forced-to-choose-between-heating-and-eating/
1 IN 4 FAMILIES FORCED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN HEATING AND EATING
January 6th, 2013 [excerpt]
A quarter of mums have had to choose food over heating thanks to spiralling energy bills, a survey reveals today.
An alarming 23 per cent say they faced the desperate choice this winter.
“Actual statistics?” Like where?
You do realize that someone who is hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms, tests positive, has their lungs filled with fluid from pneumonia, and dies, that it isn’t caused by underlying illnesses such as diabetes or high blood pressure?
COVID-19 deaths are likely underreported, not over.
You do realize that almost no-one dies with Chinese Flu if they don’t also have other underlying conditions which were likely to kill them anyway?
That the average age of death for people with Chinese Flu is at or above the average life expectancy?
That in many places, 50% or more of the deaths with Chinese Flu occur in care homes, where the life expectancy is often measured in months, not years?
Everybody dies eventually. While they may have other health issues, that’s not evidence that absent WuFlu, they would have died any day now.
I see you have never been in a nursing home. Do you know the difference between a nursing home and a hospice?
Nursing home residents frequently live there for years, not months. The average stay for nursing home residents is 892 days (that’s over 2 and a half years, and since that’s the average, that means a good many of them are staying *longer* than that). About 25% of people admitted to these facilities stay only a short time (3 months or less), about half stay for at least a year, 21% live there for almost 5 years. Many of the short timers were either there for rehabilitation (meaning they got to go home after their stay) or terminal care (meaning that was their last stop before going to the great beyond) (unfortunately I couldn’t find any statistics for the breakdown between the two types of stay).
You do realize that healthy people without underlying illnesses are less susceptible to the worse consequences (hence why the worse outcomes are overwhelmingly among the elderly and those with underlying conditions whereas the young and healthy tend to get the mildest of cases). The fact that those underlying illnesses tend to compromise the immune systems just might be a factor, don’t you think? or is it that you don’t think?
This was the excellent doctors’ video that I cited yesterday – now CENSORED by the scoundrels at YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfLVxx_lBLU&feature=youtu.be
YOUTUBE CENSORS VIRAL VIDEO OF DOCTORS CRITICIZING ‘STAY-AT-HOME’ ORDER
Deleted after racking up over 5 million views.
Published on 28 April, 2020
YouTube has censored a viral video in which two doctors criticized the logic of whether California’s stay-at-home coronavirus order is necessary.
The video, which had racked up over 5 million views, featured Dr. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi, co-owners of Accelerated Urgent Care in Bakersfield, Calif.
In the clip, Erickson asserts that there is only a “0.03 chance of dying from COVID in the state of California,” prompting him to ask, “Does that necessitate sheltering in place? Does that necessitate shutting down medical systems? Does that necessitate people being out of work?”
Erickson also asked why fatalities were being counted as COVID-19 deaths when other ailments were actually more to blame.
“When someone dies in this country right now, they’re not talking about the high blood pressure, the diabetes, the stroke. They’re saying ‘Did they die from COVID?’” Erickson said. “We’ve been to hundreds of autopsies. You don’t talk about one thing, you talk about comorbidities. ER doctors now [say] ‘It’s interesting when I’m writing about my death report, I’m being pressured to add COVID. Why is that?”
The video was deleted late last night for “violating YouTube’s terms of service.”
Looks like UK government policy is working. Data for England and Wales for seven days ending 17-Apr-20
Deaths by age group
<1 0
1-4 1
5-9 0
10-14 1
15-19 7
20-24 12
25-29 26
30-34 41
35-39 69
40-44 120
45-49 242
50-54 444
55-59 739
60-64 1,111
65-69 1,454
70-74 2,340
75-79 3,232
80-84 4,272
85-89 4,242
90+ 3,998
downlad data from here
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales
Just checked, you are correct Allan, the informative video has been deleted by YT.
From time to time I have saved YT videos to a HD for this very reason, but I just realize I did not do it for the xfLVxx_lBLU video, grrrrrr. I could not imagine YT would remove a video made by two very qualified doctors, not in my remotest fantasy.
Although YT is a private company, it is so much an integral part of the world’s infrastructure, that international law and guidelines must apply to their business.
What YT decide regarding fowl language, hate speech, etc. is more less up to YT themselves. However, gagging sincere doctors, when they just reveal numbers and try to do an honest educational information service, is similar to “burning books”.
Carl – this appears be the same banned Dr Erickson and Dr Massihi video, re-posted.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/26/chinese-virus-on-the-shelf/#comment-2980772
After more than 5 million views, the scoundrels at YouTube CENSORED the above video by California doctors Erickson and Massihi, which was previously located here:
https://youtu.be/xfLVxx_lBLU The screen now reads: “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines.”
That is, the doctors were telling the truth – they were saying that Covid-19 was no more severe than other major seasonal flu’s and less severe than some. What’s up with that?
This appears be the same banned Dr Erickson and Dr Massihi video, re-posted. Copy it while you have the chance, before it is censored again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25m0fm2LSIg
The motives for YouTube to censor this excellent video are treasonous. How do we put the traitors at YouTube out of business?
Thar is lets jail the elderly and infirm so much for the compassionate society. Ignore the lung damage, considerable suffering and occasional deaths in the young.
m appreciate any response you might haveto the following post from my log stop east link now.
Bill Hirt
Wjhirt2014@gmail.com
Thirty years of IPCC Incompetence
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Policy (IPCC) defines itself as “the UN body for assessing the science related to climate change”. It was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Program to provide policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.
Since 1988 the IPCC has produced five comprehensive Assessment Reports and several Special Reports on specific topics. They’ve also produced Methodology Reports, which provide practical guidelines on the preparation of greenhouse gas inventories for the inventory reporting requirements of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was finalized between 2013 and 2014. Its key findings were:
· Human influence on the climate system is clear
· The more we disrupt our climate, the more we risk severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts
· We have the means to limit climate change and build a more prosperous, sustainable future
The IPCC claim for “human influence” is based on their assessment fossil emissions will raise atmospheric CO2 levels, increasing global temperatures, and “risk severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts”. No one doubts additional CO2 can increase global warming by allowing solar rays through atmosphere and blocking radiation back to space. Venus exemplifies that influence, however its atmosphere is 96.5% CO2.
The question becomes whether the human influence from increasing fossil CO2 emissions beyond current 0.04% atmospheric level can have a similar affect The IPCC AR5 SPM, “Summary Report for Policy Makers” includes on page 4, Figure SPM 1 (a) Observed globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature anomaly 1850–2012. It shows plots of annual average temperatures and decadal average temperatures.
They both show annual and decadal temperatures rose between 1910 and 1950, were relatively flat from 1950 to 1970 and rose from 1970 to 2012 at the same rate as they did from 1910 to 1950. Meanwhile fossil CO2 emissions, nearly all from coal, were relatively flat from 1910 to 1950. From 1950 to 1970 the added emissions from oil and gas more than doubled fossil CO2 emissions. They continued to increase until 1990 with subsequent emissions adding 70% by 2017. (That increase was largely the result of China increasing emissions from 2,397 million tons (Mt) in 1990 to 10,877 Mt in 2017, double US 5,107 Mt emissions.)
Thus by 1990 IPCC already had ample evidence to debunk their decision to attribute global warming to fossil emissions. That increases in fossil emissions did not have their purported ten times the effect on global temperatures as increases in energy from the Sun. First the fact that global temperatures had increased from 1910 to 1950 at the same rate as from 1970 to 1990 despite the fact fossil emissions had increased very little. Second that the global temperatures from 1950 to 1970 were relatively flat despite the substantial increase in fossil emissions. After 1990 the IPCC continued to ignore the fact subsequent temperature increases continued at the same rate as from 1970 despite the 70% increase between 1990 and 2017, failing to reflect purported sensitivity.
The IPCC is currently in the process of conducting their 6th Assessment Cycle. For thirty years they’ve failed to recognize the lack of correlation between global temperatures and fossil emissions. They’ve also failed to demonstrate the ability to limit fossil emissions so it’s time they concede fossil emissions are not an existential threat. That global temperatures, driven by the Sun, are increasing CO2 out gassing from ocean. That increasing global temperatures are the reason for increasing CO2 in atmosphere not the result.
The entire world has already paid a heavy price for IPCC incompetence. Their claim “We have the means to limit change and build a more prosperous, sustainable future” is beyond incompetent. My goal as a global warming denier gubernatorial candidate is to begin exposing this reality.
Venus has 224,000 times more CO2 than Earth. Not only does Venus have a FAR greater fraction of CO2 (96.5% vs. 0.04%) Venus has an atmosphere 93 times denser than on Earth. It’s the density that’s key, not CO2.
Venus’s atmosphere at the altitude where its atmospheric pressure is the same as it is on the surface of the Earth is at nearly the same temperature as it is at the surface of the Earth – this despite Venus having 96.5% CO2 vs. Earth’s 0.04% CO2. That’s why you might have read about fanciful plans to float a human habitat high in the Venusian clouds. What Venus actually proves is that CO2 isn’t all that effective at trapping heat.
Venus is hot for one reason and it has little to do with CO2. Venus is hot because Venus has a crushingly dense atmosphere. Venus would be just as hot (or hotter) if the Venusian atmosphere was pure water vapor.
You’ve not quite got that right. Venus’s temperature at the altitude where its atmospheric pressure is the same as it is on the surface of the Earth is considerably higher than the temperature at the surface of the Earth. But the difference can be fully explained by the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun and so receives a higher energy flux from the Sun. You are right to imply that it is not necessary to invoke the greenhouse effect to explain Venus’s high temperature.
While Venus is closer to the sun, it is the mass of the atmosphere that is the primary cause of the higher temperatures. All explained by the ideal gas laws, all discovered, proven and demonstrated by the crushing of Russian probes in the 50’s and 60’s. And yet, people believe that adding CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere currently at 0.041% will lead to similar “run away” warming that is perfectly normal for Venus.
I agree. This is why the comparison with the Earth must be at places of equal atmospheric pressure, not at the planetary surface. The temperature at the surface of Venus and in the lower atmosphere is, indeed, due to the weight of the atmosphere and the ideal gas laws.
Venus also rotates slower than it orbits. It has the highest visual albedo of any planet. What it doesn’t have is a runaway greenhouse effect.
Here’s something to consider about Venus. If it had a 90 bar atmosphere of N2 and no clouds, it’s surface temperature would be significantly less than it is now and SB would apply to the surface temperature based on solar input alone. If the N2 atmosphere also had the same cloud coverage as Venus has today, the surface temperature would be the same as it is now where SB relative to solar energy would only apply to the temperature of the cloud tops. Bear in mind that the source of the Joules warming the atmosphere and the surface below is the emissions from the clouds and not direct emissions from the Sun. The surface temperature is then dictated by PVT between the cloud tops in thermal equilibrium with the Sun and the surface below in thermal equilibrium with the clouds.
It is, also, half the distance from the sun than the Earth is so it receives twice as much radiation (inverse square law)!
I believe the key findings were in the Summary for policy makers , the committee or cabal for which comprises political warriors and few scientists; the Report itself is not nearly so ‘bullish’, and the fact that they always bring the summary out before the full report exposes their clandestine mentality. After reading the Summary who has the energy to open the full report which has the data?
The difficulty with persuading people is A: the barrage of influence peddling from the UN (a la Agenda 21) who have been controlling climate discussions in most western schools and universities since the IPCC opened shop. B: the data is complex and often best shown with illustrations? C: Most ‘Learned Societies’ have signed up to IPCC generated ‘Climate Communiques and so are hamstrung and unable to Rescind. D: Western Governments have forgotten they are there to lead and not follow the directions of the current crop of specialists. Trump seems to be the only one?
FYI Bill Hirt:
THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., January 10, 2020
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-false.pdf
THE LIBERALS’ COVERT GREEN PLAN FOR CANADA – POVERTY AND DICTATORSHIP
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., October 1, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/01/the-liberals-covert-green-plan-for-canada-poverty-and-dictatorship/
THE NEXT GREAT EXTINCTION EVENT WILL NOT BE GLOBAL WARMING – IT WILL BE GLOBAL COOLING
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., September 1, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/01/the-next-great-extinction-event-will-not-be-global-warming-it-will-be-global-cooling/
WHAT THE GREEN NEW DEAL IS REALLY ABOUT — AND IT’S NOT THE CLIMATE
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., July 19, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/20/what-the-green-new-deal-is-really-about-and-its-not-the-climate/
THE COST TO SOCIETY OF RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., July 4, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/04/the-cost-to-society-of-radical-environmentalism/
CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
Excel: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx
_____________________________________
Wow! Eric, this is the quote that stops me cold: “… seven in ten consider climate change as serious a crisis as Covid-19,…”! This means that the people, who responded to the survey in question, are woefully uninformed (misinformed?) or just plain stupid. Either scenario is alarming and neither scenario has a cure. The United Nations needs to relocate to China. Stay sane and safe (day 38 of the quarantine and I am now allowed to go for a walk four times a week!).
I suspect that the people who answered the survey were well chosen, perhaps by age?
Whole thing is astroturfing; why even bother canvassing when you can make it all up, just like you “adjust” the data? Everyone needs to read Sheryl Atkisson’s book “The Smear” to find out how flagrantly this is done today. It is literally fake “grassroots.” They put out a narrative then pretend it’s something “everyone believes.” How many years we’ve been hoodwinked by this crap is mind-boggling!
Truth is, “nature” is not in crisis. Not even close. Evidence = zero. It’s HUMANS who are screwed, to paraphrase George Carlin, and the UN and WHO are two of the major screwers. Time to dismiss out of hand as agitprop ANYTHING they say.
That 70% of the people who responded to the survey consider climate change as a serious crisis demonstrates the success of false indoctrination of ignorant, gullible people.
I’m willing to bet that most of those people have been or currently are being brainwashed by the Marxist mills collectively known as colleges and universities.
I can think of two responses to the 70%.
1. I don’t believe a figure like 70% is possible.
2. The survey was an internal survey of UN building employees.
Yes Ron, initially I thought that too. However, it probably represents a 30% drop in support. as previously, all ten would have been of the opinion that there was nothing more serious than climate change.
Best to you all. Eamon.
A “push poll”. Negative credibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to manipulate or alter prospective voters’ views under the guise of conducting an opinion poll. Large numbers of voters are contacted with little effort made to actually collect and analyze voters’ response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as an opinion poll. Push polls may rely on innuendo, or information gleaned from opposition research on the political opponent of the interests behind the poll.
Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning.[1] Indeed, the term is commonly (and confusingly) used in a broader sense to refer to legitimate polls that aim to test negative political messages.[2] Future usage of the term will determine whether the strict or broad definition becomes the most favored definition. However, in all such polls, the pollster asks leading questions or suggestive questions that “push” the interviewee towards adopting an unfavourable response towards the political candidate in question.
I am still interested in the on-going experiment we are running where we reduced fossil fuel consumption by 30-50%, depending on what data people use to measure it. This should have an impact on atmospheric CO2 if the CAGW theories are correct, so this is a test of that theory. The Null Hypothesis is that fossil fuel consumption contributes meaningfully to atmospheric CO2. The theory also says that there is a 100 Year lifespan for the impact of CO2 from fossil sources (100 year global warming potential). If this is true, there should be a meaningful impact for a significant reduction in CO2 emissions from fossil sources observable in the Mauna Loa CO2 atmospheric concentration measurements. If there is no impact for a 2 month drop in Fossil Fuel emissions, one would conclude that the overall impact of man on climate is small and not distinguishable from noise.
We should monitor this closely and discuss how long of period is needed to ascertain a meaningful data point from this experiment. If we conclude that the impact is trivial, that needs to be communicated widely and acted upon appropriately.
I have been slowly coming to the realization, based on bomb 14C, (showing about a 7 year residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere), as well as the whole illogical meme that “50% of anthropogenic CO2 gets absorbed immediately, the rest stays in the atmosphere for 100 years”, that the CO2 has been rising (as it always has) because it has been getting warmer, not because man is adding a trivial additional source of atmospheric CO2. The 1950’s hypothesis that the Suess effect was due to industrial dead carbon building up in the atmosphere was and diluting 14C was made back before we knew *anything* about residence time. This minor paradox may finally be resolved by recent Russian 10Be data – it was just another dip in the 14 C production rate, nothing to do with industrial dead carbon.
Where did you get the notion that we have reduced total fossil fuel usage by 30 to 50%?
DOE EIA Data on gasoline and jet fuel consumption. Diesel is fairly unaffected by the Stay-at-Home situation, but gasoline and jet fuel use has plummeted worldwide.
What about coal consumption and natural gas?
The impact of CO2 on climate is negligible. Human activity has contributed a small (about a half degree since 1909) increase in average global temperature (the rest is natural) due to increasing water vapor from increasing irrigation.
Graph of water vapor thru Feb 2020 from NASA/RSS TPW numerical anomalies: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HXX9IJkJWHYZkjyEH85oen3-CXTNEcID
LOL , you just argued it was “naturally ” man made.
I thought one of the defects of GCMs was that they assumed RH remains constant and add a WV feedback to the small calculated GHG warming.
There is often someone who WANTS to misunderstand.
Would you still fail to understand it this way? Human activity has contributed a small (about a half degree since 1909) increase in average global temperature due to increasing water vapor from increasing irrigation (the rest is natural).
One of the mistakes made in the GCMs is that WV increase is from feedback. Measured WV increase has been more than is POSSIBLE from temperature increase (feedback). https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Measured TPW and calculated TPW from UAH temperatures
https://drive.google.com/open?id=103oZtgHRtTsf12ybW-Ucn2gS8Qdbq9Yd
Typically, the annual cycle bottoms in October and reaches a maximum in May. The difference between the trough and peak has been about 8 ppmv but it is variable by an amount greater than the total from fossil fuel emissions.
It’s unlikely that any effect will be observed over a period of a few months. If the slowdown goes on long enough, then maybe detrended and ENSO corrected data might be able to tease out a man made signal.
Dr Bob,
Fine in theory, but why do you not get the raw daily CO2 data and analyse it your way?
You will find that there is almost zero recent daily CO2 available to the public. There is digital data available for Mauna Loa via NOAA and Scrips, but it seems to have a quality control issue.
My searches might not have been adequate so far, but I cannot find downloadable, digital, daily CO2 for 2020 to date from any other source, including Cape Grim Tasmania, Barrow Alaska, South Pole (major global stations) and Baring Head New Zealand as an example of the next level of stations.
I would appreciate feedback about data availability.
Try to get it yourselves and let us know how you went.
I fear that the various national authorities have absolutely no intention of letting the public have the data, even though taxpayers have made it possible.
Good luck. Geoff S
Marketing firms would kill for access to the sucker list the UN is using here.
Did they poll persons who voluntarily contribute to the UN?
For in Canada we see similar push polls,as credible as CBC polling “Friends of CBC”.
The UN have a firm track record,they lie by choice and serve no useful function known to productive persons.
Why are we still members of that corrupt agency?
Just so we’re real clear about push polls.
The thing that stood out to me was:
So, 0.3% of 13 million people did a survey. How were they selected? Did they select themselves? If 13 million people did not complete a survey, how were they involved? This rings of high octane male bovine excrement. Correct me if I’m wrong but is this the most amateur marketing effort I have seen in a very long time?
My nasty suspicion was that they emailed 13 million people on the sucker lists of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, etc., and invited them to take the poll. Let’s see Greenpeace claims 3,000,000 members. The Sierra Club claims 3,800,000 members. The WWF claims 5,000,000 members. That’s nearly enough right there.
In the article it mentions asking activists to have “conversations” with their followers.
Is it any surprise that the followers of activists for the most part agree with the activists?
How the UN’s Agenda 21 Influences Every Aspect of Society
Here’s some self serving numbers we’ve just yanked out of our backsides to try and load up the post virus debate with our talking points – how dare you challenge the democratic majority of people we’re claiming are on our side you waycist bullies…..
and plenty more in the same vein.
First I’ve heard of a worldwide survey to shape UN policy, so clearly they didn’t get the message to me. At first I was tempted to go online and add my voice, but I think now that this is just the sort of legitimacy they crave, so will not. Will focus on letting my elected representatives what I think of the UN.
Yet another reason to expel the UN from New York. Use the UN building as temporary hospital*. When the pandemic is over, give the UN building to Donald Trump so that he can turn it into condominiums.
*The location is perfect. The UN is at 42nd St and 1st Ave. NYU/Bellevue is at 34th and 1st. And New York Hospital/ Memorial Sloane Kettering is at 68st and 1st.
“Take action on climate change and the environment”
I’m all for preserving the environment. But would someone please tell me what the climate will be like once action has been taken and the problems with the climate that concern you have been resolved to your satisfaction?
Macron/France, same sorry tactics.
https://globalvisionuk.com/macrons-luddite-charter-grimly-predictable-and-utterly-unworkable/
It’s obvious that the UN is the progenitor of the AGW scam and advocates any and all support. It’s also obvious that the UN holds the Western nations responsible for the sad state of the Third World yet does everything to hinder rather than improve their status. The UN has grown to a behemoth with a budget larger than some nations and is financed primarily by those nations it demonizes. As an American I want to know what the UN has done for us, their major donor ….. rhetorical question. Time for the UN to start carrying out its’ mission and step away from world governance. It’s also past time the US steps away from the UN. Permanently.
That’s a novel way to abuse apostrophes 😉
Mark-1000% let’s leave the UN on someone else’s doorstep. Maybe Mars?
The biggest threat to humans trying to navigate their way through life’s everyday challenges is self-appointed do-gooders and “saviors” of just about everything.
Useful idiots are not a threatened species unfortunately.
And the UN is the most accomplished shepherd of this ever-growing flock.
Yes. The world could be a wonderful place if only the do-gooders would just stop trying to ‘save’ it and leave the rest of us alone.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be”cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals – C.S.Lewis.
UN discovers that when you pressure people to give the answer you want, they give the answer you want.
MarkW: I disagree, the UN discovered that pressure to give the desired answer DIDN”T work, so they decided to stop the pressure tactics, and told “activists” to conduct their own “surveys” of other “activists”, so much easier than actually taking polls. They were very disappointed with results, too. Only 70%?
The only good to come out of covid is less money is available for the climate change scam.
The UN types are absolutely clueless about how covid has affected every developed country, except for China. It is not possible to spend money (on climate change) that does not exist.
Our GDP’s are down 30% and tourism may be down for years. We are going to have 30% unemployment. Business are going bankrupt in real time. Cities and States are facing bankruptcy.
Due to spending exceeding revenue.
There is negative available money to spend on ‘climate change’.
We will soon have a new series of referendums on Climate Change in member states. They are called elections. Politicians that are seen throwing money after vanity projects that don’t give the people what they need and instead saddle them with onerous liabilities for the future will face loss and oblivion. And when they understand this, they will turn quicker than the rotor of Marine One.
If only that were true ! Here in the UK, we have two political parties who alternate power plus a third wannabee party. All three of them are fully paid up members of the CAGW cult. You could count on the fingers of one hand the number of MPs who have any sort of scientific understanding. There is no one we can vote for to eject the cultists and stop the watermelons from wrecking our energy generation capability.
We used to have UKIP who actually understood the scientific issues and had a rational energy policy. I believe that Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, latterly of this parish, held a post in the party. However, they were always regarded by the public as a single issue party (leaving the EU). Furthermore, a succession of disastrous party leaders and a drift to the far right led to many moderate members and supporters leaving, and they are now unworthy of a vote.
Our schools have brainwashed two generations of children into believing the carbon dioxide global warming hypothesis (without ever having had it explained to them). I fear it will take another two generations for emergent leaders to realise the mistake, by which time a huge amount of damage will have been done to our prosperity.
When a business proposes a take over of another and this is accepted in principle, the bidder conducts detailed due diligence before parting with a penny. I long for the day when the UK government does a proper exercise in due diligence on the output of the IPCC and their fellow travellers. But I fear that I won’t live to see that day.
Like your comment as a fellow Briton. According to Guido Fawkes, Jeremy Corbyn has just had an emergency fitting of a new CO2 spewing gas central heating boiler. This from a man who, had he won the election, would have us all ripping out our boilers. What a hypocrite. Perhaps, however, he knows something we don’t. If we are going to net zero carbon by 2050 the cost will be enormous. It will seriously damage the economy. It remains to be seen whether it will really happen. 30 years is a long time. I too will probably not live to see that day.
Yes, I remember distinctly, the day after the GE, Johnson was making his victory speech and then he got to climate change. He said you all voted for the government to take action, you voted for it, and we’re going to deliver. Excuse me, but his election campaign was “get Brexit done”, nothing more.
13 million people…and still not all member nations were represented. Interesting.
I am sure this survey has been promoted to the very people who would place a priority on those very things.
I filled it out differently and advised the UN Sec General to stop wasting focus on climate change and address real problems.
TILT! TILT! TILT! . . . The headline reads “global public tells” whereas the article’s body text reads “they ask activists”, both referring to information flow to/from the UN.
Interesting sleight-of-hand trick there.
But not at all surprising coming from the UN.
Those 7 in 10 who consider climate changing as important as WuhanFlu now have the experience to put their beliefs into action.
They have demonstarted that they do not need to fly anywhere or go farther in transportation than where can obtain essential food.
They can exist mostly staying at home since this occassions significant reduction in many kinds of mortality causes, thereby reducing the need for hospitalization & the high energy usage hospitals necessitate.
By ensuring social distancing those residing in buildings with elevators will only use the stairs, thus reducing the emvironmental impact from the other 3 out of 10 who may use the elevators.
Those 7 out of 10 can surrender their audio headphones from the year 1990 onward & agree to be bio-chipped as ineligible to use any headphones made other than those with paper drivers.
They must fully accept responsiblity for CO2 exhaled while alive if they have two X chromosomes & identify as male then they must also agree to fulfill the statistical WuhanFlu mortality rate for men.
Using their junk survey approach, surprised they didn’t report the “97% think climate change as serious a crisis as COVID-19.”
This is exactly like the Opinion-Editor in a major paper wrote after Trump in 2016 that they couldn’t see how Trump won because they knew of no one in their circle of colleagues and friends who voted for him.
Who is this “Global Public”? Another taxpayer-subsidized think tank? 😉 I think “global public” is another creating of the Green Blob’s imagination. It seems to me that controlling the climate consistently ranks at or near the bottom of priorities of normal people, and personal health and safety rank at or near the top. It’s funny how poorly managed health issues can cause worldwide problems.
Global public = Everyone in their social circle of colleagues and friends.
Reality has never been a democracy. It is a dictatorship of what is.
So Eric Worral wastes the opportunity to discuss the interfering, globalist UN and its 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda ( aks Agenda 21 ) by going into a personal politically motivated rant about Venezuela.
Well done Eric.
I think he made a good analogy
The UN didn’t get the answer they want from real people so they are cooking the results.
Well, it looks like a self-selected sample doesn’t it? ‘Inviting people to discuss their priorities for the future’. Only those really interested will take part. It’s also an echo chamber. If you bombard people with anthropogenic climate change propaganda you get back the echo of concern. As for Britain listening to nutters like Extinction Rebellion, what the hell do they think they are playing at? Their ideas are not even supported by the ‘science’ of the IPCC.
They surely did not invite me. Does it mean that I don’t exist?
Furthermore, Nature is not in crisis unlike what the ‘unenvironment.org/news tells us. Habitats are not threatened, pollution is not getting worse. The world is actually becoming an environmentally better place. Sounds like this ‘unenvironment.org’ organisation is another bunch of liars & misleaders like Greenpeace, Worldwatch & other environmental loons. Someone should inform Greta Thunberg & her associates that our generation is bequeathing to hers a world that is richer, cleaner, better fed & nourished & more secure than the one our parents bequeathed to us & that this progress will continue.
WHO knew that the UN is the real pandemic in the world.
Which of the climate models did they use to justify the above statement and their certainty that they know the cause and effect of global temperatures.
The John Christy graph of modelled temps vs reality (see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/27/some-dilemmas-of-climate-simulations/ for a recent use – fig 4) shows clearly that models are useless for predicting future temperatures.
This appears to be another ‘Don’t look behind the curtain’ opportunity for unelected, bureaucratic do-gooders to push for them to have more control.
Just like many countries do with their appointments to the judiciary and to ‘independent’ statutory panels, commissions, tribunals, etc.
Dr Bob,
Fine in theory, but why do you not get the raw daily CO2 data and analyse it your way?
You will find that there is almost zero recent daily CO2 available to the public. There is digital data available for Mauna Loa via NOAA and Scrips, but it seems to have a quality control issue.
My searches might not have been adequate so far, but I cannot find downloadable, digital, daily CO2 for 2020 to date from any other source, including Cape Grim Tasmania, Barrow Alaska, South Pole (major global stations) and Baring Head New Zealand as an example of the next level of stations.
I would appreciate feedback about data availability.
Try to get it yourselves and let us know how you went.
I fear that the various national authorities have absolutely no intention of letting the public have the data, even though taxpayers have made it possible.
Good luck. Geoff S
My take on this:
The UN has become 5 min crafts.
For those that don’t know: 5 min crafts is one of over 200 channels on Instagram and YouTube that pander to the viewing algorithm on Instagram and YouTube. Not one of them is genuine, not one of them has anything useful and all of them are full of, “why the heck would you do that?” content that is misleading to put it mildly to downright dangerous in some cases (eating bleached strawberries anyone?)
The other explanation I have is that the UN has become nothing more than a pyramid scheme–they can’t even masquerade as an MLM as there is no product. It’s all about recruitment into their little sphere.
Mark-1000% let’s leave the UN on someone else’s doorstep. Maybe Mars?
They want a pay raise too, and a travel budget increase, and oh they have friends that need jobs.
The Secretary General explains the role of the UN in the climate matter
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/29/numnut-un-bureaucrat/