United Nations

The climate essay warmists are trying to suppress

NOTE: This op-ed is apparently too hot for some editors to handle. Late last week it was accepted and posted on politix.topix.com only to be abruptly removed some two hours later. After several hours of attempting to determine why it was removed, I was informed the topix.com editor had permanently taken it down because of a strong negative reaction to it and because of “conflicting views from the scientific community” over factual assertions in the piece.

Fortunately, some media outlets recognize a vigorous scientific debate persists over humanity’s influence on climate and those outlets refuse outside efforts to silence viewpoints that run counter to prevailing climate alarmism. My original piece follows below.- Craig Idso

Guest essay by Dr. Craig D. Idso

The release of a United Nations (UN) climate change report last week energized various politicians and environmental activists, who issued a new round of calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most fiery language in this regard came from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who called upon Congress to “wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution,” while Secretary of State John Kerry expressed similar sentiments in a State Department release, claiming that “unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.” 

Really? Is Earth’s climate so fragile that both it and our way of life are in jeopardy because of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions?

In a word, no! The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).    Read more »

UN wants us all to turn into vegan hippycrites

I had little respect for the UN to start with, but now any differences we have are irreconcilable

Governments must switch from fossil fuels to nuclear, wind and solar energy to avoid a global warming catastrophe in a move costing about 300 billion ($578 billion) a year, a United Nations report warns today.

The study by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lays out the pressing need for the world to ditch coal and oil and switch to green energy.

The report is likely to spark a new row over the cost of countering global warming, as climate change sceptics urge governments not to succumb to a green agenda, alleging it would drive up living costs for the rest of the century.

Not just the costs, it is completely batshit insane!  With the Nuclear option off the table, and with New Zealand’s primary income coming from cows, we might as well lock up and move somewhere else.   Read more »

Christopher Booker on climate fraudsters and charlatans

Christopher Booker writes at the Telegraph about climate scaremongers who are still twisting the evidence over global warming:

When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen. They will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. They will see these modest rises as just part of a general warming that began at the start of the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, when the Earth had grown cooler for 400 years.

They will be struck by the extent to which this scare relied on the projections of computer models, which then proved to be hopelessly wrong when, in the years after 1998, their predicted rise in temperature came virtually to a halt. But in particular they will be amazed by the almost religious reverence accorded to that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which by then will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group. It had been set up in the 1980s by a small band of politically persuasive scientists who had become fanatically committed to the belief that, because carbon dioxide levels were rising, global temperatures must inevitably follow; an assumption that the evidence would increasingly show was mistaken.

Five times between 1990 and 2014 the IPCC published three massive volumes of technical reports – another emerged last week – and each time we saw the same pattern. Each was supposedly based on thousands of scientific studies, many funded to find evidence to support the received view that man-made climate change was threatening the world with disaster – hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief “Summary for Policymakers”, carefully crafted by governments and a few committed scientists to hype up the scare by going much further than was justified by the thousands of pages in the technical reports themselves.  Read more »

Helen Clark wants the top trough, we should support her

Helen Clark wants the top UN job

Helen Clark wants the top UN job

Helen Clark is after the top job at the UN. She’s had 6 years at number three with her job at the UNDP and made not one blind bit of difference to anyone in the world except her bank balance and being able to provide jobs for her fallen angels.

But far be it from me to be bitter about her wanting to spend more time offshore, in fact long may it be encouraged lest she return and decided to meddle in domestic politics again.

So, I find I must support her bid, if only to save us from her return. The Herald reports:

New Zealanders, regardless of political leanings, can applaud the fact that Helen Clark has been touted internationally as the next Secretary-General of the United Nations. We would more than applaud it, her appointment would be a positive boon to New Zealand’s recognition and status in the world.  Read more »

Developing nations attempt to greenmail first world at Warsaw

Warsaw is turning in to a complete mess as the UN meets to discuss climate change.

Developments over the weekend show the developing nations employing standover tactics to force the first world nations to fund disasters even though there is no evidence to suggest those disasters are in fact caused by man-made climate change.

Developing countries have called for legally-binding rules that force rich countries to provide money when they are affected by extreme weather events such as Typhoon Haiyan.

Currently, wealthy nations such as Britain offer donations following a natural disaster.

But last night a group of nations came together to argue extreme events, such as droughts or typhoons, are becoming more frequent because of man-made global warming.

Brazil’s representative called for countries which industrialised earlier – such as Britain – to bear the brunt of the financial burden because they have had higher greenhouse gas emissions for longer.

The issue has threatened to derail a fragile consensus at the two-week UN summit in Warsaw, which was meant to end last night, with talks instead expected to continue well into this morning.

In a heated debate last night, the 191 nations addressed the idea of some members paying ‘compensation’ to poor countries for natural disasters.

China even has the cheek to jump into the debate even though they are one of the world’s biggest polluters.

A group of 130 nations led by China even called for scientists to examine historical emissions dating back to the time of the industrial revolution in 1850.

The principle has dominated the negotiations at Warsaw, with Britain and other developed nations refusing to countenance the idea of an automatic compensation fund, concerned over the repercussions over legal liability.  Read more »

Rude and Wrong

Rodney Hide gives Russel Norman a kick in the slats for being both rude and wrong about climate change and politicising a condolence speech for the Philippines.

Out poured a diatribe of how Typhoon Haiyan has reminded us we haven’t done enough to combat climate change. We can’t afford to procrastinate: we must deal with the “climate crisis madness”. Vote Green was his message. And cut greenhouse gases.

He tried to excuse the speech by quoting the head of the Philippines delegation at the UN Climate Change talks in Warsaw. But it made me queasy that a political leader was making political points at a solemn time set aside to honour and to respect the thousands killed and a country that is reeling.

It struck me that it takes a special kind of political coldness to do that. Norman demonstrated an extraordinary heartlessness and an unappealing drive to push his own political barrow, no matter the circumstance.  Read more »

Is the Commonwealth a waste of time?

Colonial_Map

Like many organisation started near the end of World War 2, including the UN, The Commonwealth may well have long ago served its purpose.

Not any more is the map for the world coloured Oxford Red. So why bother with the Commonwealth at all.

PERHAPS the most remarkable thing about the Commonwealth is that it exists at all. Setting aside the anti-colonial resentment that hastened the demise of the British empire throughout the 20th century, almost all its former subjects have since co-existed in a club that has the queen as its head. The Commonwealth has 53 members and encompasses almost a third of the world’s population; among former British colonies, only Burma and Aden chose not to join.

Yet what is its purpose? Many citizens of Commonwealth countries hardly know; a quarter of Jamaicans, when asked, said they thought Barack Obama was its head. Most who know slightly better would probably cite the quadrennial Commonwealth games as proof of the club’s existence. (It was most recently held in Delhi, in 2010, an event that shone a cold light on the shortcomings of the Indian state.) Otherwise, the club runs a good scholarship programme, development projects for its poorest members and a tangled and ineffective bureaucracy, including at least 70 different organisations, which appears to exist chiefly to provide junkets for a well-heeled Commonwealth elite.  Read more »

“Socialism masquerading as environmentalism.”

Tony Abbott has come good, honouring an election pledge. Today the bill to repeal the carbon tax gets introduced to parliament.

On top of that they shelving all taxation or contributions to anything remotely connected with climate change.

Australia’s cabinet has decided it will reject new contributions or taxes related to climate change at this week’s annual United Nations global summit on climate change in Warsaw, calling the measures “socialism masquerading as environmentalism.”   Read more »

Map of the Day

Percentage_population_undernourished_world_map

Percentage of population suffering from malnutrition by country, by UN data

Rodney Hide on the fraud of Climate Change and the IPCC [UPDATED]

Rodney Hide is as blunt as usual in calling out the charlatans of the IPCC.

The headlines shout, “Scientists give strongest climate change warning” and “Grim message on climate change”.

Yes the just-released Fifth Assessment of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declares the science more certain than ever. It wasn’t always so.

Patrick Gower attacked me yesterday via twitter until I sent him a link about how they actually worked out the 95%, then he went surprisingly quiet. [Looks like I was talking to a PG impersonator!  No wonder he went quiet...]

But the news is not all bad. The hike in temperatures has “paused” despite the continued hike in greenhouse gases. The IPCC had been almost 95 per cent certain the world would now be warmer than it actually is. Their predictions haven’t proved true.

Haven’t proved true? Does that mean they got it WRONG, or worse that they lied?

Read more »