UN contributes to global warming

UN is not just about wasting money. It does its part by contributing to global warming - destroying trees to print another useless report by spewing antropogenic CO2 to discuss it.

The latest UN effort resulted in a report entitled "Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing". The 100-page report seeks to shape the agenda for the upcoming summit this summer. The June 20-22 event, known as Rio+20 will take place 20 years after the landmark 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro that set down the UN conventions for protecting biodiversity and tackling global warming.

"We need to chart a new, more sustainable course for the future, one that strengthens equality and economic growth while protecting our planet," UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said in Addis Ababa to mark the release of the panel's report, which outlines more than 50 policy recommendations.

The three major things the report calls for are:

1. A new nexus between food, water and energy. "All three need to be fully integrated, not treated separately, if we are to deal with the global food security crisis".

2. A stronger interface between science and policy. "We must define what scientists refer to as planetary boundaries" beyond which human activity could wreck the planet.

3. Reducing social exclusion and closing the widening gap of social inequality.

Before discussing these three initiatives it is worth recalling the status of global warming, which the previous report sought to address. In December of last year, the UN climate discussion in South Africa turned ugly. It showed the lack of political will to deal with the issue in a way that was outline in the original summit at Rio in 1992 and the Kyoto protocols. I pointed out at the time that the entire enterprise of global warming was political posturing. Recently, the Climate Research Unit has quietly released data confirming absence of warming since 1997, and proving once again that the fluctuations of temperature on Earth is strongly correlated with the activity cycles of the Sun, not anthropogenic production CO2. In other words, the fear mongering of global warming is baloney.

After this reminder of the politicized non-scientific (basically, fraudulent) nature of the previous meeting in Rio, we can discuss this upcoming one. The goal of sustainability is a noble one, and is an important issue for discussion, however, the major thrust of the report suggest it is going to consist of more useless posturing.

1.A new nexus between food, water and energy. The first point seeks to make combine three separate issues into one great Gordian knot, which is unlikely to be tackled successfully (except perhaps by the method of Alexander the Great, who chopped it in half according to the legend). Food and water could conceivably be combined, although there are regions that have plenty of water, yet lack food for economic reasons. Throwing energy into the mix is going to make the problem intractable. US Congress often resorts to the same trick of combining unrelated legislation into one bill, when it seeks to push through a particularly unpopular item, or alternatively if it wishes to sink a bill, which may otherwise get passed. People who lack food will now have to contend with interests of energy producers.

2.A stronger interface between science and policy. The result (and likely the aim) of this stronger interface is to promote politicized pseudo-science like global warming. It is definitely related to Scientific Socialism invented by Marx and Engels, which used a veneer of science to distinguish itself from Utopian Socialism. It is another attempt to use global climate change (not warming) to justify unelected officials from asserting global control over national economies.

3.Reducing social exclusion and closing the widening gap of social inequality. This is double-speak for 'social justice' and other forms of 'fairness' that are another form of global socialism. The list of UN failures is immense, and it takes a lot of gall to put such a bold task on the agenda. Of course, the intended effect is to legitimize interference in national economies in the name of increasing 'social equality'. Only by pressuring nations into adopting this agenda could UN possibly have such an impact. UN was created to promote peace, and increasing homogeneity of people in individual nations, or between appear to be potentially consistent with that goal. But only on the surface. UN is not authorized by its charter to promote a socialist pipe-dream of equality within nations, but to reduce to conflicts between nations.

If UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon wishes to engage in such policies, he should start by reducing the social inequality between his country, South Korea, and its brethren in the North. Of course that would involve either the destruction of the nepotistic and Stalinist regime of North Korea to be absorbed by the South, or destruction of personal liberties of the South, and placing them under the rule of another "Dear Leader". Until Ban Ki-moon has shown the way by example he should have the decency not to attempt to force this socialist nonsense on the rest of the world.

Wasting money and contributing to global warming by
spewing CO2 and destroying trees on another useless report.

The gall of UN is infuriating. But, there's good news - the upcoming meeting shows no signs of being more successful than its failed predecessor.

Global warming baloney

Without much much fanfare the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit has confirmed that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997 based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

So much for the hockey stick chart (below) from the the late 1990s presented by a teams who used proxy indicators to estimate the temperature record of past centuries, to suggest recent warming was exceptional with clear implications for anthropogenic global warming.

It turned out that the hockey stick chart shown above falsely discounted the Medieval warming period. The figure below shows real data (red curve) and the fudged data used in publication by Moberg in 2005 (blue)the official IPCC Third Assesement Report from 2001 (black) and the hysterical projection (dashed green) from a paper by Jones from 2009.

Hacked emails from the Climactic Research Unit (CRU) and University of East Anglia that were released on the internet showed collusion between these professors. Wikipedia article on this subject appears to have been written by sympathizers of these researchers, because it attempts to exonerate their conduct following Climategate 1.0. The second batch of hacked emails, known as Climategate 2.0 nail down the three themes that emerged initially were true:

(1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
(2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry;
(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

The latest data released by University of East Anglia and the CRU showed that their prior projections were completely worthless and are a reminder of the embarrassing conduct of researchers involved. These data also shame Wikipedia, which provides political cover for the debunked 'anthropogenic global warming' to this day.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona suggest that Sun Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be particularly weak, suggesting there is a likelihood of a mini ice age, not global warming.

Will these researchers who colluded and pushed misleading data be fired? Will Wikipedia's article change to reflect their documented, and shameful behavior?

Let's just say I won't be giving money to Wikipedia anytime soon.