The UN is a bad joke. Period. U.S. out of U.N. & Vice Versa!
I used to work in the State Department Bureau of International Organizations as the Middle East Officer. Then I was made Special Assistant to the Asst. Secretary of State and got to see a wide swath of at least the US and its relations with the United Nations. So I wasn't surprised when UN Climate Chief Rajendra Pachauri delivered a blistering rebuke to India's environment minister for casting doubt on the notion that global warming was causing the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers:
"We have a very clear idea of what is happening," the chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told the Guardian newspaper. "I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."
Then again, when it comes to unsubstantiated research it's hard to beat the IPCC, whose 2007 report insisted that the glaciers—which feed the rivers that in turn feed much of South Asia—were very likely to nearly disappear by the year 2035. "The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers," it wrote in its supposedly definitive report, "can be attributed primarily to the [sic] global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases."
Parsing IRCC Moron-in-Chief Pachauri and his own "arrogance" is child's play.
It turns out that this widely publicized prediction was taken from a 2005 report from the World Wildlife Fund, which based it on a comment by Indian glacier expert Syed Hasnain from 1999. Mr. Hasnian now says he was "misquoted." Even more interesting is that the IPCC was warned in 2006 by leading glaciologist Georg Kaser that the 2035 forecast was baseless. "This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude," Mr. Kaser told the Agence France-Presse. "It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing."
Of course, the idiot-moron-sh*thead Pachauri cannot admit a mistake:
On Wednesday, the IPCC got around to acknowledging that the claim was "poorly substantiated," though Mr. Pachauri also suggested it amounted to little more than a scientific typo. Yet the error is of a piece with other glib, and now debunked, global warming alarms.
That's right, Anthropogenic Global Warming is an artifact created by a cabal of crooked scientists of the sort Richard Feynman warned us about long ago in his classically eternal truth, the essay entitled "Cargo Cult Science," a CalTech commencement which is a short example of prophecy among scientific geniuses. [Feynman also prophesied that a Shuttle would crash roughly every 50 launches, not the 100,000 the corrupt clowns, oops, scientific PhDs at NASA predicted. The corrupt clowns remaining at what is now the national embarassment of NASA hate Feynman because he saw them in the '80's as members of the politicized monster NASA has now become].
And the WSJ Journal goes on to repudiate the D+ student Al Gore's tedious collection of lies called, oxymoronically, An Inconvenient Truth.
Among them: that 1998 was the warmest year on record in the United States (it was 1934); that sea levels could soon rise by up to 20 feet and put Florida underwater (an 18-inch rise by the year 2100 is the more authoritative estimate); that polar bears are critically endangered by global warming (most polar bear populations appear to be stable or increasing); that—well, we could go on without even mentioning the climategate emails.
The WSJ omitted to mention the most recent lie coming out of James Hansen's Goddard BS Center---namely that global temps have gone up over the last 12 years---Hansen is a well known crackpot in cahoots with another fraud named Schneider at Stanford who calls himself a "climate scientist." Pace chronic liar Hansen, the world temp has remained roughly the same over the last decade as the sunspots have disappeared that indicate another Maunder Minimum [1650-1725] of very low sunspot activity might be at hand.
Discover Magazine's 100 top scientific finds of The Year in Science Mag has the story on p. 45, entitled "Sun's Changes Have Surprise Effects on Earth's Weather," an article on Gerald Meehl and an international team of climate scientists sponsored by the National Center for Atmospheric Research. And Henrik Svensmark of the Technical University of Denmark says much the same thing, that intense sunspots shield the Earth from cosmic rays and generate a lot of cloud cover, raising global temps. No sunspots, as happened over the last decade, means that the cosmic rays disperse cloud cover, and lead to global cooling. Janet Fang wrote the rather clunky examination, but Discover ranks this as Number 31 in discoveries that are changing the world.
Another Discover article on sunspots on p.54 is ranked #50 and is entitled "Magnetic Mysteries of Sunspots Decoded" which
"could make it easier to predict violent "sace weather" before it affects Earth. Sunpots often spawn solar flares than can knock out radio communication, zap satellites, and zap power grids."
No mention of how one might connect with another and mags like Scientific American and Nature have long ago given up any pretense of scientific inquiry, so you have to dig out the nuggets yourself.
As if on cue, the feckless propanda tabloid Nature comes out with an editorial blaming a " small coterie of individuals who deny humanity's influence on climate will try to use any perceived flaw in the evidence to discredit the entire picture. So how can researchers honestly describe the uncertainty in their work without it being misconstrued?" while later in the SAME ridiculous howler piously intones:
Scientists should be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they share something in common with that other side.
Looks like the East Anglian brainfarts who encouraged delusional lying and cheating about climate change have infected what used to be a respectable scientific news outlet which now deserves the bottom of a birdcage for its only useful and harmless purpose.