Climate Scientist Calls On UN To Get Out Of Climate Change

[Anonymous]

Tim Ball is hated by the IPCC fraudster hypocrites, but he is right about this. The UN should fuck off and stay the fuck out of this. Those expensive, carbon-guzzling hypocritical scumbags with the gigantic carbon footprints are good for one thing only; making Westerners poorer.

The UN must "get out of the climate field entirely," a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg says.



Dr. Tim Ball, a board member of the International Climate Science Coalition and author of "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science," says the agency should focus "only on issues the people of the world deem important."



United Nations climate talks, being held in Peru, are heading for a watered-down deal on limiting global warming, leaving many of the toughest issues for next year's Paris summit, Reuters reported.



"Climate change has happened, is happening and will always happen," Ball said in a statement Saturday.



Contrary to the message of the last 30 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."



Tom Harris, the head of the Canadian chapter of ICSC, also came down hard on the UN.



Harris said climate change negotiators in Lima "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".



"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," Harris said.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/12/20141213-105217.html">http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/ca ... 05217.html">http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/12/20141213-105217.html

http://data.myworld2015.org/">http://data.myworld2015.org/

[Anonymous]

Ban Ki Moon thinks the IPCC is great. Then again he thinks Australia and Canada are destroying the planet while Saudi Arabia And China are saving it. ac_lmfao

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."

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1463067/time-for-the-un-to-get-out-of-climate-change">http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1463067 ... ate-change">http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1463067/time-for-the-un-to-get-out-of-climate-change

[Anonymous]

If it wasn't so expensive, it would be almost comedy the nonsense the UN considers historic and meaningless. The proposed $100 billion fund the UN seeks for corrupt third world sheiks, princes and dictators is a gift even to pricey for Santa Claus. ac_king  

The latest United Nations climate summit in Lima finally adjourned Sunday after issuing a watered-down "agreement" to address global warming even its supporters admitted was weak.



The deal that emerged after two-weeks of negotiations and two all-night bargaining sessions puts off every major decision 195 countries — including Canada — must make, until another UN meeting a year from now in Paris.



This has been the UN's standard operating procedure in global climate negotiations for years, but this year, things were supposed to be different in Lima.



That's because of the so-called "historic" agreement signed by U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping last month, considered the respective leaders of the developed and developing worlds.



According to our chattering classes, this was supposed to jump start the Lima talks into urgent action on climate change and isolate Prime Minister Stephen Harper on the issue.



None of that happened.



On this point, my colleagues at Sun News have put together an amusing montage of news clips showing Canadian media pundits from CTV, CBC and Global babbling away about the "historic" implications of the China-U.S. deal with little apparent understanding of what it said and didn't say.



The U.S.-China deal didn't address, and thus the UN negotiations in Lima failed to meaningfully address, the two most important issues.



First, whether the developing world, responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions today, should be required to reduce them and if so, at what rate.



This was the key controversy in the Kyoto accord which expired in 2012 and which the UN wants to replace next year with a new agreement starting in 2020.



Kyoto only required emission cuts of industrialized countries like Canada (the U.S. was exempt because it never ratified Kyoto), and exempted China, India and the rest of the developing world.



Even if the developing world agrees to cutting emissions in future, there is an additional dispute over the rate of cuts, with the developing world arguing it should face less severe reductions than the developed world.



The second controversy is over how much money developed countries like Canada should pay to the developing world in so-called climate reparations, for emitting most of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the past.



The UN has called for creating a $100-billion-a-year Green Climate Fund to be financed by countries like Canada, starting in 2020.



Since the U.S.-China deal didn't address any of these issues it was predictable to anyone who has been paying attention that they wouldn't be addressed in Lima.



The weakness of the U.S.-China deal — reflected in the Lima agreement — is that it isn't binding.



It's merely a statement of aspirational goals by the world's two-largest emitters — China number one, the U.S. number two.



The deal says China will reduce its emissions after 2030 — when they were expected to peak anyway.



China also agreed to increase its use of green energy to 20% by 2030, but even the Obama White House conceded it would have to install enough wind turbines and solar panels within 15 years to produce more energy "than all the coal-fired plants that exist in China today."



Not only is that impractical, there's no penalty if it fails.



China also said in Lima it will not submit its emission reduction plan for inspection by other countries.



Obama, a lame-duck president anxious for an environmental legacy, ostensibly committed the U.S. to reduce its emissions by up to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025.



Except Obama's term of office ends in two years, meaning he won't be around to implement his own deal.



And for the rest of his presidency, he'll face a Republican-controlled Congress committed to scrapping his deal with China, on the basis it will undermine the U.S. economy.



How anyone could see that as a "historic" agreement boggles the mind.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/12/14/more-hot-air-on-global-warming">http://www.torontosun.com/2014/12/14/mo ... al-warming">http://www.torontosun.com/2014/12/14/more-hot-air-on-global-warming

[Romero]

Well, there's no way that the UN, thousands of scientists and the scientific consensus can argue against one denier. Shut 'er down, boys!

The ICSC calls itself "a non-partisan group of independent scientists", but has been described as having "less to do with science than with public relations". Geochemist and National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell contrasts the mission and principles of the ICSC with those of the American Geophysical Union. In Powell's opinion, the ICSC is a "denier organization" that "know the answers and seek only confirmation that they are right. One group of minds is open; the other closed".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harris_%28mechanical_engineer%29">//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harris_%28mechanical_engineer%29

Hey, the UN still isn't getting out of climate change. Aren't they listening to that one denier? Don't they care that this one guy is telling them what to do? How rude!

[Anonymous]

I guess these 134 scientists were unaware of the IPCC's so-called "consensus" that the world is facing unprecedented warming and man is totally responsible. Perhaps, you can convince them to register here and tell them the unbiased IPCC says they are on the wrong side of the "consensus" ac_lmfao

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=761:open-letter-to-un-secretary-general-and-endorser-list&catid=1:latest&Itemid=2">http://www.climatescienceinternational. ... t&Itemid=2">http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=761:open-letter-to-un-secretary-general-and-endorser-list&catid=1:latest&Itemid=2



As for having less to do with science than anything else, there are few greater offenders than the IPCC itself.

the IPCC is a thoroughly political organization. Far from objectively weighing the best available science

http://business.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/peter-foster-a-thoroughly-political-body/">http://business.financialpost.com/2011/ ... ical-body/">http://business.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/peter-foster-a-thoroughly-political-body/

Whatever one's opinion of ICSC, they are not praising Saudi and China while demonizing Canada and Aus like the United Nitwits. More importantly, they are NOT asking us for $100 billion a year to lavish on corrupt, brutal dictators and Islamic rulers. Even if you believe the IPCC's version of "consensus", Tim Ball is right, they should get the fuck out of this issue entirely. The IPCC is an unnecessary pet luxury we in the West cannot afford.

[Renee]

I guess these 134 scientists were unaware of the IPCC's so-called "consensus" that the world is facing unprecedented warming and man is totally responsible. Perhaps, you can convince them to register here and tell them the unbiased IPCC says they are on the wrong side of the "consensus" ac_lmfao

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=761:open-letter-to-un-secretary-general-and-endorser-list&catid=1:latest&Itemid=2">http://www.climatescienceinternational. ... t&Itemid=2">http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=761:open-letter-to-un-secretary-general-and-endorser-list&catid=1:latest&Itemid=2



As for having less to do with science than anything else, there are few greater offenders than the IPCC itself.

the IPCC is a thoroughly political organization. Far from objectively weighing the best available science

http://business.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/peter-foster-a-thoroughly-political-body/">http://business.financialpost.com/2011/ ... ical-body/">http://business.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/peter-foster-a-thoroughly-political-body/

Whatever one's opinion of ICSC, they are not praising Saudi and China while demonizing Canada and Aus like the United Nitwits. More importantly, they are NOT asking us for $100 billion a year to lavish on corrupt, brutal dictators and Islamic rulers. Even if you believe the IPCC's version of "consensus", Tim Ball is right, they should get the fuck out of this issue entirely. The IPCC is an unnecessary pet luxury we in the West cannot afford.

Don't bust old Moonbat's bubble. He is having too good a time playing with the elves, unicorns and fairies.

[Anonymous]

^I am not trying to reignite this circular debate with people who do not understand science(no offense). I am just saying what we all know...the UN should get the fuck of this entirely.

[Anonymous]

Another reason the UN should get the hell out of the climate change industry is that they put pressure on governments to achieve unrealistic arbitrary promises.

TORONTO - As we begin 2015, it's worth noting we are entering the 27th year of Canadian politicians making ridiculous and impractical promises to reduce Canada's industrial carbon dioxide emissions, ostensibly to combat global warming.



The last absurd promise was Prime Minister Stephen Harper's commitment in 2010 to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, through government regulation.



Since, as Prof. Andrew Leach of the University of Alberta School of Business observed at the time, that would have required the Conservatives to shut down the equivalent of Canada's transportation sector within a decade, it's hardly surprising that, five years later, we are nowhere near that goal.



But in failing to achieve unrealistic emission reduction promises, Harper is merely the latest in an unbroken line of prime ministers dating back to Brian Mulroney.



Both Paul Martin and Jean Chretien failed to implement Chretien's even more absurd commitment in 1997, ratified by the Liberal Parliament of 2002, to reduce Canada's emissions by an average of 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.



That's hardly surprising given that Chretien's top political aide, Eddie Goldenberg, admitted in 2007 the Liberals knew they had no way of implementing Chretien's target, part of the United Nations' now-expired Kyoto accord, when he signed it.



As a result, when Harper came to power in 2006 after defeating the Liberals, Canada was 30% above the Kyoto target to which Chretien had agreed in 1997.



Attempting to achieve that target between 2008 and 2012 would have required Harper to put a price on Canada's emissions either through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade that would have destroyed the Canadian economy.



Then again, failing to reach impossible emission reduction targets was nothing new for Chretien and the Liberals.



All the way back in 1993, in the election that brought them to power, Chretien had promised in his Red Book to reduce Canada's emissions to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005.



Had Chretien achieved that, there would have been no need for him to sign the far less stringent Kyoto accord, which he agreed to four years later and then also failed to implement.



And where did Chretien get the absurd idea idea in 1993 of reducing Canada's emissions by 20% below 1988 levels by 2005?



From the the Brian Mulroney Conservative government, which first made that promise in 1988, before losing power five years later to the Chretien Liberals.



Understanding the history of unrealistic and failed emission reduction plans in Canada helps explain the fantasy nature of this political debate today.



Twenty-seven years later, Harper is still promising to reduce emissions to levels everyone knows he can't achieve.



Meanwhile, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau condemns Harper for not doing what the Liberals made it impossible for him to do by failing to reach their own even more absurdly unattainable targets, before they were were thrown out of office in 2006.



Ditto NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, who, as distinct from Trudeau's ever-vague promise of implementing "carbon pricing" if he wins the October election, promises to implement a cap-and-trade system, despite the fact carbon trading has been a complete failure in Europe where it's been tried for 10 years.



Not only has cap-and-trade failed to lower emissions, it sent electricity prices skyrocketing and, essentially a stock market in man-made industrial emissions, is riddled with fraud and corruption.



Some day Canada may elect a leader prepared to give us the straight goods about all this nonsense.



That is, that the UN's dream of developing a mandatory global greenhouse gas reduction scheme isn't about saving the planet or even lowering emissions.



Rather, it's about redistributing wealth from the developed world (us) to the developing world, as one of its senior climate officials, Ottmar Edenhofer, acknowledged in 2010.



Further, that this plan is unacceptably punitive financially to a big, cold, northern, sparsely-populated country like Canada, which relies on fossil fuel production for much of its prosperity.



And finally that global warming, or climate change or whatever you want to call it, is simply one of a number of environmental problems we face and does not pose an existential threat to humanity.



Of the three leaders of Canada's major political parties, Harper is the most practical-minded about all this, but that's only because Trudeau and Mulcair, when it comes to climate policy, are the equivalent of people who still believe Elvis is alive.​

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/03/canada-missing-absurd-greenhouse-gas-reduction-targets-for-27-years">http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/03/ca ... r-27-years">http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/03/canada-missing-absurd-greenhouse-gas-reduction-targets-for-27-years