Patterico's Pontifications

4/15/2011

UN Caught Scrubbing Embarrassing Climate Refugee Prediction (Update: Gavin Links and Hotairalanche)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 7:25 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Update: Gavin Atkins, whose keen eye started this whole thing, links to this post

Update (II): Hot Air links. Thanks! And there are several funny comments over there, so you might want to take a gander..

—————————

You might remember the other day I pointed out how the UN predicted 50 million climate refugees by 2010, a prediction that came up laughably short of the mark by only around 50 million.  Well, if you go to that post and click on the link to the UN page making that claim… something funny happens.  You get this:

Of course the great thing about the UN is that even though they are a dishonest-to-evil club for dictators they are also clumsy.  Apparently no one at the U.N. knew there was such a thing as a google cache.

As Charles Johnson can tell you, it is very hard to truly make something disappear down the memory hole.

Finally, a big hat tip to Carlitos.  But for his tip, I never would have known the page had disappeared.  I had moved on.

Also, I will be putting up screen shots of the google cache (and the full “page not found” screen cap) under the fold, in case someone at the U.N. grows a brain.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

146 Comments

  1. First of all, the website isn’t a UN website. Not that being accurate matters.

    Secondly, the purpose of the website is, among other things, to act as a clearinghouse for information relating to environmental studies. The “scrubbed” web page was merely a link to one such study. That’s a link, not an endorsement. If you have an issue with the study, the one to make fun of is Norman Myers (whoever he is).

    Finally, I’m not sure what is so nefarious about getting rid of outdated studies. A study predicting what will happen by 2010 becomes obsolete in 2011, even if it is right.

    Anyway, back to your victory dance.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 4/15/2011 @ 8:24 am

  2. By a show of hands, who is shocked that kmart offered said defense?

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 4/15/2011 @ 8:33 am

  3. Kman, it is a UN website. It’s run by UNEP. I’ll let you guess what the UN in “UNEP” stands for. The “paper” was published in IAASTD, which is co-sponsored by UNEP, as well as some other international entities, most of which are UN organizations. They allowed in a paper like this, which means the peer review process in IAASTD is somewhat questionable at best.

    Yes, that’s a problem.

    Comment by Newtons.Bit (b78b37) — 4/15/2011 @ 8:33 am

  4. Kman

    > First of all, the website isn’t a UN website. Not that being accurate matters.

    Its the UNEP, which is the UN.

    > That’s a link, not an endorsement.

    Bullcrap. They didn’t say, “hey you might want to read this” but further created an interactive map illustrating what he said and stated his claims as fact. And disappered it promptly when a few blogers pointed and laughed at it. its not the conspiracy, its the cover up.

    > Finally, I’m not sure what is so nefarious about getting rid of outdated studies.

    then why wasn’t it deleted four months ago?

    And i think if they predict something and we have the chance to test their predictions against real world results, whatever the outcome we should be able to see the prediction so we can compare it to reality.

    But this is all about hiding the decline (in their credibility).

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/15/2011 @ 8:34 am

  5. A clue:

    © 2010 UNEP/GRID-Arendal
    Disclaimer, copyright and usage conditions

    Comment by carlitos (00428f) — 4/15/2011 @ 8:34 am

  6. If you go to this page, towards the bottom you can read that “some studies are predicting 150 million climate refugees by 2050.”

    I’m just curious as to what policy is being made, based on these predictions. Is the UN planning for population shifts, for example? Are they working with neighbor islands to relocate the Tuvalu?

    Comment by carlitos (00428f) — 4/15/2011 @ 8:37 am

  7. UNEP has its own website. GRID-Arendal (whose website it actually is) is a MEMBER. Not the same thing.

    further created an interactive map illustrating what he said and stated his claims as fact

    What makes you think the UN created the map?

    then why wasn’t it deleted four months ago?

    What? A website with a bad/absent webmaster? Who would have thought such a thing could exist!

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 4/15/2011 @ 8:41 am

  8. “GRID-Arendal is an official United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) collaborating centre, supporting informed decision making and awareness-raising through:”

    Kman is a moron. Tell us again about that Fiscal 2009 budget that everybody knows Bush passed in 2008, except in this case everybody means you and 2008 really means 2009 and Bush really means Obama.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/15/2011 @ 8:43 am

  9. 1.First of all, the website isn’t a UN website. Not that being accurate matters

    – Hmm, let’s fact-check, okay k-pax?

    UNEP is the designated authority of the United Nations system in environmental issues at the global and regional level.

    – Whoops! Boy, it’s rough when you have to go first, huh?

    Comment by Icy Texan (6d2703) — 4/15/2011 @ 8:44 am

  10. “GRID-Arendal is an official United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) collaborating centre, supporting informed decision making and awareness-raising through:”

    Right. But is not UNEP. It’s a member; an affiliate.

    Kind of like a local official Fox station in Parump, Nevada isn’t the same as FOX NEWS.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 4/15/2011 @ 8:51 am

  11. *laughs* Every single link on the dang screen shot goes right back to the UN… but hey! This isn’t a UN site, or a UN claim, and it’s not bad anyways….

    Reminds me of the old joke about a lawyer who claimed he never borrowed the bucket, the bucket had a hole when he borrowed it, and there wasn’t a hole in it when he returned the bucket…..

    Comment by Foxfier (24dddb) — 4/15/2011 @ 8:53 am

  12. Kman

    > But is not UNEP. It’s a member; an affiliate.

    So if you go to the local MacDonalds and discover a human finger in your cheeseburger, do you sue the local franchise?

    Or both the local franchise and the HQ?

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/15/2011 @ 8:57 am

  13. Threads like these really illustrate what Kman brings to the party. Knee-jerk contrarianism and …

    Comment by carlitos (00428f) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:04 am

  14. Technically Kman is correct, as a QUANGO the organization is not part of the UN, merely an independent organization which is reports solely to the UN. It’s a time honored dodge used to divert responsibility, much like it is absurd to consider your local Mobile station to be part of Exxon-Mobile – it is either independently owned or owned by a separate company like SOI. Occasionally some people get confused about this, but it is wrong to confuse the issue – it would be like blaming BP for the Gulf Spill, BP was not responsible it was on an oil rig owned and operated by Transocean Ltd., a separate company, distinct from BP, and no one would expect BP to be responsible for the spill. (sorry for using two oil companies but they were at the top of my head and I didn’t feel like thinking for other examples.)

    Comment by max (2f2a28) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:05 am

  15. So if you go to the local MacDonalds and discover a human finger in your cheeseburger, do you sue the local franchise?

    It’s not the same, and I suspect you know that. McDonald’s corporation keeps tight custody and control over its franchises.

    This doesn’t rise to the level of a franchise.

    If you’re looking for a comparison, this is like a business being part of the Better Business Bureau. It’s affiliated, but not owned or controlled by….

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:05 am

  16. So if you go to the local MacDonalds and discover a human finger in your cheeseburger, do you sue the local franchise?

    Neither, I just ask for one of those spicy chipotle dipping sauces and commence to eating me some finger-food.

    Comment by carlitos (00428f) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:06 am

  17. max – But it was also the U.S. BP, not the real BP, so by Kfap logic it was not BP.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:11 am

  18. This is classic kmart. People should bookmark this thread.

    Comment by JD (822109) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:13 am

  19. Kman

    > It’s not the same, and I suspect you know that.

    Its like totally different because… if you didn’t say that, you would have to admit i was right.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:14 am

  20. if you didn’t say that, you would have to admit i was right.

    No, you’re going to be the one unable to admit you are wrong. GRID-Arendal was formed by the Norwegian government, It is a partner and affiliate of the UNEP, but it is run independent of the UN, and certainly cannot be rightfully claimed to actually be the UN.

    How long will it take you to admit this? The clock starts now…..

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:23 am

  21. Kman

    You’re right. i will never admit anything that is contrary to fact and logic.

    If you find a finger in your McD’s cheeseburger, you blame McD’s, not just the franchise owner. your desperation is showing, because right after you put yourself out defending them, the make themselves (and you) look so bad.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:30 am

  22. If you find a finger in your McD’s cheeseburger, you blame McD’s, not just the franchise owner.

    Damn right I do.

    But this isn’t a franchisor/franchisee situation, so you can evoke McDonald’s all you want. It’s the typical smoke & mirrors that you pull when you’re wrong but can’t face it. Up next, the ad homs and possible expunging of my comments.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:35 am

  23. Bottom line: k-pax is ADMITTING that the 50 million figure is total b.s. while simultaneously ABSOLVING his beloved U.N. of any culpability in the propogation of this leftist scare tactic.

    Comment by Icy Texan (6d2703) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:35 am

  24. For what it’s worth, GRID Arendal HQ is in Arendal, Norway, while UNEP is based in Nairobi. But that’s how most of the UN works; they shop out tasks and responsibilities to sub-agencies. Kinda like BP and Transocean, as someone noted. I’m sure Kman was all over the internet correcting people about who was responsible for the oil spill, amirite?

    Comment by carlitos (00428f) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:51 am

  25. It’s the typical smoke & mirrors that you pull when you’re wrong but can’t face it

    Kman, you admitted in this thread it’s the UN. “It’s a member” you said.

    I see what you did. You entered all the threads to post that every one of them is wrong. You even went into Patterico’s poll question to say that the question is wrong, because the status quo means Clinton tax levels.

    You’re just trolling every thread.

    This one is probably the funniest example. You admit Aaron is right with your logic, and then demand he admit he’s wrong repeatedly. You just intend to repeat claiming he’s wrong, over and over, to dominate another thread with people reacting to you, but your logic already backed Aaron up.

    Do you not understand how the UN works? The UN is not a country. They don’t have a bunch of tanks in Manhattan ready to send on peacekeeping missions. The UN stands for “united nations”. That means the UN is several nations, such as Norway or the United States, and these nations send their organizations and their materials and their ‘peacekeepers’. I shouldn’t ask if you know that because your comment already indicates you understand this perfectly. You just want to admit, sure this is just like every other UN operation, but because of some obnoxious distinction, that this UN operation, like all UN operations, was from a country and organization that merely comprises the UN.

    And all this just because you’re a troll.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:53 am

  26. No he still blamed BP enitrely he is a egotistical commie.

    Comment by DohBiden (6655ba) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:54 am

  27. It’s just the typical smoke & mirrors you wingnuts deploy when faced with facts that slap you in the mouth.

    Project much Kturdman?

    Comment by DohBiden (6655ba) — 4/15/2011 @ 9:55 am

  28. Now kmart is just projecting. And as Icy correctly notes, spinning to avoid addressing the Fact that yet another in a long list of doom and gloom predictions, used to scare people into the AGW Church have proven to be absolute hocus.

    Comment by JD (109425) — 4/15/2011 @ 10:03 am

  29. Ya know if Joy Behar were aborted maybe gorebull warming would be solved………….Just using her logic which believes there would be no tired air traffic controllers if Reagan would have been nice to them.

    Comment by DohBiden (6655ba) — 4/15/2011 @ 10:10 am

  30. Finally, I’m not sure what is so nefarious about getting rid of outdated studies. A study predicting what will happen by 2010 becomes obsolete in 2011, even if it is right.

    This is truly hilarious. Kman, it’s not obsolete in 2011. The scientific method means we ought to see if the prediction was correct, and if not, how that impacts the global warming theory.

    If it were right, you would really want the first proven global warming disaster analysis deleted? Why? It would be evidence that global warming isn’t a hoax.

    No, the UN removed this promise of doom for millions of people because it is embarrassing, and they don’t want rational people to apply the scientific method (proving the theories behind this prediction were somehow incorrect).

    You say this is merely a clearing house for data, and that justifies deleting data that doesn’t support leftist politics. Granted, your other claim that something isn’t the UN because it’s a sub-organization is even more aggressive, but in this case, your fascist mask slips. You want to censor the truth, and will bash Aaron for simply exposing the truth that was sloppily censored.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/15/2011 @ 10:27 am

  31. …spinning to avoid addressing the Fact that yet another in a long list of doom and gloom predictions, used to scare people into the AGW Church have proven to be absolute hocus.

    Comment by JD — 4/15/2011 @ 10:03 am

    I was discussing this elsewhere, and someone correctly noted that the problem with these types of long-term predictions, is that they fail to address a key problem: People’s behavior and technology change faster than the prediction can come true. A couple of examples (think a few of these are urban myths, but whatever).

    - The Population Bomb had plenty: hundreds of millions will die from famine in the 70′s; it was “already too late” to prevent the death rate from skyrocketing (people are better fed than ever); “I don’t see how India can feed 200 million more people by 1980 (LOL); etc.

    - The famous Simon-Ehrlich wager – 5 metals would be so scarce their prices would skyrocket. Didn’t happen.***

    - The first international urban-planning meeting was held in 1898, and they gave up after 3 days because they just couldn’t fathom how to deal with the horse manure problem. Too overwhelming with 12 horses to a bus, and thousands of cabs.

    etc. I think that our technology can and will overcome our problems, even if anthropogenic global warming changes some aspects of our global climate. People are pretty resilient.

    *** as an aside, one of the losers of this bet, John Hondren, is … a science advisor to President Obama!

    Comment by carlitos (00428f) — 4/15/2011 @ 10:33 am

  32. Dustin:

    You want to censor the truth…

    Simple questions here. It’ll help me gauge what you see as “truth”.

    Is it the truth that the United Nation scrubbed an embarrassing climate change refugee prediction? Yes or no….

    Is it the truth that the United Nations predicted 50 million climate change refugees by 2010? Yes or no….

    Is it the truth that a United Nations web page made the claim that there would be 50 million climate change refugees by 2010? Yes or no…

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 4/15/2011 @ 10:34 am

  33. The first international urban-planning meeting was held in 1898, and they gave up after 3 days because they just couldn’t fathom how to deal with the horse manure problem. Too overwhelming with 12 horses to a bus, and thousands of cabs.

    hahahah

    that’s a pretty cool anecdote!

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/15/2011 @ 10:35 am

  34. Official (or not, kman), this is part of the greenies’ scare tactics.
    Listen to them, it’s gospel.

    Comment by Richard Aubrey (cafc94) — 4/15/2011 @ 10:47 am

  35. Fromt the website’s “About” page:

    Our Values

    As a UNEP affiliate and partner, we espouse core values that resonate with UNEP’s mission.

    Our core values are:

    Integrity
    Professionalism
    Respect for diversity
    Environmental commitment.

    Comment by cnh (3b3713) — 4/15/2011 @ 10:53 am

  36. Kman, yes to all three of your questions.

    You already attempted this argument, and were solidly debunked, but I realize you often take the most obnoxious argument you can and repeat it over and over again, just because that’s extra annoying.

    Proof you are wrong.

    The UN is a organization with a structure. If you to the UN’s website and click on what comprises the UN, they will explain it to you. UNEP reports directly to the General Assembly.

    The UNEP is the copyright owner of this study. THEY OWN IT. They are a sponsor of the website that deleted it. They report directly to the General Assembly.

    You are a shameless liar. Aaron noted that on your blog, you say the opposite of what you say here. You obviously don’t believe what you’re saying, but think it’s fun to endlessly argue and get Aaron’s attention as much as possible.

    Your entire argument is absolutely pointless, even before we see that it’s also incorrect. This is a great example of liberal fascism. You defend wiping away the evidence that a theory was wrong because once a prediction of global warming can be tested at all, it’s “obsolete”. You are opposed to a rational evaluation of whether these predictions are accurate.

    Honestly, who cares if the UN did it (clearly this is the UN, BTW)? You’re already saying it’s OK, either way. You’re still a radical authoritarian, hoping to kneecap the scientific process because of ideology.

    Anyway, UNEP is part of the UN. The organizations the UNEP funds are UN as well. What part of “reports directly to the general assembly” do you not understand? The UN is called the “united nations”, and most UN activities are undertaken by affiliates. This is the most douchey attempt to argue with Aaron you’ve undertaken yet. What’s next?

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/15/2011 @ 10:54 am

  37. Were Blackwater’s actions, as a partner with the US Government, something we can associate with the United States?

    They were affiliated with the Department of Defense. They got their directions and money from the government.

    If the US government’s direction leads Blackwater to post a webpage with a shameless lie about an atrocity affecting the lives of tens of millions of people, and the US Government uses that lie to demand all kinds of penalties for its targets, as well as demands for compensation, and then once that lie is debunked by reality, Blackwater were to delete that lie (with a special note on it explaining that the lie is owned by the USA) from their webpage, is the US blameworthy?

    —-

    Just switch the nouns back:

    UNEP reports directly to the general assembly and paid for this lie and copyrighted the lie. They deleted that lie once it was embarrassing. They are the UN.

    Finally, I’m not sure what is so nefarious about getting rid of outdated studies. A study predicting what will happen by 2010 becomes obsolete in 2011, even if it is right.

    Ridiculous. We need to know that the lie was wrong, so that the next lie can’t rely on reasoning we know is wrong.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/15/2011 @ 11:06 am

  38. dustin

    and it is worth noting that on Kman’s site, when denouncing BP, he makes no distinction between the British company and its american affiliate. he only gets interested in the corporate veil when it hurts his argument.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/15/2011 @ 11:32 am

  39. “In 2020, the UN has projected that we will have 50 million environmental refugees,” University of California, Los Angeles professor Cristina Tirado said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).”

    Hey, if 2010 didn’t work out, we’ll just try a different year!

    Comment by Dave Surls (58a021) — 4/15/2011 @ 11:40 am

  40. Dave, LOL. That is absolutely hilarious.

    Aaron, Kman wants you to know he doesn’t mean what he’s saying. He wants to be aggravating.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/15/2011 @ 11:42 am

  41. Apparently, kman thinks that because the U.N. “scrubbed” it they never actually believed in what the report said.

    IOW, they voted for it before they voted against it.

    Comment by Icy Texan (6d2703) — 4/15/2011 @ 11:43 am

  42. Hey, if 2010 didn’t work out, we’ll just try a different year!

    I wonder if that bumps the “150 million” figure back from 2050 to 2060?

    Comment by carlitos (00428f) — 4/15/2011 @ 11:44 am

  43. Hey, if 2010 didn’t work out, we’ll just try a different year!

    It reminds me of the various religious cults that predict the end of the world in a few months or a few years. When the big day rolls around and nothing happens, they … revise their predictions! After all, there’s always a reason — they prayed real hard and God changed his mind, or they made a minor error in interpreting Holy Scripture, or the moon was in the seventh house and Jupiter aligned with Mars, or whatever. They don’t talk about the failed predictions, and the True Believers keep on believing.

    Comment by Murgatroyd (fd5fcd) — 4/15/2011 @ 11:54 am

  44. Kind of like a local official Fox station in Parump, Nevada isn’t the same as FOX NEWS.

    I died laughing at this analogy of Kman’s because we all know that if the local Fox station in Pahrump Nevada broadcast something, Kman would claim it was Fox News.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 4/15/2011 @ 11:58 am

  45. AW – could you link to him making that argument for us?

    Comment by JD (9a3313) — 4/15/2011 @ 12:01 pm

  46. JD, Aaron wants to, but that blog uses Kman’s actual full name, and Aaron is trying not to out Kman.

    It’s kinda amazing, when you consider that Kman lies about Aaron relentlessly, and contradicts himself on his blog. It’s not quite greenwald sockpuppetry, but it’s still dishonesty. You should be able to link what someone blogs, but Aaron can’t do so while noting the contradiction without associating Kman’s comments with his full name.

    That’s the problem. Kman refuses to link his own blog because he’s that ashamed of his words here.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/15/2011 @ 12:09 pm

  47. It wasn’t “the United Nations” because it didn’t bear the wax-sealed impressions of the General Assembly and Security Council. (Russia vetoed.)

    Comment by Mitch (890cbf) — 4/15/2011 @ 12:14 pm

  48. murga

    btw, that is a great point. i always did wonder what happened with a cult if their prediction of doom doesn’t come true–i mean besides the ones who suicide out…

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/15/2011 @ 12:16 pm

  49. And when there are no refugees in 2020?

    They’ll be here by 2033 According to the united nutjobs.

    Comment by DohBiden (6655ba) — 4/15/2011 @ 12:26 pm

  50. It’s not quite greenwald sockpuppetry

    Was poster Tman really Kman? ‘Cause he referred to the ‘bp oil spill’ as I recall.

    Comment by carlitos (00428f) — 4/15/2011 @ 12:29 pm

  51. Doh

    > And when there are no refugees in 2020?

    they will play with language to try to pretend that people leaving for other reasons, like finding jobs or fleeing war and dictators, are climate change refugees.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/15/2011 @ 12:52 pm

  52. Hey, Kman said he needed me to answer some questions so he could gauge what the truth is… but he appears to have vanished! Hmmmm.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/15/2011 @ 2:31 pm

  53. Well I guess now is a good a time as any to point out that there isn’t any such place as Parump,Nevada..it’s Pahrump,Nevada. I would have brought it up earlier but kman is wrong so often I thought this might be a kicking puppies moment!

    Comment by deadpoet (60d4d1) — 4/15/2011 @ 2:38 pm

  54. Maybe Kman is one of the 50 million climate refugees and is unavailable for comment.

    Or he could be standing in the corner holding his breath.

    Comment by jdflorida (674438) — 4/15/2011 @ 2:39 pm

  55. THANK YOU for posting this! Keep up the superlative research!!

    Steve
    Common Cents
    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

    Comment by Steve (88e6e2) — 4/15/2011 @ 3:00 pm

  56. Don’t let Kmart distract you from the real intent of this post.

    The UN and apparently it’s rookie band of pseudo-scientists are a complete joke.

    Every prediction is thus far wrong, or simply repositioned as previosly misunderstood evidence in favor of global climate claptrap. See “snowstorms will be rare events” morphed into “greater snowfall signals accelerating climate change” for more info.

    The kicker is that 19 of 20 models included in IPCC I are currently outside of their 95% confidence interval–on the low side of course. The other model also trends low, but it was the token model that actually used alternate data sources and modeled dynamic natural responses.

    It is amazing that anyone tolerates this as serious science. At some point you have to be right about something.

    Comment by Matt (29af70) — 4/15/2011 @ 3:08 pm

  57. Matt your trying to reason liberals good luck with that arduous task.

    Comment by DohBiden (6655ba) — 4/15/2011 @ 3:14 pm

  58. It is a good thing they didn’t materialize. It makes room for the 50 million Muslim freedom fighter refugees that will be seeking sanctuary in the west after the Carnival like atmosphere of the Arab Spring evaporates.

    Comment by BL@KBIRD (59d36a) — 4/15/2011 @ 3:41 pm

  59. UNEP has its own website. GRID-Arendal (whose website it actually is) is a MEMBER. Not the same thing.

    I used the link you provided to show this is NOT a UN-Site, unfortunately in about a hundred different/same ways this site claims it is a UN-Site.

    Http ://www.unep. org/

    United Nations Environment Programme
    (Love the way they used the European spelling for Program)
    United Nations Environment Programme seems to suggest this is a U.N. United Nations .

    United Nations Environment Programme
    Mission statement (although they don’t use the words Mission statement)

    UNEP is the designated authority of the United Nations system in environmental issues at the global and regional level. Its mandate is to coordinate the development of environmental policy consensus by keeping the global environment under review and bringing emerging issues to the attention of governments and the international community for action. The mandate and objectives of UNEP emanate from United Nations General Assembly resolution 2997 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972 and subsequent amendments adopted at UNCED in 1992, the Nairobi Declaration on the Role and Mandate of UNEP, adopted at the Nineteenth Session of the UNEP Governing Council, and the Malmö Ministerial Declaration of 31 May, 2000.

    IF this ISN’T a UN-site it would behoove the UN to bring some sort of action against this site.

    So far you are the only one on the planet (this planet) claiming this IS NOT a UN-Site.

    Now about that GRID-Arendal (whose website it actually is) thing?
    GRID is the North American office of UNEP’s. GRID stands for Global Resources Information Database (GRID).

    What is the function of GRID?
    GRID is a network of cooperating centers around the world for exchange of data and information on key environmental issues.

    The North American node of UNEP/GRID, designated as GRID-Sioux Falls, is hosted by the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Center for Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. GRID-Sioux Falls has been operational since 1991 and functions as a partnership between UNEP, USGS, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    So there it is, UNEP/GRID IS the UN.
    Hey thank’s to you we can now safely discredit not only the UN on AGW, but the USGS, EROS and NASA!
    ROFLMAF!!

    What makes you think the UN created the map?
    See Above! LOL!

    What? A website with a bad/absent webmaster? Who would have thought such a thing could exist!
    Good point! Can’t argue with that!

    Yes, the UN, NASA, USGS and EROS are bad or absent in their job’s!

    So why are we still paying for this?

    Comment by DSchoen (073c17) — 4/15/2011 @ 3:44 pm

  60. Comment by DohBiden — 4/15/2011 @ 10:10 am

    Joy Behar?
    I would like to see her face when someone tells her 2 important FACTS.
    Joy, your mother supported abortion.
    Joy, abortion was illegal when you were born.

    Comment by DSchoen (073c17) — 4/15/2011 @ 3:51 pm


  61. Finally, I’m not sure what is so nefarious about getting rid of outdated studies. A study predicting what will happen by 2010 becomes obsolete in 2011, even if it is right.


    Not when the problem is that the bodies in question can’t predict tomorrow’s weather within 95% reliability, much less the temperature to the tenth of a degree in 75 years and more.

    If Jeanne Dixon had been able to make reliable predictions, then I guarantee you, she would have crowed about it all the time, claiming it proved she had known what was going to happen.

    It’s when you make predictions and they turn out to be not just wrong, but flagrantly wrong, that you want them to disappear — because they — quite rightfully — mark you as someone whose predictions cannot be trusted.

    Well, except to a dufus who can’t figure that past predictive correctness IS generally a good guide to reliability of future predictive correctness.

    ===============================
    The Swartzberg Test:
    The validity of a science is its ability to predict.
    ===============================

    …. which leaves AGW proponents, with their history, slightly below astrology for scientific merit.

    .

    Comment by IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 4/15/2011 @ 10:32 pm


  62. McDonald’s corporation keeps tight custody and control over its franchises


    …As opposed to the UN, which exercises virtually no institutional control of any kind, over any of its organization, budgets, and so forth*.

    Don’t wiggle your toes, KMan… it might make you gag.

    —-
    *In this I’d cite the wonderful examples of young teen girls in Africa who got AIDS from being raped by “UN Peacekeeping Forces” as a first-rate case-in-point.
    Or the Oil-for-Food moneys that made Enron look like two-bit chiseling pikers.

    UN — a name you can trust. Just not in a positive way.

    Comment by IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 4/15/2011 @ 10:43 pm

  63. Actually, igotbupkis, I doubt every Mcdonalds reports directly to McDonalds’s board of directors the way UNEP does to the General Assembly.

    And yes, you’re right to mention those sad UN rapists. Or Oil for Food. In those cases, lefties often claimed the UN wasn’t responsible for itself. We empower them with great wealth and some influence, and even armed men, and then some refuse to hold them accountable for any degree of fraud, violence, or mere dishonest coverups.

    The truth is that we do need a UN. It serves a function. However, this function is extremely limited and usually not effective, and the UN is dominated by evil factions. We shouldn’t respect the UN, give it more than nominal funding, or trust them with even the slightest degree of authority. It’s just a podium for various countries, the loudest of which are always wrong.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/15/2011 @ 10:51 pm

  64. KMAN – “Finally, I’m not sure what is so nefarious about getting rid of outdated studies.”

    Well .. nothing so long as criminal organizations who create the fake studies go with them.

    Comment by Mike M (b3444f) — 4/15/2011 @ 10:51 pm

  65. What does it really do well, Dustin, relief operations, education, I really don’t see it,
    it protects the oligarchs, and lets the people
    go hang,

    Comment by superman returns (8a8b93) — 4/15/2011 @ 11:06 pm

  66. __________________________________________

    If you’re looking for a comparison, this is like a business being part of the Better Business Bureau. It’s affiliated, but not owned or controlled by….

    Your analogy would have some relevancy if, in the case of the UN and IAASTD, one organization didn’t support, sympathize and probably fully agree with the other one. So if a franchise of, say, McDonald’s were selling fried human testicles — tainted with e. coli bacteria, no less — and the McDonald’s Corp most obviously didn’t realize or condone that, and the franchisee was then reprimanded by the franchiser, then your analogy wouldn’t be such a ridiculous rationalization.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 4/15/2011 @ 11:18 pm

  67. ______________________________________

    The truth is that we do need a UN.

    I might have assumed that some time ago, but not today. IOW, if the UN were to totally disappear, would socio-political problems throughout the world suddenly worsen, or become noticeably greater? I have a hunch they wouldn’t.

    I’d say the main boost the UN provides is to a portion of the economy of New York City and Geneva. Therefore, the chambers of commerce of those respective cities may love the UN. And a variety of people and social organizations in various countries (many in the emerging world) get some nice play money from the UN, in the same way that tens of thousands of anonymous pencil pushers in overstaffed government bureaucracies throughout the US federal government ride the gravy train. So anything truly worthwhile emanating from the UN is way down on the list.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 4/15/2011 @ 11:31 pm

  68. The truth is that we do need a UN.

    Because if we don’t have a world government when the aliens come they might decline to make contact.

    (OK, actually I agree with you, I just couldn’t resist.)

    Comment by Jim S. (1c7ad3) — 4/16/2011 @ 12:44 am

  69. Someone has been reading the novel “1984″ by George Orwell methinks!

    Comment by Rog (2c2cf1) — 4/16/2011 @ 1:10 am

  70. Because if we don’t have a world government when the aliens come they might decline to make contact.

    That could only benefit the aliens…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 4/16/2011 @ 1:11 am

  71. If the UN was abolished today I am sure someone , some where would notice.

    Benefits would have to be positive.

    By the why I read some where that George Orwell’s book has been renamed “2011″ co authored by Barack Obama and Julia Gillard

    Comment by Samboc (21c651) — 4/16/2011 @ 2:04 am

  72. If the UN was abolished, where would Ahmadinejad go for open-mic nite?

    Comment by Icy Texan (64c313) — 4/16/2011 @ 5:59 am

  73. If the UN were abolished where would the communists go?

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/16/2011 @ 6:03 am

  74. Try Parliament House – Canberra

    Comment by Samboc (21c651) — 4/16/2011 @ 6:06 am

  75. True.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/16/2011 @ 6:14 am

  76. San Francisco?

    Comment by Icy Texan (64c313) — 4/16/2011 @ 7:03 am

  77. “If the UN was abolished, where would Ahmadinejad go for open-mic nite?”

    Icy Texan – If the U.N. was abolished, prostitutes in New York would go into mourning. I don’t think they are eligible for unemployment. Maybe Barcky would institute a special program for them or something, you know, out of compassion, Humanitarian Hummers or something.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/16/2011 @ 7:10 am

  78. So from a purely economic sense, prostitution demand in the Northeast would decrease, bringing prices down for the regular guy. Maybe Joe six pack would like a little high-class escort action, if it were priced more competitively. I like it.

    End the UN; get a lil’ some-some

    Comment by carlitos (00428f) — 4/16/2011 @ 7:50 am

  79. carlitos – It’s all part of the Republicans’ war against women. Just another piece of the puzzle.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/16/2011 @ 7:54 am

  80. I think swinger voters would eat this up.

    Comment by carlitos (1ae051) — 4/16/2011 @ 7:54 am

  81. :wink:

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/16/2011 @ 8:02 am

  82. Who scared KMAN away? Why did he go? I miss him.

    I think it may have been DSchoen and his post #59, in which he included:

    So there it is, UNEP/GRID IS the UN.
    Hey thank’s to you we can now safely discredit not only the UN on AGW, but the USGS, EROS and NASA!
    ROFLMAF!!

    However, perhaps it was someone or something else that frightened him.

    Come Back, little Kman!

    Comment by AFPhys (97b147) — 4/16/2011 @ 8:57 am

  83. That’s it I challenge you to political kombat.

    /Kman

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/16/2011 @ 9:18 am

  84. Seriously, this Kman character only posts to stalk Aaron. And I don’t believe that he knows or cares a blessed thing about climate science. Most people posting on this subject want to know more. Heck, some people here are even willing to change their minds after receiving new information.

    Historically, Kman just hits and runs. Contradicts Aaron, commits verbal hair splitting to defend against his reflexive partisanship, and then runs away (maybe we should just call him Sir Robin and be done with it).

    What I didn’t know is that Aaron knows about the fellow’s actual website, knows that Kman writes self-contradicting nonsense there, and still Aaron won’t post the links. This is because Aaron has integrity.

    If Kman could get past his creepy man-crush, he could see that.

    Comment by Simon Jester (d75bfb) — 4/16/2011 @ 9:37 am

  85. Janos Bogardi’s report (available online) never said 50 mil, you can check or phone him yourself. He mentioned the talk about Andrew Simms’s report, again, never said 50 mil by 2010.

    The ONLY truth is that mis-info trying to discredit both those reports was written and now is being repeated over ad over and over. Both the reports being refered to (or whatever one) are solid, reliable and of high quality. Nowhere is 50 million mentioned.

    I’m suprised one of the authors of the reports being trashed haven’t decided to take action.

    Comment by David (3a83f9) — 4/16/2011 @ 10:27 am

  86. Why do I suspect “david” is a liar, a sycophant, and an active member of the Church of the AGW?

    Comment by JD (822109) — 4/16/2011 @ 10:33 am

  87. Phone him? Oh, my. The trollish ones get even more amusing. Fact is, the global warming types have a world view that:

    1. Human industry is bad.
    2. Human industry is damaging the planet.
    3. Less human industry is good.

    So, starting from there (which is the antithesis of genuine science, incidentally: you do not do experiments to confirm your politics, you do experiments to establish facts), they grabbed onto high carbon dioxide levels as drivers of climate change. Which may or may not be true (we have historical levels of carbon dioxide levels in the past, independent of humans, with much higher levels than we currently experience).

    Anyway, they need to have the carbon dioxide link to warming. They must have it, to serve their political narrative. Otherwise, they would not be emotionally invested in the answers.

    And the funny part, to me, is watching people without a speck of science background argue with such authority. Because it’s not science; it’s politics.

    Look at all the predictions that the warmists have served up (the Ehrlich story above is just the tip of the melting iceberg). The predictions are generally fronted to push a political agenda (and that political agenda may or may not be a good thing, but trying to poorly use science to support it is a very bad idea). The predictions turn out, um, not to be true. But that doesn’t stop the warmists from continuing to push their agenda. Again, it is a politics, not science.

    What would I like to see? A back-predictive model. That is, from concentrations of carbon dioxide, predict a specific global temperature, overall, using data from the past. They can’t do it. When pressed, the warmists all claim “drives” and “trends” and “interactive effects.”

    Okay. So why are all the noncalculatable effects in one direction—that coincidentally serves their political agenda?

    Let’s say it together: it’s not science. It’s politics.

    Now, if you say to me that you want to limit carbon emissions for reasons having to do with cleaner air, or more efficiency over the longer term, I am with you 200%. But the warmists don’t care about that.

    And yes, Holdren is right there with them.

    Remember folks: warmer temperatures are due to global warming. So are colder temperatures. Less ice cover is due to global warming. So is more ice cover. And so on.

    Sorry for the long post.

    Comment by Simon Jester (b1e000) — 4/16/2011 @ 10:46 am

  88. Spitzer is all over the prostitute unemployment problem in N.Y.

    Comment by Icy Texan (64c313) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:04 am

  89. 85.Janos Bogardi’s report (available online)

    Yeah? Where? I looked, I couldn’t find it.

    never said 50 mil

    That’s odd, was widely reported as saying just that and even the U.N., excuse me, even the UN affiliated UNEP/GRID made a big deal of it – and you claim he never said that? GET REAL!

    Both the reports being refered to (or whatever one) are solid, reliable and of high quality.

    Give me one example of any prediction they made that came true. I am betting there are none, most likely.

    I’m suprised one of the authors of the reports being trashed haven’t decided to take action.

    What are you talking about? They’re in full coverup mode – that’s action!

    Comment by Bob Roberts (4d844a) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:07 am

  90. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10725.doc.htm

    “SRGJAN KERIM, President of the General Assembly, opened the discussion by saying that 11 of the last 12 years had ranked among the 12 warmest since the keeping of global temperature records had begun in 1850. Two points were significant: that climate change was inherently a sustainable-development challenge; and that more efforts than ever before must be exerted to enable poor countries to prepare for impacts because it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.”

    Comment by rc (614357) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:23 am

  91. Does the elusive KMAN have a history of coming back under different names – such as “David”, for instance?

    Simon Jester, I don’t disagree with your basic statements as far as what you seem to be trying to say (post 87).

    they grabbed onto high carbon dioxide levels as drivers of climate change.

    Actually they said it caused GLOBAL WARMING up until they had to admit that levels were still rising even though temperatures had stabilized or started falling – and then we saw the efforts to retire any phrase containing GLOBAL WARMING in favor of use of CLIMATE CHANGE. Note that part of this process was to blame everything that has always happened on GLOBAL WARMING and note they also ignore the fact that climate change has been the rule, not the exception, more or less as long as Earth has had an atmosphere and oceans if not longer.

    And remember it’s not just that CO2 causes this or that, their ridiculous argument is that only HUMAN PRODUCED CO2 is to blame, even though humans produce a tiny fraction of the overall CO2 globally. Basically their ridiculous argument is that humans have usurped vastly more powerful natural forces and are now a determining factor in natural events – hence the nutjobs who claim we are to blame for earthquakes in Indonesia and Japan, for instance. And yes, no matter what happens – warming, cooling, drought or deluge, even though these thigns happened for billions of years before humans existed, humans are now the primary cause of every disaster that occurs, don’tcha know?

    they need to have the carbon dioxide link to warming.

    Again the need has morphed into some way to blame humans, not necessarily using CO2 now (many are shifting to particulates caused by humans since they can’t claim CO2 causes cooling after having firmly falsely established it as the world’s primary “greenhouse” gas) due to the fact that temperatures are not rising – even though those who keep temperature records are busily ruining decades of temperature data to try to keep that myth going, too. Talk about anti-science!

    if you say to me that you want to limit carbon emissions for reasons having to do with cleaner air

    Carful – you’re playing into their lie that CO2 is “pollution” when it’s really plant food – fertilizer. Don’t take my word for it – NASA PROVED IT:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1804

    Apparently higher temperatures and more atmospheric CO2 is actually GOOD for the biosphere – GO FIGURE!

    Instead of castigating energy producers we should be giving them our highest honors!

    Oh, by the way, let’s jump to the end. What is the underlying goal of these lunatics?

    Genocide.

    They believe the Earth has a major overpopulation problem and want to drastically reduce the number of humans. It’s why they support abortion, gay “rights” (last time I checked any person, gay, straight, male or female had exactly the same right to marry anyone of the opposite sex who would have them) and though they claim to be against war they sure seem to do everything they can to drive us to one, particularly by their determination to prevent us from keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

    Comment by Bob Roberts (4d844a) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:27 am

  92. “SRGJAN KERIM, President of the General Assembly, opened the discussion by saying that … there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.”

    And he said that BASED ON WHAT? A dream he had the night before?

    I eliminated the nonsense about the “hottest years ever” because anyone capable of thinking for themselves now has proof that this “global warming” is indeed “Mann” made – by Mann, Hanson, Jones and others in the now infamous “hockey team”.

    Comment by Bob Roberts (4d844a) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:29 am

  93. “Janos Bogardi’s report (available online) never said 50 mil”

    David – Are you suggesting that Janos merely publicly talked about expecting 50 million climate refugees by 2010 and 150 million by 2050, but did not put those figures in a formal report? What exactly are you saying?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:30 am

  94. From the page referenced in post 90 above we get the truth of what this is all about, as if we didn’t already know:

    A generously financed, fully operational Adaptation Fund must be established by the end of the year.

    They want money. It’s the same huge transfer of wealth from “rich” to “poor” countries they’ve always been after.

    Comment by Bob Roberts (4d844a) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:34 am

  95. “SRGJAN KERIM, President of the General Assembly, opened the discussion by saying that 11 of the last 12 years had ranked among the 12 warmest”

    rc – Prof. Phil Jones seemed to have some other conclusions:

    “Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

    And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

    The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz1JiFFN2ts

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:38 am

  96. Janos Bogardi’s report (available online) never said 50 mil

    And who, other than “David”, ever said it did?

    Who, other than “DAVID”, even mentioned Bogardi or his report?

    What does that have to do with the discussion at hand? We’re talking about the coverup involving the redaction of yet more proof that EVERY PREDICTION MADE BY CLIMATE ALARMISTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CALLS FOR ACTION IS WRONG, HORRIBLY WRONG!

    David says the report is available but, curiously, he doesn’t link it and even if he did – who’s to say they didn’t take out the mistakes and re-post?

    Comment by Bob Roberts (4d844a) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:39 am

  97. The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

    No, actually the admissions are trivial BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNEW ALL THAT. That a known liar finally admits it is insignificant outside the world of climate change illusion where he and his ilk live.

    Comment by Bob Roberts (4d844a) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:40 am

  98. Perhaps what bugs me most is that just when the loony left was starting to understand that we need to make nuclear energy part of our rational mix of energy sources, even if it was due to the hoax of AGW, next thing you know poor siting and design of reactors in Japan, along with a megathrust quake and resulting tsunami, added fuel to the anti-nuclear nutjobs bonfire.

    Oh well, one baby step forward, two giant leaps back. Sometimes that’s the way it goes.

    Comment by Bob Roberts (4d844a) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:46 am

  99. Never trust a UN website or anything from the United Nations. They change their mindlessness with the seasons and when they get caught in their lies. They look at we People as Cattle for their use.
    Hey UN, when do the ovens get fired up? And what are you planning to do with the ashes of billions after your Final Solution is complete?

    Comment by Richard (78415e) — 4/16/2011 @ 12:21 pm

  100. How much graft did Kofing Anus and his family walk away with after his stint at the top?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/16/2011 @ 12:49 pm

  101. “Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.”–The Guardian, 2005

    10,000,000 per year from 2005 through 2010 adds up to at least 50,000,000 the way I count.

    “UNITED NATIONS — Increasing global temperatures and land degradation are forcing more people to migrate, creating a wave of environmental refugees who need U.N. protection, a professor at the United Nations University said.”

    “Janos Bogardi on Wednesday urged the United Nations to recognize that droughts, earthquakes, hurricanes and other environmental factors — many of which are worsening because of climate change — have played a role in the migration of millions of people worldwide.”–ENN, 2007

    Don’t think there is too much doubt what Bogardi thinks…unless all the lefty news organizations are lying, which I grant you is a possibility that I’d have no trouble believing.

    Too bad what he thinks isn’t really backed up by the facts, but that’s true of all AGW religous fanatics.

    Comment by Dave Surls (6c2015) — 4/16/2011 @ 3:19 pm

  102. The worst part of all the AGW blabbering is that they are merely trying to deflect attention away from their next BEST/WORST threat to humanity coming… NO2 or belly button lint.

    Comment by KAW001 (2871cb) — 4/16/2011 @ 4:17 pm

  103. Tax our exhaling.

    Our Beloved Leader is proposing to have CO2 monitors installed in our respiratory system so we can be taxed every time we exhale CO2.

    It much simpler than a Carbon Offset tax and will give unemployed doctors a new surgical skill to learn.

    Comment by KAW001 (2871cb) — 4/16/2011 @ 4:19 pm

  104. Shocker. “David” lied, then left.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 4/16/2011 @ 6:59 pm

  105. The UN hasn’t a leg to stand on over ‘climate change’ because the IPCC’s conclusions are bunkum.

    When ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling, the only ‘evidence’ for high feedback, couldn’t be proved experimentally, the physicists also found a second, pseudo-reflective optical effect at cloud tops, not considered by the models.

    Apparently to keep the imaginary cooling in AR4, in 2004 NASA claimed a new ‘surface reflection’ mechanism: there’s no such physics. In reality, thicker clouds with larger droplets have higher albedo, as any glider pilot knows.

    Pollution switches the effect off, so it’s another AGW which better explains palaeo-climate than CO2-GW. It’s also self-limiting.

    AR4 looks to have been the greatest scientific fraud in history with no proof of any net CO2-AGW. Until the physics is fixed, which means dumping CAGW, none of the climate models can predict climate. No UN prediction can be trusted. The World is cooling because the sun’s activity has fallen since the late 20th Century.

    Comment by Alistair (2a3dfc) — 4/16/2011 @ 11:11 pm

  106. Sounds kind of like the idiots who are always predicting that this hurricane season is going to be devastating because of global warming. So far I believe they have predicted this 5 times since Katrina, much to their chagrin all predictions have fallen flat. They should be called Chicken Little’s.

    Comment by R (996fb8) — 4/17/2011 @ 4:31 am

  107. STOP!!!!

    It was GEORGE BUSH and DICK CHENEY.

    They created the charts then removed them in an effort to discredit the UN.

    Just ask Barak H. Obama the names of the people responsible for all the problems on the Globe going back to 1850.

    Bush has a Way Back machine in his basement built by the CIA to accomplish this.

    Everyone knows this. It’s scientific fact.

    Comment by kaw001 (2871cb) — 4/17/2011 @ 8:35 am

  108. Assuming that the CIA had a wayback machine, why on earth would they have given it to Bush? Oh, that’s right, one of the more peculiar beliefs that seem almost universally held on the left is that the CIA is somehow loyal to the Bush family, presumably because Bush Sr was director for a couple of years in the early ’70s! Of all the delusions that circulate about the Bushes, this one has to take the cake.

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/17/2011 @ 9:14 am

  109. “Assuming that the CIA had a wayback machine, why on earth would they have given it to Bush?”

    Milhouse – It was because the predecessor of the CIA stole the design of the machine from Hitler and everybody knows how close the Bush family was to Hitler. Seriously, get with the program here.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/17/2011 @ 10:08 am

  110. Help me with the logic here. The CIA steals this machine from Hitler, and then turns around and gives it to his blood-brothers and allies the Bushes?!

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/17/2011 @ 10:29 am

  111. Milhouse – Exactly! Preston Bush = Hitler BFF. CIA steals machine keeps it under wraps. GHWB as head of CIA spirits machine out of CIA storage. Game over.

    I admit it is touch to think like a bug nucking futz progressive conspiracy theorist, but there you have it.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/17/2011 @ 10:56 am

  112. Milhouse – I think Velvet Revolution has a $200,000 bounty up for information on this one, so you know it must be true.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/17/2011 @ 10:59 am

  113. That “David” guy is right! Those authors should sue the U.N. for misrepresentation.

    Comment by Icy Texan (b246e1) — 4/17/2011 @ 11:21 am

  114. Wow………this “global warming” thing s unraveling like a cheap suit………

    Al Gore is now doing Bar Mitzvahs at the Holiday Inn……….off ramp #34 in Poughkeepsie.

    Comment by Brute (01f1c6) — 4/17/2011 @ 5:55 pm

  115. Algore just told us the AGW crusade is like the civil rights movement.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 4/17/2011 @ 6:19 pm

  116. Another big, bold prediction from the UN Tax Authority that is completely wrong, but who cares when evidence is not a criteria for the carbon tax crowd.

    Comment by Holdren (dea88a) — 4/18/2011 @ 1:56 am

  117. The report referred to above is here:
    http://bit.ly/goTG4V

    Notice the mistake above? It’s not about the actual report, it’s about a report of a report. Read the report.

    I believe the person who mentioned 50 mil refugees was Norman Myers Duke University.

    Correct, worst-case didn’t happen. We currently have ‘only’ 20 million displaced refugees due to climate as tracked by UNHCR. See here:

    Of the current 62 million refugees:

    Climate= 20 million http://bit.ly/fxY37r
    War= 32 milion http://bit.ly/hgx1E9
    Internally homeless= 26 million http://bit.ly/ftU9ve

    What sicko is peoccupied by a stupid story on the web gloating at a misguided report that misquotes a good report that mentionins an overly depressing worst-case scenario that didn’t turn out worst case afterall?

    How thrilling for you. Surely there are bigger errors people make, if you insist on that above situation actually a mistake, which most would not. In fat, I caan not find one single incorrect word in the reports being trashed. Just a bizzare screw up of silly people misquoting each other subsequently in some sick frenzy.

    Some of us actually care about the report and the 20 million refugees. All 62 million in fact. I don’t see any compassion here at all.

    Comment by David (3a83f9) — 4/18/2011 @ 2:12 am

  118. Al Gore is now doing Bar Mitzvahs at the Holiday Inn……….off ramp #34 in Poughkeepsie

    – And asking for the gratis in-room massage as compensation. ;)

    Comment by Icy Texan (715d68) — 4/18/2011 @ 2:19 am

  119. You think 50,000,000 refugees is bad?

    Out here in California a couple of people got a sunburn last summer.

    This AGW thing ain’t no joke.

    Comment by Dave Surls (38a8d2) — 4/18/2011 @ 2:49 am

  120. There are no “climate” refugees. There are lots of weather refugees, or rather displaced people, as there always are. And if Myers thought the UN was misrepresenting him he had years in which to complain; did he?

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:16 am

  121. David, your links are frauds. The topics of the papers linked are not to what you represent and you don’t even tell us what page of the report you are linking to.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:36 am

  122. David – When we had a bad global warming storm in February, 20 inches, I was a climate hostage. How are those counted in the reports?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:45 am

  123. Daley

    lol, you wanted to be a refugee and you couldn’t!

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:49 am

  124. So”david’s” compassion trumps facts.

    Comment by JD (29e1cd) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:54 am

  125. JD, David thinks that if he links to a paper that purports to discuss the international law of “environmental” refugees, that he’s proven his claim of climate refugees of 20 million.

    It makes it rather obvious that in fact he’s just cut and pasting from some source that itself is dubious and did not actually bother to read the link.

    Like every other troll we get.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:58 am

  126. Hey, all of you dispassionate a-holes! Can’t you see that David’s heart bleeds eleventy times more than ours?

    He has no solutions, but HE CARES . . . and that’s all that matters.

    Comment by Icy Texan (715d68) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:09 am

  127. Just another Emo Leftist. That lies about the contents of links. Color me SHOCKED!

    Comment by JD (b98cae) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:20 am

  128. Can’t you see that David’s heart bleeds eleventy times more than ours

    Sorry, we’re having the vampire discussion over in the other thread

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:32 am

  129. From the study David/Kman cited, which David/Kman says establishes that “We currently have ‘only’ 20 million displaced refugees due to climate as tracked by UNHCR”:

    “There is a general presumption that population displacement is increasingly associated
    with changes to environmental conditions and to anthropogenically-driven climate
    change.” And “Whilst there is a general presumption that both migration and displacement can be linked to deteriorating environmental conditions and slow-onset climate change, detailed empirical evidence on these links is both limited and often highly contentious. (Boano,
    Zetter et al. 2008; Black 2001; Castles 2002; Bates 2002; RSC 2009). Migration and
    displacement are complex processes conditioned by social, economic and political factors
    and so a direct mono-causal link between climate change and migration can be
    discounted. Nevertheless, the degree of causation related to human agency lies at the core
    of these arguments; but the scale, distribution and temporal patterns of potential
    migration or displacement remain uncertain.” –”Protecting environmentally
    displaced people Developing the
    capacity of legal and normative
    frameworks,” p. 11

    That is, the study he cited as proving that 20 million have been displaced by global warming does not prove any such thing. It doesn’t cite any evidence that such a thing has happened; it states it as a presumption, without a single bit of support.

    Comment by D1st (f3f40e) — 4/18/2011 @ 12:46 pm

  130. Frankly, I’d like to see MORE climate refugees. Not because of global warming, but because a lot of people do not live where the food is. I guess I could more honestly call this socialism refugees, as I see the worst starvation in the least free places.

    By all means, if you’re starving in Ethopia, try to move.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/18/2011 @ 12:50 pm

  131. O.k., listen up, everybody.

    NOBODY has been made into a refugee by global warming.

    Get it?

    Don’t make me come over there.

    Comment by Dave Surls (0c1323) — 4/18/2011 @ 12:52 pm

  132. I add that in addition, David/Kman claims that 20 million climate refugees have been tracked by UNHCR, and that this is shown by the study report he links to. Again–false. The study report makes no such claim and supports no such claim.

    Comment by D1st (f3f40e) — 4/18/2011 @ 12:52 pm

  133. Well when the food shortages hit in 2 months things will hit the fan.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/18/2011 @ 1:00 pm

  134. NOBODY has been made into a refugee by global warming.

    You mean man-made global warming, of course. It’s perfectly normal for someone to move away from a location because it suffers a drought for too long. The climate is always changing, so sometimes some places get warmer. If it’s too warm, or too cold, why is the UN going to flip out that people are moving? A mobile population leads to more prosperity, interaction, etc. Again, I wouldn’t mind seeing 500 million climate refugees, but their real problem is political.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/18/2011 @ 1:06 pm

  135. D1st, the fraudulent nature of “David’s” proof well explained.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 4/18/2011 @ 1:33 pm

  136. Hmm, not sure where David got that report from the other report. I thought that the “50 million” claim came from this paper? http://www.osce.org/eea/14851

    That paper doesn’t link all of the climate change refugees to “global warming,” nor does it link all the “environmental refugees” to “climate change” itself. It’s much more nuanced, considering political and man-made systems and their effects.

    And it gets to my main issue – what are the policy implications? The author pushes the United Nations’ Anti-Desertification Action Plan, which would cost ~$22 billion per year (estimated), but is underfunded. Also noted is that sustainable development in general would preclude the need for peoples to migrate due to over-farming / over-fishing / over-logging, etc. Tree cover for eroding areas is probably the biggest concern.

    Anyway, I’m glad I went and looked into more of the story; I found it interesting.

    Comment by carlitos (28bbc0) — 4/18/2011 @ 1:46 pm

  137. “David” is just a dishonest Emo Leftist. Was from its first comment. But it is more compassionate than you knuckle-draggin mouth-breathin neanderthals.

    Comment by JD (0d2ffc) — 4/18/2011 @ 1:52 pm

  138. The UN are loser idiots just like the kuomintang for siding with muslim leftys[redundant]

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/18/2011 @ 2:04 pm

  139. hearsay and conjecture; those are types of evidence….

    Comment by muggo (976912) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:23 pm

  140. Climate refugees? Yep, they’re all leaving frigid New England for warmer climates down south. Please UN, don’t predict anymore warming, I’m running out of ice fishing clothes and gas for the snow blower.

    Comment by Don L (55b574) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:31 pm

  141. My favorite UN lie was when the docent told my class that they never use more that small side arms in their peacekeeping missions. I asked her what the battleship New Jersey and our aircraft carrier was using off of Korea in 1953 – shooting .39 cals from 10 miles out to sea. She said that Korea was different and I responded that apparently so is the truth from what they are telling folks.

    Comment by Don L (55b574) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:35 pm

  142. Don L., it is even a stupid lie today. As any simple photo search of ongoing UN peacekeeping operations’ troops would show.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:52 pm

  143. wax milk containers
    DDT
    acid rain
    ozone hole
    the 2000 millinium computer disaster
    coming ice age
    global warming
    climate change

    What a track record !

    Comment by Ray (d0aeb7) — 4/18/2011 @ 6:32 pm

  144. An interesting and spirited discussion. Let me summarize: Kman/David 0 points for accuracy, logic, scientific integrity. 100 points for ideological bias and their intentions being in the “right” place. So using Socialist logic they win and get an A. And the rest of the world gets screwed. In the words of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Che, Castro, Hitler etc. we know whats best for you. So stop complaining and thank us.

    As my car was just heading over the cliff I was comforted by my GPS announcing it was recalculating.

    Comment by Ed (20aa7a) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:37 am

  145. http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/04/27/superman-renounces-us-citizenship/

    Comment by narciso (79ddc3) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:40 am

  146. The author of the original article, Gavin Atkins at AsianCorrespondent, has done an excellent job following up on the story. I’ve included his follow up stories below in chronological order. Interesting stuff indeed…

    Cover up: UN tries to erase failed climate refugee prediction

    50m climate refugee claims: It’s all about money for the UN

    50m climate refugees? New Scientist can’t find them either

    50 million climate refugees – the search continues

    Comment by James Martin (aa1186) — 5/12/2011 @ 3:38 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4757 secs.