You have to love the United Nations if for no other reason than for comedy relief. The last report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) contained numerous errors. You can take one such example, the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, (Glaciergate) whose source was a magazine article. Talk about a “the science is settled moment!”
In a review done by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) on of AR4 they got blasted. The IAC noted not only the aforementioned Glaciergate problem but also other problems regarding not only sources of information but also the lack of transparency, lack of ability to answer questions, election of an executive director (sounds like they didn’t like Pachauri), and the lack of a probability scale to show how much of a chance some of their outrageous claims have of actually happening (like slim & none should be one).
After all this we now get this one from the IPCC 32nd Plenary Session in Pusan, South Korea……
BUSAN, South Korea, Oct. 12 (UPI) — A U.N. climate panel needs a “credible and convincing” report to highlight the risks of global climate change, a U.N. environmental director said.
I am amazed that the IPCC actually needs to have a meeting to figure this one out. There’s that old saying “it takes a village to raise a child,” which appears to now be “it takes a building full of IPCC members to figure out what should be obvious to a moron,” which is AR4 was a total piece of crap and that Rajendra Pachauri should be ashamed to be associated with it, but I guess he’s too clueless to figure it out because he now wants to stay on as chair of the AR5 report.
Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, told delegates……
“Indeed, a rigorous, credible and convincing (report) — at least in terms of the global public — may in part rest on your decisions here in terms of this scientific body and the way it operates and communicates.”
So, what’s my take on that statement? Well, reading between the lines, it sounds to me like he’s saying the IPCC needs to figure out better ways to lie to the public about climate change because last time they did a half-assed job, the AR4 Report lacked a lot of credibility (what do you expect when you use magazine articles as data?) and I’d translate “convincing” to mean that they have to really do a much better job of BS’ing people, which means we’ll probably be hearing words like “unprecedented” and “the science is settled” for years to come.
So what are they planning on scaring us with this time? Well, if you go to their meeting site you can see they have a budget page. When you look at what they want to spend in 2010 and 2011 you can plainly see.
- Sea-level rise (funny it’s been going down)
- Climate projections (aka: garbage in garbage out).
- Ocean acidification (aka: the latest scare tactic)
- Human settlements (want to bet they want to tell us where to live next?)
- Geoengineering(aka: let’s play GOD and get rich pumping crap into the atmosphere that probably won’t do any good anyway and may cause more problems)
So what’s all this going to cost? Well if you add the budgets up for 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 it’s only a mere 32,023,455 Swiss Francs, which is equivalent to $33,378,687 USD. Seems like a huge price to pay for a product that will, like AR4, probably be defective to say the least.
Want to know what they’ve spent on BS since 1989? Oh, only 108,573,004 Swiss Francs or a mere $113,167,813 USD. Yes $113 million dollars pissed down the drain on what amounts to a natural occurrence (climate change). Just imagine what that could have been spent on that would have actually solved real problems.
Hopefully I’ve given you an idea how the UN pisses away money to provide the world with useless BS. You can find the budget page here if you want to see how much money your own country has wasted. The United States, who’s not surprisingly, their largest contributor, has only pee’d away $35,337,124 since 1989. That’s just on the IPCC and not an accounting of what we waste on the UN as a whole.
More Co2 Insanity.