So what do u think about the UN?

Question

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/11192007.shtml

for those who think Glenn Beck is "stupid", how so? why is he stupid? because he brings in both sides of the argument? what about the scientists who think humans don't cause global warming? they get threatened. why? why would those who believe that it is man made want to do that?
al gore said that they get millions of dollars in funds. oh really? maybe al gore should go ask them.

Answer 1

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature. The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists...
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Henry Louis Mencken (1880- 1956 )
Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
· The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
· The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
· The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
· The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
· The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
· The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
· The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
· The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
· The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting; the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
· The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
· The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.


More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.
It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.
Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures. climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why Al Gore and the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so. It also provides evidence that the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance,
We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough--irrespective of the fact that in the course of the twentieth century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 percent--for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced..

NewsAccording to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.

Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)

SO the ANSWER to YOUR QUESTION IS THEY WANT a CARBON TAX to tax evil OIL Corporations,Presidential canidate DEM Senator DODD. that means trickle down to you $8.00 a gallon Gas Higher food prices TRUCKS deliver food run on FUEL,higher electric they will build NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS its a low carbon foot print

Answer 2

The UN is a pretty biased and ineffectual body that is mostly a showcase for politicians to debate, and really accomplishes little for the money spent, in nearly all cases.

And by the way, folks, "Consensus" is NOT good science!! Remember way way back, when the Consensus of science, and everybody else, was the earth was flat...it looked that way?

More pertinent to the UN and consensus, remember the "Dark Ages", when government and science and a distorted form of religion got together, and the Consensus was that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and scientists made more and more elaborate models of how this worked, while the government kept the common people poor and under rigid controls? And those who did not Believe were punished, often fatally??

As has been pointed out elsewhere, it is usually those who BUCK a "consensus" who find the truth in Science, and advance it. A government-enforced "Consensus" has been shown time and again to be very wrong, and even harmful to the common man.

We have laws of science, and even those occasionally get changed when one scientists comes up with new data, and it is looked at and found that the previous theory that had been accepted by a big consensus was actually incorrect.

I really fear a "Consensus" that excludes many good scientists, and has to be constantly adjusted at cost to the general public, and is politically based. And therefor biased.

Those who claim the UN "Consensus" is scientific Proof, totally correct and irrefutable, obviously neither understand the politics of money, nor science and the scientific method.

And probably have never read Orwell's "1984", and the like.

I think if my reading is correct there are about 60-70 real scientists who agree completely with the report, but lots and lots of politicians who me-too on it, without understanding it at all.

Does the UN ever put in that History shows Global Warming is good for civilization, every time we have history on it, and global cooling is bad?

And the UN tends to only push the areas that it wants, that helps it gain political and perhaps economic world control.
IF it were planning to help the poor and needy nations, why does it prevent them from using their natural fuel resources, for example, while OKing the developed nations to exploit all they can get their hands on?

Why do they not get after nations that take their people's staple food supplies and turn it into alcohol to sell to the developed nations, starving their own people?

And the UN showed its true colours in the last Balkan wars, where it mostly wrung its hands and let the ethnic cleansings proceed. And the environment be polluted unbelievably.

What has the UN done FOR you lately? And how have all their reports improved our environment? Or improved the advancement of science by showing ALL points of view? Is it not true that the computer error that was found recently, only a 900% error, was suppressed many years ago when those who "doubted" the accuracy of the computer model were silenced?

And is it not true that the UN "consensus" reports include data obtained still for the climate model that assumes an unchanging cool climate for all history before the 1900's...the "hockey stick", and the computer cannot come up with the desired answers off real data from the past?

And I am not sure where in the UN Charter it is supposed to set the World's Climate to suit certain politicians and give profits to shady big companies; can someone point that out for me?

How about if the UN got out of dabbling in pseudo-science, and pseudo-politics and started to help everybody equally and settle disputes honestly, quickly, and effectively? Isn't that what they are for?

Answer 3

Glenn Beck is AWESOME, what are all you guys talking about? He may not be a scientist, but he's obviously looked in to the matter, and he's a really smart guy.

The UN is a POLITICAL body, and has absolutely no business forming a scientific organization. The IPCC is completely biased, and the "consensus of 2,500 scientists," are not even all scientists, let alone being specialists in their field.

(I have nothing against YOU Bob, just against what you say:
"Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid." That is an outright lie. The IPCC is full of worst-case scenarios. There is no consensus within the IPCC. Many of the scientists who are specialists have disagreed with the reports that the IPCC puts out, and have been asked for their names to be removed. They are still counted as part of the consensus. The IPCC is not credible as a serious scientific body.)

Answer 4

If you want to talk about Glenn Beck, stick to the politics section. He has no scientific knowledge, nor even any knowledge about the IPCC, as is evident by this claim:

"Al Gore and the IPCC has come out with a new report."

Al Gore does not even contribute to the IPCC reports - he's a politician. This comment makes it clear that Beck is only interested in the politics of global warming, not the science.

By the way, the IPCC - while organized by the UN - is simply a group of the world's foremost climate scientists.

Answer 5

The UN is pushing an agenda. It also holds the purse strings to millions in funding for scientist. Think about this, 30 years ago, there may have been a couple hundred climatologist. Now, they are seeping out of every corner. Why? Because the funding by UN and other groups trying to establish their agenda.

Answer 6

The UN is a very mixed bag, some good, some bad.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a group of hundreds of the best climatologists and scientists in the world. Their work is authoritative, and undergoes the most rigorous peer review in science. They are backed up by a mountain of data.

The summaries of their work are a little watered down by politicians to make global warming seem less important. But the changes aren't large.

The bottom line:

"The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be."

George Monbiot

Glenn Beck is a self admitted clown, a right wing version of John Stewart. In a contest between him and the IPCC, he doesn't exist.

He needs to listen to Newt and the National Review (perhaps the most prestigious conservative magazine):

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review published a cover story this past week calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

Answer 7

Glenn Beck is correct.
Global warming is a hoax.
Al Gore is a wacko.