When organisations set a criteria – a very specific one that proves something will or will not be happening IF……. and when that IF comes about and can be empirically proven, surely the organisation must abide by its own set of definitions? One would think so!
But of course if one is the United Nations and things are just not going the way you figured they should, you can ignore or change the previously set criteria can’t you to support your all out goals.
On November 29th 2012, One Hundred and Twenty-Five Credentialed ( in the area of weather and climate) scientists wrote an open letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon at the United Nations. It is very polite and full of facts that can be scientifically proven.
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
First Avenue and East 44th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A.
November 29, 2012
On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”
On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”
The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”
We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.
The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.
The “even larger climate shocks” you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.
The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur more often in the future. The U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) that there is “an absence of an attributable climate change signal” in trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities rebuild after natural catastrophes such as tropical storm Sandy.
There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.
The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.
Based upon these considerations, we ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not. We also ask that you acknowledge that policy actions by the U.N., or by the signatory nations to the UNFCCC, that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to exercise any significant influence on future climate. Climate policies therefore need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events however caused.
Signed by: see here for signatories.
Global Climate Change is big business. There is so much money and prestige tied up in this farce, that no one is prepared to back down and admit they may be wrong. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon still uses the incorrect terminology when speaking about the severe weather anomaly known as SANDY. It was not a hurricane it was a very destructive and severe tropical storm. To continue to use the term ‘hurricane’ is inaccurate and nothing short of fear mongering. To continue to pressurize countries into signing onto a new ‘Kyoto’ type protocol at the current meeting in Darfur, which may end up giving the UN global elitist powers, seems awfully similar to Egypt’s President Morsi attempting total dictatorial control over the Nation he was elected to serve.
I think this article should be circulated far and wide, and shown to councils and politicians and green groups who are blindly following the UN’s line on climate change. Let the facts been seen for what they are please. Also ask your local media why this information is not being distributed to the general public. Why the silence – because it disagrees with the UN?