Tag Archives: United Nations

The state of the debate about catastrophic man-made global warming

This article from The American Thinker is the only article you’ll ever need to read about global warming. (H/T ECM)

It summarizes how we got to this point, the goals and role of the United Nations in global warming alarmism, and the latest finding by Climate Audit about the hockey stick graph and its curious use (abuse?) of data sets.

What the article is about:

For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large.  But in the past week or so, it’s become more apparent than ever that those who’ve accused the international organization of politicizing science and manipulating data have been right all along.

Here’s a graph of global temperature, taken from a UN IPCC publication in 1990:

lambh23

And here’s what you should note about it:

And data derived from sources including tree-rings, lake sediments, ice cores and historic documents bear that position out.  Indeed, it’s abundantly evident that since the last glacial period ended, over 14,000 years ago, the Earth’s climate has undergone multi-century swings from warming to cooling that occur often and with remarkable rapidity.  And not one but three such radical shifts occurred within the past millennium.

The years 900-1300 AD have been labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the previous epoch — the Dark Ages — to levels several degrees warmer than today.  A sudden period of cooling then followed and lasted until the year 1850.  This Little Ice Age (LIA) brought on extremely cold temperatures, corresponding with three periods of protracted solar inactivity, the lowest temperatures coinciding with the quietest of the three (The Maunder Minimum 1645-1710).

And then the need for bureaucrats to control people’s lives reared its ugly head:

During testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing on Climate Change and the Media in 2006, University of Oklahoma geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled “an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change” who told him that “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”  In June of this year, Deming identified the year of that email as 1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month’s Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report.

Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck – which Prof. Deming didn’t deny in an email response — who would later also serve as an IPCC lead author.  So it comes as no surprise that this reconstruction, which did indeed “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” was featured prominently in the subsequent 2001 TAR, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the highly-politicized synopsis which commands the bulk of media and political attention.

The article cites climate scientist Stephen Schneider as follows in 1989:

“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

And then adds:

Twelve years later, Schneider was a lead author of the IPCC’s TAR, the same UN report that formally introduced the delusory Hockey Stick Graph.

And that is how the United Nations began to invent the hockey stick graph, which is the latest prop supporting a made-up crisis to overturn capitalism while simultaneously providing the meaningless lives of the secular-left elite with a false sense of purpose and moral superiority. The hockey stick graph is based on the data that was debunked recently by Canadian statistician Stephen McIntyre. And now maybe we can stop worrying about global warming for good.

The rest of the American Thinker article is here and it continues to tell the rest of the story of the hockey stick graph, focusing on the role of the United Nations and IPCC researchers. This is the best article on global warming I have ever read, and it is snarky all the way through. I don’t know how the author managed to find all of those incredible quotes from the global warming alarmists planning their myths. Print and read!

My recent posts on the hockey stick graph

Share

Obama’s latest radical leftist nominee would curtail religious liberty

Check out this post from Laura at Pursuing Holiness. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Ms. Feldblum explains that she does feel empathy when the rights of religious people are subordinated to that of LGBT people*, but it must, and will, happen. She intends to make it happen.

[…]In example after example she advocates for the right of LGBT people to make religious people conduct business in a way that they feel violates their core principles. It’s a touchy issue. I was happy to build websites for gay clients when it was for restaurants, real estate, and other businesses that had nothing to do with sex – but when asked to submit a quote to build a gay dating site, I referred the caller to another developer who was glad to bid for the project. Shall the law side with Ms. Feldblum’s dignity or with my religious freedom?

[…]So to sum up, the cure for her deep, intangible hurt is not to go freely associate with other people, but to force others to do what she wants… this is how she will rule when appointed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

She’s done a lot of digging, and cites extensively from Chai Feldblum’s work, so I recommend clicking through and having a look. This is important, especially for those of us who live and breathe apologetics. If nominees like Jones, Jennings and Feldblum are appointed, it is very likely the ability to carry out an authentic Christian life in the public square will be be curtailed. Including apologetics.

This happens all the time in Canada, where people like Chai Feldblum are running the show:

My previous post on Obama’s nominee for safe-school czar is here, and another post about the FRC’s opposition to him. And the Obama administration is backing limitations on free speech at the United Nations. These are serious issues and if they are ignored, we will be facing the same situations you can see in Canada today.

Share

Obama administration backs restrictions on free speech at the United Nations

Story from the Weekly Standard. (H/T Confederate Yankee via ECM)

Excerpt:

The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday.

[…]In introducing the resolution on Thursday, October 1–adopted by consensus the following day–the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d’Affaires Douglas Griffiths, crowed:

“The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

His Egyptian counterpart, Ambassador Hisham Badr, was equally pleased–for all the wrong reasons. He praised the development by telling the Council that “freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused,” insisting on limits consistent with the “true nature of this right” and demanding that the “the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner.”

[…]Pakistan’s Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights “of religions” instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion–as defined by government–to curtail it.

Speaking as a Christian who values religious liberty, I would not use the power of the state to silence the free speech of people who “offend” me by disagreeing with me. That’s fine with me. In any case, these “human rights” laws are almost never used to defend the free speech of Christians. The fact that Egypt and Pakistan approve of Obama’s plan doesn’t fill me with confidence about who is likely to benefit.

Now might be a good time to review how restrictions on free speech worked out in Canada, where offended Muslims sue news publications and news magazines for citing the actual words of radical Imams or publishing the Mohammed cartoons.

Share