It will eat up more than 1,000 pages and be hailed as the finest document since the Magna Carta. But the United Nations’ land-use report will free no man, save not one life, lift no one out of poverty, nor have any perceptible impact on the global climate. Should President Donald Trump be re-elected next year, he should pull the U.S. out of the U.N. the same way he pulled the country out of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate. Call it Amerexit.
U.N. negotiators finalized in Geneva on Wednesday what Agence France-Presse is calling “the most comprehensive scientific assessment yet of how the land we live off affects climate change.” It’s been “compiled by 108 scientists drawing from thousands of data points, is expected to spell out the stark choices facing a warming planet with a growing, hungry population.”
The best comment on Yahoo’s posting of the story was from Jim, who said:
“After the negotiations were over everyone went to the nearest bar where they patted each other on the back and made plans for the next meeting at a five-star resort where they could continue this important work of saving the planet. After a few days of relaxation they hopped on their chartered or private jets and went back home exhausted.”
Coming in a close second is Marshall, who said the report is “not science, folks. That’s a consensus devoid of any scientific methods used to validate a theory. The (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a political body, not a research facility.”
The U.N.’s IPCC has been producing junk for decades. Its “findings” have consistently pressed the narrative that human activity, in particular the use of fossil fuels for energy, is warming the planet to dangerous temperatures through the greenhouse effect. Yet we look around and observe that nothing is happening outside of the natural variations. The data tell us the same.
The trouble with the IPCC reports is that the summaries, which are read by pandering politicians and hysterics in the media, are not the actual reports. Those, according to climate scientist Tim Ball and International Climate Science Coalition Executive Director Tom Harris, “almost no one reads.” In fact, we’re apparently not even supposed to see them.
“The ‘Final Government Draft’ of the underlying science report, which appears on the IPCC Web site, even cautions the reader, ‘Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute,’” Ball and Harris wrote last year covering the SR15 report released in 2018.
The summaries, though, are “written mostly by government representatives and also has to be approved by them. The (Summary for Policymakers) is consequently a highly political document that fulfills policy objectives of the member governments and typically does not properly reflect uncertainties in the underlying science,” they wrote in the Washington Times.
The headline of Ball and Harris’ Washington Times op-ed? “Why U.N. climate report cannot be trusted.”
The IPCC was formed for the purpose of seeking solutions to man-made global warming and is therefore always in search of a problem. Its mission “was never to study the causes of climate change,” according to the Heartland Institute, but to instead frighten the world into submitting to policies the “experts” tell us will avoid the inevitable disaster. So it will always produce work that bolsters the global warming narrative. It’s really more of a propaganda shop for the U.N. and marketing firm for progressive policies than a scientific body seeking facts. This country should not be a party to such an obviously political agenda.
— Written by J. Frank Bullitt
Note to Readers: Issues & Insights was launched by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to use our decades of experience to provide timely, fact-based, reported and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day.
We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we think there’s a need for more rational, data-driven commentary on the internet. If you like what you see, feel free to click the Tip Jar over on the right sidebar. And be sure to tell your friends!