The United Nations has tried to become the world environment 'czar'

The United Nations is an organization 

that claims the most evil nation 

in the world is (your guess?):

(1) North Korea, 

(2) Syria, 

(3) Iran, 

(4) Cuba, or

(5) Venezuela ?  

Of course it makes no sense

that the UN's answer is: "Israel",

and it also makes no sense 

that the UN has used junk science

to demonize carbon dioxide (CO2)

in their failed effort to become

a 'World Environment Czar'.

Note:

The definition of climate: 

Average weather over 30 years or more.

The United Nations began promoting 

environmental concerns in 1971 

with the Conference on the 

Human Environment in Founex, 

Switzerland, organized by 

Maurice Strong. 

Maurice Strong was also 

the Secretary-General 

of the 1972 Stockholm Conference 

on the Human Environment. 

The 1972 Stockholm Conference 

led to the creation of the 

United Nations Environment 

Programme 

(UNEP) 

with Maurice Strong 

as its first Executive Director 

(1971-1975).  

In 1989 Maurice Strong 
began preparations for the

United Nations Conference 

on Environment and Development 

(UNCED), 

held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 

(“The Earth Summit”). 

Mr. Strong, a Canadian, 

has made many statements 

against the middle class 

in the industrialized world. 

Mr. Strong declared that:

"the United States 

is clearly the greatest risk" 

to the world’s ecological health"

 ... "in effect, the United States 

is committing environmental 

aggression against 

the rest of the world." 

The UN's IPCC 

(Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change) 

was formed in 1988 

to assess “the scientific, 

technical and socioeconomic 

information relevant for the 

understanding of the risk 

of human-induced 

climate change.”

At first, the IPCC defined 

climate change as 

“any change in climate over time,

whether due to natural variability

or as a result of human activity."

But the IPCC was mandated 

by the UN Framework Convention 

on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC) 

to redefine climate change 

as human-caused climate change, 

and disregard naturally caused 

climate change. 

So "natural variability" has been ignored.

“Human-induced climate change” 

was assumed, but never proven: 

  The IPCC has not provided 

any scientific proof 

that man made CO2 

caused the global warming 

from 1975 to 2000.

The IPCC relies on 

computer climate models 

based on their assumption 

that anthropogenic (man made) 

CO2 has controlled 
the average temperature 

of our planet since 1975.

Politicians decide which scientists 

are allowed to participate in 

the IPCC writing and review process.

As a result, the IPCC heavily relies

on environmental advocacy groups 

when compiling its official reports.

The IPCC even uses 

advocacy group personnel 

as lead authors, 

and sometimes uses 
their publications 

as source documents!

The well known IPCC's "Summary 

for Policymakers" is the product 

negotiations among governments,

and was not written by scientists

 ... whose back-up documents 

are released months later, 

hoping no one will read them 

and compare them 

with the Summary!

Before 1940, warming and cooling 

were explained by natural factors, 

even though people 

have been adding CO2 to the air 

since the late 1800s.

The IPCC blamed man made aerosols 

(air pollution) for blocking sunlight, 

and causing COOLING,
from 1940 to 1975.

I guess all the aerosols 

fell out of the sky in 1975, 

because there was

WARMING from 1975 to 2000, 

which was blamed 

on man made CO2.

The IPCC has never 
tried to explain 

how 4.5 billion years 
of natural climate change 

suddenly stopped in 1940.

There is no IPCC explanation

for one good reason: 

   Their claim is ridiculous, 

so no logical explanation is possible. 

The IPCC relies on computer models 

based on the false claim that CO2

became the 'climate controller' 

in 1975 -- and that's why the models 

have made wrong climate predictions 

for the past 30 years!

I have read newspaper articles 

going back to the early 1900s 

that feature climate scaremongering 

- each time a scientist 

receives media attention 

by predicting a global cooling 

or warming crisis 

many years in the future.

In the mid-1970s, for example, 

there were many media reports 

about the coming ice age.

Scientists were involved 

in that false scare, 

but at the time 
very few scientists 

made long-term 
climate predictions.

Starting about ten years later, 

anyone who wanted to be 

called a "climate scientist", 

and avoid character attacks 

from intolerant leftists, 

was pressured to claim 

CO2 controls the climate, 

and is dangerous 
"carbon pollution". 

Both claims about CO2 
are unproven, 

and very likely to be false.

CO2 would not be dangerous 

even if you assumed the worst case: 

  The worst case
would be to assume

100% of the warming 

from 1975 to 2000 

was caused ONLY by CO2.

Based on that worst case assumption, 

a doubling of CO2 levels in the air 

would only increase 

the average temperature 

of our planet by only +1 degree C.

(aka "Transient Climate Response"
to a doubling of CO2 levels.)

And that small 
+1 degree C. increase 

would take 200 years 

if CO2 levels grew 2% a year 

(133 years, if CO2 levels grew 3% a year).

The demonization of fossil fuels 

and CO2 emissions,

led by the United Nations,
is what I call:

"modern climate science".

Modern climate science
is junk science,

consisting of:

   (1) Unproven assumptions, 

   (2) Speculations, and 

   (3) Computer game wild guess "predictions" 

          of the future climate that have been
            wrong for 30 years, so far.

Meanwhile, the actual climate 
is wonderful, 

and getting better:

(A) The Earth is greening 

from more CO2 in the air, 

because CO2 is airborne plant food, and

(B) Nights are slightly warmer, 

mainly in the northern half 

of the Northern Hemisphere.

No one with sense believes (A) or (B)

are symptoms of a coming climate

catastrophe !