What Part Of “The UN Is Corrupt” Doesn’t Newsweek Understand?

Newsweek has finally figured out that the UN Climate Fund is corrupt, but they can’t put two and two together and realize that the junk UN science behind the UN Climate Fund is also corrupt.

2015-11-09-11-06-49

2015-11-09-11-12-25

Green Climate Fund Must Fight Corruption Before It Can Beat Global Warming

Newsweek believes that the climate of Bangladesh is getting more dangerous due to global warming. Had they done any actual research, they would have known that 45 years ago this month, 300,000 people in Bangladesh were killed by a cyclone.

2015-11-09-10-59-31

18 Nov 1970, Page 1 – at Newspapers.com

They also would have known that the consensus of scientists in 1970 blamed the bad weather on global cooling – not global warming.

2015-11-09-11-02-46

24 Jan 1970, Page 31 – at Newspapers.com

NASA got rid of this inconvenient cooling, by simply erasing it.

Fig.A (2)

What sort of mental defect causes progressives to cling to this global warming scam, despite overwhelming evidence that it is a scam?

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to What Part Of “The UN Is Corrupt” Doesn’t Newsweek Understand?

  1. philjourdan says:

    Newsweek is still around? I thought they went honest and announced they were just a mouthpiece for the Daily Beast.

  2. Steve Case says:

    What sort of mental defect causes progressives to cling to this global warming scam, despite overwhelming evidence that it is a scam?

    Good question. What does prevent them from printing the truth? They don’t question obvious bullshit, and contradictory topics and factoids are avoided like the plague.

    • philjourdan says:

      The answer is very simple. AGW is not an end, it is the means to an end. A totalitarian state.

    • Gail Combs says:

      You have two types.
      1. The Conmen like Mikey Mann and Gavin…. Thes are leaders and frontmen who expect to be well rewarded for their treachery and treason. For example I mentioned before Maude Barlow a “no dog in this fight” Canadian, who was a director of both Organic Consumers Assoc and Food and Water Watch. Both organizations supported WTOs Food Safety Modernization Act that will drive independent American farmers out of business while making US food much less safe. (US inspectors now inspect paperwork not food and farmers must generate paperwork. Any illness can now be ‘traced back’ and blamed on a farmer not poor industrial processing practices.) Barlow was handsomely rewarded for selling the US consumer out with an appointment as New Senior Advisor to the UN president on October 21, 2008.

      2. Brainwashed liberal arts types who have been trained to FEEL instead of think. They have ‘Talking Points’ they are spoon fed and regurgitate. We saw this with Hope for Brains.

      “Useful Idiots” is a pejorative term that was used by the Soviets to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries and in the United States in particular. It is thought that the Soviet leader Lenin was the first to use the term and it was used by the Soviets for many years to ridicule misguided Americans who were willing to take the Soviet/Marxist side against their own country. Some say that today the term “useful idiots” can be used to describe those who support a malignant cause which they naïvely believe to be a force for good….
      https://www.sites.google.com/site/paulroebling/home/why-are-liberals-called-useful-idiots

  3. mpcraig says:

    “What sort of mental defect causes progressives to cling to this global warming scam, despite overwhelming evidence that it is a scam?”

    Isn’t it obvious? They don’t care about global warming or weather or scams or science or poor people. They only care about their power and your money and ways to get more of each.

  4. gator69 says:

    Men who are unable to support themselves have always sold themselves into slavery whenever possible. The Bible speaks of these people, and they are still with us today.

  5. Dave N says:

    The MSM: explaining everyday occurrences as being produced by gods that are angry at humans. And in other news, the Roman Empire has fallen

  6. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, if you have any evidence that the NASA adjustment is incorrect, post that evidence.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Steven has posted this many, many time.

      He has shown year after year after year of unwarranted and unjustified data, adjustments, fabrication and infilling.

      He has shown that TOBs actually makes very little difference.

      he has shown the adjustments are almost a perfect match for the rate of CO2 rise..

      He has shown that the whole of the GISS temperature set is a fabricated and mal-adjusted load of crap…. which of course makes it just the sort of thing you would try to support.

      And he has shown that they are FRAUD, writ large.

      It is this fraud that you will of course try to defend.. because it is the only thing propping up the lies and deceit of the AGW cult religion you are so trapped in.

      • Martin Smith says:

        None of that is evidence that the adjustment is incorrect.

        • AndyG55 says:

          None that you will ever accept, that’s for sure.

          Your mind was made up the second you accepted your brain-washing..

          No facts, No data can penetrate the empty mess that is the AGW cult child-mind.

  7. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, post your evidence that the NASA adjustment is incorrect. Showing the graph after the adjustment doesn’t show the adjustment is incorrect. It shows the graph after correcting the data.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Show us how the adjustments were arrived at.

      • Martin Smith says:

        Show yourself, Jason.

        • AndyG55 says:

          So Martin admits he has ZERO idea how the data manipulations were carried out.

          Neither does anyone else..

          they cannot be replicated..

          They are NOT SCIENCE. That makes them FRAUD.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Andy, I don’t have to have any understanding at all about how the data are adjusted. As it happens, I do understand quite a lot about it, because I have read several of the explanations for why and how the data were adjusted. I have a MS in math and an MS in computer science, so I understand quite a lot of the math and the algorithms used. But whether or not anyone here, including me, understands the match and software engineering required to find errors and biases and correct them is not the point here.

          The point is that if you want to claim that a particular adjustment to a particular dataset is incorrect, or, if you want to do as Steven has done, and claim that ALL adjustments done by NASA and NOAA are not only incorrect but fraudulent, then you MUST examine the math and software engineering; you MUST understand it; you MUST understand the explanations, and you MUST be able to use these skills to prove that the adjustment is incorrect.

          Even if ALL the adjustments make the global warming trend warmer (they don’t), and even if ALL the adjustments make the global mean sea level higher (they don’t), that isn’t evidence that the corrects are wrong or fraudulent. All Steven has done is show what everyone already knows: Temperature and sea level data are corrected when biases and errors are found. That’s not wrong, and it certainly isn’t fraud.

          To claim that data adjustments are incorrect, let alone fraudulent, unfortunately you must actually prove they are incorrect, and you can’t do that by simply show that the data have been changed and the changes moved the data in the wrong direction to support your anti-AGW belief.

        • AndyG55 says:

          YAWN !

          Propaganda TROLL !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          You again admit that you accept the mal-adjustment and fraud unquestioningly.

          The evidence is overwhelming that they have adjusted the data for political gain.

          You just REFUSE to see that evidence, because you are ONE OF THE TROUGH SWILLERS.

    • Andy DC says:

      Steven has posted evidence for years that NASA/NOAA adjustments overwhelmingly and increasingly have an obvious warm bias. All you need to do is review what he has already posted and you will get your evidence. He has already done his homework and should not have to do your’s when you are too lazy to do it yourself.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Its not that he is lazy….

        Its that his brain-washed miasma actively fights against all real data and facts.

        He does not want to know the reality.

        • AndyG55 says:

          No Martin, Your every post make it blatantly obvious to everyone that you near zero understanding of climate reality..

          You even think that SkS is a worthwhile site..

          that is just so, so LAME. !!!

      • Martin Smith says:

        That isn’t evidence of fraud, Andy. And it certainly isn’t evidence that any adjustment is incorrect. Note that the recent NOAA update, which you all and Lamar Smith are claiming is wrong, raised temperatures in the past and reduced the warming trend, which is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Let’s look at Martin Smith shall we…

          Martin is a software engineer with ZERO understand of anything to do with climate science.

          He also markets himself as a technical writer.. one can only imagine how un-technical those rants would be !!

          He also thinks the cartoonist site , SkS, actually present something resembling science.. seriously !!!

          He frequents a site run by a Peter Sinclair aka Greenman, who fancies himself as a low-end videographer making propaganda mis-information videos about anyone who questions the AGW meme. Peter was apparently “trained” ie brain-washed, by Al Gore.

          here is a quote from Martin on that “climatecrock’ site.

          “We need a database of current states of climate arguments. Skeptical Science is basically that database, but we need a canonical name for each argument and a summary of the current state of the argument, plus the list of papers and datasets that are used to establish the current state of the argument, and finally, the list of papers that are refuted by the current state of the argument.
          Then the rule for moderation can be: If your post argues against the current state of some climate argument, your argument most not be one that has been refuted.
          The whack-a-mole strategy is what must be prevented from obscuring the current state of climate science.”

          Really Martin.. GET A LIFE !!

        • ”We need a database …
          … we need a canonical name for each argument and a summary of the current state of the argument …”

          Heh. What’s wrong with the existing one?

          https://www.marxists.org/glossary/index.htm

          Great find, Andy. I knew people like that, still do. They never go away. Little cogs, aparatchiks.
          —–
          P.S. I’m still skeptical about the “software engineer” claim. Not impossible, but “social engineering” is the more likely venue. At least that’s where he’s heading. I’ve seen that before.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Andy, I have a very good understanding of climate science. It is apparent from your writing here that my understanding is far better than yours. Again, attacking me personally does nothing to support your (Steven’s) claims. Your attacks say nothing about me. Your attacks say a lot about you.

        • Smith, you are a dishonest, shifty, sanctimonious little troll. Your complaints about personal attacks are pure Progressive tactics, straight out of Alinsky. You are known for attacking people personally. You don’t mind attacking your opponents’ integrity when it suits you. Have you already published your own tactical rules manual or is it still a manuscript?

        • AndyG55 says:

          You have produced absolutely ZERO evidence that SG is wrong about anything..

          Because your brain-washed ignorance doesn’t permit you to have any.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The fact that you are here spreading useless misinformation , say ALL about you.

        • AndyG55 says:

          I have not attacked you except with the truth.

          The fact that you are here as a lying propaganda operative , say HEAPS about you.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I have a very good understanding of climate science. ”

          No, you have only ever shown the base-level understanding of the average idiot climate operative.

          You have refused to admit to even the most basic truths about Earth’s climate history.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Sleepy time down here..

          Feel free to copy paste my findings about Martin Smith-Slime after any post he makes 🙂

    • AndyG55 says:

      No , you are wrong. as usual.

      The NASA data manipulations have been shown many times over to be unwarranted, unjustified, highly biased and definitely politically motivated.

      The more they try to run and hide, the worse it will get for them.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The telling point is Martin the Alarmist Pigeon never bothers to pick one adjustment excuse and justify it while those of us here have done a lot of work determining that SPECIFIC adjustments are FRAUD. In many cases they do not even pass the common sense test and when looked at more closely the common sense test was found to be correct.

    • FTOP says:

      A few minutes on Steve McIntyre’s site would cure you of blind faith-itis. The NASA adjustments are poorly documented, biased, and indefensible.

      http://climateaudit.org/?s=Giss+adjustments

      Curious why a SPACE agency wouldn’t have learned about taking measurements from orbit. Someone should explain to them what a satellite is.

  8. AndyG55 says:

    And just a reminder to all climate trolls..

    YOU HAVE FAILED.

    CO2 emissions will continue to increase, probably quite rapidly, over the next few decades.

    China, India , Germany, Japan, South Africa and many other countries will continue to RAMP UP their coal and fossil fuel use.

    All you may succeeded in doing is to lower the living standards in your own countries and hand over control to a totalitarian UN that has absolutely no love for western society.

    DOH !!!!!! Stupidity writ large. !

    • Gail Combs says:

      Andy,

      You are assuming that Martin the Alarmist Pigeon actually cares about the level of CO2 and about the environment. I have found when I rile these people up in person it has nothing to do with concern and everything to do with CONTROL OF YOU.

      I even had a PETA type end up screaming she rather see horses extinct rather than OWNED by Humans. So that tells you she didn’t really give a crap about humane treatment of animals her target was PROPERTY RIGHTS.

      Scratch most of these activists and you find a flaming red Marxist who hates people underneath.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s