Of “gold standards” and tradition: UN hockey-stick vs Israeli menorah

As the credibility of United Nations continues its (now) traditional path of rapid decline, that it tries to paper-over with self-perpetuating hype and promotion (not the least of which are generated by the United Nations Environment Program [UNEP], inventor and promulgator of scary stores since 1972), there are some recent reports worth noting.

About a week ago, on (believe it or not!) the CBC, I heard an interview with Canada’s Stephen Lewis. Lewis was commenting on the (far from headline-making) culpability of the UN Security Council in the cholera outbreak in Haiti in 2010. As a little-known Vancouver news outlet recently reported [h/t reader DennisA]:

“I think it is unequivocal, the responsibility of the United Nations for the cholera outbreak,” [Lewis] told CBC Radio One’s Day 6 program on October 12. He dismissed suggestions that definitive proof of the origin of Haiti’s cholera epidemic has not been established. The disease was not present in modern Haiti before October 2010. The epidemic, he said, “has been traced definitively to the Nepalese peacekeeping force” of the UN military mission in Haiti termed MINUSTAH.

Lewis accuses the world body of hiding behind the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. It was adopted by the fledgling agency way back in 1946. He explained that the convention is “clear” in providing for a lifting of immunity in cases where the UN secretary-general concludes that it interferes with justice. Moreover, says Lewis, the convention specifically states that the secretary-general has a “duty” in such cases to pursue justice for victims of wrongdoing.

A lifting of immunity in the case of Haiti would be a “very significant precedent”, says Lewis, because it would apply to the world body itself, not simply to individuals working in its name.

Lewis explained that he worked for a lengthy period at UNICEF and learned, “to my amazement, that the UN was immune to everything.”

“Even a charge of sexual molestation had to go through endless approaches before you could get justice.”

He noted that the UN does not test the soldiers for cholera it sends on missions in its name and then asked, “How is that possible?”

Many scientific reports have proven the UN origin of the cholera epidemic. Other reports have detailed the organization’s legal responsibilities and its attempts at evasion. [emphasis added -hro]

Rarely a day goes by when Ban Ki-Moon, the current UN Secretary-General (and/or one of his underlings), does not issue a pronouncement on the evils of C02 and/or the State of Israel. And what is Ban’s response to these little reported (but far more serious) charges against the UN? You’ll never guess!

On Oct. 10, the CBC (not always the most reliable of news sources, I quite agree) reported:

Last December, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced a $2.27 billion initiative to help eradicate cholera in Haiti and the neighboring Dominican Republic, which share the island of Hispaniola, but the ambitious 10-year plan is underfunded.

Ban rejected a claim for compensation for cholera victims in February, citing diplomatic immunity.

The Security Council urged the U.N. to continue assisting Haitian efforts to stamp out cholera, especially with improvements to Haiti’s water and sanitation systems.

Haiti was already the poorest country in the Western hemisphere when a devastating earthquake struck in January 2010, killing up to 300,000 people and leaving millions homeless. The cholera outbreak nine months later complicated the country’s recovery.

Is there any UN “initiative” that is not constantly whining about being “underfunded”?! If there is, I have yet to hear about it! By the same token, is there any UN organization (particularly those in the maze of the many-tentacled UNEP) that fails to practice the “green” policies it so avidly preaches?!

One of the items on the Agenda of the recently concluded 37th Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], as summarized by IISD, the quasi-official rapporteur was:


Participants addressed this matter on Monday afternoon. IPCC Secretary Christ introduced the agenda item (IPCC-XXXVII/Doc.10), stating that the Secretariat has studied reducing the IPCC’s carbon and environmental footprints, and examining the choice of meeting venues and travel distances. She stressed that these considerations must be balanced with other needs, including the facilitation of outreach and awareness raising. She raised the possibility of carbon offsetting and noted the success of the IPCC’s use of electronic documents at recent meetings.

[…] IPCC Chair Pachauri said the Secretariat would investigate these issues and provide data and options in due course. [hyperlink and emphases added -hro]

Perhaps this <<reduce CO2 emissions imperative for thee but not for we>> edict of the IPCC is coloured by the “traditional” immunity of UN bodies to that which they insist the rest of the world must pursue! It is also interesting to note that in the matter of the “future of the IPCC”, the delegates were led by the (Stocker?!) nose to support the establishment of a “Task Group”, the terms of reference of which include the following:


To help the IPCC to continue to improve its operation and products, the Task Group will develop options and recommendations for consideration by the Panel on:

• The future products of the IPCC;
• The appropriate structure and modus operandi for the production of these IPCC products;
• Ways to ensure enhancement of the participation and contribution of developing countries in the future work of the IPCC.

In undertaking its work, the Task Group will seek to ensure the inclusion of the perspectives of developing countries.
The Task Group will work with the Secretariat on the communications aspects of its work to ensure full transparency.



The Task Group will draw on multiple sources, including, but not limited to:

• The experience from those involved in the preparation of reports during the AR5 cycle;
• Submissions from members of the IPCC, including those provided in document IPCC-XXXVII/INF.1; [Translation “Future of the IPCC – Collated comments from Governments” and hyperlink added -hro]
• Views expressed at the 37th Session (Batumi, Georgia, 14-18 October 2013);
• Input from IPCC Observer Organizations and other relevant stakeholders, and;
• Input from scientists involved in the IPCC process. [which may (or may not) be at least a partial “duplicate” of the first bulleted point above -hro]

“Full transparency” from the IPCC?! As the late, great Buddy Holly famously sang, “That’ll be the day”! But who might those “other relevant stakeholders” be, one wonders?! According to the IISD report, they do seem to include the IPCC’s “parent” organizations, i.e. the UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization [WMO]:

Secretary Christ clarified that UNEP and WMO would be invited to participate as parent organizations. The European Union (EU), supported by Belgium, requested that a footnote be added to ensure the EU’s representation as an observer organization with special observer status. Germany also requested adding representatives of the Executive Committee and TSUs to the list of participants. A show of hands was requested to take note of those interested in becoming active participants in the Task Group. Practically all countries expressed interest in joining the Task Group’s core membership.

However, I saw no indication that your views and mine, dear reader, are deemed to be those of “other relevant stakeholders”. I guess our views continue to be equivalent to those of “chopped liver”!

By contrast to this IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri-proclaimed “gold standard” IPCC, which rests on the laurels of a highly dubious 2007 Nobel Peace Prize – not to mention an “iconically” constructed hockey-stick – I thought it was rather interesting to note that recently in Israel, a group of archaeologists have discovered some real gold standard findings:


I believe it’s worth noting that these finding are not only uncontaminated by anything related to the UN (including the IPCC), but they also predate the IPCC’s foolishly adopted “hockey-stick” by several centuries. I’m all in favour of “tradition”, and I’ll take that of Israel over that of the UN (and the IPCC) any day.

As far as I know, AR5 “the movie” has yet to make its debut. Yet with little fanfare, the “golden” history of Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Israel (notwithstanding many UN agencies’ efforts to erase this history from public consciousness) has revealed itself. Well, at least to those who are open to facts, rather than the persuasion proffered by the inventions and interventions of the UN and its many unaccountable propaganda arms and tentacles.

2 thoughts on “Of “gold standards” and tradition: UN hockey-stick vs Israeli menorah

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s