There’s a comment I made a few days ago at Paul Matthews’ valuable The IPCC Report site that’s stuck in moderation. I do hope that Matthews is OK and that his absence is temporary, because he has provided many valuable insights over the years. Anyway, the post to which I had appended my comment was his, The desperate delusions of the Lewandowsky apologists. I had written:
To my mind, the fact that such a “brilliant” climate scientist as Michael Mann has joined forces with Lewandowsky (as he indisputably did last November) suggests to me that the movers and shakers of the IPCC – and all who hang onto their every word – may well be in far bigger trouble than they thought!
Add to this Lawson’s recent presentation and Sweden’s Lennart Bengtsson’s decision to join forces with the GWPF – not to mention Bengtsson’s “The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong” added to Judith Curry’s highlighting of John Christy’s “hockey stick” experience …
Well, YMMV, but I’d say that perhaps the world just might step back from the brink of this UN generated madness in perpetual self-serving motion!
All of which is by way of introduction to the little known fact that – notwithstanding all the hyper-alarmism of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s devotées (as is evident in their honchos’ public pronouncements and “tick-tick, boom-boom” movies, not to mention the credibility gap that widens with every passing outpouring from the “jewel in the crown” aka the U.K. Met Office’s anchor, Dame Julia Slingo) – “climate change” is still at the bottom of the public’s priority heap.
You see, a little under a year ago I had stumbled across a United Nations Development Program (UNDP) “innovative initiative” in which participants from around the world were invited to vote on what the priorities should be in a post-2015 world. As I had noted at the time, the UNDP had declared:
From now until 2015, we want as many people in as many countries as possible to be involved: citizens of all ages, genders and backgrounds, particularly the world’s poor and marginalized communities.
Readers may recall that “climate change” was at the bottom of the priority heap. And now, eleven months (give or take a week or so) and approximately 1.5 million votes later, “climate change” is still at the bottom of the world’s priority heap:
Readers might also recall that in the press release announcing this initiative, last year, it was noted that:
“There’s been something really important missing in the way we at the United Nations and at the global level have been deliberating and deciding on issues over the last decade, and that something has been you — people all over the world,” [Olav Kjørven, Assistant Secretary General and Director of the Bureau for Development Policy at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)] told correspondents, adding that the era of making decisions about global issues behind closed doors with little citizen involvement was coming to an end.
Too bad no one appears to have told Kofi Annan (now Chair of the little known group of high profile people, called “The Elders”), Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC Chair), Thomas Stocker (Co-Chair of the IPCC’s Working Group I), Chris Field (Co-Chair of the IPCC’s Working Group II) or WMO head honcho, Michel Jarraud about this new, improved process, eh?!
10 thoughts on “NEWSFLASH: Climate change still at bottom of world’s priority heap”
I think Paul is on holiday for a week or 2
Thanks, Barry … good to know he’s OK (although I think he has a lot of nerve going away without any means of monitoring his blog ;-) )
It is a bit awkward, isn’t it. Obviously, they’re not likely to ditch CAGW as the number one threat to the planet, this year or the next, so if climate change doesn’t climb up the ratings somehow between now and 2015 they’ll have to think of plausible-sounding ways to say that the low score doesn’t actually matter.
There are some useful pointers for them on this Civil Society blog:
For example: “The results of thoughts that dive into interlinking climate change to all aspects will naturally conclude that action on climate change should be the base of the pyramid of sustainable development”.
So there you have it – viewed in that light, a vote for any of the items on the list can also be seen as a vote for action on climate change!
Amazing, isn’t it?! “climate change” has become the all purpose, always-right-all-the-time cloak of so many different things, eh?!
What’s also interesting is that if you look at the analytics, a majority of respondents appear to be in the 16-30 age group, have at least finished secondary school and live in countries with an HDI status of Medium or above.
Which, I’d have thought, would be the kind of people most exposed to climate change alarmism in education and the media, and most likely to push action on climate change higher up the priority list. However, it looks as though this isn’t really happening.
What’s that about an ‘equal and opposite reaction?’
Indeed. Even the National Geographic – which was previously head over heels in lockstep with alarmism – seems to have shifted gears. I came across an article today [h/t Judith Curry] in which they focus on food supply. Setting aside the rather confusing and hyperactive interface of the article, to my mind it was notable for the complete absence of any hint of “climate change”.
Amongst other excellent skeptic-leaning pieces, Curry also features two articles from the movers and shakers of the GWPF; she not only links to Lawson’s excellent piece at Standpoint, but also to Benny Peiser’s riddled with <gasp> common sense interview at IAI News.
And Curry’s concluding link today, simply warms the cockles of my “girl power” heart: Need Better Ideas? Ask More Women ;-)
@ Hilary, agree about the articles, some good stuff! The National Geographic food article was almost a bit too much for my poor Firefox, which struggled horribly to load the thing (finally opened it in Google cache, text only). Actually I found it does mention greenhouse gases at the beginning, but yes, it’s fairly positive about the subject of food’s future in a way that a similar article written 40 years ago I don’t think would have been, at all.
@ John R T, yes, could be reverse psychology at work!
Note that Bengtsson was harrassed into withdrawing his offer to work with GWPF by vituperative Warmists.
Uh … quite so. But I suspect that memory may be failing one of us! See: https://hro001.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/something-missing-in-the-critiques-of-bengtssons-choice/#comment-5296