Embarrassed UN tries to hide evidence of failed climate disaster predictions

The Wall Street Journal ran an article last week that revealed that the U.N. deleted a map from their web site this month after a journalist from AsianCorrespondent.com asked some embarrassing questions about some 2005 U.N. predictions.

In 2005, the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) predicted 50 million climate refugees by 2010, and they published a map showing the areas these climate refugees would be fleeing from. 2010 came and went, and the AsianCorrespondent.com journalist inconveniently pointed out that many of the places UNEP said would have climate refugees fleeing, “are actually among the fastest growing regions of the world.”

Okay, so maybe the sky ISN’T falling…

Once that was pointed out to them, UNEP took the necessary actions to correct their mistake – they deleted the evidence! UNEP is now justifying having deleted the map, causing the WSJ to note “More troubling is the impulse among some advocates of global warming alarmism to assert in the face of contrary evidence that they never said what they definitely said before the evidence went against them.”

Chicks On The Right have a great opinion piece over on RedCounty.com, and The Daily Caller also has a good article with a more details on the story.

 

Reference

UNEP site with map missing

Map before UNEP deleted it

 

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 11:30 | Posted in Global Warming | 45 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Joe

    Here’s the thing. If the global warming crowd is so sure about all this, why don’t they move to Canada?
    These fools could not make a map with any predictions if their lives depended on it.
    The only map they could make would show all the countries where the UN has messed things up and caused death and wanton destruction.
    Hey, I have an idea. Why don’t we use more ethanol and then we can starve more poor people to death while saving the planet.
    Great idea.
    I love the UN.
    The UN will protect me when I need it.
    I am not a man.
    I need help from government all the time and from the UN, too.
    Thanks UN – you guys are the greatest!!

  • Bob Clark

    Climate Change? The climate is always changing because of natural forces. The lunes on the left actually think they can significantly alter the outcomes of events as big as Japan’s recent Tsunami. They’ve lost their Zen. Adapting is what the human species is all about. Peace and tranquility do not wear “green” nazi credentials like many a politician in Portland city hall or Multnomah county commission. Those of peace and tranquility instead honor the freedom of individual spirit and the collective wisdom of individuals acting individually.

  • Oregonnative

    Absoutly, what a bunch of idiots in all our goverment enities chaseing the ” Green Agenda”. Everytime they vote for something ” Green “, it will cost everyone in higher taxes and for what.
    When are we going to vote them out ??

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Have the AGW clowns ever made a substantial and concrete prediction that has come true? By concrete I do not mean “it will get warmer”. I mean a prediction with numbers and verifiable dates that was at odds with what one would normally expect?

    In other words the 50 million refugees prediction is substantial, because it involves a large number of people that would normally not be refugees. It is concrete because it involves a reasonably near term date.

    I sure cant think of one of these predictions that has come true. I can think of a few that haven’t.

  • Clemensmj

    Haha. Did you notice that the Queensland area of Australia was listed as a future area of drought? This is the same area that had multiple large floods this last winter. Oops again!

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Yep, the Queensland issue has been something of a running joke on the AGW believers for quite a while. Next time you are with one bring it up. In five seconds its a pass the popcorn laugh fest.

      • valley person

        So the 10 year epic drought Australia had prior to the record rainfall is now wiped from the record? That is part of your popcorn laugh fest?

        • Rupert in Springfield

          No, but you do. Trying to claim a drought in the past, which was known, makes up for a stupendous mis-prediction is possibly more hilarious than the mis prediction itself.

          You know, you would haves some intellectual credibility if you could just admit the UN was wrong and deceptive on this one. However since you can never admit you or anyone you follow is wrong, you are forever condemned to intellectual dishonesty.

          I mean seriously, you look kind of silly trying to defend something even the UN has tacitly admitted was wrong by their cover up of the map.

          • valley person

            Only the 10 year drought, which was the worst one every known, was consistent with what climate models have predicted for Australia. As is the current multi year drought in the southwest that is among other things burning up much of west Texas and drying up Arizona. All shown as probable by the same climate models you chuckle over while eating popcorn.

            I have no idea about what the UN knew or didn’t know or did or didn’t do in this case. And I don’t care. The “UN” is not a scientific body, though it does convene scientific bodies (like the IPCC) from time to time. I don’t “follow” the UN, so why do I need to defend them? I’m saying (and I know you have the capacity to understand this down deep in there somewhere) that one dude’s failed “prediction,” if that is what it was, does not negate the larger body of evidence that the earth is warming as a consequence of a buildup of greenhouse gasses.

            So if I look silly defending something that I’m not defending, but rather dismissing, there is not much I can do about that. I suggest you try on a different pair of glasses.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          No, but you do. Trying to claim a drought in the past, which was known, makes up for a stupendous mis-prediction is possibly more hilarious than the mis prediction itself.

          You know, you would have some intellectual credibility if you could just admit the UN was wrong and deceptive on this one. However since you can never admit you or anyone you follow is wrong, you are forever condemned to intellectual dishonesty.

          I mean seriously, you look kind of silly trying to defend something even the UN has tacitly admitted was wrong by their cover up of the map.

  • valley person

    Oh I get it. So one guy made a prediction, the UN posted that, the prediction was wrong, and therefore: “what global warming?”

    You guys are a riot. You can take a single error and dismiss the entire scientific establishment. All in a days work.

    • Gotcha222

      “single error”

      How about ‘comedy of errors’. It would be funny if so much wasn’t riding on the lies of the so-called scientific establishment you deify.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/26/quote-of-the-week-note-to-uea-and-cru-get-a-clue/#more-38729

      A primary precept of science is transparency. Defend the withholding of data; I dare you, troll. Worse, the data that is being released is unravelling the conclusions you espouse one-by-one.

      And the ‘single error’? You pick a single comment & deride it & completely ignore the story. I have that map; removing it without acknowledging the changes is a damning indictment of the bias. Lining up proselytizers, Hari Krsna street preachers are more respectable than you.

      You use science & statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts…for support rather than illumination. PLEASE keep posting; ‘You’ are the riot.

      • valley person

        If the source of your misinformation on all things global warming is “wattsupwiththat,” there isn’t much to talk about here. Try reading what the actual scientific establishment says, not what someone blogs about what he thinks is happening in science.

        The withheld data charge is bunkum, so there isn’t any need to defend it. The warming trend has been confirmed time and time again, including by a recent self-described skeptic from UCal Berkley who went over every raw bit of data on temperature readings from every source and confirmed what had already been concluded. The earth is warming at a pace consistent with what is modeled from the rise in atmospheric carbon. This is again confirmed by multiple physical and biological responses to warming, from melting glaciers to rising seas to early animal migrations. Its like Obama’s birth certificate nonsense. End of story. Move on dude.

        A single map illustrating a wrong prediction by a single researcher is not a “damning incident.” Its background noise. But when you have to leap on every issue that arises to keep doubt alive, it is useful I suppose, to drum something up every few months. Real all about it: “Scientist gets xx wrong. Therefore science is useless!”

        I go with the flow on probabilities even when that contradicts what I may want to believe. When every scientific body on the planet agrees on something, it isn’t a sign of greater wisdom to pretend I know better.

        You choose differently. But reality is what it is friend.

    • wnd

      VP can’t handle the scientific toot that comes from Chuck Wiese. Pity!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT7qepetr1Q

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Well, lets get real. Dean is trying to defend as correct even that which the UN admits, by taking down the map, was wrong. This is exactly why the AGW community is viewed as kind of cult like. Even when their leaders admit they were wrong the followers still insist they were right!

        • valley person

          Defend it? No. Read what I wrote. Slowly if necessary. I’m saying an error is not relevant in the grand scheme of things. Scientists make errors. One of them apparently made a prediction that did not turn out (yet).

          There is no AGW “community.” There are scientists who go out and gather data, pose theories to explain observation, test the theories,submit findings for review to other scientists who look for errors or weaknesses, and through that process the best approximation of reality available to the rest of us is arrived at. Some of the rest of us accept the approximation of reality generated by science as being the best that we have at any given moment. We also accept that science can be wrong, but the cool thing is that it is self correcting over time. If we are a “community,” it is the “reality based community.”

          Your side relies on a blog by a weather station maker to counter the conclusions of the entire scientific establishment. As propaganda, its reasonably effective. Just stick to the big lie as long as possible and yell a lot. As an alternative reality, not so much.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Actually my side relies on basic scientific method – an experiment must be repeatable in order to have any validity.

            Well, since the predicted behavior does not line up with what is observed, we can draw a conclusion – the models do not predict very well.

            Since the entire AGW belief system relys on these models we can dismiss your view as being not in line with the facts.

            Since you refuse to accept that basic fact, we can also dismiss you as actually taking a scientific attitude about this.

            The fact that you make the fundamental error, time and time again, of insisting the entire scientific community supports your belief system, we can dismiss you on that count as well.

            Take your head out of the sand – you have been hoodwinked again. Then again I would expect nothing less of you. When the head of the IPCC has been proven an utter fraud, you would think you would wake up. Then again, since you can never admit you are wrong, maybe it is too much to expect of you to actually look at this scientifically.

            Oh well, another colossal Dean flop again. Maybe next time?

          • Valley person

            The basic scientific method does not include a planet sized experiment Rupert. It goes from observed phenomena (warming planet + increased greenhouse gasses) and puts 2 and 2 together by demonstrating the relationship between these and eliminating other explanations. Do you accept Plate Techtonics as the best explanation of how the earth’s crust is organized? If yes, you do so despite there being no “experimental” evidence.

            And how is it that actual scientists are fine with global warming, absent the planet sized experiment you are waiting for? Never mind.

            Its not a “belief” system, and it doesn’t rely on models. It relies on evidence. Models are ways of testing the evidence. They don’t normally make “predictions.” They suggest probabilities.

            You can dismiss me all you like. You are still stuck with reality. Not actual recognition of it, which would explode your brain. Just the part where it eventually comes and bites you in your tushie.

            Yes, I’ve been hoodwinked by every scientific body on the planet. I should dismiss them and follow the blog by the weather station guy instead. I must be brainwashed. I need to go hug my Al Gore doll now.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Wow, great video. I wish that the prediction versus reality portion (something the computer models have been notoriously bad at) was towards the beginning since it is such an incredible indictment of this nonsense. However, given the time that was obviously allotted, this covers a lot of ground really pretty nicely.

  • Pingback: iPad pillow holder()

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster()

  • Pingback: streaming movies()

  • Pingback: watch movies online()

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • Pingback: 3gp mobile porn()

  • Pingback: stop parking()

  • Pingback: parking()

  • Pingback: paypal loans()

  • Pingback: house blue()

  • Pingback: a&k electrician()

  • Pingback: ionizer loans()

  • Pingback: bottled alkaline water()

  • Pingback: pay per day loan plans()

  • Pingback: view more()

  • Pingback: pay plan()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: water ionizer plans()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: ccn2785xdnwdc5bwedsj4wsndb()

  • Pingback: 3nvb54wnxd5cbvbecnv5ev75bc()

  • Pingback: x30m85cgcr83n5rwxym8cnrsdfruxm()

  • Pingback: dui attorney berkeley ca()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)