##thedelinquentteenager

COP 25 & Gender – apparently it’s a thing

Let’s get real. If the alarmists really believe we have no time to waste in order to save the rest of us from absolute doom and gloom, why is “gender equality” being pushed so hard at the COP25 summit?? If women make the best scientists, why not make them 100% of the process? That’s sensible. Alas, it simply exposes why the UN deserves to be defunded in order that it rationalise around proper governance practices. After all, this is the mob that thought Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe would make a good WHO ambassador and went out of its way to protect one of their own through a sexual harassment scandal at UNAIDS.

The document published at the COP25 summit today noted,

The full, meaningful and equal participation and leadership of women in all
aspects of the UNFCCC process and in national – and local-level climate policy and action,
including in consultations on the planning and review thereof is vital for achieving long-term climate goals…Collecting data, including sex-disaggregated data, and evaluating and
reporting on the effectiveness of processes to integrate gender considerations into climate
policy and action are vital for replicating action and strengthening efforts…”

The ultimate irony for the brains trust at the United Nations is explained by an extensive survey taken by itself on the processes in the compilation of the IPCC climate bible. Countless scientists slammed the lack of competence of the lead authors where the UN pushed diversity (i.e. identity politics) instead of scientific qualifications.

Donna Laframboise noted in her book, “The Delinquent Teenager” the following,

“In early 2010 the InterAcademy Council, an organization comprised of science bodies from around the world, took an historic step. It established a committee whose purpose was to investigate IPCC policies and procedures.

The committee posted a questionnaire on its website and invited interested parties to respond. Answers to those questionnaires were eventually made public after the names of the respondents had been removed. Those provided by IPCC insiders can be separated from the ones submitted by concerned citizens because the questionnaire begins by asking what role the respondent has played in the IPCC.

People with direct experience of this organization were remarkably frank in their feedback. According to them, scientific excellence isn’t the only reason individuals are invited to participate in the IPCC.

Remember, this is a UN body. It therefore cares about the same things other UN bodies care about. Things like diversity. Gender balance. Regional representation. The degree to which developing countries are represented compared to developed countries.
The collected answers to the questionnaire total 678 pages. As early as page 16, someone complains that:

“some of the lead authors…are clearly not qualified to be lead authors.”

Here are other direct quotes:

There are far too many politically correct appointments, so that developing country scientists are appointed who have insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful. This is reasonable if it is regarded as a learning experience, but in my chapter…we had half of the [lead authors] who were not competent.” (p. 138)

“The whole process…[is] flawed by an excessive concern for geographical balance. All decisions are political before being scientific.” (p. 554)

“half of the authors are there for simply representing different parts of the world.” (p. 296)

Lest anyone think that people from less affluent countries were being unjustly stereotyped, the person whose comments appear on page 330 agrees:

“The team members from the developing countries (including myself) were made to feel welcome and accepted as part of the team. In reality we were out of our intellectual depth as meaningful contributors to the process.”

The questionnaire did not contain the word gender. Nevertheless, it is uttered dozens of times in the answers people provided. While some feel the IPCC should not aim for gender balance, others applaud the use of this selection criteria. Among those with firsthand IPCC experience, therefore, it is an open secret that some people are
appointed for reasons that have little to do with world-class scientific expertise.

Depending on whose opinion you believe, this is true in either a small minority of cases or with regard to as many as half of the authors. In the view of at least one person, every IPCC personnel decision is influenced by concerns unrelated to science.

Clearly, it didn’t pay any attention to the results. Because if it did it wouldn’t be able to invent the kind of hysteria (that it has climbed down from constantly over time) to bully virtue signalling governments to force we mere peons to hand over $100s of billion every year to a bunch of incompetent globalists who want to keep this bandwagon going.

UN endorsement speaks volumes

If a politician ever wanted to hunt for the worst possible endorsement, look no further than a reference from the UN. Christina Figueres, former UNFCCC climate chief and world government proponent has been meddling in our Aussie election.

Dr Kerryn Phelps proudly said on Sky News that she attended a meeting with climate scientists and Figueres. Figueres gave Phelps, Zali Steggall, Julia Banks and Rebekha Sharkie her seal of approval because of their stance on climate change (and because of their gender).

Figueres is a piece of work. She warned that climate change is so critical that  gender inequality should be tackled at the same time and she openly defended discrimination against males when it came to hiring in her department. Misandry?

The U.N. is home to many unsavory characters.

Who could forget when the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed Robert Mugabe to be an ambassador? What smell test could he possibly pass?

What about the UN AIDS Executive Director, Michel Sidibé,  who was responsible for creating a toxic environment that promoted “favoritism, preferment and ethical blindness.

Of the 670 staff members at the UN agency interviewed by independent investigators, 18 admitted they had experienced some form of sexual harassment in the previous year and a further 201 said they were on the wrong end of workplace abuse.

One staff member went on the record saying, “U.N.AIDS is like a predators’ prey ground…You have access to all sorts of people, especially the vulnerable: You can use promises of jobs, contracts and all sorts of opportunities and abuse your power to get whatever you want, especially in terms of sexual favors. I have seen senior colleagues dating local young interns or using U.N.AIDS resources to access sex workers.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who made it clear he had a zero tolerance policy with regards to sexual harassment when he took office,  refused to fire him. Despite his term ending in January 2020, Sidibé has offered to quit in June 2019 in order to ensure a stable transition period! In what world does a person outed for turning a blind eye to such a poisonous culture get to leave on his own terms? Sacred cows.

So these incidents prove without doubt the U.N. holds the moral high ground on so many fronts. We shouldn’t be surprised that Phelps thinks Figueres is a credible source. Phelps showed her disdain for the white male patriarchy on International Women’s Day.

Identity politics is poison. The irony within the fight for ‘identity representation’ in climate science was debunked by an internal UNIPCC survey a decade ago. The outcome was simple – it noted diversity (gender and ethnicity) were prioritized over ability. Several delegates, without any scientific credentials, gave the feedback they were way out of their depth and could not contribute any value to the process yet were asked to do so anyway. So much for the benefits of equality over ability?

While these four independent women may say they are conservative at heart, they are of the left. The U.N. endorsement from a hard socialist proves it.

UN hit with yet another scandal

Kết quả hình ảnh cho Michel Sidibé

Independent experts have concluded that UN AIDS Executive Director, Michel Sidibé,  has been responsible for creating a toxic environment that promoted “favoritism, preferment and ethical blindness.” Sidibé accepted no reponsibility for any sexual harassment, bullying or abuse of power that occured under his watch.

The investigation started after Sidibé’s deputy was accused of  forcibly kissing, groping and trying to drag a colleague into his Bangkok hotel room in 2015.

In a survey of the 670 staff members at the UN agency conducted by the independent investigators, 18 admitted they had experienced some form of sexual harassment in the previous year and a further 201 said they were on the wrong end of workplace abuse.

One staff member went on the record saying, “U.N.AIDS is like a predators’ prey ground…You have access to all sorts of people, especially the vulnerable: You can use promises of jobs, contracts and all sorts of opportunities and abuse your power to get whatever you want, especially in terms of sexual favors. I have seen senior colleagues dating local young interns or using U.N.AIDS resources to access sex workers.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who made it clear he had a zero tolerance policy with regards to sexual harassment when he took office,  has refused to fire him. Despite his term ending in January 2020, Sidibé has offered to quit in June 2019 in order to ensure a stable transition period! In what world does a person outed for turning a blind eye to such a poisonous culture get to leave on his own terms? Sacred cows.

Sidibe admitted in an email after the investigation was published, “not all of our staff, in all their diversity, are experiencing the inclusive work culture to which we aspire.” Choice words.

Why do governments continue to fund the UN when it shows time and time again that it operates without any form of governance or ethical code? Remember it wasn’t that long ago that certain people at the UN thought former Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe would make a sensible ambassador for the World Health Organization (WHO). Why would any country seriously want to sign over sovereign powers to the UN with respect to the compact on migration? The UN isn’t fit to run anything of substance.

Why after all the scandals with the IPCC do people put faith in their ability to manage climate change summits? The Delinquent Teenager, written by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise chronicles how the IPCC participants are picked by governments, not for their scientific knowledge and expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.” You can read some of the ridiculous selection processes for lead authors here.

Note the UN promised to streamline. As CM noted 15 months ago,

“The latest U.N. regular budget, while superficially smaller than the previous budget, made no fundamental programmatic or structural adjustments—e.g., reducing permanent staff, freezing or reducing salaries and other benefits, and permanently eliminating a significant number of mandates, programs, or other activities—that would lower the baseline for future U.N. budget negotiations. Despite the Secretary-General’s proposal to eliminate 44 permanent posts, the 2012–2013 budget actually increased the number of permanent posts by more than a score compared with the previous budget. The failure to arrest growth in U.N. employment, salaries, and benefits is especially problematic because personnel costs account for 74% of U.N. spending according to the U.N.’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). Without a significant reduction in the number of permanent U.N. posts or a significant reduction in staff compensation and related costs, real and lasting reductions in the U.N. regular budget will remain out of reach.”

The scariest part of the IPCC’s 2030 forecast isn’t actually the science

06503F53-DA2A-4426-8ECD-7F7794A84E6B.jpeg

Before we read into the validity about how we’re doomed before 2030 if we do not strictly adhere to the preachings of the UNIPCC’s latest gloomy climate bible, this is far more compelling

The Delinquent Teenager, written by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise chronicles how the IPCC participants are picked by governments, not for their scientific knowledge and expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.”

Other issues she uncovers go as far as to say that approximately 1/3rd of the sources for the IPCC come from magazines, press releases and unpublished scientific papers. It also tables corruption, scandals, and conflicts of interest. The Summary for Policy Makers (i.e. our leaders) is compiled by bureaucrats not scientists and often completed before the articles they actually summarise are made available.

She writes:

Richard Klein, now a Dutch geography professor, is a classic example. In 1992 Klein turned 23, completed a Masters degree, and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, at the tender age of 25, he found himself serving as an IPCC lead author. Klein’s online biography tells us that, since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports. On three of those occasions, beginning in 1997, he served as a coordinating lead author. This means that Klein was promoted to the IPCC’s most senior author role at age 28 – six years prior to the 2003 completion of his PhD. Neither his youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts…

Or

Nor is he an isolated case. Laurens Bouwer is currently employed by an environmental studies institute at the VU University Amsterdam. In 1999-2000, he served as an IPCC lead author before earning his Masters in 2001. How can a young man without even a Masters degree become an IPCC lead author? Good question. Nor is it the only one. Bouwer’s expertise is in climate change and water resources. Yet the chapter for which he first served as a lead author was titled Insurance and Other Financial Services. It turns out that, during part of 2000, Bouwer was a trainee at Munich Reinsurance Company. This means the IPCC chose as a lead author someone who a) was a trainee, b) lacked a Masters degree, and c) was still a full decade away from receiving his 2010 PhD.

Or this

Sari Kovats, currently a lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is an even more egregious example. She didn’t earn her PhD until 2010. Yet back in 1994 – 16 years prior to that event and three years before her first academic paper was published – Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health. In total, Kovats has been an IPCC lead author twice and a contributing author once – all long before she’d completed her PhD.

One of CM’s favourite passages though is when one of the expert reviewers noticed “in a particular section of the report, the IPCC was basing its arguments on two research papers that hadn’t yet been published. In itself, this should ring alarm bells. Since the wider scientific community had been given no opportunity to scrutinize them, it was surely premature to consider.”

So we are expected to fork over billions of dollars to defend this junk science?The biggest battle the scientific community faces is the damage done by the fraudulent data manipulation. The scandals are too numerous to mention. If a fInancial industry pundit missed 98% of the time they’d be fired.

Maybe the trick is to make regulations that will lead to fines, jail sentences and stripping of credentials (such as the finance industry) should scientists be caught fiddling the books. Afterall isn’t inappropriately wasting taxpayers money through junk research just as bad as  torching investors’ hard earned cash via insider trading?

Were such laws passed we would soon see alarmism paint a far less hysterical position.  As it stands the UN shows once again why it needs defunding. Afterall they thought Robert Mugabe would make a good ambassador for WHO. With judgement like that who’d doubt their credibility?