U.N. chief eyes climate change summit

From Breitbart/Reuters:

The United Nations is contemplating a high-level meeting on climate change this year, which could lead to a world summit by 2009, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Financial Times.

The high-level meeting, which could involve ministers and other top delegates, was the most "practical and realistic approach", Ban said in an interview published on Wednesday.

Such a meeting -- on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly in New York in September -- "may be able to give some clear guidelines to the December Bali meeting", he said.

Ban was referring to a United Nations conference on climate change to be held on the Indonesian resort island.

If September's high-level meeting was a success "a summit level meeting will have to be discussed later on", Ban told the newspaper. "It may be 2008 or 2009."

The FT reported there had been calls for a summit level meeting on climate change at the United Nations in September.

But Ban said: "One difficulty is whether I can see for sure the participation of all the major countries, including the United States".

The U.N. chief said after attending the annual summit of the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized nations in June "I may be in a clearer position to propose a certain initiative".

Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat in Bonn, told Reuters last month that Ban had agreed at talks in New York to send envoys to probe government willingness for a high-level meeting about global warming.

Let's see now.... we currently have a global war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, an active genocide in Darfur; conflict brewing between Israeli's and the Palestinians and a United Nations Human Rights council that is unable to identify a single violation of human rights unless, of course, its connected to Israel.

With all of that, the Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon believes that it's worth the United Nations time to focus on Global Warming. The theory is STILL in dispute as discussed in this Newsweek article of April 15, 2007. Here is what an MIT Meteorologist has to say about Global Warming:

Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right.

... and yet world governments and now the United Nations want to hold summits to discuss possible actions to thwart a catastrophe that doesn't exist.

Richard S. Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) comments from the same Newsweek article :

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change.

[...]The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

If a Meteorologist from MIT thinks its ill-advised to move forward at this time why in the world would government officials and a bunch of UN diplomats think they know more than him and charge ahead anyway?

I think the United Nations time would be better spent cleaning up its internal corruption and dismantling that joke of a human rights council than to waste its time on unproven and untested theory that flies in face of facts.

crossposted at Conservative Thoughts