The sky is falling . . . oh wait, no it's not

Well, it happened again. Someone has pointed out a new problem with all the hysteria surrounding climate change. I delight in these revelations because we need to base our actions on reality, not hypothetical, alarmist scenarios dreamed up by Al Gore and his ilk. Here’s the latest case in which climate change folks are shown to be extremists and, dare I say, liars. By the way, I took this from The Wall Street Journal, a publication I highly recommend due to its reputation and careful analysis of many topics ranging from politics to science.

In 2005, the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) published a color-coded map under the headline "Fifty million climate refugees by 2010." The primary source for the prediction was a 2005 paper by environmental scientist Norman Myers.

Let’s see . . . how has this prediction turned out? Six years later, this flood of refugees is nowhere to be found, global average temperatures are about where they were when the prediction was made. Here’s the most interesting thing of all--the U.N. has attempted to distance itself from this embarrassment by wiping the inconvenient map from its servers.

The map, which can still be found elsewhere on the Web (I’ve seen it), disappeared from the program's site sometime after April 11, when Gavin Atkins asked on AsianCorrespondent.com: "What happened to the climate refugees?" It's now 2011 and, as Mr. Atkins points out, many of the locales that the map identified as likely sources of climate refugees are "not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world." Oops!

Of course, the people responsible for the map have an answer, but I’ll leave it up to you whether you find it convincing. The program's spokesman says the map vanished because "it's not a UNEP prediction. . . . that graphic did not represent UNEP views and was an oversimplification of UNEP views." He added that the program would like to publish a clarification except that the staffers able to do so are "all on holiday for Easter." So, do you buy this?

The climate-refugee prediction isn't the first global warming-related claim that has turned out to be laughable. The Journal says it is more concerned that people responsible for earlier predictions then have the nerve to claim these mistakes weren’t really their fault.

I agree. Once again, to me the main issue is not climate change itself. Instead, it’s the way so-called authorities can scream hysterically, be taken seriously by a mainstream press that never investigates the issues, and then pretend they never made the statements which have later been proved to be false. Let’s keep a sharp eye out for those who want to move us emotionally with weak arguments, especially when their goal is to weaken our economy in some utopian dream.

Libya and the United Nations

The latest news from the United Nations reinforces the cynicism of many in the United States towards this world organization. It was set up in the aftermath of World War 2, much like the old League of Nations was established after the first world war. The utopian dreams were the same—if we could only get together and control any bad impulses of nations . . . Of course, we know how well the League functioned. The world ended up with Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Hirohito. Not exactly what naïve world leaders like Woodrow Wilson were hoping for.

Now we have the United Nations dealing with Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi. Just last January this august body looked into the regime’s moral progress through one of its agencies, The U.N. Human Rights Council.
It released its quadrennial report on human rights in Libya as part of its "universal periodic review." The UPR—advertised as one of the improvements of the Council when it replaced the U.N.'s old Human Rights Commission in 2006—is supposed to provide "objective and reliable information" on human rights in U.N. member states. Sure . . .

So how did Libya fare? According to The Wall Street Journal, the report notes that "a number of delegations commended Libya for the preparation and presentation of its national report, noting the broad consultation process with stake holders in the preparation phase. Several delegations also noted with appreciation the country's commitment to upholding human rights on the ground."

Now how did the council come to that conclusion? Well, to start with, Libya itself offered a generous assessment of its own rights record. Then other truly noble and humane countries lavished praise on Gadhafi’s government. Cuba commended Gadhafi for "the progress it made in . . . primary education," and North Korea lauded Libya's "achievements in the protection of human rights." I don’t know about you, but I feel relieved that such democratic, liberal, and sophisticated countries lined up behind Libya.

The sad part is seen in comments by countries that ought to know better but have been blinded by multicultural, relativistic, non-judgmental nonsense. For example, Australia, "welcomed Libya's progress in human rights." Canada praised "the recent legislation that granted women married to foreigners the right to pass on their Libyan nationality to their children." Then there was Poland, which highlighted Libya's "achievements in recent years, including its efforts to combat corruption and trafficking."

How about our country? Can you guess how it reacted, thanks to the leadership of President Obama, who has made a point of ignoring our friends and elevating our enemies? The U.S., which joined the Council as a sign of the Obama Administration's good global citizenship, "supported Libya's increased engagement with the international community." At least the U.S. also "expressed concern about reports of the torture of prisoners" along with other rights violations. Similarly limp statements of concern were offered by the Australians, Canadians and Poles.

Did any country report the real picture? Yes, little Switzerland noted that Libyan "courts continued to pronounce death sentences and inflict corporal punishment, including whipping and amputation." Gee, in my view that calls into question the praise heaped on Libya, or am I wrong?

So the U.N. continues to exist, thanks in large part to our donations. It’s hard to take this organization seriously when its human rights body has members like Libya and Cuba. What next—North Korea’s “Dear Leader” for the Nobel Peace Prize?

Roosevelt and Stalin: a lesson for us all

I just finished a book called Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship. What an eye-opener. Franklin Delano Roosevelt thought he knew how to handle Joseph Stalin as World War 2 ramped up. Unlike Winston Churchill, FDR decided he should be extremely accommodating to Stalin, thus showing the Russian tyrant he had nothing to fear from America and the West. The result of this approach was heartbreaking and puzzling.

As early as 1942, Roosevelt worked tirelessly, if not realistically, to help Stalin. He sent many young American sailors to their deaths on the dangerous Murmansk convoys to keep Stalin supplied even as Churchill said the Royal Navy was too stretched to provide decent escort service. FDR then agreed with Stalin to support a cross channel attack on France in 1942, way before the U.S. and England were ready. It would have been a bloodbath.

In 1942, the Brits, Americans, and Russians met at Teheran with more of FDR’s generosity on display. He agreed in principle to Russia’s dominance in the Baltic countries and eastern Europe, thus abandoning these countries to years of misery under communism.

As the war continued, Roosevelt gave away much more to the Russian dictator. He advocated giving one-third of the surrendered Italian navy to Stalin, despite the fact that the Russians didn’t fight in the Mediterranean while the British lost a huge number of ships there. He urged American military leaders to abandon the Italian peninsula and the entire Mediterranean strategy because Stalin didn’t like armies near where he planned to take over entire nations. A truly sad occasion was the Warsaw uprising in 1944 when the Polish resistance leaders led an uprising against the German occupiers because the Russians who were closing in on Warsaw asked them to do so. Instead of coming to their rescue, the Russians cynically stopped short of Warsaw to let the Germans destroy future opposition to Russian military and political dominance in the area. The British asked FDR to help supply the Poles with needed help, but he refused, afraid to anger Stalin. In addition, Roosevelt agreed to support the Russian-supported Polish government being put together, even though the true Polish government was in London in exile.

Toward the end of the war, FDR repeatedly gave way before the Russians. He held the American army back from Berlin, he agreed to huge land accessions if Russia would enter the war in the Pacific against Japan. He looked the other way as Lend-Lease supplies to Russia were diverted to other uses than defeating Hitler, he let Russians inspect American industrial plants without letting our people see Russian plants, he canned his ambassador to Moscow when he pointed out the evils he encountered there, he refused to look into many reports of Russian atrocities against Poles.

The book ends by asking a key question—why did FDR act this way? The answer the author gives has to do with FDR’s worldview. He, like his hero Woodrow Wilson, saw the world in utopian terms. It could be made better, people were basically good, something like the old League of Nations could be reconstituted and made to keep the peace. This idealism permeated the “progressives” of this time. They came to see ugly, totalitarian regimes like the U.S.S.R. as a bit rough around the edges but interested in the same upward drive for perfecting the human race. Their worldview blinded them to the reality of evil.

Does all this sound familiar? Look at the progressives today. They lash out at Israel, but have little to say to Iran. They tolerate North Korea, they excuse Hugo Chavez, they praise Fidel Castro, they hang out with thugs at the United Nations. I see the current administration in this light—the leaders think that if we are nice and accommodating, the world’s dictators will stop their nastiness. Then we can sit around the campfire and sing songs together. Really??