As NewsBusters readers are aware, one of the positions of those not buying into the manmade global warming hysteria is that the United Nations -- whose Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a large part of the alarmism -- is an organization that has seen more than its share of malfeasance and corruption.
The recent scandal surrounding the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program is one example, with problems that eventually plagued UNICEF another.
Now, it has been revealed that the U.N. has been exaggerating the AIDS epidemic for many years. As reported Tuesday by the Washington Post (emphasis added throughout):
The United Nations' top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement.
AIDS remains a devastating public health crisis in the most heavily affected areas of sub-Saharan Africa. But the far-reaching revisions amount to at least a partial acknowledgment of criticisms long leveled by outside researchers who disputed the U.N. portrayal of an ever-expanding global epidemic.
Kind of like the so-called climate change deniers that have long leveled criticisms disputing the IPCC's portrayal of an ever-expanding catastrophe caused by anthropogenic global warming, wouldn't you agree? But there's much more:
The latest estimates, due to be released publicly Tuesday, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year's estimate, documents show. The worldwide total of people infected with HIV -- estimated a year ago at nearly 40 million and rising -- now will be reported as 33 million.
Having millions fewer people with a lethal contagious disease is good news. Some researchers, however, contend that persistent overestimates in the widely quoted U.N. reports have long skewed funding decisions and obscured potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV. Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS.
Sounds exactly like claims being made by global warming skeptics concerning the IPCC, doesn't it? But there's more:
"There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein, author of "The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS." "I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way."
Indeed. Yet, these revelations should also refocus Americans and people around the world to recognize that this is what the U.N. does, and that any projections and estimates from this body should be seriously questioned for their veracity.
Taking this a step further, as a result of this announcement, maybe everything coming out of the IPCC should be totally ignored, as nations around the world, certainly including the United States, should not be making economic or energy policies based on anything an organization so obviously corrupt is producing.
After all, wouldn't it be unconscionable for America to embark on an economically devastating carbon cap-and-trade program only to find out years from now that the IPCC had intentionally exaggerated its climate change predictions for political and funding reasons?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Paging Bono........
November 20, 2007 - 11:14 ET by Scout FinchWhy, it's a Festivus miracle!
The U.N.
November 20, 2007 - 11:29 ET by iveseenitallI have a relative who has worked for years in the U.N. building. He wants to write a book about what he's seen there. What we're paying for ain't pretty.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
I wonder how many
November 20, 2007 - 11:31 ET by sarcasmoOf the world's (but mostly the USA's) tax dollars were spent on these wrong AIDS estimates? I'm certain I could have guessed much cheaper.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
sarc .. spending on Aids
November 20, 2007 - 12:04 ET by Gary HallThe 2006 UNAIDS Global Report on the Aids Epidemic (I can't seem to locate a 2007 version -- this one is just an update?), supplies some interesting information on the funding. The link is only for the financing section of the report. It also has a section on the President's (that be Bush - shh) mammoth spending.
This revision is catching a lot of news today. It's the headline story in the LATimes. There has been related news lately (not widely publicized) that credited the President's Pepfar (and related new spending), as well as increased global spending and the Clinton (after era) and Gates work, in beginning to turn the corner in the battle. In fact the chart, "Estimated Number of Adult and Child deaths due to Aids Globally 1990-2007," (see page 5) in the 2007 update, indicates that the death rate suddenly turns south in 2006. This would be about 1 1/2 years after the President's (Bush -- shh) funding went to work. Success?
I smell a rat. The media has never openly and fairly reported on Bush's lead here. The uneducated and biased view on the street goes like this, "Oh, that's not for real - that's just some flyers on abstinence - it's just a PR effort for Bush." In fact, a Time Mag. special report on the entire history of Aids, in May 2006, noted that only 3 % of US voters even knew of the President's massive spending effort. That same special issue, other than that note on the polling, never discussed the president's plan (Clinton was a special feature however - which did not mention this "Too little, too late" or this, "Gore to South Africa: Drop Dead".
My guess? The MSM's want to highlight this news on the lower estimates, is rooted in desire to diminish any chance that President Bush will receive additional credit with being a lead in the battle to win war on Aids.
If there is a better example
November 20, 2007 - 12:22 ET by mattmIf there is a better example of how Libs care more about politics than people, I'd like to see it.
They just aren't that clever!
November 20, 2007 - 13:46 ET by IamTinmanYou give Liberals and their allies in the MSM way too much credit. Their approach is as always, "It's better if we spend too much money on the problem than not enough" as long as it's your money! This is the same tactic they are using on global warming except that they have yet to prove that there is such a thing as AGW. That doesn't seem to make much of a difference as long as they can push their agenda with the help of your tax dollars. Relying on them to determine when "enough" has been spent is like trying to get the fox out of the henhouse after he's eaten all the chickens.
Sufficient enough to
November 20, 2007 - 16:48 ET by Sick-n-TiredSufficient enough to further cancer research and possibly a cure(s)?....
And where did the extra $$$ go?
Looking at the Analogy
November 20, 2007 - 14:33 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistLet's look more closely at Mr. Sheppard's analogy. The charges leveled against past U.N reports on AIDS are that the numbers of cases have been exaggerated. Clearly, better numbers can contribute to a better program to address what everyone agrees is still a serious problem.
So carrying Mr. Sheppard's analogy to its logical conclusion, is he now willing to acknowledge that even if it turns out, at some future point, that the IPCC exaggerated the threat of global warming by 40 percent, the threat is still real, still serious, and still worthy of a concerted amelioration strategy?
Except for one thing: We
November 20, 2007 - 15:43 ET by mattmExcept for one thing: We know AIDS is real, we don't know that about APGW.
Good point!
November 20, 2007 - 15:54 ET by MightyMouthGood point!
And to make the assumption that AGW is as real as AIDS would be reckless in that great expense could be expended without a significant result.
But that seems to be the liberal MO. Tax and spend enough money on a problem and it will go away. It's too bad liberals cannot point to one good example, other than going to war of course.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
A Flawed Assumption
November 20, 2007 - 16:20 ET by Wildcatter1980You are assuming that there is sufficient accuracy in the "numbers" regarding global warming. If you have truly been "on top" of the global warming controversy, then you would not be willing to say that the key factor to global warming is humans. There simply are too many factors that are not understood well enough to be accurately reflected if reflected at all in the computer climate models that the IPCC has used to base their alarmist stance on.
The proper conclusion to draw is that if these UN groups are so willing to so overestimate AIDS knowing how much simpler it is to accurately document said cases, then we should all be skeptical of alarmist claims made of something as complex and much less well understood as the climate and whether or not humans can do anything to significantly affect it.
Just my $0.02
Hey I was one of the
November 20, 2007 - 16:21 ET by danboHey I was one of the people that sent raw data up to CDC and these folks. Really one of my nurses, but i had to make sure it was done and sent other related reports. Yet we don't know anything.
There's something going on in too much science that has nothing to do with facts or reality.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
"The charges leveled
November 20, 2007 - 22:38 ET by ckc1227"The charges leveled against past U.N reports on AIDS are that the numbers of cases have been exaggerated."
As usual with you guys who believe in global warming, you have it wrong. These aren't "charges" of wrong doing, it's an admission by the UN's top AIDS scientists.
One can only hope that Algore comes clean too, sooner rather than later.
"Clearly, better numbers can contribute to a better program to address what everyone agrees is still a serious problem"
I don't agree that AIDS is a huge problem. New cases could be virtually eliminated tomorrow if more guys thought with their big head instead of their little one. As such, it should only a be a "big" problem for those who don't. If you don't want to catch AIDs, it's pretty easy to avoid, and the "how" isn't exactly a secret. The only reason it becomes a problem for the rest of us is because we are expected to subsidize their foolish behavior.
"if it turns out, at some future point, that the IPCC exaggerated the
threat of global warming by 40 percent, the threat is still real, still
serious, and still worthy of a concerted amelioration strategy?"
Sure, I'll let you have this one. Why? Because every rational, clear thinking person knows they have pretty much exaggerated the threat by about 100%, making your point moot.
Bogus Aids numbers
November 21, 2007 - 00:39 ET by algoa456For many years I have suspected that the absurd UN estimates for the AIDS epidemic were more a reflection of political expediency than reality. (Of course AIDS is indeed widespread in Africa, it is just not at the hysterical level promulgated by the UN and NGOs.)
It works like this: to get grant study money for an AIDS research from the US, EU or UN you need to talk up the situation. And then the money just rolls in.
Since you don't want to dissappoint your sponsors you provide numbers at the upper range of your findings (factual - you don't lie as a researcher). Then the next researcher comes along and uses your inflated numbers to do one or other calculations - again the top of the estiamte range is used..... and so it goes. Very rapidly the 'numbers' ratchet upwards.
Every scientist provides accurate numbers and maintains his or her integrity. No one is deliberately lying, but the outcome nevertheless is plain junk.
I learned this numbers game when I was required to estimate the population of Soweto during the apartheid era. The left wing wanted to show many more dwellers (15 to a house and so on, all suffering they argued). The right wing wanted show that there were millions of people threatening the regime.
Our accurate findings (verified by aerial surveys) was that there were less than a million people living in Soweto at the time. The findings were rejected both by the ANC and the old apartheid regime.
Incidentally I wonder if the same mechanism explains the hysterical global warming estimates.
}}---> algoa
November 21, 2007 - 00:47 ET by Cool ArrowBut that's the last time.
OK, so maybe they made up some funny numbers to deal with Saddam on that Oil for Food thing
And maybe they inflated the scare on this AIDS thing just a little so they could carve up Bush's $13 billion African AIDS package.
But let's be absolutely clear that we can trust the UN when it comes to rallying together a group of world renowned scientists to accurately assess this Global Warming Emergency.