I guess this means they will have more of Other People’s confiscated money flowing throw that they can treat as a slush fund
WHO is now a Green Climate Fund accredited entity
The World Health Organization (WHO) has today received accreditation by the Green Climate Fund (GCF), a fund for climate finance that was established within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The accreditation will unlock new funding to protect communities worldwide from the health impacts of climate change.
“Climate and health action saves lives,” said Dr Ruediger Krech, Director of the department of Environment, Climate Change, One Health and Migration at WHO, “Climate financing will ensure that the health sector is prepared to meet the demands of the climate crisis without contributing further emissions to climate change.”
This landmark decision is the result of extensive preparations including high-level exchanges between the Director General of WHO and the Executive Director of the GCF.
WHO has over 25 years of climate and health policy and technical leadership, and over 15 years of implementing climate and health programmes in over 30 countries. Extensive country presence and partnerships with ministries of health and governmental agencies position WHO as a vital partner in addressing global climate and health challenges. The combined strength of WHO and GCF will lead to direct climate and health programmes and the development of health-promoting interventions at the country level by leveraging a network of health ministries and key partners.
And what percentage of the money will never make it to the recipients/projects? I wonder if they will allow bi-yearly, unannounced audits?
According to estimates, just 2% of adaptation funding and only 0.5% of multilateral climate funding go to health, leaving the health sector with the greatest unmet demand. WHO aims to address these needs for climate finance support and empower national health ministries to develop climate-resilient health systems, reduce emissions and bolster climate-health action across sectors.
In other words, WHO wants its piece of the scam pie. Why should others get rich of siphoning the money, leaving WHO out of it till now?
Still another reason to cut off all funding of this international organization of racketeers.
U.S. out of the UN, and the UN out of the U.S.
Turn the building into Homeless Housing!
The 1000+ U.S. billionaires, e.g., trumpInc, Lutnick, Ellison, Bezos, Zuck, Elon, Adelson, Huang, Dell, Waltons, Page, Brin, Kochs, Schwarzman, Thiel, Murdochs, Kraft etc have been doubling their wealth lately.
Are THEY receiving these billions of scam money?? LOL.
The actual scam is that MAGAts keep denying that global warming is caused by We, The People, and is real.
Mr Teach calling global warming a scam is just propaganda. America pays lip service to the belief that a cornerstone of American justice is that those causing harm be held responsible. Who SHOULD pay for adapting to global warming? Adapting to hurricanes, wildfires, floods, diseases, heat waves, droughts, tornadoes… the seawalls, moving to higher ground, FEMA etc?
No, the actual scam is that it’s “from we the people” has never been verified. You’re like Johnny who kept repeating “permanent tax cuts for the elites!”, knowing it wasn’t true. Speaking of that a new paper, Cohler et al, 2026 alleges “IPCC’s Earth Energy Imbalance is Based on Physically Invalid Argo-Float-Based Estimates of Global Ocean Heat Content”.
“Adapting to hurricanes, wildfires, ect….”. You mean like we’ve always done?
Poor Jildo, whose lack of curiosity should embarrass them… but won’t.
A “paper” in the science denial “journal”, “Science of Climate Change” (SCC-Publishing)?
The authors included a clarinetist, a high school trumpet player and the disgraced Wille Soon and David Legates… and was written by Elon Musk’s right-wing biased AI program, Grok!!
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Vol.6.1-04_-Cohler-et_al.pdf
The lead author, Jonathan Cohler, listed himself with MIT (he taught some music classes there last year)!!!… As of 2024, he is a member of the clarinet, chamber music and conducting faculties of the Longy School of Music in Cambridge, Massachusetts since 1998, and the Boston Conservatory at Berklee since 2005. Through 2011, he was also a faculty member of the New England Conservatory Preparatory School in Boston, where in addition to teaching clarinet and chamber music, he was the assistant conductor of the Youth Philharmonic Orchestra.
Said the clarinetist: “As promised, the climate science obliteration has arrived TODAY! The IPCC’s central claims have now been torn apart. The oceans are not ‘warming’ let alone ‘boiling.’ That claim is false. The claimed Earth Energy Imbalance is false. It’s no different from zero. Full demolition.”
Kinda like the Mad King’s oh-bliteration, re-obliteration and re-re-obliteration of Iran’s nucular ambitions.
Cohler DOES have a physics degree from Harvard. It looks as if written by a high-schooler (turns out it was AI).
The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle, or Brandolini’s law, “states that the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”
In a previous “paper” from this crew the authors were listed thus:
Grok 3 beta, Jonathan Cohler, David Legates, Franklin Soon, Willie Soon
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Grok-3-Review-V6.pdf
Written by Elon’s Grok 3!!! Stranger in a Strange Land, indeed!
So, when are you going to refute the data found in the paper?
“Cohler, taught music classes!” But shucks, later on, “well, he does have a physics degree from Harvard” “Disgraced Willie Soon..” You mean the astrophysicist ? I thought so. “A paper in a denier journal..”. Poor J (rhymes with Gay) obviously doesn’t realize he’s performing the classic “attack the messenger instead of the message. Wonder why?
Wow jl I am really impressed with your memory !:I can’t even remember the last time I said that. Can you refresh my memory ? When was it ? Have the tax breaks for billionaires somehow secretly ended ? If they do end,how will that affect you emotionally? Happy they are paying more? Or Sadz because they will not have money to trickle down on us?;
Cohler sees problems in data collection of ocean temps.
I have no problem with that.
How exactly does that affect the basis of the consensus (,generally accepted view) that the Earths temps are rising quickly ?
Cohler says those observations of ocean temps are/maybe inaccurate. OK. Disregard them. How does that change the data on observed air temps ?
Jildo (rhymes with dildo),
What do you mean that global warming is not “verified”?
You repeat that over and over and over.
My girlfriend Miriam Webster says:
: having established the truth, accuracy, or reality of
Are you arguing that the theory of AGW (global warming from human actions) had not been proved? Note that scientific theories are not proved, but are accepted as supportive evidence accumulates and no confounding evidence invalidates the theory. Are you OK?
What evidence would you accept to “verify” AGW? (We fully recognize that you are impervious to reason and evidence, but others may not be)
Really? You said “global warming caused by we the people”. Hence, the response was to that accusation-no cause-effect verification of it being caused by we the people.
Reading comprehension is your friend
What you should be wondering Is why, with trillions spent, there’s been no simple experiment that shows more CO2 warms an object more than a lesser amount of CO2, not even a cup of coffee. Of course experimentation is a large part of the scientific method.
Middle school students conduct the CO2 in a bottle experiment. Use a heat lamp and a thermometer. We’re surprised you’ve never heard of it.
Why isn’t the Earth a perpetual ice covered orb?
“We, The People” are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Oh, my-“use a heat lamp and a thermometer”. Typical warmunist mistake. The only variable in the agw theory is CO2 The heat aspect is constant. Adding heat is simply a demonstration of the specific heat capacity of gasses, in that different gasses heat up and cool down at different rates. That’s not the agw theory. So we’re still waiting for “we the people” to show cause- effect evidence
Last chance. The theory of AGW is that the current warming bout is because atmospheric greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased over 50% since the 1800s. It has been proved that the increase in CO2 comes from fossil fuels burned by “We, The People”. Do you agree that the CO2 increase comes from us?
Incoming sunlight is mostly visible and UV wavelengths. Outgoing radiation is mostly infrared. When sunlight hits the Earth (water, structures and land) it warms. As long as the incoming energy equals the outgoing energy, the overall temperature of the Earth stays relatively constant (but, but, but – the poles are cold and the equator is hot – and it’s hot in summer in Louisiana and cold in Minnesota). Carbon dioxide absorbs radiation in the infrared wavelengths (IR, heat). Gaseous nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) do not do this. Gaseous H2O (water vapor) does as well. When CO2 and H20 absorb IR, the molecules vibrate and release the IR (heat) which hits other gas molecules and the seas and land and structures, warming them.
Part of our atmosphere – the CO2 and water vapor – retains some of this heat energy keeping the Earth from being ice-covered! The increase in CO2 is responsible for the increased warming.
If the greenhouse gas concentrations stabilize, even at 430 ppm, the Earth will continue to warm until the incoming vs outgoing energy equilibrate at a higher mean surface temperature, perhaps at another 2C warmer than now.
You did admit that CO2 absorbs IR – that admission is a start. Is that how you explain the middle school experiment? The air in a bottle with more CO2 stays warmer than the air with lesser amount of CO2 when exposed to identical levels of visible light.
Johnny-because 71% of the earth’s surface are oceans. And the oceans were not really measured with any degree of accuracy till about 2000 with ARGO floats, and according to the paper, the measurements still aren’t accurate
Poor Johnny-as far as the tax break issue, you remember that you brought up the false issue of “permanent tax breaks for the elites”, numerous times, when a simply Google search wold have showed you that they weren’t permanent.
“Have the tax breaks for billionaires secretly ended?” No, Johnny-but who said they did?
Nice change of topic. Please address the nonsense “paper” you cited. Or just admit it is bullshit. Otherwise we’re hard put to believe a word you type.
Jildo typed: “…and according to the paper, the measurements still aren’t accurate”. The paper was written by Elon’s Grok and the lead author is a professional clarinetist who lied about his affiliation, another a high school trumpet player and also the completely discredited David Legates and Willie Soon. Published in a 4th rate anti-science rag. And you have the unmitgated gall to quote it again??? Get the fuck out.
On the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (also bullshit):
Corporate Tax Reduction: The tax bill permanently cuts the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and eliminates the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
Individual Top Rate Cut: The top individual tax rate was reduced from 39.6% to 37%, benefiting less than 2% of taxpayers. (for ten years).
Estate Tax Exemption: The estate tax exemption was raised to $15 million per person, disproportionately benefiting the heirs of the wealthiest families.
Pass-Through Deduction: Business owners benefit from a two-tier system, often allowing them to pay lower rates than their employees, with roughly half of these benefits going to millionaires, according to the Center for American Progress.
Investment Tax Breaks: Expanded tax-free gains through Qualified Small Business Stock exclusions and Opportunity Zones predominantly benefit high-income investors.
Distributional Skew: The top 1% of earners are expected to gain over $100 billion in net tax cuts in 2026, while working-class families may see little benefit or a tax increase.
Funding Cuts: The cuts are partially financed by reducing funding for public services, including a projected $930 billion reduction in Medicaid.
National Debt: The tax plan adds $1.5 to over $2 trillion to the national debt.
So you still can’t refute the data found in the paper? Shocking. More messenger attacking because Gay (I mean J) still can’t refute the message. Funny, but desperate-“disgraced Willie Soon has morphed into “the completely discredited Willie Soon!”. Gee, here I thought you were going to say something to falsify what Soon wrote in the paper! I should know better…
“On the one big beautiful bill”… are you ok? Who mentioned the One Big Beautiful Bill? Not me. Is the OBBB in the room with you now?
Willie Soon didn’t write the paper, Elon Musk’s Grok 3 AI did.
Is there no bullshit you won’t believe?
Too funny-“Willie Soon didn’t write the paper”. Then why did you first mention him several times? Is he also in the room with you now?
Oh, my-“the air in the bottle with more CO2 stays warm than air with lesser amounts of CO2”. That’s just because CO2 cools more slowly than air, so more CO2 cools slower than a lesser mount of CO2.
Another good one-“last chance!” Last chance for what? It’s more like it’s your last chance to offer verifiable cause-effect evidence of the agw theory.