When something becomes as dysfunctional and fucked up as you suggest, then I'd submit it's irrelevance might be there. Certainly, the same group that denies climate change also tends to deny UN relevance...until the UN comes out with something that they agree with.

Then it's quote time.

You disagree that the UN is dysfunctional?

Here is what the IPCC has to say about it,

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/statement/St ... R5_SOD.pdf

...'The unauthorized and premature posting of the drafts of the WGI AR5, which are works in progress, may lead to confusion because the text will necessarily change in some respects once all the review comments have been addressed. It should also be noted that the cut-off date for peer-reviewed published literature to be included and assessed in the final draft lies in the future (15 March 2013). The text that has been posted is thus not the final report.

This is why the IPCC drafts are not made public before the final document is approved. These drafts were provided in confidence to reviewers and are not for distribution. It is regrettable that one out of many hundreds of reviewers broke the terms of the review and posted the drafts of the WGI AR5. Each page of the draft makes it clear that drafts are not to be cited, quoted or distributed and we would ask for this to continue to be respected.'

But then the denier sites like Watts etc. have no real interest in science, or even context.

I wish somebody would explain to me how global warming is politically expedient? Who gains from falsely claiming global warming? What I see is political leaders paying lip service to it while doing little about it, because nobody wants to be the sucker whos going to ruin their economy first.