It did seem too quiet at Cancun.
The power hungry tyrants learnt from Copenhagen. They realized that they have a far better chance of success by underselling the expectations and sliding in long impenetrable documents in front of underling bureaucrats. Due to the importance of this I have reproduced Christopher Monckton’s words in full as reported at SPPI (see below).
The UN wants nothing less than 1.5% of our GDP.
That’s $212 billion from the USA every year ($2700 per family of 4).
That’s $32 billion from the UK every year ($2000 per family of 4).
That’s $13 billion from Australia every year ($2400 per family of 4).
Figures calculated from the CIA world Factbook
The Secretariat will have the power not merely to invite nation states to perform their obligations under the climate-change Convention, but to compel them to do so. Nation states are to be ordered to collect, compile and submit vast quantities of information, in a manner and form to be specified by the secretariat and its growing army of subsidiary bodies.
Please send this message on and email politicians. Australian elected representatives are listed here. Once this is quietly established, how will any single nation back out even if it’s citizen vote to do so (other than the US with the military might to match the UN?)
If you would prefer to spend that money on other things. Now is the time to protest. The more money they get, the harder they are to stop.
— Joanne Nova
This has been translated into Danish, thanks to Karl. J. Hansen.
The abdication of the West
December 9th, 2010
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Cancun, Mexico
I usually add some gentle humor to these reports. Not today. Read this and weep. Notwithstanding the carefully-orchestrated propaganda to the effect that nothing much will be decided at the UN climate conference here in Cancun, the decisions to be made here this week signal nothing less than the abdication of the West. The governing class in what was once proudly known as the Free World is silently, casually letting go of liberty, prosperity, and even democracy itself. No one in the mainstream media will tell you this, not so much because they do not see as because they do not bl**dy care.
The 33-page Note (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/CRP.2) by the Chairman of the “Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Co-operative Action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, entitled Possible elements of the outcome, reveals all. Or, rather, it reveals nothing, unless one understands what the complex, obscure jargon means. All UNFCCC documents at the Cancun conference, specifically including Possible elements of the outcome, are drafted with what is called “transparent impenetrability”. The intention is that the documents should not be understood, but that later we shall be told they were in the public domain all the time, so what are we complaining about?
Since the Chairman’s note is very long, I shall summarize the main points:
Finance: Western countries will jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to an unnamed new UN Fund. To keep this sum up with GDP growth, the West may commit itself to pay 1.5% of GDP to the UN each year. That is more than twice the 0.7% of GDP that the UN has recommended the West to pay in foreign aid for the past half century. Several hundred of the provisions in the Chairman’s note will impose huge financial costs on the nations of the West.
There is so much more…
The world-government Secretariat: In all but name, the UN Convention’s Secretariat will become a world government directly controlling hundreds of global, supranational, regional, national and sub-national bureaucracies. It will receive the vast sum of taxpayers’ money ostensibly paid by the West to the Third World for adaptation to the supposed adverse consequences of imagined (and imaginary) “global warming”.
Bureaucracy: Hundreds of new interlocking bureaucracies answerable to the world-government Secretariat will vastly extend its power and reach. In an explicit mirroring of the European Union’s method of enforcing the will of its unelected Kommissars on the groaning peoples of that benighted continent, the civil servants of nation states will come to see themselves as servants of the greater empire of the Secretariat, carrying out its ukases and diktats whatever the will of the nation states’ governments. Many of the new bureaucracies are disguised as “capacity-building in developing countries”. This has nothing to do with growing the economies or industries of poorer nations. It turns out to mean the installation of hundreds of bureaucratic offices answerable to the Secretariat in numerous countries around the world. Who pays? You do, gentle taxpayer. Babylon, Byzantium, the later Ottoman Empire, the formidable bureaucracy of Nazi Germany, the vast empire of 27,000 paper-shufflers at the European Union: add all of these together and multiply by 100 and you still do not reach the sheer size, cost, power and reach of these new subsidiaries of the Secretariat. In addition to multiple new bureaucracies in every one of the 193 states parties to the Convention, there will be an Adaptation Framework Body, a Least Developed Countries’ Adaptation Planning Body, an Adaptation Committee, Regional Network Centers, an International Center to Enhance Adaptation Research, National Adaptation Institutions, a Body to Clarify Assumptions and Conditions in National Greenhouse-Gas Emission Reductions Pledges, a Negotiating Body for an Overall Level of Ambition for Aggregate Emission Reductions and Individual Targets, an Office to Revise Guidelines for National Communications, a Multilateral Communications Process Office, a Body for the Process to Develop Modalities and Guidelines for the Compliance Process, a Registry of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions by Developed Countries, a Body to Supervise the Process for Understanding Diversity of Mitigation Actions Submitted and Support Needed, a Body to Develop Modalities for the Registry of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions, an Office of International Consultation and Analysis; an Office to Conduct a Work Program for Development of Various Modalities and Guidelines; a network of Developing Countries’ National Forest Strategy Action Plan Offices; a network of National Forest Reference Emission Level And/Or Forest Reference Level Bodies; a network of National Forest Monitoring Systems; an Office of the Work Program on Agriculture to Enhance the Implementation of Article 4, Paragraph 1(c) of the Convention Taking Into Account Paragraph 31; one or more Mechanisms to Establish a Market-Based Approach to Enhance the Cost-Effectiveness Of And To Promote Mitigation Actions; a Forum on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures; a Work Program Office to Address the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures; a Body to Review the Needs of Developing Countries for Financial Resources to Address Climate Change and Identify Options for Mobilization of Those Resources; a Fund in Addition to the Copenhagen Green Fund; an Interim Secretariat for the Design Phase of the New Fund; a New Body to Assist the Conference of the Parties in Exercising its Functions with respect to the Financial Mechanism; a Body to Launch a Process to Further Define the Roles and Functions of the New Body to Assist the Conference of the Parties in Exercising its Functions with respect to the Financial Mechanism; a Technology Executive Committee; a Climate Technology Center and Network; a Network of National, Regional, Sectoral and International Technology Centers, Networks, Organization and Initiatives; Twinning Centers for Promotion of North-South, South-South and Triangular Partnerships with a View to Encouraging Co-operative Research and Development; an Expert Workshop on the Operational Modalities of the Technology Mechanism; an International Insurance Facility; a Work Program Body for Policy Approaches and Positive Incentives on Issues Relating to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries; a Body to Implement a Work Program on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures; and a Body to Develop Modalities for the Operationalization of the Work Program on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures.
The world government’s powers: The Secretariat will have the power not merely to invite nation states to perform their obligations under the climate-change Convention, but to compel them to do so. Nation states are to be ordered to collect, compile and submit vast quantities of information, in a manner and form to be specified by the secretariat and its growing army of subsidiary bodies. Between them, they will be given new powers to verify the information, to review it and, on the basis of that review, to tell nation states what they can and cannot do.
Continuous expansion: The verb “enhance”, in its various forms, occurs at least 28 times in the Chairman’s note, Similar verbs, such as “strengthen” and “extend”, and adjectives such as “scaled-up”, “new” and “additional”, are also frequently deployed, particularly in relation to funding at the expense of Western taxpayers. If all of the “enhancements” proposed in the note were carried out, the cost would comfortably exceed the annual $100 billion (or, for that matter, the 1.5% of GDP) that the note mentions as the cost to the West over the coming decade.
Intellectual property in inventions: Holders of patents, particularly in fields related to “global warming” and its mitigation, will be obliged to transfer the benefits of their inventiveness to developing countries without payment of royalties. This is nowhere explicitly stated in the Chairman’s note, but the transfer of technology is mentioned about 20 times in the draft, suggesting that the intention is still to carry out the explicit provision in the defunct Copenhagen Treaty draft of 15 September 2009 to this effect.
Insurance: The Secretariat proposes, in effect, to interfere so greatly in the operation of the worldwide insurance market that it will cease to be a free market, with the usual severely adverse consequences to everyone in that market.
The free market: The failed Copenhagen Treaty draft stipulated that the “government” that would be established would have the power to set the rules of all formerly free markets. There would be no such thing as free markets any more. In Cancun, the Chairman’s note merely says that various “market mechanisms” may be exploited by the Secretariat and by the parties to the Convention: but references to these “market mechanisms” are frequent enough to suggest that the intention remains to stamp out free markets worldwide.
Knowledge is power: The Chairman’s note contains numerous references to a multitude of new as well as existing obligations on nation states to provide information to the Secretariat, in a form and manner which it will dictate. The hand of the EU is very visible here. It grabbed power from the member-states in four stages: first, acting merely as a secretariat to ensure stable supplies of coal and steel to rebuild Europe after the Second World War; then as a registry requiring member states to supply it with ever more information; then as a review body determining on the basis of the information supplied by the member states whether they were complying with their obligations on the ever-lengthier and more complex body of European treaties; and finally as the ultimate law-making authority, to which all elected parliaments, explicitly including the European “Parliament”, were and are subject. Under the Cancun propsoals, the Secretariat is following the path that the plague of EU officials here have no doubt eagerly advised it to follow. It is now taking numerous powers not merely to require information from nation states but to hold them to account for their supposed international obligations under the climate-change Convention on the basis of the information the nations are now to be compelled to supply.
Propaganda: The Chairman’s note contains several mentions of the notion that the peoples of the world need to be told more about climate change. Here, too, there is a parallel with the EU, which administers a propaganda fund of some $250 million a year purely to advertise its own wonderfulness to an increasingly sceptical population. The IPCC already spends millions every year with PR agencies, asking them to find new ways of making its blood-curdling message more widely understood and feared among ordinary people. The Secretariat already has the advantage of an uncritical, acquiescent, scientifically illiterate, economically innumerate and just plain dumb news media: now it will have a propaganda fund to play with as well.
Damage caused by The Process: At the insistence of sensible nation states such as the United States, the Czech Republic, Japan, Canada, and Italy, the Cancun outcome acknowledges that The Process is causing, and will cause, considerable economic damage, delicately described in the Chairman’s note as “unintended side-effects of implementing climate-change response measures”. The solution? Consideration of the catastrophic economic consequences of the Secretariat’s heroically lunatic decisions will fall under the control of – yup – the Secretariat. Admire its sheer gall.
Damage to world trade: As the power, wealth and reach of the Secretariat grow, it finds itself rubbing uncomfortably up against other supranational organizations. In particular, the World Trade Organization has been getting antsy about the numerous aspects of the Secretariat’s proposals that constitute restrictions on international trade. At several points, the Chairman’s note expresses the “decision” – in fact, no more than an opinion and a questionable one at that – that the Secretariat’s policies are not restrictive of trade.
The Canute provision: The conference will reaffirm the decision of its predecessor in Copenhagen this time last year “to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels”, just like that. In fact, temperature in central England, and by implication globally, rose 2.2 Celsius in the 40 years 1695-1735, as the Sun began to recover from its 11,400-year activity minimum, and rose again by 0.74 C in the 20th century. There has been no warming in the 21st century, but we are already well over 2 Celsius degrees above pre-industrial levels. The Canute provision, as some delegates have dubbed it (after the Danish king of early England who famously taught his courtiers the limitations of his power and, a fortiori, theirs when he set up his throne on the beach and commanded sea level not to rise, whereupon the tide came in as usual and wet the royal feet), shows the disconnect between The Process and reality.
Omissions: There are several highly-significant omissions, which jointly and severally establish that the central intent of The Process no longer has anything to do with the climate, if it ever had. The objective is greatly to empower and still more greatly to enrich the international classe politique at the expense of the peoples of the West, using the climate as a pretext, so as to copy the European Union by installing in perpetuity what some delegates here are calling “transnational perma-Socialism” beyond the reach or recall of any electorate. Here are the key omissions:
- The science: The question whether any of this vast expansion of supranational power is scientifically necessary is not addressed. Instead, there is merely a pietistic affirmation of superstitious faith in the IPCC, where the conference will “recognize that deep cuts in global [greenhouse-gas] emissions are required according to science, and as documented in the [IPCC’s] Fourth Assessment Report.”
- The economics: There is no assessment of the extent to which any of the proposed actions to mitigate “global warming” by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide or to adapt the world to its consequences will be cost-effective. Nor, tellingly, is there any direct comparison between mitigation and adaptation in their cost-effectiveness: indeed, the IPCC was carefully structured so that mitigation and adaptation are considered by entirely separate bureaucracies producing separate reports, making any meaningful comparison difficult. Though every economic analysis of this central economic question, other than that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, shows that mitigation is a pointless fatuity and that focused adaptation to the consequences of any “global warming” that may occur would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective, the Cancun conference outcome will continue to treat mitigation as being of equal economic utility with adaptation.
- Termination: Contracts have termination clauses to say what happens when the agreement ends. Nothing better illustrates the intent to create a permanent world-government structure than the absence of any termination provisions whatsoever in the Cancun outcome. The Process, like diamonds, is forever.
- Democracy: Forget government of the people, by the people, for the people. Forget the principle of “no taxation without representation” that led to the very foundation of the United States. The provisions for the democratic election of the new, all-powerful, legislating, tax-raising world-government Secretariat by the peoples of the world may be summarized in a single word: None.
How did this monstrous transfer of power from once-proud, once-sovereign, once-democratic nations to the corrupt, unelected Secretariat come about? The story begins with Sir Maurice Strong, an immensely wealthy UN bureaucrat from Canada who, a quarter of a century ago, established the IPCC as an intergovernmental, political body rather than as a scientific body precisely so that it could be maneuvered into assisting in the UN’s long-term aim, reiterated at a summit of senior UN officials this May by Ban Ki-Moon himself, of extinguishing national sovereignty and establishing a world government.
The Process began in earnest in 1988, when the IPCC was established. Shortly thereafter, on a June day in Washington DC deliberately chosen by Al Gore because it was unusually hot, his political ally and financial benefactor James Hansen appeared before a Congressional committee and put before it a wildly-exaggerated graph predicting global warming over the coming 20 or 30 years. Yet June 2008, the 20th anniversary of his testimony, was cooler globally than June 1988, and worldwide warming has happened at less than half the rate he predicted.
The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 allowed environmental groups and world “leaders” to grandstand together. From that summit emerged the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which began holding annual conferences on “global warming”.
The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 committed its signatories to cut back their national CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2012. Most are not going to make it. The US Senate, with Al Gore as its president, voted 95-0 to reject any treaty such as Kyoto, which bound only the West while leaving developing nations such as China to emit carbon dioxide without constraint.
Very little progress had been made by the time of the Bali conference in 2007: but at that conference a “road-map” was constructed that was to lead to a binding international treaty in Copenhagen in 2009.
Just one problem with that. The US Constitution provides that, even if the President has signed a treaty, his signature is meaningless unless the treaty has been debated in the Senate, which must ratify it by the votes of at least 67 of the 100 Senators. It became clear to everyone, after the Obama administration failed to cajole or bully even 60 Senators into passing the Waxman/Markey cap-and-tax Bill, that no climate treaty would pass the Senate.
Worse, the Secretariat grossly overreached itself. Believing its own propaganda to the effect that none but a few vexatious, fossil-funded sceptics believed that “global warming” would be small enough to be harmless, it drafted and posted up on its website a 186-page draft Treaty of Copenhagen, proposing to turn itself into an unelected world government with unlimited powers to impose direct taxation on member nations without representation, recourse or recall, to interfere directly in the environmental policies of individual nations, and to sweep away all free markets worldwide, replacing them with itself as the sole rulemaker in every marketplace (treaty draft, annex 1, articles 36-38). Some quotations from the draft reveal the sheer ambition of the UN:
“The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism. … The government will be ruled by the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies.” (Copenhagen Treaty draft of September 15, 2009, para. 38).
The three central powers that the UN had hoped to grant itself under the guise of Saving The Planet from alleged climate catastrophe were as follows:
“Government”: This use of the word “government” is the first use of the term to describe a world government in any international treaty draft.
“Financial mechanism”: The “financial mechanism” was a delicate phrase to describe a new power of the UN to levy unlimited taxation directly on the peoples of its member states: taxation without representation, and on a global scale.
“Facilitative mechanism”: This mechanism would, for the first time, have given the UN he power directly to coerce and compel compliance on the part of its member states, by force if necessary. The Treaty draft describes it as –
“… a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate.”
In short, there was to be a New World Order, with a “government” having at its command a “financial mechanism” in the form of unlimited rights to tax the world’s citizen’s directly, and a “facilitative mechanism” that would bring the rules of all formerly free markets under the direct control of the new UN “government”, aided by an already-expanding series of bureaucracies.
At no point anywhere in the 186 pages of the Treaty draft do the words “democracy”, “election”, “ballot”, or “vote” appear. As the EU has already demonstrated, the transfer of powers from sovereign democracies to supranational entities brings those democracies to an end. At the supranational level, in the UN, in the EU and in the proposed world government, decisions are not made by anyone whom we, the voters, have elected to make such decisions.
The exposure of the draft treaty in major international news media panicked the UN into abandoning the draft before the Copenhagen conference even began. Instead, the UN is now legislating crabwise, as the European Union does, with a series of successive annual agreements, the last of which was the Copenhagen Accord, each transferring more power and wealth from individual nations to its supranational bureaucracy. The latest of these agreements is being finalized here in Cancun.
The European Union, which has stealthily stamped out democracy over the past half-century by a series of treaties each transferring a little more power and wealth from elected hands in the member states to unelected hands in Brussels, has been advising the Secretariat on how to do the same on a global scale.
After the spectacular bloody nose the Secretariat got in Copenhagen, it was most anxious not to endure a second failure in Cancun. To this end, it obtained the agreement of the German government to host a monthly series of conferences in Bonn in the early part of 2010, some of which were open to outside observers and some were behind closed doors in a comfortable suburban palace, where the new way of legislating for the world – in secret – first came into use.
The Chinese regime, anxious to get a piece of the action, agreed to host an additional session in Tientsin a few weeks ago. The purpose of this near-perpetual international junketing – which the national delegates have greatly enjoyed at our expense – was to make sure that nearly all of the elements in the Cancun agreement were firmly in draft and agreed well before Cancun, so as to avoid what too many journalists have tediously and obviously described as a “Mexican stand-off”.
It is precisely because of all this massive and expensive preparation that the note by the Chairman, whose main points are summarized above, may well reflect what is finally decided and announced here in a couple of days’ time. The Chairman is not simply guessing: this Note reflects what the Secretariat now confidently expects to get away with.
However, following the Copenhagen disaster, our grim future New Masters are taking no chances. They persuaded their friends in the mainstream news media, who cannot now easily back out of their original declarations of blind faith in the Church of “Global Warming” and are as anxious not to lose face as the Secretariat is, to put it about that at Cancun this year and even at Durban next year very little of substance will occur.
The intention is that, after not one but two international climate conferences, the second of them in Rio in 2012 on the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit that began it all, the Secretariat will have become so wealthy and will have accreted so much power to itself that no one – not even the US Senate – will dare to resist ratifying the Treaty of Rio that brings democracy to an end worldwide and fulfils Lord Mandelson’s recent statement that “we are now living in a post-democratic age.”
Over my dead body. The people know best what is best for the people. The governing class no doubt knows what is best for the governing class, but does not necessarily know what is best for the people, and must always be kept in check by the ballot-box.
If we are to have a world government at all (and, as the science of “global warming” alarm continues to collapse, the current pretext for world domination by a privileged few is wearing more than a little thin), then it is essential that the world government should be an elected government, and that, as Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution makes plain when it grants “All legislative power” to the elected Congress and to the now-elected Senate, none shall make laws for the world or impose taxes upon the world except those whom the people of the world have elected by universal secret ballot.
How can we, the people, defeat the Secretariat and keep the democracy we love? Simply by informing our elected representatives of the scope, ambition, and detail of what is in the Cancun agreement. The agreement will not be called a “Treaty”, because the Senate, particularly after the mid-term elections, will not pass it. But it can still be imposed upon us by the heavily Left-leaning Supreme Court, which no longer makes any pretence at judicial impartiality and may well decide, even if Congress does not, that the Cancun agreement shall stand part of US law on the ground that it is “customary international law”.
What to do? Send this blog posting to your legislators. It is their power, as well as yours, that is being taken away; their democracy, as well as yours, that will perish from the Earth unless this burgeoning nonsense is stopped.
Thanks to the Science and Public Policy Institute. See the blog entry and other reports by Monckton.
Thanks to Helen for alerting me.
What are we to make of this then?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827902.400-ecologists-desert-cancuns-sinking-ship.html
Subterfuge?
10
Truly devastating if it comes to pass, already alerted Andrew Bolt, will take the time to contact all politicians shortly.
10
I have sent the story to:-
all federal politicians
all announcers on radio 4bc
all announcers on radio 2ue
all announcers on radio 2sm
all announcers on radio 2gb
Posted on the “CANdo Carbon Coalition” site:-
http://network.conservative.org.au/group/carboncoalition
10
Something that a conservative government could do if elected in Oz or the US is make all money given to the UN dependent on hard, proven cuts to UN expenditure. There is so much evidence of junketing, nepotism and bloat that their position is naturally very weak. It will be necessary to make many sudden and ruthless cuts in the domestic diplomatic and public bureaucracy, since these people will obstruct with equal ruthlessness.
No leftist will do it, because of the common leftist aspiration to graduate to a leadership position in the UN.
A Sarah Palin or Barnaby Joyce, someone who doesn’t care if he or she is thought unsophisticated by the pensive classes, will probably be needed.
If Cancun and the UN represent sophistication, I’ll stick with the hayseeds. It’s a time for populists. I can’t see Mother Russia from my house…and that’s the way I want to keep it.
10
I’ve posted a link at EU Referendum and created a linked thread at Counting Cats in Zanzibar. I’ll post links everywhere I go today.
10
The UN certainly has some very inventive high roller backing to come up with this scheme.
Trying to be a power higher than ANY country.
Bow down to the new “Church of the United Nations”.
10
I put this on the end of the previous thread – I make no apology for repeating it here:
Governments work, and people prosper, when there is the means for the people to endorse or sanction the actions of the Government.
The two extremes of government – hereditary monarchy, and communism – do not work over the longer term. Even in the short term, they rely on the threat of force and punishment to maintain the position of the ruling class.
Eventually, the governed rise up against the government, in a revolution, or they undermine the ability of the government to govern though the establishment of alternative structures, such as black-markets, alternative currencies, subversive acts, et cetera.
Successful governments have one thing in common. They replace the threat of force and punishment with a ritualistic form of revolution – the ballot box.
Whether you are a proponent of the Westminster style of parliament, or the American form of republican democracy (Benjamin Franklin’s term for it), the populace have the ability to express approval for, or sanction of, the actions of the government. This ritualistic revolution keeps the politicians honest (and I use that word advisedly), and acts as a mechanism to defuse the populations tendency to occasionally lop the heads off of leaders who step over the invisible line.
Herbert Van Rompuy is on record as saying that he wants to see the end of the individual European nation states because nationalism is, in his view, a primary cause of war.
I think he is wrong. It is the rising of peoples against a common perceived enemy that is the primary cause of war, and in this case, the common enemy is likely to be those who have stolen the power of self-determination from the people they seek to govern.
To use an old naval term, “they have hoisted their colours”. We must clear the decks for action.
10
This certainly is disconcerting, but I just can’t see how any elected politician can convince the public that this is a good thing.
Can you imagine our brethren in the States? they’ve got guns you know.
As far as Australia is concerned, I’m concerned that one of our negotiators at Cancun is this Richard Cranium named Don Henry, former head of the Australian Conservation Foundation.
This moron would sell his mother in the name of sustainability, but to convince Gillard, (with all her current problems), to hand over $13 billion and a chunk of our sovereignity to the UN? I don’t think she has got the balls, literally and figuratively.
Europe may fall for it, they’re full of socialists but they’ve all got huge financial problems and this might just be the straw that broke the camels back for their people.
Third world countries, especially those in Africa and small island nations will love this. Their leaders are not interested in freedom, they just want to line their own pockets.
It’ll be interesting to see what narrative our Cancun reps come home with.
10
[…] the original post here: BREAKING! The abdication of the West « JoNova // BREAKING! The abdication of the West « JoNova taxation without representation post […]
10
The risks from the UN have now exceeded the benefits. Time to put an end to this beaurocratic bloat.
10
I too had referred to this at the end of the previous thread; the ABC post would be amazing if it were not so common:
“Just following on from Wendy’s and Rereke’s posts about Cancun and the UN agenda, this has been posted by one of the Green agipropagandists;
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42008.html
Such hubris; I find this article as disconcerting as the angry boy video and have made this reply:
“Mr Cass looks young; young enough not to know any other existence except the civilized one bestowed on him by the “carbon-industrial complex” [reminder to self, put said phrase on list of most pretentious and meaningless expressions]. I say this not only to be condescending but to describe the complete hypocrisy of people like Mr Cass. The hypocrisy here is of a basic kind; biting the hand which supports you and not having the wit to realise that your position and freedom of being able to utter such amphigory is entirely dependent on the social and political structure which the “carbon-industrial complex” has produced. This hypocrisy is therefore grounded in cognitive dissonance.
What is fatally absent from Mr Cass’s analysis is an appreciation of the fact the “great powers’ who cobbled together the “The Vienna Peace Congress” were not democracies; by today’s standards; they were oppressive and brutal regimes. In a further irony they were also dominated by natural process; medicine, technology, social infrastructure and support were almost entirely absent by today’s standards; life was harsh, short, miserable, and the populace was ill-informed.
The irony is extended with Mr Cass’s stated plans to eradicate the “carbon-industrial complex”; those plans would be right at home with the brutal and oppressive methods which were employed by the “great powers” to keep their populaces in control at the time of the Vienna Congress.
The irony would be completed if Mr Cass is successful in his mission to rid the world of the “carbon-industrial complex” and replace it with the renewable energy he espouses. Given the abject failure of the renewable energy sources which Mr Cass advocates to cater for the standard of living which the West currently enjoys and the third world aspires to, if these renewables are introduced then the type of existence which will be forced on the citizenry of the world will be similar to the one which people suffered under at the time of the Vienna Congress.”
10
This seems really bad. What Monckton says makes sense – revolution in small bureaucratic steps – that’s how the EU has worked. I thought the bast*rds were being too quiet. If this is correct, it is the biggest story since Climategate. This may well lead to civil disobedience in many , if signed up to.
But word of caution.
The Australian reported on this UN draft already on 7th Dec 2010, reporting a Times article: “UN draft gets it wrong on warming” here. Its message was that this draft is a farce and won’t be signed. The Times did not pick up on Lord Monckton’s nuences.
Also, the post at SPPI has been followed by two minor posts – seems a bit strange.
We may have more confirmatory analysis from the US in the morning in time for us to email our pollies. A shorter more punchy news release would also be better – Lord Monckton’s usuall thorough treatment may not be best for pollies and the public – looses some punch in all the detail and repetition.
By the way, downloading the document linked by Lord Monckton, “crp02.pdf”, I found the Times paragraph:
This is a blatant lie, as the Times said:
10
Baa Humbug, do you think we’re going to be told? I’ve sent a copy to all my contacts including Quadrant Online and the Aust CSC and linked it on WUWT and the Climate Conversation Group in NZ; I’m sure they will try to get it up on the NZCSC site
The thing to do is publicise the news as much as possible; I wonder if Anthony Cox would do a Drum Unleashed article; I’ve left a message on the Climate Sceptics website
It’s great to see the contacts that people have posted above already
any other suggestions?
10
There’s a reason people like lawyers and bureaucrats hate the ten commandments; they’re simple and unambiguous. Thou shalt not kill means exactly that. There’s simply no room to weasel out, around, under or through.
On the other hand, they simply love the sort of document being discussed here because there’s scope for years of argument over it, in which time nothing at all will happen …
Pointman
10
No Chance.. Japan told them to ……Go away before it even began….China/India… same thing…U.S…..A country stuck with a lame government for …?
Probably the only insane, laking in science educated politicians agreeing are from the U.K. and Australia/ Zealand!
10
val@12; I’ve already done an article which describes the social implementation methodology of AGW policies; I did not specifically treat the UN mission statement but it would follow and blend seamlessly with the other examples I use:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41816.html
10
They can pass as many resolutions as they like, they’ll never see a penny of the money.
“What has changed is that with the recession, times are hard and people in the developed nations are starting to hurt. They care now about their jobs and putting food on the table. If that has to be roast Polar bear, then there will not be much heart searching.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/cancun-and-the-chinese-perspective-on-it/
Pointman
10
val majkus: #12
December 9th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Hi Val
If the opposition doesn’t conform, they can’t possibly keep it quiet.
I agree that this is an immensly important and to a degree urgent matter, but sneaking control measures past all of the electors and legistlators of North America and Australia isn’t an easy thing to do.
The consequences will be almost immediate, people will feel the effects, governments will be tossed out. What was agreed to with the UN can be and has in the past been chucked out.
I think we should bring this to the attention of our pollies as we are doing (as I have done already) and we should talk about it in the blogosphere and write letters to the editors of MSM’s but if we appear to be alarming about one world governments and central control from Brussells etc, we will be dissmissed as nutters, THEN THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO SNEAK IT PASSED, because nobody will be listening to us.
Joe Sixpack isn’t interested about geopolitics, but he is interested in his hip pocket and his freedom, I think we should be harping on the costs and the abyssmal track record of the UN when it comes to financial matters.
10
We can thank Kevin Rudd for signing the Kyoto Treaty and thereby handing over our sovereignty and our Australian laws to a criminal international body.
Thanks Kev, you will go down in history.
10
This is alarming and sad. I complained about this scientific recklessness and incompetence in a short paper titled: “WARMING UP – SCIENCE OR CLIMATE” back in 1993, saying (excerpt) that:
Full text at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/warming_up_science_or_climate.html
Could the emerging outcome at Cancun have been prevented if science and the UN would have been forced to acknowledge that: climate and the oceans are one and the same thing? Discussion at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/
Regards Arnd Bernaerts
10
hmmmm reads like a script makeover for the modern version of Atlas Shrugged.
“Who is John Galt” will now be replaced by “who is Al Gore”
10
The UN can think and ask what it wants, but when we see the extent of current dissent by international scientists against the IPCC’s pseudo-scientific fraud, I doubt Cancun will be anything more than a fizzer, and I doubt the IPCC will have any credibility in 2011 or even be capable of sustaining its great global warming swindle for another year:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore
10
Reports like this are welcome reminders that the illusion of absolute power leads as surely to absolute corruption as the real thing.
Fortunately, as Viscount Monckton notes, in the U.S. such a treaty would require 2/3 of our Senate to agree. Given Congress’ long-standing unwillingness to pay our existing U.N. dues, that seems unlikely.
The current administration has been remarkably active administratively though, on the assumption that Congress will neglect its oversight duty.
Locally, nationally, and internationally, vigilance remains the minimum price of liberty.
10
Thanks to everyone for sending out emails.
Michael I understand where you are coming from. Cancun (like any event with gala parties the press attend) is just the show-pony while the real action goes on behind closed doors. But our response to proposed drafts like this is significant. It’s a test. If they float ambit claims, will people push back? Will people realize their gall?
Yes, we need to distill the 10 second bare bones deadly points.
Emailing politicians helps them know that there is opposition, or in this case, that there is something to oppose. (I’m not sure if some of them realize)
Better to fight this now than wait. Giving more money to the UN means there’s more money building a bureaucracy and more power to people who we know use it to create propaganda and fake markets to grow their own power.
10
Baa Humbug; You are right we do have guns and if the USA leadership or the lack of at the moment think they can do this i will be one with my Browning in hand to stop it. What is the UN going to do then who knows but i will be damned if i will let get away with it and i mean it to my last breath!! Hope it does not go that way but will be ready if it does!
10
You are assuming that the public will be asked.
10
I will send my $0.02 on to the appropriate parties here, but it’d be interesting to see how they propose to slip this through the US governing structure as it’s hard to see any sort of scenario where the US Senate would pass such a thing.
10
Pointman: # 13
I wish I shared your optimism.
10
Welcome to WW3!
10
Here is the offending document
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awglca13/eng/crp02.pdf
and possibly an updated document
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awglca13/eng/crp03.pdf
10
My thoughts…….
WHERE DID I PUT MY M16???
10
A Powerful New Research Tool to examine the IPCC AR4 document!!!!!
December 7, 2010
Canadian blogger Hilary Ostrov and Australian computer programmer Peter B. have given the climate change world a gift this week. Since March they’ve been hyperlinking and annotating the 3,000-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released in 2007. The result is AccessIPCC.com.
Those of us who’ve been taking a close look at the 2007 report (also known as AR4) have identified numerous concerns. Now we have a tool to analyze it more comprehensively than ever before.
MORE:-
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/a-powerful-new-research-tool/
10
The league of nations failed – due to lacking any power. Should this power grab fail (and I think it will and hope it does), the UN will have shot its wad and be just another “league of nations”. Worthless and impotent and regarded as just a bunch of children who want their wants when they want them.
It will never be ratified in the US even with Obama as president.
10
Baa Humbug: # 17
Sorry Baa, that is not correct. It should read, “… the abyssmal track record of the UN in all matters.”
They produce nothing of tangible value. They are leeches.
10
Good Link here……..
Disband the United Nations:-
http://network.conservative.org.au/group/disbandtheunitednations
10
Here is the email I sent this morning to members of the Opposition, because our Government is hopeless.
Hello,
Lord Monckton’s analysis of what is being proposed at Cancun by the UN Secretariat was published yesterday.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/breaking-the-abdication-of-the-west/
The proposal is totally unacceptable. If implemented, this would be in effect the end of our power as citizens of a sovereign nation, as well as the end of your power as our elected representatives.
Please start immediately alerting the people of what is being prepared in Cancun.
It is my will that Australia NOT be party to any such burdensome and ill conceived agreement.
10
PhilJourdan: # 31
Not in its entirety, I agree.
But what they can do, and probably will do, is to get an agreement that the UN can “set international standards” for one thing or another.
People are quite used to complying to international standards, and see them as generally a good thing, so if the UN decides to set an international standard for handling mail, for example, most countries will sign-up. The mechanisms are already there, so it would not require a bill to pass through Congress and the Senate.
If the UN established an international standard for carbon sequestration, the same process would apply, and the EPA would be given the power to implement that standard.
And so it would go on, with one standard or another chipping away at the US to achieve the substantive goals of an agreement that, if presented in its entirety, would never get past the Senate.
This is what the EU has done, and it is the model that the UN now appears to be adopting. Somebody used the phrase, “crab-wise adoption”, and that just about sums it up.
10
There is an underlying critical weakness in these grandiose plans, they need the money to keep flowing. Wealth is generated by motivation and innovation, not by higher taxes. Higher taxes stifle motivation and innovation. Sooner or later wealth generation will slow as people decide there is little point in more effort. Then where will the world government get its funding from? Is there an example from history where a totalitarian state has created a wealthy and prosperous economy? North Korea? Cuba?
10
Quick: Name any delegate or ambassador currently appointed to the UN or presently a member any of its panels such as the IPCC with a lick of sense:
10
WIKILEAKS VIEWER……..
http://213.251.145.96/static/html/faq.html
10
The earth moves for the warmists………
Green power is not just hugely expensive, but positively dangerous:
Geothermal plant likely cause of earthquakes
A geothermal power plant is “very likely” the cause of several small earthquakes near the Rhineland-Palatinate city of Landau, a state report revealed Wednesday.In mid-August 2009, a quake damaged a number of homes in the area. One month later, six other measurable tremors were recorded….The subsidiary of energy provider Pfalzwerke and EnergieSüdwest was also required to take out liability insurance covering up to €50 million in damages per year.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_earth_moves_for_the_warmists/
10
Heard an interview with NZ’s Climate Change minister on the radio this morning. He is in Cancun. Among other things he said was that he was pleased there is a move to look at on a global basis how fresh water is managed — it was said in a way that you could infer that if the AGW situation wavered there was another issue to push. So well done Rereke Whaakaro — your prediction was right.
10
Rereke #35
Yea, that is why the US is on the metric system today. 😉
We do not like “International Standards” unless we do the setting. Arrogant, brash and obnoxious – but sometimes it is useful.
10
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Lydia Lozano, Robert J. Robert J said: BREAKING NEWS! The abdication of the West — the sting at Cancun « JoNova http://goo.gl/8mvgn […]
10
Remember Copenhagen last year, the draft treaty included the phrase “World Government”. By time the conference started that phrase had disappeared but most of the “government” mechanisms were still in there.
This year in the run up there were several juicy quotes about distributing wealth so should we be suprised that they are still plugging away at this EU style power grab. If ever discovered by the MSM wait for the Heath (former UK prime minister) style quote about not losing soverignty.
One suspects that this climate change lark has just become noise as a cover for the main agenda to keep the plebs looking the other way.
Australian newspaper article about it here
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/beware-the-uns-copenhagen-plot/story-e6frg6qx-1225791869745
10
Mark: December 9th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
They don’t need ecologists to do what is proposed. That’s all past now – the game is completely changed. Time to apply for that shotgun license I have been meaning to do for too long.
10
I’m inclined to believe Monckton’s skepticism, but I think he overdoes the politics a bit. He is an English aristocrat defending very American politics, triumphalism about the West, capitalism, a bit paranoid about the world-government aims of the warmists, etc. which I find a bit grating. Still, he is also a laugh.
10
That’s It. One sometimes wonders why the chap is bothering with Cancun, now that AGW is dead and he’s got so many more interesting projects to attend to…. but you just cann’t leave these guys alone, to quietly fizzle out, because they’ll morph into something else, that we don’t recognise, and continue to suck the lifeblood from the planet, like a Black Hole. So Monckton stands on the event horizon, warning off passing interest, while relaying light from from this abyss, while looking for the right spanner to drop into it’s works.
Thankyou Sir.
10
Rod McLaughlin:
While I agree his style is a tad over the top, it is the way to get the message across these days. Do you see anyone reporting the travesty that is the case of the Thompsons of Narrogin Beef Producers? No… because the Thompsons haven’t pulled any outrageous stunts. We did see the storu of a chap in Queensland on TV that wanted brain surgery because he threatened to put a drill to his head.
I rest my case.
Monckton is getting the message to the masses with a touch of style. Were it a thread with a dry analysis of boring UN documents about three people might read it.
10
So “Rod McLaughlin”, YOU would have rather been kept in the dark about this COMMUNIST UN proposal for “One World Government”??????
You poor Ignorant Fool….
10
PS> When I think of the UN representatives I think of Keating’s old jibe about the nature of the Australian Senate as being “unrepresentative swill.”
10
So a self-centered bureaucratic organization fully agrees with itself that it needs a bigger budget. Who’d have ever thought such a thing could happen?
Meanwhile, the people of the world are hammering at their governments to cut back on the ridiculous out of control spending. I think it’s great that the UN has such a high opinion of itself, makes it so much easier to argue against when national budget time comes around.
If you are holding such a patent, you can only sell it to governments anyhow… don’t be shocked then the big guy stabs you in the back as soon as convenient. Governments are notorious dealbreakers.
Besides all that, China and India will do exactly as they please, quite possibly while saying the opposite of what they do.
10
Then you end up with civil wars.
10
@40 Ross: December 10th, 2010 at 6:42 am
Well, as well as water supplies, there’s biodiversity and the acidification of the oceans. No end of scares to empty your pockets with.
10
A MUST VIEW!!!!!!!!
YouTube – ENDGAME: BlueprintForGlobalEnslavement – Global Carbon tax:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45pNNrGnMC4
10
In http://www.cosmos.com (Cosmos Magazine) 9 dec 2010 there is a very good article by Barry Brook. He shows pretty well how Australia, whether it likes it or not, will have to face the building of nuclear power by 2030. A lot of social/political upsets will occur before then but when the dust settles no alternative will arise. It is just a pity that we have been so slow and needlessly anxious about nuclear that it will be agonising to achieve it instead of watching and learning how calmly France and even Denmark use such energy. (Plus all the other countries around the world.)
10
May I ask the name of the chairperson that decided to tax developed nations 1.5% of GDP?
Possible elements of the outcome.(Agenda item 3)
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awglca13/eng/crp02.pdf
Page 16: IV. Finance, technology and capacity-building, A. Finance
10
“elsie” (51), France and even Denmark DO NOT possess the coal reserves that Australia does.
We have over 300 years of coal reserves in this country.
Australia should continue to use our coal to produce cheap electricity.
There is no reason why we need to start using nuclear power here…….
10
Yet another example of the stupidity and ignorance of politicians
New Zealand National Party MP tries to ban water (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10463579) .
Otago MP Jacqui Dean felt like a bit of a “wally” yesterday, after it was revealed she tried to ban North Otago’s most precious commodity – water.
Mrs Dean has confirmed she was caught in a hoax by an online blogger asking for her help in banning dihydrogen monoxide – which, it turns out, is the chemical name for ordinary H20.
10
On a lighter note, check out the irony of the Cancun Global Warming Conference here:
http://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/cancun-global-warming-conference-interrupted-by-record-low-temperature/
10
Pooh,Dixie @ 52.
In answer to your question a post on another site says the Advanced Group on Climate Change Financing is chaired by the PM of Norway
( Jens Stoltenberg) and the others on the group are Nicholas Stern , Lawerence Summers and George Soros.
Do I need to say any more !!!!!
10
The current crop of Govt politicians should never be allowed to take Australia’s chequebook when they go overseas;
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-offers-indonesia-climate-change-aid/story-fn3dxity-1225968805023
AUSTRALIA announced climate change assistance for Indonesia as it urged UN-led talks in Mexico to move beyond process disputes and make progress.
Australia today said it was allocating $45 million for Indonesia, largely to help the neighbouring country set up measures for efforts to save forests – a major way to offset industrial pollution.
The funding is part of a $599 million package Australia earlier announced as part of “fast-track” funding – the climate assistance which wealthy nations have pledged to offer developing countries immediately.
“Australia is delivering on fast-start,” Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said in an address to the meeting of more than 190 countries at the Mexican beach resort of Cancun.
“Too often we allow ourselves to be distracted by process issues and by negotiating tactics,” he said.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
“It is time now to refocus on the major task at hand. It is imperative for the credibility of this process that we are able to make progress here,” he said, pledging that Australia will “continue to make every effort.”
Mr Combet said Australia was “flexible” on a dispute hanging over the Cancun talks on the future of the Kyoto Protocol, whose requirements for wealthy nations to cut carbon emissions runs out at the end of 2012.
Faced with the likelihood that no new treaty will be ready soon, the European Union has led calls to extend the Kyoto Protocol.
Japan, backed by Canada and Russia, has led opposition. Japan says Kyoto is unfair by making no demands of top polluters China, which has no requirements as a developing nation, and the Us, which rejected the treaty.
Australia, which emits more carbon per capita than any other large country, was a late entrant to the Kyoto Protocol. It joined the treaty after the Labor Party defeated the conservative government in 2007.
And where are we going to get the money from; borrow it from China?
10
Grant (NZ):
December 10th, 2010 at 7:59 am”
Then you end up with civil wars.”
The beaurocracy is supposed to make it too difficult to start a war, but while it may make it harder for a single beligerent to get started it doesn’t stop bully’s from building a concensus to gang up on individuals on some ostensible pretext.
10
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/australia-backs-binding-climate-treaty-but-says-it-must-be-flexible-in-seeking-outcome/story-e6frg6xf-1225968781608
(selective cut and paste)
In his official address to the UN conference, Mr Combet said Australia too would be affected by increases in temperatures.
“We will have less water and will experience an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events,” he said.
“These disrupt our communities and compromise infrastructure – just as they do for others.
“That is why Australia is committed to a durable, legally-binding and environmentally-effective outcome. Such an outcome must include mitigation contributions by all major economies.”
Mr Combet, who co-chairs a UN panel to investigate how funding for poor states could work, said Australia had come to Cancun determined to play its part in securing a successful climate change outcome.
“Australia accepts the climate science. Like my Sudanese and African colleagues who spoke before me, and my South East Asian and Pacific colleagues, we understand the effects of climate change on water, weather, and food production and how challenging this can be.”
The minister recommitted Australia’s pledge under the Copnhagen accord last year to a 5 per cent reduction on 2000 carbon emissions levels by 2020. If other countries accepted a binding target, Australia is willing to push its target to 15 per cent or higher.
10
Val @ 58
Combet has been studying the BoM CARTOONS
10
I say let these fools come up with idiotic policies. The more insane they get, the more people will take a second look, rather than blindly defer to authority. Even the horribly biased MSM will not stand idly by and let this happen. As pointed out earlier, this would never get past the US Congress, even if controlled by Democrats, and would probably not get past the legislative body of any free country. Stealing or otherwise extorting 1.5% of a countries GDP is definitely not something that can be done as an international standard. The billion or so in dues already paid by the US to the UN is a tiny fraction of 1.5% of the GDP and Congress isn’t that happy about paying this. The only thing we might need to worry about is Obama bypassing Congress although if he did so, he would likely be impeached.
10
In the U.S. they hope to bypass the Senate. Screw the Constitution, full speed ahead.
The pity is that none of this is very high on the radar of the new freshman class in the House of Representatives, much less the Senate.
Part of the solution for us should be to simply stop paying our 25% of the UN’s annual budget. Think of how much that would cripple them! Then I would unilaterally withdraw from the UN. Why not? They do us no good whatsoever. Then I would give them 30 days to vacate their headquarters overlooking the East River — no more of these jerks working against us while thumbing their noses at our traffic and parking laws (and worse) all day long. The buildings could be put to better use.
Nice dream, Roy! Instead I’ll have to content myself with alerting Senator Inhofe and Representative Boehner who will certainly be Speaker of the House come January, to Monkton’s message (already sent).
My two Senators, Boxer and Feinstein are a lost cause and though my representative is a Republican I’m in serious doubt about his performance in office. What in California is not a lost cause?
10
George @60,
The House might impeach but the Senate, still in Democrat hands would never convict.
10
“Ross” (55), Some information about this Evil Bastard COMMUNIST “George Soros”.
The Soros Plan To Kill Capitalism – Big Government………
http://biggovernment.com/mvadum/2009/11/05/the-soros-plan-to-kill-capitalism/
10
“Roy Hogue” (61),
Arnie calls an official state of emergency in California. They are now completely bust with $150,000,000,000 ($150 billion+) in state debt and the people have still utterly rejected his latest reforms. Takes me back to Victoria in the Kerner years – although this time, the incoming Governor is of the left! Oops. Hope the solar panels will keep them warm at night this winter!
10
@54
Re: dihydrogen monoxide:
What she was I think, was far too anxious to ban something.
10
Euro-Heaven is:
The Cooks are French,
The lovers are Italian,
The Police are Englishm
And its all organised by the Germans.
Euro-Hell is
The Cooks are English,
The Lovers are French,
The Police are German,
And it’s all organised by the Italians.
Guess which model the UN would be based on?
Cheers,
Speedy
10
wendy @64,
If only those muscles were brains.
10
Speaking of Kommissars… we always thought the best things in life are free. Well obviously the Kommisars are not happy with that concept and not only are the UN trying to taxx the air we breath, the deutchse bureaucrats in Brlin want to tax that other best, free thing:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/offbeat/8484841/german-city-pares-budget-deficit-with-sex-tax/
Yes… makes you wonder what’s next doesn’t it? A tax on thinking?
10
More developments in the world of warming……..
Even NASA says their current climate models are rubbish !!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
10
Wendy,
Yes, NASA now acknowledges that CO2 is good for plants! It seem that I’ve heard this before …
Biology does consume several W/m^2 on average across the surface, whose energy goes into chemical bonds, rather than heat, but the incremental power from incrementally doubling CO2 is less than a watt and not enough to half the model ‘estimates’ from 3C to 1.64C, which requires about 7 W/m^2. If adding biology created this much cooling, then they probably did something else wrong. In any event, they’re still a factor of 2 too high.
10
I don’t know where you live but I live in America. I don’t find Monkton to be a laugh at all. JN is not the only place I get information and our situation is in serious doubt right now. You’re certainly welcome to your opinion but it’s a very misinformed one in my view. 🙂
10
In case it was missed in all the posts:
As posted first by Val Majkus.
Combet is at the centre of this. We as Australians are neck deep in this fei-oo (as they would say on Firefly).
10
Roy, re 61/62
Sadly, we share the same inept Senators.
It wouldn’t really matter if the Senate didn’t convict, it would be enough to try. It will be interesting to see what happens to House bills repealing excess authority given to the FCC, EPA and excess legislation passed by the prior Congress.
10
This link works Wendy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho
10
George,
The House can refuse to fund certain things and I don’t believe anyone can do anything about it. It would be scorched-earth politics. But I think it could be done. All budget and spending authorization bills must originate in the House. The Senate may try to change the bills but what the House passes is what the Senate ultimately gets to vote on. Just the threat of defunding could give Republicans a lot of negotiating leverage.
10
Always thought these unelected scumbags would keep chipping away quietly creating drafts of a bureaucratic framework in Cancun… Meanwhile everyone else is distracted by wikileaks and student riots…..
10
Some very interesting articles from a while ago.
Clearly the agenda has not changed!!!!!!!!!
Africa agrees on secret climate damages demand………..
http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSLH624029._CH_.2400
Nations to seek billions in ‘climate debt’……….
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26380589-23109,00.html
10
Yes folks, it’s all about the money. Here’s a youtube clip of an Aussie zealot imploring Australia to step up and support the Climate Fund he rants about…. (caution: Some scenes may disturb)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufvF1Qjs5P0
10
For those of you concerned about having your tax go towards this scheme, there is a simple solution:
“1. What is the main purpose of the United Nations tax reimbursement system?
The United States does not exempt the United Nations earnings of its
taxpayers from taxes. The purpose of the reimbursement system is to place United
Nations staff members subject to taxation in the position they would have been if
their official emoluments were not taxed.”
http://www.un.org/Depts/oppba/accounts/tax/pubs/sticlatest.pdf
Get a job at the UN and pay no tax.
10
OK, for the obvious question: By what authority does the UN exist?
So lets just stop funding them!
They will go away without funds……
10
I would think that the biggest threat to the UNs plans is the imminent economic and fiscal collapse of the US. Without it’s primary source of funding how will the UN pay for itself?
A lot of revolutionaries are running around at the moment trying to promote chaos in the hope of “instituting a just world” = “take power for themselves” w/o realising that chaos means that they will not be able to establish control.
The UN is no different – a parasitic vampire organisation that sucks value without contributing any.
10
Ross: December 10th, 2010 at 9:05 am #55
Thank you. I can’t find that post, but since wikipedia has a citation (unverified) that Jens Stoltenberg does not believe in Christmas, it is plausible that he hopes for a lucrative christmas anyway.
10
wendy @77,
So let them first document the damage. That should keep them occupied for quite a while, there being so much damage and all of it so obvious. Who knows? It might take years to itemize the bill so we can pay it properly.
10
And this:
The UN and its agencies are immune to the laws of the countries where they operate, safeguarding UN’s impartiality with regard to the host and member countries.[50]
10
The more I dig, the more concerned I’m becoming.
Here’s a link to the Bildeberg Group from the Zeitgeist site.
http://www.zeitgeistaustralia.org/the-bilderberg-group-behind-the-secret/
10
Carl writes to me to say he’s done a German translation (how helpful) so the word can spread to German speakers…
http://klimabedrag.dk/Danske-Indlag/vigtig-nyhed-vestens-abdikation-det-store-svindelnummer-fra-cancun
or
http://bit.ly/fSLzYa
He writes:
I have written an email to Schiller Institute DK in the hope that I can get this political organization, for whom I have done favours in the past, to pass the message on to all the politicians or help promote it in some other way.
As I take it, it is all a bit late, but if just one western country could get this out in the press and revealed to their politicians, there could be a domino effect, that could shake the UN – maybe.
I will tide up my version of the article tomorrow. I know it is very hastily modelled from my side, but please let me hear if you have any comments or complains.
Thanks Carl!
10
Talk about arrogance! These people think they’re above the nations they supposedly serve. Blood-suckers all! But they’re in for some bad news…even the Secretary General’s executive wash room smells after he uses it just like anyone else’s!
Is this not the same sterling organization that sends aid workers to Africa who then turn around and rape the very children they’re supposedly helping?
How can anyone stand the stink of the United Nations?
10
I’ve linked to this unbelieveable article before:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42008.html
I now draw your attention to some of the sympathetic comments:
Frosty :
10 Dec 2010 2:28:33pm
It’s really interesting to see the overwhelming fear, hysteria and irrationalsim that upwells from the Denier movement in this comments section.
Human-Induced Climate Change is fact – a fact of life. We need to deal with it. Denial will not help and has taken on the mantle of a 21st century mental illness.
Just as other mental illnesses are recognised and treated and can cause a great deal of damage in society, HICC Denialism needs to be recognised and treated as well.
CF Zero :
10 Dec 2010 1:10:18pm
Quite a few comments ridicule the use of force to prevent further fossil fuel burning. Force is perfectly acceptable if it is required to save the planet from the consumption of the uneducated.
Something to be aware of, the people who know how urgent and dire the siutuation is are also the ones smart enough to build long range weaponry and launch cyber attacks to shut things down.
Meanwhile the rest can carry on satisfyingg their lives by watching celbrity master chef and DWTS.
How do you reach any compromise or achieve any communication with such people?
10
Roy Hogue: #83
December 10th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Awwww c’mon Roy, you and the rest of us know perfectly well that climate has reaped untold amount of damage to Africa, no part of it has been immune.
The CLIMATE OF POLITICS in Africa, what with all their corrupt, criminal, despotic leaders, has raped that wonderfull continent and continues to do so.
10
Jo I think you might find that is a Danish translation, not German… at least I can’t read it and I having reasonable German comprehension 🙂
10
cohenite: #88
December 10th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
I had posted a couple of comments at the Drum but nobody wanted to bite. So I posted the following (paraphrased)
Dan what you are trying to do is FORCE your ideology on to others. So lets see who you are.
According to your website, since leaving uni, every position you have held has been funded directly or indirectly by taxpayers. Some would say you’re a parasite.
Why would one allow a parasite to force his ideology on one?
10
Baa,
Exactly what I said. I just want an itemized bill. After all, we’ve a lot of bean counters who’ll want to keep the books straight. Got to keep them honest you know.
10
…and here we go … somewhat predictably here comes the attack on the man, not the ball (Assange):
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/christopher-hitchens-on-julian-assange/story-e6frg6nf-1225969087171
We never see this kind of behaviour in climate science circles, oh no…*
* Yes, that was sarcasm.
10
wendy: 53,
Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I only made the comment in the context that the AGWs are so intent on carbon dioxide reduction. And they propose to do this on the back of taxpayers. I firmly believe that one reason why so many in Australia are against nuclear is that they don’t really believe in AGW/CC/Climate diruption. Otherwise they would be on the streets protesting FOR nuclear power ASAP. Their perverse protestation against nuclear makes me recall the Shakespeare line, “the lady doth protest too much.”
P.S. I notice that there are some people wanting Lucas Heights reactor shut down. Its main purpose is to produce isotopes for medicine. There are only 9 such facilities in the world. The increasing nuclear station numbers will not help. Meanwhile, the use of medical isotopes is outstripping increased demand. So even those against Lucas Heights are opposed to nuclear medicine.
10
Bulldust @93
Is it a matter of no concern that Assange may have endangered lives? 🙂
I called this to everyone’s attention in the previous thread. I hope he can weather the storm but he’s not lily-white here.
10
Baa@91; I saw your comment; I think this guy is a baby; he swans around the world without a shred of responsibility assuming the high moral ground while the nuts and bolts of the society which insulates him is taken care of by other people; he needs to pick carrots for a couple of seasons, that might get rid of the physical and mental flab.
10
ENDGAME 1.5 – (1hr:49m)
If Endgame was the masters degree in understanding the long term goals of the global elite and their quest for world government and population reduction, then Endgame 1.5 is the advanced PhD course – it goes into extensive detail about the origins of the blueprint for global enslavement, what the near to mid-term goals of the Bilderberg Group are, and how long we have to stop their agenda.
Endgame 1.5 features bonus footage and extended interviews with experts Michael Coffman, Daniel Estulin and Jim Tucker.
Dr. Michael Coffman documents the Club of Rome’s plan to divide the world into ten financial regions and how this agenda was codified by the UN Commission on Global Governance, and how sustainable development and environmental pretexts are used to monopolize infrastructure and stack up the building blocks of world government. Endgame 1.5 explodes onto the screen with unseen, and somewhat satirical, footage of Alex Jones’ crashing the Bilderbergers’ party during the 2006 meeting in Ottawa Canada, as well as serious interviews with concerned citizens.
Endgame 1.5 ends with segments of Alex Jones’ stirring speech in front of the Capitol building in Texas as demonstrators protest the Trans Texas Corridor and the sacrifice of American infrastructure and sovereignty to global corporate interests.
http://current.com/news/90550837_alex-jones-the-carbon-tax-deception.htm
10
http://current.com/news/90550837_alex-jones-the-carbon-tax-deception.htm
Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement
Alex Jones chronicles the history of the global elite’s bloody rise to power and reveals how they have funded dictators and financed the bloodiest wars ? creating order out of chaos to pave the way for the first true world empire.
* Watch as Jones and his team track the elusive Bilderberg Group to Ottawa and Istanbul to document their secret summits, allowing you to witness global kingpins setting the world’s agenda and instigating World War III.
* Learn about the formation of the North America transportation control grid, which will end U.S. sovereignty forever.
* Discover how the practitioners of the pseudo-science eugenics have taken control of governments worldwide as a means to carry out depopulation.
* View the progress of the coming collapse of the United States and the formation of the North American Union.
Support the makers of this documentary and get the DVD with all the extras at http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net
10
How to get media coverage of this story; I’ve just thought why don’t we leak it to Wikileaks?
10
As I have often pointed out, we ignore the Fabians at our peril. The Fabians have been and are running this agenda.
10
The influential German news magazine writes about the Cancun Global Warming Summit (09 Dec.2010), At http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733690,00.html
10
Louis @100:
I heard you, and have followed up as much as possible. I have found several Fabian connections deep into US politics. You are right we can’t ignore them any longer. How to stop them is the challenge. If you have any suggestions and don’t want to air them here, please contact Jo for my e-mail.
10
Through bribery and intimidation, 3rd World countries are being deprived of a their only affordable and efficient energy source: coal. This ensures they never pose a problem to the West, because it will slow their economic growth and keep them in the dark ages of part-time windmill power and little toy glass panels on roofs. And we will actually pay them to do this on the basis of pretend-science. Great idea guys!
“As the globe’s largest poverty-fighting institution, the World Bank is a major provider of loans to developing countries to help them tackle climate changes.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B65EN20101208
10
Tim @103
Don’t forget the 3rd world countries have been tricked into believing that the developed countries owe them “climate debt” for a problem that is as likely to exist as Santa Claus.
10
Someone mentioned the League of Nations (a blast from the past if ever there was one) earlier on in this discussion. It was always a lame duck simply because the big new superpower in the world never joined it; America.
In the aftermath of the Second Gulf War, the UN is in a similar position. It can’t even get America to pay its subscription fees to it. As for extracting billions at the behest of some apparatchiks, forget about it …
Pointman
10
For those living in the U.S. — I discovered this site: America Speaking Out. It was set up by the House of Representatives to allow citizen input to Congress.
There are some fixed subject threads and an open mic thread in which you can speak out on anything. Unfortunately people get to vote on each “idea” posted and one of the top ones appears to be a $250 check from Social Security. I can understand this but we really have more critical issues to deal with. Like all things political, popularity may decide the priority. Bless them, they need to get reelected.
I posted an appeal to examine whether the UN is helping or hurting us. Maybe if enough people do something similar it will get noticed!?
10
Louis Hissink: # 104 & Mark D # 106
Louis, Mark is right, we hear you.
The question is what to do about it legally. We can’t just kill them all, somebody would be sure to notice.
And they also have the right of association, as we do on this blog.
All we can do, and what some of us are trying to do, is to try to second guess their intentions and make things a little harder for them to achieve.
It is a bit like riding a horse. You cannot directly control a horse through strength alone – it is much stronger than you. So you have to be constantly making it slightly harder for the horse to go in any direction other than the one you want. And in that process, the horse decides of its own volition, to go in the direction of least resistance, which just happens to be the direction that you have decided you want to go, based on the terrain in front of you.
This is the way they work as well. They have no grand conspiracy, no master plan, they just make each decision on the basis of what appears to be the best choice at the time.
10
I have translated the Moncton’s post to Czech language within hours after it appeared. I sent it to Kremlik – the main Czech skeptical blog – Klimaskeptik. The bad thing is Kremlik is not available for more a day. I posted it as a discussion item at Czech Kosmoklu (club of cosmic fly enthusiasts) on http://www.kosmo.cz/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&start=5876&page=196&tid=1322#pid64156
I have put it also into circulation via e-mail and I sent it to NWOO so about hour ago – NWOO is Czech resistance against New World Order. I haven’t got their response yet. I have put links to the Kosmoklub discussion thread at some Czech discussions.
I have got also some responses, which makes me slightly puzzled. Angry peoples perhaps consider me a resistance organizer asking me: what shall we do about it? I am ashamed I don’t know what I shall answer them.
10
The Plain Truth about Glorious Carbon Dioxide………
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/01/05/the-plain-truth-about-glorious-carbon-dioxide/
10
“Adolf Balik” (112),
I would suggest organizing en masse on your parliament.
Huge public demonstrations in the streets….
THIS PLAN FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER MUST BE STOPPED FOR THE SAKE OF FREEDOM!!
10
Pointman: # 109
That was me, and no, I am not old enough to personally remember it, but I do have a selective interest in history, where it can inform the present.
You are correct, that America was not a member of the League, but its Covenants were based on President Thomas Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points for World Peace”, the last of which says, “A General Association of Nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small States alike”.
America at that time was very isolationist. It saw itself as being totally self contained, and self reliant. It was also reluctant to get involved in the affairs of “the old countries”, because a large proportion of the American population at the time were recent immigrants, or children of immigrants. It was felt that getting too involved with the “Affairs of Europe” would inhibit American development.
So, I disagree that America, at that time, was considered to be a “Superpower” by the rest of the world, or even within America, for that matter.
10
To Wendy 114
I hope the guys of NWOO and of Freedom Party etc. who are on friendly terms with Kremlik could organize something. A lot of Kremlik blog posts are accepted by web-daily Invisible Dog, which has million readers per day. They can cope with demonstrations petitions etc. As for me I haven’t been an activist yet.
10
Pointman #109
America was not a super power from 1918 to 1939. Indeed, after that war, America went into an isolationist mode and scarcely exerted any influence outside of its borders. While America not joining the LON was not beneficial to the organization, the principal that created it was flawed to begin with, and was not much changed when the UN came around.
10
Swedish Translation:
De maktgiriga tyranner har lärt från Köpenhamn (COP15). De upptäckte att de hade större framgångsmöjligheter genom att tona ner förväntningarna och smyga in långa och ogenomträngliga dokument till lägre stående byråkrater. På grund av detta har jag reproducerat Christopher Moncktons ord i följande som de framgår på SPPI hemsida (se länk nedan)
FN begär inte mindre än 1,5% av vår BNP (brutto national produkt)
Det motsvarar:
– 212 miljarder dollar från USA per år ( 2.700 dollar per familj med 4 personer)
– 32 miljarder dollar från UK per år ( 2.000 dollar per familj med 4 personer)
– 13 miljarder dollar från Australien per år ( 2.400 dollar per familj med 4 personer)
– 3 miljarder dollar från Danmark per år ( 2.200 dollar per familj med 4 personer)
– 5 miljarder dollar från Sverige per år ( 2.220 dollar per familj med 4 personer)
(siffrorna baserade på CIA World Factbook)
Sekretariatet (FN:s) avses inte endast få mandat att ’inbjuda’ länder till att utföra sina plikter under ’climate-change Convention, men kunna tvinga dem att göra så. Länderna ska tvingas till att samla in och vidareförmedla stora mängder information på ett sätt och i form som bestäms av sekretariatet och dess växande här av underavdelningar.
Vänligen sänd detta till alla politiker Du känner!
Ifall detta stillatigande etableras kommer inget land att kunna dra sig tillbaka, även om väljarna/medborgarna skulle önska det. (Möjligen bortsett från USA med sin enorma militära makt som kan mäta sig med FN?)
Om du föredrar att använda dina 14.000 kronor på annat så är det högsta tid att protestera nu!
Ju mer pengar dessa ’FN-organ’ får, desto svårare blir det att stoppa dem.
– Joanne Nova
Full text här:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/breaking-the-abdication-of-the-west/
——–
Brgds from Sweden
//TJ
10
A very interesting take on Obama.
Well worth watching!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
10
Speaking of assange,
TBH, I am ( as usual ) somewhere in the middle wrt Wikileaks. More questions than answers really:
1) How did ~251,000 cables got into the hands of a private in the first place? Why aren’t the personnel responsible being named?
2) With freedom comes responsibility. If anyone is jeapoardised by any of the leaked cables, the publisher is responsible.
3) Assanges Insurance file is nothing short of extortion.
Whilst I do support freedom of information, I also acknowledge that there is some information which we the public are better off not knowing about. This is more for the protection of the public than protection of the authorities.
Unfortunately there is much more information which doesn’t make it into the public domain because our reporters are useless and because the classification of sensitive information appears to include the protection of individual idiots paid for paid the taxpayers. This is one example of many.
One thing is for sure, we are seeing the first real grass roots rebellion of the internet age. It must influence how large organisations handle and secure information, which it appears that the US Government has been tardy wrt diplomatic cables.
So I’m probably going to get caned by both sides of the fence here.
10
Madjak,
It’s my understanding that as a result of 9/11 and the lack of intelligence sharing before hand, the US government put all low level classified material in one place so it was accessible and searchable for all agencies. Since nothing top secret or compartmentalized was put in there, it took very little clearance to gain access to the whole repository, even if what you requested was only a small piece that you would ordinarily have access to.
10
Rereke,
That is indeed the question. And I’m in no way sure that we can present this in a way that we’ll not be seen as crack-pot conspiracy theorists. I’m not sure how Monkton’s message is going to be received, much less, “The Fabians are coming, the Fabians are coming.” I wouldn’t say it that way but that’s how it will look to anyone not already concerned about it.
10
I’m not that pessimistic, especially when the leading lefties are becoming hysterial about the Wikileaks project and the pilloring of its creator – he is one of them after all.
Once the Pilgers and whoever of the lefty world realise who the enemy is, (and that might take some time, given the large number of dark holes among them), then a popular uprising might happen; the trick is not be in the way of the expected stampede once the mob starts realising what is going on.
(Roy, CM hit the nail on the head but the perjorative “conspiracy crackpot” label has to be avoided).
So for my part I am going to simply disengage and do an Obi-wan Kenobi, or a John Gault, as the case might be.
10
Cancun is nothing more than the last gasp of a taxpayer funded gravy train that is running out of cash. Sure, they still have money but their cash flow is beginning to dwindle. Even the far left politicians in the US are avoiding the Cancun confab as if it were the plague.
Do they still long to foist their one world government upon us? You bet! Two things you never want to do, come between a mother bear and her cubs or try to take money from a taxpayer’s wallet. While the East Coast of the US shivers from an early and brutal winter and Cancun experiences record cold temps the news for the CAGW crowd gets worse and worse. More “gates” for the IPCC, new peer reviewed papers challenging CAGW orthodoxy, pro CAGW scientists abandoning ship and over a decade of no discernible warming.
As the financial hemorrhaging continues the enviro loons are desperately seeking their next cause celebre. Will it be a water shortage, dwindling biodiversity or something else? We will soon find out because the Cancun CPR of CAGW is not working and the odds of a successful resuscitation are somewhere between slim and none, thank God!
10
Madjak @ 120
The email leaks would be best explained as machiavellian – this gives them the excuse to get rid of FOI legislation and to start clamping down on accessibility of government data.
I suggest the Star Wars series be carefully studied – it’s quite easy to identify Maurice Strong as the Sith Lord, and Chancellor Velorum with the ineffectual UN Secretary General.
But I don’t think George Lucas et al had this allegory in mind.
10
Rereke
I know quite a few hard lefties and their game plan is as CM and I point out – to force us into a sustainable lifestyle, etc. When I am told this to my face by them, then that is what they are doing but in a sneaky manner.
There is no conspiracy per se, but an covert effort to rid the world of capitalism. The real problem is they believe it to be achievable afterwards which, humanity will live in utopian bliss.
It’s those who have listened to, but not heard, the Fabian message who will suffer the most.
It’s us versus the stupids led by the pseudo-intellectuals, and that might sum it up.
10
Although the possibility of the financial collapse of the United States is possible It is not imminent. The US generates 25% of the world’s GDP. If the US goes under we will be taking everybody on the planet down with us.
Fortunately, the Republicans have gained control of the House of Representatives and the Democrats no longer have the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture in the Senate. Heck, even Barack Obama was trotting out former president Bill Clinton in order to salvage his tax compromise with the Republicans! The majority of Americans want the government to rein in spending and reduce the deficit before it is too late. We don’t want to see our politicians endure what their English counterparts have had to. Did anybody see the latest picture of Prince Charles and Camilla? They were in a car being mobbed by a group of disgruntled citizens upset because the government was cutting back on subsidizing college tuition. They were chanting “Off with their heads!” Wait until the citizens of the UK realize how bad they have been screwed by this CAGW scam, there will be hell to pay then!
10
Louis Hissink: # 123 & # 125
Hang on a second there, Louis … you can’t go poking a stick into the termites nest, and then just wander off … 🙂
You got me wound up, and you got Roy stirred from his usual sanguine languor, it was you who mentioned the Fabians in the first place, and now you want to “simply disengage” …?
10
The Great War destroyed the German, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires. It inflicted an amount of damage on both the British and French empires from which they never fully recovered; the Second World War just finished the job.
On the morning of Sunday December 7th 1941, the USA had a standing army of less than 150,000 men. By 1945 they had suited, booted, trained, armed and deployed nearly 7.5 million men.
Inward or outward looking is irrelevant; they were already a superpower well before 1945.
Pointman
10
Eddy Aruda: # 127
As far as I can work out, there was a correlation, but no evidence to suggest a causation. The Royal Limousine was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and became an unfortunate focal point for a demonstration that had been going on for hours.
It was a failure in the police systems that allowed it to happen. The police “managing” the protest apparently did not communicate with the Royal Protection Squad who were supposedly “protecting” the royal couple. Makes for good news coverage though – the students will be delighted – not the least because the RPS are always armed, but nobody got shot.
The problems in Britain are growing, due to their membership of the EU, since they effectively ceased to be an autonomous country once they signed the Lisbon Treaty. They are now managed by “declarations” issued from the un-elected bureaucrats in Brussels, with the UK Parliament simply rubber-stamping the intent of the declaration. This is the prototype that the UN will be looking closely at, to work out how they can impose that system on the rest of us. We should all take a good, hard, look at how the EU works, and be afraid.
10
roy hogue at # 122. i have been watching developements in the world of un sponsered totalitarian global “governance” for some years now, and the revelations emerging from cancun seem to have pushed public awareness to a whole new level. there are numerous websites other than this one i visit regularly where i would have, mere weeks ago, been very reluctant to mention global government for fear of being dismissed as, in your words, a crackpot conspiricy theorist, now these same sites are smothered in posts by average joes and average janes panicking about losing their rights and freedoms. at this rate it wont be too long before the msm simply will be forced to start reporting about it or be reduced to complete laughing stock status in the eyes of all but the most bloody minded and incognizant fools. soon it will be those who deny the existence of plans for world government who will be seen as conspiricy crackpots, ie, diseminating a conspiricy to conceal and suppres a conspiricy. this is not a time in history to be faint of heart. we will fight for the freedoms we love or we will lose them and wonder at why we remained silent. cheers.
10
Like most of you I’m sure I’ve spent an hour or so looking through the original ‘note’ which you can find here:
http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594.php?rec=j&priref=600006124&data=&title=&author=&keywords=&symbol=&meeting=&mo_from=&year_from=&mo_to=&year_to=&last_days=60&anf=0&sorted=date_sort&dirc=DESC&seite=1#beg
preliminary thoughts:
All the things Lord Monckton talks about in his summary are there – bye bye liberty and national sovereignty – hello big swags of money for developing countries.
One of the things that strikes me is for a document which proposes to reflect a binding agreement the language curiously loose.
For example there is the word ‘vision’ in the preamble ‘this vision is to guide the policies and actions of all Parties’ ‘the vision addresses mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building in a balanced, integrated and comprehensive manner’ .
I realise preambles reflect background stuff but the word ‘vision’ is a curious replacement for the word ‘agreement’ whether binding or not.
Then there’s the word ‘affirms’ again from the preamble ‘that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time’, ‘Scaled-up overall mitigation efforts that allow for the achievement of desired stabilization levels are necessary’ (to combat this greatest challenge) and ‘Capacity-building is essential to enable developing country Parties to participate fully in, and to implement effectively their commitments under, the Convention..’
Oh well … that’s just the preamble and as I say that’s not the binding bit but still strangely loose language – maybe ‘affirms’ is the modern way of saying ‘the parties agree’ without actually saying it
I’ll have more to say about the rest later but one thing perplexes me:
What if we find that the world is for example rapidly cooling after or should I say ‘if’ this agreement comes into effect and there’s an alternate climate scare unrelated to greenhouse gases then how do parties extricate themselves from this agreement particularly the developed countries which stand to lose the most in terms of GDP royalties etc?
Maybe Anthony Cox or Jo or one of you clever commentators to this blog can help me.
On another note I wrote crosssly to our elected reps last night including the major points of concern in Lord Monckton’s summary and ended up by saying
The Australian reported yesterday that AUSTRALIA yesterday announced climate change assistance for Indonesia as it urged UN-led talks in Mexico to move beyond process disputes and make progress. Australia today said it was allocating $45 million for Indonesia, largely to help the neighbouring country set up measures for efforts to save forests – a major way to offset industrial pollution. The funding is part of a $599 million package Australia earlier announced as part of “fast-track” funding – the climate assistance which wealthy nations have pledged to offer developing countries immediately.
Why is Australia even considering proceeding with this global warming alarmist charade and in the process losing our sovereignty? More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.
Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. Those 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process.
See the paper with links at http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore
There is no science underpinning the anthropogenic global warming alarm. In addition we owe about $176 billion – where is the money coming from – are we going to borrow it from China to try to prove ourselves so far as the UN is concerned. The Government’s first concern and the first concern of all our elected representatives is to Australia’s citizens.
I urge you not to allow Australia to become a participant to the process urged by the UN
Might inspire someone not that most of you need inspiration!
10
On the noon news it was stated that Cancun was about to close without any agreement on emissions. Could we be so lucky?
10
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3090798.htm
latest at noon today
It’s the developing countries versus the developed countries. They developing countries want to continue with Kyoto, which holds the rich nations to gas emission limits and reductions. They wonder why they should have to pay the price.
…..
If there’s a glimmer of hope perhaps it’s on what the Australians have been working on, which is the $100 billion a year climate fund for poorer countries. There’s a suggestion perhaps that Greg Combet has been able to make some headway with that.
(trust Australia to be so stupid)
10
Mark @ 133 –Great news.
But they will all say that it was not expected and this was always going to be a “progress” meeting —ie PR spin.
10
Sounds like a bit more of Parkinson’s Law in action(an oldy, but a goldy).
10
Ross #135
We going to have to live with this Damoclean sword for a while yet. As that Edenhofer character said, this has nothing to do with science, good or bad.
10
Rereke, 128 and others: I think you missed an important detail: Obi Wan was wise…..very wise…….by the way we all would be wise to have a plan to “DISENGAGE”
Further, wise people should have a plan to “ENGAGE”
I’ll say absolutely nothing more on this subject.
Cheers
10
Eddy @127 Yes! Charles and Camilla were in terror… Over college tuition subsidies!!!! Imagine how pissed the average UKite will be when they give up Eu2400 per family
10
$100 billion a year UN Green Fund
Current UN budget:-
$2.35 billion a year.
Ban Ki-moon and Rompey are from the same mold.
The UN is struggling to achieve the power to commandeer Green funding.
The EU already has the power via unelected officialdom.
If the UN is unsuccessful in it’s “Green Fund” stand-over racket, you can be sure the EU will take up the reins.
You want to export to Europe – sure.
Just pay your EU Green Fund dues on:-
# Freight charges (air, sea or land)
# Financial transactions
# Insurance
# Anything else we can come up with
Don’t worry, it’ll be painless – you wont feel a thing.
10
Cohenite @ 92, sorry about the slow reply.
You are among the brightest here. I think you know the answer to your question.
If you don’t mind, please post (publish) your answer before you disengage.
10
Rereke @ 130:
Forgive me I missed this sage advice. Thank you.
10
Pointman,
Although you’re right about the League of Nations being fangless owing to lack of US involvement, you may be a bit off the mark with regards to the UN.
For some peculiar reason, Obama is not only the President, he is also the head of the UN Security Council… first time in history that a US president has held both roles.
10
The UN wants nothing less than 1.5% of our GDP (for the “Green Fund”)
$100 billion a year for starters from freight, financial taxes etc
Then 1.5% GDP
$212 billion from the USA every year ($2700 per family of 4).
$32 billion from the UK every year ($2000 per family of 4).
$13 billion from Australia every year ($2400 per family of 4).
Compare to the UN normal working budget:-
Advances by Member States to the Working Capital Fund for the biennium 2010-2011
Contributions by Member States to the United Nations regular
budget for the year 2010
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/789
Contributions (Selected %GNP, Value)
Australia _________________1.933 ___45 437 230
Brazil _____________________1.611 ___37 868 276
Canada ____________________3.207 ___75 383 962
China _____________________3.189 ___74 960 853
Germany ___________________8.018 __188 471 657
India _____________________0.534 ___12 552 241
Japan ____________________12.530 __294 531 038
Mexico ____________________2.356 ___55 380 297
New Zealand ______________0.273 ____6 417 157
Russian Federation _________1.602 ___37 656 722
Saudi Arabia _______________0.830 ___19 510 037
United Kingdom ___________6.604 __155 234 076
United States of America ___22.000 __517 133 507
——————————————————————————————————————–
Total 100.000 _____________________________________2 350 606 850
(United States dollars)
——————————————————————————————————————–
Every year – ad infinitum
——————————————————————————————————————–
Or have I got this wrong ?
10
Richard C (NZ)
I am pretty sure you HAVE got it wrong: if those are the published figures you can safely assume a 100% safety factor!
10
Well Mark D
read it and weep
December 11, 2010 at 4:14 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3090798.htm
latest at noon today
It’s the developing countries versus the developed countries. They developing countries want to continue with Kyoto, which holds the rich nations to gas emission limits and reductions. They wonder why they should have to pay the price.
…..
If there’s a glimmer of hope perhaps it’s on what the Australians have been working on, which is the $100 billion a year climate fund for poorer countries. There’s a suggestion perhaps that Greg Combet has been able to make some headway with that.
(trust Australia to be so stupid)
10
part of a draft agreement
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE6BA00720101211?sp=true
FINANCE, TECHNOLOGY
Takes note of a promise by developed nations for $30 billion in “fast start” aid for 2010-2012. Developed nations to report in May 2011, 2012, 2013 on resources provided.
Developed countries commit to a goal of providing $100 billion a year in aid from 2020, agreed last year in Copenhagen. (The text has dropped a previous demand by some developing nations that the rich give far more, or 1.5 percent of their collective GDP a year).
The talks will set up a Green Climate Fund to help channel aid. The fund will have a 24-member board, with 12 each from rich and poor nations. It invites the World Bank to be the interim trustee of the fund. A 40-strong committee will work to design the fund, with 15 members from developed nations and 25 from developing countries.
10
Mark D #144
For the normal UN working budget there’s
“Advances by Member States to the Working Capital Fund for the
biennium 2010-2011”
And
“Contributions by Member States to the United Nations regular
budget for the year 2010”
Here
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/789
But
the $100bn “Green Fund”
and
“1.5% of GDP” (a massive figure for global GDP – what is it?)
is on top of that in my understanding
I agree there’s a 100% safety factor but I’m trying to quantify the squillions that are being mooted and my head hurts.
10
Pointman: # 129
We appear to be violently agreeing on this.
The USA emerged from the second world war as one of the two superpowers. But did so for a number of reasons. Firstly they had to fight on two fronts (Europe and The Pacific), and after Normandy, the US took primary responsibility for the conduct of the war in both theatres (irrespective of what the Brits think).
Britain was a superpower between the wars due to the extent of its colonial holdings around the world – “The sun never sets on the British Empire” view of the world. The colonial holdings gave Britain its wealth and its influence, which it projected through the Royal Navy and military bases that stretched in a line as far as Hong Kong. It lost this influence during the Second World War, primarily because Britain was pummelled into submission by the Blitz and the War of the Atlantic. It’s withdrawal from the bases came later. The United States, with it’s Carrier Fleet deployments, stepped in to fill the gap of the British withdrawal. And this was another reason that led to America being seen as a superpower.
Superpowers are proactive in their response to geopolitical situations. Britain ceased to be, and America started to be. They have been the world’s policeman ever since, at some cost to themselves.
Where we disagree, I think, is in the role of the USA during the First World War, between the wars, and at the start of the Second World War.
The American people were reluctant to get involved in the First World War. They saw it as a European spat between rival Monarchies (which it was), and of no concern to them. It was Woodrow Wilson, who saw beyond that, and established the Creel Commission to convince the public that it would be beneficial for America to join the war on the side of Britain. Two psychologists, Lippman and Bernays were engaged, and did this with considerable success, turning public opinion around in just six months. Lippman and Bernays “invented” the practical application of propaganda, that later grew into the modern American advertising industry. America has a considerable impact on the outcome of the First World War, and in the Armistice that followed, but then withdrew from Europe, leaving matters to the League of Nations, that they had helped set up, but never joined.
Between the wars, the USA became an economic and industrial powerhouse, and achieved with trade, what the British had achieved a century before by colonisation. But the USA was still not proactive in world affairs, primarily because of its large immigrant population. This was the era when literally millions of pairs of feet walked through the Arrivals Hall on Ellis Island. Each of these immigrants, although looking for a new and prosperous life in America, still owed some allegiance to their country of origin, however tenuous.
The USA was also reluctant to get militarily involved in the Second World War, although civilian American merchant seamen made considerable sacrifices to keep Britain supplied with critical commodities during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. Britain would probably have fallen to the Nazi’s had it not been for their efforts.
Two separate events brought the USA into the war. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan signed a pact of mutual defence and military support, thus giving the German navy vital supply ports; and Japan attacked the US Seventh Fleet at Pearl Harbour, which demanded a military response. But that response also included Nazi Germany because of the mutual defence pact, and thus America found itself fighting a war on two fronts: the Pacific and Europe.
In Europe, towards the end of the war, it found itself bumping up against the one other country in the world with equal resources: the USSR. And thus the Cold War began – the third reason why the USA is now a world power.
In looking at the history, one gets the impression that America has been reluctant to accept the role that the world has given it. But now, more than ever, the world is looking to the USA to rescue it from the conquest by subterfuge that is the intent of the United Nations.
This is the third innings that the US has been at plate. Can it hit another home run?
10
Global GDP (not GNP)
58,228,200,000,000
x 0.015 (1.5%)
$873,423,000,000 (someone check this)
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?cid=GPD_29
Number of zeros, U.S. & scientific community, Other countries
3 thousand thousand
6 million million
9 billion 1000 million (1 milliard)
12 trillion billion
15 quadrillion 1000 billion
http://www.jimloy.com/math/billion.htm
10
Val, Thanks! although I am not weeping quite yet…..
Richard (NZ) @ 147, my head hurts too! the solution (I think) is to deny funds to the UN.
Rereke @ 148
Gawd I hope so but I am only a little optomistic.
10
So I make it
$30 billion Fast Start (through UN)
Then, per year
$2.35 billion UN normal working budget
plus
$100 billion Green Fund by 2020 (through UN)
plus
$873 billion 1.5% GDP levy eventually (through UN)
plus
$??? Global Green Tax on financial transactions, air freight etc
and/or
$??? Green Insurance Fund (mooted by UK)
Soon we’ll be talking real money.
10
Pointman
I have just had a decent look at your site. I had assumed you were American, but perhaps I was wrong. If you contact Jo, at the address on this site, I am sure she can give you my current surrogate email address. Perhaps we have something in common, other than a penchant for agreeing to disagree. 😉
10
Total:-
well over $1 trillion, maybe $2 trillion
per year.
Should be enough to “save the planet”
10
Just proves what many of us have been saying for a very long time. It never was about the science it was always about the money and the power.
There is no way that the Democrats will get the Republicans to agree to shovel money at the U.N. during the economic downturn now underway in the U.S.
Right now every congressman is busy covering their respective butts otherwise they risk joining the long line of the unemployed. Generally speaking they are not a particularly courageous bunch so I doubt they will put themselves at risk for the U.N.
Ultimately I long for the day this organization leaves my country and my country leaves this organization.
10
Richard C (NZ):
December 11th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Lets not get carried away ha. They are not asking developing countries to contribute. China is in that category and is now the 2nd largest economy behind the US. Add to it India, Brazil, all of the Tiger economies of Sth East Asia (except Singapore) and your numbers are way way out.
10
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11975470
read it and weep! again
10
val majkus: #146
December 11th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Hi Val
My personal opinion is as follows…
Almost all nations give foreign aid (for aid purposes) reluctantly. Often the figures are fudged to make them look better.
Almost all nations expect some sort of return for the aid they give, be it a political benefit or trade benefit.
Irregardless of what is agreed to at these COP meetings, with times passage these aids will be syphoned off in a mist of creative accounting.
This is the unintended consequence of democracies where the incumbent will try to get it’s hands on as much money as possible to bribe the electors at election time. This is being done by political parties on all sides.
p.s. Almost every year, the UN complains bitterly that nations are well behind in their payments, especially the US.
10
Baa Humbug I always appreciate your posts and I understand what you say has its roots in experience
Hope what you say this time is right and I hope we can extricate ourselves when this current ‘climate change’ alarmist turns out to have nothing to GGE
Well, we’ll see; love your horse by the way!
10
Baa Humbug: # 155
Thanks, that was the the point of “(someone check this)”
So I need to subtract developing countries GDP from $875bn.
But there’s still shiploads so not “carried away”.
$30 billion Fast Start (through UN)
Then, per year
$2.35 billion UN normal working budget
plus
$100 billion Green Fund by 2020 (through UN)
plus
$??? billion 1.5% GDP levy eventually (through UN)
plus
$??? Global Green Tax on financial transactions, air freight etc
and/or
$??? Green Insurance Fund (mooted by UK)
Doesn’t change much.
10
val majkus: #156
December 11th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
thnx Val, I read the link you provided.
If anyone is to weep, it should be the UN and the Green lobby.
There is NOTHING concrete in that agreement, and it doesn’t add anything new since Copenhagen.
As far as the $100billion is concerned, the key line is BY 2020. There’s a lot of political water to go under the bridge until then.
Essentially, they’ve agreed to disagree on key elements, that’s a win for us.
You will find nations will do what they think they can do whilst considering domestic politics. THERE IS NO AUDIT PROCESS.
I’d say Cancun did turn out to be Can’tcun just like Copenhagen was NoHopenhagen.
But then, what would one expect from the UN? Since it’s inception, has there been any problem/crisis in the world where the UN has been able to act swiftly, efficiently and effectively? They couldn’t do a thing whilst thousands were being butchered in Africa, they couldn’t do a thing in the Balkans. they are the quintessential lame-duck overblown beurocracy that one would expect them to be.
I personall would worry if the UN was to streamline itself and work under a much tighter budget, then they may get things done.
But the bigger they get, the less effective they get.
10
Baa Humbug: @ 160
Enter the EU.
10
val majkus:
December 11th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
That’s my daughters horse Karney. He and 11 others plus 5 steers (and one red bellied black snake) I had to shift to high ground just now.
We had a bucket load in the last hour here in Brisbane North. I’m blogging in between mopping my granny flat under the house (my little sanctuary away from the horse loving glee watching screaming teenagers that invade my house every school holidays sighhh)
To Richard from across the ditch.
You would have heard of the term AMBIT CLAIM.
10
Hi Baa you did make me laugh; yes I know the words ‘ambit claim’ very well but don’t think it relates to the current chairwoman’s note but may have the same legal effect
Hope you get out of the water and hope the snake is okay as well as you and your family and the horse
10
Yeah thanx Val, It’s eased off and not much more coming according to the radar. The tide is on it’s way out so hopefully it’ll all drain away fairly quickly.
The red bellied blacks, though poisionous are quite timid. They have a use in that they eat the infinitely more dangerous and aggressive brown snakes.
10
Baa
It’s still tax the planet whatever the numbers..
I think the EU’s reaction is more important than a COP16 compromise in the long run.
10
Baa
You got a bad case of climate change there.
Get well soon.
10
Baa I’m comforted; the red bellied are very useful but quite aggressive if frightened but you may well have a greater knowledge of them; I grew up in the outback surrounded by mulga snakes, but always nice to see you and read your comments, good luck with the mopping up
10
Rereke @ #128
Disengage from the AGW schmozzle I meant, not in an interlocutory sense with your good selves. Remember history – it tends to repeat itself. Perhaps I should emulate the Scarlet Pimpernell?
But I have to deal with government and I have noticed a relentless increase in regulations in my area of work – mining, and the form filling is verging on the inane.
Remember that during humanity’s frequently recurring dark ages, the likes of you and I and our colleagues tend to be the ones whose heads are severed, or immolated on the stake.
Remember it is very dangerous being right about matters on which government is wrong.
As a side note, we have anti-dismissal laws in Australia, so deflating bloating bureaucracies is nigh well impossible, especially when both sides of politics believe in AGW.
10
@ Rereke December 11th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Hi Rereke, always a pleasure to discuss history whether agreeing or not! As we both know, it’s usually about subtle transitions anyway. Just drop a comment at my site http://thepointman.wordpress.com/ and I’ll get in touch. The first comment is moderated.
Pointman
10
20,000 Cancun warmists shiver!!!!!!!!
God mocks the 20,000 Cancun alarmists, now debating fresh ways to scare us about global warming. He’s sent them not just blizzards burying Europe in snow, but six straight days of record low December temperatures in Cancun itself.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/20000_cancun_warmists_shiver/
10
People…. I can not believe the comments here…and the irresponsible head-in-the-sand stance taken by the world’s leaders
ICE AGE cometh… all due to petroleum oil in the marine environment… and it is coming very very rapidly….. and still google and other Internet search engines have NO DATA
In fact there is almost no Internet data on environmental effects of petroleum oil…. wiped clean by BigOil
The cold Ice Clouds are increasing in breath and depth and soon your world will completely freeze over as the hot-tub oceans receive the massive inflows of fresh water from sea ice melt
The hydrologic and thermodynamic balances for Earth have been severely disrupted and you will live to see the consequences.
Like the frog being slowly heated… complacency and delusion rule.
Lets see this all unfold
10
The Czech translation has just been put on two frequently visited sites:
Klimaskeptik: http://www.klimaskeptik.cz/news/plany-osn-100-miliard-rocne-na-klima/
NWOO: http://www.nwoo.org/view.php?nazevclanku=abdikace-zapadu-monctonova-zprava-z-cancunu&cisloclanku=2010120015
Besides that it on discussion at Kosmoportal and at e-mail circulation.
10
John, 171
Yes, there is an ice age coming, but we won’t be seeing the depth of it for many thousands of years. There’s been a small, but steady decrease in temperature since the peak of the current interglacial about 10K years ago, the planet’s tilt passed it’s maximum concurrent with the peak of the current interglacial and the orbit’s ellipticity is just starting to fall, after peaking about 20K years ago, all of which are pointing to a coming cooling. There’s just no need for alarm, nor should there be any concern that mankind has anything to do with accelerating or delaying the inevitable, even if we could. We have plenty of time to prepare and inexpensive electricity from fusion should be wide spread long before Manhattan is covered by ice again, although that one may be tough to fend off indefinitely.
10
I wonder how they manage that.
10
Obviously this “John Caley” (171) has been Over Imbibing on the Christmas SPIRITS!!!!
Instead of “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year”, this “John Caley” will greet people with “Oh woe is me the end is nigh, you’re all gonna die by freezing to death”……..
PITIFUL!!
10
Hey Wendy, ease up on John Caley. To me his views look no more odd than yours.
10
Rereke,
You are an excellent student of history. But you’re overlooking something: between about 1932 when the worst of the depression hit and the attack on Pearl Harbor, we were in dismal economic condition (worse than now). No one wanted to start spending large amounts of money or effort on the rest of the world.
When Pearl Harbor gave FDR a way to get a declaration of war, we were behind the 8-ball. We had almost nothing significant to fight with.
Two things account for our success on two far-flung fronts. We actually had the will to win the fight and we were separated from the front line by an ocean in each case, giving us freedom from attack. So we could start manufacturing the implements of war and train the men to use them completely unhindered by our enemy. But they could not do the same. WWII was won here at home, not on the battlefield.
Now I say this because you ask
I think we won’t — not can’t, but won’t. This battle is quite different. We do not have the will even to fight terrorists who killed more than 3,000 of us in a single morning. And we have a president who is quite obviously in bed with the UN’s intentions. I believe it’s for personal reasons rather than any true belief that saving the planet is necessary and I’ve presented my evidence for that previously. And in spite of growing awareness that global warming is questionable, as a nation we’re still enthralled with saving the planet.
I have hope that a Republican controlled House of Representatives can, if not stop, then slow down and delay what Obama has already put in place so we can get to 2012 in one piece with a chance of putting more Republicans in the Senate or replacing Obama. Hopefully it will be both.
10
John Caley: #174
December 12th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Aww for crying out loud, not another “we’re doomed” theatrics.
John did you lose your sandwich board or did the local council confiscate it off you?
Go home John, look after your family and friends. enjoy your day to day life. It’s the only one you’ve got, and leave the planet saving caper to me, I’ll make sure it’s fine ok?
10
John Caley’s post seems a well crafted example of non sequiturs – and based on what evidence? How on earth can an ice age be presaged on the presence of petroleum in the marine environment?
It’s as bizarre as concluding that a carbon based life form oxidising carbon is the cause of the observed temperature rise when experience shows that it’s the warming of the environment in which the carbon life form exists that causes it to multiply as evidenced by the increased emissions of CO2.
It’s the result of inverting cause and effect, something intellectuals tend to do in their world that isn’t founded in physical reality.
Interestingly life forms that historically experienced catastrophic reductions in numbers tend to compensate by engineering population explosions to ensure enough remain after the next anticipated catastrophe. AGW is merely the latest anticipated catastrophe, another variant of the millenial scare category. The real puzzle is why many intellectuals are so easily gulled by these millenial scares.
But then if your life is restricted to the virtual domain of intellectual abstractions, such scenarios are par for the course.
10
>>John Caley’s post seems a well crafted example of non sequiturs – and based on what evidence?<<<<
..
OK, if you don’t understand what a changed evaporation rate of seawater has on the Earth’s hydrological equilibrium… then by all means keep your head in BigOil’s lap… they are very good at hiding the truth// BTW: oil reduces the evaporation rate of (sea)water
..
all your snow, ice and rain come down after being sent into the atmosphere by HEAT…leading to a frozen/cold environment
..
You oceans have become HOT-TUBS…. enough stored heat to freeze the planet… why?, its all because of petroleum oil… a contrived reduced evaporation rate reduces ocean heat loss as water vapour… leads to ocean heating and cold Ice Clouds, and then SOON an ICE AGE… very soon…in your lifetimes
see Younger Dryas for a precident
..
For those that require proof… and understand scientific principles
see
http://www.omegafour.com/forum2/viewforum.php?f=25
for a compilation of papers, articles and data….
don’t go there if you do not understand… as science on this matter will only confuse you
..
Laugh all you like… a few degrees drop is magnitudes worse for civilisation than a few degrees warming…. the world’s climate is not simple to understand…. even today cloud action remain a mystery
..
Simply put, petroleum oil, which covers the oceans, has disrupted Earth’s hydrological and thermodynamic equilibriums
and the pre-Ice Age oscillations back to a more stable equilibrium (fully blown Ice Age) is now in progress… and it will be a wild set of swings.
of course…there is far far more to this logic than I have presented here in this very short post.
10
John,
The link you supplied betrays your gullibility. Clearly, you have some kind of beef with oil companies and jumped on someones junk hypothesis about BP oil on the surface of the Gulf in order to justify and perpetuate your rage. I suggest you talk to your doctor about Valium, or perhaps something a little stronger. I would stay away from science though, it seems to produce an acute anxiety in your mind.
10
You still here John Brookes? I haven’t sighted your apology at Climate Audit yet in the absence of your inability to explain where “McIntyre is wrong”. C’mon John, show us what you’re made of.
In the meantime, a good summary of Cancun here.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/5392-cancun-climate-summit-ridiculed-in-world-press
10
>> BP oil on the surface of the Gulf
..
That oil just adds to the ubiquitous anthropogenic marine oil-membrane that has been on the ocean’s surface and growing since the Industrial Revolution.
..
I understand that you have no idea except to parrot propaganda… a BigOil shill maybe or just arrogantly ignorant ?
..
LOL, Today, it is the know-everything laymans’s world, so lay down in your cold bed of ignorance…. no problems here… except for the children’s future
..
Science tells a completely different story… who to believe ?? LOL
..
You wish to take the risk of ignoring science ? Big stakes mate…. extinction is in the pot
..
Ice Ages last for millions of years… and can come on in a fury over a few short years….. oiled oceans are not to be ignored
..
BTW, if anyone wishes to be educated…. I am patient
..
and FYI, do not “let up on me”, the truth is more important to me than winning an argument by improper means…. so go-for-it Sophists.
10
John Caley.
Please do yourself and the rest of us a favour.
Take some lessons in English grammar and syntax. Your tendentious posts are unintelligible, punctuated as they are with superfluous full stops.
Just because you understand your literary ramblings doesn’t mean everybody else can.
10
John Caley @186,
Funny thing, but Joanne would just love to have Big Oil throwing money her way. So please tell her how to get that accomplished. No? Well I didn’t think so.
Jo has to get along on her own resources and donations from her followers. And while doing it the hard way she suffers fools who point blaming fingers but can’t put two sentences together to make a coherent presentation. You’ve been here three times and I’m still not sure I understand exactly what you’re talking about.
Perhaps the fourth time will be the charm? I hope so!
10
John Caley:3186
December 13th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
John that’s not BP oil on the surface of the oceans.
That’s suntan lotion SPF 30+ coming of the backs of whales and dolphins supplied to them by Ariel, Neptunes daughter.
10
Funny, then, that the Argos floats report the oceans cooling down. How’s that square with your hypothesis?
Didn’t know BP was drilling way back then.
You are aware that the amount of petroleum washing up on California’s beaches was reduced by offshore drilling? Lowering the pressure of the undersea reservoirs reduced the rate of the natural seeps. Maybe BP is saving the planet.
Looking at your web site, I see you write science fiction — explains a lot about your posts.
FYI, because you can imagine a sequence of events does not constitute evidence that they will occur. Because you label such imaginings “science” does not make them so.
10
Generally the layer of anthropogenic petroleum oil is below eye viability in thickness…. it has been analysed and is found across/on all oceans, however in places it is clearly visible
.
As one Climate Scientist put it, ” Oil on the ocean, well yes, but it is only a very thin layer. What does that do ?”
.
That is the state of your established scientists and the abysmal shills at the IPCC..
.
.
Oceans cooling ?….. yes, when freshwater inflows enter the ocean… think Arctic sea-ice melt… the overlay of fresh water over hot ocean actually increases the evaporation rate in that area… that evaporated water produces the ice and snow y’all are so grateful for ATM
.
Increase the evaporation rate in an area, and that area of ocean then cools…. its dynamic.
.
The Northern Hemisphere is in the beginning phase of a mini ice age… all driven by heat and freshwater inflows onto the ocean.
.
A worldwide Ice Age (the big one) is waiting in the wings…. LOL
.
.
NOW: In Climate Discussions, there are people who play King-Of-The-Hill and boss/criticise everyone else. But they will not be capable of achieving anything positive, for they have no more understanding than a child…. such is the Internet
.
For these people, there can be no discussion except slander/derision…. the attackers are arrogantly ignorant OR in cases such as this..they are vested interest SHILLS… BigOil lackies…who do not care if this world becomes lifeless…. money money money is better than LIFE.
(this perversion of science/scientists, is well documented on the Internet…and also at my site)
.
Unfortunately Earth, if you get the reasons for Global Climate Change incorrect…. YOU will not get a second chance. IMO…y’all are already dead people walking…it is way too late.
.
Carbon Dioxide (now emissions) is BigOil’s decoy to keep all eyes off petroleum oil and off your precious automobile.
.
Tis unbelievable stupidity, Earthlings.
.
.
To allow SHILLS on this site, begs a question… Jo, are you also placating BigOil, playing both sides.
10
an error has occurred
.
>> Generally the layer of anthropogenic petroleum oil is below eye viability in thickness
.
should read
“Generally the layer of anthropogenic petroleum oil is below eye *visibility* in thickness”
.
The oil thickness in most places is near or below the thickness that produces a visible “silver sheen”
10
John Caley,
Do you know what the topic is?
Your ravings are amusing,but really why try so hard to convince us,that you are boring and stupid.
You are so bad at it,that you are so good!
Zzzzz…..
10
So, let me see: Your theory “predicts” that the oceans are heating up — unless they are actually cooling down, then your theory also “explains” that. Since you give “science” so much lip service, perhaps you are familiar with the concept that “A ‘theory’ that explains everything, but predicts nothing has no information content”.
Anyone who checks out the Vostok ice core (link) can see that we are overdue for an ice age. How did all those other ice ages start without Mankind’s help, I wonder?
BTY: None of the ice ages in the last 3 million years lasted “millions of years” — 100,000 years is a more reasonable estimate.
10
>> How did all those other ice ages start without Mankind’s help, I wonder?
.
Now you can claim the Milankovitch Theory is correct….. I claim it is all poorly formed conjecture that just does not stand up to scrutiny
.
Earth would be naturally frozen… in the North and South, except for the heat exchange mechanism via the varying salinity (via evaporation) of the ocean
The Younger Dryas was most likely precipitated by a meteor strike on a massive petroleum deposit….. Ice Ages cycles are too irregular to be placed in an orbital box.
.
The natural and unnatural equilibrium oscillations between saltwater salinity and the amount of fresh water locked as ice…are the drivers of Ice Ages/interglacial periods…. water is inherently unstable on this planet, since it can exist in all its FOUR forms… ice, liquid, vapour and of course CLOUDS…warm (droplets) and cold clouds (ice)
so the forcer is the actual evaporation rate of liquid water on your planet… and clouds are the enforcer…
.
But let the unfolding Ice Age speak for itself
.
As far as the topic is concerned… a bunch of political boffins are spouting total BS….. and that needs to be addressed
.
sosoooory if I rock your boat. Your world is in dire straits, and as per usual, no one cares…you would leave it up to the controllers who have your interests at heart ?????
.
Shills and more shills… all the way to the top…where are the REAL scientists… I am one…. totally independent.
so talk science not slander.
10
Rock our boat? So far, all you have done is (badly) outline the plots of your science fiction stories. To “rock our boat” you would have to have, you know, some facts and evidence tied together with logic. (FYI: this is not the same as a string of unsupported declarative statements.)
Since you seem to be interested in the Younger Dryas, I suggest you check out the references in the Wikipedia article of the same name. You’ll find real scientists who are proposing hypotheses, making predictions, and trying to verify or falsify them — doing real science, in other words.
Then you come along, like some kind of street-corner preacher, with your “The end is near!” sign and expect us to be awed. You are delusional.
.
I suggest you take your own advice.
10
Caley @ #183
QED.
10
John Caley,
You are no scientist. I looked at your site and found the link to this by a real scientist. It claims to show that the space and time contractions of relativity theory are in fact accounted for by quantum mechanics and classical physics alone without regard for the speed of light, whether constant or not.
I make no attempt to uphold or falsify the conclusions. But this is something well organized and presented so anyone who wants to can check it out and find any errors in it. This is how a scientist works, John, not with finger pointing and vague holier-than-thou pronouncements of doom and gloom.
You must have thought this interesting or useful since you provided a link to it. What you don’t realize is that it holds a mirror up to you and in that mirror you have foolish conspiracy theorist nut case written all over you.
10
see http://beforeitsnews.com/story/308/403/The_Bitter_Bite_of_Winter,_Food_Shortages_Coming.html
with a video on the disruption of the Gulf Loop Current and the Gulf Stream because of petroleum oil…
This is just a minor local example of the observed effect of petroleum oil pollution.
>>> quote: Is that what they are deliberately hiding from the public until it’s too late to see the white elephants stampeding through the room?……….. Cold and snow can literally freeze human activity and human life to death quite quickly.>>>
Are you all too blinded to find the way out of this propaganda ?
10
You might find my very informal preliminary assessments of the Cancun Agreements useful in parts:
1.View seven minute video overview of some of the threats of Cancun Agreements here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WhwNldn0hM
2.View three minute video discussing the possible coming cooling, the real cost of “aspirational” targets and the imbalance between mitigation and adaptation funding here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnqfIhu7Q_A
Comments welcome (besides the poor video quality – it was a spur of the moment thing not planned in advance).
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario
K2A 4E2
Canada
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org
10
John caley @ various.
john I can understand you being mad at us for being shills for big oil, and all that, but come on, loosen up a bit, this is the greatest lark going, money for jam mate, beats feed in tariffs on your rooftop solar panels by a cosmic mile! look john, I can’t speak for the many other beneficiaries on this here gravy train, but I can only assume they are running up against the same kind of problem as myself, what to do with all this freaking money!!! I mean fair-dinkum, its got to the point where its just piling up in the middle of the living room blocking the view of the TV., its a bloody scandal, and the simplest sleazy scheme for raking in truckloads of cash,,, ever! john, do yourself a favor, give yourself, and your kids, and their kids, the best Christmas present a few loose, non-core scruples can buy, get on board, live a little, have some fun with your newfound wealth! You owe it to yourself, you owe it to your family, but most importantly you owe it to the children of the future. Cheers.
10
[…] This is too long for me to comment directly and give it the justice it deserves. Just go and read it for yourselves. […]
10