Ban Ki-moon, Listen to the Masses!

“It’s much easier to solve an imaginary problem than a real one.” – Sir Humphrey Appleby

…and “saving the planet” the ideal header on the CV of Ban Ki-Moon and fellow virtue-signalling, climate change elites.

Science Matters

Over 10 million ordinary people have told the UN what matters most to them, and here are the results.

According to this huge UN survey, good education, healthcare and jobs are far and away the top priorities. And way down at the bottom is “Action taken on climate change.” You would think that the UN Secretary-General would have many things on his plate, and even “Phone and Internet Access” comes ahead of climate change.

Yet because Ki-moon is seeking a legacy in bringing the Paris accord into force, that last-place concern is at the top of his agenda.

angry-bird
Summary

In a previous post Hammer and Nail I suggested that climate activists like Ban Ki-Moon are working on their own needs for esteem and self-actualization, while most of the world are struggling with the most basic needs. This survey proves that point, especially when charts show that only in richer…

View original post 101 more words


It’s Earth Hour Every Hour In North Korea

image.jpeg


Shock news : The UN’s Real Agenda Is A New World Order Under Its Control

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

“Let us create a global democracy and parliament under the grand idea of one planet, one person, one vote, one value,” Bob Brown (Former Australian Greens Leader)

“China’s ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government … inspiring similar structures in other, reformulated nations.” Naomi Oreskes

•••

UN-Logo-Communist (1)

Maurice Newman, chairman of the Australian Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council, boldly narrates the real workings behind the United Nations’ “Climate Change” agenda…

via The Australian MAY 8, 2015 :

The UN is using climate change as a tool not an issue

By Maurice Newman

It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It’s not surprising.

We have been subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years.

In January 1970, Life magazine, based on “solid scientific evidence”, claimed that by 1985 air pollution would reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth by half. In fact, across that period sunlight fell by between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. In a 1971 speech, Paul Ehrlich said: “If I were a gambler I would take even money that ­England will not exist in the year 2000.”

Fast forward to March 2000 and David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, told The Independent, “Snowfalls are now a thing of the past.” In December 2010, the Mail Online reported, “Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain”.

We’ve had our own busted predictions. Perhaps the most preposterous was climate alarmist Tim Flannery’s 2005 observation: “If the computer records are right, these drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia.” Subsequent rainfall and severe flooding have shown the records or his analysis are wrong. We’ve swallowed dud prediction after dud prediction. What’s more, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which we were instructed was the gold standard on global warming, has been exposed repeatedly for ­mis­rep­resentation and shoddy methods.

Weather bureaus appear to have “homogenised” data to suit narratives. NASA’s claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record was revised, after challenge, to only 38 per cent probability. Extreme weather events, once blamed on global warming, no longer are, as their frequency and intensity decline.

Why then, with such little evidence, does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate Christiana Figueres UNFCCC change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?

In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”

In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.

Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or ­disagreement.

Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travellers. As Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says: “Even if the ­(climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

Having gained so much ground, eco-catastrophists won’t let up. After all, they have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House. They have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media (the ABC and Fairfax in Australia) to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.

They will continue to present the climate change movement as an independent, spontaneous consensus of concerned scientists, politicians and citizens who believe human activity is “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming. (“Extremely likely” is a scientific term?)

And they will keep mobilising public opinion using fear and appeals to morality. UN support will be assured through promised wealth redistribution from the West, even though its anti-growth policy prescriptions will needlessly prolong poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy for the world’s poorest.

Figueres said at a climate ­summit in Melbourne recently that she was “truly counting on Australia’s leadership” to ensure most coal stayed in the ground.

Hopefully, like India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Tony Abbott isn’t listening. India knows the importance of cheap energy and is set to overtake China as the world’s leading importer of coal. Even Germany is about to commission the most coal-fired power stations in 20 years.

There is a real chance Figueres and those who share her centralised power ambitions will succeed. As the UN’s December climate change conference in Paris approaches, Australia will be pressed to sign even more futile job-destroying climate change treaties.

Resisting will be politically difficult. But resist we should. We are already paying an unnecessary social and economic price for empty gestures. Enough is enough.

Maurice Newman is chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council. The views expressed here are his own.

•••

UPDATE – Wed 17th June 2015

via Newman is owed an apology. A world-government warmist is now advising even the Pope | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog.

Newman is owed an apology. A world-government warmist is now advising even the Pope

How they mocked:

The United Nation’s top official on climate change has described comments by Tony Abbott’s chief business adviser Maurice Newman that global warming is a conspiracy against democracy as a joke.

And the opposition has weighed in as well, with Bill Shorten calling on the Prime Minister to disavow the views of his outspoken business expert….

Christiana Figueres who is visiting Australia to discuss progress toward a global deal said Mr Newman’s claim that climate change was an UN “hoax” designed to lead to world domination, was a joke.

Now meet one of the Pope’s advisors on global warming:

… in April, the Vatican invited representatives from the world’s religions… to a symposium discussing climate science and the ways religious leaders might lead on the issue. More than a dozen faith leaders heard from one of the world’s top climate scientists, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber

Indeed:

[The] much-anticipated encyclical on climate change by Pope Francis … will be presented to a press conference by Cardinal Peter Turkson, head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Metropolitan John Zizioulas of the Orthodox Church, and – most controversially – Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research…

Schellnhuber has a particularly alarmist view of warming and a rather dismal view of humanity, which he believes should be reduced by 6 billion, to judge from a 2009 speech:

Schellnhuber … said that if the buildup of greenhouse gases and its consequences pushed global temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today — well below the upper temperature range that scientists project could occur from global warming — Earth’s population would be devastated….

“In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people,” said Dr. Schellnhuber…

But here is Schellnhuber’s green dream – one world government:

Let me conclude this short contribution with a daydream about those key institutions that could bring about a sophisticated—and therefore more appropriate—version of the conventional “world government” notion. Global democracy might be organized around three core activities, namely (i) an Earth Constitution; (ii) a Global Council; and (iii) a Planetary Court….

– the Earth Constitution would transcend the UN Charter and identify those first principles guiding humanity in its quest for freedom, dignity, security and sustainability;

– the Global Council would be an assembly of individuals elected directly by all people on Earth, where eligibility should be not constrained by geographical, religious, or cultural quotas; and

– the Planetary Court would be a transnational legal body open to appeals from everybody, especially with respect to violations of the Earth Constitution.

Just one extremist?

Take Christiana Figueres herself:

China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations’ chief climate official said….

China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.

Key policies, reforms and appointments are decided at plenums, or meeting of the governing Communist Party’s more than 200-strong Central Committee… The political divide in the U.S. Congress has slowed efforts to pass climate legislation and is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming, she said.

In fact, there’s a bit of crowd of warming activists railing against democracy and even embracing a one-world government:

Remember then Greens leader Bob Brown’s great plan?

The Greens’ hero was met with a standing ovation when he delivered the 2012 Green Oration, which called for a single global and democratic parliament.

“Let us create a global democracy and parliament under the grand idea of one planet, one person, one vote, one value,” he said.

Senator Brown said he would call on the world’s 100 Greens parties to back his “earth parliament” at the third global Greens conference in Senegal next week.

Amos Aikman then warned:

Curiously, he went on to propose a bicameral (two houses) parliament with “equal representation elected from every nation”. Thus China—a nation of some 1.3 billion—would presumably have the same number of seats as, say, the Cook Islands, with less than 20,000 inhabitants.

Brown is gone, but Professor Clive Hamilton is still on our Climate Change Authority:


Very few people, even among environmentalists, have truly faced up to what the science is telling us. This is because the implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.

Other climate catastrophists agree:


For example, in an interview about her new book The Collapse of Western Civilization, Naomi Oreskes argued: “If anyone will weather this storm it seems likely that it will be the Chinese.”

In the book, Oreskes and co-author Erik Conway imagine a future world in which the predictions of the International Panel on Climate Change have come to pass. With respect to China, the authors predict:

China’s ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government … inspiring similar structures in other, reformulated nations.

•••

UPDATE

“In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming”

– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations

•••

UPDATE

UN still pushing discredited “overpopulation” crisis

•••

See also : 

United Nations Related :

Maurice Newman :


UN Conference: Communism Needed To Stop Global Warming

Not the first time the UN commissars have touted communism as the way forward to a clean ‘China’ style environment…

UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming

Real Science

ScreenHunter_5134 Dec. 11 23.48

Lima, Peru—Evo Morales, the president of the Plurinational Republic of Bolivia, is a superstar politician here at the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP-20) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The press gaggle follows him around like puppies and enthusiastically applauds his unrelenting diatribes against rich industrialized countries. The headline is a quotation taken from Morales’ response to being asked at a press conference if he was optimistic about the summit meeting here in Lima? “The deep causes of global warming are not being dealt with here. The origin of global warming lies in capitalism,” asserted Morales. “If we could end capitalism then we would have a solution.”

‘The origin of global warming lies in capitalism’ – Hit & Run : Reason.com

Communist countries are famous for a clean environment and low emissions

ScreenHunter_5135 Dec. 12 00.10

View original post


People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception

Dr. Tim Ball must read via WUWT :


“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
“There’s nothing we can do to stop it (climate change). Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”

Watts Up With That?

Update: A guest post response, along with a comment from me has been posted, please see A big (goose) step backwards

Guest Opinion: Dr.Tim Ball

Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? Some skeptics seem to believe it is just poor quality scientists, who don’t understand physics, but that doesn’t explain the amount, and obviously deliberate nature, of what has been presented to the public. What motive would you give, when asked?

The first step in understanding, is knowledge about how easily large-scale deceptions are achieved. Here is an explanation from one of the best proponents in history.

“All this…

View original post 1,859 more words


The Rise Of Eco-Bolshevism And The Collapse Of Western Civilisation

If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism

– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First

The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope
.”
– David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

green-agenda

Image Source : Green agenda has parallels with excesses of communism | Herald Sun

•••

An important, must-read article by Emeritus Professor Fred Singer, via ‘American Thinker’ :

A Suicidal Collapse of Western Civilization?

My background is basically European — and more specifically, Western European.  I have lived and worked in many of those countries, and I know most of the major cities intimately — from Stockholm in the north, Newcastle, London, Paris, The Hague, Munich, Vienna, to Rome and Erice, Sicily in the south.  I have also spent several months in Moscow and in Jerusalem as a guest of academic institutions.

Economic Suicide

The ongoing economic suicide of Europe is based on a faulty understanding of the climate issue by most Western politicians and on their extreme policy response, based on emotion rather than logic and science.  The major European economies have reacted irrationally to contrived, unjustified fear of imagined global-warming disastersPerhaps I should explain that the climate has not been warming for the past 18 years — and even if it had been warming, it would be no disaster.  The EU wants to cut emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, a natural plant-fertilizer, by 40% within 15 years — by 2030.  This insane drive to replace energy sources from fossil fuels that release plant-friendly CO2 into the atmosphere has led to greatly increased costs of energy.  As is well understood, such actions not only hurt economic growth, but they increase poverty levels and therefore threaten the social fabric of these nations.

There are some exceptions. of course: France and Belgium rely heavily on nuclear energy; Austria and Norway rely heavily on hydro.  Poland has actively resisted the general trend to demonize CO2, but the UK and Germany, which has been the power-house of European economic growth, are severely threatened by their insistence on installing wind and solar energy.  The latter is especially inappropriate to the Continent and to Great Britain.

The pity of it all is that these economic sacrifices in Western Europe will hardly affect the level of atmospheric CO2 — which is controlled globally by huge emissions from China — and soon also from India.

Unfortunately, during the past few years, and even during the White House administration of George W. Bush, the United States has tended to move in the same direction — and energy costs have gone up markedly.

The regulatory burdens created by the EPA’s “War on Coal,” by holding up permits for pipelines and for exploration-production of fuels on Federal lands, etc, are imposing real costs on US households, which are the equivalent of a large energy tax — except that none of these increased costs flow into the US Treasury.

Cultural, plus even more dangerous Demographic Suicide,

But it is cultural suicide, which adds to economic suicide and spells doom for the future of Western Europe.  I have in mind here the heavy immigration from Islamic nations — with most immigrants unwilling to adjust to the prevailing culture of the host country.

Examples are rampant.  In Great Britain, the dangerous immigration has come mostly from Pakistan and Bangladesh, Islamic successors to the British rule over India; Hindu immigrants present no special problem.  In Southern Europe, the Low Countries, and most of Scandinavia, much of the immigration has been from Somalia and North Africa.  France has experienced massive immigration from North Africa and other African French-speaking former colonies.

In many of these nations now, these immigrant communities have formed enclaves that the native inhabitants can no longer enter safely; even the police have great difficulty controlling law and order in these enclaves.  Examples exist in cities like Birmingham, Amsterdam, Malmo (Sweden), Paris and Marseille.  Germany seems slightly better off, with immigrants from Turkey making some effort to become good Germans.  Of course, the aim of many in these enclaves is to take over the host country — using available democratic means — and institute Sharia (Islamic law).

It is clear that these immigrants are taking advantage of the democratic nature of the host nations and their willingness to grant asylum status and lavish economic subsidies to any who declare themselves as refugees.  A prime example is Sweden, where multi-culturalism runs wild and is supported by the government-subsidized and beholden media.  So far, no real revolt yet — except for some grumbling from the indigenous population (whom the compliant media denounce as “racists.”)

Least affected have been the Slavic nations, which were formerly under Soviet domination.  Perhaps because of their delayed economic development, they have not been as attractive a destination for immigrants.  Ironically, these East-Europeans may yet save Western civilization.

The United States faces a rather special situation.  There is much immigration, mostly illegal, from south of the border. But these Latino immigrants are not Islamic; they share similar cultural values with native-born Americans — and most are making an effort to adapt to the prevailing culture.  The main danger is one of national security.  With porous borders, potential terrorists can easily slip into the United States and create mayhem.

A peculiar problem exists in Israel, which has experienced illegal Islamic (!) immigration, mainly from Sudan and Eritrea.  We are told that some southern suburbs of Tel Aviv now resemble a Third-World nation.  Efforts are underway to deport these illegal immigrants; but standing in the way is Israel’s Supreme Court, a group of unelected liberal lawyers, who personally oppose the Parliament-passed law of deportation — certainly an anomalous situation by US standards.

Russia has experienced problems of its own, mainly from Islamic provinces in the Caucasus.  The suppression of the Chechen revolt has caused a violent reaction, leading to major terror acts, even in Moscow.

Exacerbating the Islamic “conquest“ of Western Europe is the fact that the indigenous people — from Swedes to Spaniards  — are not reproducing themselves.  Whatever the cause may be, the number of children per family is well below the replacement level of 2.11; in some countries it is as low as 1.30.  The statistics are frightening — as seen in records of births, welfare rolls, and school attendance.  By mid-century, parts of Europe will have a Moslem majority — and even before then it will be too late to rectify the situation.

What of the future? 

With ongoing internal battles within Islamic groups, it is not easy to predict the future.  In Syria, some 200,000 have been killed and millions have been turned into refugees.  The rise of the “Islamic State” in the last few months promises a brutal suppression of any who hold even a slightly different Islamic view.  Their announced goal is to set up a theocratic Caliphate in any lands that have ever been under Islamic rule — including most of the Balkans, Andalus-Spain, and of course Israel.

At the battle of Tours in 732, Charles Martell stopped the advance into France of Moslem armies from the Iberian peninsula.  In 1571, in the great naval battle of Lepanto, off Greece, a Spanish-Italian fleet defeated the Turks.  In their farthest advance into Central Europe, a Turkish army besieged Vienna in 1683.  Christian forces, under the command of King John Sobieski of Poland, defeated the invaders decisively and saved Western civilization.

Americans have twice saved Europe in the 20th century and may soon be forced to defend Europe again against a new threat.  The first assault on Western European civilization came from Nazi Germany and its allies; it took a bloody World-War-II (1939-1945) to defeat them.  Certainly, without US intervention, Western Europe, and even Britain, might now be part of a German-ruled dictatorship, a sort of involuntary European Union.  It is doubtful also whether the Soviet Union could have withstood Hitler’s onslaught without the active material assistance of the United States.

The second threat to Europe came from the post-1945 Soviet Union; it was dominated by the specter of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.  The “Warsaw Pact” encompassed even a large part of Germany.  This “Cold-War” threat was neutralized thanks to the steadfastness of the United States — but also by the internal economic problems brought about by the planned economy of the Soviet empire.

The new threat of course is Islamo-Fascism and its aim to introduce Sharia — in at least those parts of Europe that had been Muslim lands in the past, but aiming really at all of Europe — and eventually the rest of the world.  This new threat uses a method of warfare that is different from the past and more insidious.  Terrorism has come into its own, partly based on large Islamic populations in Western Europe.

Coupled with this external threat is the internal one from Islamic fanatics, many of them born in Europe — and even from converts.  We have seen this happen in Spain, and more recently in Britain.  Their methods have been crude and their weapons have been primitive; but with nuclear proliferation and with the possibility of chemical and biological warfare, these threats have to be taken very seriously.

Fighting these threats takes resources for surveillance, intelligence, sundry military expenditures, and weapons, both offensive and defensive.  Resilience requires above all a strong economy.  And one cannot have a strong economy without adequate energy resources – which gets us back to the issue of climate fears.

The problem now is that while the threat of terrorism is growing, so is the suicidal drive to limit the use of energy and thereby also economic growth.  This internal threat is particularly strong in Europe and has been called, quite properly, eco-Bolshevism.  It would have all the earmarks of the failed Soviet system, with government involvement in every facet of the economy and with energy restrictions reducing economic growth.

There is no question that the policies being discussed now in Europe and in the United States would be extremely costly, would force industrial cutbacks and of course massive job losses.  All of these exacerbate social tension in nations that have a large number of immigrants, who traditionally have the highest unemployment levels.

Will the US step up again and save Europe?  Doubtful

One may ask: Is there any way to stop this steamroller?  There’s probably little hope that such an initiative can come from Europe; it may have to come from the United States.  Somehow we would have to convince European leaders that their policies, based on global-warming fears, are mistaken.  That job may prove to be very difficult — unless there is a drastic change in current US policy.  But it is something that has to be done if we want Europe to survive economically, as an ally against the threat of Islamo-Fascism.
Continue Reading »

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project.  His specialty is atmospheric and space physics.  An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.  He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute.  He co-authored the NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years.  In 2007, he founded and has since chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See www.NIPCCreport.org].    For recent writings, see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar

H/t to Guy Takamatsu


See Also :

Related :

UN Related :


Before you read the upcoming IPCC report, note this

Climatism note :

One of the authors of a U.N. draft report on climate change pulled out of the writing team, saying his colleagues were issuing unfounded “alarmist” claims at the expense of real solutions.

“The drafts became too alarmist,” said Richard Tol, a Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England, to Reuters.

See also : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | Climatism

BdufIaXCAAAmOPT

Watts Up With That?

The Working Group II IPCC report from the big shindig in Japan this week will be making headlines shortly, but take those headlines with a grain of salt.

Richard Tol Pulls Out, Says IPCC Draft Report Alarmist

  • Date: 27/03/14 Cheryl K. Chumley, The Washington Times

One of the authors of a U.N. draft report on climate change pulled out of the writing team, saying his colleagues were issuing unfounded “alarmist” claims at the expense of real solutions.

“The drafts became too alarmist,” said Richard Tol, a Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England, to Reuters.

View original post 232 more words