Hard-earned US taxpayer funds diverted to third-world countries (often run by tin-pot dictators) via the unelected bureaucratic behemoth – the United Nations. What possibly could go wrong?!
Donald J Trump – protecting US incomes with accountability and transparency for its careful use where needed. And yet Trump’s the bad guy?!
Yeah, this is why President Trump said
“We will cease honoring all non-binding agreements”, and “we will stop contributing to the green climate fund”.
“I can not in good conscience support a deal that harms the United States”.
“The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair to the United States”.
“This agreement is less about climate and more about other countries getting a financial advantage over the United States”.
The United States contributed $1 billion to the global Green Climate Fund, but the world’s top polluters contributed nothing, David Asman reported.
via Fox news here
Top post. Nice work Paul.
WMO, up to their ears in man-made “Global Warming” hysteria and alarmism since they teamed up with climate criminal Maurice Strong’s UNEP in the 1970’s, later implementing the eco-political UN IPCC.
Maurice Strong, “The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming” hysteria.
By Paul Homewood
From the “A bit of bad weather proves climate change “ Dept.
An unbelievably crass piece from the failed Independent (and doubtlessly the BBC and the rest of the dismal MSM):
There is “no room for doubt”. The astonishing weather experienced by the world last year and advances in climate science demonstrate conclusively that fossil fuel emissions are causing global warming – and something must be done about it.
That was the reaction from scientist after scientist to a new report by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), which documented record-breaking droughts, heatwaves, rainfall, melting of sea ice and a host of tangible signs observed in 2016 that the Earth’s climate has changed.
View original post 1,282 more words
Meanwhile, the politically correct, climate-obsessed, eco-brainwashed West continues to destroy their economies, pursuing useless “unreliable” energy – wind and solar – that do not reduce global emissions, at all.
Such energy fantasies simply increase the cost of doing business, making industry uncompetitive, shifting jobs and ’emissions’ offshore to third-world countries where environmental regulations and working conditions are substandard, leading to real environmental and social issues, like forest destruction, air particulate pollution and sweat shops.
Draconian Climate policy, formulated by unelected global elites at Paris-like gabfests, really are “killing the planet to save it.”
By Paul Homewood
Tony Heller noted this juxtaposition of news from Indonesia this month.
So perhaps it is time to recall just what it was that Indonesia agreed to in the Paris Agreement.
My full analysis of Indonesia’s INDC, which the Carbon Tracker website rated as “Inadequate” from last November is here. But the gist of it is this:
The BAU case projects emissions of 2881 GtCO2e by 2030:
Therefore, a cut of 29% leaves a target of 2046 GtCO2e, still well above 2005 emissions of 1800 GtCO2e.
But this is not the whole story.
As the above makes clear, land use change accounts for 63% of all emissions, totally dwarfing the burning of fossil fuels. This figure reflects the enormous amount of forest that has been cut down, often to make room for palm oil and pulp wood plantations. On top of that,
View original post 319 more words
“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.
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.
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
The mainstream media has played a hugely successful role in corrupting the ‘science’ of global warming, aka climate change, into the fashionable new eco-religion that it has become today.
Add literally, trillions of government ‘green’ (taxpayer money), a ton of celebrity eco-virtue-signalling, a pinch of data manipulation, and the religion of ‘climate change’ has rapidly morphed into, as Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University California, famously coined in his blistering resignation letter to the APS:
“The greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
Hence, we give thanks to “The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change” – WUWT, led by Pastor Watts, for giving us our daily dose of climate reason and rationalism! Amen 🙏
Nice post Anthony.
The late Dr. Michael Crichton was wonderful writer. In 2003 he presented a wonderful essay in San Francisco equating environmentalism to religion. Nobel prize winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giaver makes the same point in a presentation here. In religion man is meant to be saved from the consequences of his sins. In the environmentalist religion the world was a wonderful, beautiful Eden until man and his technology came along. Man has eaten the apple and lost Eden. Now we must give up our “evil” technology and go back to nature, otherwise all is lost.
As Crichton notes:
“There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40…
View original post 476 more words
“Do as I say, not as I do!”
Bureaucratic elitist hypocrites using other-people’s-money to fund their lavish ‘carbon’ intensive gabfests to protest against ‘carbon’, demanding everyone else curb their lifestyles.
You can’t make this stuff up.
By Viv Forbes
For at least 21 years now, the U.N. and the IPCC have been ringmaster to a troupe of thousands. They perform at massive annual conferences held in exotic locations, serviced by top hotels and airlines, and funded largely, directly or indirectly, by reluctant taxpayers.
An estimated 45,000 attendees, including 114 from the Australian government, achieved nothing useful at Copenhagen and just more green tape in Paris. Each of these climate-fests is preceded by numerous meetings of bureaucrats drafting and redrafting their wish lists.
Now the U.N. Climateer-in-Chief, Ban Ki-moon, has jetted into the G20 summit in China to claim climate victory over climate skeptics.
Is there no end to this energy-wasting climate tourism? If they believe that the science is settled, no more conferences are needed.
View original post 72 more words
The United Nations is financed mostly by taxpayers from a few donor countries but the large and growing bureaucracy is too far removed from those taxpayers to be directly accountable to them. It is run by unelected, unaccountable, undisciplined, and incompetent bureaucrats. The organization’s size, budget, and scope are unconstrained. The budget funding process provides perverse incentives for these bureaucrats to increase the size and scope of their organization simply by creating multitudes of agencies and programs, and by inventing problems and environmental crises set on a global scale.
An article about the failings of the UN highlights a paper by our friend Jamal Munshi -Professor Emeritus at Sonoma State University:
The situation has become so bad that some academics have concluded that it is time to shut down the UN’s out-of-control bureaucracies. A paper by Sonoma State University Professor Emeritus Jamal Munshi published by the Social Science Research Network, for example, makes a solid case for ditching the UN environmental bureaucracy. Under the headline “The United Nations: An Unconstrained Bureaucracy,” the June 2016 paper concludes that “unconstrained and undisciplined public sector bureaucracies do not serve the interest of the public” and that “such UN bureaucracies can safely be dismantled without any harm to the public interest.”
In a note to The New American, Professor Munshi said that “the case study is specific to the UNEP, however, the broader conclusion that we can draw from the UNEP…
View original post 112 more words