UN IPCC : Climate “Has Almost Nothing To Do With Environmental Policy.”

UN IPCC.jpg

The UN IPCC doesn’t factor in the sun as a powerful driver of climate, because there’s no point in blaming something that wasn’t your fault.

See also :

Advertisements

The New American: “New Film Exposes Communist Roots of “Sustainability” Agenda”

green-agenda

Sustainability is Malthusianism for the 21st Century | Climatism

ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, knows the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that beleaguers the man-made climate change agenda. His summary goes to the very heart of why Carbon Dioxide has become the centre-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:

“FOR A LOT of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
•••
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.

And, BEWARE those sweet-sounding words designed by the UN’s deep-green, Agenda 21 program :

– “Sustainability” and
– “Smart Growth”

Related :

HyperLink News Site

View original post


One graphic $ays it all: Who actually paid in to the Paris Green Climate fund?

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?!

Watts Up With That?

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

View original post


UN IPCC : “Long-Term Prediction of Future Climate States Is Not Possible.”

UN IPCC Wealth Redist.jpg

UN IPCC TAR 2001 

Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

Executive Summary

“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

AND YET we base trillions upon trillions of dollars of other peoples (your) money on Paris COP junkets to formulate “Save The Planet” policy, windmills and solar panels that are supposed to curb (man-made) Global Warming Climate Change to below an arbitrary ‘2 degrees C’ by 2100.

Insanity by their very own words and deeds.

•••

Related :


Indonesia Doubles Coal Use, Ratifies “Climate” Treaty

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.”

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/19/world/asia/ap-as-indonesia-climate-change.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

image

image

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/10/05/indonesias-coal-consumption-remains-high-bp.html

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:

image_thumb36

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/indonesias-climate-plan-inadequate/

The BAU case projects emissions of 2881 GtCO2e by 2030:

image_thumb37

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


Cease tax-funded climate tourism

“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.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Credit: www.clexit.net. Credit: http://www.clexit.net.
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


Jamal Munshi: The United Nations: An Unconstrained Bureaucracy

Abstract:
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.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

An article about the failings of the UN highlights a paper by our friend Jamal Munshi -Professor Emeritus at Sonoma State University:

apocalypse

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