ANOTHER Win-Win! “Climate Talks Open Amid Anger Over Trump’s Coal Support”

“According to reports, members of the Trump administration will lend their support to an event to promote fossil fuels and nuclear power as solutions to climate change.”

Gold!

Watts Up With That?

Guest taunting post by David Middleton

  1. Win: President Trump announced US withdrawal from Paris climate treatyagreement joke.
  2. Win: US will use its remaining 3 years as a party to the joke as a vehicle to promote fossil fuels.

bbc_coal

Over the next two weeks, negotiators hope to clarify the rulebook of the Paris climate agreement.

It is the first major meeting since President Trump announced plans to take the US out of the Paris pact last June.

Many delegates are unhappy with White House plans to promote fossil fuels here as a “solution” to climate change.

[…]

According to reports, members of the Trump administration will lend their support to an event to promote fossil fuels and nuclear power as solutions to climate change.
Speakers from coal giant Peabody Energy, among others, will make a presentation to highlight the role that coal and other fuels can play in curbing the…

View original post 545 more words

Advertisements

EU Admits Europeans Not Concerned About Climate Change

“I see two things going on here:

1) Most people are far more intelligent than the elites give them credit for. They can see through the deception they have been fed, and are capable of using their own eyes to see what is really going on.

2) People are growing numb to the incessant propaganda.”

And,

3) Economies, businesses and (non-elite) peoples’ livelihoods are being destroyed by insanely high electricity bills as a direct result of the West’s mad obsession with unreliable-energy, wind and solar.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

From No Tricks:

image

If one were to rate the investment made by governments globally aimed at creating concern for a potential problem, then the huge investment in climate change fear by now would definitely have to be rated as “junk” quality.

Never has so much seen so little return.

Hundreds of billions have been invested so far with the aim of generating mass fear, and by now we would think the global public should be in a state of panic. That’s the least one would expect from such a massive investment in fostering fear.

But it turns out that climate change remains very low on the list of concerns that citizens have.

View original post 238 more words


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


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


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 :


Socialism Masquerading As Environmentalism

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

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

•••

“Global Warming” has long abandoned any connection it has with actual science. It is an ideology. A religion. Australia’s new Prime Minister Tony Abbott likening it to, “socialism masquerading as environmentalism“.

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer, articulates the motivation behind modern environmentalism. A movement using the threat of environmental disaster to limit the use of energy, shut down economies and advance socialism.

There’s no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

Carbon Chastity

By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post

Friday, May 30, 2008

I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I’m a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can’t be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.

Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems — from ocean currents to cloud formation — that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

BdufIaXCAAAmOPTYet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. “The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity,” warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, “is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.”

If you doubt the arrogance, you haven’t seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton’s laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming — infinitely more untested, complex and speculative — is a closed issue.

But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class — social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies — arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher’s England to Deng’s China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but — even better — in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia’s priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment — carbon chastity — they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

There’s no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

Full Story »

* Article published in 2008, at the height of ‘Global Warming’ hysteria. Six years on, with Global Warming in hiatus now for 17 years, Krauthammer’s message holds perhaps further relevance.

* Links and Image added by Climatism.

•••

UPDATE

Krauthammer on Obama’s “settled science”

The arrogance – the stupidity – of people who claim global warming science is “settled”.

•••

Krauthammer on Global Warming as a Religion and Corruption of the Scientific method.

Screen Shot 2014-02-22 at , February 22, 4.54.22 pm

Debate over climate change gets heated | Fox News Video (3:20)

•••

Irony UPDATE

Heating up: Climate change advocates try to silence Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer says it right up front in his Washington Post column: “I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier.”

He does, however, challenge the notion that the science on climate change is settled and says those who insist otherwise are engaged in “a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate.”

How ironic, then, that some environmental activists launched a petition urging the Post not to publish Krauthammer’s column on Friday.

Their response to opinions they disagree with is to suppress the speech.

Full Story

•••

See also :

United Nations :

Science Related :

The Future Of Energy – Nuclear :

Quote Source – The Green Agenda