tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692512066492263328.post3506665695382971094..comments2024-02-23T22:25:59.594-08:00Comments on End US War Machine: The 'Sustainable Development' hoax...Round up the usual suspects, all comfy in school curriculasusanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14710989163705986252noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692512066492263328.post-74991739795908687342011-04-30T00:14:48.246-07:002011-04-30T00:14:48.246-07:00Susan - the single world that you, I, Fred Singer,...Susan - the single world that you, I, Fred Singer, the UN and everyone else is on is warming more than the 'natural' trend due to cumulatively additional GHG in the atmosphere due to GHG emissions from human sources. <br /><br />Whatever the probity of the individuals, the ideological lensing, the institutional arguments and the media chatter about all this may be, that's the trend - slowly increased warming over 200 years.<br /><br />So, the one-world question remains: - What are we going to about this? <br /><br />The one-world answer remains emissions contraction and convergence at rates to be determined: -<br /><br />http://www.gci.org.uk/animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe<br /><br />http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/endorsements_high_res_.pdfAubrey Meyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00520224179959993258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692512066492263328.post-17539118318139618032011-04-29T20:15:41.356-07:002011-04-29T20:15:41.356-07:00It's back to 2 different worlds. The items abo...It's back to 2 different worlds. The items about the UN in my comment were not my ideas, they were a USA Today reporter's documented evidence. The global warming industry has been promoted through the UN for decades and is interwoven in it. The UN even acknowledges the carbon offset/trading industry in which it is involved wastes billions of dollars. Nor does anyone deny organized crime is making billions in profits all over the place. The 'climate' is the last thing on these people's minds. Even if CO2 warming existed, man could not possibly cure it (lower CO2 volumes do not produce lower temps). The days are long gone where taxpayer money from any country can be stolen and wasted like this. The people are awake now. If you want your cause to succeed, it's best to remove it from the UN's influence.susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710989163705986252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692512066492263328.post-17904572247010072732011-04-29T11:26:53.440-07:002011-04-29T11:26:53.440-07:00Susan - even if all your criticims of the UN were ...Susan - even if all your criticims of the UN were true, Fred Singer's article not an attack on the UN, it is an unfocused polemic about climate change and against sustainble-developement and contraction-and-convergence.<br /><br />So, the questions that arise from his article are: - <br /><br />1. is anthropogenic climate change a real problem? <br />The answer is 'yes'.<br /><br />2. what are we going to about this? <br />The answer is emissions 'C&C'.<br /><br />If the UN is corrupt in the way you insist it is, that doesn't make the problem go away, it just makes it even harder to deal with.Aubrey Meyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00520224179959993258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692512066492263328.post-62213194650305532772011-04-28T17:32:24.941-07:002011-04-28T17:32:24.941-07:00All UN agencies are free to act criminally.
4/15/0...All UN agencies are free to act criminally.<br />4/15/09, USA Today,"Commissioner Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon controller, asked Gambatesa whether the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-14-un-probe_N.htm" rel="nofollow">(UN)agencies have immunity "if they siphon (their U.S. grants)</a> all off into Swiss banks? Is that accurate? They will be totally immune, no matter what they do with the money?"<br /><br />"My understanding is, yes," Gambatesa replied.... Federal prosecutors in New York City were <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-14-un-probe_N.htm" rel="nofollow">forced to drop criminal and civil cases because the U.N. officials have immunity</a>, according to the report. USAID has scaled back its dealings with the U.N. and hired a collection agency to seek $7.6 million back, Deputy Administrator James Bever said. The aid agency hasn't heeded its inspector general's request to sever all ties.<br /><br />"There are certain cases where working with the U.N. is the only option available," Bever said in an e-mail....<br /><br />One U.N. employee told investigators that "about $10 million of USAID grant money went to projects in other countries, to include Sudan, Haiti, Sri Lanka and Dubai." That witness said the Afghanistan country director for the U.N. Office for Project Services (UNOPS), which served as the contractor on the project for the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), spent about <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-14-un-probe_N.htm" rel="nofollow">$200,000 in U.S. money to renovate his guesthouse</a>. Witness names were withheld by USAID.<br /><br />The development program hired UNOPS to do the work and kept a 7% management fee, the report says. The finances were "out of control," an unnamed project services manager told investigators.<br /><br />An unnamed USAID contractor told investigators that the program was "ill conceived from the beginning. This was a political idea to do quick impact projects that would look good," the report said.<br /><br />Investigators found that projects reported as "complete" were actually so shoddily built that they were unusable, the report said....Investigators found that <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-14-un-probe_N.htm" rel="nofollow">UNDP withdrew $6.7 million from a U.S. line of credit</a> without permission in 2007, months after the project had ended. UNDP has yet to explain what happened to that money, the report says."...That the US isn't the only country giving taxpayer dollars to the UN doesn't change the facts. George Bush and others certainly sold us out before Obama came on the scene to do worse. Can't agree that Communist China is no worse. I've read quite a bit on that topic. The issue with Obama is he has spent his whole life believing the US is the root of all evil. One of the ways he is paying us back for this is to steer us into greater submission to the thugs, terrorists, billionaires, and dictators who run the UN. We the people hope Obama will be voted out on the next election.susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710989163705986252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692512066492263328.post-26754148681893660352011-04-28T10:18:11.022-07:002011-04-28T10:18:11.022-07:00Susan - we're not in the really such different...Susan - we're not in the really such different worlds, as you suggest.<br /><br />The US is not the only country that directs tax revenue to the UN. Nearly all countries do proportionate to their GDPs.<br /><br />That said, its a mistake to brand the UN as generically 'criminal'. <br /><br />The UN Security Council [UNSC - the bit with teeth] decisions [for better or worse] tend to endorse the policies of the UNSC members. <br /><br />Some of these have been viewed as 'criminal', but for a range of wildly conflicting reasons - the Iraq war being high on the list - so who do you trust?<br /><br />UNSC is a few countries only, and is unlike UN General Assembly [UNGA], which isn't criminal, its really just a bit of a toothless tiger.<br /><br />I agree with your comment about the 'emissions industry'. This has grown large and delivered little. <br /><br />However, politically that is notably because of the food-chain-dependence of a range of players who tend to make money out of problems per se, rather than actually resolving them.<br /><br />Barak Obama is no more of a problem for your country than any of his R/D predecessors. US Government is largely a function of Wall Street and as the recent financial crash shows, everybody's tax revenues are made available to rescue the banks. [Watch 'Inside Job'].<br /><br />It has been exactly the same story in the UK. <br /><br />The Chinese aren't any worse than anybody else, they're just bigger.<br /><br />Our basic problem is that global climate change is occurring. It is being driven by everybody's GHG emissions and these accumulate in the atmosphere and in the oceans.<br /><br />In the air that increased concentration gradually forces temperature to rise. In the oceans that increased concentration gradually turns them more acid, thus attacking the food chain.<br /><br />It is very serious and though this is now really well documented, Fred is still largely in denial about all this. <br /><br />Consequently, he has spared himself the effort of trying to resolve the inter-national quarrel about who is to blame, how do we put it right and who is to pay.<br /><br />The denial won't last, but sadly the quarrels will and so [unless that changes too] the problems will just get worse.Aubrey Meyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00520224179959993258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692512066492263328.post-63465072323361838792011-04-26T22:23:20.912-07:002011-04-26T22:23:20.912-07:00Thanks for your comment about Mr. Singer's art...Thanks for your comment about Mr. Singer's article. I'm afraid you and I are in two different worlds. A clean environment is something we all want, but the CO2 endangerment industry is something entirely different. First, the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-14-un-probe_N.htm" rel="nofollow">UN is a criminal operation, its employees immune</a> from prosecution. Isn't it a little insane that American taxpayers are still giving our hard earned dollars to them? The 'climate' or 'emissions' industry is a great success because it attached itself to the US taxpayer over decades without our knowledge. Disguised as 'saving the planet.' We have become aware of the global warming/climate/sustainables racket thanks to the internet. As you know, the 'climate' industry is infested with organized crime. Billions of hard earned dollars have been squandered through the UN, as is the nature of large, unsupervised groups. The US must completely extricate itself from the UN, but it won't happen with the current president. The Communist Chinese send soot and ash over to California all the time and aren't about to stop doing so. No matter how many more billions the UN gives them of US money to help them get 'sustainable.'susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710989163705986252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692512066492263328.post-88329956635313384872011-04-26T21:00:27.442-07:002011-04-26T21:00:27.442-07:00“Among the worst policies being pushed with the he...“Among the worst policies being pushed with the help of SD is a scheme called Contraction and Convergence (C&C). The idea is that every human is entitled to emit the same amount of CO2. This of course translates into every being on earth using the same amount of energy -- and, by inference, having the same income. In other words, C&C is basically a policy for a giant global income redistribution.”<br /><br />It is a pity that someone as expert as Fred Singer should be making statements like this. The entire basis on which his view rests is that there is no problem with climate change or the aggravation of it by human emissions from fossil fuel burning. <br /><br />C&C is not about ‘global income re-distribution’ it is about ‘global emissions pre-distribution’ subject to the limit that achieves compliance with the objective of the UN Climate Change Convention.<br />Mr Singer is entitled to his view. However, it is by no means one that is universally shared. For the considerable body of people, no less expert than himself for whom there is a problem with climate change and the emissions from humans burning fossil fuels that aggravate it, C&C is portrayed as a sensible way on which the world as a whole can come to terms to address and resolve this problem: - http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/endorsements_high_res_.pdfAubrey Meyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00520224179959993258noreply@blogger.com