Climate Corruption 101
Who would oversee this? Who would ensure that this Great Muddy of cash would flow to those in need, rather than lining the pockets of dictators whose regimes ensure that their countries remain “developing” but never actually develop? Who would report back to the public on cases of waste, fraud and abuse? Who would weigh the joys of doling out billions against the hidden costs of business lost and growth sacrificed to bankroll this new tax burden? The UN?
Not a chance. The UN is a collective, encased in immunity, prone to horrific waste and abuse, and likewise prone to endless promises of reform and transparency which never quite work out — because there is no mechanism to hold the UN to account, or require that its officials comply with their promises. Even the U.S., which contributes 22% of the UN’s core budget, pours billions into the UN system, and periodically tries to clean the place up, has scant luck. In the 193-member General Assembly, the U.S. casts only one vote. The General Assembly budget process is one in which the U.S. provides the biggest share of the money, and a majority of other states out-vote the U.S. in deciding how it will be spent. Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, having presided over the monumentally corrupt Oil-for-Food program, exited in 2006 amid a cloud of promises that the UN would begin providing full financial disclosure by senior officials, and a UN Freedom of Information Act. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon arrived in office promising full transparency and a system-wide independent audit. None of that ever happened.
Now we have the UN pitching plans — again — for taxes on world commerce that would pluck scores of billions directly from the private sector every year, and send this lucre through the skimmers of the UN system, to be reallocated as the UN might prefer. This would be the same UN system that annually hosts Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak from its main stage in New York; just put Syria on the committee that oversees human rights at UNESCO; and serves as home to powerful General Assembly voting blocs such as the Saudi-headquartered Organization of the Islamic Conference — with its self-serving campaign to impose a global gag on free speech. This would be the same UN where a few years ago a special task force began exposing massive corruption in procurement, and the UN response was to dissolve the task force. Whatever you believe, or don’t believe, about the who-what-why of climate, the UN is not equipped to serve as honest cop — and handing the UN the power to levy direct taxes in the name of “climate” is an invitation to change of a kind the world does not need.
Remind me again why:
a) we contribute to the massive assemblage of bureaucratic waste. fraud and mismanagement that is the UN,
b) we allow it to blight one of our largest and most productive cities.
b) we force that city to forgo multiple millions of dollars in lost tax revenues and shell out more than that to provide security services for it.
a) because we’re stupid.
b) because we’re sheep.
c) because we label politicians who want us out of the UN as “crazy”
I think this was the underlying lesson in the Tower of Babel story. The larger the assemblage is, the more corrupt it becomes. [I'd be surprised if this doesn't have a law and somebody's name attached to it]. It is certainly true of governments. The more resources available, the more are lost in corruption and waste.
Whether you’re religious are not, the Bible’s proscriptions are generally borne out by common sense and even science (as long as you’re not talking “concensus science”). One of the things that comes out several times is that “one world” governments are inherently evil. Whether it be the Roman Empire, the United Nations, or the one prophetized in Revelations.
A one-world-government would be a far larger example of what Soviet Russia exempified: they were in complete control of all information, hence they could do what the want in perfect secrecy, and then lie about it to their hearts content. And there people believed them: right up to the collapse.
Make no mistake, the greatest threat of the USA’s continuing slide into powerless third-world status would remove from the world what little transparancy it has: it would be an unmitigated disaster for civilization. (Britian and Europe are already irrelevant in this regard.)
Just looking at the AGW-fiasco: here is something that has been completely discredited, yet the machines of governments lumber onwards, unwilling to let a little thing like reality get in the way of its plans. Now imagine how much worse things could get – given how much (!) the little transparancy we have limits them. Then imagine those same politicos and beaurocrats doing whatever they want, as the mood strikes them, in an environment with even that tiny bit removed…
Agreed.
Psalm 2 has much the same message.
The more centralization, the more tyranny, and the less Godliness.
The Internet has resulted in a decentralization of communications, making it a bulwark against tyranny, doing the job that the “old media” has largely failed to do.
That’s brilliant. I agree, it requires not commitment to the religious ideals of said book. It can serve as just an ancient parable against central planning. And when they were scattered to speak different languages, it was God’s why of saying humans are best managed on smaller scales.
I hope the next Republican President has the guts to do what we should have done a long time ago – withdraw from the UN, kick it out of NY, and cut all US funding.
I would settle for a UN Ambassador who would use our veto as a permanent member of the Security Council every time one of these scams comes up. And also tell the rest of the General Assembly, to their faces, why.
If our next SecState turns out to be John Bolton (we can only hope), let’s find another scholar of the quality of Jeane Kirkpatrick to represent us at the UN.
clear ether
eon
The United Nations is obsolete and unsustainable…they failed at their assignment to gain world peace. The are given billions every year that they don’t account for. They receive from America almost triple our national budget and they are the sole reason Americans are told we are in debt…
Stop borrowing to give to the UN and watch how fast we get out of debt. Yet no person running for office has even hinted at this problem…the UN thugs in their desperation to survive have deceided to force the Agenda 21 on every town in America.
Never mind, thousands of citizens from the west will continue to purchase goats for Christmas, build schools, bring water to villages, clothe and feed the hungry sick and poor. While the corruptocrats fly to Switzerland to check on their accounts and do a shopping in Geneva and Zurich.
As long as the rule of law, property rights, and the free market don’t operate in those countries nothing will change. Like I said our charitable organizations will continue to be the only source of some comfort to those unfortunate enough to be born in such hell holes.
It does also provides those NGO’s and lefty useful idiots a way to feel good about themselves, thinking that by sending scads of money to those countries they are effecting change and doing good for all the worlds poor.
Kind of: but ‘free markets’ are not a good thing.
Consider China: it has people working at slave-labour rates. The effect of the ‘free market’ system REWARDS that system of abuse, and does so on a gigantic scale.
Consider China, Take Two: China spends a mere fraction of its income on infrastructure development (a bare minimum only). So its population of slaves live and die in misery.
Consider China, Take Two.Two: China spends most of its income on subsidising selected production sectors – this has the DIRECT effect of destroying those same sectors all over the world in other countries.
Of course, this is why China owns so much of America’s debt: a stick to use (ONLY against US politicians!) if it should dare to try and stop this insanity.
Countries that have corrupt leadership ‘gain’ by free trade: at the cost of their own people. That is a fact. America at one point was the entity that abused this system the most: now it has fallen victim to its own machanizations.
About 2.5 million jobs ‘lost’ in the USA, and about 2.5 million ‘new’ jobs created, by those same multinationals, in China. That is were they went: and that it is so is trivially obvious.
The view that there is climate warming due to human activities was shown some time ago to be a scam, popularly known as “climategate.” So why is the UN holding a conference about it? More corruption, no doubt.
I’m on board with everything in this article but that assumption is innaccurate. Climate change has been scientifically shown to be real numerous times. Don’t let your hate of a system I’m also disgusted by cloud your judgement on that.
Climate change has inheretly BECOME a scam by the corruptive influence of greedy politicians. However the evidence for actual climate change is gathered by non-biased often moderately payed scientists. The same organizations responsible for making sure the United States was the first country to the moon, and to have nuclear weapons.
As a chemist I have a moral responsibility to be skepticle. I don’t believe those who blatantly call climate change a “scam”, have any more of an interest in this countries well being then those who say were all going to die from climate change in some definite, obscenely short amount of time. I have personally reviewed some of the data from climate change studies, and I can tell you the evidence is there and conclusive. Something is happenning, and the connection can be easily drawn to the activities of men. However the primary sources, and urgency of the issue are inconclusive. Although as a personal note, I do believe something should be done, and less impactful modes of commerce should be freely explored without criticism.
Alfie,
Why not, “As a sex worker I have a moral responsibility to be ‘skepticle’”.
Do you know what contradiction is?
As a chemist, I have a moral responsibility to know how to spell ‘skeptical’. ( Chemists are notoriously bad spellers )
The climate change we are experiencing is the same climate change that has been going on since long before the advent of man. The AGW crowd is nothing more than a bunch of scam artists creating a fake crisis to rob us of our money and power so they can lord it over a helpless population.
“…non-biased often moderately payed scientists…”
You really haven’t been paying attention, have you.
5th column or useful idiot?
I would wear out the ‘H’ and ‘A’ keys of my keyboard typing the string of laughter required to adequately respond to your premise. So, let’s try this Hahaha∞
I think it is called agenda 21. Rule the masses through regulation of resources.
Of course, the UN does some good as with the WHO. But the question has to be: Are such “good works” an efficient use of largely US resources or can the same be done more efficiently by private enterprise or one or two countries? It is about time we faced the reality that most of the world’s governments are corrupt, tyrannical or both and this is reflected in the UN. Do we want to support and enable them? I say no and we should re-think our relationship with the UN.
Judging by his actions, Obama is fully on board and bringing Agenda 21 to us all. It’s that redistribution/Marxist thing that seems at the center of his core.
I do not think so it is therefore a waste and should be done away with. The cost benefit analysis tells me to sell and do so immediately!
There seems to be no greater future in this monstrosity that is actually a huge waste of funds except for everyone except the US of A.
“If there’s one constant to this entire climate debate, it is that in the name of “climate,” the United Nations wishes to regulate and tax the economy of the planet — stripping resources from the most productive economies to hand them out as assorted UN bureaucrats deem fit.”
This whole “global warming” idea was just another way to redistribute wealth from the richer countries to the poorer countries. Redistribute wealth. Hmmm, where did I hear that before? Oh yes, I know, Obama said that to “Joe the Plumber,” remember? And the redistribution of wealth is (to be kind) socialism, or communism if you live in places like China, Cuba, or Vietnam. This is the far-left’s way of bringing back communism, because, after all, who could argue with saving the earth, right? The mere fact that this “redistribution” would also destroy the economies of some of the largest nations on the planet is not important to the far left liberals. Too bad if you live in the United States and really too bad if you live in a coal producing state like West Virginia.
I’m glad this whole “global warming” debate is going down the drain. It’s about time. And if countries like China and India never had any intention of going along with this nonsense, why should we?
WE should withdraw from the U.N.
We never should have been in it in the first place.
We shouldn’t but will “go along with this nonsense” so long as Obama remains in office and supports EPA and DOE in their insane drive to stifle our coal energy production, our use of danger-free light bulbs, our importation of Canadian oil via pipeline and our own oil-drilling permits. Meanwhile, the whole rationale for much of the silliness is that otherwise our climate will warm further. Hasn’t anyone learned that there’s been no global warming in the 21st Century? Talk about deniers!
Yes Ben what you say is true but it has only been 10 or 11 going on 11 or 12 years out of a hundred so you just have to give it more time and possibly the predictions will come true in 50, 60, 100, 250 years or maybe not!
I am an American diplomat, in Durban and working the “climate” conference. If you could see and hear the blatant and repugnant money-grabbing that is taking place you’d be furious. It’s in every paper, on the news and no one is even coy about it. As for the fund they propose, the “developing nation” delegates announced earlier this week that the proposed $100 billion per year fund was too small. Some are now demanding at least $200-500 billion a year. I don’t know if that’s hit the American news orgs yet, or even if it will.
They can smell blood, and they want “their” money. And they aren’t even too embarrassed to phrase it differently. To just South Africa alone (a wealthy country), we already give $500 million a year for their HIV program, and this to a country that is spending $50 million this year on their President’s private country home, and every member of parliament is given a $100,000/year car allowance and a private residence. Is the US media reporting on this? At least I can report that our and Canada’s lead negotiators have publicly told the African groups that none of this is going to happen (only because they know that the House of Reps has effectively told them “no effin’ way”), and the 3rd worlders are furious.
Here’s my theory: When a rat-infested barn burns and falls to the ground, very few of the rats are killed. Most escape and just look for another rotten barn. When the old Soviet barn burnt to the ground, all of the socialist rats ran out looking for another barn, and they found it in the environmental movement. From someone stuck in the middle of this sick power-grab, I say to all Americans, and any others who will listen, beware these people in the environmental movement. They detest you, and want to bring you down. Never trust them with anything, and take away any power they have, if you can. And like all rats, they carry disease. This is what I’d like to be hearing from a mainstream Republican candidate, or even a Dem candidate.
Having worked in Africa as well and seeing the blatant corruption, graft in play in the ‘more industrialized nations’, there’s a saying amongst the hard working locals. ‘C’est l’Afrique’.
Indeed.
According to the UN, central planning of the global economy will control the global climate.
Say what?
Can someone please tell me what the correct “climate” is? Is it the climate from 2000? 1812? 1492? Exactly what are we trying to change our climate to? Last time I looked, the climate has been changing since….forever. Only now, we think we have god like powers to “stop climate change”. (we can’t agree on what’s causing it let alone eliminate it)
I routinely suggest to the hysterics who get all foamy in the mouth about this, that the best way to reduce their personal carbon dioxide footprint is to hold their breath for 1 hour. I just can’t seem to get any takers.
The Koch brothers, those left-wing radicals, funded a climate study which found – guess what? – that global warming was indeed a real phenomenon. For some reason, PJM hasn’t picked up on it.
Yss, very slight global warming is real, proving what exactly?
Anthropogenic global warming, however, is a pseudo-scientific scam.
Patriot493
Patriot493
1st – Most writing about their skepticism of global warming here on PJM mean Man Made or Anthropogenic Global Warming – (AGW), whether they mention it or not.
2nd – Global warming is not a Man Made phenomenon, it is a totally natural phenomenon, without which, it is likely that none of us would be here to write about. Earth has an atmosphere which gathers and traps the suns energy thus inducing a “global Warming” of approximately 15 degrees Celsius (59 F) on average for the earths surface temperature. The earth without an atmosphere and thus without “global warming” would have an average surface temp of about -18C (0 F). This is more scientifically known as the greenhouse effect.
3rd – It doesn’t matter who funds the studies as long as the terms are used correctly, the methodology is sound and one’s agenda is jettisoned at the door when analyzing the data.
4th – As walt b at comment 12 noted, what is the ideal earth temperature we should be aiming for?
5th – If CO2 is the major culprit in AGW, AND CO2 atmospheric concentration has been increasing steadily since at approximately the 1850’s, how do you explain the following:
a) What explains the overall decrease in surface temperature from about 1940 to 1980. (Temps increased around 2/10ths of a degree from about 1880 to 1940 when CO2 atmospheric concentration increased about 7%, decreased from about 1940 to 1980 by about 1/20th of a degree, increased from about 1980 to 2000 by about 5/10ths of a degree and has stayed flat or gone down just slightly since about 2000, while atmospheric CO2 increased by about 20% from about 1940 to present.)
b) Why hasn’t the temperature continued to increase the past 12 years as CO2 concentrations have increased?
c) Why don’t any of the AGW scientists acknowledge that CO2 atmospheric concentration is a trailing indicator of temperature change, not a leading indicator?
That’s enough for now, unless or until you can provide cogent answers to these questions.
Answers are simple: natural cycles always predominate e.g. AMO & PDO, various 60 year cycles, etc. Think of any warming signal as riding atop the cycle.
GW is real as is a bit of A (man) part via landscape use and CO2. So what. It’s not something to get riled up about. We’re not going to fry. There is no danger. The world will slowly get about a degree warmer in the next 100 years. For the most part this won’t be noticable. No we won’t get inundated with wild storms and frequent hurricanes. Those claims are crap designed to scare people. The reality is that it’s not the problem. The problem isn’t the *science* which is basically sound enough to get a feel for things. The problem is the politicians and as mentioned above the environmentalist whackjobs.
Climate change science isn’t a hoax. Lots of sober right wing science types are working on this. Climate change POLITICS is where the lie is. The enviro crowd wants to (ab)use the small truth of AGW as their excuse to exercise their will and make vassals of you. This is what you have to fight.
Claiming that climate change is a hoax is stupid. It disqualifies the claimant from serious discussion. You want to stomp the guts out of environazis, you have to do defeat them with the science.
I agree mostly with this, however, until people like Michael Mann and Phil Jones are ejected from respectable circles, there will continue to be questions about the integrity of the science. The Climategate emails pretty conclusively show that certain climate scientists are not committed to the scientific method. Mann’s hockeystick is bunk. Does this mean the world isn’t warming? No, the BEST study pretty conclusively seems to show that land temperatures have been increasing recently (but it also shows that warming has not been accelerating for the past 7 years, as many models predicted). Is CO2 affecting temperatures? Of course, but the current state of climate science does not tell us if CO2 was the primary driver of increasing temperatures in the 20th century. People who say “warming hoax” shouldn’t be taken seriously; neither should people who say “climate deniers”, or talk about conspiracies involving Steve McIntyre and oil companies.
I believe it’s possible to do climate science well. I don’t care one whit about the political leanings of scientists. I only care about the political leanings of people who are only pretending to be scientists long after they have abandoned science for activism and politics. I get a touch angry when such people presume me to be so stupid that I can’t tell the difference.
PJM covered it. Been there done that. Yep that study shows that climate changes but makes no link at all to human causes. The most interesting thing about the way that study was announced was the disingenuous portrayal of Richard Muller as a climate change skeptic. Apparently he never claimed to be such and is on record as far back as anyone cares to look as believing that man most likely causes climate change. That study made no reference to the anthropogenic aspect of climate change and in fact showed that there is global cooling since the end of the 90′s, but was spun to seem as if it showed the opposite. In a nutshell, they lied. That is why us skeptics continue to be skeptics….AGW proponents lie and mislead and obfuscate. Yep, there is climate change, nope, we aint causing it.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/25/briggs-on-the-best-climate-data/
Uhm.. I’ll go out on a limb and say you’re REALLY ‘a physicist’.
You leave a plethora of troll-like messages on pjmedia.
Not intelligible talking points or at the very least interesting comments.
But smarmy, go-nowhere opinion. Like ‘a physicist’!
You poor, unfulfilled person you.
Can’t be “a physicist”, didn’t mention Admiral Titley, von Neumann, or include emoticons
. Trust me, I can recognize Professor Bowtie’s writing from 100 paces. If we’re lucky he’ll tell us how much he loved Eisenhower!
Patriot493:
Koch brothers aren’t the rightwingers the democrats and their msm shills portray them as for propaganda purposes. So your attempt at being sarcastic by calling them leftwingers shows your ignorance or disingenuous.
And as pointed out above the study didn’t prove any connection between the warming (a warming trend which started 200 years before the industrial revolution) being tied to human activity. No study has. It’s nothing more than conjecture. These soothsayers base their models on one assumption at the exclusion of any other possibilities and distort or ignore any evidence that undermines their premise.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that everything the study found is perfectly accurate. The earth is probably warming.
Fine.
So what are we going to do about it? If we follow what most of these studies say, we learn that only drastic conservation might get us out of this morass. If I understand this right, we must follow what these fearless leaders say and apportion all carbon dioxide rights very carefully with a centralized government. Right?
Well, if you think I’m going to fall for that, you must be dumber than a day old rock. Centrally planned economies don’t work. Look through history and find even one centrally planned economy that lasted more than a century. This is not a long term solution that will work.
We have to engage in large scale terraforming. It is really the only way out of this problem. And to do that, we need better information, not the crapweasel stuff that passes for scientific study these days. We need real researchers who aren’t protective of their data sources and constantly trying to make it say something that isn’t there.
This redistribution model is soooo “fair.”
http://junkscience.com/2011/10/24/richard-muller-no-skeptic/
What’s ‘awesome’ about these 3rd World countries is most have the WORST representation when it comes to claims of AGW.
The Aussie News Network, BBC etc., give face-time to aid workers, not scientists mind you though empathy sells (look at Gaza) to the right people, to speak on how to improve their country’s poverty, infrastructure, commerce, well.. everything.
NEVER mentioned is removing their despot leader(s), cracking down on corruption, sexual education/awareness, improving their education system altogether or starting over, promoting self-governance/sustainability, becoming more knowledgeable in farming (Africa, India’s monsoons provide more than ample amounts of rain for a majority of their continent/country) or less reliance on UN and other handouts) etc.,.
Nope, it’s ‘more funding’. Yeah because it works so well to throw money in these money pits.
Every time the news host is saying good-bye to these ignorant yet sanctimonious interviewees they blurt out, ‘and a Global Tax to offset/fight global warming’.
It’s tragic yes though sadly expected from those who have no concept of science and paths to success.
Islamophilia, Political Correctness, Multi Cultism, ‘Elf ‘n’ Safety, Feminazis who irrationally just love Islam and Militant Gays ditto, the Green NAZI’s and their lies and SCAMS and the gullible, naive left wing moonbats who mindlessly support them all are what is destroying Western Democracy.
No mention of the Obama Administration’s reaction to the Durban confab but I expect they will be either openly or secretly supporting and encouraging it. Just too good an opportunity to pass up the possibility of opening a spigot of political money and increasing government control here at home. The distribution of any $100 from our pockets will be something like: $15 fed back to US Democrat party funds, $15 to fund our increased bureaucracy (that will actually cost the government $50 but they will borrow the rest); $50 to the UN elite and bureaucrats; $19 to the World Dictator Fund; only $1 to “CO2 Reduction Theater” here and there because they know this is really not a problem.