Email from UNFCCC: “we won’t let Canada out of the Kyoto Convention responsibilities”

People send me stuff… UPDATE: See below for another interpretation

Canada - making the other Kyoto signatories see red? Image - Wikipedia

Remember how this was phrased? “sign it, it’s just voluntary!”

Recall Rio 1992 “Earth Summit” where the meme was “hey, it’s voluntary!…with a negotiating schedule attached”. Apparently, like a Roach Motel, “countries check in but they can’t check out”. This email is from UNFCCC’s list server and note my bolded section below. The arrogance, it burns.

—–Original Message—–

From: globalmedialist-all <globalmedialist-all@lists.unfccc.int>
To: globalmedialist-all <globalmedialist-all@lists.unfccc.int>; germanmedialist <germanmedialist@lists.unfccc.int>
Sent: Tue, Dec 13, 2011 4:46 am

Subject: [UNFCCC medialist] STATEMENT BY UNFCCC CHIEF ON CANADA’S ANNOUNCEMENT TO WITHDRAW FROM KYOTO PROTOCOL

STATEMENT BY UNFCCC CHIEF ON CANADA’S ANNOUNCEMENT TO WITHDRAW FROM KYOTO PROTOCOL

The Durban agreement to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol represents the continued leadership and commitment of developed countries to meet legally binding emission reduction commitments. It also provides the essential foundation of confidence for the new push towards a universal, legal climate agreement in the near future.

I regret that Canada has announced it will withdraw and am surprised over its timing. Whether or not Canada is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has a legal obligation under the Convention to reduce its emissions, and a moral obligation to itself and future generations to lead in the global effort. Industrialized countries whose emissions have risen significantly since 1990, as is the case for Canada, remain in a weaker position to call on developing countries to limit their emissions.

I call on all developed countries to meet their responsibilities under the Climate Change Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, to raise their ambition to cut emissions and to provide the agreed adequate support to developing countries to build their own clean energy futures and adapt to climate change impacts they are already experiencing.

==================================================

UPDATE: There’s some ambiguity here in the announcement, upon further reading it could be interpreted that they are saying this:

“I see you withdraw from Kyoto but you are still legally bound to reduce emissions UNDER THE 1992 ‘VOLUNTARY’ RIO UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC)”.

So maybe it isn’t Kyoto they’re saying they can’t leave, but its parent treaty, Rio’s UNFCCC, which is the model for this Spring’s upcoming UNCSD ’12.

But that’s voluntary too, so how can a “voluntary” agreement be legally binding?


About these ads
This entry was posted in Durban Climate Conference and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

363 Responses to Email from UNFCCC: “we won’t let Canada out of the Kyoto Convention responsibilities”

  1. pwl says:

    Sieg Heil mein UN.

  2. edbarbar says:

    Let us grant the warmists they are correct in their warming predictions. Isn’t global warming good for Canada? Does Canada not have a moral obligation to take care of its people?

  3. Anthony Scalzi says:

    Hotel Kyoto-

    ‘You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.’

  4. John says:

    The whole show seems to be falling apart. Its about time too. This scam has taken too long and costing us money we could use to get the economy going again.

  5. Latitude says:

    Industrialized countries whose emissions have risen significantly since 1990, as is the case for Canada, remain in a weaker position to call on developing countries to limit their emissions.
    ===================================================
    How is this world did this get so upside down…..
    …and who is stupid enough to go along with it?

  6. Rúnar says:

    Hotel California – You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave!

  7. ChE says:

    They’re preparing a UN invasion force as we type. Dudley Dooright, come along quietly. And your horse, too.

  8. PaulH says:

    Oh my, a stern email. That’s bound to change Canada’s stance! /sarc

  9. Wow… There seems to be a lot of that “You Can’t Quit Us” thing going around! Maybe people will start opening their eyes to these governmental bodies and recognize them for the tyrannical kleptocracy that they are.

  10. Snort! One can figure that this kind of reaction was in the wind. The question is will we snub all of the tut-tutting? This will certainly cause synaptical implosion among the Green ethics klatch! Canuckistan forever!!

  11. crosspatch says:

    Who the heck does the UNFCCC, accessory to the greatest robbery in history, think it is to lecture people on moral obligations?

  12. Curiousgeorge says:

    I can just imagine Canada’s response to this. The middle finger salute comes to mind.

  13. Grant says:

    Really, what can UNFCCC do about it ? Nada!

  14. tw says:

    It is perhaps more than a little ironic that they would refer to these “agreements” as being moral. For a highly secularized, bordering on totally corrupt organization, that sounds alot like “jumping the shark” to me.

    Next up: mercury filled lightbulds and ethanol. Go Canada.

  15. Why don’t the enviros and their buddies just set up a “Climate Justice Fund” to pay off Canadia’s Kyoto penalties? I’m sure if you made it purely voluntary every good-hearted Canuckistanian would contribute (except those “first nations” wackos who would demand $2 for every $1 they dropped in the pot).

  16. LarryD says:

    You and what army, buddy…

    The Canucks don’t have a huge army, but it’s a real one.

  17. polistra says:

    Doesn’t matter. Unlike the EU or the WTO, Kyoto doesn’t have any way to enforce “legally binding” rules. There’s no Kyoto Army, nor even Kyoto Trade Sanctions. In the end it’s really voluntary.

  18. Peter Miller says:

    In the interests of saving energy, I suggest the Canadians give the UNFCCC chief one finger, not two.

  19. Joey B says:

    Memo
    To: UNFCCC
    From: Canada
    PFO.That is all

  20. John F. Hultquist says:

    I stand with Canada on this one. A government’s main legal and moral obligation is to deal with the security and well-being of its citizens. Who better to do this than the elected leaders? Certainly not the UNFCCC Chief #@$%XX#!

  21. JohnH says:

    They are not going to let go easily, one comment I have seen on Durban is ‘seems the best spin you can put on Durban is the activists kept their salaries for another year’

  22. Greg, San Diego, CA says:

    Once you join the “Climate Mafia” they do not want to let you out. Just keep running Canada, we are all cheering you on!

  23. R Taylor says:

    Whose bolding? Regardless, arrogant indeed, not to mention delusional.

  24. Sean Peake says:

    Dear UNFCCC. Take off, eh!

  25. Don R says:

    Canada must now stand on the naughty step in the corner.

  26. MMonce says:

    What “legal obligation”? Is the UNFCCC going to force a sovereign nation to abide by such a statement? Are they going to invade Canada to force them to abide by Kyoto? Inquiring minds want to know.

  27. James Sexton says:

    Hotel California?
    You can checkout any time you like,
    But you can never leave!

  28. Richard M says:

    “it has a legal obligation under the Convention to reduce its emissions, ”

    Does this apply to China and India as well? I can’t wait to see the “legal” action they will pursue.

  29. Arthur Dent says:

    If you sign a legally binding convention, without reading the small print you deserve to be shafted. The people negotiating these deals are supposed to be professionals not the archetypal “little old ladies” who can be sweet talked into investing their life savings in a ponzi scheme.

    I have never seen an international convention whose provisions were “only voluntary” what would be the point of that

  30. Allan M says:

    I think the second word of Canada’s reply should be “off.”

  31. So the UNFCCC has said Kyoto (a voluntary contract between countries) creates legal obligations whether or not a country is a signatory to that contract. If I sign a contract then it creates legal obligations on me. If I terminate that contract the legal obligations cease, unless there are clauses that continue after the termination. For instance an employment contract may have commercial confidentiality clauses that I, as an employee, agree to be bound by beyond that contract.
    For any party to imply that there are clauses in a contract that are not within the contract itself is at best dishonourable. The UNFCCC is morally bound to withdraw it. Without this, they cannot be trusted to form more binding and complex agreements in future, insofar as they may later compel signatories once in the agreement to take on further obligations.

  32. perlcat says:

    Gosh darn those obnoxious, disagreeable Canadians!

  33. ckb says:

    Stop! Or I’ll say stop again!

  34. AnonyMoose says:

    If Canada has only renounced the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, they perhaps should also withdraw from the UNFCCC.

  35. Leon Brozyna says:

    Baby steps. Let’s see countries start withdrawing from the UNFCCC.

  36. Eduardo Ferreyra says:

    Are they going to send UN blue helmests to Canada and drag its Prime Minister to the International Court of Justice inThe Hague and trial him as a war criminal… The levels of insanity are skyrocketing…

  37. The title and the understanding need correcting as they are conflating two things. There is no such thing as the ‘Kyoto Convention’. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1994) is adopted by 195 countries in the world but the Kyoto Protocol (1997) by only a few dozen. It’s quite possible to exit the Protocol but still be expected (as signatory) to uphold the Convention. Canada could, I suppose, remove itself from the Convention, but until it does it remains a signatory.

  38. Alan the Brit says:

    But peeps, that’s how the UNFCC/IPCC et al work – you contributed to the report, therefore you must have the recognition for it by having your name written in such a sly deceptive manner explicitly implying that you wholeheartedly agreed with everything written wthin said report!!!!!! I agree with Joey B & Peter Miller, nice :-) Oh how I wish Blighty could & would do the same. I recall Lord (what a great economist I was to predict the fall of Lehmann Brothers & the Global Financial crisis – not) Stern when he sadi we live in a global village, so we are bound to have a few village idiots! In my experience, the ones shouting the gloom & doom & the hulluballoo are usually they, & there are often more than just a few, & they’re often in high places!.

  39. squareheaded says:

    I regret that the UNFCCC has announced that it has sold its soul to the Devil, and that it has a legal obligation under its contract to increase its emission of deception, and an immoral obligation to coerce the inhabited world to fall down and worship Baal.

    I call on all individuals everywhere to meet their responsibilities before God, to denounce any and every totalitarian’s ambition to rule the world, and, according as you purpose in your own heart, to provide assistance to your neighbor to help them build their own tyranny free future, and to adapt to the ever changing, unrelenting assaults on freedom.

  40. Nick Shaw says:

    “Industrialized countries whose emissions have risen significantly since 1990, as is the case for Canada, remain in a weaker position to call on developing countries to limit their emissions.”
    Funny, I don’t think I’ve heard of industrialized countries, let alone Canada, calling on developing countries to limit their emissions, despite satellite data saying that developing countries are the main source of C02 in the world (and it is C02 we’re talking about here, not some amorphous “emissions”).
    I’ve only heard it the other way around.
    Well, if they think statements like that floats their boat, there really isn’t much water left in the pond, eh?

  41. Interstellar Bill says:

    Canada should zero out its UN contributions as well.

  42. Kaboom says:

    Time for Canada to put some of these schmucks on the no entry list.

  43. Paul Westhaver says:

    This exactly the reason why Canada must leave the UN entirely.

    Canada is a very rich and law abiding country essentially at peace with all nations (except a couple via UN resolutions). Canada is not well served by mixing it up with this rabble of no-good-inks.

    The UN is a cancer on the face of our great country and it is time to have it removed from our reality.

    The UN does not represent a moral authority, it wages war more than any country in history.

    To the UN… piss-off.

  44. albertalad says:

    I actually expected some blowback would follow over the next few weeks from various countries in more or less a round about way – and I really did expect the UN to go crazy. After all the UN’s first job in today’s world is to suck nations into sending them free money. Then full time condemning Israel is their next big priority. Everything else is a distant third after that.

    This is a good thing to have happened – for the first time this allows other nations, not only Canada, to see first hand the degree to which the UN believes that it has jurisdiction over sovereign nation states. And the degree to which sovereign states have allowed the UN to strip them of their own sovereignty. Something many of us here in the west have known for years and have long complained about – the insidious role the UN has played in stripping sovereign states of the sovereignty and in its place acting as THE world government body that all states MUST answer to. It is appropriate that Canada, in quitting the Kyoto accord, exposed the UN fallacy of becoming a UN member is anything BUT a volunteer organization. In fact – to even join the UN then said state agrees to tun over its sovereignty to the UN body which is comprised of 57 Muslins states and third world nations who then set the policy FOR every other nation.

    I say to the UN – %#&@ YOU!

  45. JEM says:

    While, frankly, I’ve never found Canadian English quite as, shall we say, expressive as the Australian or possibly even the US variant, I’m sure there’s a fair number of Canadians who can work up the right response to the UN kleptocracy.

  46. Steve C says:

    Given their various declarations that “this isn’t just about climate change anymore”, it seems strange that they drag the pretence that it is about climate back into it now. Or maybe the hydra-headed monster that is the UN just has trouble keeping track of what its various mouths are saying.

  47. Kaboom says:

    It will be interesting to see how Maldivian and Tuvalu assault troops under UN command will put Canada under their yoke to collect on those dues …

  48. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Dear UNFCCC Chief,

    You haven’t heard the best part. In addition to telling you idiots to get stuffed, we are also insisting that no money from our annual national UN fees will go towards anything or anyone associated with any part of the UNFCCC, Kyoto, the IPCC.

    In summary, [SNIP: language. -REP]!

    Best regards . . . . Canada

  49. Tain says:

    Canada has announced it is withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol, yes.
    But Canada is still a member of the UNFCCC. It has made a pledge to reduce its emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 under the Copenhagen Agreement. I do not believe that this is a legal obligation, however, as the Copenhagen Agreement was voluntary.

    Aside from that, this letter appears to be spin, put on the situation to try to save face as the UNFCCC is revealed to be powerless to prevent this, and is thus humiliated by Canada’s unilateral action.

  50. Robmax says:

    If they don’t like that then our next announcement should be that we’re getting out of the UN, period.

  51. Dudley Robertson says:

    On what basis does the UN rest their moral judgments?

  52. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Time to stop funding the UN as it is taking a hostile position towards Canada.

  53. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Uh-oh, now the UN will act to impose economic sanctions against Canada.

    How ever will Canada survive without bailout money from the International Monetary Fund?

    I think Canada should show their disapproval by withdrawing all their troops from Iraq by the end of the year. It’s the right thing to do.

  54. John West says:

    This is one of the things that disturbed me from the beginning of CAGW conjecture. It breeds animosity toward the west and depression among the gullible. Exaggerating climate change is not a victimless crime.

  55. DJ says:

    We now know who the world’s mafia really is, it’s the U.N.
    You can join, but you can’t quit. And even if you quit, you still have to pay.
    It’s your moral obligation to be extorted.

  56. HankH says:

    What legal obligation? What right does the UNFCCC have to extend the Kyoto Protocol and tell Canada they’re legally obligated when Canada only signed up for the initial term and makes it clear they don’t agree to an extension? It seems the UNFCCC has adopted tyrannical rule.

  57. Joe says:

    Latitude – “How is this world did this get so upside down…..
    …and who is stupid enough to go along with it?”

    It should be obvious at this point that the only countries that are really keen on Kyoto are the countries at the narrow end of the funnel.

  58. Snake Oil Baron says:

    You should hear the state media and cultural elite hyperventilate up here. It would be hysterical if so much of the public didn’t get their news and their opinions from that same elite via a daily deluge of propaganda.

    Now if we could only get our government to withdraw us from the UN entirely so as to help more people start questioning this body’s legitimacy, motives and right to exist.

    That’s probably far too much to hope for.

  59. Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta says:

    Our Prime Minister is an Economist. One doesn’t need a degree in economics however to understand the logic of the Canadian position. To wit; attempting to comply with Kyoto was costing Canada’s government and industries +/-$6 billion annually. This money will stay in Canada, instead of being shipped to developing nations via the UN, and fund research and development of clean emissions technologies, water treatment technologies, land & water remediation technologies, medical sciences, etc, etc.

    Exporting those new technologies and techniques will be a far, far greater thing than could ever be produced by UN funded welfare.

    Canadians are the ultimate pragmatists.

  60. Jan says:

    Aside from that, this letter appears to be spin, put on the situation to try to save face as the UNFCCC is revealed to be powerless to prevent this, and is thus humiliated by Canada’s unilateral action.

    Yes, and it’s about time something humiliated them.

  61. Richard deSousa says:

    How many pages is the Kyoto document? If it’s anything like Obama Care with thousands of pages, the UN could have hidden the “no exiting” clause somewhere in the document. Rather duplicitous, I’d say.

  62. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Dudley Robertson said on December 13, 2011 at 10:14 am:

    On what basis does the UN rest their moral judgments?

    The undeniable overwhelming consensus of its credentialed peer-accepted members, same as with Climate Science™.

  63. Reed Coray says:

    If I were Canada, my message to the UNFCCC would be:

    ______________* you! Nasty note to follow.”

    * Fill in the blank with whatever expression of contempt might get through to the UNFCCC bozos.

  64. Brilliant. If only a few more governments in the west had the guts to send the Greenpeace ecoterrorists and their hanger’s on packing. Kyoto had no science underpinning it and UN “agreements” are not binding on anyone, though Amnesty International and one or two others have dragged these into UK courts and argued that since the government signed them they are “legally binding” as “International Law.” This appears to be the same delusion on the part of the UNFCCC Chief …

  65. FerdinandAkin says:

    This could be more than serious. Should Canada proceed with its intentions to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will be forced to impose drastic sanctions.
    This can only lead to Canada being excluded from participation in the Global Carbon Exchange markets.

  66. higley7 says:

    Er, . . if Kyoto 1.0 expires, and a new agreement is needed, then all Canada has to do is not sign the new agreement. If Kyoto 1.0 has power after it expires, all of these countiries are being had, big time.

  67. Paul Westhaver says:

    Anthony,

    It may be in the common interest of the USA and Canada to cease funding the UN. The solution to this whole debacle of UN promoted climate science fraud is a child of the UN itself.

    With a threat of it very existence the UN may be willing to be more reasonable. But I don’t care… walk away from the UN… walk away walk away.

    Anthony, imagine that there is no UN. Would you have a reason for this blog? The science liars would still be lying but they would not have the amplification of the UN.

  68. Athelstan says:

    UN spetsnaz – Ban Ki Moon’s praetorian guard, made up of crack special forces from the Maldives and Tuvalu, are at this moment preparing for a daring invasion of Canada, using ‘blitzkrieg’ tactics and pansy diversions. Canada, those perfidious Canucks have attempted to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol, general Raj’ Pachauri, was quoted as saying; ” there can be no reneging, the die is cast, the science is settled and the new UN world order will assert itself militarily if that is a requisite counteraction!” blah…… whatever…………………….. .

  69. Theo Goodwin says:

    Latitude says:
    December 13, 2011 at 9:27 am
    Industrialized countries whose emissions have risen significantly since 1990, as is the case for Canada, remain in a weaker position to call on developing countries to limit their emissions.
    ===================================================
    “How is this world did this get so upside down…..
    …and who is stupid enough to go along with it?”

    The UN and the Left in the US employ moral reasoning which holds that each person is responsible for all persons, that each state is responsible for all states, and similar matters. The entire discussion of AGW by AGW proponents has taken for granted this moral theory. However, this theory is repugnant to anyone who believes that morality addresses moral interaction among rational actors. It is also repugnant to anyone who accepts the Constitution of the USA. In fact, it is repugnant to anyone who believes in the sovereignty of nations.

    This moral thinking seems to have had its start in the radical utilitarianism of Peter Singer who teaches at Princeton. Back in the seventies he published an article in an ethics journal which argued, for example, that when my teenage son asks for new track shoes I should consider his needs against those of teenagers in Somalia or anywhere. Apparently, if he has sons they are not track stars because he sent their track shoes to Somalia or somewhere.

    At some point, this moral thinking will have to be met head on. I know that such discussions will bore to tears readers of this blog. However, that is part of the fight that we are in.

  70. Frank K. says:

    Anthony Scalzi says:
    December 13, 2011 at 9:26 am

    Hotel Kyoto-

    “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

    Carbon emission ceilings
    Melting polar ice
    And the IPCC said…”You are all just prisoners here…of your own device.”

    [apologies to the Eagles]

  71. Leo says:

    I spent 8 years in the forces and can think of a number of suitable retorts to those interfering bureaucratic sponging bastards in the UN who feel they can ‘tell’ Canada how to run their country.

    A selection to ponder (suitably asterisked for the faint hearted)

    “Get f*****d!”
    “Stick you f****** agreement up your A***!”
    “Go f*** yourself!”

    There are plenty more but I think you get my drift

  72. dp says:

    Here we have a classic case of impotence and a toothless bite. So it seems appropriate that Monty Python has addressed this nicely:

    Pass the shrubbery, please.

  73. Torgeir Hansson says:

    Come on guys, this is not so hard. The UN is simply strenuously reminding Canada of its non-binding obligations.

    At this level of international cooperation, the shame tactic is the last tool left in the box. No one in the UN expects it to have the slightest effect, and the Canadian government will send them a nice communiqué that is a little regretful yet hopeful that talks can continue and so on and so forth, just so everybody can still be friends.

    I for my part am not too hard on the enviros. They have a right to their opinions, and to try to build action around them. And I don’t think you can argue that the West shouldn’t try to be a little helpful in the old colonies. We left a bit of a mess in many places. (Never mind the climate nonsense, I’m thinking about things like getting the kids vaccinated and educated and so on.)

    But what happened with Canada is what happens when a Western country looks at the climate invoice, and sees the nine or ten zeros.

  74. David says:

    “Industrialized countries whose emissions have risen significantly since 1990, as is the case for Canada, remain in a weaker position to call on developing countries to limit their emissions.”

    I agree. On behalf of all Americans, I would like to notify all developing countries that we have no expectations that you limit your emissions. Please reciprocate. Or not. We don’t care.

  75. Jeremy says:

    When the American’s invaded we burnt down their White House. Nobody dares threaten Canada. This bureaucrat is a complete fool.

  76. Iggy Slanter says:

    U.N. uber allies.

  77. Scarface says:

    The UNFCCC, the Undemocratic Neo-Fascistic Climate Change Conmen, coming to the rescue of their multi-billion dollar scam…

    I hope Canada will tell them what they REALLY think of this impertinent lecture, so the rest of the still free world will soon say it too.

  78. Torgeir Hansson says:

    I am a little puzzled by talk about dissolving the UN.

    Unless this forum is full of thirteen-year olds with no sense of history, it should be unnecessary to remind people that the U.N. was founded by the United States, in the United States, as an instrument for international collaboration, BECAUSE IT IS SO DAMN EXPENSIVE TO SEND AMERICAN BOYS AND GIRLS TO DIE IN SOME GODFORSAKEN PLACE WHEN A WAR BREAKS OUT!!!!!

    The IPCC needs to be gutted, no question. But don’t give me this nonsense that the UN should be dissolved. Crack a history book. Learn about places like Normandy, Iwo Jima, Birkenau, Bastogne, Hiroshima, and Kursk. Until you have done so, don’t bother me with this dissolution talk.

  79. R. Shearer says:

    Oh “H” “E” “double hockeysticks.”

  80. Gary Hladik says:

    It does seem more likely that the statement applies to the UNFCCC, not Kyoto. No worries, just withdraw from UNFCCC, too. Assuming the US also signed, it should withdraw, too, in a gesture of hemispheric solidarity and international amity.

    Who knows, maybe this could lead to withdrawal from the UN itself. One can only hope.

  81. John A says:

    Climate disruption? Blame Canada
    Hockey Stick busted? Blame Canada
    Sea levels not rising? Blame Canada

    I think its patently obvious that Canada is leaving the UN IPCC party, and I call on all Canucks to get behind their Prime Minister, crack a Molson and say “Climate change eh? What’s that all aboot?”

  82. squareheaded says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:52 am

    And I don’t think you can argue that the West shouldn’t try to be a little helpful in the old colonies. We left a bit of a mess in many places. (Never mind the climate nonsense, I’m thinking about things like getting the kids vaccinated and educated and so on.)

    You did? You personally pay for it yourself then, if you are so morally bound. How did your parents neglect to teach you to speak just for yourself?

  83. Klaus Kaiser says:

    Desperate times – desperate moves
    From “Green Bubblings” ( http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43172 ):
    …the green bubble has burst.

  84. Leo says:

    David: above… That says it all

  85. alan says:

    “There is no compulsion in Climate Religion!”

  86. squareheaded says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am

    I am a little puzzled by talk about dissolving the UN.

    Thanks for explaining your predilection for totalitarianism. You may move to your favorite Communist country any time you wish.

  87. dcardno says:

    …the U.N. was founded by the United States, in the United States, as an instrument for international collaboration, BECAUSE IT IS SO DAMN EXPENSIVE TO SEND AMERICAN BOYS AND GIRLS TO DIE…

    And just how has that been working out lately?

  88. “Whether or not Canada is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has a legal obligation under the Convention to reduce its emissions,…”

    According to the National Post:
    At the time the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, Canadian per-capita annual greenhouse gas emissions stood at about 22.5 tons carbon-dioxide equivalent. That rose moderately under the Liberals (to about 23 tones), and then moderately decreased under the Tories (to about 22 tons).

    “‘Kay. Done. See ya.”

  89. klem says:

    From what I gather, under Kyoto Canada would owe billions annually to other nations to offset their carbon emissions.

    Well you know what they say; if I owe you $10,000 that’s my problem, if I owe you billions then thats your problem.

    Go Canucks!

  90. hunter says:

    This position by the UNFCCC will have the net effect of driving more countries out of the entire climate scam process.
    When leaders realize that their nations have actually compromised their sovereinty over this pile of bs, we will see the exit doors getting crowded.
    After Durban, the latest failure of the AGW movement to take our money in the name of climate control failed, it is time to find a new meta-phor to describe the lurching, increasingly ominous process the UN climate bureaucrats have created.
    I think “Zombie” is a spot on metaphor. It describes a living dead process: dnagerous, destructive of life, unintelligible and hard to kill.
    Canada is now under attack from climate zombies.
    So how does one stop zombie attacks?
    A metaphorical head shot is what it is going to take to stop the climate zombie monsters.

  91. crosspatch says:

    Well, if the UN believes something is “legally binding” let them send their police. I seem to remember a certain US President who once had the Supreme Court rule against what he was doing. He continued anyway saying something along the lines of “The Supreme Court has ruled, now let them enforce it” and he did what he pleased anyway. From another blog out there on the Internet:

    In 1832, the US Supreme Court ruled that the state of Georgia could not impose its state laws upon Cherokee tribal lands.

    The decision, rendered by Justice John Marshall, declared the forced removal of the Cherokee Nation to be illegal, unconstitutional and against treaties made. President Andrew Jackson, who had the executive responsibility of enforcement of the laws, stated, “John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.”

    The federal law affected by the decision was the Indian Removal Act, which formed the genesis of the “trail of tears,” the eviction of most Cherokees from eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina and northern Georgia to Oklahoma.

    Ok, so the UNFCCC has ruled. Let them send their police.

  92. Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta says:

    The UN is merely trying to copy on a world-wide scale, the “Equalization Program” initiated in Canada by Maurice Strong and Pierre Trudeau to transfer wealth from the “have” provinces to the “have-nots”. The UN views all countries of the world as “provinces” and is seeking to put Maurice Strong’s Equalization policies to work, under the tutelage and mentoring of none other than Mr. Strong himself.

    Canadians have already worked-out that this Equalization Program is bad not only for the “Have” provinces but also for the “have-nots”. Like any other welfare program that penalizes hard work and success and rewards sloth and inefficiency, it breeds less of the former and more of the latter.

    Canadians across the country have determined that they want to be “Haves” too and over the past 30 years have concluded that prosperity and happiness doesn’t come in the form of a government cheque. Stephen Harper’s government is the first Canadian administration to implement policy based on this reality.

  93. David Howard says:

    I am hoping Canada have had proper legal advice before taking this step. Of course EU membership and Kyoto/UN climate contracts are not legally binding. Binding the future is considered a technical impossibility outside a contract, and even then a means usually exists to buy your way out of every single contract on earth with mutual agreement.

    But in this case you cannot openly or subtlely attempt to force the treaties on anyone, even an attempt to do so illegally is an act of treason and treachery and only displays the true nature of the UN as wishing to remove individual state’s authority and replace it with their own. Hopefully once they attempt to bind Canada with no legal force more spectators will wake up and realise the way things are going. A world carbon tax, and ultimately replacing currency with carbon credits, which last a year and become void. That is all documented and ignored by the media besides a single known article.

  94. Luboš Motl says:

    Was this authored by Christiana Figueres, the boss of UNFCCC from Costa Rica? She’s been one of the 3,000 people personally trained in Al Gore’s eco-terrorists training camps.

    If that’s her, wouldn’t it be appropriate at least to label Costa Rica and/or Latin America black on the map of guilt? ;-)

    The lady was probably just angry so she wrote a legally nonsensical hate mail to the world.

  95. Owen says:

    The next time the head of the UN visits Canada they should arrest him and charge him with fraud. Global warming/Climate change is a scam !

  96. JEM says:

    Whatever the UN might have been thought to be at its founding, and whatever role it may have played in the early Cold War era, for the last three decades it’s ‘matured’ into little more than a postgraduate program for third-world kleptocrats looking to step up to a global role.

  97. crosspatch says:

    There is no signature on the email presented here. The problem with a mailing list is that practically anyone who can configure their own mail server can make a message appear to be from whomever they choose it to appear to be from. That fact seems lost on some people. I am not denying that message went out but not saying who is actually responsible for sending it means I can’t place any trust in it. Did the message have a digital signature? Whose?

  98. Dr Burns says:

    Where do they intend to take Canada to court ? In Canada ? What if Canada doesn’t go ? Does the UN wage war on Canada ?

  99. Terry says:

    We all need to understand that this goes deeply within the United Nations various bureaucratic arms. Countries around the world must stand up to and reject the IPCC, the UNFCCC, The UNEP, the UNDP, the UN WMO, etc. We need a concerted international effort to shut them down entirely. That is why I advocate countries de-funding the United Nations entirely. As much as the UN had potential to do good, it also had the potential to descend into a cesspool of radical movements and causes, and it obviously has done just that with the global warming scam. we have to understand the bigger picture beyond a few climate scientists and nip this in the bud. D-fund the UN, let it wither away to nothing.

  100. Luboš Motl says:

    Otherwise yes, what she meant was the 1992 Rio convention

    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Convention

    which established her UNFCCC and which is clearly described as being legally non-binding, imposing no limits and having no enforcement mechanisms. But there’s no contradiction. She didn’t claim otherwise. She has just screamed that Canada has signed an empty piece of paper in 1992 in Rio which is why the UNFCCC’s Costa Rican boss may send Canada an equally vacuous e-mail about obligations and moral duties to itself and the future of the Milky Way that really mean zero.

  101. Nigel S says:

    More Bates Motel than Roach Motel it seems to me.

    Well, I don’t figure I’ll be back
    There for a spell
    Even though Rita moved away
    And got a job in a motel
    He still waits for me
    Constant, on the sly
    He wants to turn me in
    To the F.B.I.
    Me, I romp and stomp
    Thankful as I romp
    Without freedom of speech
    I might be in the swamp

  102. Dieter says:

    A “non-binding obligation” is like being voluntold what to do.

  103. DirkH says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am
    “The IPCC needs to be gutted, no question. But don’t give me this nonsense that the UN should be dissolved. Crack a history book. Learn about places like Normandy, Iwo Jima, Birkenau, Bastogne, Hiroshima, and Kursk. ”

    So you imply Hitler and his allies would not have dared to start a war had there been a UN? Yeah sure, Hitler would have so p***ed his pants.

    Maybe it’s you who needs a history book; if you manage to find one, look up the League Of Nations, and maybe the Treaty Of Versailles.

  104. Steeptown says:

    It’s the same in all these unelected bureacracies. Barosso, chief and unelected commisar of the EUSSR tells the UK elected PM what he cannot do.

  105. Lance says:

    To quote(and change) a famous quote said during WWII…

    from the Canadian People to the UN…..NUTS….

  106. Juraj V. says:

    To quote one Generalissimus, “How many divisions has that UNFCCCC?”
    Just a curiosity, Canada used to have the second biggest Navy in WWII.

  107. Snotrocket says:

    ‘UN peuple, UN royaume, UN chef’

    Canada can make us free.

    (Not too heavy, I hope…)

  108. Jim says:

    It’s time to classify the UN as a terrorist organization.

  109. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Torgeir Hansson on December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am:

    The IPCC needs to be gutted, no question. But don’t give me this nonsense that the UN should be dissolved. Crack a history book. Learn about places like Normandy, Iwo Jima, Birkenau, Bastogne, Hiroshima, and Kursk. Until you have done so, don’t bother me with this dissolution talk.

    You need to know about Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and review the Cold War and the skirmish wars in Korea and Vietnam. The UN was formed to prevent another all-encompassing World War. But now that we have nuclear bombs, virtually all the countries are too scared to start anything massive. The nukes do what the UN was supposed to do.

    And now the UN is sitting back, impotent, as Iran and North Korea pursue nukes, as well as a bunch of others undoubtedly. It’ll be up to other individual countries to stop them, as possible. This will include Israel stopping Iran, for which the UN will agree on yet another action condemning Israel. However, as things are going, soon lots more countries will have nukes, and the way things look as soon as one starts using them then everyone will be using them, in defense… Which will highlight for everyone that the UN was even more worthless than generally thought, and the UN will be forgotten/dissolved as the world picks up the pieces.

    Really, the main purpose of the UN has become to be a forum for all those little countries to voice their complaints, which 99.5% of the time reduce to complaining that the more-developed better-off countries need to cough up the support to help them out. With 0.5% being complaining about Israel, and somewhere in the rounding error is what’s passably real work that can be better done with standard one-on-one agreements between countries.

    The world has enough diplomats, there’s enough foreign aid and charities about, and the wars will all be limited and brief until the large glowing one that won’t. The world will get along just fine without the UN.

  110. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Curiousgeorge says:
    December 13, 2011 at 9:32 am
    I can just imagine Canada’s response to this. The middle finger salute comes to mind.
    —————————————————————
    Joey B. said it well enough, although Sean Peake’s reply was much more Canadian.

    As a Canadian I can tell you we don’t like being threatened by bureaucrats. The mostly likely response will be to quietly ignore climate change twice as much as we did before. And work a little harder selling our oil sands to China. Welcome to Canada.

  111. Cold Englishman says:

    Think I might take a couple of weeks holiday in em………………… where shall I go? errrrrrrrrrrrrr how about Canada!

    Yes, that’s where I’ll spend my dough, in wonderful and hospitable Canada. In some parts they even speak English. Come on you people out there, show your appreciation by taking a vacation in Canada. For those of us left in Englandland, we have the perishing Olympics to put up with next year, so the place will be unbearable, so don’t visit here, you’ll be ripped off for sure. Let the drug artists strut their stuff alone in Stratford, let’s all go to Canada.
    p.s. for the uninitiated, Stratford is the area where the games will be, (I had a car nicked there once, while I was actually standing next to it), and it’s a long way from London, and will cost you an arm and a leg to get there, get in and get out again. Check the crime figures before booking.

  112. paul says:

    James Sexton says:
    December 13, 2011 at 9:48 am
    Hotel California?
    You can checkout any time you like,
    But you can never leave!

    My fear:
    They stab it with their steely knives,
    But they just can’t kill the beast.

  113. Chris B says:

    Is this announcement today a coincidence or UN payback for not toeing the line?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/12/13/pol-un-aboriginal-women.html

    I hope it’s coincidence.

  114. John West says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    “The IPCC needs to be gutted, no question. But don’t give me this nonsense that the UN should be dissolved. Crack a history book. Learn about places like Normandy, Iwo Jima, Birkenau, Bastogne, Hiroshima, and Kursk. Until you have done so, don’t bother me with this dissolution talk.”

    I am well acquainted with the history and have family that fought in those places, IMO, the UN has abandoned its original directive and has set its sites on being the global government. The UN is poorly organized for such a function being that there are no checks and balances, no population weighted representation, etc. Therefore, I would either disband or severely downsize the UN if it were up to me.

  115. Ian E says:

    Sounds like Gore (the other one!) Vidal’s book ‘Duluth’ – with the subtitle, ‘Love it or loathe it, you can never leave it or lose it’! Also, one of those nightmare sci-fi traps where you have entered a strange topology that allows you in, but, once in, all routes out just lead in again.

  116. John Conner says:

    “Voluntary”

    ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’

  117. Markon says:

    I’ve sent a letter of gratitude to Peter Kent, Canada’s Environment Minister.

    I also asked for Canada to sue the IPCC (and all the lying NGO’s that supported them) for fraud.

  118. Kindle Kinser says:

    crosspatch says:
    December 13, 2011 at 11:25 am
    Well, if the UN believes something is “legally binding” let them send their police. I seem to remember a certain US President who once had the Supreme Court rule against what he was doing. He continued anyway saying something along the lines of “The Supreme Court has ruled, now let them enforce it” and he did what he pleased anyway.

    —–

    Not true:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

  119. Theo Goodwin says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Sir, today’s UN is controlled by the communist avante garde. They are the chief threat to world peace.

  120. Nick Shaw says:

    @ Luboš Motl -Indeed Christiana Figueres is the Costa Rican head of the UNFCCC. She’s the sister of Jose Figureres former president of Costa Rica now hiding out in France to avoid prosecution for illegal kickbacks during his term.
    Huh, the whole family is in the scamming racket it appears!

  121. maybe a tad off topic but have we all seen chicken little? Green Climate Fund – that would mobilize $US100 billion in cash transfers from the developed to the developing countries. The details of both the new binding treaty and the fund were left for later.

    http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/the-sky-is-falling/

    Definitely the only ones who will really benefit will be those who cry wolf…… and canada has taken a huge leap forward by showing they know this and are pulling out . We could be so brave PLEASE in Ozzy , fire Julia and follow Canada’s lead…….

  122. More Soylent Green! says:

    Progressivism at its best.

    All international agreements are voluntary. Nations have sovereignity, and must agree to be bound by any laws, treaties, protocols, etc. That’s why the Geneva conventions don’t apply to terrorists, or North Korea or Iran.

  123. Theo Goodwin says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    December 13, 2011 at 11:54 am

    “As a Canadian I can tell you we don’t like being threatened by bureaucrats. The mostly likely response will be to quietly ignore climate change twice as much as we did before. And work a little harder selling our oil sands to China. Welcome to Canada.”

    Today’s Canada is the old USA! I’m moving.

  124. JEM says:

    So she’s sending a demand letter that is for all practical intents and purposes a piece of Nigerian spam.

    FROM: CHRISTINA FIGUERIES CHAIRMAN UNFCCC
    TO: STEPHEN HARPER PRIME MINISTER CANADA

    SUBJECT: UN PAYMENT

    GOOD DAY MISTER HARPER. I REPRESENT THE VERY IMPORTANT INSTITUTION AT THE UNITED NATIONS AND I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE WORLD SAFE AND BREATHABLE.

    IT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT YOU MAY WISH NOT TO PROVIDE THE SUM OF FORTY-SIX POINT FIVE BILLION DOLLARS (USD46,500,000,000) IN PAYMENT OF YOUR NATION’S DEBT TO THE WORLD CLIMATE.

    I WISH TO REMIND YOU THAT WE AT THE UN UPON RECEIPT OF YOUR NATION’S PAYMENT OF FORTY-SIX POINT FIVE BILLION DOLLARS (USD46,500,000,000) WILL REIMBURSE THE NATION OF CANADA WITH THE VERY VALUABLE DEED TO MANY MILES OF BEAUTIFUL COASTAL REAL ESTATE IN THE MALDIVES.

    I IMPLORE YOU MISTER HARPER NOT TO LET THIS OPPORTUNITY PASS.

    SINCERELY

    CHRISTINA FIGUERES
    CHAIRMAN
    UNFCCC

  125. Torgeir Hansson says:

    Theo Goodwin says:

    “The UN and the Left in the US employ moral reasoning which holds that each person is responsible for all persons, that each state is responsible for all states, and similar matters. The entire discussion of AGW by AGW proponents has taken for granted this moral theory.”

    It has nothing to do with collectivism. But when you have a high smokestack on your factory, and you pollute the surrounding area, you are responsible for one hell of a lot of things, including the health of children living downwind.

    Where we agree is that CO2 poses no threat to anyone. In cases where there is a whiff of CFCs, PFCs, mercury, benzene, toluol, and the list goes on, different story.

  126. Levick says:

    PM Harper survived almost 5 years with a minority government in parliament, built a strong single party of two small conservative parties and won a majority. Look what Canada accomplished in Durban by first floating the Kyoto dropout, then the call-out on China and India. We Canadians changed the direction of the Durban love-fest into something other than a continuation of Kyoto. Our announcement yesterday was just icing on the cake. I think Harper’s response to threats or bullying by UN thugs will be- Make my day.

  127. Cassandra King says:

    Now let me see, who has more democratic legitimacy to decide upon issues of national sovereignty and national interest?

    Its a hard choice isnt it? A democratically elected government of Canada or a wholly unelected utterly corrupt UN? After much consideration I choose the former. An organisation that allows rabid psychopaths like Imadinnerjacket/Mugabe/Assad to have a say and membership is an organisation that needs to be taken out and destroyed. If you could name the greatest danger to the planet and the peoples who live on it, it would have to be the UN.

    Now lets have a look at the UN, corruption and thievery rule that roost, secrecy and stunning incompetence by panjandrums and apparatchiks and gravy riding bureaucrats who have somehow got it into their warped little minds that they are the up and coming and rightful supreme world government, I dont know where these deluded bozos got that idea but there they are just itching to take over the role of dictator. No need for elections or a democratic process eh? Naah, its far too cumbersome and the little people are too uneducated to make the right choices, far better to let a select and shadowy small group of elitists take power, much more streamlined and what could possibly go wrong?

  128. Torgeir Hansson says:

    Theo Goodwin:
    Please stick to the topic here, which is a discussion of climate change and the politics surrounding it. I get a violent headache when I have to read about “communist avant grades,” “chief threat to world peace,” and similar utterances.

    What I love about WUWT is that the forum is mostly very low key from a political standpoint. It is unavoidable that some politics are discussed, but I can’t help but retch when I run into neocon conspiratorial theories.

    The UN is not the Antichrist. There is no communist around every corner. Hell, there are hardly any communists left in the world. Even Raoul Castro is opening the doors to private property on his little island, and China is worried about how to tax its billionaires, just like we are.

  129. davidmhoffer says:

    Gotta love it!
    Do you know what they just did?
    They just pushed all the Canadian CAGW fence sitters off the fence…onto our side. We never gave Michael Mann permission to use hockey sticks for anything except hockey, so we’re not in a good mood about the whole thing right off the hop. But try and cross check us into the boards and tell us we gotta just take it? You’re risking a bench clearing brawl that spills into the stands just for the fun of it. What are they going to do? Issue a resolution? How about a binding resolution? How about a security council binding resolution?

    They’ve been so effective in Iran, Middle East, North Korea, East Timor, Myanmar, Somalia, Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia….

    Go ahead and try. We’ll show you what to do with a hockey stick….

  130. Old Mike says:

    If the UNFCC thinks the Canadian Government made this decision without first getting an extensive legal opinion they deserve the ridicule that this response will bring down on them.

    Mike
    A happy Canuck

  131. Steve In S.C. says:

    Or as a very eloquent general once said “NUTS!”.

  132. davidmhoffer says:

    “The UN is not the Antichrist”

    Yes it is. Or maybe something worse.

  133. R Taylor says:

    The statement doesn’t merit serious response, but FWIW:
    1. Canada has already reduced emissions, which means compliance with any definition of voluntary;
    2. If Canada has a moral obligation, it could be to use resources in a way that keeps people from starving or dying of preventable disease. Last time I checked, I hadn’t noted noted too many bureaucrats without enough food, shelter or medical benefits. If take resources from the hungry and sick however, and divert them to ego-trips like saving the planet from plant food and self-dealing institutions, more will die.

  134. davidmhoffer says:

    “There is no communist around every corner. Hell, there are hardly any communists left in the world.”

    Yet, oddlly, I meet them every day. I read their articles in newspapers and magazines and blogs and listen to them on TV news programs advocating incessantly for communist practices and limitation of capitalism and free market economies. Is there perhaps only one or two of them and they are just really really really really busy?

  135. Jay Davis says:

    Hey Hansson, looks who is running the UN now. The US and Canada may not be perfect, but they are far above the likes of Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, Cuba, Venezuela and all the other oppressive regimes that now make up a large part of the UN. Look at the countries making up the current UN Human Rights Council. What a joke! Time for the US to get out and have the UN move it’s headquarters. The Canadians are doing the right thing r.e. all this CAGW bs, time for the US to do the same.

  136. If this E-mail is authentic it may be the start of questioning the climate convention text. This is proposed by Roger Pielke Jr. in his book “The Climate Fix”.
    Read the first two pages of the convention and you will understand the difficulties our politicians are in.
    Link:
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

  137. Torgeir Hansson says:

    DirkH says:
    “Maybe it’s you who needs a history book; if you manage to find one, look up the League Of Nations, and maybe the Treaty Of Versailles.”

    Dirk, my headache is coming back. The Treaty of Versailles was the reason we got WWII. The League of Nations was the attempt by good people after WWI to increase collaboration in the world and perhaps avoid it.

    What does that have to do with the UN being formed in San Francisco in October 1945, on the ruins of the League of Nations, to bring nations together to TALK before they bring out the guns?

    Yes, it is a toothless organization, yes it is expensive to run, yes, many times foolish things are decided upon at the UN. But at least, through the UN, nations talk, and maybe it helps, and maybe we are learning enough to avoid another world war. It’s cheap insurance, and please don’t harass me with any communist conspiracies. They are so so very old.

  138. dwright says:

    All I see is a majority parliament and a smart PMSH showing the rest of the world how to tell fascists to shove it.

  139. How on earth can a commitment to a voluntary non-binding aim to reduce atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases be posed as a legal obligation under the Convention to reduce emissions is beyond me. Are these people mad or just can’t think clearly?

  140. astrodragon says:

    I realise that Canadians are polite, reasonable people who may not have access to the necessary words to reply to the UN demands properly.
    Therefore as a Brit I will be happy to help them..liven up..their reply.
    I’m sure my Australian friends would be happy to chip in as well…

  141. Torgeir Hansson says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Yet, oddlly, I meet “communists” every day.

    Your idea of a communist is anyone who wants to limit anything about the activity of any free market or anything else for that matter. That makes you an anarchist.

    You live in a world of make believe. I live in the real world. When you choose to live in the real world, I’ll be happy to talk to you. In the meantime, happy trails.

  142. Rodzki says:

    When, at the 1992 Earth Summit, they said “It’s voluntary”, did they also say “No Pressure”? If so, I fear someone at the UN may be reaching for the red button as we speak, and the rest of the world’s nations will soon have Canada’s splattered remains all over their clothes.

  143. JEM says:

    The UN has done nothing to prevent superpower war. That proved to be an economic battle between the US and the USSR and – well, so far at least – the US managed to win that one. For now. Fingers crossed.

    As for everything else…well, UN peacekeeping works about as well as just about anything else that’s bought from the lowest bidder. Ask the Haitians. Canada’s prided itself on its involvement in the blue-helmet stuff, ask General Dallaire how well that worked in Srebrenica.

  144. Hoser says:

    If you look, you’ll find the US income tax is also “voluntary”. Just try not paying it.
    http://www.fff.org/freedom/0500a.asp

  145. Kitefreak says:

    Will there be UN sanctions and a no-fly zone over Canada then?

    All countries should get out of the UN. European countries should get out of the EU.

    Countries need to stop going along blindly with the insanity (the Maldivian MPs scuba signing should have been a wakeup call to many people).

    Well done Canada. Really well done. Nations, especially in a time of ‘austerity’, have every right – and indeed duty – to review their expenditure relating to ‘optional’ clubs they may pay membership fees to. Tightening the belt and all that. Getting out of the UN, EU, IMF, World Bank, WTO, WHO, etc. subscriptions would probably save any nation quite a whack on their annual budget. Who are all these people anyway? I don’t remember voting for them to run my country and my life, down to telling me what kind of light bulb I can have in my living room (EU resident).

  146. albertalad says:

    The Harper Government backs down from NO one on this planet. Least of all the UN – in which the UN and Harper have clashed head together over Canada’s entry on to the Security council. Canada was refused directly because of the Muslim nations (because Harper stood up for Israel and refused to back and now supports Israel stronger than ever) and their EU friends ganging up on Canada and voted in Portugal instead. BTW, the US under Obama refused to back Canada and sided with their Muslims fiends.

    Harper merely put that little scheme on the shelf for later use – and BOOM! PAYBACK! Directly in the heart of the UN itself – money and climate – their direct money making tax scheme! The Witch is DEAD, baby! Hot diggity damn – And here’s to YOU EU – PAYBACK! Now YOU lot are stuck with YOUR climate taxes – Now that’s what I call Alberta JUSTICE!

  147. Bruce Cobb says:

    No problem, they just need to withdraw from the UNFCC:

    “Article 25
    WITHDRAWAL
    1. At any time after three years from the date on which the Convention has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from the Convention by giving written notification to the Depositary.
    2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
    3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having
    withdrawn from any protocol to which it is a Party.”

    The only “moral obligation” Canada has is to do what is best for its own people. I hope the U.S. does the same.

  148. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Torgeir Hansson on December 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm:

    (…) There is no communist around every corner. Hell, there are hardly any communists left in the world. (…)

    These are not the communists you are looking for. They are merely Progressive Liberals demanding social justice through government-supported jobs, housing, food, clothing, and medical services, paid for by equitable and just wealth redistribution.
    –This message provided by Obama/Biden 2012, “Continuing to Build a Stronger Amerika”

  149. davidmhoffer says:

    Torgeir Hansson;
    It’s cheap insurance, and please don’t harass me with any communist conspiracies. They are so so very old.>>>

    Cheap?
    Do you have any idea how many billions per year it costs the free world to fund them?

    They’ve stated plainly that CAGW is no longer about climate, it is about wealth re-distribution, but they aren’t communists?

    They’ve stopped how many wars so far since they came into existance? (I’ll help you with that one, itz the key just to the right of the “9” on your main keyboard, if you are using the number pad it is dead centre right at the bottom).

    How many genocides have they prevented? ooooops! SAME ANSWER!

    How many times have they issued a binding resolution telling warring parties to cease and desist, and the warring parties have listened? ooooops! SAME ANSWER AGAIN!

    The UN “talks” while millions die in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Darfur. They “talk” while Iran builds nukes and sends teenage girls to death for talking to a boy. They talk while North Korea starves itz own people to death. They talk while China eradicates centuries old communities.

    If itz cheap you want, then that’s what the UN is giving you. Cheap talk.

    But they charge you a few billion a year for it.

  150. Dodgy Geezer says:

    “…I regret that Canada has announced it will withdraw and am surprised over its timing. Whether or not Canada is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has a legal obligation under the Convention to reduce its emissions…”

    Dear UNFCCC Chief,

    Thank you for reminding us. We withdraw from that as well.

    Yours, etc

    Canada.

  151. Torgeir Hansson says:

    Jay Davis:

    Who was it who said:
    “If you want peace, don’t talk to your friends. Talk to your enemies.” That is the entire principle behind the UN. Sit down, take your meds if you need to, and ponder that.

    And you mentioned five little countries, out of 200, that you consider to be the ones in charge at the UN at this juncture. I will let you in on a secret: the superpowers, such as they are, are in charge of the UN: the U.S., Russia, China, England, and France. Those are the permanent members of the Security Council. Here are the non-permanent members:
    Bosnia and Herzegovina
    Germany
    Portugal
    Brazil
    India
    South Africa
    Colombia
    Lebanon
    Gabon
    Nigeria

    See a lot of communists, Jay? A lot of Islamic fundamentalists?

    The first campaign to get the US out of the UN was run by the John Birch Society in 1959.

    Are you a member of the John Birch Society, Jay?

  152. morgo says:

    when katla volcano in iceland erupts are they going to slap a $4,200,000,000,000,100 bill for green house gas emissions on iceland

  153. johnnyrvf says:

    @Torgeir Hansson 10:49 am; Kursk was the biggest tank battle in history, it happened 280 miles south of Moscow near the city of Kursk in the then Soviet Union in july and august 1943 between Russian and German forces, what has it to do with U.S. operations of the same period?

  154. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:52 am
    ……………….. I for my part am not too hard on the enviros. They have a right to their opinions, and to try to build action around them.

    ==================================================================
    Yes, the Envirobots have a right to their opinions. But they do not have a right to force them on others.

  155. Ed Scott says:

    It is notewirthy when a amoral organization speaks of moral obligations.

  156. Ben Hern says:

    Ooooooh! The toothless old incompetants at the United Nothing-doers say they won’t let Canada get away with binning the Kyoto line of credit?
    Seriously; so what? I’ll bet Canadian’s everywhere are cacking their trolleys about it (but only if they’re laughing too hard).

    Based on historical precendent, just what are the United Nothingdoers actually going to do about Canada’s sudden implementation of common sense aside from huffing and puffing and blowing more hot air into the atmosphere? Probably the same nothing the United Nothing-doers actually do when a third world dictator starts mowing down the nieghbours.
    Maybe they’ll write a sternly worded letter to the management, maybe they’ll issue a piece of printed toilet paper (UN Condemnation) or maybe they’ll send the Maldives rapid reaction farce into the den of the evil Canadian tar sands industry in Alberta wearing sky blue crap hats on a ‘peace enforcement’ mission? (and those grandstanding morons will in all probability take their bat and ball and go straight home once they find out how Gullible Warming has impacted SCUBA tourism in Alberta).

    If I were in charge, I’d stop paying Canada’s annual donation to the United Nothing-doers tomorrow in the face of their arrogant attitude, citing the United Nothing-doer’s abject failure in every single venture* they undertake as proof of a very poor return on investment.

    *I suspect the United Nothing-doers keeps reinventing itself periodically as a save the children, save the culture, save the reffo’s rights, save the planet etc agency in order to try and find something they don’t cock up completely and then hope we all forget that their raison d’etra is to save the world from war; and in that capacity they are demonstrably utterly useless.
    Just as well that by the time the sky blue crap hats had finally arrived in Dili to go souvenir shopping, the InterFET peace enforcement mission had already sorted the sh!t fight out.

    Instead of making futile petitions to MPs about carbon (dioxide) taxes, we should have been petitioning them to get us the bloody hell out of the United Nothing-doers all along; which would probably be just as futile with the feeble insipid excuse for leadership the western world (outside Canada) suffers from currently.

  157. Ray says:

    If the Third World does not wants to wait to have cheap energy, Canada will be glad to sell them Tar Sand Premium at a competitive price.

  158. Outtheback says:

    It is not the checking out or the leaving that the UN is concerned about, it is the payments they don’t want to miss.

  159. Jerry says:

    Dear Canada, I didn’t run to you to evade the draft during Nam but I will run to you to help defend against the invasion of the UNFCCC enforcement force.

    Regards
    Jerry

  160. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Torgeir Hansson on December 13, 2011 at 12:51 pm:

    (…)
    Yes, it is a toothless organization, yes it is expensive to run, yes, many times foolish things are decided upon at the UN. But at least, through the UN, nations talk, and maybe it helps, and maybe we are learning enough to avoid another world war. It’s cheap insurance, and please don’t harass me with any communist conspiracies. They are so so very old.

    So you agree it’s pretty much worthless, but argue it should be retained despite the multiple costs due to the Precautionary Principle? Very interesting…

  161. JEM says:

    Mr Hansson – yes, you could argue that Versailles begot Hitler, but a lot went on in between, and of course by 1938 Germany (indeed, most of Europe) was economically well ahead of the US in terms of climbing out of the 1930s hole.

    The proximate cause of WWII was the Allies – in particular, the French – failing to enforce the terms of Versailles, stopping the Germans when it would have been trivial to do so – notably with Czechoslovakia and the Rhineland. War is bad, except when the alternative is worse.

    The present UN has been taken over, more or less, by blocs of enrichez-vous kleptocracies doing their best to pick the pockets of the West. China’s corrupt as hell but you have to admire their ability to keep their eye on the ball, push their own economic advancement in Africa and elsewhere while they keep the Third World ducks pecking everyone else.

  162. KenB says:

    The world had a dream, the United Nations would end war and install eternal peace, the dream and reality is that you now must send more money, or we will bombard you with relentless emails threatening ever increasing pressure, exclusions, back payments, membership dues, to fund our fat cats and face increased wailing from those who thought they “might” get something for nothing.

    Invasion, fight, nah! remember all those “UN Forces” that sat clutching blue helmets in their bunkers away from those they didn’t protect, while atrocities were committed against the unprotected……yes the send more money emails, with dire threats and imagination, scary predictions, threats of exclusion from the club, but they won’t put their heads above the parapet till someone else pays and actually fights instead – send the money and we will allow you to keep dreaming.

  163. Gary Mount says:

    There is a great deal of evidence that it is capitalism that has prevented wars, and not the existence of the UN.

  164. Henry Phipps says:

    Gosh, this affords me an opportunity to practice my new translation skills, just recently acquired from the website YouCanLearnDowntownJive.com.

    Canada to the UN: Sucka, I ain’t yo’ b*tch!

    Your multilingual friend, Grampa

  165. d_abes in Saskatoon says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:52 am

    And I don’t think you can argue that the West shouldn’t try to be a little helpful in the old colonies. We left a bit of a mess in many places. (Never mind the climate nonsense, I’m thinking about things like getting the kids vaccinated and educated and so on.)

    Last I checked, Canada IS one of the old colonies.

  166. d_abes in Saskatoon says:

    Jean Chretien, the PM who signed the accord in 1997, piped up with this nugget today in a fundraiser:

    “Unless we are bold. Unless we seize the moment. Everything we built will start being chipped away,” Mr. Chrétien wrote in a fundraising email circulated on Tuesday. “The Conservatives already ended gun control and Kyoto. Next may be a woman’s right to choose, or gay marriage. Then might come capital punishment. And one by one, the values we cherish as Canadians will be gone.”

    He forgot to mention torturing kittens.

  167. 4 eyes says:

    I’m not taking sides here but if Canada agreed to do something in 1992 then it should do it. If they never agred to do anything then fine, they are free of obligation

  168. Mike from Canmore says:

    This is how Taiwan sees it or at least some Taiwanese Animators.

  169. Red Jeff says:

    Our old Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau had the proper response for this to the UnfCCCP…. fuddle duddle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuddle_duddle

  170. Curiousgeorge says:

    @Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    Hate to break it to you, but deadly combat (warfare) on large and small scales is a necessary ingredient for biological and cultural evolution. Without it, cultures and ecosystems become stagnant and collapse. Look around; even plants and insects engage in intra, and inter, species deadly conflict for the purpose of seeing to it that their specific dna and social structure survive and prosper. To assume that humanity is somehow exempt from the laws of natural selection is foolish and arrogant.

  171. Marion says:

    Kitefreak says:
    December 13, 2011 at 1:04 pm
    “Getting out of the UN, EU, IMF, World Bank, WTO, WHO, etc. subscriptions would probably save any nation quite a whack on their annual budget. Who are all these people anyway? I don’t remember voting for them to run my country and my life, down to telling me what kind of light bulb I can have in my living room (EU resident).”

    It would and we didn’t!! Take the EU Lisbon Treaty for example – there are over 500 million people in the EU and only the politicians got to vote on it, on what is in effect a political gravy train, oh except for Ireland of course, where because of its constitution the people were given a referendum and guess what – they voted NO! That should have been the end of the Lisbon Treaty but no, that’s not how the EU works, the people of Ireland were made to vote again after much propaganda, promises and threats.
    The EU has no real democratic legitimacy – our politicians have betrayed us.

    So friends on this forum please BEWARE. Exhausted delegates agreeing to last minute vaguely worded treaties is exactly the same methodology the EU has used so successfully and always, always, the treaties have been interpreted very much in the EU favour at the expense of the national sovereignty of its members. And one last thing try typing in the name of your local council along with Agenda 21 – you may be surprised at just how much the UN has already imposed on local planning!! (also an EU resident).

  172. Casper says:

    It’s not a war against the climate change. Here, the fighting for money and employment in the green industry is going on.

  173. AndyG55 says:

    hmm, just wondering how the US would respond if the UN tried to enforce their will on Canada.

    Could be interesting.

  174. Steve Oregon says:

    The Durban agreement to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol represents nothing but the continued delusion of relevancy that KYOTO hold outs are clinging to. Reiterrating our earlier announcement Canada will no longer be a party to any Kyoto pretense of legally binding emission reduction commitments or any new push towards any agreement in the future.

    I regret that UNFCCC is attempting to dictate to Canada any obligation, under the Convention, or morally, to reduce its emissions. Furthermore Canada will not be participating in any efforts to call on developing countries to limit their emissions.

    I call on all countries to abandon the Climate Change Convention and its Kyoto Protocol entirely and to proceed towards building their own prosperous futures. No country is or should be bound to reduce emissions under the now defunct UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC).

    I further call on all fossil fuel producing countries to push for accelerated advances in clean fossil fuel technology to allow the vast global amounts of available coal, oil and natural gas to provide cheap energy and advancement well into the next century’s energy sources.

  175. D. King says:

    U.N. Trek The wrath of Kyoto

  176. Dave says:

    Anthony. As A Canadian I’m proud to say well done To the Conservatives, And I can assure you the UN WONT GET A DIME!

    OT.Re Roach Motel.
    Your reference to the Roach Motel set me back to 1982 when we Canucks would drive down to Hood river, Oregon for some of the best windsurfing in the world, We rented an old house (and many more over the years) it was well known as the Roach Motel, full or roaches (both kinds) and for years we had a ball, Windsurfing on those huge rolling swells, big down wind runs for 20 + miles into the desert working the swells over and jumping for hours on end. On none windy days some of the best mountain biking. (I Live in North Vancouver also great riding) I have ever done with unbelievable vistas, mountain views and scenery and the cheap golf courses that were a dream.
    The Guys living in the Roach Motel are the ones that painted a huge clowns face on a giant bolder across from Hood river and named it Bozo Beach because so many people would end up there and have to climb 60 or 70 feet up a railway embankment to get a ride home.People would ask how can I get to Bozo Beach LOL.
    Thanks for the memory.
    Dave.
    “The Hood River current has a tendency to force downed sailors to the Washington side for an involuntary visit to Bozo Beach. Nasty biz.

    http://www.rowenashores.com/top20/hrsailpk.htm

  177. TRM says:

    With $13 billion the Canadians can develop LFTR technology and be ahead of the curve on nuclear tech (again). The heavy water Candu design was good for its time but getting a bit old now. You can do a lot of good with $13 billion.

    PS. While the Canucks are a polite lot I would not want to be the collector trying to enforce this UN mandate.

  178. Korwyn says:

    “But that’s voluntary too…”

    You keepa usin’ dat word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
    – h/t Inigo Montoya

  179. TRM says:

    ” ChE says: December 13, 2011 at 9:28 am
    They’re preparing a UN invasion force as we type. Dudley Dooright, come along quietly. And your horse, too. ”

    Didn’t Canada just repeal their long gun (hunting rifle) registry? Hmmmm. I wouldn’t want to be on that UN invasion force.

  180. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Hey Anthony!

    I went looking for that email, I found this post copied in its entirety, as well as other WUWT posts, and those from Bishop Hill, Junk Science, even Minnesotans For Global Warming, all ripped off including all graphics:
    http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1060440670
    It’s a bulletin board, some posts broken up into several comments.

    Most distressing/amusing, the offending commenter may simply be using the following as his sig, but it ends all the comments and doesn’t reflect well on the content as it’s untrue:

    DISCLAIMER: Reader discretion advised. The above post is entirely fictional, for entertainment purposes only. Any similarities to real life events, animals, humans, persons, politicians, or any other form of organisation entity living, dead or in any other state of existence are coincidental. Any opinion, comment or statements related or attributed to this username are not necessarily nor implied to be those held by the ip/computer/username or other electronic media device or service owner/user.

  181. davidmhoffer says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:59 pm
    davidmhoffer says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:45 pm
    Yet, oddlly, I meet “communists” every day.
    Your idea of a communist is anyone who wants to limit anything about the activity of any free market or anything else for that matter. That makes you an anarchist.
    You live in a world of make believe. I live in the real world. When you choose to live in the real world, I’ll be happy to talk to you. In the meantime, happy trails.>>>

    For starters sir, do not presume to tell me what my idea of anything is. If you want to know, just ask, and I’ll tell you. Put words in my mouth, or lecture me from atop your high horse as to what I think or what I believe, and you do no more that flash your ignorant arrogance in all itz splendor for all to see. Accuse me of being an anarchist, and you do nothing more than display your intent to cast the words of others in poor light that you may discredit them without addressing directly the actual issues at stake. Such are the tactics of those, who have no logical arguments at their command, resort to when attempting to assert their beliefs on others. Of course, that is their tactic of choice when they lack power. When they seize power, they simply banish those who speak against them to gulags in Siberia, or the bottom of deep holes covered in again with dirt. Or they simply machine gun them to death in Tiannamin Square. Which flavour of “I’m not a communist” do you subscribe to?

    Once can only ask, if your royal highness is so secure in his pontifications regarding the “real world” why it is that he cannot answer the actual arguments I and others have raised about the ineffectiveness, expense, and rampant corruption of the United Nations, and their abject failure regarding every global mandate they have ever undertaken. (My apologies, but skimming billions off the food for oil program into their own pockets doesn’t count as a success for the rest of us) Is there something you fear about engaging in the actual issues that prompts to you make baseless accusations rather than answer the actual charges?

    And you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of living in a fantasy world? Sadly sir, if I lived in a fantasy world, then you wouldn’t exist. But I live in the real world where cowards wrap themselves in cloaks of morality and haughtily accuse others of being sinners.

    Happy trails yourself sir. Just make sure none of them cross mine.

  182. Gary Mount says:

    There was a woman in Ontario that had her house stolen from her because of a collaboration between a bank and a real estate agent. She was able to dip into a fund that was set up for such situations as this fraud, but she still didn’t think this was right and due diligence should have been conducted by the bank so she pursued this matter and had the laws changed.
    This Kyoto thing that our ancestors agreed to was based on fraudulent science and there is no way in Heck that Canadians will allow fraud to win the day.

  183. More Soylent Green! says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:45 pm
    “There is no communist around every corner. Hell, there are hardly any communists left in the world.”

    Yet, oddlly, I meet them every day. I read their articles in newspapers and magazines and blogs and listen to them on TV news programs advocating incessantly for communist practices and limitation of capitalism and free market economies. Is there perhaps only one or two of them and they are just really really really really busy?

    You encounter them every day — do you work in academia or the major media?

    Seriously, they call themselves progressives now, as if implementing Mussolini’s economic vision is progress.

    ~More Soylent Green!

  184. davidmhoffer says:

    TRM;
    Didn’t Canada just repeal their long gun (hunting rifle) registry? Hmmmm. I wouldn’t want to be on that UN invasion force.>>>

    Invasion force? Aren’t they just over the border in New York? Armed to the teeth with pens and paper in the hands of well trained accountants and lawyers and administrative staff? Oh yeah, I forgot, they can recruit from all their member countries. I heard they can raise 2 million soldiers armed to the teeth. Let me check.

    OK, I’ve done an inventory. We’ve got 18 fighter jets, some with ammunition. We’ve got 112 tanks, some that still run. We’ve got 6 helicopters, all of which run, as long as not more than an hour at a time. Oh, and we’ve got 60,000 troops. Some of which are in Canada. Let’s see….2 million UN troops, recruited from all those nations demanding hand outs because its our fault that their people are starving….

    OK, I see the problem.

    Where the heck are we going to put 2 million deserters when they surrender before the shooting starts?

    Hey, I know. We’ll declare them refugees, and make the UN feed them.

  185. squareheaded says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    I get a violent headache when I have to read about “communist avant grades,” “chief threat to world peace,” and similar utterances.

    “communists are a chief threat to world peace”
    “communists are a chief threat to individual freedom”
    “communists are a chief threat to self-determination and liberty”
    “communists are a chief threat to national sovereignty”

    Does it hurt yet? Is it going to explode? You really did not have to read that. Nobody made you.

    I can’t help but retch when I run into neocon conspiratorial theories.

    The UN is part of a vast totalitarian conspiracy.
    The UN is part of a vast totalitarian conspiracy.
    The conspiracy is populated by members of almost every imaginable political party. The conspiracy is coordinated by the god of this world, who has blinded the minds of those who believe not.

    Do you have enough towels to clean up the mess?

    The UN is not the Antichrist. There is no communist around every corner. Hell, there are hardly any communists left in the world.

    The trouble with Torgeir is that, as a thirteen year old child, his parents forgot to spank him. Or his parents were communist cult members. Or UN delegates.

    When you are raised by Communists to be a communist, nobody is a communist. Everyone is a comrade. There is only one thing you can trust Communists to be – Communist; that is to say, liars and a thieves.

    He certainly doesn’t know who the Christ is, so how could he possibly know what an anti-Christ is?

    Torgeir, deliverance is available, but you must ask…humbly.

  186. Kitefreak says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    December 13, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    From Torgeir Hansson on December 13, 2011 at 12:51 pm:

    (…)
    Yes, it is a toothless organization, yes it is expensive to run, yes, many times foolish things are decided upon at the UN. But at least, through the UN, nations talk, and maybe it helps, and maybe we are learning enough to avoid another world war. It’s cheap insurance, and please don’t harass me with any communist conspiracies. They are so so very old.

    So you agree it’s pretty much worthless, but argue it should be retained despite the multiple costs due to the Precautionary Principle? Very interesting…
    ———————————————
    People like me who are against a one-world government run by the elite global banking cartel think that there could, possibly, be another way to run the world, if only we could get rid of that elite banking cartel which runs the world.

    How can this be achieved? It’s harder than a Rubik’s Cube or Chinese arithmetic. Does my head in.

    Reading UN documents may cause synaptic implosion. If affected consult your physician.

  187. Chris B says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    Oh yea, watch this.

  188. Barry Brill says:

    Why is the UNFCCC named “a Framework”, if it is actually a fully-drafted legal treaty with dotted ‘i’s and all?

    And it says nothing whatever about quantities. Just a ‘best endeavours’ obligation to reduce something from BAU. Should do the trick if Canada buys in some compact light bulbs.

  189. albertalad says:

    If anyone and especially the UN is even thinking of their troops forcing Canada to do anything – in advance we thank you for the added fertilizer – send more.

  190. My dog Kyoto was run over says:

    d_abes in Saskatoon says: Jean Chretien, forgot to mention torturing kittens.

    —–

    Didn’t Chretien like to get Dion’s dog Kyoto to attack kittens all the time?

  191. syncrodox says:

    I guess steely knives are out of the question…hockey sticks and hakapiks it is then…

  192. Bebben says:

    As there is no “legally binding” agreement, me thinks these words were deliberately chosen to put Canada in a bad light internationally, to “discredit” it in classical Team-style. And since there can be no legal enforcement, this armwaving is designed to put pressure on the remaining faithful Kyoto states and/or the wannabe Kyoto bureaucrats in other countries. And of course, it’s always nice to have a scapegoat when the edifice comes tumbling down.

    Bonne chance Canadiens!

  193. Kitefreak says:

    Somebody already put of this whole thing up onyoutube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXh4VDZsI8

    Including footage from Resevoir Dogs and the track “Woke up this morning, my Kyoto was dead”.

  194. Goldie says:

    I suspect what they mean is that, Industrialised Countries have caused so much damage in terms of sea level rise and extreme weather and climate refugees and all the other things we hear about every day such as the Earth spinning off it’s axis and the sky falling in that the UN now believes that there’s a prima facie case for legal reparations. Enviros have always resorted to legal threats when they can’t get their way. Either way that would make the UN a global ambulance chaser.

  195. Grant says:

    Bebben, you didn’t get that quite right— “Good Luck Canadians/Bonne chance Canadiens”
    (I learned to read French while I ate my breakfast cereal)

  196. Werner Brozek says:

    “4 eyes says:
    December 13, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    I’m not taking sides here but if Canada agreed to do something in 1992 then it should do it. If they never agreed to do anything then fine, they are free of obligation”

    You raise a good point, but let us consider this hypothetical situation. Suppose you went to a doctor with a bad fever in 1992 and the doctor told you that you had a very serious illness and the fever would burn you up within six years unless you underwent a very costly and risky $500,000 operation. Then suppose you agree to it in good faith. Then suppose there were delays for one reason or another and the fever subsided on its own and you saw another doctor who said you were misdiagnosed in the first place. Would it be morally wrong for you to tell the first doctor in 2011 that the fever stopped going up and that you no longer want to have the risky $500,000 operation?

  197. DirkH says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm
    “The UN is not the Antichrist. There is no communist around every corner. Hell, there are hardly any communists left in the world.”

    My landlord in Hamburg said “Marx was right with everything.” Does that make him one? (Hint, hint, history book again: Look who wrote the Communist Manifesto)
    (My landlord took rent nevertheless; even though he didn’t believe in personal property. But one can hardly blame him, as the revolution has not succeeded yet in Germany, and he must survive in a monetary system until it does.)
    We have a whole party full of them, Die Linke, of which he was a member. They don’t call themselves Kommunists openly; but their party program speaks a clear language. Each time one of their top honchos speaks his mind openly, mentioning Kommunism in a favorable light, they have to go on a lengthy denial spree afterwards in the media. The small members of the party are more candid about it.

  198. Dave Springer says:

    Canada,

    As the world’s policeman (the USA) I am here to inform you that there has been warrant issued for your arrest. Please turn around and put your hands behind your back. You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights I’ve just given you?

  199. Werner Brozek says:

    “Red Jeff says:
    December 13, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    Our old Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau had the proper response for this to the UnfCCCP…. fuddle duddle.”

    When Trudeau passed away, a cartoonist in the Edmonton Journal had him meet St. Peter and St. Peter asked Trudeau if he really said “fuddle duddle”.

  200. davidmhoffer says:

    Torgeir;

    Do you know what the difference between a totalitarian government and communism actually is?

    Please let me explain. In a totalitarian government, there’s a small group of people who force everyone else to live their lives according to strict rules of the government.

    This is completely different from communism. In a communist government, there’s a small group of people who force everyone else to live their lives according to strict rules of the government, and the people must say they like it.

    See the difference?

  201. WISE Math says:

    Welcome to the Hotel California.

  202. JEM says:

    Dave Springer – given the relative competency of the Canadian and US governments of the moment I’d be inclined to suggest that the right approach would be for the US to invade Canada, then immediately surrender and demand to be taken over.

    Quebec can have Lousiana, the rest of us get sanity.

  203. Babsy says:

    Reed Coray says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:32 am

    That’s funny!

  204. davidmhoffer says:

    As the world’s policeman (the USA) I am here to inform you that there has been warrant issued for your arrest. Please turn around and put your hands behind your back. You are under arrest.>>>

    We fart in your general direction. We would also like to introduce you to our biggest customer and new best friend, China. They’d like to explain how a Security Council veto vacates your silly arrest warrant, and they also want to talk to you about some money you owe them.

    While you’re thinking that over, we fart in your general direction.

  205. Theo Goodwin says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm
    “There is no communist around every corner. Hell, there are hardly any communists left in the world.”

    Really? Let’s start with some brass tack specifics. Who is Van Jones? Why was there mass protest in the US when Obama appointed him “Green Jobs Czar?” (Pre-answer: the fact that an outspoken, hardcore communist could be appointed Czar of anything should scare the pants off anyone who understands communism or Van Jones.)

    There are hardly any communists left in the world? I guess the dozen people who gather down the hall in the Faculty Lounge every afternoon to pursue their goal of “understanding the ideology of the working class” are all that remain, right? By the way, the discussion is not about academic research but political action.

  206. David Ball says:

    Just read Vaclav Klaus, …..

  207. Outtheback says:

    If it was not for the UN it is difficult to believe that the US would have dared to invade Iraq. The UN gave them what the US calls “legitimacy”. Would they have gone into Afghanistan, who knows, arguably that was different.
    The hype around Iran is quite similar as the build up to Iraq was.
    Libya was the same, the UN gave NATO the legitimacy. But ultimately that was an internal issue and even if Gadaffi was a dictator and let’s call him “international terrorist” it is not democratic for the “West” to decide who can or can not rule in a certain country.
    No one in the “West” thought openly about invading South Africa during the Apartheid years and finishing off that regime.
    And so on.

    No doubt the UN has done good things and averted a number of military exercises but it can also be easily manipulated to allow similar as per above.

  208. Babsy says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am
    “The IPCC needs to be gutted, no question. But don’t give me this nonsense that the UN should be dissolved. Crack a history book. Learn about places like Normandy, Iwo Jima, Birkenau, Bastogne, Hiroshima, and Kursk. Until you have done so, don’t bother me with this dissolution talk.”

    Didn’t look up any activity about Kursk before posting but the Useless Nations had ZERO to do with any of the other aforementioned locations. ZERO, NADA, ZILCH. Noth-Ing! Have a great day!

  209. MikeN says:

    They have just concluded period one of emissions controls under the Kyoto agreement. Under the Kyoto Treaty, any country that does not meet its obligations for period one must pay a 30% penalty in period 2 emissions controls. So Canada has to pay a huge reduction in emissions for failing to meet its obligations in Round 1. Any emissions reuctions agreements that are met, Canada will have to pay 30% extra.

  210. Smokey says:

    Outtheback,

    Agree completely. Where in NATO’s remit does it say “regime change”? NATO is a treaty against Soviet aggression.

    Neither Liby nor Gaddhafi were any kind of a threat. Ever since Reagan bombed Gaddhafi for the Lockerbie attack, Gaddhafi has kept quiet. We certainly never declared war against Libya. So why did the U.S. suddenly lead the charge to get rid of him?

    The reason is simple: Barack Mohammed Obama wanted an Islamic regime running Libya. And as we see, he got it.

  211. Gary Mount says:

    In 2002 a farmer in Canada went to jail for selling his own grain.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/10/31/farmers_021031.html
    A few days ago, 120 members of Canada’s parliament voted to keep the communist Wheat Board system running.
    There are at least 120 communist still active in Canada.

  212. Allan MacRae says:

    Really people, where is your sense of humour?

    Many of you appear ready to drop your sticks and gloves, and have a go… … the time-honoured Canadian way of settling disputes, both on and off the ice.

    But rather than being upset by the ridiculous effrontery of the UN, consider how funny this is.

    The watermelons are having a mass seizure – they are writhing in agony in their own apoplectic putrescence.

    Let them.

    It is payback for their incredible deceit and breathtaking stupidity.

  213. Theo Goodwin says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    “The UN is not the Antichrist. There is no communist around every corner.”

    You are aware that the Greens in the UN draw up documents that describe a bureacracy with the power to cause sovereign nations to adopt various Green policies, are you not? You are aware that the EU has done the same and has successfully enforced those requirements, are you not? If yes, what do you think of those documents? And do not take the easy road of trivializing them. If No, then you should read before you write.

    The Green vision of political organization is necessarily collectivist. If everyone who accumulates wealth can be taxed by a worldwide bureacracy for use of the atmosphere or whatever and the money redistributed to compensate those without wealth then you cannot get more collectivist than that.

  214. Torgeir Hansson says:

    johnnyrvf says:
    December 13, 2011 at 1:14 pm
    @Torgeir Hansson 10:49 am; Kursk was a tank battle…

    Yes, it was a tank battle where hundreds of thousands of soldiers died. It had nothing to do with the United States. It had everything to do with the gigantic waste that was World War II, and therefore a lot to do with why the U.N. is a good idea.

  215. Johnny Canuck says:

    Just like the League o’ Nations!
    Tellya what, Torgeir, you Europeans can start telling Canadians to make climate guilt payments the day you all compensate your former colonies for the vast amounts your countries looted from them. It’s easy for Europeans to contemplate GHG reductions – your populations are stagnating and your economies are shrinking. For Canada, not so simple. I’m really happy the Canadian government gave the metaphorical finger to the climate change industry, and I look forward to massive increases in Alberta oil sands production and a somewhat warmer world.
    Keep yer stick on the ice…

  216. Myrrh says:

    John West says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:04 pm
    Torgeir Hansson says:
    “The IPCC needs to be gutted, no question. But don’t give me this nonsense that the UN should be dissolved. Crack a history book. Learn about places like Normandy, Iwo Jima, Birkenau, Bastogne, Hiroshima, and Kursk. Until you have done so, don’t bother me with this dissolution talk.”

    I am well acquainted with the history and have family that fought in those places, IMO, the UN has abandoned its original directive and has set its sites on being the global government. The UN is poorly organized for such a function being that there are no checks and balances, no population weighted representation, etc. Therefore, I would either disband or severely downsize the UN if it were up to me.

    It’s a wee bit difficult to find an explanation that doesn’t take you into all the depressing background of the one banking family behind all of this, but here’s one that gives the flavour:

    [SNIP: davidmhoffer was right on this one. Myrrh, the sites you linked to were vile. Do not do that again. -REP]

    But as to Canada being held to their agreement of a voluntary set up, by agreeing with it they have a contract. The only way I can see out of that is for Canada to show that it was set up as a con.

  217. Reed Coray says:

    JEM says: December 13, 2011 at 11:36 am
    Whatever the UN might have been thought to be at its founding, and whatever role it may have played in the early Cold War era, for the last three decades it’s ‘matured’ into little more than a postgraduate program for third-world kleptocrats looking to step up to a global role.

    Your comment reminded me of a humorous comedy act I saw about 20 years ago. Jonathan Winters, the precursor to Robin Williams, was performing one of his solo routines on stage. He was using a slender stick about four feet long as a prop. After performing a series of vignettes, he suddenly placed one end of the stick against the middle of his chest, held the stick with both hands, started staggering around the stage as if mortally wounded, and mouthed the line that started me laughing for five minutes: “The United Nations recognizes the delegate from New Galli Land.

    Very little has changed in 20 years.

  218. Hanging Head in shame…… living in Australalia and having to (gulp) admit we have a PM and Greens Partner supporting AGW and are therefore WATERMELONS and they support all the UN protocols etc….. I feel bound to tell you I am seriously thinking of moving to Canda so I can hold my head high…. let me know when your weather cycles improve, I am kind of partial to my sunshine…… Viva la Canada you done well guy’s………….. proud of you all

  219. timg56 says:

    Torgeir Hannson,

    RE disolving the UN.

    I would point out that at the time it was founded, no other international body existed. Today that is no longer the case. There many organisations existing that allow governments to work together. Another significant change is the growth of multinational corporations, a global market place and the integrated flow of capital and good from one part of the world to another. In otherwords there are far more effective restraints and reasons for nations not to go to war, than than back when the UN was founded.

    Then there is the second argument of trying to show exactly what wars and conflicts the UN has managed to prevent. It didn’t prevent Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Sino-Vietnamese conflict, the Sino-Soviet Amur River conflict, El Salvador or Nicaragua, the Falklands (or Malvinas if you like), Kuiwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, India – Pakistan I, II and III, Sudan, Somalia, Kosovo and more Arab- Israeli fights than I can count. Not to mention other events of mass murder by governments such as Cambodia and Ruwanda or forced starvation as in North Korea. In other words, if the primary justification for the UN is to act as a body where the nations of the world can solve their differences peaceably, almost all of the evidence indicates it has failed miserably at that task.

  220. davidmhoffer says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 4:41 pm
    johnnyrvf says:
    December 13, 2011 at 1:14 pm
    @Torgeir Hansson 10:49 am; Kursk was a tank battle…
    Yes, it was a tank battle where hundreds of thousands of soldiers died. It had nothing to do with the United States. It had everything to do with the gigantic waste that was World War II, and therefore a lot to do with why the U.N. is a good idea>>>

    Are you seriously of the opinion that had the UN existed, it would have have prevented WWII? And you accuse ME of living in a fantasyland?

  221. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    “you Europeans can start telling Canadians to make climate guilt payments the day you all compensate your former colonies for the vast amounts your countries looted from them.”

    Well, as it was Asians who started off industrialisation thousands of years ago and Europeans (and then Americans) just continued where they left off (and now Asians are getting back into the game) then no guilt payments should be made to them at all. And as it was Africans who slaughtered, robbed and enslaved each other for centuries before the British, followed by other Europeans, outlawed slavery then no compensation should be paid there, especially as nearly every successful black person in the world today is a product of the importation of Africans and many others live on the welfare system of whites.

    The whole compensation game doesn’t quite work out in the greater context. Nobody owes anyone anything (although the Islamic world isn’t doing a good job of compensating for its continued barbarism, theological imperialism, genocide and slavery today).

  222. timg56 says:

    squarehead,

    I have a hard time worrying about communists. Communism has proven a failure and the evidence is in the number of nations that have rejected it compared to the number that have recently (say past 20 years) embraced it.

    I am more concerned with people who think that only government can solve problems and take care of people. You don’t have to be a communist or even a socialist to fall into that category. What I am not sure of is who concerns me the most – those who believe that since they are smarter, better educated and from the right parts of society, are the ones best situated (or more deserving) of making decisions on behalf of the rest of us, or those dumb enough to believe these people and agree to let it happen.

  223. maple leaf says:

    Canada is a cold northern hemisphere nation. our forefathers paid our dues living in windy wet log cabins and uninsulated dwellings for, up till the present, MOST of our existence as a populated territory and yes that applies to our aboriginals as well.

    also, we are spread out over some 10,000,000 square kilometers so we really actually do need gasoline and diesel powered vehicles to get around.

    dear rest of the world (except the big 3 non-signers India, China and USA): GET USED TO IT.

  224. vigilantfish says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 13, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Go David! I’m really enjoying your evisceration of our new entertaining troll. And the conversation remains more or less on topic!


    Comments here are literally swelling my heart with pride for Canada, but the CBC Canadian elites are recoiling in horror, as the Canadian rejection of Kyoto is going to condemn all our descendents to an early death. One good sign is that CTV, which has a much larger viewership than the CBC, has not being paying too much attention to Durban.

    We’ve got lots of Canadian spruce from which to whittle a nice stake to run through the UN’s rancid heart. Willis?

  225. JPeden says:

    I call on all developed countries to meet their responsibilities under the Climate Change Convention and its Kyoto Protocol….

    That’s about all you can do, since you’ve just “agreed” to outlaw war at COP-17.

  226. davidmhoffer says:

    Myrhh;

    [SNIPPED AT COMMENTER' REQUEST. -REP]

    Excuse me?
    Mods ~ ya wanna take another look at that comment?
    And if you decide to leave it up, I’m aksing for permission to deal with it in the language that it deserves.

    [REPLY: By all means, deal with it. Language Rules will continue to be enforced, however. -REP]

  227. RockyRoad says:

    Interesting how the COP17 organization uses the term “Annex” in dealing with participants (albeit nobody apparently knows in which Annex Group they belong). So I looked up the word “annex” and found that it means several things:

    4 : to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state
    5 : to obtain or take for oneself

    So the UN’s true stance can be determined simply from the terminology they use, which is why they’re not going to let Canada drop out of this Kyoto debacle without stiff resistance. Canada may join freely, but they are trapped; they cannot leave freely.

    So is the UN going to send in troops with blue helmets?

  228. davidmhoffer says:

    [REPLY: By all means, deal with it. Language Rules will continue to be enforced, however. -REP]

    Frankly, I am shocked that a site that will not allow the “d” word would allow this sort of crap through. His comment continues on:

    [SNIPPED AT COMMENTER'S REQUEST. -REP]

    I will respond to this blatant racist remark that is the continuation of the blood libel that cost 6 million jews their lives in WWII in the morning when my temper gets to the point where I am not in danger of pounding the keys right through my keyboard. Sorry, but if it is the decision to leave that piece of hatred up, then my respect for WUWT will take a dramatic turn for the worse. You banned the “d” word. Is this piece of hatred any less deserving of that fate? I’ve enjoyed to no end my time on this site, but hate mongering is hate mongering and I don’t participate in sites that permit it.

    [REPLY: I looked at the sites linked to. They were vile and the link has been removed. WUWT will not be party to spreading that kind of... stuff. -REP]

  229. Wayne Delbeke says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am
    I am a little puzzled by talk about dissolving the UN.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Ask Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire of Canada about how effective the UN is at preventing murder and genocide – think Rwanda – when the UN REFUSED to allow his troops to act or provide support while 800,000 Rwandans died along with soldiers in his command that were murdered.

    Read the book or watch the movie – “Shake Hands with the Devil”
    http://romeodallaire.com/

    Why do you think the most recent actions to deal with issues have not been UN led? The UN, like the League of Nations before it, has become bureaucratized and useless. I have been inside and the rot is everywhere.

  230. Werner Brozek says:

    “But that’s voluntary too, so how can a “voluntary” agreement be legally binding?”

    Robert McCloskey quote: “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

  231. Sean Peake says:

    Torgier Hanssen, sounds like a California loon—guess Norway wasn’t crazy enough. Anyway, too bad Chayefsky didn’t find the words to include the officious and once great Norwegians in his epic rant against Euro-centric superiority:
    “I’ve dealt with Europeans all my life. I know all about us parvenus from the States who come over here and race around your old Cathedral towns with our cameras and Coca-cola bottles… Brawl in your pubs, paw at your women, and act like we own the world. We over-tip, we talk too loud, we think we can buy anything with a Hershey bar. I’ve had Germans and Italians tell me how politically ingenuous we are, and perhaps so. But we haven’t managed a Hitler or a Mussolini yet. I’ve had Frenchmen call me a savage because I only took half an hour for lunch. Hell, Ms. Barham, the only reason the French take two hours for lunch is because the service in their restaurants is lousy. The most tedious lot are you British. We crass Americans didn’t introduce war into your little island. This war, Ms. Barham to which we Americans are so insensitive, is the result of 2,000 years of European greed, barbarism, superstition, and stupidity. Don’t blame it on our Coca-cola bottles. Europe was a going brothel long before we came to town.

  232. cgh says:

    I don’t understand. Why does anyone give a rat’s @$$ what Rajenda Pachauri says? He has no authority to say much of anything, and he has no authority to interpret or enforce the Rio agreement and the UNFCCC. All of these are voluntary with no time lines.

  233. Gary Mount says:

    timg56 says:

    December 13, 2011 at 5:18 pm
    Torgeir Hannson,

    RE disolving the UN.

    I would point out that at the time it was founded, no other international body existed
    ——
    What about The League of Nations?

  234. Wayne Delbeke says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:59 pm
    davidmhoffer says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Yet, oddlly, I meet “communists” every day.

    Your idea of a communist is anyone who wants to limit anything about the activity of any free market or anything else for that matter. That makes you an anarchist.

    You live in a world of make believe. I live in the real world. When you choose to live in the real world, I’ll be happy to talk to you. In the meantime, happy trails.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I am guessing by your name you already live in a socialist country or at least one with strong list to the left. So maybe “communist” is too strong, but for those of us who are fed up with the leftist news media like the BBC, CBC, and ABC … and seeing many of our countrymen visiting and supporting China … a certain amount of socialism is acceptable but it is easy to step over the line. …. I am fortunate to be an educated person who has travelled the world … but I come from ranching stock who are/were proud of their sunburned Red Necks and ability to work hard and not look for handouts. We were (and are) always happy to help our neighbours, but at branding time, we expect them to reciprocate and work just as hard as we do. There are no free rides. So, I agree with many others here: The UN is unreformable. Let it go and start anew.

  235. davidmhoffer says:

    [REPLY: I looked at the sites linked to. They were vile and the link has been removed. WUWT will not be party to spreading that kind... stuff. -REP]

    Thankyou. Would you please snip from my own comments the words I quoted (in protest) from Myrrh’s comments? TIA.

  236. John West says:

    Give them the Canadian finger …. we will do what is in our best interest … anything else is slavery.

  237. Robin Kool says:

    Hi Anthony.
    I turned from a believer in the integrity of the environmental movement and its predictions of catastrophes into a skeptic, after I read an article in 1990 in the New York Times Magazine by John Tierney about the famous bet between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich.
    I then went on a (horribly difficult) search for the real facts. The environmental movement has long ago decided that it may exaggerate, oversimplify and downright lie for “the good cause”. And most media follow them unquestioningly.

    Since then the best source of facts and serious debate I have found is your website that I visit every day. It is the place where I find serious serious research on the scare of the moment.
    I need that because I find it really hard to get my head around the scope of the deceit.

    Therefore I am worried to see some name calling against warmists lately. I am convinced that most environmentalists and those who trust them are well meaning people who simply cannot imagine the immensity of the damage that is done to humanity, especially to the poor, and to the reputation of science. People need help to be able to resist a way of thinking that is so widespread and is backed up by so many scientists and organizations of scientists.

    Calling names does not help rational discussion and will make it easier for people to not take this site serious.
    I too am sometimes furious at the deceit and betrayal, and let’s face it, as a result of certain policies the warmists have successfully lobbied for, many people have died; so yes, name calling is definitely in order, but let’s not do it on the site.

    The day before yesterday I read “ASSHOLES” in a comment. Today the first comment is:
    “Sieg Heil mein UN”.
    I am sorry, but that is way over the top. ‘Sieg Heil’ was a nazi greeting.
    I don’t know how you think about ‘asshole’ – I would snip it -, but let’s agree on not comparing warmists with nazis here.

    Of course I understand you are all voluteers who have normal lives and limited time and can easily miss a nasty comment here and there.
    I am immensely grateful for all you guy’s work, running this very, very important site.

  238. King of Cool says:

    • • vigilantfish says:
    December 13, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    Comments here are literally swelling my heart with pride for Canada, but the CBC Canadian elites are recoiling in horror…

    Not too much horror it seems:

    CBC News
    Question of the Day Dec 12 2011 4.47 pm

    Do you support Canada’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol?

    Yes – 63.54% (3,891 votes)

    No – 35.29% (2,161 votes)

    Not sure – 1.18% (72 votes)

    Can’t be all WUWT readers surely?

  239. Theo Goodwin says:

    RockyRoad says:
    December 13, 2011 at 6:14 pm
    “Interesting how the COP17 organization uses the term “Annex” in dealing with participants (albeit nobody apparently knows in which Annex Group they belong). So I looked up the word “annex” and found that it means several things:
    4 : to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state
    5 : to obtain or take for oneself
    So the UN’s true stance can be determined simply from the terminology they use, which is why they’re not going to let Canada drop out of this Kyoto debacle without stiff resistance. Canada may join freely, but they are trapped; they cannot leave freely.”

    As the Soviets believed from the bottom of their hearts, any country that goes communist will remain communist forever. Signing onto Kyoto is not the same thing as going communist. But the same kind of relentless, endless pressure will be applied to anyone who tries to leave.

  240. Theo Goodwin says:

    cgh says:
    December 13, 2011 at 6:39 pm
    “I don’t understand. Why does anyone give a rat’s @$$ what Rajenda Pachauri says? He has no authority to say much of anything, and he has no authority to interpret or enforce the Rio agreement and the UNFCCC. All of these are voluntary with no time lines.”

    What we fear is that all the power of the Hollywood Gliterati and the Ruling Elites throughout the world, including the MSM, will be brought to bear on the conservative government in Canada. You know, do you not, that Obama will spank them soundly? The Canadian government faces a huge battering that should not exist in a reasonable world.

    Why is Pachauri still employed by the UN? No one else would hire him.

  241. G. Karst says:

    Many Canadian boys have spilled their blood, at the request of the UN. They continue to spill blood in God forsaken locales throughout the world. Libya was the latest, where the UN call was answered by Nato’s 24/7 and Canada’s F18 interventions. The UN should tread lightly lest they awaken a sleeping polar bear. GK

  242. ferd berple says:

    “davidmhoffer says:
    December 13, 2011 at 5:19 pm
    Are you seriously of the opinion that had the UN existed, it would have have prevented WWII?”

    It was called the League of Nations back then. It created a legally binding agreement called the Treaty of Versailles. Basically it said that as yet unborn citizens of a country were responsible to pay back damages caused by their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. Similar to the ancient practice of killing the wives and offspring of a man that commits a crime.

    The end result was the rise of Fascism, Hitler, WWII and 100 million dead.

    Now the UNFCCC wants to make the as yet unborn citizens of industrialized countries responsible for the unwitting actions of their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. How many billions will die this time?

  243. Pamela Gray says:

    A very appropriate remark, and one that Patton would appreciated, would be “nuts”.

  244. Gail Combs says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    ….Where we agree is that CO2 poses no threat to anyone. In cases where there is a whiff of CFCs, PFCs, mercury, benzene, toluol, and the list goes on, different story.
    ________________________________

    That is criminal trespass. C. Chemical Co. got sued for it and lost in 1972 when I worked for them (all of three months till I found something better)

    This was BEFORE the EPA existed or OSHA for that matter.

  245. Sean Peake says:

    Proud to be a climate rebel without a “cause”

  246. Gail Combs says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    “There is no communist around every corner. Hell, there are hardly any communists left in the world.”

    Yet, oddlly, I meet them every day. I read their articles in newspapers and magazines and blogs and listen to them on TV news programs advocating incessantly for communist practices and limitation of capitalism and free market economies. Is there perhaps only one or two of them and they are just really really really really busy?
    ________________________________________

    Actually the are alive and well and as thick as fleas on a dog in Cambridge MA. They are also found on most university campuses.

    However the present breed are more the bourgoise collectivist types grown to international super-elite. Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor was their historian. see: Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/094500110X/

  247. Dave Springer says: (December 13, 2011 at 3:49 pm)

    As the world’s policeman (the USA) I am here to inform you that there has been warrant issued for your arrest. Please turn around and put your hands behind your back. You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights I’ve just given you?

    Non! :-)

  248. G. Karst says: (December 13, 2011 at 7:26 pm)

    The UN should tread lightly lest they awaken a sleeping polar bear.

    Now there’s an idea. Supply the UN with polar bears. In the lobby of the UN HQ and the UNFCCC Secretariat: Martin-Luther-King-Strasse 8, Bonn, Germany.

    IIRC, Canada has a surplus of polar bears. And the Germans *love* polar bears. And the UN and polar bears have so much in common. Although polar bears are only in walking hibernation for a few months of the year, compared to the full-time torpidity of the UN’s self-serving bureaucrats.

    All in jest. I would never torture a dumb animal nor a top-level predator.

  249. Theo Goodwin says:

    The Guardian has this “frontpage” headline on their website:

    “Canada condemned at home and abroad for pulling out of Kyoto treaty
    China calls Canada’s decision ‘preposterous’, while Greenpeace says the country is protecting polluters instead of people.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-condemned-kyoto-climate-treaty

    The Guardian writes:

    ‘Canada is within its rights to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol, according to the lawyer Josh Roberts, at the environmental law organisation ClientEarth. He pointed out that article 27 of the protocol allows any country to withdraw three years after the protocol is in force, a deadline that has passed.

    In short, Robert said: “The Kyoto protocol has very few teeth beyond international diplomatic censure.” But the UK’s secretary of state for energy and climate change, Chris Huhne, said: “They are still bound by what was agreed in Durban. They are still part of working towards a legal outcome in 2015.”‘

    Don’t you just love it? After admitting that Canada is fully within its rights, the Guardian quotes “windmill” Chris Huhne as saying that they can’t get away because they are bound by Durban anyway. That is the “dog in the manger” attitude that decent people face in today’s world.

  250. Theo Goodwin says:

    Gail Combs says:
    December 13, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    “Actually the are alive and well and as thick as fleas on a dog in Cambridge MA. They are also found on most university campuses.

    However the present breed are more the bourgoise collectivist types grown to international super-elite. Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor was their historian. see: Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/094500110X/

    Oh yes they are. They dominate today’s faculty. If one does not believe that remark then explain to me what a “Diversity Dean” does.

    Thanks for the reference to Quigley’s book. Their essential history could have been written as early as 1979 because they haven’t changed one whit since then. Though they have made some huge advances, such as “Diversity Deans.”

  251. Gail Combs says:

    Hoser says:
    December 13, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    If you look, you’ll find the US income tax is also “voluntary”. Just try not paying it.
    http://www.fff.org/freedom/0500a.asp
    __________________________________________
    Also note that the income tax amendment (16th) was passed within a few months of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Our hard earned money wealth goes to pay the interest on the “Fairydust ” fiat, made on the spot, money the Fed/bankers lend the US and State governments.

    In effect the Financial elite have become our Lords and we are nothing but their serfs. Heck we even give up about the same amount of labor to our overlords as the medieval serfs ~ 40%

    Ever wonder WHY there has been a subtle movement, in the way of massive red tape, to get rid of small businesses and farmers???

    If you are working as a wage slave for a big corporation the elite get their slice of your wealth without any effort because it is taken from you up front before you even see it.

    It is independent small business people who are the threat to our “Overlords” and they do everything possible to squash them.

    ….cities and states stifle new small businesses at every turn, burying them in mounds of paperwork; lengthy, expensive and arbitrary permitting processes; pointless educational requirements for occupations; or even just outright bans. Today, the Institute for Justice released a series of studies documenting government-imposed barriers to entrepreneurship in eight cities. In every city studied, overwhelming regulations destroyed or crippled would-be businesses at a time when they are most needed…. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-21-mellor26_st_N.htm

    Farmers were the subject of a more direct assault:

    …the Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation’s foreign policies….

    In a number of reports written over a few decades, CED recommended that farming “resources” — that is, farmers — be reduced. In its 1945 report “Agriculture in an Expanding Economy,” CED complained that “the excess of human resources engaged in agriculture is probably the most important single factor in the “farm problem'” and describes how agricultural production can be better organized to fit to business needs.[2] A report published in 1962 entitled “An Adaptive Program for Agriculture”[3] is even more blunt in its objectives, leading Time Magazine to remark that CED had a plan for fixing the identified problem: “The essential fact to be faced, argues CED, is that with present high levels farm productivity, more labor is involved in agriculture production that the market demands — in short, there are too may farmers. To solve that problem, CED offers a program with three main prongs.”[4]

    Some of the report’s authors would go on to work in government to implement CED’s policy recommendations. Over the next five years, the political and economic establishment ensured the reduction of “excess human resources engaged in agriculture” by two million, or by 1/3 of their previous number…. http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html

  252. James Sexton says:

    It is heartwarming to see the several people here that understand who and what communists are. It renews the spirit!

    Sentient and sentinel…… a beautiful thing.

  253. wayne says:

    Robin Kool:
    December 13, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    Robin, well said and I will personally take that to heart, and hope others will follow suit. Such name-calling has no place here. Your words let me know at least one other that has opened their eyes to the environmental movement understands the depth of deception and corruption involved.

  254. davidmhoffer says:

    Robin Kool;
    “Sieg Heil mein UN”.
    I am sorry, but that is way over the top. ‘Sieg Heil’ was a nazi greeting.>>>

    I’m still fuming from seeing certain anti-semitic comments fruther upthread, but now that they’ve been dealt with and I’ve calmed down, I’d like to add my voice to Robin’s on this one. I’d be a hypocrite if I did not.

    WWII was a dark chapter in man’s inhumanity to man, and sadly, only one of many. The IPCC, the UN in general, and the lobbyists greedily grasping for a share of any money they can weedle, beg, embarras or extort out of the free world are using disgusting tactics which deserve to be labelled as such. But labelling them Nazi’s, is, in fact, over the top.

    We must be vigilant as citizens of the free world because the sins that we object to in this thread are indeed the kind of sins that set one foot upon a very slippery slope. We’ve seen the threats of violence from Greenpeace, and the disgusting 10:10 video. But it was reaction from, and pressure from, the skeptic community that forced those organizations to take one step back. Had we not have been succesfull, would the path to the depths of darkness that the Nazi’s descended to, taking millions to their deaths in the process, have been eagerly trod to a new holocaust?

    Maybe. We shall never know, because slippery though the slope might be, they set only a single foot upon it, and then stepped back. But taking one step on the descent to hell is many, many leagues from being there.

    Let us defend the path in that we not allow the UN, Greenpeace, 10:10, or any others to set a foot upon that path without pushing them back. But let us also understand that taking one step on the wrong path is completely different from having arrived at an end that is leagues away, and which is criss crossed with so many other paths that the misguided can step onto when they realize the full import of the path they are on.

    The danger to human life from the CAGW scare is that well intended good deeds have been corrupted for the sake of money, greed and power. The unintended consequences may well drive billions into poverty and death. But they are just that. Unintended consequences. No one at the UN is plotting gas chambers to liquidate the human population to fight global warming. As dangerous as their corruption and unintended consequences are, let us not discredit out own arguments through lables that are emotion laden, and false.

    Save the people from a terrible folly. But save them with facts, and rational arguments.

  255. Torgeir Hansson says:

    Dear Babsy:

    Do you remember all those places I mentioned? They are all connected to WWII in one way or another. Now when WWII ended, and somewhere around 52 million people had died, there were some people who said: “maybe we should try to not let that happen again.”

    And then the United States of America, led the world in founding the United Nations. It happened in 1945, in San Francisco. We invited over 50 countries, and everybody agreed to create an international forum that would try to make the world more peaceful. And the idea behind it was to make sure countries would speak together, and not fight so much.

    Are you still following? And do you see that we should remember history and not forget it?

    We agree by the way that how the U.N. involvement in climate science has been a failure, and should be scrapped or radically changed. That would be the IPCC. It must go.

  256. cgh says:

    Theo, what you say is true, except for this. PM Harper has already made it very clear what he thinks of the opinions of the glitterati et.al., and it leaves him entirely unmoved. The US has already acted as a bad neighbour to Canada over the Keystone decision. Which simply makes Canada’s pushing through the Gateway project all the more important. And the best part is that China and India pay a better price for oil than the US does.

    There’s a key shift in Canadian politics that no one outside this country has understood yet, let alone its signficance. Ontario is now voting as a block with Western Canada and not Quebec. For the first time in Canadian history, we have a majority government which is not dependent upon a large block of Quebec seats. The ramifications of this political earthquake in Canada are huge, and it may be the biggest shift in Canadian politics since the emergence of Quebec separatism in the 1960s. He’s also got a firm majority of new Canadians voting conservative as well. As a result, short of some major corruption scandal, Harper has perhaps permanently altered Canada’s political landscape.

    And all of this has been accompanied by a very fundamental shift in Canadian foreign policy as well. Canada now finds itself at odds with EU nations over a great many issues and is increasingly identifying itself as a Pacific Rim nation, not a North Atlantic one. Europe had one last gasp at maintaining strong relations with Canada through the free trade pact, but the EU blew that with their sanctions on Canadian oil.

    And as just one consequence, Canada’s response to any proposal for IMF bailouts in Europe will be as frosty as the frozen tundra around Inuvik.

  257. Brian H says:

    Here’s the link to the CBC poll:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/12/question-of-the-day-498.html (Do you support withdrawal?)
    Current:
    Yes 4039 64%
    No 2207 35%
    Unsure 74 1%

  258. Theo Goodwin says:

    Marion says:
    December 13, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    “It would and we didn’t!! Take the EU Lisbon Treaty for example – there are over 500 million people in the EU and only the politicians got to vote on it, on what is in effect a political gravy train, oh except for Ireland of course, where because of its constitution the people were given a referendum and guess what – they voted NO! That should have been the end of the Lisbon Treaty but no, that’s not how the EU works, the people of Ireland were made to vote again after much propaganda, promises and threats.The EU has no real democratic legitimacy – our politicians have betrayed us.”

    Very well said. Thanks so much. People in the US should read your words and fear our own bureacratic zealots, especially the EPA and Obamacare.

  259. Gail Combs says:

    Marion says:

    …And one last thing try typing in the name of your local council along with Agenda 21 – you may be surprised at just how much the UN has already imposed on local planning!! (also an EU resident).
    ______________________________________________________
    If you are in the USA try the word “Sustainable” too. It is the code word for Agenda 21.

    President’s Council on Sustainable Development: http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/

    Between June 1993 and June 1999, the PCSD has advised President Clinton on sustainable development and develops bold, new approaches to achieve economic, environmental, and equity goals. We are commited to the achievement of a dignified, peaceful, and equitable existence….

    V
    V
    V
    V

    N A T I O N A L T O W N M E E T I N G for a S U S T A I N A B L E A M E R I C A

    Across America, communities, businesses and organizations are finding new ways to balance economic, social and environmental goals….

    Sponsored by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) and the Global Environment & Technology Foundation (GETF), the NTM will showcase best practices that promote sustainability around the country. The program will emphasize building individual and institutional capacity so that best practices can be replicated elsewhere. The NTM will focus on sustainable solutions that are available today….

  260. Torgeir Hansson says:

    timg56 says:
    December 13, 2011 at 5:18 pm
    “if the primary justification for the UN is to act as a body where the nations of the world can solve their differences peaceably, almost all of the evidence indicates it has failed miserably at that task.”

    That’s correct. And your whole argument supports the very fact that NOTHING happens in the UN unless it is endorsed by ALL the permanent members of the Security Council. They all have veto power, and know how to use it.

    Indirectly you are arguing for more power to the U.N., not less.

  261. James Sexton says:

    wayne says:
    December 13, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    Robin Kool:
    December 13, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    Robin, well said and I will personally take that to heart, and hope others will follow suit. Such name-calling has no place here. ……
    =======================================================
    You guys are right, of course, name calling isn’t productive.

    However, correctly identifying the various factions is productive. While I can appreciate what you guys are saying, you should also understand that many people have been engaged in this conversation for several years. It isn’t as if people weren’t told. They were, and have been, and continue to be told. The rejection of the message, the insistence on a totalitarian resolution to this imaginary problem, puts them squarely in the position that the colorful descriptions would convey.

    Today, there is no excuse. You either wish for a totalitarian resolution to the imaginary problem, or you stand for freedom, or you’re twelve.

    In other words, either you are young and stupid (there is no shame there, we all have been) or you stand for this insanity, or you stand against it. Today, to claim ignorance is to claim willful ignorance.

  262. squareheaded says:

    timg56 says:
    December 13, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    squarehead,

    I have a hard time worrying about communists….

    I am more concerned with people who think that only government can solve problems and take care of people. You don’t have to be a communist or even a socialist to fall into that category.

    If it quacks like a communist and waddles like a communist, if it thinks, solves problems, and takes care of people like a communist, what would you prefer to call it?

    If you call it anything other than what it is, then you are complicit in the Communists’ subterfuge.

    BTW, Communism is just one of many practically indistinguishable versions of totalitarianism. The name “Communism” itself is subterfuge.

    Cannibalism is the correct term when speaking of the totalitarian wackos’ creed.

  263. Torgeir Hansson says:

    Gail Combs says:
    December 13, 2011 at 7:53 pm
    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    ….Where we agree is that CO2 poses no threat to anyone. In cases where there is a whiff of CFCs, PFCs, mercury, benzene, toluol, and the list goes on, different story.
    ________________________________

    That is criminal trespass. C. Chemical Co. got sued for it and lost in 1972 when I worked for them (all of three months till I found something better)

    This was BEFORE the EPA existed or OSHA for that matter.
    __________________________________
    The EPA, OSHA, and the Clean Air Act were the inventions of the Nixon Administration. Environmentalism reaches across the political aisle—or at least it used to. Now we have militant people on the left who see climate change as a hammer for wealth redistribution. I have no faith that many Third World nations would use the money for mitigation (of what, exactly?) Aid to developing nations is still appropriate, but for the opposite: economic development. Not that the U.S. gives much to speak of, so the point is moot for this country.

    The real issue in the U.S. is not communists infiltrating our government or the public discourse. It is corporations having undue influence over our government. They are in a position to feed at the trough of climate change legislation, and influence legislation to enrich themselves. Take a look at Al Gore’s and Rajendra Pachauri’s business activities, and the point becomes clear.

  264. Dave Springer says:

    @Hoffer

    Farting in the general direction of the United States can be prohibitively expensive for hosers. I’d be careful if I were you.

    The Canadian Human Rights Act Section 3 prohibits discrimination based on national origin.

    Section 13(1) addresses the issue of hate speech. The section states it is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

    Section 13(2) makes clear that posting hateful or contemptuous messages to the Internet is prohibited. Section 54(1) allows a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to order a respondent to cease any discriminatory practice, to compensate the victim where the discrimination was wilful or reckless by an amount not exceeding $20,000, and to pay a penalty of not more than $10,000.

  265. Brian H says:

    Robin Kool says:
    December 13, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    Hi Anthony.
    I turned from a believer in the integrity of the environmental movement and its predictions of catastrophes into a skeptic, after I read an article in 1990 in the New York Times Magazine by John Tierney about the famous bet between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich.
    I then went on a (horribly difficult) search for the real facts. The environmental movement has long ago decided that it may exaggerate, oversimplify and downright lie for “the good cause”. And most media follow them unquestioningly.

    The “naivite” excuse is getting a bit old. As is the “Noble Cause” attitude, which both distorts science activity and analysis, and not only accepts, but demands the subordination of all nations and persons to the economic and regulatory abuse already rampant in the EU and in many aspects of North American life.

    Polite rebukes and disputation with those determined to enforce collaboration with a lie and submission to the liars is not on. It’s not just useless, it’s tantamount to dangerous passivity.

    If you track the posting patterns and history of those poor souls being “abused” here and on other skeptic sites, you will encounter more than enough evasion and distortion to justify the epithets. And a persistent presumption that only science illiterates and trouble-makers are susceptible to doubt.

    In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the only winning strategy is Tit For Tat; after one free pass, give next time what you got this time.

  266. Torgeir Hansson says:

    Sean Peake says:
    December 13, 2011 at 6:38 pm
    “Torgier Hanssen, sounds like a California loon—guess Norway wasn’t crazy enough.”

    Thanks for the name calling, Sean. It sure helps foster a robust dialogue.

    Now about Norway: a country with a sound economic footing, peaceful, pro-USA, capitalistic to the core yet featuring a social safety net for the needy. No poverty, very little violence (with the exception of the right-wing monster Andreas Behring Breivik), and a generally happy population. High productivity. Lots and lots of money in the bank. A large and healthy energy industry.

    Oh, by the way: run for the last fifty years by the Norwegian Labor Party.

    Go figure.

  267. davidmhoffer says:

    Torgeir Hansson;
    And the idea behind it was to make sure countries would speak together, and not fight so much.>>>

    Still waiting for you to name a single instance in which they were succesfull.

    Torgeir Hansson;
    Are you still following? And do you see that we should remember history and not forget it?>>>

    Since you find remembering history important, could you please remember an example of a single instance in which the UN prevented a war and tell us what it was?

    In fact, they were formed from the primary purpose of preventing genocide, preventing war between nations was an after thought (albeit a natural one). But let’s go through recent history and see who is being saved by who:

    Albanians from the Serbs and Croats – NATO
    Kuwait from Iraq – NATO
    Marsh Arabs and Kurds from Iraq – NATO
    Families in rebel towns in Lybia – NATO
    Afghanistan from the Taliban – NATO

    Now let’s look at who doesn’t have NATO to depend on and instead gets just the UN protecting them:

    Rwanda – NATO forces ordered to stand down
    Darfur – sinkpit of human misery
    Congo – another sinkpit
    Somalia – another sinkpit
    Iran – where you girls are executed for talking to a boy. But exectuing a virgin is illegal, so they are first raped, and then exectuted.
    Saudi Arabia – just announced yet another woman being beheaded for being a witch.
    The Arab League is warning Syria not to mass murder itz citizens. 5000 dead and counting,The ArabLeague is doing nothing, the UN is doing nothing, if anyone is going to save those people it will be NATO.

    The UN Human Rights Commission is as corrupt as the IPCC. The excoriate Israel for building a fense, but say nothing about the terrorists that fence was built to keep at bay. They excoriate western nations for our treaties with natives, while ignoring the killing of “witches” and “girls who talked to a boy” in muslim theocracies.

    Their emergency administration plans such up 40% and often much more for administration fees of their committees, and the corrupt dictatorships they deliver the aid to siphon more off still as bribes to let the 10% or so that actually gets through to be delivered. Major programs like “Oil for Food” wound up being nothing more than a golden opportunity for administrators to siphon hundreds of millions into their own pockets while the money went not to food, but to military goods.

    Show me a UN success story. Show me ONE. Why is my country paying billions of dollars for a UN that cannot prevent war, cannot save people from genocide, accuses free countries of human rights infractions while covering up the worst human rights violations in the world, and UN employees getting rich off the largess of western nations.

    Stop telling us WHY it was formed. We already know that, no one is arguing that point. But when asked to show why we should keep it, you cite not their success stories, but their original goals. Goals are laudable. But as a farmer would say, goals implemented poorl;y result in a failed crop. You want food, your goal to grow it laudable, but only if it is practical. The UN is not.

  268. Torgeir Hansson says:

    squareheaded says:
    December 13, 2011 at 9:28 pm
    timg56 says:
    December 13, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    “BTW, Communism is just one of many practically indistinguishable versions of totalitarianism. The name “Communism” itself is subterfuge. Cannibalism is the correct term when speaking of the totalitarian wackos’ creed.”

    The idea that we are dealing with a threat from communists or communism in this country at this time is wrong on its face. You would be much closer to the truth if you spoke about corporatism or fascism.

    The warmist argument is fundamentally different. Communists have never cared one whit about the environment. First of all let’s acknowledge that it was first used by the Thatcher Administration in the UK to beat the coal workers’ unions around the ears with. Second, it is better seen as a meme that was propagated by the environmental movement, gained momentum, and became a useful tool for a whole set of rascals to get their hands on public and private money—governments included, but the governments we are talking about are elected, and it is the institutional pressures in government organizations that make them go along.

    Once the electorate discards the meme, so will governments.

  269. RockyRoad says:

    Robin Kool says:
    December 13, 2011 at 7:00 pm


    Today the first comment is:
    “Sieg Heil mein UN”.
    I am sorry, but that is way over the top. ‘Sieg Heil’ was a nazi greeting.
    …. but let’s agree on not comparing warmists with nazis here.

    Of course I understand you are all voluteers who have normal lives and limited time and can easily miss a nasty comment here and there.

    Interesting that you’d equate “warmists” with the UN’s UNFCCC. I read “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” when in high school, and later in college got through both volumes of “The Gulag Archepelago” by Solzhenitsyn. These books accurately deal with man’s complete inhumanity to their fellow man and awaken your senses so you can identify the same characteristics in other organizations.

    And admittedly, these books were about as heavy a read as I could endure. But what I found is that both epitomize the same general approach the hard-core climate movement has taken towards the rest of mankind in so many ways it’s uncanny–it doesn’t matter whether they’re socialists or communists, their goal really is to “save the world” for themselves in the guise of helping everybody else and make everybody else pay tribute to them–through force, of course.

    Now if you disagree with my assessment , please read either or both of these books and return and report. In the meantime, I don’t believe we should ignore any organization just because their actions are Nazi-like or have striking similarities to the mindset employed by communists. Indeed, if such similarities are found, it would be criminal NOT to recognize them for what they are and to call them out accordingly. The Nazis of Germany and the communists of Stalin’s era were horrible and hideous, no doubt, but not much different in the beginning than what the hard-core climate movement has become. It may see like a far-fetched comparison, but then I’m betting you haven’t read either book (or anything similar) and haven’t really dug into the depths of the UN either.

  270. James Sexton says:

    Torgeir, lunatics such as Andreas Behring Breivik are not right, left or center. They are people who seek for and find an excuse to be lunatics. For every murderous savage such as Breivik, I can find two others that claim the banner of leftists. Attributing his behavior to conservative ideology is a valid as stating Jack the Ripper was cleansing the streets of whores.

    You seem like an intelligent person. Why don’t you try to argue from an intelligent position?

  271. cwon14 says:

    [SNIP: Sorry, but that's not really funny and not appropriate. -REP]

  272. RockyRoad says:

    No one at the UN is plotting gas chambers to liquidate the human population to fight global warming.

    That’s true, David. But then, neither did the National Socialist German Workers Party in the beginning.

    Let’s not compare an aftermath with a fomenting front. Or if you do, compare the two at similar stages of development.

  273. Torgeir Hansson says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 13, 2011 at 9:46 pm
    “Still waiting for you to name a single instance in which [the UN was] successful.

    I have already addressed that point, David. Nothing happens in the UN, especially when it comes to international conflict, unless all permanent members of the Security Council agree. Any one of the five permanent members can veto anything, and do so with monotonous regularity.

    I’ll say what I said to timg56 a ways up the thread: you are advocating for giving the UN more power and not less, if you really want the UN to be effective in solving international conflicts.

    I’ll address one single point from the rest of your comment: the building of the Israeli border fence constitutes a de facto land grab. The UN Human Rights Commission has it right in this case. This is not an endorsement of Palestinian practices or actions, by the way. Not by a long shot.

  274. Rhoda Ramirez says:

    To the Canadians on this thread, I don’t know whether Dave Springer is making a bad joke or not, but some of us have learned our history and know that the US tried to invade Canada twice in our history and recognize that – perhaps – this is not something that should be joked about.

  275. Torgeir Hansson says:

    @James Sexton:

    Andreas Behring Breivik was first and foremost an opponent of Islamic immigration to Europe in general, and Norway in particular. His 1500-page manifesto was influenced, among many others, by Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs web site) and Glenn Beck.

    I have some experience with Norwegian right-wingers. My grandmother on my father’s side was the Minister of Culture in the Quisling government for a time. A full-blown Nazi.

    I never said Andreas Breivik was a product of conservative ideology. If he was anything, he was a fascist or a neo-nazi, or perhaps we should call him a Christian extremist. He believed himself to be an officer of some sort of Knights Templar lodge.

    As to your point that he was just another lunatic looking for an excuse to be a lunatic, I hear what you are saying, but I am not sure I can agree entirely. That may be the case, but the vehicle that fit his dementia was a right-wing philosophy—fascist, not conservative, just to repeat myself.

  276. RockyRoad says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 13, 2011 at 9:46 pm
    “Still waiting for you to name a single instance in which [the UN was] successful.

    I’ll address one single point from the rest of your comment: the building of the Israeli border fence constitutes a de facto land grab. The UN Human Rights Commission has it right in this case. This is not an endorsement of Palestinian practices or actions, by the way. Not by a long shot.

    That’s one way of looking at it, as you admit. The other is that it does indeed take “a long shot” now for Palestinians to kill Israelis in that area, whereas before the fence was built the “UN Human Rights Commission” didn’t lift a finger or file a single complaint on the bloody mess that existed there–the dispute was all one-sided. Land indeed is valuable, but less valuable than human life (unless you’re an Israeli in a Palestinian’s gunsight).

  277. Torgeir Hansson says:

    @ Rocky Road:

    For every Israeli that dies in the ongoing conflict, five Palestinians die, and that is a fact. Israel does not hold the high ground in the conflict.

    Israelis have a right to defend themselves, but need to adhere to UN Resolution 181 (how about that for a UN success? Or fiasco?) and the land they were given under that resolution.

    Israel can be reached by artillery and missiles from a whole number of countries. The argument of defensible borders does not hold water.

    [MODERATOR'S NOTE: This discussion has wandered far from the topic of the thread. Please save this discussion for some other more appropriate forum. -REP]

  278. PiperPaul says:

    Torgeir Hansson says at:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am

    I posit that the creation of the UN might have been more along the lines of “keep your friends and your enemies closer.”

  279. morgo says:

    tell them to jump in the lake and we see you in court

  280. joshua Corning says:

    “But that’s voluntary too, so how can a “voluntary” agreement be legally binding?”

    All contacts generally are voluntary…of course if you put nothing in a contract to remedy lack of performance then it really is not “legally binding”.

    What does the Rio agreement say about enforcement? My guess is that it says nothing.

  281. lurker says:

    Torgeir Hansson,
    You make some good points.
    I would add to your concern regarding corporations the issue of the so-called NGO’s: They are no longer the fuzzy idealistic guys working for low wages and a mighty cause.
    The big NGO’s are in the billions-of $-per year range of budget, and all they have to do is spend money on political power and staff. They are often homes for politicos in-between political posts, as well as highly influential on corporations.
    A big part of the AGW meme is from the power of the NGO’s to influence media and politics, as well as corporations. Look at the goofy Coca Cola-Greenpeace scam regarding polar bears for a small example. The 10:10 kill-the-skeptic film was funded by huge corporations as well govt. grants. It is too easy to simply say ‘bad corporations’. Corruption at all levels is what permitted an idiotic idea like AGW to take hold in the first place. AGW is a symptom that also spreads the social disease.

  282. Torgeir Hansson says:

    Thank you moderator for that timely notice.

    My final point of the night:

    As Winston Churchill said: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

    Maybe it is the same with the U.N.

    The IPCC is clearly bankrupt, and needs to be terminated or radically reformed—probably the latter. It is not a bad idea to have a clearinghouse on climate science, if it is honest and relevant. It is a densely populated planet by now, and to understand how climate, warming or cooling, will affect us seems to be a good idea. We agree that today the IPCC is neither.

    As for the U.N. as an institution: it seems to me that the most powerful nation in the world, and the founding nation of the U.N., has a responsibility in trying to reform it so it can meet the challenges of the 21st century. The world is in fact becoming more peaceful and more safe. An international organization that can perpetuate that trend should be well regarded by all people of good will.

    Peace.

  283. James Sexton says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    @James Sexton:

    As to your point that he was just another lunatic looking for an excuse to be a lunatic, I hear what you are saying, but I am not sure I can agree entirely. That may be the case, but the vehicle that fit his dementia was a right-wing philosophy—fascist, not conservative, just to repeat myself.
    ——————————————————————————-
    In many parts of the world, right-wing and conservative are synonymous. We run into this communication barrier often. As much, so as left-wing equates to communism. I fear this may be the case in much of the conversation occurring.

    However, I would point out, the solutions to the perceived problem of CAGW always entail collective sacrifice. They always entail an arbitrary global governing body. And, is openly hostile to industrialization and the liberties that accompany wealth accumulation, both on a national and personal scale. This is, by all reckoning, totalitarian communism.

  284. bitanphoto says:

    albertalad says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:03 am

    [SNIP: I asked nicely. The thread is about the UN email to Canada. Drop this conversation. -REP]

  285. G. Karst says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    [SNIP: Sorry, but this discussion is very far from the thread topic. Please let it go. Thanks. -REP]

  286. Wayne Delbeke says:

    cgh says:
    December 13, 2011 at 9:00 pm
    Theo, what you say is true, except for this. PM Harper has already made it very clear what he thinks of the opinions of the glitterati et.al., and it leaves him entirely unmoved. The US has already acted as a bad neighbour to Canada over the Keystone decision. Which simply makes Canada’s pushing through the Gateway project all the more important. And the best part is that China and India pay a better price for oil than the US does

    And all of this has been accompanied by a very fundamental shift in Canadian foreign policy as well. Canada now finds itself at odds with EU nations over a great many issues and is increasingly identifying itself as a Pacific Rim nation, not a North Atlantic one. Europe had one last gasp at maintaining strong relations with Canada through the free trade pact, but the EU blew that with their sanctions on Canadian oil.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    There is a lot more than first meets the eye, cgh.

    The three western provincial Premiers are meeting to discuss how to make the Gateway Pipeline to the west coast happen; as well as how to deliver both gas and oil to the US – including Alaskan gas. Americans are working to reverse the Keystone delay. And delay is all it is as several companies are already doing “work arounds”. The biggest damage to the delay will actually be to American companies that were counting on the Keystone to get the Bakken Oil to market from Montana and the Dakotas more efficiently – it will have to be trucked or taken by rail or through other existing pipelines – again, delayed but not stopped. The US wants Keystone as much as we do and given that they are 10 times the size of Canada, they need it more than we do. (Maybe Obama publicly says green is “the way”, but let’s see what he actually does.)

    In deed, as the early Americans used to say: “Go west young man.” Canada is increasingly looking westward for trade and that means working with the US as well given that the ports in the Pacific Northwest are huge and we now have north south rail transport as well as east west transport. Harper and Obama have just met to discuss how to make north south movement of goods between our two countries easier and less costly. Canada is becoming much less Eurocentric. Go to Vancouver, BC (not Vancouver, Washington) and it is quite clear that we (Canada) are becoming increasingly tied to the Pacific. The Asian market is over 3 billion people. The European market is 800 million, but they are broke. Canada is a paltry 32 million domiciled in 10,000,000 square kilometres (3 people per kilometre) versus 315 million in the US (large neighbouring market for our Canadian goods). Seattle, Tacoma and Portland ship about 50 million tons a year …. Vancouver BC handles over 80 million tons per year, 60% of which is trade with Asia. Montreal and Halifax do 28 million and 10 million tons respectively, and declining as trade with Europe shrinks – Halifax was sustained through coal exports to Europe. Of interest is the fact that the US ships about 40 million tons of coal to Europe, a drop in the bucket compared to the 1 billion tons of coal consumed in the US, 90% for electricity generation.

    Europe was never going to be a big market for our Canadian oil, their actions on classifying Canadian Oil as “dirty” is purely Green party politics. Norway exports more oil than we do (2.2 million bbl/day versus 2 million bbl/day). Russia exports 5.5 million bbl/day, Canada imports 1.2 million bbl/day (eastern Canada is supplied from Middle East etc. by tankers); the US imports 11 million bbl/day. Europe has a huge demand for oil, but it can be supplied from Russia, Norway and the Middle East far cheaper than oil from Canada so the European position is simply for media and local consumption and meaningless in terms of demand for our oil. However, there are HUGE European and Chinese investments in the Alberta Oil Sands – for the Europeans it is likely purely economic as they see the Chinese as a buyer just like we do. For the Chinese, it is securing future supplies just like the Americans. Keystone will be built and so will Gateway and other pipelines. The Canadian supply is rather small in the whole scheme of things. Doubling our exports won’t even get us up to Russia or Norway plus Venezuela or Nigeria. Interestingly, the US actually exports about 1.7 million bbl/day while importing 11 million bbl/day.

    And so back to our topic – where does the UN, Kyoto, Durban and the IPCC fit into all this? Nowhere. We need the energy. We will use it. We have the technology to keep it clean. The IPCC can go suck rocks. (is that a Canadian expression?)

  287. Latimer Alder says:

    Unless my knowledge of geography is mistaken, the USA is the only sensible place from which to launch an invasion of Canada.

    Can somebody with access to the latest satellite photos reassure me that UNFCC tanks are not massing on the border somewhere near Duluth.Mn and that Ban-ki Moon does not have access to an independent nuclear arsenal?

    If not, then Canadians can sleep easy in their beds over this toothless threat.

  288. Torgeir Hansson says:

    James Sexton says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:56 pm
    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    “However, I would point out, the solutions to the perceived problem of CAGW always entail collective sacrifice. They always entail an arbitrary global governing body. And, is openly hostile to industrialization and the liberties that accompany wealth accumulation, both on a national and personal scale. This is, by all reckoning, totalitarian communism.”
    ___________________________________________________

    Not quite. We won WWII through collective sacrifice. We put a man on the moon through collective sacrifice. We created Medicare and Social Security through collective sacrifice. We developed agricultural methods and medical treatments through collective sacrifice.

    It would be entirely appropriate to solve catastrophic global warming through collective sacrifice. There is nothing that would entail a greater sacrifice than to not solve catastrophic global warming if it was indeed real. It would limit our freedom, hamper our development, and rob us of our prosperity. It would endanger our children and forfeit our hope if we did not collectively band together and solve it. The means that the warmists are proposing are mostly appropriate, though certainly debatable, if the problem was real.

    The reason this web site exists is that the very notion that there is catastrophic global warming is so remote and unproven that it desperately needs the scrutiny of skeptics, in the best tradition of Western science. Anyone with a brain can see that the notion of CAGW is disproven by the facts: it is not particularly warm, it is not warming at any alarming rate, some warming is not unusual, and there is no empirical data to suggest that the environment is being degraded by such a warming.

    The point is that we live in a society and not an economy. If there was convincing evidence for catastrophic global warming, we should and would act as a society to address it.

    Many people have bought into the illusion that there is, but there is no evidence. That is the point.

  289. Richard111 says:

    Simply reading the comments shows why a global government NOT imposed by totalitarianism is unlikely to succeed in the near future. So much for the idealism that is touted to bring world peace. It is just too good a money earner when you hijack the driving seat to ever be honest.

  290. Skiphil says:

    re: UNFCCC

    well this thread has gone off the rails but let me just say that (1) I applaud Canada’s withdrawal from/repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol, and (2) the email that is the topic of the thread does seem to be about re-affirming UNFCCC from which Canada has not (yet) withdrawn.

    Now the pressure should be on countries to repudiate the UNFCCC which has given us the flawed and biased IPCC process of excluding inconvenient science and trumpeting ‘politicized’ conclusions which are not supported in the scientific papers. The IPCC evolved with ‘position’ statements as summaries which were not scientific reports but merely political glosses after the long scientific reports had been written.

    Media and politicians only cite the summary statements, if that, and they are not genuine summary statements at all.

    Best is to repudiate UNFCCC and IPCC entirely. Short of that, criticize them and reject their dictates.

  291. Leo Norekens says:

    “As yet the hounds are still playing in the courtyard, but their prey will not escape, however fast it may already be charging through the forest.” Franz Kafka

  292. Athelstan says:

    Cripes, I think I may have kicked-up a maelstrom – albeit completely unintended.

    Canada is an autonomous country, the Kyoto protocol is not worth the paper it was written on, legal targets? It is all guff and the very idea [cutting Man made CO2 emissions to de-warm the world is a preposterous one at that.
    Canada’s withdrawal from this idiot UN [agenda 21] process is to be welcomed and is a refreshing diplomacy with integrity – something very much lacking in all of the EU’s and UN’s/IPCC’s dealings in this whole sorry UNFCCC affair.

    Canada, its people and government imho, are to be congratulated, a few more honest and ‘braver’ countries – averring a similar line and this whole shebang [UNFCCC] could be ‘put to bed’.

  293. Canada’s withdrawal from Kyoto was a pleasant surprise as it means that Prime Minister Harper (PMSH) has just waited for the right time to ensure that Canada doesn’t commit economic suicide in the pursuit of a watermelon agenda. Anyone who’s lived in Canada knows that we have winters here and it gets cold. To live in a northern climate requires lots of energy for heat and solar cells don’t function very well during days when one might get from 0 – 6 hours of light/day. Windmills don’t do much on those breeze-free -40 C days that the interior of Canada is noted for. Asking Canadians to reduce their CO2 emissions is simply idiotic.

    What I’m hoping the next move will be is Canada’s withdrawal from the UN as this is an institution that seems to only be interested in creating a totalitarian world kleptocracy. The other significant move that the Canadian government has made recently is to introduce legislation to eliminate the firearms registry which served only to waste $2 billion on the creation of an error-riddled database and criminalize (on paper) large portions of the western population who only registered a token number of their total firearms. Given that the Conservatives have a majority government, this legislation will pass. This is another area where Canada is at odds with the UN and it’s attempt to outlaw civilian firearms ownership. We’re not even close to the US with the ability to defend ourselves, but OTOH, we don’t have waiting periods after buying a gun.

    PMSH has had an interesting history as he was head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation before becoming Prime Minister. While head of the Taxpayers Federation, his views on CAGW would not have been out of place on WUWT. What he’s done is to simply wait until the opportune time to take steps to remove Canada from a process which has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with giving UN statists control of world energy use. I’m sure that Canada will continue to make the proper noises dealing with the topics of “sustainability” and other phrases that sooth the watermelons while making moves to ramp-up oilsands production dramatically.

    Perhaps the best way to deal with the UN’s outrage over our CO2 production would be to take a large group of UN bureaucrats and have them spend a winter in Inuvik using only “sustainable” forms of energy. All they’d have to do to get evil CO2 producing heating would be to withdraw the letter they’ve sent to Canada.

  294. Greg Holmes says:

    The UN is a self sustaining entity, it will fight tooth and nail for every penny it can get its hands on.
    I would not disband the UN , I would however seriously reduce its budget say by 50%. This would limit the non jobs who float around the place and force it to re focus on its core, keeping stability and nations talking to each other.

  295. H.R. says:

    The solution to those nasty e-mails demanding money is simple, Canada. Pick one: change your e-mail address; update your spam filter.

  296. Antonia says:

    Joke:
    How many people work at the Un Secretariat?
    About half.
    (The Guardian, 28 November 1982)

  297. Larry Fields says:

    Before Canada’s PM responds, I think that he should brush up on his Anglo-Saxon vocabulary.

  298. Antonia says:

    Athelstan says:
    December 14, 2011 at 12:36 am

    Canada is an autonomous country, the Kyoto protocol is not worth the paper it was written on, legal targets? It is all guff and the very idea [cutting Man made CO2 emissions to de-warm the world is a preposterous one at that.
    +++++++++++++
    Bravo. As an Australian I am thoroughly ashamed that my government has proved to be the most idiotic in the Western world by unilaterally introducing an economy wide carbon tax at $23 a tonne. The word ‘madness’ comes to mind.

  299. Jack says:

    Canada’s environment minister, Peter Kent, says “To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of … the transfer of $14bn (£8.7bn) from Canadian taxpayers to other countries – the equivalent of $1,600 from every Canadian family – with no impact on emissions or the environment,”

    They may try and hide the decline, they may try to call skeptics deniers, but when it comes to the crunch the whole corrupted science of global warming is being brought down by the financial ponzi scheme it created. Al Gore’s ponzi scheme collapsed first, now the UN’s transfer of weatlh ponzi scheme.

    Bravo Canada.

  300. Gail Combs says:

    AndyG55 says:
    December 13, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    hmm, just wondering how the US would respond if the UN tried to enforce their will on Canada.

    Could be interesting.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Very much so indeed.

    Obama would try to provide troops.

    He would find the troops deserted to the man and went over to join the Canadians.

    He would then call upon progressives to fight only to find the are all pacifists and will not touch a gun and had all run off to Mexico to avoid being drafted.

  301. Blade says:

    Well done Canada!

    Joe [December 13, 2011 at 10:18 am] says:

    “It should be obvious at this point that the only countries that are really keen on Kyoto are the countries at the narrow end of the funnel.

    Spot-on brilliant. Well stated.

    Robin Kool [December 13, 2011 at 7:00 pm] says:

    “Today the first comment is: “Sieg Heil mein UN”. I am sorry, but that is way over the top. ‘Sieg Heil’ was a nazi greeting.

    … but let’s agree on not comparing warmists with nazis here.”

    Well it looks like that comment was actually addressed at the UN, now wasn’t it? Why exactly did you change the subject midstream? Perhaps you should not tell people what to think about the UN and not misconstrue what their original comment was.

    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 10:52 am] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 12:27 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 12:51 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 12:59 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 1:11 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 4:41 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 8:58 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 9:11 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 9:29 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 9:46 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 9:58 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 10:09 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 10:20 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 10:38 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 10:54 pm] says:
    Torgeir Hansson [December 13, 2011 at 11:44 pm] says:

    Canada throws a monkey wrench into the UN extortion racket and we get treated to a visit from yet another threadjacking statist troll. (sigh) Highlights of a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance …

    “Come on guys, this is not so hard. The UN is simply strenuously reminding Canada of its non-binding obligations … And I don’t think you can argue that the West shouldn’t try to be a little helpful in the old colonies. We left a bit of a mess in many places. (Never mind the climate nonsense, I’m thinking about things like getting the kids vaccinated and educated and so on.) … I am a little puzzled by talk about dissolving the UN. Unless this forum is full of thirteen-year olds with no sense of history … don’t bother me with this dissolution talk … It has nothing to do with collectivism. But when you have a high smokestack on your factory, and you pollute the surrounding area, you are responsible for one hell of a lot of things, including the health of children living downwind … It is unavoidable that some politics are discussed, but I can’t help but retch when I run into neocon conspiratorial theoriesThe UN is not the Antichrist. There is no communist around every corner. Hell, there are hardly any communists left in the world … The Treaty of Versailles was the reason we got WWII … Yes, it is a toothless organization, yes it is expensive to run …. It’s cheap insurance, and please don’t harass me with any communist conspiracies … Your idea of a communist is anyone who wants to limit anything about the activity of any free market or anything else for that matter. That makes you an anarchistSee a lot of communists … A lot of Islamic fundamentalists? The first campaign to get the US out of the UN was run by the John Birch Society in 1959. Are you a member of the John Birch Society … The real issue in the U.S. is not communists infiltrating our government or the public discourse. It is corporations having undue influence over our government … The idea that we are dealing with a threat from communists or communism in this country at this time is wrong on its face. You would be much closer to the truth if you spoke about corporatism or fascism … Nothing happens in the UN, especially when it comes to international conflict, unless all permanent members of the Security Council agree. Any one of the five permanent members can veto anything … The building of the Israeli border fence constitutes a de facto land grab. The UN Human Rights Commission has it right in this case. This is not an endorsement of Palestinian practices or actions, by the way. Not by a long shot … Andreas Behring Breivik was first and foremost an opponent of Islamic immigration to Europe in general, and Norway in particular. His 1500-page manifesto was influenced, among many others, by Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs web site) and Glenn BeckFor every Israeli that dies in the ongoing conflict, five Palestinians die, and that is a fact. Israel does not hold the high ground in the conflict … Israelis have a right to defend themselves, but need to adhere to UN Resolution 181 (how about that for a UN success? Or fiasco?) and the land they were given under that resolution … Israel can be reached by artillery and missiles from a whole number of countries. The argument of defensible borders does not hold waterWe created Medicare and Social Security through collective sacrifice. We developed agricultural methods and medical treatments through collective sacrifice … It would be entirely appropriate to solve catastrophic global warming through collective sacrifice. There is nothing that would entail a greater sacrifice than to not solve catastrophic global warming if it was indeed real. It would limit our freedom, hamper our development, and rob us of our prosperity. It would endanger our children and forfeit our hope if we did not collectively band together and solve it. The means that the warmists are proposing are mostly appropriate, though certainly debatable, if the problem was real.”

    ROTFLMAO. Every liberal talking point in a single thread. There are no communists, the UN is great (toothless, expensive *and* cheap insurance), the danger is right-wing fascism. Marxist shared sacrifice. Blame the west, as if we haven’t already spent a fortune *giving* (not lending) money to the utterly thankless 3rd world (and where kids are not getting vaccinated!). A Treaty caused WWII. Oh the irony of pushing another treaty in the Trillions (he swerved into that, LOL!! Leftist ‘Neocon’ scapegoats. Oh, and Israel can defend itself but. ’nuff said.

    The only way to believe the rantings of neo-communist progressivism is if you were born yesterday. Torgeir Hansson, has a lot of bad days ahead as all his beliefs are crushed in the coming months and years. Meanwhile the Vikings are rolling over in their graves.

  302. ozspeaksup says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am

    I am a little puzzled by talk about dissolving the UN.

    Unless this forum is full of thirteen-year olds with no sense of history, it should be unnecessary to remind people that the U.N. was founded by the United States, in the United States, as an instrument for international collaboration, BECAUSE IT IS SO DAMN EXPENSIVE TO SEND AMERICAN BOYS AND GIRLS TO DIE IN SOME GODFORSAKEN PLACE WHEN A WAR BREAKS OUT!!!!!

    The IPCC needs to be gutted, no question. But don’t give me this nonsense that the UN should be dissolved. Crack a history book. Learn about places like Normandy, Iwo Jima, Birkenau, Bastogne, Hiroshima, and Kursk. Until you have done so, don’t bother me with this dissolution talk.
    ====================================================
    the USA created and pushed the UN, oddly enough the usa seems to be a LOT behind how it chooses who to go beat up too,. its a little private army doing the behest of a select few who probably should be behind bars themselves, answerable to no one but themselves?
    misused and misled seriously, from what it was meant to be.
    the recent issue with new laws re usa and anyone elses citizens being able to be held tortured and extradited all over the place?
    so will the UN chaps and chapess’s be acting on that crime against the people of america and their own constitution?
    nah don’t think so. yet its a crime.
    theyre quick to send em into the oil countries to save certain butts though..

  303. Roger Knights says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 9:46 pm
    Sean Peake says:
    December 13, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    Now about Norway: a country with a sound economic footing, peaceful, pro-USA, capitalistic to the core yet featuring a social safety net for the needy. No poverty, very little violence (with the exception of the right-wing monster Andreas Behring Breivik), and a generally happy population. High productivity. Lots and lots of money in the bank. A large and healthy energy industry.

    Oh, by the way: run for the last fifty years by the Norwegian Labor Party. Go figure.

    Massive oil wealth = no poverty, lots and lots of money in the bank, a large and healthy energy industry, etc. Even a socialist government can’t outspend the gusher’s it’s got. For now.

    (Norway’s sovereign wealth fund made a valiant stab at it last year, though, investing hundreds of millions in Greek bonds. Paraphrase: “We’re going to hold them until maturity, so there’s no risk, and the opportunity presented by those high yields makes them a great bargain.”)

  304. Steve from Rockwood says:

    For more insight on Canada-US relations, the following book is a great read. Seems like a lot of Americans stayed behind and became Canadians after the war of 1812. The Canada-US link is stronger than we think.
    The Civil War of 1812 by Alan Taylor – ISBN: 978-1-4000-4265-4

    Also, don’t forget that the US is the main contributor to the UN and would play the greatest role in restructuring it – which is long overdue.

    Finally, while Canada has walked away from Kyoto it still faces some perplexing problems. For example, one of the largest polluters AND greatest emitters of CO2 is the coal-fired generating station in Southern Ontario. It is owned by the Provincial Government through Hydro One. All this talk of CO2 and pollution reduction without even addressing the single greatest problem? It is not the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, the Provincial Government tried to close it once (but needs the electricity) and any attempts to deal with this problem will cost Ontario tax payers directly and dearly. All this from the “greenest” Premier ever (with accolades from David Suzuki no less). I have noticed he is quietly opening new gas-fired generating stations in the meantime. I guess the $700 million he allocated to solar and wind turbines ran out.

  305. David says:

    ‘Legally binding..’
    In whose jurisdiction..?

  306. Russ in Houston says:

    Blade says:
    December 14, 2011 at 4:31 am
    Re: Torgeir Hansson says:
    What most people don’t seem to understand is that Communism (everything run by the government) and Fascism (everything run by corporations) is really the same beast.

  307. ozspeaksup says:

    Gary Mount says:
    December 13, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    In 2002 a farmer in Canada went to jail for selling his own grain.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/10/31/farmers_021031.html
    A few days ago, 120 members of Canada’s parliament voted to keep the communist Wheat Board system running.
    There are at least 120 communist still active in Canada.
    ==============
    weve got their relatives in Aus!
    same deal the grains crowd take a fee even if you sold your own, which is illegal anyway.
    i sure didnt agree to that1
    we now have Viterra and cargil owning our biggest silos and sales.
    bet your boards are full of their shite too.

  308. davidmhoffer says:

    Torgeir Hannson;
    “Still waiting for you to name a single instance in which [the UN was] successful.
    I have already addressed that point, David. Nothing happens in the UN, especially when it comes to international conflict, unless all permanent members of the Security Council agree. Any one of the five permanent members can veto anything, and do so with monotonous regularity.>>>

    So, you admit that there is not a single instance of the UN succesfully preventing conflict or genocide. You argue that it is better to have the UN in order try and prevent these things, while admitting in the next breath that they are completely and totaly ineffective.

    Then you have the audacity to put words in the mouths of your critics, claiming that they are arguing for more power in the UN, not less. No such argument was made. The argument that was made was that the UN has failed in the very tasks YOU support itz existance for, and that is true by your own admission.

    However noble the goals of the UN might have been at one time, those goals have never been served. The only purposes served today by the UN are to employee thousands of sycophants and lend an air of legitimacy to 3rd world dictatorships who use their majority votes in the general assembly to hijack every positive initiative while covering up the very misdeeds the UN was supposed to prevent. The UN is expensive, ineffective, and being used to facilitate exacty the things it was supposed to prevent. Why matters not one wit until you admit that is in fact the end result.

    I want to address also your mind numbingly stupid remark that corporations have too much influence, citing the business dealings of Al Gore and Pachauri as proof. That is as backwards as the rest of your nonsensical arguments. You’ve cited examples of lobbyists with influence taking advantage of that influence in their business dealings. How is that an example of corporations having too much influence? It isn’t even an example of corporations HAVING influence. It is an example of lobbyists having influence, and using it to further their own personal business dealings, liniing their pockets with tax payer money. That you accuse the corporations of the world with a blanket statement attempting to incriminate them for something a select number of lobbyists have done to enrich themselves says everything one needs to know about your politics.

  309. Theo Goodwin says:

    Gail Combs says:
    December 13, 2011 at 9:06 pm
    “Marion says:
    …And one last thing try typing in the name of your local council along with Agenda 21 – you may be surprised at just how much the UN has already imposed on local planning!! (also an EU resident).
    ______________________________________________________
    If you are in the USA try the word “Sustainable” too. It is the code word for Agenda 21.

    President’s Council on Sustainable Development: http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/

    Yeah, in the tradition of “Diversity Deans,” every little college no matter how obscure now has a “Sustainability Professor.” If it were not so harmful it would have all of us ROTFLOL.

  310. Brian H says:

    Ontario is Canada’s embedded mini-EU. Stupidity on stilts. But the Invisible Hand’s brass knucks are drawing blood with its initial jabs. When the hard right, followed by an uppercut. land, it’ll be lights out.

  311. jrwakefield says:

    The UNFCCC can shove its treaty where the sun doesn’t shine. Canada is a world leader.

  312. Gail Combs says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    …..The real issue in the U.S. is not communists infiltrating our government or the public discourse. It is corporations having undue influence over our government…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    On that we agree.

    However what most people miss is that the Bankers are NOT capitalists and they actually supported the Bolshevik Revolution with gold. (I think they wanted to wipe out the Czar of Russia for supporting the USA against a banker takeover via England and France during the civil war.)

    Socialism/Communism or the more correct term collectivism was seen as a means for yanking the reins out of the hands of individuals and giving the “Elite” complete power. The Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation’s foreign policies.

    …Professor Quigley discloses that over fifty years ago the Morgan firm decided to infiltrate the Leftwing political movement in the United States. This was not difficult to do since these Left groups needed funds and were eager for help to get their message to the public. Wall Street supplied both. There was nothing new about this decision, says Quigley, since other financiers had talked about it and even attempted it earlier. He continues:

    “What made it decisively important this time was the combination of its adoption by the dominant Wall Street financiers, at a time when tax policy was driving all financiers to seek tax-exempt refuges for their fortunes…” (Page 938)

    http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=NoneDare&C=4#Bolshevik

    Now the elite have progressed to pull the strings from behind the scenes using NGOs. Social activism is just a mask the elite wear to fool the innocent into thinking they are “Fighting” the “Capitalists” while they are actually the foot soldiers of the bankers and corporate CEOs.

    “Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues,” notes Peter Spiro. “Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots.” The CGG [Commission on Global Governance] has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations…. http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

    NGOs REPLACE VOTERS in USA

    By Presidential Executive Order the USA was divided into ten regions. These regions are governed by an unholy mix of unelected government bureaucrats and NGOs. The regions were set up by President Nixon but the implementation of the “regional governance concept began in earnest with the Clinton-Gore administration. “On the heels of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development , came the President’s Community Empowerment Board, chaired by Vice President Al Gore,” [ http://www.rense.com/general63/ree.htm ] These quasi-governmental regional authorities are slowly transforming the US from representative government to government by United Nations sponsored and directed NGOs and appointed bureaucrats.

    THE BEHIND THE SCENES PLAYERS

    SCIENTIFIC STUDY Says World’s Stocks Controlled by Select Few

    A recent analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries has revealed that the world’s finances are in the hands of just a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first clear picture of the global concentration of financial power, and point out the worldwide financial system’s vulnerability as it stood on the brink of the current economic crisis…

    The most pared-down backbones exist in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. Paradoxically; these same countries are considered by economists to have the most widely-held stocks in the world, with ownership of companies tending to be spread out among many investors. But while each American company may link to many owners, Glattfelder and Battiston’s analysis found that the owners varied little from stock to stock, meaning that comparatively few hands are holding the reins of the entire market http://www.insidescience.org/research/study_says_world_s_stocks_controlled_by_select_few

    BTW there is actually no difference between the “Democrats” and the “Republicans” both represent the moneyed elite and not us. But try telling a progressive that.

    While I see Nixon, Reagan and Bush as similar to Clinton, “Progressives” can not get their head around the fact that not only Clinton but Obama sold them out to the “Corpocracy” why else did Clinton push the ratification of NAFTA and the WTO or sign the five banking laws that created the present economic mess? Why else did Obama tap General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt to lead a newly created Council on Jobs and Competitiveness?

    Talk about the grizzly guarding the hen house!

    …To replace Larry Summers as head of the National Economic Council, Obama brought in Gene Sperling, who held the same position in the Clinton administration. With Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel back in Chicago running for mayor of the Windy City, the president brought in the former mayor’s brother, William Daley, a former Clinton administration official and banker. And to top it off, General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt was tapped to lead a newly created Council on Jobs and Competitiveness….

    By the time Sperling moved up to take over the NEC, he was working on China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, an event which caused millions of manufacturing jobs in U.S. to be permanently lost.

    Sperling also played a major role in repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial and investment banking. Many observers credit the act’s repeal with causing the financial crisis that brought the economy to its knees……

    After delivering the trade pact that cost America 20 percent of its manufacturing jobs in just 14 years, Daley moved on to serve as Clinton’s Commerce Secretary from 1997-2000. During that time, he helped pave the way for China’s entry into the WTO.

    Daley’s work in the Clinton administration earned him a reputation as someone who is ”squarely on the opposite side of working families.” At least that’s what labor leaders said about him as he left the Clinton administration to run Al Gore’s failed presidential campaign….

    Immelt, who will now have the president’s ear in an advisory role, has consistently supported the same failed trade policies that have cost America millions of jobs. As the leader of one of the world’s largest companies, he has been at the forefront of the outsourcing movement.

    “You would have difficulty finding a company that has outsourced more jobs and closed more American factories than GE,” Scott Paul, Executive Director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing writes….
    http://economyincrisis.org/content/change-looks-quite-familar

  313. Vince Causey says:

    Torgeir Hannson;

    You raise some interesting point, many of which could be the subject of whole threads. However, when you wrote, regarding Brievik “I have some experience with Norwegian right-wingers. My grandmother on my father’s side was the Minister of Culture in the Quisling government for a time. A full-blown Nazi.”

    I feel I must respond to this. Since you refer to Brievik, right wingers and Nazis in the same breath, I assume you are implying that Nazis are right wing. Although this seems to be a common perception, especially in Europe, it is also wrong. A right wing philosophy is one that espouses free markets, small government with low taxation and individual liberty. It would be no exageration to say that Nazis occupy the opposite extreme. Fascists – which is where I would place Brievik – certainly do not believe in free markets, much less individual liberty.

    Fascism is a totalitarinist ideology, espousing a large government control over the citizenry, who are to be whipped into line with violence if necessary. Economy is further to be controlled by the government, who will regulate what is to be produced and how the products are to be distributed.

    Will you not agree that fascism has nothing to do with “right wing” as I have defined it above, and is more akin to communism, the major difference being that the former is overtly racist?

  314. Skiphil says:

    OT about OT discussions:

    This thread has been overwhelmed with OT comments about political, ideological, and international relations issues, etc.distant from anything to do with Canada and the UNFCCC email.

    Does anyone know if there is software that would allow the mods to easily start a spin-off thread for people who want to discuss OT issues? I think it is great that ppl are inspired to discuss other issues together, but I wanted to read about the topic of THIS thread and it became difficult to do that. Ideally one could have a software solution which is a win-win if people who wanted to go OT had a new thread to follow while ppl who wanted to stick to the current thread topic didn’t have to wade through loads of extraneous comments.

  315. JPeden says:

    Torgeir Hannson says:

    [SNIP: Back to the topic of the thread, please. -REP]

  316. beng says:

    Hey UNFCCC! Stay ooout of our hooouse, eh?

  317. Marion says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 14, 2011 at 6:13 am
    (in response to Torgeir Hannson)
    “So, you admit that there is not a single instance of the UN succesfully preventing conflict or genocide. You argue that it is better to have the UN in order try and prevent these things, while admitting in the next breath that they are completely and totaly ineffective.
    Then you have the audacity to put words in the mouths of your critics, claiming that they are arguing for more power in the UN, not less. No such argument was made. The argument that was made was that the UN has failed in the very tasks YOU support itz existance for, and that is true by your own admission”

    Unfortunately, David, this is always the socialist response – when their BIG Government policies fail they claim it was because they needed BIGGER Government and MORE money ie more Socialism. And so it is in the EU (or UN for that matter), the answer to any crisis (mostly self-inflicted as in the current Euro crisis) is more EU or ‘ever greater union’.

    It seems to me that the choice we face is between right wing Small Government and Democratic Capitalism or left wing Big Government and Crony Capitalism. And unfortunately many countries these days only seem to offer a ‘choice’ of the latter, so it is in the UK with their ‘compassionate conservatism’ (socialism in disguise). Political turkeys don’t vote for Christmas and have become too attached to their ability to buy votes. If you ever watch a clip of an MEP making a speech in the European Parliament you’ll find he’s talking to a virtually empty chamber, such is our ‘representation’ these days – they’re mostly out being wined, dined and courted by various lobbying groups, usually Big Corporates, Finance or NGOs, not many small businesses can afford the time out or the expense of the trip.

    We need to stop this trend towards Totalitarianism by downsizing Government (and therefore reducing the effectiveness of lobbying groups), removing the multiple layers of parasitic bureaucracies that have been created and putting a stop to Government funding of NGOs.

  318. duntonj says:

    Come on guys! Could we has some mature comments?
    The UN has a major role to play, and even if it is only to “discuss” and propose ways forward. Policy making is a game that is affected by many actors, and even if we pt down the UN as useless, it has its role in shaping the direction that world should move towards.
    It is easy to criticize the body, since it is immersed in so many conflicts and tackles so many issues ( disarmament, human rights, culture, refugees, etc.).
    Instead of complaining, I don’t see many of you proposing solutions and ideas.
    Climate change is real. Who will decide to tackle it? The UN is the only body which is willing to take this on, and who has the capacity.
    If you believe that no countries should be constrained in their actions, fine. Then let everybody act for themselves and you’ll end up with a huge mess in no time. Much like an individual enters in a social contract with society, a state also has a duty to act in a responsible way in the international arena.

  319. Werner Brozek says:

    Back on the topic now.

    From the Edmonton Journal, December 14:
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Commons+receive+report+Kyoto+pullout/5857492/story.html

    Commons to receive report on Kyoto pullout

    Commissioner eyes legal implications

    Two paragraphs from this article:

    “Even if Canada officially withdraws from the agreement, a Kyoto-implementation act remains in place that currently requires the environmental watchdog to report on whether the country is meeting its obligations.

    “If the act remains, then we will in-form Parliament, and the question will be: How will we do this? We have lawyers looking at this actually right now on what the implications will be,” Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughan told reporters in Ottawa following the release of his annual report.”

  320. Leo says:

    duntonj:

    Utter and complete hogwash! To pick just two of your comments:
    “Climate change is real. Who will decide to tackle it?”. NOBODY will, because nobody can and that includes the UN. It’s just an excuse to tax the useful world more and more.
    “… immersed in so many conflicts and tackles so many issues … culture..”. CULTURE! What has culture to do with the UN?

    The UN are growing too big for their boots and need to be put in their place. Stick to sending blue helmeted expensive troops in to trouble spots to watch genocide take place.

  321. Smokey says:

    duntonj says:

    “Climate change is real.”

    That is the only unarguable comment duntonj made in his childlike UN apologia. However, there is no verifiable evidence that human CO2 emissions have anything to do with “climate change”. If duntonj believes otherwise he needs to post his evidence here. It is only the climate alarmist bunch, led by Michael Mann, who believe that the climate never changed until the industrial revolution.

    The UN is the biggest corrupt organization on the planet. It is thoroughly anti-U.S., spreading hatred and animosity while always having its hand out for more U.S. dollars. It has never allowed an independent audit of its finances.

    There is nothing that the UN does that individual countries cannot do better, more efficiently, and most importantly, more honestly. The UN is an opaque, unaccountable, corrupt organization run by self-serving kleptocrats who take a large cut of every dollar that goes into the UN. Anyone who believes otherwise is extremely naive.

  322. timg56 says:

    An interesting thread, which in the end has me thinking that Robin Kool’s comment carries the most import.

    One reason I enjoy reading the climate blogs I do is the opportunity to see working scientists and highly accomplished people in engineering and technology fields sharing their opinions. It reminds me of how little I know. What I find unnecessary is the frequent name calling, which unfortunately is common to the blogsphere no matter the subject matter. I prefer sites like this, Bish Hill and Judith Curry in part because the moderators allow freedom of expression (with only minor constraints to maintain civil discussion) and do not talk down to commentors. And generally the people commenting do a better job at refraining from name calling than is seen at the so called real climate science sites. I think we can do better.

    For example, I most likely disagree with squarehead on the issue of being threatened by communism. But I bet that in a face to face discussion we might find more points of agreement than disagreement. The same with Torgeir and the UN. (Which by the way I am not arguing for giving more power to, Tor.) And even if we may not have many points of agreement, there is no cause for discourtesy or name calling or assuming the other person is an idiot because they don’t agree with you.

    Sorry if I went on too much about this, but after experiencing the need to take a shower everytime I visit sites like Real Climate and SkS, I hate to see the same sort of behavior from folks who I find I side with on many subjects.

  323. davidmhoffer says:

    dontonj;
    It is easy to criticize the body, since it is immersed in so many conflicts and tackles so many issues ( disarmament, human rights, culture, refugees, etc.).
    Instead of complaining, I don’t see many of you proposing solutions and ideas.
    Climate change is real.>>>

    Let’s go through the list shall we? Let’s see what the track record is:

    disarmament: FAIL
    human rights: FAIL
    culture: FAIL
    refugees: FAIL
    world hunger: FAIL
    peace keeping: FAIL
    intervention in armed conflicts: FAIL
    prevention of armed conflicts: FAIL
    inventing climate change: GOLD STAR!
    DOING anything about it: FAIL

    So the only thing they’ve done well is invent a fairy tail. They can’t even come up with a way to solve a problem that they made up in the first place. Why should I propose solutions and ideas to fix an organization that is so clearly and is obviously completely ineffective and incompetent while at the same time being morally and ethically bankrupt?

    If you paid a mechanic to fix a flat tire, and when you picked the car up, it had two flat tires, would you promptly hire the guy to fix two flat tires? If you hired the mechanic to fix two flat tires, and it came back with three flat tires, and a broken windshield, and he said the problem was that it needed an engine overhaul, would you hire him to do the engine overhaul? If you threatened to take the car to a different mechanic, and he said he couldn’t “allow” you to do that, would you just fork over the money for the engine overhaul? If you complained to your neighbour about the mechanic, and your neighbour criticized you for not coming up with good ideas to help the mechanic do a better job, would you listen and conclude the three flat tires, the broken windshield, and the engine overhaul were all your own fault for not having been nicer to the mechanic and paid him more money in the first place?

    You would? Can I be your mechanic?

  324. Myrrh says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 13, 2011 at 6:27 pm
    [REPLY: By all means, deal with it. Language Rules will continue to be enforced, however. -REP]

    Frankly, I am shocked that a site that will not allow the “d” word would allow this sort of crap through. His comment continues on:

    [SNIPPED AT COMMENTER'S REQUEST. -REP]

    I will respond to this blatant racist remark that is the continuation of the blood libel that cost 6 million jews their lives in WWII in the morning when my temper gets to the point where I am not in danger of pounding the keys right through my keyboard. Sorry, but if it is the decision to leave that piece of hatred up, then my respect for WUWT will take a dramatic turn for the worse. You banned the “d” word. Is this piece of hatred any less deserving of that fate? I’ve enjoyed to no end my time on this site, but hate mongering is hate mongering and I don’t participate in sites that permit it.

    [REPLY: I looked at the sites linked to. They were vile and the link has been removed. WUWT will not be party to spreading that kind of... stuff. -REP]

    ===============

    I think you misread me, I had family in Hitlers camps… Anti zionism isn’t anti semitism, that it’s perceived as the same is misdirection, see the Grauniad’s coverage of this over the years, much debated there and the arguments are convoluted. Anyway, the UN was set up by the world’s elite bankers, who finance both sides of any war, they set up the IPCC to deliberately find evidence for the claim that global warming was anthropogenic, they are the ones responsible for all these shenanigans. It is these people that Canada has a contract with. A contract is a contract.

    What is Canada actually saying no to? If to the continuation of Kyoto:

    “Subject: [UNFCCC medialist] STATEMENT BY UNFCCC CHIEF ON CANADA’S ANNOUNCEMENT TO WITHDRAW FROM KYOTO PROTOCOL

    STATEMENT BY UNFCCC CHIEF ON CANADA’S ANNOUNCEMENT TO WITHDRAW FROM KYOTO PROTOCOL

    The Durban agreement to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol represents the continued leadership and commitment of developed countries to meet legally binding emission reduction commitments. It also provides the essential foundation of confidence for the new push towards a universal, legal climate agreement in the near future.”

    then, it appears Canada is perfectly within its rights to do this, if this is what it is doing, because it takes another agreement to continue Kyoto. If Canada is saying no to this, then there is no contract for Canada to be held to, whatever has gone before is over.

    “UPDATE: There’s some ambiguity here in the announcement, upon further reading it could be interpreted that they are saying this:

    “I see you withdraw from Kyoto but you are still legally bound to reduce emissions UNDER THE 1992 ‘VOLUNTARY’ RIO UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC)”.

    So maybe it isn’t Kyoto they’re saying they can’t leave, but its parent treaty, Rio’s UNFCCC, which is the model for this Spring’s upcoming UNCSD ’12.

    But that’s voluntary too, so how can a “voluntary” agreement be legally binding?”

    Voluntary means only that there is no coercion, no obligation, to sign, but, once having signed there is a contract in place. However, since Kyoto 2 is obviously an extension to this which requires signature, then not signing should be enough to stop the process; because there is no more agreement, there is no more commitment to it.

    Admirable as Canada’s stance here is, please let it be dealt with intelligently, by dealing with the root set up. Someone above mentioned that one of Canada’s, and the bigger of the two, tv stations hardly carried anything about Durban – that’s the problem, not something to be proud of.. The actual workings and decisions are being kept from us in practically all mainstream media, we should all know what Monckton analysed of the agreement concocted in Durban, but we don’t.

  325. john says:

    Al Gore and his new “manifesto”…

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203430404577092682864215896.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    This is co written by the former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, now serving as Senior Partner of Generation Investment Management, a London-headquartered fund management business. (think re-hypothecation)….

    http://www.nationalsummit.org/speaker-blood

  326. Gail Combs says:

    duntonj says:
    December 14, 2011 at 8:47 am

    Come on guys! Could we has some mature comments?
    The UN has a major role to play,….. and even if it is only to “discuss” and propose ways forward. Policy making is a game that is affected by many actors, and even if we pt down the UN as useless, it has its role in shaping the direction that world should move towards.
    It is easy to criticize the body, since it is immersed in so many conflicts and tackles so many issues ( disarmament, human rights, culture, refugees, etc.).
    Instead of complaining, I don’t see many of you proposing solutions and ideas….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The UN has a major role to play alright, to promote the wishes of the wealthy elite! The UN’s position on seed says it all as far as I am concerned. The UN takes the side of the likes of Monsanto against some poor starving peasant farmer. Do you need a better definition of EVIL?

    I hated the UN and knew they were corrupt long before I even looked into CAGW. Nothing I have seen since makes me think it is in the best interest of the people of the world for the UN to continue to exist.

    (This is from several years ago)

    FAO is supporting harmonization of seed rules and regulations in Africa and Central Asia in order to stimulate the development of a vibrant seed industry…An effective seed regulation harmonization process involves dialogue amongst all relevant stakeholders from both private and public sectors. Seed quality assurance, variety release, plant variety protection, biosafety, plant quarantine and phytosanitary issues are among the major technical areas of a regional harmonized seed system. The key to a successful seed regulation harmonization is a strong political will of the governments involvedhttp://www.fao.org/ag/portal/archive/detail/en/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=5730&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1886&cHash=7f04326e35

    “…Instead of complaining, I don’t see many of you proposing solutions and ideas….”
    On the contrary if you bothered to read comments for the last month or so some of the solutions presented were:

    #1. Get rid of the vampires (World Bank, IMF, Central banks and Fractional Reserve Banking) These, esp. the World Bank, are very intertwined with the UN and CAGW.

    This gets rid of the parasitic class interested only in more power and squeezing every cent out of the poor. SEE International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank imposed structural adjustment programs (SAPs)

    Warfare is about economics and it is not economical to fight a war unless more is gained in land/resources. Fractional Reserve Banking changed that by allowing politicians to wage wars without the general populous revolting due to the huge taxes needed to finance a war that shows no “Profit.” THUS Fractional Reserve Banking/Central Banking allows governments to borrow large amounts of money that find it’s way into the pockets of a few while the general population pays for it by the hidden tax called inflation. Get rid of the central bankers/fractional reserve banking and get rid of wars caused by the bankers promoting, financing and profiting from both sides of a conflict. Think the USA and Vietnam and leaving the gold standard followed by the massive inflation in the late seventies.

    …the U.S. turned sharply and permanently from a foreign policy of peace and non-intervention to an aggressive program of economic and political expansion abroad. At the heart of the new policy were America’s leading bankers…

    #2 . Promote smaller government and a close watch on government by citizens. Right now we have governments for the Transnational Banks/Corporations by the Transnational Banks/Corporations and they do not give a {self snip} about anyones welfare but their own.

    The ugly collusion between Bill Clinton, Dan Amstutz (Cargill AND Goldman Sachs) who wrote both the WTO Agreement on Ag. and the Freedom to Fail farm bill (1996), Dwayne Andreas (CEO of ADM – biofuel – & one of the biggest campaign donor in the US to Democratic and Republican candidates alike) caused the food riots of 2008. Again the United Nations is neck deep in the mess with the WTO/UN writing Ag regs designed to be implemented world wide and guaranteed to wipe out individual family farms and replacing them with large environmentally devastating Corporate farms.

    Again the United Nations/CAGW is neck deep in the mess with “carbon sink tree farms” grown on African and South American land stolen from the native peasant farmers. Farmers in the EU, Australia and Canada have not been spared either.

    The Food Bubble: How Wall Street Starved Millions and Got Away With It http://harpers.org/archive/2010/07/0083022

    http://www.foodfirst.org/files/shared_staff/audio/Food_Crisis_CFSC.pdf
    http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=592
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2202
    http://www.albionmonitor.com/9611a/doleadm.html
    http://www.commondreams.org/views/051500-104.htm
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

  327. DanB says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am

    I am a little puzzled by talk about dissolving the UN.

    Unless this forum is full of thirteen-year olds with no sense of history, it should be unnecessary to
    remind people that the U.N. was founded by the United States, in the United States, as an instrument for international collaboration, BECAUSE IT IS SO DAMN EXPENSIVE TO SEND AMERICAN BOYS AND GIRLS TO DIE IN SOME GODFORSAKEN PLACE WHEN A WAR BREAKS OUT!!!!!
    ————————————————————————————————————————-
    You’ve got to be kidding, right?
    How did the UN do for those American kids in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq?
    Yes, the UN is one of the US’s biggest mistakes.

  328. “The IPCC needs to be gutted, no question. But don’t give me this nonsense that the UN should be dissolved. Crack a history book. Learn about places like Normandy, Iwo Jima, Birkenau, Bastogne, Hiroshima, and Kursk. Until you have done so, don’t bother me with this dissolution talk.”

    I did crack a history book. Tell me how the UN managed it’s oil-for-food program. Or how it’s managing the Darfur conflict. Or the Chad conflict. Or, for that matter, why is there still a DMZ in Korea?

    If people seem to think that the UN is so good, why not have their HQ outside the US? Move it to Moscow. Let some diplomat claim “diplomatic immunity” if they break a Russian law.

  329. I guess my question is (rhetorical) to whom is the UN accountable?
    The answer ought to be its members.
    If that is correct then can we say the members are to blame for the situation they now find themselves in, because they have not called on the UN to ACCOUNT for its actions?
    Perhaps it is a case of what my Mother used to call ‘passing the buck’…..
    Not having time or inclination to do the tasks themselves, member nations have passed the buck as it were and expected – then allowed the UN to set the direction / forward planning.
    The UN has accreud (?sp) power unto itself….. another Mother-ism – a little power goes to the head and is a dangerous thing…… now the power is so strong that they are the driving force instead of the other way around, and their ego will not let it back down. They are used to their luxurious lifestyles, big offices, holidays (oops sorry) conferences in exotic climes, and money in their bank accounts!
    Sadly in some ways we are responsible for the monster we now see, but how can we reign this in?
    Take away its funding and it has no power.
    Money is the root of all evil.

  330. Gail Combs says:

    Just a FYI

    “…the 18-acre site was donated to the newly-formed United Nations by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. http://nyc-architecture.com/MID/MID001.htm

  331. davidmhoffer says:

    Myrrh;
    Anyway, the UN was set up by the world’s elite bankers, who finance both sides of any war>>>

    Bullsh*t. The thing bankers fear most is war. They lend money out against securities like buildings and equipment. War has a tendency to destroy buildings and equipment, rendering the securities useless and last I checked, dead customers have a tendency not to fulfill their loan obligations. Your accusation is baseless, and rooted in odious conspriacy theories.

  332. davidmhoffer says:

    Myrrh;
    the UN was set up by the world’s elite bankers, who finance both sides of any war, they set up the IPCC to deliberately find evidence for the claim that global warming was anthropogenic, they are the ones responsible for all these shenanigans. It is these people that Canada has a contract with. A contract is a contract.>>>

    Another odious lie. Canada has no contract with any bank, directly or indirectly, in regard to the IPCC or global warming, and no UN obligation is either contractual, or related in any way to any bank run by anybody. This is not the place for conspiracy theories that do not stand up to more than a few seconds of scrutiny. You should be ashamed.

  333. Gail Combs says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 14, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Myrrh;
    Anyway, the UN was set up by the world’s elite bankers, who finance both sides of any war>>>

    Bullsh*t. The thing bankers fear most is war. They lend money out against securities like buildings and equipment. War has a tendency to destroy buildings and equipment, rendering the securities useless and last I checked, dead customers have a tendency not to fulfill their loan obligations. Your accusation is baseless, and rooted in odious conspriacy theories.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    That is why the wars take place in third world countries. They do not want to muck up their own nests.

  334. Gail Combs says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 14, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Myrrh;
    Anyway, the UN was set up by the world’s elite bankers, who finance both sides of any war>>>

    Bullsh*t. The thing bankers fear most is war. They lend money out against securities like buildings and equipment. War has a tendency to destroy buildings and equipment, rendering the securities useless and last I checked, dead customers have a tendency not to fulfill their loan obligations. Your accusation is baseless, and rooted in odious conspriacy theories.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Oh and David, You forget the banks do not lend wealth they lend “Fairy Dust” and if you think the bankers did not PROFIT from WWI, I suggest you read Louis T. McFadden’s Speech In the House of Representatives on 10 June 1932

    The bankers profited alright, they CONFISCATED the gold of an ENTIRE NATION! What is even worse is that goldwas SUPPOSED to belong to the people of the USA who it was taken to provide a sound economic base for our national currency. Yet NO ONE can get the US government to do an inventory of Fort Knox. Calculations show there is no more “Good Delivery Gold” in Fort Knox it has all been swapped for federal reserve notes held by foreign banks. (US citizens could not swap a note for gold but until 1972 foreign banks could) http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/weber-c1.1.1.html and

    It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. – Henry Ford

    Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man’s fields by the sweat of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation–these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of the community compared with a fraudulent currency and the robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history has recorded for our instruction enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice, and the intolerable oppression on the virtuous and well-disposed of a degraded paper currency authorized by law or in any way countenanced by government. It is one of the most successful devices, in times of peace or war, of expansions or revulsions, to accomplish the transfer of all the precious metals from the great mass of the people into the hands of the few, where they are hoarded in secret places or deposited under bolts and bars, while the people are left to endure all the inconvenience, sacrifice, and demoralization resulting from the use of depreciated and worthless paper. ~ Andrew Johnson (December 9, 1868)

    http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/80.html

    The incestual relationship between the US government and Goldman Sachs just doesn’t stop. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/12/crony-capitalism-displayed-via-venn.html

  335. I know this is not on topic….. as per Canada and the UN
    but I also was concerned when a poster denied that bankster make or profit from war
    http://bigeye.com/bankers_make_war.htm

  336. vigilantfish says:

    Myrrh says:
    December 14, 2011 at 9:59 am

    Someone above mentioned that one of Canada’s, and the bigger of the two, tv stations hardly carried anything about Durban – that’s the problem, not something to be proud of.. The actual workings and decisions are being kept from us in practically all mainstream media, we should all know what Monckton analysed of the agreement concocted in Durban, but we don’t.

    ——–

    That was me. Perhaps I should add some context. The coverage by CTV of climate change issues has been uniformly uncritical of the IPCC and climate alarmists – it is pure Reuters, as CTV does no investigative journalism on climate change science or politics. The fact that Durban is being ignored is a sign either that: 1) The mainstream moderately left-wing media is losing interest in the issue; or 2) The Canadian mainstream media is simply reflecting growing public distaste for this issue. Very few of our uncritical media types and journalists have the intellectual curiousity to find out what is really going on (National Post journalists and Rex Murphy being outstanding exceptions). So many are influenced by the perceived Noble Cause that it would be sheer heresy to question the received wisdom of the IPCC.

    I agree that this state of affairs is nothing to be proud of. However, it’s a darn sight better than having politicized scientific propaganda shoved down our throats.

    A final comment. The long-serving (48-years) weatherman for Toronto’s CFTO (a CTV affiliate), Dave Devall, for years tied in stories of hot weather or extreme weather events to global warming, and made comments about the evidence being indisputable. Then, a year or so before he retired in 2009, the tenor of the comments changed. He started saying “It’s just weather, folks,” or comments of that ilk. I have no idea what was behind this change, but it was very noticable to a skeptical viewer.

  337. Brian H says:

    JustMEinT Musings says:
    December 14, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Sadly in some ways we are responsible for the monster we now see, but how can we reign this in? [Malaprop. It's "rein", as in horses, not kings.]
    Take away its funding and it has no power.
    Money is the root of all evil. [Misquote. "The love of money is the root of all evil."]

    And it’s not even true. Power and status are the real dominant drives. Money is a tool and a token for those.

  338. Aussie says:

    it is a shame that the troll Thor Hansson managed to hijack the thread with what I consider to be the real childish nonsense. Perhaps this is the real problem with Norway. Being dominated by far left individuals of their Labour Party, they have no means of understanding that Marxism is rampant in the world.

    Communism and Fascism are variants of Marxism. Adolf Hitler was inspired by Karl Marx. There is little difference between these two ideologies. Also, in Communism as practised in the old Soviet Union, anti-Semitism and bigotry was equally practiced as it was in Adolf Hitler’s Germany. This is true of the Quisling Fascist government in Norway during that same period.

    Cuba remains a Marxist country. They still practice Communism. Any difference, which is slight is due to the realization that they need some capital investment to survive in the long term. The elite still rule in Cuba. Amenities for the people are still appalling and yes, hospitals for Cuba’s poor are extremely sub-par on a comparison scale to what is available in Canada, the USA and elsewhere. The one and only hospital that is high tech in Cuba is reserved for the elite.

    The UN is doomed to fail. It is doomed because the UN allows countries with tyrants and dictators control in such things as human rights when those nations constantly contravene the human rights of their own people. A good example is that of Syria. It is also doomed to fail just like the League of Nations. So far the difference has been the existence of NATO and SEATO, where those nations have taken a leading role in conflict and also in giving aid during times of disaster.

    It was not so much the failure of the League of Nations that led to the 2nd World War as it was the implementation of the Treaty of Versailles. Germany had been humiliated after the first world war, and it was a bitter pill. The “little corporal” was one person who was not able to accept that defeat in good grace. However, it was the punishment via German reparations that did the real damage. Germany suffered hyperinflation as a result of those reparations. Now that sounds almost eerily familar these days, because the kind of “reparations” that the UN wants developed countries to pay is such that those developed countries could go the way of Germany between the two world wars. Germany could not afford those reparations demanded in the Treaty of Versailles, well neither can we, in Australia, the USA, Canada, the UK, France etc afford to pay billions to those developing nations, especially when “emissions” is such an iffy concept.

    The UN has been growing in an unwieldly fashion. They are taking over the rights of our sovereign nations. This is why the UN needs to be disbanded. It is way too big for its boots. The threat to Canada must be looked at in terms of the UN thinking that it controls each an every country in a way that we, the people of those countries have never accepted.

  339. Dear me, please excuse both my spelling error and the mis quote …. but you know Brian the LOVE of money is a greed, power and status thing, just as you will find (my perception) these are some of the major things wrong with the UN. I stick by my previous suggestion to remove their power source…. stop funding them and watch them wither! Ban Ki Moon and his offsiders including the railway engineer will have no status, no position and no power if the UN folds. I believe in Santa Claus as well :-) I have hope!.

  340. Torgeir Hansson says:

    Well, I suppose all PR is good PR, as long as they spell your name right. Thank you for the counter-arguments. As for anyone who thinks that Norway is a communist country: please go, and report back. And by the way, Norway is not spending a dime of the oil funds it has accumulated. It only uses the interest, because that Socialist Norwegian government believes that the country has a responsibility to share with the coming generations.

    I believe Canada did the right thing, and that other Western nations will follow. The price tag of the Kyoto protocol is high, and no nation gets anything in return—including Third World Nations. Some in the Third World Nations like the concept, because the funds are easy pickings.

    I believe WUWT does a great job of presenting the facts about climate change, and that is sorely needed. I believe it is a forum where conservatives and liberals who are opposed to the CAGW meme can cross party lines, get together and share some sanity. Most of all, they can get the facts and gain understanding. There aren’t many places on the Internet where that is true.

    I think anyone who conflates the warmist agenda with communist takeover conspiracies is doing the skeptics of CAGW theories a disservice. CAGW is not a conspiracy, it is a meme. It is a meme tied to opportunism. There is money to be made. I have known too many people in my life who will profit from ignorance and confusion. They are the enemies of progress, and should be condemned.

    Sovereign nations are still sovereign. If anyone one has the slightest doubt about it please observe what Canada just did.

    When the UN begins to see more defection from the climate treaties, and growing disenchantment from countries over their climate activities, responsible adults in the organization will pull back, if for no other reason than it hurts the UN as an organization.

    Someone remarked that communism and nazism in the end is the same thing. This is true, at least for the governed. Yet the dynamics in the United States today are closer to fascism and corporatism than to Communism. By far. Did anyone notice the Supreme Court Ruling on Citizens United? In spite of being mostly right, it still gave more power to money, and reduced the power of ordinary people. To he who proposed that it is not corporations but lobbyists who are getting fat off our current legislative paradigm, I can only say it is both. The vast majority of lobbyists work for corporations, and if there is money to be made from CAGW, the corporations will be first at the trough. And there is money to be made from CAGW. And yes, Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri are examples of people who are profiteering from it.

    I won’t. I believe in Anthony Watts and what he does. He is looking for the truth. I will follow him on that journey as best I can.

  341. Torgeir Hansson says:

    Aussie,

    I never meant to hijack the thread. I responded to calls to disband the UN with what I found was proper contextual information. It seems I set off a match in an oil refinery.

    If I have inconvenienced you in any way, I apologize.

    Please do not think that I am here to cause disruption. This is where I find most of the rational information on climate change, and I participate regularly and to the best of my ability.

  342. davidmhoffer says:

    Torgeir Hannson;
    Yet the dynamics in the United States today are closer to fascism and corporatism than to Communism. By far. Did anyone notice the Supreme Court Ruling on Citizens United?>>>

    You are citing a decision by the supreme court that prohibits the government from censoring political broadcasts during an election as evidence that the US is moving toward fascism and corporatism? Did you miss the part about the ruling incuding unions and not for profit corps?

  343. davidmhoffer says:

    Torgeir Hannson;

    The point is not that they failed, but that they tried, and they will again.

  344. davidmhoffer says:

    I never meant to hijack the thread.>>>

    I disagree that you hijacked the thread. You brought a different perspective to the table on what in the end is the central issue of this thread. You see the IPCC as being a part of the UN that needs to be reformed, and others see the UN as being rotten to the core.

    Thanks for making this thread an entertaining and informative read, regardless of how we may disagree on the substantive issues.

  345. Aussie says:

    Torgeir,
    you did not inconvenience me, but you could have handled the subject in a different way. The issue is one that is political. You get some of your information correct, but there is a lot that is incorrect.

    For example, you mention the Citizens United case and then claim that it has something to do with a move towards corporatism. That is totally wrong. The decision in the SCOTUS was based upon freedom of speech, and whether or not disallowing the film to be run would in fact chill free speech. The decision did two things: (1) it struck down one clause in what is known as the McCain-Feingold Act relating to corporations and free speech – campaign donations. This in effect has an impact upon the need for the PAC which has been used to hide campaign donations. Please note that FOREIGN OWNED corporations are still prohibited from making campaign donations. (2) It reversed a previous decision within the Supreme Court that had the effect of chilling free speech. The film that was in dispute was one that was shining a bit of a light on Hillary Clinton.

    Now if you had brought up the government takeover of General Motors, and the manner in which the bondholders and shareholders of General Motors were shafted by the government takeover, then you would be talking about corporatism, and YES, that is FASCISM in all of its ugly glory!! This is what happened in Germany during the NAZI era, where government controlled the car manufacturers and a whole lot of other things. There are just too many people who do not understand the real meaning of both Fascism and Nazism, which is actually the flip side of Communism.

    As for conflating the warmist agenda with communism, well I think it better to refer to it as conflated with Marxism. There is plenty of evidence that this is the case, especially when the majority of its proponents are Marxist, and in particular the Green Party are Marxist. You do not seem to be aware that the German founders of the Green Party were Communists before they were Greens. This is also true in Australia. The best example is that of Senator Lee Rhiannon who was known as a “red diaper baby”. She was brought up as a Communist by her parents. Even our Australian Prime Minister Julia(r) Gillard (the dullard) has very strong links to the Communist Party and was a Fabian Socialist prior to joining the ALP. She is most definitely a Marxist. Another example is that of Van Jones – he is another Marxist and is said to be a Green. The Green Party aka the Watermelon Party because they are green on the outside and red on the inside do all of the pushing on this whole scam. This is why many people use the broad brush. It is what we are seeing!!

    It is the same with the UN because there are a number of tyrants attached to the UN and they are all of the Marxist ideology – Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China are some examples. When it comes to climate though, neither the Russians nor the Chinese are pushing that meme. This seems to be the work of Greenpeace and what we term the eco-Nazis or eco-terrorists. For years they have been conducting terror campaigns and they are not really interested in helping poor people. They use the UN as a cover for their own wants and desires.

  346. dwright says:

    I still say (and many other politically savvy Canadians)
    say remember the UN Le Securitie Council snub?

    SHOVE IT… EU

    dwright

  347. Alan Watt says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am

    I am a little puzzled by talk about dissolving the UN.

    Unless this forum is full of thirteen-year olds with no sense of history, it should be unnecessary to remind people that the U.N. was founded by the United States, in the United States, as an instrument for international collaboration, BECAUSE IT IS SO DAMN EXPENSIVE TO SEND AMERICAN BOYS AND GIRLS TO DIE IN SOME GODFORSAKEN PLACE WHEN A WAR BREAKS OUT!!!!!

    The IPCC needs to be gutted, no question. But don’t give me this nonsense that the UN should be dissolved. Crack a history book. Learn about places like Normandy, Iwo Jima, Birkenau, Bastogne, Hiroshima, and Kursk. Until you have done so, don’t bother me with this dissolution talk.
    ———-
    And just how are things better with the UN? I’ve read a fair amount of history for the period leading up to and including WW II. The League of Nations was worthless to stop the illegal re-armament of Germany, or the illegal Japanese naval expansion. The League was similarly worthless to stop the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.

    The problem then was the failure of will by the peaceful democracies to actually *enforce* provisions of existing treaties. If grand councils and assemblies could prevent war, we would have had peace the past thousand years. In the end, if the evil powers in the world use military force to take what they will, opposing powers must use military force to prevent them.

    I wish I could find it, but I really do remember what I think was on the dedication page of an edition of “History of the Peloponnesian War” by Thucidides. I don’t remember to whom it was attributed:

    “We believe it true of Gods, as we know it true of Man: the strong take what they will
    and hold what they can”.

    What was true then remains so today. Believing the UN can change this simply invites another WW II.

  348. Aussie says:

    @Alan Watt,

    I agree with your comments regarding the UN, and the League of Nations. The League of Nations turned out to be a toothless tiger. I was not aware that there was any pressure on the Japanese when it came to “expanding” their navy since Japan had not been involved in the first world war. The restrictions were on Germany!!

    I do not know where my copy of Thucydides went, but I can state that the Greeks were a very religious people with their belief in gods. When St. Paul spoke in Athens it was the first thing he mentioned to them, that he recognized that they were very religious.

    Going back further than Thucydides, one can also look to the Scripture, and in particular Isaiah where there were warnings against making alliances with “other nations”. Well it seems that we modern people have ignored those warnings and made alliances with nations that are likely to stab us in the back. Isaiah warned against alliances with Egypt and other Middle Eastern nations when Israel was being attacked by what is now Iraq and then by what is now Iran!!! Nothing changes.

    The UN has reached the same point as the League of Nations prior to World War II. It is a toothless tiger, but it has now extended its mission to include matters not related to potential conflict. The UN has not been successful in preventing any conflict, and it has stood back to watch genocide. The inaction over Syria’s abuse of its people, and its inaction when Iran did the same are just two examples of where the UN failed to act. However, it will always act if Israel strikes against those who have been lobbing missiles across their border. They also allow tyrants to have places on the human rights council, even when those countries are known for their human rights abuses.

    These factors alone are sufficient to want to get rid of the UN :)

  349. Roger Knights says:

    Mildly interesting pro-growth article on the oil situation in Canada:

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/313944-the-untold-story-about-canada-s-defection

  350. Skiphil says:

    @Aussie
    re: “I was not aware that there was any pressure on the Japanese when it came to “expanding” their navy since Japan had not been involved in the first world war. The restrictions were on Germany!!”
    ==============================================================

    You really need to learn your history (though I agree with much that you say generally). The so-called Washington Naval Conference of 1922 was touted as the beginning of the arms control movement and limited the Japanese Navy as well as the other signatory powers, most notably the USA and Britain. Although there is much debate about the effects pro and con (since one “unintended consequence” was to make both Japan and the USA concentrate more resources on the newly emerging technologies for aircraft carriers), there certainly was an attempt by treaty to limit the expansion of the Japanese navy (or to prevent an ongoing arms race).

  351. Aussie says:

    @Skiphil
    thanks for the information. Like I said I was not aware of that particular piece of history. It was definitely not something that I learned through my history classes at school :). Most of the history that I studied concerned Britain, the UK, the USA and of course Australia, but not much on the Pacific region. This would seem to be more military history, and I was interested in economic history :)

    On the other hand, I knew about the Boxer Rebellion, and I knew that the Japanese had invaded China. I simply did not know about that particular treaty and Naval Conference.

  352. Aussie says:

    I found this news article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,803670,00.html#ref=rss
    regarding the pressure that is being placed upon Canada.

    Well, as an Australian who feels extremely frustrated over the stupidity of our watermelon government that has enacted legislation against the will of the people, I say to Canada, I stand by your decision, and the left-wing in Europe can go jump into the lake.

  353. squareheaded says:

    Torgeir Hansson says:
    December 14, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Someone remarked that communism and nazism in the end is the same thing. This is true, at least for the governed.

    Torgeir, that is the only sensible political comment you’ve made in the entire thread. The thing that is the same is totalitarianism. From the governed’s point of view, it is all slavery.

    Yet the dynamics in the United States today are closer to fascism and corporatism than to Communism.

    Here we have displayed one of the primary differences between American thought and European thought.

    The European tradition, of which Torgeir is apparently a part, is to debate and babble on about this or that kind of totalitarian regime they would like to live under. They make distinctions and have all kinds of isms to describe the various forms. They engage in intellectual masturbation concerning the ruler’s point of view because they envy the rulers, and want to be a member of the ruling class.

    They then discuss the relative merits of one type of slavery over another to justify their admired form of totalitarianism, all the while dreaming of what it will mean to them should they attain one of the oppressor’s seats.

    Americans (and Europeans) who love freedom, on the other hand, simply despise slavery. They hate the perpetration of slavery, and have every right to. The reason is obvious – they worship and respect the author of freedom, the One who gave them free will. The vigilant among them are engaged in sniffing out every false proposal you naive or sneaky bastards inject into the public discourse on a daily basis (you don’t consider that the reason you get to inject anything at all is because you do not yet live in the totalitarian paradise you lust for). Freedom lovers understand that the whole loaf of bread rises with just a little bit of leaven.

    That is why you find most Americans will simply call all your fantastic crap, which you love, “Communism”, a word that conjures images of what we think is the most evil and oppressive form of government to date – there is no practical distinction among the isms for a hard-working people who do not covet their neighbor’s wives, their land, and their stuff.

    We don’t really care what the psychopath’s name is that supposedly invented your totalitarian philosophy. We don’t really care who the entities are that define your ruling class. We don’t really care what the name of your totalitarian regime is. Totalitarians don’t deserve to live, because they have hated life and they have hated freedom. We offer you a one way plane ticket to the Communist country of your choice.

    You and all your pretentiously naive friends claim there is no conspiracy because you are Godless, and so say there is no Devil either. You have the perfect excuse. But by the principles of logic, you make yourself God, and you would have us to worship and serve the creation instead of the Creator. You make idols out of your governments. In reality, you worship devil spirits.

    Current USA politics has become infected with European thought on both sides of the aisle. The diseases governments have are of the mind. There is no historical evidence that a government so infected has ever been cured.

    You and your diseased ilk, your idols, are the cause of past wars and the wars that will be fought. The UN is no more a solution to war than foxes are the solution to hen-house security. The wars will not cease until the Prince of peace returns, with his saints, in all of his glory.

  354. Robert Zraick says:

    So let’s have a reality check here. As as child in school I was filled with all kinds of stories about how the U.N. was a great step in civilazation where countries could come together and work to peacefuly resove their differences. But the facts are that this is not the case. The U.N. was financed and promoted by the Rockefeller’s those wonderful banker’s who dream of a New World Order (ie. total unified tyranny under their control).

    Their stated goal is to have the U.N. become the seat of global governance . I was also duped into believing Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” which turned out to be “A Convenient Lie”. It misrepresented the facts and was a propaganda routine designed to make Mr. Gore totally rich.

    At one point I was so taken in by this slick lie that I produced an award winning video about the evils of global warming. I regret that I did such a thing after having been awakened to the truth.

    George Orwell coined the phase “double speak” in his novel 1984. He would be delighted to find that this phrase, which was meant to warn us about such things, is totally valid when applied to the U.N.

    Here is a body which conducts “peace keeping missions” by sending in armed troops. Why do they not call this “war keeping missions”.

    And they do “humanitarian interventions” which result in killing “humans.”

    This entire NWO operation will collapse along with its hypocrisy.

    And for those who are concerned with global warming, I would submit that they really do have reason for concern. This organization will continue to bring is closer to the next world war, and once the nukes start to detonate, we will have quite severe global warming.

    I applaud Canada for its rejection of this nonsense and hope that rational people everywhere will follow their example. Reject the U.N. Get out. Walk away. Strike a real blow for freedom, for the planet and for humanity.

  355. Simcoe surfer says:

    Sorry guys, but Matt and Trey beat you to it!!
    http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=CA#/watch?v=0SDrqa-eTXU

  356. Brian H says:

    Simcoe;
    Apparently Matt and Trey have been silenced. All gone!

  357. Ben Hern says:

    “Canada is the linchpin of the English-speaking world. Canada, with those relations of friendly, affectionate intimacy with the United States on the one hand and with her unswerving fidelity to the British Commonwealth and the Motherland on the other, is the link which joins together these great branches of the human family, a link which, spanning the oceans, brings the continents into their true relation and will prevent in future generations any growth of division between the proud and the happy nations of Europe and the great countries which have come into existence in the New World.”
    Winston Churchill.
    This time around, hopefully Canada becomes the example for the English speaking world; the rest can enjoy the windmills and darkness if they choose to be so foolish.

Comments are closed.