By Tom Harris and Madhav Khandekar
Originally published in The Washington Times Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Bad science puts rich nations on the hook for trillions in climate liabilities
Delegates at the recent U.N. climate conference in Warsaw decided that $1 billion a day, the amount currently being spent across the world on “climate finance”, is not enough. Far greater funding is needed to save the world from what U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls the “greatest threat facing humanity.” That climate science is highly immature and global warming actually stopped 17 years ago was never mentioned.
Here’s what our representatives just agreed to:
Starting in 2014, the U.N.’s Green Climate Fund, a plan to divert an additional $100 billion per year from the treasuries of developed countries to those of developing nations to help them “take action on climate change,” will commence operation. The heads of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are scheduled to take part in a launch ceremony for the GCF headquarters in South Korea on Wednesday.
A timetable was accepted to pave the way toward the establishment of a new international treaty in 2015 that will force developed countries to spend untold billions more to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. The fine print in the negotiating text includes an escape clause for developing nations, indicating that carbon-dioxide emission targets their governments agree to will not be enforced. Developed nations do not have this escape clause.
The rules governing how developing countries will be financially rewarded, at our cost, for reducing deforestation were also established.
However, this is only the tip of the financial iceberg we will soon face. Last-minute concessions by our representatives have set us up for a potential liability of trillions of dollars. They agreed to the establishment of a new U.N. legal framework: the “Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts.”
In so doing, the door has been opened to requiring that we compensate developing countries for the impact of extreme weather events that are supposedly our fault. No one knows to what extent the charges against us will be retroactive, but for the first time ever, the costs of extreme weather events all over the world are about to be added to our bill.
This happened because developed countries did not challenge the scientifically flawed notion that anthropogenic climate change is thought to be responsible for extreme weather events. Consequently, Mr. Ban faced no opposition from delegates when he unjustifiably blamed the recent typhoon in the Philippines on man-made global warming.
Rather than accepting such mistakes, here are the sorts of things our representatives to U.N. climate conferences must bring up.
Extreme weather has always been an integral part of the Earth’s climate system. It is not within human control, and there has been no worldwide increase in such phenomena.
The U.N.’s own science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stated in their March 28, 2012 Special Report on Extremes: “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.” In their September 2013 assessment report, the IPCC had only “low confidence” that damaging increases will occur in tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) owing to global warming.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change agreed, asserting in its September report: “In no case has a convincing relationship been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in any of these extreme events.”
U.N. delegates also must ask critical questions of their leaders. For instance, extreme weather events occurred with about the same frequency during the 1945 to 1977 global-cooling period as they do today, yet no climate scientist pointed to human activity as being responsible in the earlier period. What is different now?
Why has the secretary-general not answered the 134 skeptical climate experts who told him in their Nov. 24, 2012, open letter: “Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions . Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years.”
To maintain political pressure for the new climate accord, there will be additional U.N. negotiations this coming spring, summer and autumn, the latter hosted by the secretary-general himself. Our negotiators must introduce the findings of real science at these meetings. Otherwise, we will soon be responsible for trillions of dollars in compensation for natural phenomena that impact rich and poor nations alike.
The right response is to help vulnerable people adapt to extreme weather events, to the degree we can afford. The idea that we cause them and can prevent them from occurring is science fiction.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Tom Harris is executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition. Madhav Khandekar, a former research scientist with Environment Canada, was an expert reviewer for the U.N.’s IPCC 2007 climate-change documents and contributed to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.
“Why has the secretary-general not answered the 134 skeptical climate experts who told him in their Nov. 24, 2012, open letter: “Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions . Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years.” A No-brainer: Money.
It’s not about saving the planet it’s about redistribution. The future problem is what happens when western economies have been so degraded by CO² reductions that the poor and emerging nations have to pay us.
I honestly don’t understand what’s driving all this. Is it the madness of crowds? Is it western egalitarianism and third world dictators banding together at the UN? What?
This is fairy gold. The money will not come from the “rich” nations. The struggle for saving the climate has degeneratred into blackmail, and sobbing hysterics, as demonstrated by the representative from the Philippines. Next year more tears, but not more money, will flow in Peru. The media writes about decisions from Warsaw as if they were binding, in fact they are only last-minute compromises, and purely intentional. Otherwise no agreeement would have been made. It is all window-dressing to conceal the embarrasing failure of the conference. Just look at the declining number of high-level politicians attending. Where was Obama?
COP is no fun anymore. Everyone, from warmist to denier, are utterly pessimistic about the outcome. Hence the recent focus from warmists that governments must go it alone, so goodbye to political consensus. In fact, governments already do, but the other way, like Australia, Japan and Canada. No doubt these heretics are silently hailed by many other nations.
It is not just a matter of an open letter from sceptical climate experts. Why does the UN Secretary-General not acknowledge that the IPCC, an instrument of the UN itself, has “low-confidence” that climate change causes extreme weather events? This is not a matter of cherry-picking. This is activism, plain and simple.
Stephen Richards makes a very good point. However, even in a cooling world this UN machinery will grind on, simply changing the ‘science’ to show that CO² is the cause. They have done it before, as this BBC doco made in 1988 details: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqsRD4HPtH0
How much will the developing countries pay for increasing their harvests up to 25% every year?
It’s seems to me like a massive sustainable global pyramid scheme, with compulsory participatory contributions by the tax payers of the world…what’s not to like? With the UN and most first world world governments, and even many third world governments on the ‘in’, behind it, it’s hard to see how it can be stopped from implementation? I feel for those billions of humanity who are destined to form the base of the pyramid and get nothing in return.
It,s all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and power
Americans – you have elections coming up in 2014 – THAT is how you stop this madness. Obama is directly responsible for this UN prostitution – he is pushing US climate change and has ordered his “officials” to be part of this mess. Same with the UK – you have elections coming up and if UKIP has a say in this matter then it is dead on arrival. The UN is merely a tool used by western governments to be their scapegoat – every single western power had their chance (many, many chances) to speak up and no one did. I do not blame the UN in any way – they merely reap the benefits of weak, leftists western governments looking to tax their own citizens to death for global warming schemes at home themselves. I see here everyone is blaming the UN – why? They can only operate at the discretion of western powers at every turn. The second and third world pay nothing – the west itself is the culprit and always was.
This is why the scam will continue. It is madness that is now beyond the reach/control of individual nations. The madness of crowds has gone supernational
It is quite clear that Ban ki Moon now feels that he can play God and control all the weather and climate around the earth, even if he does have to fake the facts. He is quite obviously the cuckoo in the nest, in trying to get a sensible and ballanced debate on climate matters, and until he stands down from his term of office, common sense on climate science from the all-powerful United Nations will not be allowed to prevail. The UN, led by Mr Ban, quite clearly has an agenda over and above the need to be accurate on climate matters. They do not want climate to be seen to be normal and with nothing to be alarmed about, When then does his term of office come to an end? Until that happens, and a new Secretary General with common sense is appointed, and the useless and stupid IPCC is disbanded, it looks as if all the proof in the world will be insufficient to change his mind into accepting that AGW is just not happening.
It’s not about redistribution or the poor or anything else, it’s about socialist world government. The watermelons having failed to get power democratically have captured the UN and are trying to impose rule undemocratically. The UN like the league of nations, should be disbanded and reformed differently.
HelmutU (at 1:46 am) has a great point. If the UN and developing world want to play games, then let’s play them.
Let’s sit down and figure out how much our CO2 emissions have improved the crop yield in the developing world. Most if not all of them are largely agricultural nations anyway, aren’t they? I can’t say for sure, but I’m willing to bet that the value of their increased crop yield from the higher CO2 levels is worth as much as (if not more than) what the developing world is blackmailing us for.
They might owe us, not the other way around. I would love to see their response to that.
@ bobl et al.
It is about redistribution of wealth, the Socialists mantra! It is indeed about Global Guvment, Agenda 21, & the systematic dismantling & destruction of the United States of America. As I have said several times before, the poor people in rich countries will be taxed to oblivion, (the rich people will always have their blood-sucking lawyers & accountants to prevent them from being so taxed), & that money will end up in the hands of rich people in poor countries, their poor people seeing very little of the scam money in reality, & will probably remain pretty poor themselves! That’s why the Copenhagen fiasco failed, the poor countries didn’t want to sign up to a verification system to show where the West’s money goes! The problem appears to be an historic one. Spain extracted vast amounts of gold & silver from South America, enriching itself, but its “economy” was broke. When it lost its empire it became rather poor because it didn’t need to trade to become wealthy. Britain had to trade to become rich, regardless of its empirical challenges good or bad! On a plus note, we Brits didn’t lose our empire, we simply gave it back, although I still say we should never have let the Virginian Colonies go, pretty poor show, don’t you know! 😉
A timetable was accepted to pave the way toward the establishment of a new international treaty in 2015 that will force developed countries to spend untold billions more to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.
Well at least you have the benefit in the States, that just because your government signs up to things like this, doesn’t mean you actually pay it. See for example the commitment of the G20 nations to spend a set percentage of gdp on foreign aid, which only the UK and one other kept to. The UK might get to take the high moral ground but everyone laughs at us for being suckers.
I think we should all take responsibility for the pause in warming. It is obvious that the late 20th century warming was mainly natural, but the pause is man made. Come on, own up.
/sarc
The UN will effectively take money from the poor in rich countries and give it to the rich in poor countries.
Perhaps the biggest inequity of this agreement is that well intentioned foreign aid budgets will inevitably be sacrificed with moneys being diverted into the climate fund. Unless a country needing foreign aid can make a specific case for a climate related loss, then these poorest nations will be the biggest sufferers. On the other hand, rules may be pitched so wide that all developing nations will benefit, which means that 100 billion dollars will be small change under the circumstances.
Perhaps another unintended consequence will be that nations like America and Britain will be much less proactive in providing immediate disaster relief, because again, funds will have already been assigned to the climate fund and these nations may be reluctant to provide the immediate response that is highly necessary in such situations, perhaps having to barter to ensure that any contribution is appropriately assigned before belatedly authorising aid. Or individuals may become reluctant to contribute to disaster relief through charitable emergency relief. Non climate related disasters such as earthquake disaster response could also suffer because such budgets will have been stretched by the requirement to prop up the climate fund.
Excellent news for the German economy!
More Mercs for alpha males.
Our tormentors have an agenda and it’s called UN Agenda 21.
They don’t want the developing world to industrialize and they want the West rigged, poor and retarded.
Any common sense that doesn’t fit the Agenda is a waste of time because nobody will listen.
Only an overthrow of Government will solve this which means that Obama Care will save the World. How much irony can a man bear in these crazy times: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/expert-testifies-to-congress-that-obamas-ignoring-laws-could-lead-to-overthrow-of-government/
The last sentence of the piece is ” The idea that we cause them and can prevent them from occurring is science fiction.”
Let us put the blame for this scientific nonsense where it belongs. It belongs on the doorstep of The Royal Society. This is the most ancient and respected scientific organization in the world. For some unknown reason, it endorsed CAGW a few years ago. Now if is behaving like another juvenile delinquent, metaphorically putting it’s fingers in it’s ears and shouting “La, la, la, I can ‘t hear you”.
Until this noble institution returns to the scientific method of Galileo and Newton, by relying on empirical data, instead of meaningless hypothetical estimations, this sort of nonsense will continue.
Stefan says:
December 4, 2013 at 1:35 am
“I honestly don’t understand what’s driving all this. Is it the madness of crowds? Is it western egalitarianism and third world dictators banding together at the UN? What?”
The UN was founded in 1945 to become the dominant military power of the world and basically the world government as described in the Fabian Socialists plans (as published by the Fabian H.G. Welles in his book “Shape Of Things To Come”; there is also a UK movie of that title depicting the vision of the book, which is a must-see for its cringeworthyness; the movie was made under H.G.Wells oversight).
The UN then went on to subdue the breakaway Kongo province of Katanga, killing 100,000 insurgents, helping the socialist Lumumba government. The West was aghast. The UN had to stop its military strategy and developed a deception strategy, which they rolled out at the 1971 Stockholm conference for the environment under Maurice Strong, where the Green NGO’s for the first time became the sockpuppets of the NWO.
So, todays watermelons emanate from the UN, not the other way around. The Green movement was designed from the start as an enabler for the NWO.
The UN was conceived by the CFR, one of the round-table groups created by Milner to create the “secret society” desired by Cecil Rhodes in his 7th will (which is online and searchable).
It’s a multi-staged power structure about 120 years old that follows its plan in a gradualist way. CO2AGW is just one tool in the box.
What happens when the AMO turns cold and temperatures start to fall not just plateau? What happens if the oceans cool and reabsorb the CO2 they realeased in the warm phase. We are also close to if not entering a Bond event its been 1470 and change years since the last one.
Lastly who are these rich nations the UN speaks of we are broke beyond belief and Europe is even worse off.
It is much easier if people willingly submit to slavery than to enslave them by a force of arms. But you need a cause. And the cause is global warming. The greatest threat to humanity is incompetent bureaucrats using bad science to scare people into relinquishing their liberties.
Developed nations are so clever. With the recent decline in extreme weather the developing nations owe us! And while we are at it it is time to write up the bill for that damn butterfly in a Micronesian rain forest that flapped its wings and generated superstorm Sandy.
Has anyone any idea what the current CO2 per capita for the UK and China is? I think that by now they must be very close. I don’t see why China thinks it should be exempt from being counted as developed now as far as climate change is concerned and make the same kind of payments.
Hopefully then the payments would immediately become zero.
A more accurate term would be to describe this as insiders do. It’s about world “governance.” It is about redistribution and a mistaken belief that the West during World War 2 demonstrated that it had met the level of wealth and technology necessary for successful redistribution under Karl Marx’s theory of the future and human development.
CAGW is the excuse for what Kenneth Boulding described in his 1962 book as The Great Transition and that’s what the OECD says it is pursuing now. The idea is to simultaneously close the gap between the haves and have-nots within the developed countries by making subjective well-being the responsibility of governments. Both Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen have created the capability as a human right to update this 19th century political theory to a 21st century mandate without having to mention Uncle Karl at all.
At the same time the gaps between the developed countries and the South (especially Africa and South America) are to be closed as first described in a UN sponsored world social systems model from the mid-70s. When the intent of redistribution instead of damages was much more up front.
I have come across all this over numerous books over the decades. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/utopian-education-creating-mindsets-that-push-future-fighters-for-something-beyond-the-current-real-world/ is one example and quotes from Norway’s Arne Naess to appreciate the long-standing global pursuit.
Arne Naess graphically details why ecology was such a good fit for Marxists looking for a different narrative to get the same desired outcomes. His work was translated into English in the late 80s just after the Brundtland Report laid the theoretical groundwork for the Sustainability juggernaut to justify global coordination of wealth and resources and human behavior itself.
Robin says:
December 4, 2013 at 3:12 am
The UN will effectively take money from the poor in rich countries and give it to the rich in poor countries.
=============
Al Gore, with the hundreds of millions he had made off climate change – do we see this money going to help the poor deal with climate change? Or does it go to buy things for Al Gore?
The notion of liability for past CO2 emissions is a very dangerous game for the world to play. You are holding people to account based on where they live, not on what they did. All it takes is a charismatic leader to point out how unfair this is and you have WWII all over again. Instead of saving people, the reparations end up killing them by the millions.
The aim of the UN is to erase sovereignty of all nations effectively making national borders district boundaries-for governing purposes. The end result is worldwide socialism–take from the rich and give to the poor. Climate change and all the perceived ramifications are simply a means to an end.
The current tactic is to postulate poor nations troubles are due to climate change which is caused by rich nations using scarce energy resources. They are told of the wonderful UN plan to pay them for their troubles–the problem is the rich nations won’t pay! Conflict is created, nations pledge funds–the UN is empowered.
The recent government shutdown revealed the reach of our government into our daily lives. The tentacles of the UN are deeply imbedded in our government by similar means. Google the UN and you’ll be amazed……………………
Paul – Nottingham says:
December 4, 2013 at 4:18 am
I don’t see why China thinks it should be exempt from being counted as developed now as far as climate change is concerned and make the same kind of payments.
==============
China has very low historical CO2 emissions. They are playing a very smart game. Making the West liable for past emissions diverts attention from China and current emissions. While the West commits to hundreds of billions in reparations for past crimes, China escapes any liability for committing the same crimes today, on a much larger scale.
why do you complain?
Try to make people share your ideas and then vote according to your convictions..
China in effect is playing the victim card. Having “suffered” for so long, it is now acceptable for them to be the largest emitter of CO2 on the planet. The West, having “benefited” for so long, has no such excuse and most pay for the suffering of those that did not benefit.
lemiere jacques says:
December 4, 2013 at 4:45 am
why do you complain? Try to make people share your ideas
=============
Isn’t that the purpose of complaining? To try and make people feel empathy and thereby share your ideas?
“You are holding people to account based on where they live, not on what they did.”
Actually, with the notion of climate debt, most of the “people being held to account” are dead.
lemiere jacques says:
December 4, 2013 at 4:45 am
“why do you complain?
Try to make people share your ideas and then vote according to your convictions..”
The EU is not a democracy. See how they renamed the EU constitution into the treaty of Lisbon when the constitution was rejected by voters. Voting is demonstrably meaningless here.
The solution is simple, defund the UN. It is a useless organization, it fails at everything it touches. Every one of its “peacekeeping missions” are a disaster, its response to those disasters! a joke. Its councils, panels and commissions are hysterical in their composition and actions. The UN is the single most responsible party for the mess in the middle east, it only functions to blame ( democratic) Israel. The OIC and other voting blocks control everything. I think its time to start a new organization that is actually democratic, every country can join, but you can only vote or participate if your country is a democracy, if your citizens can vote so can its representative, who must be elected. Most importantly, everybody antes up to join and remain, no welfare. It is not a poker game where players who have no money in the pot get to bet and bump, if you want to play like a big country, bring your wallet. If not watch the game for awhile, learn something.
lemiere jacques says:
Eerm… to try to make people share his ideas?
(Some comments are just asking for it.)
Yet another example of blinkered political decision that provokes anger in us all. Frankly, I am livid.
How can these people continue to ignore the simple fact that the sky above their thick heads is made up of 99.96% gas which is NOT, I repeat NOT carbon di-oxide. Even worse, is the plain fact that out of the measly 0.04% of the air that remains up there, yes – that tiny bit left over ‘entirely responsible’ for causing ‘untold future doom’ – these people are sufficiently incompetent enough to ignore that most carbon di-oxide is entirely natural and cannot be controlled. Not at all. Ever. So, transferring cash to any third world state who appears to be vulnerable to ‘climate change’ is going to hardly mitigate anything. Why does it appear that only us skeptics understand that, of the minuscule 1 part in every 40 parts of carbon di-oxide that IS anthropogenic (yup, we actually manufacture this stuff), no amount of technical wizardry, loony innovation, ‘low-carbon’ fines, wealth transfers or tax penalties are going to reduce it. By comparison to rest of the air we breath, if this almost microscopic amount of man-made gas is so ‘harmful to the planet’, then the world’s governments would insist on a ‘level playing field’ and penalise everyone for all the various ways we add man-made CO2 to the atmosphere. I can see it now . . . . “Wind Turbine subsidy increase to offset man-made gas injected in Coca-Cola” and “Group found guilty for letting off fire extinguishers to see if it makes any noticeable difference to global temperature”.
Full list of anthropogenic CO2 is here . . . . enjoy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/26/open-letter-to-lewis-black-and-george-clooney/#comment-1485207
The main problem is that the MSM is intentionally not letting the average citizen know what is going on behind our backs. We see this in many of the outlandish things that most are not aware of because the media elects to hide it, like fast and furious, IRS targeting, Obamacare, Bengazi, and the list goes on and on.
We can at least thank Anthony for providing the medium where we learn about the crazy “climate” agreements for us to pay reparations.
Those who have tried to warn against this very situation have been treated with incredulity for the most part. Most people do not understand that soon, we (the great unwashed) will have no say in “what is good for us”. Only a “useful idiot” would think this is complaining.
We may not have a choice whether the “global socialist experiment” will be implemented.
At least when people say “why weren’t we told?”, we will be able to show that they were.
If you are reading this blog post and you voted for President Obama in either 2008 or 2012, there is your problem.
The reason why they screamed “we must act now” was the always present fear that surface temps could cool and the cash would simply vanish.
The bureaucratic conundrum: show up at one of these and try to interject some sanity while being denounced or do don’t feed the beast with your presence. Not really a conundrum, though. They’re going to do it under either scenario. Sometimes you have to wish for an asteroid to threaten the planet just to distract the sons-of-*******.
Before funding anyone they would have to show me worsening climate / weather trends backed by peer review going back at least 30 years (climate definition as per IPCC and WMO). And if the climate / weather is shown to be less extreme then they have to start funding me.
Or not linked to global warming.
Observations are not on the side of the climate extremists. See also the WUWT extreme weather page.
lemiere jacques
December 4, 2013 at 4:45 am
Voting is largely an irrelevant issue. If there is any relevance whatsoever applied to voting it is not in voting for people or measures, it is in voting against them. Democracy will always elect a tyrant. There is nothing inherently correct in a majority. A majority may or may not be correct at times, but at all times it presents the blunt instrument of force and mass. A lynch mob is the true representation of democracy.
Your belief is foolish.
David Ball says:
December 4, 2013 at 6:17 am
“Those who have tried to warn against this very situation have been treated with incredulity for the most part. Most people do not understand that soon, we (the great unwashed) will have no say in “what is good for us”. Only a “useful idiot” would think this is complaining.
We may not have a choice whether the “global socialist experiment” will be implemented.
At least when people say “why weren’t we told?”, we will be able to show that they were.”
==========================================================
You had me up until the last sentence, David. No… we won’t get to show “they were told.” It’s hard to do that in a re-education camp, and the victors get to rewrite history. All the warnings will be gone. History will show our glorious leaders will have made only the right decisions stretching forever into the past.
BTW, who’s the front runner for “Blessed Benevolent Leader of The People’s Democracy of Planet Earth?” Eh… no matter. I’ll find out when I’m told to vote for him/her.
“The UK might get to take the high moral ground but everyone laughs at us for being suckers.”
Bingo!
With the High Moral Ground and 5 bucks, you can buy a ginger mocha latte at Starbucks. (at least in my town you can) Another nice thing about treaties here in the States – unless the Senate ratifies with a 2/3 majority, it ain’t a legal Treaty as far as we’re concerned. It’s just more blah blah blah from whatever stuffed suit happens to be sitting at the desk at the time.
I still have to Laugh at anyone, anywhere in the world, who thinks that Obama or anyone in his administration have any intention of ever trying to live up to any of the things they promise. To them it’s all just words, words, words. Guess what – that’s all any of it is to us, too. Let him promise whatever he wants – when the time comes to pay, we’re gonna quote Otter in Animal House – “Hey, you effed up! You trusted him!!!”
All of these so-called “promises” are just empty words designed to generate a favorable headline for a day, and maybe some pleasant cocktail party invitations. No one has even the slightest intention of living up to them, Certainly not the people making them!! It’s all a fraud and a con, but the funny part is that now the fraud is being visited upon any of the third worlders foolish enough to believe any of this. Word to the wise – you’re all being played for Chumps in this game.
Well after we net out billowing or perhaps bellowing China and the gang of 77 at Warsaw with their dirty bloomers-
A major environmental health problem
Air pollution is already known to increase risks for a wide range of diseases, such as respiratory and heart diseases. Studies indicate that in recent years exposure levels have increased significantly in some parts of the world, particularly in rapidly industrializing countries with large populations. The most recent data indicate that in 2010, 223 000 deaths from lung cancer worldwide resulted from air pollution. 2
The most widespread environmental carcinogen
“The air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances,” says Dr Kurt Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Section. “We now know that outdoor air pollution is not only a major risk to health in general, but also a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths.”
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf
And lest we forget-
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/28/black-carbon-emissions
I reckon the ledger will be square until they all get their act together and keep Al happy.
So the IPCC, the official UN climate voice, states quite clearly that weather is *not* being impacted by AGW, yet the head of the UN is ignoring his own organization and demanding trillions from ‘wealthy’ states.
Wow. the mask slips just a bit and what is underneath is beneath contempt.
I sent a bill to the Philippines for damages caused by Pinatubo. They countered with a Haiyan gambit. Now do I play the deforestation card or wait to pick up the tsunami?
I really need that money
wws,
Excellent comment. We used to be able to rely somewhat on politiians’ statements. If they promised something, or assured us they were against something, we could generally count on them to keep their word.
But no more. The Obama Administration has destroyed that trust. Now, it is “Say Anything”. They are trading on the former goodwill built up by past leaders. Now they will promise for or against anything in order to gain a temporary P.R. advantage — and then go right ahead and do whatever they intended to do all along.
They have forfeited credibility for temporary gain. But I don’t see how that can last forever. Obamacare is a good example. No one believes the things they are saying any more. Words and promises are cheap. Actions are all that matter now.
Great insightful comments! We’re all being played again dialectically. Problem-Reaction-Solution.
Warmists in Warsaw have set up the “problem” as being the developed nations “causing” extreme weather events because of our high energy use, then they set up the “reaction” from the 130+ walkout nations that demanded that developed nations cover their weather-related property losses, and in 2015, the supposed “solution” being a binding climate treaty, binding all nations to lower carbon dioxide emissions, except for China, India, and maybe a few other “special” exemptions (we’ve seen this political favoritism before in cherry-picked health care (ACA) exemptions).
I believe that the only chance we have against this leviathan before 2015 is for a worldwide understanding of the most basic yet overlooked fact of weather & climate, a fact verified by billions of satellite readings, that Spaceweather is Electric Weather, and that Electric Weather causes Extreme Weather, not tiny changes in a puny fractional amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
We must instill into billions of people worldwide a firm understanding and conviction of those facts based on sound science; only then will we have a chance at preventing the warmist’s ecotyranny.
Only standing together, shouting THEM down with that truth, will their support completely crumble.
There isn’t anything we can do to stop electric weather effects, but we can better understand how our weather and climate respond to an ever-variable electric space environment, and how we can be better prepared for the subsequent extreme weather events when and where they happen. That understanding can only happen through a massive sustained effective communication effort.
For a introduction read this post at Tallbloke’s Talkshop and my comment thereafter: www.http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/tim-cullen-svensmark-vindicat
Bob Weber, that’s just great. I’ll bite. Now there is no problem with burning fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas, and in particular there is no problem with burning coal to produce electricity. Do you agree?
There is no chance whatsoever that supposed man made global warming/climate change will lead mankind back into the Dark Ages, as a result of a Thermageddon fantasy.
However, efforts proposed to combat this non-problem may well achieve this highly undesirable goal.
I cannot see where these huge payments are going, except into the grasping hands of new bureaucracies and the giant kleptocracy of Third World leaders, their pals, relatives and cronies.
What on Earth can you realistically do to combat change in the Third World? Answer: Almost nothing.
How do we recompense Third World for extreme climate events, which are rare but perfectly normal events? Have them build replacement new homes and infrastructure? If so, all I can hear is a huge sucking sound of cash winging its way to cuckoo clock land.
We live in a world gone mad.
Zeke, unless you or fellow travelers have a ready to roll energy source that will effectively replace every single source of usable energy we now have, your rather loaded question is irrelevant, moot, and simply rhetorical nonsense.
If you don’t have a solution that fits your mental outlook, why don’t you try to find a solution instead trying to force everyone to beleive what isn’t true about carbon dioxide affecting the weather and climate, and further forcing energy usage restrictions. Carbon dioxide is not pollution, period.
Zeke, this is what we’re doing, we’re burning stuff to stay warm and make electricity.
Do you have a problem with people staying warm, having an uninterrupted electricity power supply, and being able to travel freely?
Zeke, I have no problem burning fossil fuels because I know that the entire carbon footprint ideology is part of the mechanism to make humanity feel quilty and responsible for extreme weather events, and that it is utter nonsense to dictact to others on that premise.
Now the ball is in your court to prove me wrong and you right. Got facts?
Did I really say “quilty” – I meant “guilty”
And further, “dictact” was meant to be “dictate” (damn keyboard)
Can anyone claim compensation for what happens in computer model projections but that never really come to pass?
Thank you for your answer to my question. Those who pretend to be sceptics regarding the harmful effects of co2 emissions on climate and weather, and yet support the destruction of the fossil fuel energy sector and shipping, are deceivers.
Whatsmore, the destruction of the existing coal power plants forces owners and users to have to pay to replace them, which increases needlessly the cost of electricity for everyone.
For example, “strike prices” for building new power sources in the UK, including both nuclear plants and worthless windturbines, are double and triple current rates for electricity per Mw/h. However, there is no reason why, with frakking and coal, and other genuine technologies, energy prices in Britain could not come down by as much as 50%.
Stefan says:
I honestly don’t understand what’s driving all this. Is it the madness of crowds? Is it western egalitarianism and third world dictators banding together at the UN? What?
====
Short answer, money.
The Green Climate Fund is the treasury dept. to fund the U.N bureaucrat’s attempt at world government ( oops, I think we’re supposed to say “governance” now, since government may give the impression of elections or something silly).
A $100 bn per year slush fund with no over-sight and no legal accountability? It can only go wrong, and BADLY wrong.
This has to stop NOW.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is quite right when he calls this the “greatest threat facing humanity.”
He should know.
observa says:
“The most recent data indicate that in 2010, 223 000 deaths from lung cancer worldwide resulted from air pollution. 2”
How in God’s name, can any research arrive at this conclusion?
Zeke, Greg and others, clearly the UN and its backers are only interested in increasing their power over everyone until such point humanity is enslaved, “allowed” to live, eat, stay warm, travel and prosper only at the whims and dictates of selfish narrow-minded narcisstic deceivers. That is the essence of the “greatest threat facing humanity” – the long-standing and relentless drive by the self-chosen to control everything and everyone, including what we know and believe.
Greg-
Government implies that the political power is in the hands of elected representatives who can be fired by unhappy voters. Much of the point from local school boards and city councils through national and international levels is to give binding decision-making authority to people who are appointed or otherwise immune to being fired by angry voters who want recourse.
But governance is the term being used consistently now and for that reason. Basically no effective ability to reject being bound and dictated to. And it is largely by people who have been Creatures of the State all of their working lives. Paychecks magically appearing courtesy of taxpayers or foundations or dues paying members who must join. My experience is they have no idea they can extinguish much of what actually creates prosperity or how absurd their steady-state economy models are.
Lemiere here or on Skyfall… still at it…
I have said this before, and will say it again. Orwell, although a socialist, was prophetic. And, funny enough, against big government. He stated that the way to control the people was to keep them in permanent state of fear. And, it works…….
How much tribute are we paying the World Empire (UN) currently? For that price, can we not even get a decent “Leader for Tourism”?
Robert Mugabe asked to be UN ‘leader for tourism’
The Zimbabwe president, accused of ethnic cleansing and bankrupting his country, asked to champion tourism
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/29/robert-mugabe-un-international-envoy-tourism
I have the solution here. The gov can send us forms to fill out – if we believe that man has caused the warming, we donate 10 percent of our income monthly. If we do not believe that warming is man made we do not donate. At the end of a year we submit another survey.
If it cools I do not know what to do other than donate funds to sceptics.
@Bob Weber. Thank you for clarifying your thoughts. Our sun does emit fast electrons during lower solar activity, and the behaviour of the Van Allen belts are not well understood. I think the interaction of the earth’s weather systems with the sun via the Van Allen belts are a promising area of inquiry. I think NASAs twin crafts sent to this region are still collecting data, and are worthy of study, but NASA will not connect the electrical currents in the two belts to the weather for you.
In a PC age where all perspectives are ‘respected’ and valued equally, the CAGW meme gained traction partly because it is ‘unfashionable’ indeed, ‘unacceptable’ to stridently, persuasively and compellingly disagree with the fatuous notion of justifying anything by ‘saving the planet’, ‘the wildlife’, ‘the reef’, whatever. No where, with the exception of the standouts that push-back against the meme does anyone lay claim to ‘saving’ indeed ‘driving’ the wider flourishing of spiritual and physical health, and the prosperity of all humanity. Without this as the pre-eminent focus, we are doomed to the eco-socialist nightmare that is the UN, the liberal progressive valueless utopia where an elite engage in their redistributive orchestration at a terrible price, pretending that it is for the greater good. It cannot and can never be. It is ‘unsustainable’, to use another meme term. The only beneficiaries are and will be the orchestrators.
Stefan says:
“I honestly don’t understand what’s driving all this. Is it the madness of crowds? Is it western egalitarianism and third world dictators banding together at the UN? What?”
In a sane world, you wouldn’t even need a UN. It was set up essentially to deal with the problem of lack of accountability with the governments of existing nations, which is why we invented democracy. But this doesn’t explain that, once you set up an external agency, who will then make the external agency accountable? The same people who are attracted to the power of governments for their own personal benefit and ideological cause will be attracted to the power of the UN. Human nature takes over, the same way it does with nations and governments.
The UN of course will claim that their own internal regulation suffices. Same as scientists do with peer review. But it doesn’t ultimately work sufficiently, as ideological blindness and ideology as a mask for personal self interest is much older and stronger.
I don’t know how you solve a UN once it has gone over to an ideological stance. Possibly some sort of stronger democratic accountability to the whole UN behemoth might work.
Zeke, NASA has done a great job making satellites and taking measurements, and following political policy directives as well. My hat is off to the scientists, engineers, and others who work in that industry, because without reliable data we’re flying blind. I don’t expect an overt statement of agreement from people who work for the government – not right away. The Thunderbolts.info people have regularly disagreed with NASA’s interpretation of its own data, and have provided a more robust explanation of how the universe works. Consider the silence that met Wal Thornhill after his definitive predictions based on plasma cosmology came true about comet Tempel. He was right and others wrong.
I’d tell them just where to stick their begging bowls.
Right up those idiots who agreed to this insanity.
“Zeke, I have no problem burning fossil fuels because I know that the entire carbon footprint ideology is part of the mechanism to make humanity feel quilty and responsible for extreme weather events, and that it is utter nonsense to dictact to others on that premise.”
Thank you for your contribution! Lewandowsky will be pleased!
“So, todays watermelons emanate from the UN, not the other way around. The Green movement was designed from the start as an enabler for the NWO.
The UN was conceived by the CFR, one of the round-table groups created by Milner to create the “secret society” desired by Cecil Rhodes in his 7th will (which is online and searchable).
It’s a multi-staged power structure about 120 years old that follows its plan in a gradualist way. CO2AGW is just one tool in the box.”
Do you really believe that? Do you find it strange that some may link “skeptical” thought on climate change with conspiratorial thinking?
Conspiratorial thinking from this thread (admitted that some fit better than others):
“Is it western egalitarianism and third world dictators banding together at the UN? ”
“It’s seems to me like a massive sustainable global pyramid scheme, with compulsory participatory contributions by the tax payers of the world…”
“The UN, led by Mr Ban, quite clearly has an agenda over and above the need to be accurate on climate matters. ”
“It’s not about redistribution or the poor or anything else, it’s about socialist world government. The watermelons having failed to get power democratically have captured the UN and are trying to impose rule undemocratically. The UN like the league of nations, should be disbanded and reformed differently.”
“It is about redistribution of wealth, the Socialists mantra! It is indeed about Global Guvment, Agenda 21, & the systematic dismantling & destruction of the United States of America. As I have said several times before, the poor people in rich countries will be taxed to oblivion,” (etc.)
“Our tormentors have an agenda and it’s called UN Agenda 21.
They don’t want the developing world to industrialize and they want the West rigged, poor and retarded.”
“CAGW is the excuse for what Kenneth Boulding described in his 1962 book as The Great Transition and that’s what the OECD says it is pursuing now. The idea is to simultaneously close the gap between the haves and have-nots within the developed countries by making subjective well-being the responsibility of governments. Both Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen have created the capability as a human right to update this 19th century political theory to a 21st century mandate without having to mention Uncle Karl at all.”
“Arne Naess graphically details why ecology was such a good fit for Marxists looking for a different narrative to get the same desired outcomes.”
“The aim of the UN is to erase sovereignty of all nations effectively making national borders district boundaries-for governing purposes. The end result is worldwide socialism–take from the rich and give to the poor. Climate change and all the perceived ramifications are simply a means to an end.”
“The main problem is that the MSM is intentionally not letting the average citizen know what is going on behind our backs. ”
“We may not have a choice whether the “global socialist experiment” will be implemented.”
“The Green Climate Fund is the treasury dept. to fund the U.N bureaucrat’s attempt at world government ( oops, I think we’re supposed to say “governance” now, since government may give the impression of elections or something silly).”
“Zeke, Greg and others, clearly the UN and its backers are only interested in increasing their power over everyone until such point humanity is enslaved, “allowed” to live, eat, stay warm, travel and prosper only at the whims and dictates of selfish narrow-minded narcisstic deceivers.”
“Without this as the pre-eminent focus, we are doomed to the eco-socialist nightmare that is the UN, the liberal progressive valueless utopia where an elite engage in their redistributive orchestration at a terrible price, pretending that it is for the greater good.”
Sisi is so confused. She thinks that everyone else is out of step in the parade.
Earth to Sisi: 100% of the ‘consensus’ says that you are wrong.
Deal with it.
Sisi says: “Do you really believe that? Do you find it strange that some may link “skeptical” thought on climate change with conspiratorial thinking?”
A little history: The Climategate emails which were leaked in 2009 were met with almost complete silence by the mainstream medja. After a couple of months, when the story became impossible to ignore, the first question out of their mouths were, “So do you think this is all a big conspiracy?!”
I think the possibility that the worldwide abuse of science, along with the simultaneous intent to collect trillions of dollars for climate debt (aka “climate justice”), is what some would classify as a “conspiracy,” although the actual players and history might be a matter of some debate. And many of us do not think of it as a “conspiracy” so much as a form of criminal injustice on a very very grand scale.
Now regarding the $100 bn which the UN requires annually for its Green Fund – what term can we use for charging developed nations $100 bn/year for extreme weather events? Adults who have a real sense of the value of a dollar might have various words for that. Make your best suggestion, because lecturing people about “conspiracies” is coming of as a bit insubstantial of a point. How about “fraud”?
@dbstealey
Meh… My last comment is awaiting moderation. Is there a rule that says you should not use too many quotes in one comment?
Oh! By the way, which parts of my comments before the one being moderated do you object to? Or did you just feel the need to say something but weren’t able to formulate anything more than some vague conjectures?
Sisi says:
December 4, 2013 at 4:57 pm [ … ]
“Conspiratorial thinking” is Sisi’s label for those quotes.
Sisi, pick out any of those quotes you believe are wrong, and defend your position. Because the quotes seem pretty accurate to me.
The completely opaque UN bureaucrats are interested in money and power, not in helping the world’s poor. They are conniving theftocrats who will do anything to advance their anti-U.S. agenda. They hate America — while always putting out their greedy hands for more, more, more.
And 90% of the money never gets to the poor that they purport to represent. Despite hundreds of $Billions funneled into the UN every year, there are still billions of poor people. So obviously, the UN wants it that way.
Construct an early hypothesis for us – what would it ‘affect’? The transport of warm moist air? The upper air movements of flows, including jet stream? The movement of polar fronts to southern latitudes? The rapidity of the formation of a convective thunderstorm? Enhanced ice or snow or rain falls?
And via what ‘linkages’, via what ‘forces’ or electric field influence? Surely you have some back-of-the-envelope numbers and or calcs that prod these thoughts …
.
@_Jim, If I did, it would be a lot better than, “Warmth hides in the oceans, now you owe me $100 bn.”
How come my electrometer (‘field mill’ style) reads ZERO facing into the sky of a clear day? Where’s the ‘electricity’ flowing from space? /rhetorical
(Anybody do basic MEASUREMENTS anymore? OR do we just accept quackery from the start?)
.
So I guess those third worlders completely deforesting their nations like Haiti and the North Africans are the good guys.
Right.
re: Sisi says December 4, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Can you explain why the simple ‘linking’ of observed actions inferring certain motives jumps the gap into con-spiracy theory?
Is naivety also one of your hallmarks when it comes to understanding people (or organized groups of people, like NGOs and other rent-seekers) and underlying possible (and probable) motivations (for their observed actions)?
Ever heard the term “Follow the money” or Cui bono” (Latin for “to whose benefit”)?
Do you know what those terms mean, or imply, or no?
.
Continued failures to show ANY applicability to actual, testable hypothesis on how fronts, both warm and cold, would be affected, or how those air masses achieve their characteristics (PART of study in meteo courses), how precipitation forms etc. etc. etc.
Do you (EU) ppl ever pick up a basic textbook on meteorology? At least become familiar with the basics and propose something observable in the real world …
.
Well, this was lived up to : “The most transparent administration ever”
Oh, wait … maybe coming true on the ‘back swing’ though?
What exactly is the status of the “agreement(s)” reached at this event? A treaty would have to be approved by a ⅔ vote of the United States Senate. Of course, the Puppet President and his handlers in the White House are not generally bothered by formalities like the US Constitution, but even in the absence of Senatorial advice and consent, the House is not likely to advance additional billions to hand over to third-world satrapies and potentates under the guise of reparations for “extreme weather events.” I think we have to rely on the Congress to defend us against these world-governance conspiracies. And if that doesn’t tell you how to vote next November, I don’t know what will.
/Mr Lynn
The billions to be transferred to poor countries (coming from middle-class taxpayers in developed countries) will inevitably wind up in the pockets of a handful of socialist kleptocrats. But then, all wealth redistribution schemes actually work in the opposite way to how they are advertised: from poorer to richer. And since socialism outlaws the middle class (as the bourgeois class enemy), it always has the most skewed distribution of income and wealth of any political and economic system. In Soviet Russia, 9,000 nomenklatura effectively owned 99 percent of the economy of 300 million people.
Excuse me Jim, allow me to help you understand some things. First of all, the Electric Universe Hypothesis explains far more than you seem to realize. Perhaps you’ve never actually went over to their site and watched their video explaining how Wal Thornhill’s predictions on comets came to pass. I’ll forgive anyone for not being up on all subject matters… but what you can you do when you lead a horse to water and it won’t take a drink?
Perhaps you’ve not aware of all the successful 30 day long-range weather forecasts produced by Piers Corbyn from WeatherAction.com, based on his outstanding skill and ability to know how solar activity will develop during the month and how those solar energetic particles which constitute the electric space weather I discussed (charged particles accelerated away from the sun – the solar wind) will interact with the Earth’s weather systems. He is an astrophysicist – a scientist – and the things he says are echoed by many other scientists around the world from different disciplines.
And perhaps you haven’t watched when solar activity occurs that then affects the Earth’s weather. I’m going to try and help you with that. It’s going to take a week or so, as I’m in the middle of making something to help illustrate what I think the cause and effect relationships are, and after that, the floor will be open to all my fellow skeptics to tear it apart like we do everything, right?
Well this time, after a long six years of reading supportive papers discussed in WUWT, Tallbloke’s Talkshop, Hockey Schick, Climate Realists, Climate Depot, and many others, of living in and watching the weather and space weather very closely along with Piers’ forecasts, where so many times he predicted sudden stratospheric warming at the north pole causing that cold artic air to move southward, where he predicted so many other extreme weather events that were subsequently blamed on “climate change” when they actually happened, when people’s lives could be better protected with that knowledge, I am going to definitely stand firm on this because I’ve seen it over and over again, and nothing you’ve said has convinced me otherwise.
Further, there is so much evidence that you don’t have to be an electrical engineer like me to be convinced. Just think about this, how is it possible that Piers Corbyn, in his November USA forecast, said there would be tornadoes here on Nov 17-19, and then it happened on Nov 17!? Was he lucky? Was he lucky when he also said in his Nov earthquake watch that there would be a high risk, in his rating system, the highest, “QV5”, for Nov-17-19, and then, 7 volcanoes erupted on Nov 17!? Was he lucky when he forecasted for Nov 17-19 the highest “R5” solar activity day, and it happened? Did he not know what he was talking about when he related these events? What about all the other times he’s been right and useful?
We skeptics will prevail when we have a completely rational explanation for where the real power comes from that causes extreme weather events and “climate change”, an explanation that must have predictive skill. What I’m saying is that we don’t have to wait for that – it’s already here.
@ George Lawson asks in response to-“The most recent data indicate that in 2010, 223 000 deaths from lung cancer worldwide resulted from air pollution. 2″
How in God’s name, can any research arrive at this conclusion?
That’s too easy George. The same way Big Climate can tell which part of global warming is anthropogenic and which part aint. It comes from a very authoritative source and ipso facto, clearly that settles it. Do keep up mate 😉
Like me George you have to constantly be on your guard against ‘impure thoughts’ like- I wonder what the big picture lung cancer numbers in the other neat boxes for smoking and passive smoking look like?- lest you wander into the deep dark realm of the Holocaust denier from which there is no redemption.
Mind you if Big Tobacco came sniffing around asking for a hard look at the numbers in those various definitive and authoritative boxes I have a hunch there’d be a lot more impure thoughts flying around and the boxes would get mighty fuzzy all of a sudden. In post-normal science you do need to constantly contextualise your standard deviations and confidence levels, but more importantly capture the commanding heights so that you can always fall back on the appeal to authority when you’re in trouble with such trifling matters.
@Zeke
“I think the possibility that the worldwide abuse of science, along with the simultaneous intent to collect trillions of dollars for climate debt (aka “climate justice”), is what some would classify as a “conspiracy,” although the actual players and history might be a matter of some debate. And many of us do not think of it as a “conspiracy” so much as a form of criminal injustice on a very very grand scale.”
So, I am trying to rephrase what you said, you think that there is a worldwide abuse of science, with the goal of collecting your money, but this is not a conspiracy, instead it is some worldwide criminal organisation? Is it that what you are trying to say?
“Now regarding the $100 bn which the UN requires annually for its Green Fund – what term can we use for charging developed nations $100 bn/year for extreme weather events? Adults who have a real sense of the value of a dollar might have various words for that. Make your best suggestion, because lecturing people about “conspiracies” is coming of as a bit insubstantial of a point. How about “fraud”?
Whatever you may think about UN funds, if the UN decides to build funds it is because its member states agree on building the funds. How is that “fraud”? Countries negotiate, they agree about stuff within UN frameworks. See the piece above the line. “Last-minute concessions by our representatives…” and “They agreed to the establishment of a new U.N. legal framework”. It’s what happens in negotiations. If you think the UN is set up to be a criminal organisation by being fraudulent, you must ask yourself why elected governments agree to UN treaties.
@dbstealey
“The completely opaque UN bureaucrats are interested in money and power, not in helping the world’s poor. They are conniving theftocrats who will do anything to advance their anti-U.S. agenda. They hate America — while always putting out their greedy hands for more, more, more.”
So why is the the US in the UN if that is the case? Why is the US working with other countries in the UN framework (what is opaque about it?). Have you ever heard of countries opting out of UN treaties? Have you ever heard about countries going to war without the consent of the UN security counsel? What is it with this UN (and apparently now also its bureaucrats) that many of the quotes I used seem to blame for some of the ills (or the soon to be enacted ills) in the world?
Sisi asks:
“So why is the the US in the UN if that is the case?”
Damn good question. Let’s put it to a straight up vote of U.S. citizens.
I think they would vote overwhelmingly to keep the $Billions in our own coffers, since most of that money ends up in the pockets of the UN 1%ers.
To hell with the UN. They are self-serving America haters. We do NOT need them. At all.
@_Jim
“Can you explain why the simple ‘linking’ of observed actions inferring certain motives jumps the gap into con-spiracy theory?”
No I can’t because it doesn’t, except when it is implied (or explicitly said) that there is some organisation behind it which controls the proceedings because “they” have some agenda, while at the same time zero evidence is provided about this being the case (it is only asserted).
@dbstealey
“To hell with the UN. They are self-serving America haters. We do NOT need them. At all.”
The US is part of the UN, they are even in the security counsel. What does that make of the US? Are the US self-serving America haters?
Sisi says, ” If you think the UN is set up to be a criminal organisation by being fraudulent, you must ask yourself why elected governments agree to UN treaties.”
They do it because under the supremacy clause a treaty trumps state and local laws, and expands federal powers. This is a way of agreeing with an international body to override domestic law which was decided by voters. Several examples are the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Small Arms Treaty. The treaties with the UN are the current fashion World Empire (UN) activists use to do an end run around self-government.
@Zeke
“They do it because under the supremacy clause a treaty trumps state and local laws, and expands federal powers. This is a way of agreeing with an international body to override domestic law which was decided by voters.”
I am not sure what you mean, which supremacy clause of what document??? Governments negotiate with other governments and agree on a treaty (or not, or let others do the treaty but opt out themselves). When a government agrees on a treaty (if the government is from a democratic state; there are many non-democracies in the UN), then the executive needs to ask the legislative if it agrees with the treaty. Those that ‘override domestic law which was decided by voters’ are those that have been voted in by the same voters!
Once ratified in the democratic process, it still does not mean that ‘a treaty trumps state and local laws, and expands federal powers’. For example, provisions in the treaty may be against provisions in the constitution. People may and have complained against treaties as against constitutional law to the highest court available in a state and have at times won.
Oh well, this all seems off topic by now. You are the one talking about ‘worldwide abuse of science, along with the simultaneous intent to collect trillions of dollars for climate debt’ and ‘regarding the $100 bn which the UN requires annually for its Green Fund – what term can we use for charging developed nations $100 bn/year for extreme weather events?’
Have a nice weekend!