Latest extortion attempt from Durban COP17: $1.6 Trillion

With all that money the UN could increase their take home pay by TEN times with hardly a dent in the balance, then give a good amount to their friends the African Leaders as a personal gift and still have change for COP 18.

SionedL says:
December 10, 2011 at 11:02 am
To Louise: Instead of looking up ‘invite’ and ‘demand’ in your Oxford dictionary, check the history of political speak. Words have whatever meaning they want on any given day. If they can convince you to sign onto a plan today with the word ‘invite’, tomorrow that ‘invite’ becomes a ‘demand’ and the day after ‘coercion’, you want corn? wheat? oil?, then you must ‘voluntarily’ ……and the day after that it is a crime against humanity.
—————-
Louis says:
December 10, 2011 at 11:07 am
Louise says:
December 10, 2011 at 9:41 am
“So you all think the word ‘invite’ actually means ‘demand’ – wow, I knew there were some differences between American and British English but I’d missed that one.”
—
The “invite” part only applies to submitting “information on plans to increase their financial contributions”. It’s like when the IRS invites me to submit a tax return every year. I can ignore the request to send in my tax forms but that won’t stop them from demanding their money anyway. There isn’t a global IRS, yet, but the elitists in Durban have already drafted plans to create one.
You may consider your power bill an “invitation” to pay but, where I live, the power gets shut off if I refuse to pay. So, to me, it’s a “demand”. I don’t have the option to ignore the taxes and fees added on to my power bill and pay for just the electricity I use, do you? If Durban gets its way, their extortion money will be added on to your power bill, your grocery bill, your tax bill, and anything else they can get their hands on. In other words, “invite” is newspeak for “demand” in its Durban context.
————-
David L. Hagen says:
December 10, 2011 at 11:24 am
Louise: Re: “So you all think the word ‘invite’ actually means ‘demand’”
Please evaluate the grammar of para 47 “to be made available” and “shall be”
funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence, security, and warfare.
e.g. Merriam-Webster definition of shall includes:
b —used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory – “it shall be unlawful to carry firearms”
—————————-
Yes,it’s legalese in company speak. Against our human rights, Common Law, etc., for anyone to demand such a thing, so by invitation only, for example, Americans are invited to fill in their IRS forms and pay taxes.
The tricky bit is that they assume that acknowledgement of the company is de facto recognition of contract between you and said company. For example again IRS, by putting your signature on the request for your money and sending it back saying you’re not going to pay, the private company IRS holds that you have acknowledged that you have a contract with them and so should be paying.
The wording in these documents are of like ilk – it has to be an invitation to establish a contract, a demand would would organised crime in Common Law, natural law, US Constitution, etc., and demanding money with menaces if penalties are imposed for non-compliance.
The Brits spread the concept of Common Law to US and Commonwealth, but knowledge of it is being “educated” out of us..
This is the language of corporations. In Britain the legal system is a corporation for example, if you don’t have a contract with it it has no jurisdiction over you. For another example, MP’s are registered as corporations, they trade as such. Corporations exist to make money.
Parliamentary acts, statutes, are “legal” in the corporation speak, but cannot usurp your natural Common Law rights, they can only do this by getting your agreement, establishing a contract with you.
They think they have their arses covered by this, but, since this is not clearly explained and these ‘legal shalls’ presented as if actually lawful, it is still fraud. For example in Britain, by registering your car you establish a contract with the corporation running this and so required to abide by its rules, one of which is that by registering your car you give up ownership of it to the corporation. That’s how they can claim that it is ‘legal’ to take away and trash your car for non-payment of road tax, which would be theft and destruction of one’s property in Common Law. The legalese language deliberately confuses.
Any contract established by such subterfuge is a con, therefore automatically unlawful. You don’t have to agree to pay the private company the IRS any of your money.. The problem is that if you get sucked into being taken to court for non-payment, the jury most likely won’t understand this, and judges, being part of the system, direct juries to find for the corporation.
There’s been quite a lot of interest in various groups making a stand against these corporations masquerading as lawfully entitled to steal your money.., but, it seems to me what is actually necessary is to remind everyone of their common law, human, natural, rights and education in the language of coroporation speak – the Brits need to get back Common Law teaching and the Americans insist on their Constitutional rights. This is what we need spread across the world, contrast say for example Napoleonic law, and that it exists at all is still being systematically air brushed out by the meme “democracy” – majority voting doesn’t make something lawful, a democratic tyranny disturbing your peace, threatening you with punishment for not complying with its edicts, is unlawful.

David says:
December 10, 2011 at 6:00 pm
LazyTeenager says:
December 10, 2011 at 5:33 pm
More babbling Lazy, no one said it was signed or agreed on. The unmitagated gall to even write such an inane proposal is beyond parody. (That you attempt to make it sound reasonable is also rather sad.)
——————
“”An implausible unsigned climate treaty, that has proposed expenditures equal to total developed countries military budgets, is causing the WUWT readership to freak out. I would say my babbling is something you need more of.
I can’t imagine what you guys thought was going to happen if the USA refused to agree to the expenditure part of this treaty, Maybe the UN was going to threaten to nuke one major city at a time until you agreed to cough up the trillions
And now that the treaty is out what does it actually say. Cough up trillions or else?””
Lazy; why would we need more of your babbling, the comments you mock were on how insane the mind set was of thousands of people being flown, at taxpayers expense, to write an asinine treaty that would create world war three if implemented. Many of the same posters noted it would not fly. Your last sentance, “And now that the treaty is out what does it actually say. Cough up trillions or else?” No Lazy, It does not, and no one articulated your strawman; the treaty sounds like a treaty to keep working towards a new treaty; it is a sick joke fully worthy of all the ridcule heaped on it here.
However, the damage done by the CAGW panic (Which you attempt to promote) is far greater then the cost of these imbiciles travling around the world to promote inane proposals.. It is the hundreds of billions, if not trillions all ready spent, wasted on carbon trading, wind and solar mandates , wasted on yet one more “the frogs are getting bigger or smaller due to CO2 study”; all of which combine to make energy, all energy, far more expensive then it would be if sanity prevailed. This has contributed strongly to the worlds economic crisis, and prevented the only real solution to pull the world out of the economic crisis, inexpensive energy. So Lazy, these idiots you support have not gotton their way, but they have effectively destroyed the worlds economy, and your support is a part of the problem.
CO2 is not pollution, and thanks to the CO2 introduced in the atmosphere, all crops, worldwide, now grow 10% to 15% more food then they otherwise would. Without this we would be a world at war now. If population is your main concern, then alow those nations cheep energy, and watch them find the resources to curb real pollution and naturally, as happens in every nation that develops, reduce or stop their population growth.

“Sounds like the “informal groups” may be a strange lot.
Whether “to be presented to the Conference of the Parties” means it has to be taken seriously might depend on what became of it when it was presented.”
Yes they are a strange lot indeed. This informal document clearly reveals the true goal of all this.

David L. Hagen says:
December 11, 2011 at 10:06 am
Myrrh
Re: “Is the new out-of-sequence version the hoax??”
NO
See: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/l04.pdf
That is still posted by unfcc.int
Yes, I’ve seen that one, it’s a lot different from the 38 & 39 papers while appearing to be the same.., and, it’s in “English only” – I wonder if it’s just been put together to distance temporarily from the real 38/39 versions.
I don’t have my printer working at the moment, and can’t compare the versions easily.
I have never seen the hoax. Just read reports that it existed
Back to my first thought then, they have had such a backlash from the version 39 Monckton covers, possibly even at the conference itself, perhaps there are some who’ve never seen it writ large like this before, that simply putting out a rumour that there’s a fake doing the rounds creates enough confusion that some might now think the Monckton precis to be that, the original is off the wall enough.. They’ve just been a bit clever about it if they first produced the text with wrong dates, which the countries didn’t know about etc., which they could then say was the hoax they meant..
http://junkscience.com/2011/12/10/fake-text-derails-durban-talks/

“Fake text derails Durban talks
Posted on December 10, 2011 by Steve Milloy | 2 Comments
Now who would do something like that?
The Guardian reports:
A fake negotiating text has been circulated at the UN climate talks in Durban in what some delegates believe to be a deliberate attempt to derail the process, which is already in danger of failure because time is fast running out to clinch a deal.
The talks were scheduled to finish on Friday evening but ran on through the night, for the second night running, and will not finish until late afternoon on Saturday.
In what could have been a bizarre mistake, or else a ploy to sabotage the talks, the fake text was sent to delegates with a note that it had been drawn up by Mexico, the EU, the US and the Basic countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China. It was dismissed by several of the countries named, who said it was different to their position on key details.
In particular, the text said work on a new climate agreement should start in the first half of 2012, when in fact the countries named want the new phase to begin immediately, and it said a new legal instrument should be adopted with effect from 2020, whereas the EU wants a text saying “no later than 2020″.”

A bit OT, a side step, while I was searching for Monckton Durban 2011 Mother Earth and finding lots of ‘UN eco-fascists’ mentions, I came across an idea I’ve not seen before, a movement to de-colonize America by the American Indians: http://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/for-america-to-live-europe-must-die/ It’s about the mind-set of the European in the mix of marxism capitalism science contrasted with native views. I think he’s making too much of wood as renewable therefore good…, a through rose coloured glasses at his own history, but, how would one bring in, say, the cheap energy of coal to everyone without there being an industrial/capitalist/marxist system to extract it?