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?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
363 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pwl
December 13, 2011 9:24 am

Sieg Heil mein UN.

edbarbar
December 13, 2011 9:25 am

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?

Anthony Scalzi
December 13, 2011 9:26 am

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

John
December 13, 2011 9:27 am

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.

Latitude
December 13, 2011 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?

Rúnar
December 13, 2011 9:28 am

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

ChE
December 13, 2011 9:28 am

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

PaulH
December 13, 2011 9:28 am

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

December 13, 2011 9:29 am

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.

December 13, 2011 9:30 am

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!!

crosspatch
December 13, 2011 9:30 am

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

Curiousgeorge
December 13, 2011 9:32 am

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

Grant
December 13, 2011 9:35 am

Really, what can UNFCCC do about it ? Nada!

tw
December 13, 2011 9:35 am

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.

December 13, 2011 9:37 am

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).

LarryD
December 13, 2011 9:37 am

You and what army, buddy…
The Canucks don’t have a huge army, but it’s a real one.

December 13, 2011 9:40 am

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.

December 13, 2011 9:41 am

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

Joey B
December 13, 2011 9:42 am

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

John F. Hultquist
December 13, 2011 9:45 am

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#!

JohnH
December 13, 2011 9:46 am

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’

Greg, San Diego, CA
December 13, 2011 9:46 am

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

R Taylor
December 13, 2011 9:46 am

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

Sean Peake
December 13, 2011 9:46 am

Dear UNFCCC. Take off, eh!

Don R
December 13, 2011 9:46 am

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

December 13, 2011 9:47 am

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.

James Sexton
December 13, 2011 9:48 am

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

Richard M
December 13, 2011 9:48 am

“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.

Arthur Dent
December 13, 2011 9:48 am

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

Allan M
December 13, 2011 9:48 am

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

December 13, 2011 9:50 am

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.

perlcat
December 13, 2011 9:52 am

Gosh darn those obnoxious, disagreeable Canadians!

ckb
Editor
December 13, 2011 9:53 am

Stop! Or I’ll say stop again!

AnonyMoose
December 13, 2011 9:53 am

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

Leon Brozyna
December 13, 2011 9:55 am

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

December 13, 2011 9:56 am

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…

December 13, 2011 9:56 am

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.

Alan the Brit
December 13, 2011 9:58 am

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!.

December 13, 2011 9:59 am

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.

Nick Shaw
December 13, 2011 10:00 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.”
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?

Interstellar Bill
December 13, 2011 10:00 am

Canada should zero out its UN contributions as well.

Kaboom
December 13, 2011 10:01 am

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

Paul Westhaver
December 13, 2011 10:03 am

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.

albertalad
December 13, 2011 10:03 am

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!

JEM
December 13, 2011 10:05 am

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.

Steve C
December 13, 2011 10:07 am

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.

Kaboom
December 13, 2011 10:08 am

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 …

Fred from Canuckistan
December 13, 2011 10:09 am

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

Tain
December 13, 2011 10:10 am

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.

Robmax
December 13, 2011 10:13 am

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

Dudley Robertson
December 13, 2011 10:14 am

On what basis does the UN rest their moral judgments?

Ibrahim
December 13, 2011 10:14 am

Robert of Ottawa
December 13, 2011 10:14 am

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

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
December 13, 2011 10:15 am

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.

John West
December 13, 2011 10:16 am

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.

DJ
December 13, 2011 10:17 am

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.

HankH
December 13, 2011 10:17 am

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.

Joe
December 13, 2011 10:18 am

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.

December 13, 2011 10:19 am

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.

Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta
December 13, 2011 10:20 am

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.

Jan
December 13, 2011 10:20 am

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.

Richard deSousa
December 13, 2011 10:24 am

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.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
December 13, 2011 10:32 am

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™.

Reed Coray
December 13, 2011 10:32 am

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.

December 13, 2011 10:33 am

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 …

FerdinandAkin
December 13, 2011 10:34 am

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.

December 13, 2011 10:35 am

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.

Paul Westhaver
December 13, 2011 10:39 am

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.

Athelstan
December 13, 2011 10:42 am

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…………………….. .

Theo Goodwin
December 13, 2011 10:48 am

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.

Frank K.
December 13, 2011 10:49 am

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]

Leo
December 13, 2011 10:49 am

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

dp
December 13, 2011 10:52 am

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.

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 10:52 am

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.

David
December 13, 2011 10:55 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.”
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.

Jeremy
December 13, 2011 10:57 am

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

Iggy Slanter
December 13, 2011 10:57 am

U.N. uber allies.

Scarface
December 13, 2011 10:58 am

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.

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 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.

R. Shearer
December 13, 2011 11:01 am

Oh “H” “E” “double hockeysticks.”

Gary Hladik
December 13, 2011 11:05 am

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.

John A
December 13, 2011 11:06 am

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?”

December 13, 2011 11:06 am

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?

December 13, 2011 11:07 am

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

Leo
December 13, 2011 11:07 am

David: above… That says it all

alan
December 13, 2011 11:08 am

“There is no compulsion in Climate Religion!”

December 13, 2011 11:12 am

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.

dcardno
December 13, 2011 11:16 am

…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?

December 13, 2011 11:20 am

“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.”

Ilkka Mononen
December 13, 2011 11:23 am
klem
December 13, 2011 11:25 am

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!

hunter
December 13, 2011 11:25 am

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.

crosspatch
December 13, 2011 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. 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.

Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta
December 13, 2011 11:26 am

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.

December 13, 2011 11:27 am

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.

December 13, 2011 11:28 am

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.

Owen
December 13, 2011 11:36 am

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 !

JEM
December 13, 2011 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.

crosspatch
December 13, 2011 11:40 am

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?

Dr Burns
December 13, 2011 11:41 am

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

Terry
December 13, 2011 11:41 am

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.

December 13, 2011 11:42 am

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.

Nigel S
December 13, 2011 11:42 am

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

Dieter
December 13, 2011 11:42 am

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

DirkH
December 13, 2011 11:44 am

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.

Steeptown
December 13, 2011 11:45 am

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.

Lance
December 13, 2011 11:48 am

To quote(and change) a famous quote said during WWII…
from the Canadian People to the UN…..NUTS….

December 13, 2011 11:49 am

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

Snotrocket
December 13, 2011 11:50 am

‘UN peuple, UN royaume, UN chef’
Canada can make us free.
(Not too heavy, I hope…)

Jim
December 13, 2011 11:50 am

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

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
December 13, 2011 11:52 am

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.

Steve from Rockwood
December 13, 2011 11:54 am

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.

Cold Englishman
December 13, 2011 11:59 am

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.

paul
December 13, 2011 12:01 pm

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.

Chris B
December 13, 2011 12:02 pm

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.

John West
December 13, 2011 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.

Ian E
December 13, 2011 12:08 pm

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.

John Conner
December 13, 2011 12:08 pm

“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.’

Markon
December 13, 2011 12:10 pm

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.

Kindle Kinser
December 13, 2011 12:10 pm

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

Theo Goodwin
December 13, 2011 12:13 pm

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.

Nick Shaw
December 13, 2011 12:14 pm

@ 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!

December 13, 2011 12:16 pm

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…….

More Soylent Green!
December 13, 2011 12:16 pm

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.

Chris B
December 13, 2011 12:16 pm
Theo Goodwin
December 13, 2011 12:19 pm

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.

JEM
December 13, 2011 12:26 pm

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

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 12:27 pm

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.

Levick
December 13, 2011 12:34 pm

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.

Ilkka Mononen
Reply to  Levick
December 13, 2011 12:41 pm
Cassandra King
December 13, 2011 12:35 pm

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?

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 12:38 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
December 13, 2011 12:40 pm

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….

Old Mike
December 13, 2011 12:42 pm

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

Steve In S.C.
December 13, 2011 12:42 pm

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

davidmhoffer
December 13, 2011 12:43 pm

“The UN is not the Antichrist”
Yes it is. Or maybe something worse.

R Taylor
December 13, 2011 12:43 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
December 13, 2011 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?

Jay Davis
December 13, 2011 12:47 pm

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.

December 13, 2011 12:50 pm

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

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 12:51 pm

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.

dwright
December 13, 2011 12:54 pm

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

December 13, 2011 12:54 pm

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?

astrodragon
December 13, 2011 12:57 pm

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…

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 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.

Rodzki
December 13, 2011 12:59 pm

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.

JEM
December 13, 2011 12:59 pm

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.

Hoser
December 13, 2011 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

Kitefreak
December 13, 2011 1:04 pm

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).

albertalad
December 13, 2011 1:05 pm

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!

Bruce Cobb
December 13, 2011 1:06 pm

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.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
December 13, 2011 1:06 pm

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”

davidmhoffer
December 13, 2011 1:08 pm

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.

Dodgy Geezer
December 13, 2011 1:10 pm

“…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.

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 1:11 pm

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?

morgo
December 13, 2011 1:12 pm

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

johnnyrvf
December 13, 2011 1:14 pm

@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?

Curiousgeorge
December 13, 2011 1:14 pm

@ 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.

Ed Scott
December 13, 2011 1:15 pm

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

Ben Hern
December 13, 2011 1:15 pm

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.

Ray
December 13, 2011 1:16 pm

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.

Outtheback
December 13, 2011 1:17 pm

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.

Jerry
December 13, 2011 1:18 pm

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

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
December 13, 2011 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…

JEM
December 13, 2011 1:19 pm

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.

KenB
December 13, 2011 1:26 pm

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.

Gary Mount
December 13, 2011 1:26 pm

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

Henry Phipps
December 13, 2011 1:27 pm

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

d_abes in Saskatoon
December 13, 2011 1:28 pm

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.

d_abes in Saskatoon
December 13, 2011 1:35 pm

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.

4 eyes
December 13, 2011 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 agred to do anything then fine, they are free of obligation

Mike from Canmore
December 13, 2011 1:38 pm

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

Red Jeff
December 13, 2011 1:39 pm

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

Curiousgeorge
December 13, 2011 1:42 pm

@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.

Marion
December 13, 2011 1:44 pm

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).

Casper
December 13, 2011 1:47 pm

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

AndyG55
December 13, 2011 1:53 pm

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

Steve Oregon
December 13, 2011 1:58 pm

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.

D. King
December 13, 2011 2:05 pm

U.N. Trek The wrath of Kyoto

Dave
December 13, 2011 2:06 pm

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

TRM
December 13, 2011 2:13 pm

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.

Korwyn
December 13, 2011 2:15 pm

“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

TRM
December 13, 2011 2:16 pm

” 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.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
December 13, 2011 2:16 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
December 13, 2011 2:23 pm

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.

Gary Mount
December 13, 2011 2:29 pm

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.

More Soylent Green!
December 13, 2011 2:32 pm

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!

davidmhoffer
December 13, 2011 2:34 pm

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.

December 13, 2011 2:37 pm

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.

Kitefreak
December 13, 2011 2:42 pm

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.

Chris B
December 13, 2011 2:46 pm

Torgeir Hansson says:
December 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Oh yea, watch this.

Barry Brill
December 13, 2011 2:55 pm

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.

albertalad
December 13, 2011 2:57 pm

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.

My dog Kyoto was run over
December 13, 2011 3:00 pm

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?

December 13, 2011 3:07 pm

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

Bebben
December 13, 2011 3:15 pm

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!

Kitefreak
December 13, 2011 3:21 pm

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”.

Goldie
December 13, 2011 3:27 pm

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.

Grant
December 13, 2011 3:29 pm

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)

Werner Brozek
December 13, 2011 3:39 pm

“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?

DirkH
December 13, 2011 3:46 pm

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.

Dave Springer
December 13, 2011 3:49 pm

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?

Werner Brozek
December 13, 2011 3:51 pm

“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”.

davidmhoffer
December 13, 2011 3:52 pm

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?

December 13, 2011 3:55 pm

Welcome to the Hotel California.

JEM
December 13, 2011 4:00 pm

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.

Babsy
December 13, 2011 4:02 pm

Reed Coray says:
December 13, 2011 at 10:32 am
That’s funny!

davidmhoffer
December 13, 2011 4:11 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.>>>
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.

Theo Goodwin
December 13, 2011 4:11 pm

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.

David Ball
December 13, 2011 4:12 pm

Just read Vaclav Klaus, …..

Outtheback
December 13, 2011 4:13 pm

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.

Babsy
December 13, 2011 4:14 pm

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!

MikeN
December 13, 2011 4:15 pm

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.

December 13, 2011 4:20 pm

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.

Gary Mount
December 13, 2011 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.

Allan MacRae
December 13, 2011 4:25 pm

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.

Theo Goodwin
December 13, 2011 4:29 pm

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.

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 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.

Johnny Canuck
December 13, 2011 5:02 pm

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…

Myrrh
December 13, 2011 5:13 pm

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.

Reed Coray
December 13, 2011 5:13 pm

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.

December 13, 2011 5:16 pm

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

timg56
December 13, 2011 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. 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.

davidmhoffer
December 13, 2011 5:19 pm

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?

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
December 13, 2011 5:27 pm

“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).

timg56
December 13, 2011 5:28 pm

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.

maple leaf
December 13, 2011 5:29 pm

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.

vigilantfish
December 13, 2011 5:51 pm

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?

JPeden
December 13, 2011 6:03 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
December 13, 2011 6:10 pm

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]

RockyRoad
December 13, 2011 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.
So is the UN going to send in troops with blue helmets?

davidmhoffer
December 13, 2011 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]

December 13, 2011 6:30 pm

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.

Werner Brozek
December 13, 2011 6:31 pm

“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.”

Sean Peake
December 13, 2011 6:38 pm

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.

cgh
December 13, 2011 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.

Gary Mount
December 13, 2011 6:48 pm

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?

December 13, 2011 6:51 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
December 13, 2011 6:55 pm

[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.

December 13, 2011 6:59 pm

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

Robin Kool
December 13, 2011 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.
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.

King of Cool
December 13, 2011 7:04 pm

• • 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?

Theo Goodwin
December 13, 2011 7:19 pm

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.

Theo Goodwin
December 13, 2011 7:25 pm

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.

G. Karst
December 13, 2011 7:26 pm

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

December 13, 2011 7:30 pm

“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?

Pamela Gray
December 13, 2011 7:41 pm

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

Gail Combs
December 13, 2011 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.

Sean Peake
December 13, 2011 8:03 pm

Proud to be a climate rebel without a “cause”

Gail Combs
December 13, 2011 8:10 pm

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/

December 13, 2011 8:20 pm

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! 🙂

December 13, 2011 8:32 pm

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.

Theo Goodwin
December 13, 2011 8:35 pm

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.

Theo Goodwin
December 13, 2011 8:39 pm

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.”

Gail Combs
December 13, 2011 8:42 pm

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

James Sexton
December 13, 2011 8:49 pm

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.

wayne
December 13, 2011 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. 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.

davidmhoffer
December 13, 2011 8:54 pm

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.

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 8:58 pm

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.

cgh
December 13, 2011 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.
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.

Brian H
December 13, 2011 9:04 pm

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%

Theo Goodwin
December 13, 2011 9:04 pm

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.

Gail Combs
December 13, 2011 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/

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….

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 9:11 pm

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.

James Sexton
December 13, 2011 9:17 pm

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.

December 13, 2011 9:28 pm

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.

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 9:29 pm

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.

Dave Springer
December 13, 2011 9:33 pm

@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.

Brian H
December 13, 2011 9:42 pm

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.

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 9:46 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
December 13, 2011 9:46 pm

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.

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 9:58 pm

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.

RockyRoad
December 13, 2011 9:59 pm

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.

James Sexton
December 13, 2011 10:00 pm

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?

December 13, 2011 10:03 pm

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

RockyRoad
December 13, 2011 10:07 pm

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.

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 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 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.

Rhoda Ramirez
December 13, 2011 10:19 pm

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.

Torgeir Hansson
December 13, 2011 10:20 pm

@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.

RockyRoad
December 13, 2011 10:27 pm

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 Palesti