U.N. leader: Sandy a lesson in climate change

Luckily he’s preaching to the UN choir, and luckily the UN choir has very little influence these days. The UN has failed so dramatically and bizarrely in so many different ways that nobody obeys its orders any more.

What period of time in earth’s history was it free from extreme weather? Sure, there’s never been a time with such a high density of people living all over the planet to experience extreme weather. But when has the planet been free of extreme weather?
I can tell you: during the short period known as the Garden of Eden.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says: “You are out of your cotton-pickin’ mind, Ban Ki-moon.”
I think he is on the Moon Mike.

How about “extreme weather due to climate change is the new meme”? That is a statement I can believe in.
What liberty-loving peoples need to do to protect themselves from these statists is to somehow tax only those individuals who are constantly calling on higher taxes for the rest of us to pay – especially on such bankrupt ideas as ‘climate change’. “If you believe in Climate Change/taxpayer-funded abortion/changing the definition of marriage/welfare without work/(etcetera, etcetera…) please turn to the tax tables on page xxx of your Form 1040 instructions to compute your taxes…”

MikeB says:
November 10, 2012 at 1:54 am
So why do people keep saying that any event of extreme weather is due to climate change – and then claiming that the ‘settled science’ supports this view – when quite clearly it says the opposite?
_____________________________________
First, they want your money/wealth.
Second they want to provide legitimacy for a transition from national sovereignty to something like the EU. Pascal Lamy has stated that repeatedly in his speeches.

WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, in a speech to the European University Institute in Florence on 19 February 2011, said that “today’s world is confronted with major global challenges… Pragmatic solutions need to be found now to enhance global governance and better address the problems that our world is facing”.
…What does the dominant theory tell us? That the international system is founded on the principle of national sovereignty. That the Wesphalian order remains the basis of the international architecture, and that global governance can only result from the action of sovereign States. In other words, that global governance is the globalization of local governance. This theory of governance, which has not substantially changed for centuries, is based on the transitivity of both coherence and legitimacy: as States are coherent and legitimate, global governance is necessarily coherent and legitimate as well.
Unfortunately, the practice tells us otherwise. It does not suffice to establish international organizations to ensure a coherent approach to address the global problems of our time.
First, the European experience shows that supra-national governance can work….
There is one place where attempts to deal with these challenges have been made and where new forms of governance have been tested for the last 60 years: in Europe. The European construction is the most ambitious experiment in supranational governance ever attempted up to now. It is the story of a desired, delineated and organized interdependence between its Member States. How has this endeavour coped with the challenges I have just outlined?….

Translated the world elite want to get rid of national sovereignty. It is a pain in the rump for multinational corporations.
Pascal Lamy goes on to say

….If one looks at governance from a practical point of view, three elements are necessary. First, governance needs to provide leadership, the incarnation of vision, of political energy, of drive. Second, it needs to provide legitimacy, which is essential to ensure ownership over decisions that lead to change. Ownership to prevent the in-built bias towards resistance to modify the status quo. Finally, a legitimate governance system must also ensure efficiency. It must bring about results for the benefit of the people at a reasonable cost…

In another speech at the Oxford Martin School, Oxford University on 8 March 2012, he makes it even more clear that national sovereignty has to go.

…In fact, the Wesphalian order is a challenge in itself. The recent crisis has demonstrated it brutally. Local politics has taken the upper hand over addressing global issues. Governments are too busy dealing with domestic issues to dedicate sufficient attention and energy to multilateral negotiations, be they trade negotiations or climate negotiations.
I see four main challenges for global governance today.
The first one is leadership….
The second one is efficiency, i.e. the capacity to mobilize resources, to solve the problems in the international sphere, to bring about concrete and visible results for the benefit of the people. The main challenge here is that the Westphalian order gives a premium to “naysayers” who can block decisions, thereby impeding results. The ensuing viscosity of international decision-making puts into question the efficiency of the international system.
The third one is coherence, for the international system is based on specialization… It is a fact: the UN is not really overarching, assuming this was the initial intention.
The last challenge that I see is that of legitimacy — for legitimacy is intrinsically linked to proximity, to a sense of “togetherness”. By togetherness, I mean the shared feeling of belonging to a community. This feeling, which is generally strong at the local level, tends to weaken significantly as distance to power systems grows. It finds its roots in common myths, a common history, and a collective cultural heritage. It is no surprise that taxation and redistribution policies remain mostly local!

So that is the real reason the UN has promoted CAGW and environmentalism since the first earth summit in 1972, to give legitimacy, a sense of “togetherness” a shared feeling of belonging to a community.
It was always political right from the start. Why else would the major international corporations have put their weight and money behind it for decades? If the power elite and corporations did not want socialism, environmentalism and animal rights to be part of the political landscape, people with those concerns would have been relegated to fringe groups. Instead they have been promote to major political power houses. This did not happen by chance.
The key is to look behind the surface and follow the money trail. To figure out who benefits. never forget H. L. Mencken’s words of wisdom.
i>The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.

Just another thought.
Maurice Strong, who chaired the First Earth Summit in 1972 and the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, stated: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse…isn’t it our job to bring that about?”
We see this type of thinking in many. Why are so many people advocating a return to poverty for the majority of humanity (not them of course)?
I think it is because of the basic instinct in most life forms to compete for natural resources and to make sure OUR genes are the ones that survive. That OUR children and great-great grandchildren are the dominant power in the future.

andrewmharding says:
November 10, 2012 at 1:36 am
This just shows how far behind the times the UN actually is! The rest of the world is starting to realise that mankind has been subjected to the biggest con trick ever, but not the UN….
_________________________________
Given the recent US elections, I am afraid you are not correct. However people are starting to wake-up FINALLY. That means the next few years are going to be very very dangerous.
The CAGW story is unraveling, the economic pinch is making more and more people question what the heck politicians are up to and the internet is providing the answer.
Expect a big push to get a Carbon Tax through for ALL countries or a Financial Transaction Tax or a travel tax, anything that will give the UN the ability to tax. Also on the agenda is the UN Gun treaty with universal gun registration:
the UN should “expand the UN Arms register in order to show production and sale of small arms and light weapons. It should include specific names of their producers and traders.”…”to limit and move toward eliminating the use of the veto. The UN must move towards veto restriction. ” … “A major task of the world community in the twenty-first century will be to strengthen and greatly enhance the role of the United Nations in the global context. Governments must recommit themselves to the realization of the goals and mandates of the United Nations Charter… From the 2000: The United Nations Millennium Summit
A discussion of the major objectives of the UN taken from the We The Peoples Millennium Forum Declaration and Agenda for Action that also includes historian Carroll Quigley and his extensive research is here.

John Marshall says:
November 10, 2012 at 3:12 am
… Question– do holders of UN Secretary General’s office now have their brains removed on appointment? Despite real climate scientists stating that Sandy is not a climate change phenomenon Ban Ki Moon insists it is.
_____________________________
No just their honesty and integrity, but that goes for almost all politicians.
Definition of a Honest Politician: One who stays bought.

It is absolutely critical that the UN chief and others there keep hammering on a dead horse. If they don’t both power and funding disappear. This is a power game. The UN has little an most other aspects of things so they will fight to protect the little they do have be it rational or not. This has and never has had anything to do with reality is has to do with the power theater of demigods.

As if I needed yet another reason to call him Ban Ki Moonbat
Ban Ki Lune but very dangerous. He wasn’t elected to be passive. There are surely many so called sovereign leaders that would be happy to be part of a world government.

RockyRoad says:
November 10, 2012 at 6:27 am
I’ve never understood how the concept of global governance could benefit me as an individual. Indeed, I’ve come to a full understanding how the implementation of global governance of the type espoused by the UN will severely limit my individual freedoms and prosperity.
As a consequence, I consider this Ban Ki-moon to be one facinorous, dangerous dude.
It would be nice to be able to say to Ban Ki-moon: “Yes we agree with you about global governance – but no-one currently in the UN or its sub-groups should be allowed to be ‘in any position of power’. As obviously you are all insisting on global governance for the good of humanity and not for any self aggrandizement, you will all be removed from your posts and relinquish all authority, any elevated benefits and savings, and live in your countries of origin at the state provided level of retirement benefits. If you reject this option it is obvious that you are just attempting to gain power and riches for yourselves rather than out of any philanthropy.

Contact information for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
United Nations
New York, NY 10017 USA
212-963-5012 fax: 212-963-7055
Email: ecu@un.org