The UN Climate End Game

Guest opinion by David Archibald

“Everybody Wants To Rule The World” was a 1985 song by Tears For Fears. Now in 2015, a number of parties are doing their best to that end – ISIS in the Middle East, Russia chewing up the Ukraine, China in the East and South China Seas and the UN Climate Change Commission. A draft document out of Geneva gives details of the UN plan to rule the world.

Christiana Figueres is on the right in this photo, but far left politically.

For most of us, the memorable thing from the Lima climate late last year was Greenpeace’s despoiling of an ancient Nazca figure of a hummingbird.

But the Lima conference has been quickly followed by another in Geneva. The purpose of the latter conference was to produce the negotiating text for the climate conference to be held in Paris in December. The Geneva meeting was conducted in a rush with no opening statements, even by the head of the UNFCCC, Christiana Figueres. Ms. Figueres expectation of the climate treaty coming is that it will be “a centralised transformation” that “is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different”.

Just how different is shown by snippets of the Paris negotiating text. Let’s start with this one from page 5:

“All Parties to strive to achieve low greenhouse gas climate-resilient economies and societies, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their historical responsibilities, common but differentiated responsibilities / evolving common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in order to achieve sustainable development, poverty eradication and prosperity for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, taking fully into account the historical responsibility of developed country Parties.”

Animal Farm was supposed to be a cautionary tale about communism. The UN has taken “All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others.” and turned into “All countries are common but some are more differentiated than others.”

How will the UN determine how much one country might be differentiated from another? That is explained on page 85:

“In reviewing and revising Annex I to the Convention, the total amount of greenhouse gases, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent, emitted by a Party to the Convention since 1750 A.D. shall be added and divided by the current population of that Party. Based on the thus obtained per capita greenhouse gas emissions and population size of each Party to the Convention, the average global per capita emissions of greenhouse gases shall be used to evaluate the status of the greenhouse gas emissions of a Party to the Convention. Each Party to the Convention whose per capita greenhouse gas emissions exceed the global average per capita greenhouse gas emissions shall be proposed to be inscribed in Annex I to the Convention, and the remaining Parties shall not be proposed to be inscribed in Annex I to the Convention.”

Why 1750? Are the sins of the fathers are to be visited their sons even unto the 11th generation, which is us? Climate treaties used to be based on 1990 as the start date because that was convenient to the Europeans as the fall of communism in that year had curbed their coal consumption. The European countries were going to be the easy treaty compliers while the US was punished. That was the plan at the beginning. But now it is changed to 1750.

The significance of Annex 1 is that if you are on it, you will be paying for the whole circus – US$100 billion per annum for kleptocracies. What if you don’t want to be on Annex 1, because you know that global warming is nonsense or something? What might happen is hinted at on page 8:

“Option 4: Decides that the developed country Parties shall not resort to any form of unilateral measures against goods and services from developing country Parties on any grounds related to climate change, recalling the principles and provisions of the Convention”

The option says that developing countries are not to have unilateral measures taken against them but who would bother doing that? The implied target is elsewhere. Countries that are allocated to Annex 1 but don’t cough up the cash might have unilateral measures taken against them by “developed country Parties”.

Australia signed up for the UN climate treaty in 2007. Canada pulled out in 2011 and Russia and Japan have rejected new targets after 2012. Perhaps the US will keep us free – Ms Figueres has said that the US Congress is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming.

So that is why the global warming scare is so hard to kill. The end game is world domination. With such a big prize – the biggest possible, facts aren’t even inconvenient. They are not part of the process. It has been a long slog but gird your loins for a battle that might last into mid-century. Lima was COP 20 and Ms Figueres is prepared to take it to COP 40.

David Archibald, a visiting fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 18, 2015 10:48 am

Thank you David for being the first person to point out – to me at least – the new starting point of 1750 for calculating emissions in the Paris drafts. The implications of that? I’m sure someone will be quoting Zhou Enlai before we’re done: it’s too soon to say.
Joking apart, what can the moral basis be for punishing whole peoples based on actions carried out over 250 years ago, when absolutely nothing was known about the radiative properties of CO2, let alone a well-worked theory of the radiative-convective greenhouse a la Manabe and Wetherald?
I think we should hit this moral vacuity as hard as possible, though I don’t doubt global power-seeking is present as well.

george e. smith
Reply to  Richard Drake
February 18, 2015 11:34 am

I noticed that everybody who is above the global average will help pay the whole bill.

Reply to  george e. smith
February 18, 2015 12:36 pm

1750??? That was a green era!!!
That is when wind power (the navy ruled the seas this way) and water power (river run mills) ruled… renewables!!!
But then, homes had coal fires, as did smelting. These were biofuels!!!! (and dung in many places).
I might be wrong, but in a per capita basis, I believe a single house coal heart or stove for cooking and warming might have generated a bit more CO2 than we do nowadays. Drinking water was often contaminated by raw sewage and garbage was left rotting in the street. Problems with the disposal of the dead often added to the stench and decay.
This on a domestic environment.
Now, if you were to account of the emissions of all wastes dumped into the streets from chamber pots, massive environmental damage to rivers and streams from the industry, plagues and diseases caused by the lack of dirty fossil fuel technological advancements and so forth. Then tally all this per capita, then we would be comparing the same basis.
Oh, and people should have a life expectancy of <40 years and bells tolling for deaths were considered a nuisance (noise pollution). 1 out of five children did not see their second birthday.
To think we missed all those good days because dirty energy has made our lives miserable. We live past 80, we have clean environments, food over supply exists, we dress warmly with thin layers of clothing…. This sucks!! I want to die of tuberculosis!!
But well, some people (mostly politicians) seem to have biofuels firing their neurons.

Reply to  george e. smith
February 18, 2015 5:24 pm

My guess is it will be from each according to his ability and to each according to his need.
They don’t know any other way.

Reply to  george e. smith
February 18, 2015 9:28 pm

The winners are countries that have only a short history. Ukraine, for example, only became a country, in 1990 and already bits are changing hands. Europe has a long history of changing borders and states appearing and disappearing.. Australia was not a country until 1901 so that is a bit of relief. The last Labor (Socialist) government passed laws to shut down industries such as making aluminium, and steel and other efficient manufacturing so Australia should be OK unless they fiddle the table (very likely). The rules seem to be made to bring down the USA and some politicians in US are helping out. No where around the world at present except in China are there any leaders with foresight, skills and knowledge to improve the welfare of their people.

Reply to  george e. smith
February 18, 2015 11:10 pm

Australia was settled by the British in 1788, with indigenous inhabitants beforehand.
There is no record of bushfires burning at the time, but being January is highly likely. The question is how to determine those emissions?
NASA satellite shows current high emissions over northern Australia; a relatively uninhabited area with no manufacturing. Obviously not manmade. Australia is also a carbon sink. Are they studying net emissions or merely calculated new emissions?

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Richard Drake
February 19, 2015 9:47 am

I believe the real point of the calculation is to keep China off Annex 1. That way they are part of the payee group, not the payer group, despite the fact that they are now the largest producer of CO2 by far. Totally crazy, since IF you believe the CAGW guff you have to believe that absolute tonnage is what counts, not per capita output, and certainly not per capita output from 250 years ago.

AJ Virgo
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
February 19, 2015 11:23 pm

China has had squillions of people burning cooking fires and metal/pottery works since 1750 far outnumbering anything even remotely similar anywhere else !

Christopher Paino
February 18, 2015 10:52 am

I think I hear tin foil rustling…
And the hummingbird was despoiled? Not.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Christopher Paino
February 18, 2015 10:57 am

Duh?? What you smokin’?

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Harry Passfield
February 18, 2015 11:33 am

He is quoting their documnet you prat.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Harry Passfield
February 18, 2015 11:40 am

Thanks for the feedback Stephen. I shall cherish your most elegant opinion and endeavour to do better in future. Cheers.

Reply to  Christopher Paino
February 18, 2015 11:10 am

So quoting the actual treaty is too crazy for you. I would suggest that being highly fact resistant is evidence of tinfoil abuse.

Reply to  hunter
February 18, 2015 4:50 pm

Hunter, be more nice to him… after all, it was hard for him to get his tinfoil hat on without hearing it rustle

Reply to  Christopher Paino
February 18, 2015 11:29 am

This is not the crazy of a few days ago.
This is looking at the costs of the new treaty being discussed. A real treaty quoted accurately and not picking to disbelieve the bits that don’t fit the paranoia. It’s not the crazy.
OK, it’s about trying to get rich rather than trying to rule the world but money does make the world go round. But that’s just the writer’s style.
That’s the problem with posting one mad story. All other stories are assumed to be delusions too.

Christopher Paino
Reply to  MCourtney
February 18, 2015 3:00 pm

No, the problem is that it is apparently ok to be hyperbolic here, but only if you appear to be on the correct team.

Ian W
Reply to  MCourtney
February 19, 2015 12:31 am

Christopher Paino
February 18, 2015 at 3:00 pm
The actual wording of a proposed treaty is quoted, and you think that is hyperbole?
The warming from the Little Ice Age has stopped, and now a 38% chance of an increase of a hundredth of a degree is trumpeted by politicians as being “the biggest threat facing human civilization” based on which this treaty is essential. And you call quoting the treaty ‘hyperbole’?

Reply to  Christopher Paino
February 18, 2015 11:37 am

That rustling is your hat…

Reply to  Roger
February 18, 2015 12:23 pm

Try thinking about the total amount and bandwidth of electromagnetic waves filling the air from radio/TV/mobile services/satellites/etc. Maybe it’s not those vaccinations after all…. Probably all should be wearing metal hats (recommend aluminum sheet as it is cheapest).

Harry Passfield
February 18, 2015 10:54 am

Annex 1: That’s one hell of a naughty step.
Calculating per-capita CO2 emissions is a pretty poor method and is designed to punish highly developed and high-value power-intensive manufacturing countries parties with low populations.
BTW, David, China is not just ‘in the east’; they are are all over Africa – and for those who like to bang on about Britain (and other European countries) having been a ‘bad’ colonial power, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
February 18, 2015 3:24 pm

China has got it right with Africa. That “benighted continent” needs trade pure and simple, no strings attached, not the nauseating never-ending “aid” from the sanctimonious west which serves chattering-class egos not African economies.
Go China – we need to learn a big lesson from them in Africa, end our trade embargo on that continent (have the balls to tell the French farmers where to go) – and get over ourselves into the bargain.

Reply to  Phlogiston
February 18, 2015 8:19 pm

Yep… Chinese companies couldn’t care less about whether they’re dealing with dictators or “freely-elected” despots in Africa…
The irony is that the more these Chinese companies help build industry and infra-structure in these developing countries, the economies improve and more people with money find it easier to replace scumbag despots with less tyrannical despots that will allow them to keep more of their stuff.
The new despots eventually learn that they get wealthier if they decide to steal less of more, and allow some free-market principles to be adopted….
I love the smell of irony in the morning…. It reminds me of…..victory.

Brian H
Reply to  Phlogiston
February 19, 2015 8:38 am

Samuri; you might like to google De Souza and Tyranny. Insightful thoughts on cabals etc. Once the general benefits of economic growth change the payoff table, tyrannies implode.

AJ Virgo
Reply to  Phlogiston
February 19, 2015 11:28 pm

I for one hope you are right but China is a prison Nation ruled by fear, non democratic. The most likely outcome is a continuation of current African corruption where China and the host Govt share the spoils.

Tom G(ologist)
February 18, 2015 11:06 am

Dr. Archibald. Thank you for the very fine and concise post. With regard to your statement
“So that is why the global warming scare is so hard to kill. The end game is world domination. With such a big prize – the biggest possible, facts aren’t even inconvenient. They are not part of the process.”
We here at WUWT already knew that, but your posting certainly brings it into sharp focus.

February 18, 2015 11:08 am

How about divestment of the U.N? The poster child for worthless bureaucratic behemoth. Nothing like backward assed third worlders in polyester suits trying to run the world. That thing needs to go away.

Reply to  logos_wrench
February 18, 2015 2:51 pm

+1 That should be our end game. What started as a means to diplomatically sooth competing interests of nations morphed into a policy generating entity seeking world governance.

Reply to  logos_wrench
February 18, 2015 6:12 pm

Logos– 20,000 years ago during the last glaciation, NYC was under 1 mile of ice…
Imagine, the UN building under 1 mile of ice…. Sweet!
Anyway, I agree with you. The US should get out of the UN and get the UN out of the US…
Why should the US pay money to and be involved with an organization whose long-term goal is the destruction of the US and the formation of a one-world dystopian government…

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  SAMURAI
February 18, 2015 10:08 pm

+1 from me, on getting out of the UN.

Santa Baby
Reply to  logos_wrench
February 18, 2015 8:33 pm

I think UN derailed when they let the NGOs and radical environmentalism in when establishing UNEP, UNFCCC and etc. The UN slogan now is “Stronger UN, better world” and the UN statement that the climate treaty means “a centralised transformation” that “is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different”, democracy end game, begs a national policy to make the life of the UN very different?

AJ Virgo
Reply to  logos_wrench
February 19, 2015 11:31 pm

Politicians graduate from National politics to World politics at the UN. Once hard up for cash the money is now pouring into the UN via CO2 warming…..suspicious ?

Mike Bromley the Kurd
February 18, 2015 11:09 am

a blizzard of cumbersome language.

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
February 18, 2015 11:32 am

but a thing of beauty if you wish to be able skew its “meaning” at a future date… it will mean whatever they want it to mean, since it doesn’t really say anything.

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
February 18, 2015 2:28 pm

How did you plow through it MBK? Sheer gibberish.

February 18, 2015 11:21 am

Countries should be rewarded for increasing their CO2 emissions. There is no identified downside, and plenty of obvious benefits. No matter how much CO2 is emitted, it will still remain a tiny trace gas.
But really, CO2 is only the pretext.

Brian H
Reply to  dbstealey
February 19, 2015 8:44 am

GAIA invented humans to combat CO2 suicide by stupid plants.

AJ Virgo
Reply to  Brian H
February 19, 2015 11:34 pm

Plants cannot photosynthesize below 290ppp CO2 so if we were to lower it by 100ppm like the Greens propose we would be at 300ppm which is dangerously close to an end to all terrestrial life !

February 18, 2015 11:26 am

I swear, this reminds me so much of this 10 second Family Guy clip, it could have been written by their writers… (warning… the kids don’t know, but we do)

Allen from Canada
February 18, 2015 11:27 am

“Each Party to the Convention whose per capita greenhouse gas emissions exceed the global average per capita greenhouse gas emissions ….”
A simple per capita formula? So, in addition to being penalised for being productive, Northern countries (“the West”) will be further penalised for emmisions associated with keeping their homes warm and their populations alive during the winter months? Oh wait, I forgot, under the plan winter will be a thing of the past ….

February 18, 2015 11:30 am

Awww… 1985… those were the good old days when being a nerd was cool… and science was pure.
“Everyone wants to rule the world” is the terrific theme song for the greatest nerd flick of all time, 1985’s “Real Genius”, staring Val Kilmer. That movie made being a nerd popular.
1985 is also the year “Back to the Future”, another brainy-makes-good flick, came out. It’s great theme song, “Power of Love”, was sung by Huey Lewis. Lewis played a bit part in the movie as a pent-up teacher who rejected Marty McFly’s rock band from playing Lewis’s own song at the prom because, he said, “I’m afraid you are just to darned loud”.
Now all we got is science tainted and data manipulated to support a political agenda. Sad, isn’t it?

February 18, 2015 11:33 am

Now this is a subject, finally!
I’ve been on this bulls#%t for years, and i can tell you…. i know as much about this U.N garbage as Maurice Strong. So, let me get right to the meat and potatoes of how they accomplish this mission: Its called I.C.L.E.I. (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) some of you may have already known this, but figured, hey why not inform those who don’t.
Here in Canada, ICLEI works as a arm/branch of the U.N. and they work with local municipalities/cities (corporations) to help implement a so-called greener more “sustainable” long-term plan within the jurisdiction that the corporation (State,City or Municipality) operates within or covers. All of this is made possible under the guise of conservation and global warming/climate change. Most… if not all local conservation authorities, environmental groups, The Nature Conservancy of Canada and Nature Conservancy (U.S) are all working in concert to help implement this Agenda 21 type plan.
Catchy phrases or titles etc like A Sustainable King…or A greener tom’w. That’s all bull!!!. its all intended to depreciate land value, close roads and it actually gets people to believe that all this pseudo environmental crap applies to them and their property. Well, i got news for you- IT DOESN’T!
For any kind of conservation or encumbrance to take place, there has to be a contract with the property owner/holder. Easements etc go on title, but you first have to agree.
Any group that cries wolf in the name of conservation is simply trying to deceive you into giving up the right to your land. Its a lot more complex than what i just previously explained, but hopefully you get the gist of it.
This is how the U.N. are taking hold of this world, by legally seizing your property through coercion.
If you control the land you control the people.

Reply to  kenin
February 18, 2015 1:42 pm

Unfortunately our local governments just change the zoning to not allow things – like using your land. So you have the use rights removed. In effect there are few use rights left and legal title is a hollow shell as all one is left with is the requirement to pay government rates and taxes. For example, not allowed to collect dead and fallen timber for fire wood, not allowed to cut grass and vegetation, not allowed to take vehicles onto it, not allowed livestock on land without development permits. Unfortunately all this is already done without going near the legal title.
The Australian Federal government achieved their greenhouse and carbon targets and avoided paying billions in carbon reparations by getting the states (so the Federal Constitution was not directly contravened too blatantly-but it may be unconstitutional subject to a court case) to pass legislation confiscating the native vegetation on farming land – thus making it illegal for farmers to plough land, spray any native plant, cut native grasses – trees too of course but most people forget the legislation applies equally to grasses and shrubs. Basically, the UN has the benefit of vast slabs, probably more than half, the area of rural land in Australia, to their agenda.
And these naive folk think we have tin hats on? It has already happened!
“It is worse than we thought!!”

Reply to  Plain Jane
February 18, 2015 11:37 pm

Whenever you pay government rates and taxes you’re NOT the owner. I bet the UN (like the church) is not paying taxes for the land it owns.

Reply to  Plain Jane
February 19, 2015 6:19 am

Not dissimilar to how the EPA limits land usage in the USA with wetlands regulations.

February 18, 2015 11:42 am

Republicans in the US Congress need to cut the US contribution to UN funding. $0 sounds like a fair amount, does it not?
Beside cost savings, that will give have additional benefits: less global damage from ill-conceived programs, more people working on productive efforts, and increased living standards for all.
The UN clearly has no ability to affect the number and intensity of world, regional or local conflicts, and may increases them, (perhaps inadvertently).
And the UN certainly will increase political conflicts, waste and economic disasters with these type of policies.

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
Reply to  Thinair
February 18, 2015 4:56 pm

And the best way to do that is to write your congressman, US. Senator, Mitch McConnell (Senate Majority Leader) and John Boehner (Speaker, House of Representatives). Just do an Internet search and it will link you to their websites where there is a place to submit you comments. They are read and some will generate a response.

George Daddis
Reply to  Thinair
February 18, 2015 6:08 pm

Agreed, but are we not coming full circle? The original Climate “strategy” was a result of GLOBALISTS (Club of Rome) advocates who kept striking out when trying to advance measures against their elitist academic fears of overpopulation and resource depletions (and we know the “gurus” who provided the “science” to convince them they HAD to act – can you say Paul and Anna Ehrlich and their protege John Holdren? Not to mention Carl Sagen.) The group’s name comes from John Rockefeller’s estate near Rome. (Subsequent members include Presidents from Carter to Bush Sr, and of course Euro Socialists and 3rd world dictators.) When polling showed that “global warming” struck fear in the population Maurice Strong was off and running and of course got the gullible and receptive UN leaders to take up the banner.
The whole situation is “begging the question”.
Are we not battling the lack of intelligence among the the world’s richest and also the most powerful politically elite?

Santa Baby
Reply to  George Daddis
February 18, 2015 8:57 pm
AJ Virgo
Reply to  George Daddis
February 19, 2015 11:49 pm

The globalists will have their Utopia nothing can stop that now. The question is how long will it last before collapse?
I give it three years from the point of global citizen/bank account signup.

Michael Sweny
February 18, 2015 11:49 am

These people are the biggest danger facing mankind. Not ISIS not Russia not global warming; it is these green terrorists that will do us in. I am 95% certain of that. Probably as significant as anything these climate fraudsters will ever say.

Reply to  Michael Sweny
February 18, 2015 3:45 pm

And 97% of informed people agree with you! (If they don’t, then they are not informed.) ;< )

February 18, 2015 11:53 am

So much hot summer air pontificated out.
All blown away diminished null:
LENR comes on line gone.

A C Osborn
February 18, 2015 11:53 am

As you can see there is NO Conspiracy ie “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.”
They are completely open about it, world domination, or as they like to call it governance.
maybe some of the details are more secret than others though.

February 18, 2015 12:01 pm

There is a fascinating juxtaposition between the willingness to violate laws intended to protect the environment (the Nazca Lines) and the expectation that the whole rest of the world should honor the NEW laws they seek to impose on us – ‘to protect the environment’.

February 18, 2015 12:06 pm

If it were merely about CO2, the treaty would be simple. The activists know this
Since it is about ideological values and the redress of perceived historical wrongs, “success” this year in Paris is not important. The ending of capitalism and the end of the improvement of individual lives through consumption of goods, services and the energy that those require, can be achieved at 500 ppm as well as at 350. The eco-green struggle for CO2 reduction is classic bait-and-switch.
We are in the midst of an economic, asymmetric war. The less developed cannot compete with the developed for cultural, not historical reasons. Individualism and democratic capitalist principles take the group further than sectarian ideologies and tribal sel-interesrd.
The battles in this war must be, for the less developed, ones of word rather than of deed. India and China won’t reduce their CO2 emissions, and have said so. But by saying the emissions “must” come down, they win the word-war. In this way the eco-green becomes a fifth columnist working from the inside without seeing what “victory” entails. He is Stalin’s “useful idiot”, promoting an outcome he doesn’t understand or even want.
For all the sensitive socialist feelings of the eco-green green, he is playing to the elites of the world. The end result will not be the empowerment of the poor but the further entrenchment of the rich and powerful. Improvements at the bottom will be collateral to the improvements at the top and at the expense of the middle.
Al Gore and Robert Kennedy will not lose their mansions in the country, but the bearded Birkenstocker will be bicycling to Walmart. And somehow he will cheer when a Gore or Kennedy says “they” have won.
Conviction, not truth, is the currency of our times.

Mac the Knife
February 18, 2015 12:08 pm

With ISIS carving up Lybia and establishing a nation state just across the Mediterranean from Italy, Boko Haram carving up Nigeria and creating a nation state in the African heartland, China building islands to claim territory and mineral rights in the South China Sea, and Putin scrambling to reestablish alliances with North Korea, Cuba, m’thinks the remaining world community will need a strong United States of America, Australia, and Great Britain in the near future….. and they won’t give a damn about how much CO2 gets emitted (again) in the process of saving their sorry arses from the wannabe world dictators.

February 18, 2015 12:08 pm

Why do they need to go back to 1750 when the bulk of CO2 emissions have occurred since 1950?
Perhaps because, expressed as emissions /capita, those early emissions can weight the total against the “developed” nations. This is to obfuscate that it is ONLY through the fruits of the industrial revolution, which replaced manual/slave labour with fossil fuel derived energy, that the populations of the “developing” world were able to expand to their present extent and it is only fossil fuel which renders these population levels sustainable. That is possibly the underlying motivation for the “green” imperative – the reduction of the population , targeted at the third world.
The “developing nations” are, of course, well aware of this and the consequences are shown in this post – that the “developed world” must immolate itself so that the others can survive.
When considering the contradictions and impossible demands in this “negotiating text” you can see that the inevitable compromises are going to render the concluding “agreement” will have even less meaning and consequence than those that have proceeded it. The global warming narrative
is sinking fast into the mire. This is the Last Hurrah. World domination my arse. Look at Iraq, Syria, Libya and all the other regions fast deteriorating into anarchy. How will they “dominate” that.

Reply to  diogenese2
February 19, 2015 4:52 am

To circumvent the constitution of the USA one of the clearest documents ever put together by a group of very diverse clear thinking humans. ( and I am not sure if there were any Big Oil companies around)

February 18, 2015 12:12 pm

At the risk of being too political here is verse 25 of the Impeachment song: (As if sung by President Obama)
Climate change our biggest threat,
If worse, I will break out a sweat.
Global Governance, you bet!
My war on King Coal not over yet.
(The whole song: ( )

February 18, 2015 12:33 pm

“perhaps the US Congress will keep us free”
Picking myself up off the floor, I wouldn’t count on it. The PNAC, Neoliberals, Neoconservatives, Neocolonialists neo-whatever da’s have near the entire globe wanting free of us.
Brilliant analyses of Minsk agreement, by intl’ criminal lawyer Christopher Black
Putting the Dollar in Jeopardy
The Global De-dollarization and the US Policies

Tom in Florida
Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
February 18, 2015 2:35 pm

That’s why there is such an effort to enact strict gun control in the U .S.
First they take your money,
then they take your guns,
then they take your freedom.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 18, 2015 3:33 pm

and then they take your life.

tom s
February 18, 2015 12:35 pm

Hey UN, go screw yourselves!!😒

February 18, 2015 12:48 pm


February 18, 2015 12:52 pm

” Russia chewing up the Ukraine” ??? WTF? Russia overthrew the democratically elected government? The one that signed a sweetheart deal with Russia instead of taking the EU’s table scraps? Really? You can’t be serious.
No that one lies at the doorstep of the USA. The EU had an agreement with all the parties to settle the situation but your assistant secretary of state said “F* the EU”.
You can make all the excuses you want to overthrow dictators but when you do it to a democratically elected government it shows your true colors. Quit drinking the koolaid.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  TRM
February 18, 2015 2:37 pm

The Ukraine was molested into giving up their nukes under the promise that Europe and the U.S. would protect them from Russia. How’d that work out?

Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 18, 2015 3:06 pm

Tom in FL,
Exactly right, and there is a painful lesson in that.
Ukraine was pestered until they handed over the 200 nuclear weapons that they inherited after the old Soviet Union imploded. If they had kept those nukes, Putin would not have dared to molest them.
Other countries should not trust the U.S., not because America is a double-crosser or dishonest. But every 4 years there can be big political changes, and unless there is a treaty that we are bound to uphold protecting small countries like that, what seemed like a good idea at the time turned into a giant blunder.
It’s like your neighbor convincing you to give up your shotgun. Then when you are unarmed, he sells his house and moves. A new neighbor comes along with kids who are gang bangers. Then if your your house is invaded and your wife and daughters are raped, you will wish you had that shotgun back.
This isn’t 1946, where no one dared to mess around with U.S. allies. It’s a different world out there. Russia is engaging in its old shenanigans again, and people are belatedly realizing that the old KGB never went away, it just changed its name to the FSB. But the playas are still the same.

Reply to  dbstealey
February 18, 2015 3:34 pm

Bush I did at least carry through on the not-quite-a-secret confiscation of the USSR nuclear n=bombs, and their conversion to US power plant fuel rods. Fortunately, Clinton failed to stop this program – or at least, was not told about it so he could stop it. Anyway, Russia nuclear bombs did fuel US reactors, but that gave the democrat administration the excuse to stop U238/Pu239 enrichment here! Carter had long time previous stopped US burner program, which would provide a near-infinite power supply.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 18, 2015 3:50 pm

Let’s not forget this gem. It all makes sense now.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 18, 2015 6:02 pm

dbstealey February 18, 2015 at 3:06 pm
Tom in FL,
Exactly right, and there is a painful lesson in that.
You’d have to be really, really stupid to believe anything Obama says.
Just ask Goober. He knows about lying.

Reply to  TRM
February 20, 2015 2:08 pm

The town that was just recently Liberated by the Rebels in the Ukraine seemed quite happy for the rebels to take over from Kiev.Why is that so?

February 18, 2015 1:12 pm

What happens if you haven’t existed as a country since 1750?
How do they deal with countries who’s borders have changed since 1750?

February 18, 2015 1:14 pm

The enemy is the UN.
Because in spite of it’s lofty ideals, the UN is but a bureaucracy.
Bureaucracies by their very nature expand, grow, spread and dominate if they can.
This fact or human failing is well recognized and this is why we have democracy. Democracy has evolved and in the US was designed specifically in order to counter this well known phenomena.
Under democracy we have individually become wealthy simply because we have been given a relatively free rein in order to build our individual wealth from our own hard work with little or no interference from bureaucratic governments or despotic rulers.
It appears that the UN is intent on becoming the government of every country in the world. Once they can clip the ticket and maintain an effective military force, (and they may not need to even achieve that), there will be no stopping them.
Their failed attempt to clip the ticket on carbon transactions has failed but under Agenda 21 and this Climate game they will get there unless we give a very firm signal to our elected representatives!
It is my belief that there is little actual “democracy” in the election of UN officials, and most certainly the man in the street (who is on the way to being oppressed by this bureaucracy) has no say whatsoever.
UN Agenda 21 is in our governments, legislation, local bodies and education systems. Mention Agenda 21 to a politician and they will dismiss you as a cooke, but look up your government websites and it is all there.
Examples in my own country are discussed at
Especially Insidious is how the UN has infiltrated our education system. Please read carefully the links associated with that. In another 10 years or less we will be voting for the UN to rule us!
Ps Get hold of a copy of Ian Wishart’s book “Totalitaria” and spend some time checking his sources.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
February 18, 2015 3:22 pm

The UN is the enemy. There is no doubt.
I am old enough to recall the history. When North Korea invaded the South, Russia had been very lackadaisical about attending meetings of the Security Council [the 5-member UN group with veto power for each member-country].
With The Soviets absent, the Security Council promptly voted to defend South Korea. As a result, SK was able to fend off the North’s invasion, even after Red China assisted the Norks.
The Soviets would have vetoed that action if they had been present. They learned a painful [for them] lesson.
Ever since then, the Soviets [and their successors, Russia], have never once missed a Security Council meeting.
In addition, they realized that the UN was the future, and they began actively infiltrating the UN bureaucracy. That plan is now complete. They have been successful, in large part because many if not most U.S. politicians, and the American public, are very naive. They believe what they hear, instead of looking at what’s happening.
The UN says all the right words. But look at their actions. Everything is designed to hobble the U.S. and Western economies. The UN’s stated goal of a carbon tax would cause immense harm, doing no good at all. And of course, neither China nor Russia would be bound by the restrictions.
China is now growing the biggest and best military in the world. Anyone who believes what they say about being insular, and interested in only their internal affairs is terribly credulous.
Just look at what’s happening in the South China Sea, where China is unilaterally staking claims to waters much closer to Japan, the Phillippines, and Vietnam, than to China. And thanks to the sadly inept Jimmy Carter, China now controls the immensely strategic Panama Canal. Russia’s new defense budget is now up to a third of a trillion dollars annually — while Obama continues to slash our defense spending and works to politicize the military.
If the U.S. and the West do not reverse course very soon, we will be in a 1939 situation — if not much worse. Because as bad as he was, Hitler did not possess nuclear weapons.
Reply to  dbstealey
February 18, 2015 3:42 pm

“they began actively infiltrating the UN bureaucracy.”
Nice Alcoa bonnet you are sporting there.
Reply to  dbstealey
February 18, 2015 7:37 pm

“Russia’s new defense budget is now up to a third of a trillion dollars annually”
No, it does not exceed $70 billion annually.

Santa Baby
Reply to  dbstealey
February 18, 2015 9:42 pm

According wiki “Russia’s military budget is higher than any other European nation, and approximately 1/7th (14%) of the US military budget.”

Reply to  Santa Baby
February 18, 2015 10:14 pm

Santa Baby

According wiki “Russia’s military budget is higher than any other European nation, and approximately 1/7th (14%) of the US military budget.”

Do you impute thusly that the US does not “need” to spend that money protecting the rest of the world from the rest of the world?

Reply to  rogerthesurf
February 18, 2015 4:47 pm

How old are you, rodney? Eleven?
What I wrote is common knowledge. You could even look it up, if you had the gumption.
But you don’t. You would rather be wrong in public.
Reply to  dbstealey
February 18, 2015 5:03 pm

“Commnon knowledge?”


Sounds like you are suffering from the conspiracy theory blues.
Reply to  dbstealey
February 18, 2015 5:07 pm

I don’t buy your Rothschild, one world government, Agenda 21, and the commies are coming way of thinking.

Reply to  dbstealey
February 19, 2015 5:11 am

@db, It is sad that WUWT is turning into a more and more political ” debate ” ( debate ,sure). I find that responding to people like rodney just fuels their fire, put them on ignore. Advice to rodney, read the book “And not a shot fired” by a Czech “citizen” by the name of J. Kozak. He explains in great detail of how the communists started the infiltration of western bureaucracies during the 50’s using “refugees” as moles to undermine the west. Their main goal was to create so many regulations it would stifle capitalism and freedom. For an example Rodney could try and read the ACA ( all 1200 pages voted on before anyone read it).

Reply to  dbstealey
February 20, 2015 8:24 pm

I could tell folks here something about conspiracies. Couldn’t I … “Socrates”?

Andrew N
February 18, 2015 1:14 pm

By choosing 1750 as a start date, how does the UN intend to calculate emissions for those nations that did not exist at that point? Europe, with the exception of the UK, was pretty much a collection of monarchies of varying sizes, with only a vague resemblance to modern borders. The US wasn’t really the US at that point, with the Louisiana purchase, for example, still some 50 years in the future. Australia wasn’t ‘discovered’ until 1770 and didn’t have European settlers until 1788.

John Leon
February 18, 2015 1:28 pm

I stopped at Russia chewing up the Ukraine. If that is your opinion of an extremely complex situation being deliberately and persistently aggravated by outside governments who have no business being there you have obviously not researched it at all. As there is a very great amount of unbiased information to be found on this conflict which completely annuls your comment, why should I for one minute consider your essay worth reading? Oh and my father’s side of the family is Ukrainian.

Big Bob
February 18, 2015 1:37 pm

Someone needs to send those Paris negotiating texters some punctuation marks. Especially a bag full of periods. Honestly, a 75 word sentence? Who writes this stuff? Take a breath!!

February 18, 2015 1:44 pm

I’m going to have fun plagiarizing from this treaty.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
February 18, 2015 2:00 pm

It will not be a “treaty”.
Language, and control of language use (evidence: ISIL versus ISIS. Islamic terrorist versus radicalized extremists), has acquired a centerpiece role in the Liberal’s attempt to control the “message.”
The US delegates to Paris will try very hard to not call the Paris CO2 agreement a “treaty”. The Obama administration has already stated they will not submit the signed agreement to the Senate for ratification, as they know it would never ever get 2/3 vote it needs. Obama will try to go it alone with his unilateral Presidential directives to the executive branch agencies. They will have to legally disguise his orders to the EPA, FERC, etc. It is unclear how he thinks he can get the money to give to the UN though without Congress and a congressional appropriation.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 18, 2015 7:20 pm

Joel– Yep. That is precisely what will happen.
The weaponized EPA with new CO2 sequestration rules and regulations and Federal/State colossal wind/solar alt-en boondoggles will waste $100’s of billions, if not $trillions until this CAGW hypothesis is officially tossed in the trash bin of failed ideas.
Personally, I think the scientific community outside the climatology field (geophysicists, astrophysicists, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, statisticians, etc.) will have to start blowing the whistle on the CAGW hype, as they begin to fear the blowback against science in general from when the CAGW officially becomes untenable.
CAGW hypothetical projections already exceed reality by 2 standard deviations (RSS data), and within 5~7 years, discrepancies could well exceed 3+ SDs, with no global warming trend for almost a quarter of a century and perhaps even a significant fall of global temp trends for 20+ years.
At that point CAGW will be laughed and eye-rolled into oblivion. Taxpayers simply will not allow seeing their jobs destroyed, their cost of energy skyrocket and their standards of living torpedoed for absolutely no reason.

February 18, 2015 1:45 pm

Will the propose treaty include any penalty or sanctions if any of the parties could not meet their obligations? If none, it will just be a soft law just like most environmental treaties. US has not signed and ratified the Vienna convention on treaties because of the contentious issue related to provisions of the vienna convention that nations could not claim future treaties are unconstitutional as decided by the State Supreme Courts and therefore they could not be enforced even if the treaty has been signed and ratified by their government. Or in simpler terms, the treaty circumvent the constitutional amendment provisions or it over rules the constitution. As a soft law, it just becomes best effort basis. Best effort will now depend on how dogmatic, hysterical and emotional the leadership and the public in a particular country takes climate change such that the best effort becomes the worst thing that happened for the country.

Joel O’Bryan
February 18, 2015 1:50 pm

Do not overlook that the parallel attacks on free speech and information warfare that the Green Blob is engaged in as a vital part of this Agenda 21 push from the UN. UNFCCC requires that the majority of populations remain scientifically illiterate and indoctrinated to climate change catastrophism.
(as an aside: If you want to see typical US liberal science literacy in-action, watch this YouTube video, skip ahead to 7:20, and then watch in disbelief.)

The UN will have to come after the internet freedoms, the free flow of information and ideas, too. Sites like Anthony’s WUWT will be prime targets of UN suppression once Obama hands control of the IANA internet root naming function over to the ITU when the ICANN contract expires in October 2015. There is a contractual option to extend the ICANN IANA contract to 2019, which is what should happen.

The IANA functions are key technical services that are critical to the continued operations of the Internet’s underlying address book, the Domain Name System (DNS), that connects IP addresses to website URLs, the NTIA said. ICANN has managed IANA functions including the assignments of country code and generic top-level domains (TLDs) and the management of the DNS Root Zone, the top-level DNS zone of the Internet, since 1999.
The DNS Root zone is arguably the most important part of the Internet. Having a commercial U.S. company, appointed by the U.S. government, controlling such a vital part of the Internet has long drawn criticism and demands to open up the process and to let a more international body control the IANA functions.

What is the ITU? It is a UN Chartered agency, just like the WMO, or WHO.
The US green liberals have determined that the US government’s control of the internet root domain means that the 1st Amendment free speech and free press rights prevent the US government from imposing internet censorship they need in order to control the AGW message. Thus they have to ensure that on Obama’s watch, since Hillary’s rise to her throne is not guaranteed, they must divest the US government out of the IANA picture in the next 22 months and give it to the UN where no freedom of speech rights exist. Expect Obama to try and pull a fast one on the ICANN contract expiration to thwart Congress from stopping him.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 18, 2015 3:46 pm

that is a clear and present danger, I agree

Mickey Reno
February 18, 2015 1:52 pm

I say we penalize the Mongolians. They mastered horse riding, and in doing so, promoted the evil meme of personal mobility, enabling the existence of horse-drawn wagons, coaches and buggies, the predecessors of modern cars and trucks. There was also lots of horse caused flatulence and emissions, the direct lesson of arms races AND finally, as they invaded to the East, they callously trampled the crypto-biotic soils of the fragile steppes. Some of these misdeeds but by no means all, are offset by the good Genghis Kahn did in killing lots of humans who would have otherwise created offspring, ie, future pollution.
And too, I blame the early European, Chinese and Middle Eastern metallurgists who invented cast iron and who smelted ores. If we go back that far, the Western Hemisphere is off the hook completely. And L. Ron Hubbard claimed to have lived 75 trillion years ago. He did some bad shit, too, so let’s bill the Scientologists. I think that about covers everything. Ah, the stone age, we can’t wait to get back to you.

The Old Crusader
February 18, 2015 2:11 pm

That business about ‘current population’ may also have been made with a sideways glance at immigration policies.
The government says “We can’t cut third world immigration – it would make our population lower than it would otherwise be and we may be penalized for that.”

February 18, 2015 2:14 pm

“the total amount of greenhouse gases, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent, emitted by a Party to the Convention since 1750 A.D.”
So….. how does one precisely calculate the amount of CO2 equivalent being emitted by a specific population subset 265 years ago?

February 18, 2015 2:16 pm

After the civil war local governments raised taxes on the landowners so high they could not pay and lost their land to the “carpetbaggers”. Same thing can happen again-history repeats.

John Greenfraud
February 18, 2015 2:26 pm

If this passes, it effectively breaks the agreement the States and the people had with this Republic. Communist U.N. scum want climate reparations? Texas is out, come and take it.

John Whitman
February 18, 2015 2:31 pm

{bold emphasis mine – JW}
Christiana Figueres (executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) said,
“It is the most inspiring job in the world because what we are doing here is we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science. So it’s a very, very different transformation and one that is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.”

What science? It is the ‘science’ only in papers which support the subjective presumption that there is a problem. Only the papers that are subjectively selected by the UNFCCC’s IPCC and such subjectively selected papers are also subjectively assessed by it. The process is not objective science. It is an ideologically subservient (aka blinded) process, not a scientific one.
I think is ‘pre-science’. a better description for what Figueres is referring to as science.
[And she said every life would be made “different.” Not “better” …. .mod]

John Whitman
Reply to  John Whitman
February 18, 2015 2:42 pm

Grammatical correction to my comment immediately above:
I think is ‘pre-science’ [is] a better description for what Figueres is referring to as science.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  John Whitman
February 18, 2015 3:41 pm

they actually call it post-normal or post-modern science, but it is not science

John Whitman
Reply to  John Whitman
February 18, 2015 7:17 pm

Bubba Cow
Indeed there is sufficient reason to discuss it in those terms. And in the history of the philosophy of science there are other conceptions that apply to identifying what it is. I am coining the term pre-science in this context because,it isn’t at the level of science if objectivity is a criteria.

John Whitman
Reply to  John Whitman
February 18, 2015 7:31 pm

[And she said every life would be made “different.” Not “better” …. .m o d]

.m o d,
“Different” as in forced behavior modification and being robbed.
Where do these totalitarians get their intellectual toxins from? Does Gaia send them malignant visions?

February 18, 2015 2:39 pm

What does “emitted” mean in option 5?
Does clearing woods for crop land count as emitting?
How about forest fires started by people?
Is killing all the buffalo net (less methane which is 25 times worse in carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions) against cooking fires?
Seems hard to measure all this.

February 18, 2015 2:52 pm

One world government, to the idealist, is a tempting idea as we could be “one people united”.
Unfortunately, the reality is that we are not one people and every petty warlord in the world would only have to scream “nationalism” to be catapulted to power. The whack-a-mole game that is currently being played in the Middle-East could expand throughout the world as international financial and political special interest groups seek to expand their power by placing their people in power in every region of the world.
In short, the one world government that emerges will have to be absolutely ruthless to be effective and therefore will not be benign. Also, it will probably be Chinese.

David R
February 18, 2015 3:03 pm

David Archibald,
If I’m not mistaken, you predicted in 2008 that solar cycle 24 (the present cycle) would herald the onset of mid-latitude cooling to the tune of -2.2C over the course of the cycle.
Solar cycle 24 is now 6 years old and seems to have already passed its peak. As far as I can see, the past 6 years are the warmest on record globally according to all the surface data sets; though I haven’t broken it down by latitude.
Is it safe to say that your 2008 prediction is now officially wrong?

Tom Harley
Reply to  David R
February 18, 2015 8:47 pm

Don’t you mean the adjusted (homogenized) surface data sets. Satellite data says otherwise if you’d care to look. There has been no warming for more than 18 years, plus.

Reply to  David R
February 19, 2015 5:58 am

@ David R,
“Solar cycle 24 is now 6 years old and seems to have already passed its peak. As far as I can see, the past 6 years are the warmest on record globally according to all the surface data sets; though I haven’t broken it down by latitude”.
You are not looking very far because even the UN admits there is a “pause”..
As Tom Harley and loads of other people ( those opinions and scientific facts are on the rest of the site or on the net) have shown that your observation is wrong, Mr. Hardly and others are using temperature readings from as many locations from both land And ocean based and coupled with satellite readings that are very recent and far more accurate.
And as usual statements like yours and other warmists always include the words “seems” , “probable”, likely, “potentially etc ,
As in “The solar cycle “seems” to have past it’s peak” It is an ~11-12 year process , that is why it is called a cycle. And the Sun after the next minimum (~ 5-6 years) will start getting active again.

Reply to  asybot
February 19, 2015 12:16 pm

Virtually all of the “warming” derives from data that has been altered, completely dishonestly, upward and from the infilling of large areas for which there is no data with nearby data which, oddly, always makes these dateless areas warmer than the nearby data. In this way, the data-fraud perpetrators can warm the planet, entirely on paper. The entire Arctic region is infilled with data from just a few sites and the region shows ridiculous warming as a result.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
February 18, 2015 3:10 pm

Bloody insane!
1750 ! LOL The current Federal Republic of Germany Re-unified dates from 1990, the previous Federal Republic dates from 1949, the previous Unified Weimar Republic dates from 1871 and the German Confederation dates from 1815.
So, the current Germany, and parts of France get a pass! What kind of phony baloney History of World Part II Revisionist Dogma is this: Ha Ha 😉 Leave it to the UN when you need a laugh.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
Reply to  masInt branch 4 C3I in is
February 18, 2015 3:13 pm

Reply to  masInt branch 4 C3I in is
February 18, 2015 3:14 pm

Well, good.
The US was a British Empire colony then, as was India if I recall, Brazil was not independent, nor the Spanish South American colonies (and those few to the Far East)….
Seems like England (but not the UK!), Portugal, China, and Spain are going to have to pay for everything to everybody!

Malcolm Latarche
February 18, 2015 3:33 pm

Not sure what counts as emitting. Oil and coal are often exported by countries with little industry to countries with large industrial consumption. Australia, South Africa and countries in the mid-east produce a lot of fossil fuels but export most of it. Does the ‘guilt’ lie with the people who used the fuel or the ones that dug it out of the ground and sold it?
What about the ships and aircraft that burn fuel? Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands account for most of the fuel burnt in ships even though the ships under their flags aren’t beneficially owned by companies resident there.
What about forests cleared for farming etc.
Where there records of consumption of coal, oil etc dating back to 1750? Will they be adjusted up or down in the same way as temperature records were?

February 18, 2015 3:36 pm

In 1812 the British garrison at Halifax Canada (then a British colony) marched on Washington and partly burned down the White House. So does the emitted CO2 belong to the US, Canada, or Britain?
Don’t worry folks, the seeds of failure are written into the document. Until there are ACTUAL negative climate effects occurring (fat chance in our life times) countries will pursue the exact same strategy they did with Kyoto. Ratify and Renege. The more idiocy like a 1750 start date there is in the document, the more wiggle room democracies will have to explain to their electorates why it isn’t fair to them and so they have to renege. As for non democracies, the only ones that will sign will be the ones that think they will get money from someone else if they do. So, nothing.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
February 18, 2015 5:34 pm

Put it on Napoleon’s d*&med account!

Reply to  davidmhoffer
February 19, 2015 6:03 am

I will say it again. That date is set to circumvent the Constitution of the USA.

Robert Ballard
February 18, 2015 3:41 pm

More meaningless associated risk assessment and econometrics that a grade school student would question. The associated costs will never be estimated or directly assigned.
In other “news”: OMG! Everyone in NYC and Miami are going to drown! 😉

CD 153
February 18, 2015 3:46 pm

dbstealey says:
“Countries should be rewarded for increasing their CO2 emissions….”
Exactly. What the U.N. and the climate alarmist dim bulbs like Ms. Figueres are forgetting is that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere contribute to global agricultural yields in a world where there is still too much hunger going on. So how much does the current CO2 level in the atmosphere contribute to the annual global agricultural yields….10%, 15%? What is the market value of that added yield each year? How does the value of that extra yield compare to how much the rich nations are supposed to fork over because of climate change? Added up going many years back?
Seems to me that the value of that added agricultural yield needs to be taken into consideration here before Ms. Figueres starts looking for excuses to bash the wealthy developed countries and their CO2 emissions. I realize it may be hard if not impossible to assign a specific percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere to any one major emitter of CO2. Rough guesstimates however would do just fine with me. It can’t any worse that the bash-the wealthy-countries game plan that Ms. Figueres and her ilk are brewing up to force the rich nations to fork over the cash to the poorer ones.
Isn’t the U.S. already one of the world’s biggest providers of foreign aid anyway?

Jaakko Kateenkorva
February 18, 2015 3:50 pm

Since the start of 2015 predominantly right-wing governed EU Institutions will not commit a political suicide. If they’re done something already, they’ve squeezed the FCCC budget. It would not be surprising if Australia, Canada and Japan had taken a similar stance.
The FCCC reaction points towards that direction. At least the 1750 stretch reeks this sort of desperation in my opinion. Unfortunately for Figueres, the emerging economies will not finance FCCC or other UN programmes. If Ki-moon must choose whether to retire Figueres, Pachauri et al or to become Seán Lester of the United Nations himself, the choice won’t take long.

February 18, 2015 3:59 pm

Since 1750 there have been 12 wars and 1 major, cold-induced famine in Finland. Just try to image in the CO2 emissions concerned.

F. Ross
February 18, 2015 4:01 pm

Time to get US out of the UN.

Reply to  F. Ross
February 19, 2015 6:10 am

The UN out of the US so built something on a nice tropical island somewhere and you’ll never hear from them again.

Mark and two Cats
February 18, 2015 4:07 pm

We have met the enemy and he is UN

John Whitman
Reply to  Mark and two Cats
February 18, 2015 4:23 pm

Mark and two Cats on February 18, 2015 at 4:07 pm
We have met the enemy and he is UN

Mark and two Cats,
I suggest a possible corollary:
We have met the current UN and they have the same old tired Marxist socialist rhetoric which no one in the old failed Soviet Union actually believed.

Mark and two Cats
Reply to  John Whitman
February 18, 2015 5:19 pm

Trying to pogo off my comment, eh? 😉

John Whitman
Reply to  John Whitman
February 18, 2015 7:40 pm

. . . rats . . . I’ve been exposed . . . .
: )

Mike Smith
February 18, 2015 4:09 pm

I recall that the East Anglia CRU team was thinking along the same lines back in 09.
From the ADAM second-order draft.pdf:
“We believe that one worked example should certainly relate to the design and implementation of a post-2012 global climate regime. Here, we would develop a portfolio of global design principles (e.g. budern-sharing, blah, blah, ) and EU policy options (e.g. compensation measures, blah, blah ) which could deliver a 2100 global climate consistent with Article 2 of the UNFCCC and consistent with other international goals, treaties and conventions (e.g. Millennium Development Goals, WTO, Biodiversity and Desertification Conventions). These options would be such to an options appraisal using the ADAM PAF.”

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Mike Smith
February 18, 2015 7:43 pm

george smith would call that gobbledygook. Me too.

February 18, 2015 4:09 pm

dummy alert
there’s something I’m not grasping. If you throw a fat politician and a thin politician off a very high building I think they should hit the pavement at the same time ?
That in mind why does a cold thing sink and a warmer thing rise ?

Reply to  zemlik
February 23, 2015 10:43 am


February 18, 2015 4:16 pm

Since we were owned by Great Britain in 1750, I think they have the historical responsibility for how things turned out. Send them the bill.

February 18, 2015 4:48 pm

From each Annex 1 nation according to their above average per capita co2 production to each non-annex 1 nation according to their needs.

William Astley
February 18, 2015 4:57 pm

The UN and friends should have a plan B when the planet cools and when CO2 levels drop. Paradoxes are only possible if there are one or more fundamental errors in a theory.
There is very recent, unequivocal observational evidence that the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle cooling has started and there is unequivocal observational evidence that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. This will be the end of the road, a paradigm shift for the warmists. They will need to find a new cause.
The cooling will be significant, in your face, a crisis. The drop in atmospheric CO2 will be unequivocal, require a scientific explanation, there will be public panic in response to the cooling, a major media topic, there be a political price for incorrect scientific conclusions, for the years and years of propaganda.
A basic back of the envelope calculation indicates roughly 50% of the recent atmospheric CO2 rise is due to ‘natural’ sources. Salby is correct. Thomas Gold is correct. There are roughly 50 different observations and analysis results to support this assertion.
I will prepare a summary, for this forum, to discuss Gold’s core Ch4 source of the atmosphere and ocean(implications, higher input into the biosphere of CH4 requires greater sinks) vs the late veneer theory to explain the atmosphere and ocean.
Understanding the implications of Gold’s continuous deep core release of CH4 is the key to solving the current observational paradox (Salby’s conclusion/observational fact that atmospheric CO2 tracks temperature rise rather than anthropogenic CO2 emission). The material is interesting, the analysis and material is readily accessible to a general audience, and the logic is compelling.
This is a very interesting paper. What are the logical implications of Humlum et al’s analysis and conclusions?

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
…As cause always must precede effect, this observation demonstrates that modern changes in temperatures are generally not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the sequence of events is seen to be the opposite: temperature changes are taking place before the corresponding CO2 changes occur.
As the theoretical initial temperature effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 must materialize first in the troposphere, and then subsequently at the planet surface (land and ocean), our diagrams 2–8 reveal that the common notion of globally dominant temperature controls exercised by atmospheric CO2 is in need of reassessment.
Empirical observations indicate that changes in temperature generally are driving changes in atmospheric CO2, and not the other way around….
…A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and it remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply reflects the gradual warming of the oceans, as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al., 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al., 2011).
…Analyses of a pole-to-pole transect of atmospheric CO2 records suggest that changes in atmospheric CO2 are initiated south of the Equator, but probably not far from the Equator, and from there spreads towards the two poles within a year or so (Fig. 13). This observation specifically points towards the oceans at or south of the Equator as an important source area for observed changes in atmospheric CO2. The major release of anthropogene CO2 is taking place at mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (Fig. 12), but the north–south transect investigated show no indication of the main change signal in atmospheric CO2 originating here. The main signal must therefore be caused by something else. A similar conclusion, but based on studies of the residence time of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, was reached by Segalstad (1998); Essenhigh (2009).
Over the entire study period atmospheric CO2 shows a continuous increase, when annual variations are ignored. This might also be interpreted as being the result of the release of anthropogene CO2, but the observed propagation of the main atmospheric CO2 change signal along the pole-to-pole transect (Fig. 13) seems to argue against such an interpretation. The signal propagation instead suggests a possible connection to especially the southern oceans and their surface temperature, but a detailed analysis of this falls beyond the present study.
The modern relation between temperature and CO2 is qualitatively identical to that demonstrated by ice cores for the Quaternary glacial–interglacial transitions (Mudelsee, 2001; Caillon et al., 2003), although the modern time lag between temperature and CO2 is considerably shorter. However, this is presumably reflecting the much coarser time resolution provided by ice cores, displaying only changes on a multi-decadal scale. This is partly due to sampling resolution, partly due to gas diffusion within the ice that averages out any surface temperature variability shorter than a few decades (Severinghaus et al., 1998).

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  William Astley
February 18, 2015 7:49 pm

The smarter elements within the GreenBlob knows a global cooldown is coming. A natural cooldown that is. Not a cooldown driven by anthropogenic CO2 increases or decreases. Since it is an unstoppable train (so to speak), they want a CO2 reduction agreement and some miniscule CO2 reductions to be able to claim a causal relation to a (natural) effect. Liberals don’t care that it’s dishonest. For a Liberal (a US Progressive), the end justifies whatever means necessary. The Green Blob just knows most people are scientifically illiterate, willfully ignorant of facts, and will buy snake oil cures if given the chance.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 18, 2015 7:56 pm

“Since it is an unstoppable train (so to speak), they want a CO2 reduction agreement and some miniscule CO2 reductions to be able to claim a causal relation to a (natural) effect.”
+1 And it won’t happen. CO2 increases/year are probably the most consistent linear climb of all the measurements/data being used to ‘prove’ AGW.

R. de Haan
February 18, 2015 5:13 pm

Agenda 21, IMF, the only bank able to buy out the central banks when they go belly up, IS, the elimination of the Middle Class, the influx of refugees who are only refugees because the West is messing up their countries while their numbers screw up our social infrastructure, the crazy eco warriors who are against virtually everything and now have a seat at the table to determine national policies in countries all over the world….
Now what was the world population in 1750?

Jimmy Haigh.
February 18, 2015 5:28 pm

1750? Isn’t that in the middle of the LIA – which they say never happened?

February 18, 2015 5:29 pm

“For the 2011 fiscal year, the president’s base budget for the Department of Defense and spending on “overseas contingency operations” combined bring the sum to $664.84 billion.[1][2]”
It seems the only answer is a quarantine, it is obviously a virus that kills its host.
Just gotta wait it out, as horrible as that may be.
Then come up with a vaccine to prevent its return.
It’s been done before.

February 18, 2015 5:55 pm

If one removes the NEWSPEAK rhetoric, the Paris Draft simply means the US will have to pay penance for once having been the longest-running industrial producer and innovator in the world, while China gets a free pass because their industrialization didn’t start until after 1980 because of their insane and failed experiment with Communism.
China adopted some “evil” Capitalist private property rights from 1980, which led to China’s per-capita income increasing from $300/yr in 1980, to around $10,000/yr in 2014… See what “evil” Capitalism does to country? Oh, the humanity!!
The IPCC isn’t about CO2 sequestration, it’s about wealth redistribution on a global scale. The producers and innovators of the past must be punished, and have their wealth redistributed to countries that failed to adopt Capitalism.
The short-term net effect will be that CO2 levels will continue to rise as production is forced to move from industrialized countries (where the CO2 regulations will make production even more uncompetitive) to developing countries that will not be forced to implement any real industry-killing CO2 rules and regulations….
The Paris Draft will fail because it is completely dog-barking mad and the Republican-majority US Senate will NOT approve any treaty signed in Paris. Period! (TM).
Irrespective of the Paris Draft not getting Senate approval, the US EPA will, however, try to implement stricter CO2 emission rules and regulations, and that’s where the battle for sanity and the survival of the US economy and US sovereignty will be fought….
The Paris Draft is, “All sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

February 18, 2015 6:38 pm

“Each Party to the Convention whose per capita greenhouse gas emissions exceed the global average per capita…”
Be sure to include the retro-active cow tax for the last 265 years on each American. And the nitrous oxide from that winter wheat, corn, and row crops for the last two and a half centuries.
Or is this just Chinese and Russian code for the calculation of the savings, equity, and retirement funds – “private wealth” – of English-speaking countries?

February 18, 2015 8:30 pm

Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
UN isn’t a World Goverment. But undemocratic politicians sure want to be Leading the World.
So that is why the global warming scare is so hard to kill. The end game is world domination. With such a big prize – the biggest possible, facts aren’t even inconvenient. They are not part of the process. It has been a long slog but gird your loins for a battle that might last into mid-century. Lima was COP 20 and Ms Figueres is prepared to take it to COP 40. is unfortunatly not a movie scenario.

February 18, 2015 9:07 pm

as one of the oldest governments on the earth, this is a dagger strait at the heart of America the only way they could of made that clearer is to make the date 1776

Mac the Knife
Reply to  james
February 18, 2015 10:00 pm

My ancestors were in Virginia in 1750……. and in 1772 were in what was to become the state of Kentucky, surveying for subsequent settlements in ‘the territories’.
This is aimed straight at the heart and soul of the United States of America, the last and floundering bastion of freedom on the planet….. Can’t have that!

February 19, 2015 12:24 am
So that you can get used to it. But remember even he is just a tool.

William Astley
February 19, 2015 12:25 am

I am having problems laying out the scenario. The warmists have anchored our imagination as to what is or is not scientifically possible, concerning significant global cooling rather than no warming, the rate of global cooling, and to the possibility of a significant drop in atmospheric CO2.
There are cycles of abrupt cooling in the paleo climate record. It appears now (based on the signature of the changes and the magnitude of the changes that have happened, solar and planetary) that we are going to experience an abrupt cooling event. If that assertion is correct, there will be books written to try to understand how trillions of dollars were spent on green scams that do not work to address a scientific problem that did not exist.
Significant rapid, in your face cooling will be a major media discussion item. The public will most certainly notice record cold winter temperatures and record snowfall, winter after winter. The scientific community will not try to hide, cannot possibly hide significant global cooling (0.6C) and a significant drop in atmospheric CO2. There will most certainly be papers written that discuss the extraordinary observations, the scientific implications of the complete falsification (by observations) of the IPCC scientific paradigm.
The issue is not less warming due to the rise in atmospheric CO2, the issue is the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was not due to the rise in atmospheric CO2 and it appears the majority of the rise in atmospheric CO2 was not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, a complete falsification of the IPCC scientific paradigm.

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
….As cause always must precede effect, this observation demonstrates that modern changes in temperatures are generally not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the sequence of events is seen to be the opposite: temperature changes are taking place before the corresponding CO2 changes occur.
…A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and it remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply reflects the gradual warming of the oceans, as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al. 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al. 2011).
….CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently have little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

The next step in the cooling process will be a significant drop in ocean temperatures and average global temperatures. The sudden increase in sea ice both poles is indication that the change has started.

February 19, 2015 1:03 am

This emissions since 1750 thing is in a large part the victory of one extraordinary man.
His name is Aubrey Meyer.
This comes close to his idea of ‘Contraction and convergence.’
The justifications of this calculation is that the development and wealth enjoyed today in a particular country is founded on the energy consumed since the industrial revolution. With the aim of equality between countries, every country in the world is allocate a ration of energy (per capita) across the entire fossil fuel period — from the beginning of fossil fuelled industry (18th cent coal fired factories) to a designated time in the future (around 2200). This means that, no matter when they start, all countries have the opportunity to development. Now, some countries have already spent most of their ratio (well spent or squandered). Those that have not are clear to ramp up their spending now. That is the convergence bit. The contraction is that, as a whole world, we all reduce our spending in a bell curve diminishing in 2200. The UNFCCC position is not quite this, but it has been influenced by this sort of rationale, and this specific proposal, via the many 3rd World countries (and first world advocates) who support it.
see and
Meyer has been remarkably influential on FCCC since the mid 1990s. See how in my essay on the ‘Price Of Life Controversy.’

Allan MacRae
February 19, 2015 1:24 am
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, a trained economist, and at UNFCCC since 1995, is becoming doubtful of the efficacy of the process of getting her policies approved and seems to be serious in declaring communism best for fighting global warming.
She is quoted as saying that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

Old Goat
February 19, 2015 1:54 am

But what about the future of we climate agnostics, we sceptics, we “Deniers”? What is to become our fate? This site, and others will be closed down, dissent, in any shape or form, will not be tolerated.
There will be, er, “institutions”, or “secure areas”, for the likes of us, until we have been suitably reprogrammed, when we MAY be allowed to resume our prescribed place in society. For those of us who fail the indoctrination, well, people have disappeared, without trace, before…

Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
Reply to  Old Goat
February 19, 2015 10:43 am

Think “Reservations” of the American Indian type.

February 19, 2015 2:13 am

So far as I am aware, the UN is funded entirely by nation states. It is clearly the case that a ‘breakaway Grouping of evidence-led cooperative nations’ could emerge, whereby countries simply don’t fund the UN any more and fund something else instead.
My view is that the UN climate position is merely one of a multifaceted grouping of ‘ueber-rich scenario planning options’ which are being played out to ensure that the global elite control the world one way or another.
They don’t care if its communism, climate religion, fascism, democracy, mercantilism, capitalism, neoliberalism, call it what you will.
The only thing that matters is that they are billionaires, political processes are controlled by them and the rest must be grateful for the crumbs that they are offered……..

ivor ward
February 19, 2015 2:16 am

Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.
– Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, 1808)

February 19, 2015 3:22 am

Time for everyone to read ‘Atlas Shrugged’.

February 19, 2015 3:32 am

Anyone who thinks the UN has the ability for world domination has clearly never dealt with the UN. For has an organisation its well know for a toxic mix of corruption and for its incompetence, often unable to even control itself. That is not to say that some in the UN are not happy to build such castles in the sky , but ability is a long way down the list of things those in charge of the UN have .
Its worth remembering that appointments to this organisation are often on the basis of ‘whose turn is it now ‘ especially at a higher level, and with no accountability although there is no check on them in reality the minder ideas are often killed off by indifference of its members , after sadly to much money and time has been spent on pursing them.
Let us leave the ‘grand conspricy ‘ claims to Lew paper and his ‘friends’, the UN often throws out such worthless rubbish has this , driven by the ego of its leaders , but in pratice although both a waste of time and resources its little more than land-fill.

Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
Reply to  knr
February 19, 2015 10:51 am

Why not donate a plot of land to them, for instance a small section of Antarctica which they can add to as their contingency grows. I am sure they are an industrious bunch. Not sure where they’ll get their energy from perhaps some used windmills and a few solar panels…one can dream

AJ Virgo
February 19, 2015 4:50 am

Obvious Communist overtones.
Poverty is caused by Govt. corruption, how is giving them billions of dollars going to help them when their leaders spend most of the year swanning around the world in luxury spending their Nations wealth?
The non-democs outnumber us 2 to 1 at the UN….can’t end well.

Jan Smit
February 19, 2015 5:06 am

Despite this being an otherwise helpful post, and with all due respect, I too was flabbergasted by your statement relating to “… Russia chewing up the Ukraine…”
(By the way, it’s usually just ‘Ukraine’ these days, without the definite article.)
May I suggest you read the following links, for example, to appreciate just how far wide of the mark you are on this matter?
And straight from the horse’s mouth:
Regards, a long-time lurker and very occasional commenter…

Reply to  Jan Smit
February 19, 2015 10:20 am

Jan Smit says:
(By the way, it’s usually just ‘Ukraine’ these days, without the definite article.)
Yes, that’s correct. It’s ‘Ukraine’; just like saying ‘Canada’.
Ukraine is a country. We don’t say “the Canada”.

February 19, 2015 5:40 am

Is there anyone in Congress who doesn’t know this? Man, I’m flummoxed by the apparent acquiescence even of Republicans. The transformation and surrender of Democrats I now accept. My trouble is it is all created by the American voter!! Has the de-education and self-loathing reached this level? Are we dependent on China, India and Russia to save us – this UN manifesto is already giving them a pass so they might want to help the UN crush the US. How we do we stop the US voter from inviting this upon themselves? Some one tell me I’m over reacting.

Coach Springer
February 19, 2015 6:51 am

All power, no restriction. For an unverifiable and unnecessary cause. How can so many be so stupid and uncaring while believing that they are the opposite? The importance of working together against a foggy fear outweighs all of our experience, knowledge and patience. Telling.

February 19, 2015 8:13 am

The simple proof that CO2 change does not cause climate change has been hiding in plain sight and here it is:
CO2 has been considered to be a forcing with units Joules/sec. Energy change, which is revealed by temperature change, has units Joules. Average forcing times duration produces energy change. Equivalently, a scale factor times the time-integral of the CO2 level produces the temperature change.
During previous glaciations and interglacials (as so dramatically displayed in An Inconvenient Truth) CO2 and temperature went up and down nearly together. This is impossible if CO2 is a significant forcing (scale factor not zero) so this actually proves CO2 CHANGE DOES NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE.
Application of this analysis methodology to CO2 levels for the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years) (Berner, 2001) proves that CO2 levels up to at least 6 times the present will have no significant effect on average global temperature.
See more on this and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.

February 19, 2015 9:22 am

I am a fan of the big picture and this sounds suspiciously like the ‘how many angles can dance of the head of a pin’ argument.
Dont we all know the actual implementation and carrying out of any legislation is a far cry from what what was enacted and even less than what was proposed? Arent most editorials an explanation of why the program did not do what the public was led to believe? I read an editorial for the Duluth crisis pertaining to one of the functions, schools, water, etc., and the article had 5 –Five– references that were versions of WELL, WHAT CAN YOU DO, THERE WAS NO CHOICE.

February 19, 2015 9:28 am

This would be laughable if it wweren’t so serious 🙁

February 19, 2015 9:44 am

You would have more credibility with non-right wing and non-American readers if you had included in your list of wannabe world-rulers the world’s most aggressive ever Imperial superpower, the USA. Pretending ISIS is not merely a US/Israeli Zionist falseflag front and claiming Russia instigated the Ukraine crisis when anybody with more than half a functioning brain knows that the US is arming ISIS and the US government overthrew a Ukrainian democracy with yet another “regime change” to an IMF puppet fascist dictatorship just makes you look parochial, partisan, ignorant, stupid and so incredible.
The “tin foil” “conspiracy theory”-bashers just reveal their ignorance of political reality. The banksters such as Rockefeller created the UN and the global warming hoax and already are effectively on their way to running the world with them. Don’t listen to the mainstream muppets… do your own research and question your assumptions.. a lot. You are still very much dreaming in the Matrix, reader, and waking up is not as easy as you think.

Reply to  synthikat
February 19, 2015 3:29 pm

The arms ISIS use are the same used by most people in the area , Eastern European or Pakistan in origin , because their cheap , easy to get their hands on , easy to use and are robust . The AK47 are the classical example of this , and out side of tinfoil world people know the USA or ‘Zionist ‘ have never made the AK47 .

February 19, 2015 10:15 am

“The US” is not arming ISIS. If arms from the U.S. are being sent to ISIS [so far, that is only your assertion], they are being secretly provided by the Obama Administration. That means Obama personally authorized it — if what you assert is factual. But that is highly questionable.
You say ‘don’t listen to mainstream muppets’. Should we listen to anonymous internet muppets instead?

February 19, 2015 1:10 pm

What are these people going to do when they ‘save’ the world, phase out fossil fuels AND THE WORLD STILL WARMS (or worse, decides to have a cooling phase)??? Decades and decades of sanctions on people to curb and the prohibit fossil fuel use – and the climate marched on, impervious to the politicians desperate attempts to regulate it like it regulates human minions…

February 19, 2015 6:29 pm

You know, there is a very simple solution to this. We say, ok $100 billion per year. We will spend that here to develop Thorium fission nuclear plants followed by fusion. We will follow that with a complete switch to the hydrogen economy.
After that we flip the bird to the hydrocarbon producers around the world….

February 19, 2015 6:43 pm

Straight from the document: [we will] Establish the International Climate Justice Tribunal in order to oversee, control and sanction ……
I think the UN ought to oversee, control and sanction world peace before it launches this appalling piece of …

Jake J
February 20, 2015 10:59 pm

Holy smokes. This reads like H.G. Wells Time Machine. Scary as all get out.

February 21, 2015 1:53 am

One monolithic group rules the world and that is the one got what it wanted from WW2 (which they instigated) with the destruction of The Third Reich Germany. The UN is their creation as a soft test for a tyrannical One World Government to come. Get a clue: which country in the Middle East was newly created thanks to the UN at the insistence of the banker Rothschilds?

February 21, 2015 11:16 pm

The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity is no longer socialism or communism but, rather, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.
The UN intends imposing this ideology upon the world by achieving a Paris climate agreement in December 2015 that will then give the green light to the UN’s AGENDA 21.

February 23, 2015 10:44 am

I am hopeful that more people will realize what is in store for them before the train rides begin.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights