"… The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook."

Maurice Newman, Chairman Australian Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council
Maurice Newman, Chairman Australian Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council

Maurice Newman, the chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s Business Advisory Council, has accused the UN of attempting to subvert democracy, of attempting to establish a worldwide authoritarian regime, with political power concentrated in the hands of UN officials.

According to Newman;

Why then, with such little evidence [for dangerous global warming], does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?

In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”

In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.

Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or ­disagreement.

Read more: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/the-un-is-using-climate-change-as-a-tool-not-an-issue/story-e6frg6zo-1227343839905

Newman’s comments have stirred significant controversy in Australia, and a lot of calls for him to resign. However, in my opinion, it is Christiana Figueres who should face questions, regarding her bizarre statements about “revolutions” and “new economic development models”.

Christiana Figueres is the Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the official in charge of the UN’s environmental effort. According to CNS News, according to the UN itself, Christiana Figueres did say what Maurice Newman claims she said, about centralised economic transformation.

I don’t remember voting for a politician whose manifesto included a policy of “centralised transformation” of the global economy to a new economic model. I certainly don’t remember voting for Christiana Figueres.

Ultimately our elected politicians control the purse strings of the UN. Its about time our representatives demanded a little accountability and clarity, from the UN organisations which they so lavishly fund.

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Richards
May 8, 2015 1:05 pm

Ultimately our elected politicians control the purse strings of the UN. Its about time our representatives demanded a little accountability and clarity, from the UN organisations which they so lavishly fund
SPOT ON. Where can we find one with the guts to do it?

Ian W
Reply to  Stephen Richards
May 8, 2015 1:39 pm

First try to find one with the intellect to understand the issues and the drive to be unpopular and do something about it despite the deleterious impact on their career.

Tom O
Reply to  Ian W
May 8, 2015 2:37 pm

In the US, I don’t think you would be unpopular with the people, anymore than would you in whatever country you wish to choose if you decided to fight the good fight and protect those that need protection for ravenous government. You would be unpopular with the people that own the other politicians, however, along with those that own the media. You would be unpopular with that small group that consider this their world and we are all trespassers in it. You would not be elected because you would be unpopular with the ones that control the voting machines, and if you managed to slip in anyway, one person couldn’t change much of anything but perhaps the flight path of the magic bullet that would heading your way. As far as her disgust with democracy, I have no idea why she should since I doubt if there is a real democracy other than possibly Russia left in the world. There certainly is no “partisanship” in the US as the on difference between the two parties is the names they apply to themselves. Other than their names, who they support, what their agenda is, and what their true intent is identical.

Reply to  Ian W
May 8, 2015 8:46 pm

I doubt if there is a real democracy other than possibly Russia left in the world
Do I hear you correctly? Are you saying that Russia is the only true democracy left in the world? Is that auto-correct that went completely wrong or are you on drugs?

Louis LeBlanc
Reply to  Ian W
May 8, 2015 9:04 pm

Figueres, the selected head of the UNFCC, comes from power, wealth, Swarthmore, social anthropology, high-profile appointments among the politically powerful class seeking one-world control, dictated by themselves. The perfect choice for the UN job. No science education or experience, more like a neighborhood organizer. Why should anyone be surprised?

Reply to  Ian W
May 9, 2015 1:28 am

Or their life.

Reply to  Ian W
May 9, 2015 8:15 am

“I doubt if there is a real democracy other than possibly Russia left in the world. ”
Wow, powerful stuff you’re taking, what’s it called?

Reply to  Ian W
May 9, 2015 7:43 pm

Would that be the same Russia that jails opposition leaders on trumped up charges?

Reply to  Ian W
May 9, 2015 9:12 pm

It’s the same Russia that’s trying to democratize Ukraine by shooting passenger planes out of the sky.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
May 9, 2015 12:16 pm

Unfortunately we are realizing this is the reverse…

Warren Latham
Reply to  Stephen Richards
May 20, 2015 4:16 pm

Dear Stephen,
The answer to your question is in your / our hands: if we all do the following (please see below) it will put a spanner in the works for the UN and their tyranny.
We must protect our families and our countries from these rather nasty, greedy people who steel our money via government weakness and lefty-government greed. The biggest weapon we have is our ability to put pressure on our own elected representatives in a massive way, simply by writing, writing and writing. (There are other pressures but that is for another day).
A get-out clause is a freedom clause.
“At any time after three years from the date on which this Protocol has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary”.
Kyoto Protocol, article 27.
(The above paragraph must be included in the Paris Treaty 2015).
Regards, WL

NZ Willy
May 8, 2015 1:14 pm

It’s said that governments raise bogeymen to justify their own existence, but who’d have thought that the WEATHER would be used in such a role? I’m sure that “quantitative easing” is responsible for all the cash swimming into left-wing organizations and so distorting society. This is decadence.

Reply to  NZ Willy
May 9, 2015 1:43 am

Yes, I too was surprised by this one. Climate of all things. I don’t think anyone would have suspected this could happen three decades ago.
Anyway, Figueres is an idiot not a conspirator.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Brute
May 9, 2015 8:18 am

She may well be an idiot, but she’s a very dangerous idiot. I think defunding the UN is an excellent objective, until the manipulators are removed from it, & it goes back to being what it was set up to do!

Reply to  Brute
May 9, 2015 3:25 pm

In all truth, the UN cannot be defunded any more than the government of any country. It is, and they are, needed.
Governments are monopolistic institutions by definition and, therefore, they have a tendency to go astray. Addressing this problem through the removal of governments has, far more often than not, catastrophic consequences for the population.
In my opinion, the solution to the problem is not to undermine government but to support the development of alternative, coherent political ideas that befit governance roles. This is possible. There are, as there have always been, conscientious, informed individuals that for whatever motivation choose to participate in government. I often feel that the current situation boils down to a lack of political ideas and that this void has been filled with opportunistic mediocrities claiming to be enlightened while reaching for our wallets. These suspicions are confirmed almost every single time I hear a pedestrian talk about politics, be those of the “left” or “right”.
The intellectual immaturity of the electorate is supporting intellectually immature politicians and, consequently, inadequate policies. For example, everyone knows (including the man himself) why Obama was elected. It is unsurprising he has turned out to be no more than a dignified late-night talkshow host whose regular opening act is a delusional routine that makes his own supporters cringe. Still, this is no reason to choose to choke government. This is the reason, again, why there is a need to develop political alternatives of substance. And, btw, the republicans are failing spectacularly at it.
We are losing a battle of ideas. The climate scare will pass and the cretins will simply move on to the next collective hallucination with equal conviction and viciousness. Nothing will stop them. There are no alternatives of substance.

Reply to  Brute
May 9, 2015 7:46 pm

The UN was never necessary and it’s existence has been a net negative for the world. In the future it will only get worse. The problem with the UN, like the US, is that those who pay the bills have little say in how the budget is spent. The only solution would involve either limiting the vote to those who actually pay taxes, or even better, tie voting to taxes paid. The more you pay in taxes, the more votes you get.

Reply to  Brute
May 9, 2015 9:20 pm

I have often wondered about the answer to the second sentence of your last paragraph. If non-cretins can early-on detect the subject of the next collective hallucination, perhaps the course it runs can be shortened.

Reply to  Brute
May 10, 2015 12:10 am

Governance has a role. Even if human nature were pure, administration would still be necessary. Since human nature is not pure, politics and legislation are also necessary.
Equating voting power to economic power simply ensures that the wealthiest make all decisions for everyone. This might please you if you are from a first world country and having the rest of the planet in mind. But if consider only your country and you are, say, middle class, you will easily see why you don’t want your level of taxation to limit your participation in the democratic process.
The fact is that early detection has always been in place. There being sufficient pairs of eyes, someone most often is bound to spot the lurking menace. And thanks to the internet, it is also easier than ever for the warnings to disseminate. The brave labors of our host speak to this fact, for instance.
My concern is rather with the formulation of political ideologies that provide, not only an alternative to the current prevalence of demagogy, but an upgrade to democracy itself. This is, of course, an unoriginal proposition but, imo, the correct course of action.
The crises we face today are only larger because our civilization is global in ways that previous civilizations have never been before. However, our problems are far from new. Demagogy has a long history and it is not for nothing that democracy has been referred to as the dictatorship of public opinion which, in the case of a gullible and unsophisticated public, amounts to the dictatorship of gossip.

May 8, 2015 1:14 pm

Someone had to say it and call the UN bluff… But Newman (and by proxy, Abott) are under heavy fire now in Australia. Why do people instead of reacting with horror, not go, ‘Huh? Now why did he make those claims? Is there any basis for this rational that climate change is not a looming catastrophe? And is that really what the UN is planning?’

Tom O
Reply to  travelblips
May 8, 2015 2:45 pm

First class “brain washing” starting in about the 1st grade has turned nearly every “western” nation into the caricature countries that you see. The “take from the rich and give to the poor” stance that AGWers take has nothing to do with the people, only the governments. If you took 100 billion dollars a year from the rich countries and gave it to the governments of poor countries, there would be no change in the standard of living for the average citizen in those countries, and that is the sad fact. It would come from the middle class of the “rich nations” since the rich there do NOT pay their share of taxes, and would go to the rich people in the poor countries because they, too, are smart enough to buy their politicians. The poor still would suffer and die, no matter how much “wealth was transferred.” And if they don’t die off fast enough, there is always genetically modified viruses that can be used to hasten the process.

Reply to  Tom O
May 8, 2015 7:40 pm

Senator Rand Paul said it best, “ODA (Overseas Development Assistance) is a program designed to steal money from poor people in rich countries, to be given to rich people in poor countries….. Why should America be giving money to countries that our calling for America’s destruction?”
Why, indeed…

Reply to  Tom O
May 8, 2015 8:08 pm

The entire point in the UN channeling money from the wealthy nations to the poor nations is to prevent the poor nations from ever developing. The dictators/governments of the poor countries would have no interest in using these funds to help their people as then, the next year, the funding would decrease or stop. It would be in their interest to actually make their countries poorer, claiming non-existent global warming damages, to keep the money flowing. Meanwhile, the drain on the developed countries and the push for unreliable “green” energy would serve to destroy the industrialized economies and lower their standard of living.

Reply to  Tom O
May 9, 2015 7:47 pm

The top 10% if earners in the US pay over 50% of all taxes. The top 20% pay almost 90% of all taxes.
Only a complete fool could claim that the rich aren’t paying their fair share.

Joel Snider
Reply to  travelblips
May 8, 2015 3:49 pm

The ‘why’ is because Green has taken the place of Religion. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the void of Catholic guilt had to be filled with something.

Reply to  travelblips
May 8, 2015 4:55 pm

Beause it’s been long enough now that they’ve been brainwashed from infancy. My 13 year old grandson’s geography assignment was to write a letter to the Australian Minister for the Environment complaining about the ‘destruction’ of either the Tasmanian forests or the Great Barrier Reef. What hope is there?

Reply to  Antonia
May 8, 2015 9:05 pm

My 13 year old grandson’s geography assignment…
That is amazing. And disturbing.

Reply to  Antonia
May 9, 2015 2:04 am

@Antonia, thanks for pointing that out but not at all surprising and what has it to do with geography? @ piperpaul “disturbing and amazing” is not even close, this is beyond dangerous. I am stunned that in Australia common sense has left (no pun intended). I was under the impression that with Abott this would change, is the left wing MSM in Australia as strong as it is in North America?

May 8, 2015 1:15 pm

Until the reasons behind the ‘fraud’ that is AGW are brought to full public attention the AGW meme will continue to disguise the agenda that is behind Article 21. Exactly as they hoped it would.

May 8, 2015 1:18 pm

A politician willing to stand up for science. And in Australia of all places. Who’da thunk it. I imagine the CAGW faithful will attempt to tar and feather him in short order.

May 8, 2015 1:19 pm

At the end of the day, the UN is a body that should be dismantled. For the amount of money that the world pours into the UN, very little has ever been achieved that cannot be achieved by NGO’s and volunteers.
The UN has never prevented a war, has never saved anybody from genocide, has never responded to famine on time etc. etc. They DO pontificate a lot and tell everybody what they should do, do they do anything else? NO! The UN is obsolete,get rid of it!

Reply to  Mareeba Property Management
May 8, 2015 5:02 pm

Exactly. The UN is renowned for talking poor by day and expensive partying at night. Third rate bludgers the lot tof them. Get rid of it now.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Mareeba Property Management
May 8, 2015 5:11 pm

The UN is useless and it’s absence wouldn’t be missed, but I’m in no hurry to replace the UN with anything, especially NGOs. Look at the wealth and power which they’ve already accumulated.

Reply to  Mareeba Property Management
May 8, 2015 5:31 pm

I agree totally. Think of the money every country concerned would save just by chopping out the UN. Every one of those countries desperately needs that money too. Which, I wonder, will be the first to pull the plug? It’s possibly the only way to stop this green nonsense. I wish one of them would make a start and pull out of the UN, it might prove a very popular move and start the ball rolling.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
May 9, 2015 2:12 am

I am not sure about the percentages of all the countries that give money to the UN but as far as I know the majority comes from the west. ( Canada, USA, UK, Australia etc etc.) It is an absolute waste of time and real estate. If it means so much to the rest of the members why not put in the middle of Russia? (Crimea, nice climate, beaches etc, oh forgot…….)

Reply to  A.D. Everard
May 9, 2015 7:51 pm

I don’t know if it is still the same, but up till a few years ago the US was paying 25% of the UN budget.

Greg Woods
Reply to  Mareeba Property Management
May 8, 2015 7:30 pm

My answer is to simply remove the UN to a different location, like Burkina Faso.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Greg Woods
May 9, 2015 9:58 am

The UN General Assembly should relocate to Syria-Iraq Northern border region IMO.

Reply to  Greg Woods
May 9, 2015 9:25 pm

Relocate the UN to the Antarctic. They can then shiver to death as they try using green energy to heat their buildings.

Reply to  Mareeba Property Management
May 8, 2015 8:12 pm

“The UN has never prevented a war, has never saved anybody from genocide, has never responded to famine on time etc. etc.”
When the UN show s up to “stop” a conflict, the death rate always goes up, as they shoot both sides. They also have been known to back off while one group genocides another. Remember, they think there are about 6.5 billion too many people and the more that die from disease or violence or are severely crippled is a plus in their minds. These are evil people who do not like other people and seek to rule the world.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  higley7
May 8, 2015 8:41 pm

The UN has never prevented a war…,
The UN prevented North Korea from overrunning South Korea.
… has never saved anybody from genocide…
UN refugee camps today house tens of thousands of refugees from the deranged fanatics pursuing their ‘final solutions’ in Syria and Iraq.
… has never responded to famine on time…
Nor has anyone else. But the response they did make has undoubtedly saved tens of thousands from starvation over the last 70 years.
They DO pontificate a lot … do they do anything else? NO!
Smallpox has been eliminated world wide. We are closing in on eliminating polio. The UN works to control AIDS, EBOLA, Malaria….
MPB, Antonia, Alan, A.D.,Greg, Higley: I personally agree with you that the UN is a corrupt political body that should be dismantled. But something will need to replace it. And the thousands of front line workers that have risked, and sometimes lost, their lives and comfort over the years to do the humanitarian work of the UN should not be bad-mouthed.

Reply to  higley7
May 9, 2015 7:53 pm

The US saved S. Korea from N. Korea. The UN just gave political cover to what was already happening.
As to the rest of your post, you sure do know how to repeat UN propaganda.

Reply to  Mareeba Property Management
May 9, 2015 7:50 pm

Get rid of the UN altogether, let private charity do the work. They’ve been doing a better job at it for decades.

Reply to  MarkW
May 10, 2015 6:42 am

How long has The United Nations been pushing UNICEF, 50 years at least.
Yet children continue to starve. The UN is has proved itself useless.
Now they prove themselves a threat to Western Democracy.

May 8, 2015 1:20 pm

Maurice Newman is a retired stockbroker and sings that popular new refrain, “So as I said, I’m not a scientist…”

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Magma
May 8, 2015 5:14 pm

Besides your thinly disguised ad hom, do you actually have anything to say?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Alan Robertson
May 8, 2015 5:16 pm

Actually Magma, you managed to get in a weak appeal to authority, also. Good job.

Reply to  Magma
May 9, 2015 3:09 pm

You mean like Flannery is unqualified as well.
And John Crook is a cartoonist.
Remind how the predictions of permanent drought are going?

Patrick Bols
May 8, 2015 1:25 pm

The UN started as a great idea but so did the trade unions. The problem is that these kind of organizations turn into self-perpetuating strong holds in which some key figures play their power/money politics. And of course, the rest of us pay for it.
It’s about time that our friends from down-under start waking up.

Reply to  Patrick Bols
May 8, 2015 1:32 pm

Spot On!

Reply to  Patrick Bols
May 8, 2015 1:45 pm

The UN stood by whilst the former head of the IPCC the railway engineer “patches” fondled the female staff and creamed for himself a gross 42 million dollars a year – now that is serious swilling at the trough and should finally render this organisation a waste of time AND money.

Reply to  Patrick Bols
May 8, 2015 8:17 pm

No, the UN was started in 1946 with the unpublished goal of creating a one-world government as a means of making sure that there would never by a world nuclear war. This noble goal means taking over the world, which would have to be socialist and totalitarian and controlled by a ruling elite. The public purpose was to promote world peace, but, even as early as 1961, they started trying to disarm the United States. They have to disarm the world to take it over. The current Small Arms Treaty is all about this goal.

Chris in Australia
Reply to  Patrick Bols
May 8, 2015 10:52 pm

Surely, with the US population of 350 million odd, you can find some someone with a bit of guts to give us a hand.
Hey, there is only 23 million down here.

Reply to  Chris in Australia
May 9, 2015 1:10 pm

Don’t count on Obama administration.
They are busy helping themselves

May 8, 2015 1:25 pm

Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum; The Middle East runs out of water
Now we know the source of the agenda.

Reply to  Doug Huffman
May 8, 2015 3:38 pm

A large part of the problem with the Euphrates, is that the Turks are stealing half the flow with the Ataturk Dam. When this was being built is was claimed that it would cause a Middle Eastern war, and if Syria and Iraq had not collapsed economically it might have. But maybe there is still time…..

May 8, 2015 1:29 pm

The only right decision the UN can make to benefit all of mankind is to evacuate the premises, lock all of the doors and throw away the keys.

Mr Been ther done that
Reply to  Taxeye
May 8, 2015 8:23 pm

A full building demolition with the bureaucrazies and their uber-rich handlers still within, like the one executed upon building 7 of the WTC, would be the best approach. Perhaps that would be some form of justice. The UN was, after all, an instrument of their (predecessors’) making devised to lock formerly sovereign nations into binding agreements that constrain their own ability to do as they require for their own people in their own countries. It was NEVER intended as a means of settling international conflicts – thus the complete lack of ever doing so. The initiation of each of those very conflicts (specifically the great wars) was engineered as a means to cause all to believe that a body such as the UN was needed, the League of Nations being the first but failed attempt, the UN being the one that finally worked (that was the purpose of the international conflicts, whatever the means by which they were initiated). In this way, the ones who actually run the international financial systems (CFR, IMF, BIS, Rockefeller, Rothschild, members of the Club of Rome, etc, etc, you know the rest, and not forgetting the Saudi regime) could draw gullible national leaders together in the UN Assembly and through that centralised mechanism engineer cleverly worded agreements between nations to cause them to gradually cede control over their own peoples to the UN bureaucrazies.
May they all rot and burn in hell.

May 8, 2015 1:30 pm

This is the same kind of small political brush fire that can grow into a raging national inferno if the libs and NGOs are not careful.

May 8, 2015 1:31 pm

On behalf of ALL Australians and in the world’s population in general,
I would like to really thank Mr Newman for having the balls to say what we all already know.
It is time this scam had the light shone on it . Watch the cockroaches scurry !

Reply to  AndyG55
May 9, 2015 3:02 am

yeah Newmans got a pair:-0
see theyve managed to push the nad less wonders at uni WA to can the lomborg climate setup?
bloody flimflam who raked it in screams frivolous spending sob sob

Reply to  AndyG55
May 9, 2015 1:13 pm

He really gained my respect. That’s for sure.

May 8, 2015 1:49 pm

Figures Figueres is an easy opponent. I would keep her on the job to make sure the joke in Paris gets a few laughs and they keep busy afterwards counting CO2 molecules and adding up donation pledges.

May 8, 2015 1:52 pm

We need to, fairly rapidly, get a constitutional amendment and / or a Supreme Court ruling that “treaties” can not over ride acts of congress. They are being used to remove our laws and our congressional authority. ( The TPP is just one example, and the proposed Paris “treaty” will be far worse.)

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  E.M.Smith
May 9, 2015 10:13 am

Ratified treaties do have the force of Federal Law. But they cannot usurp the US constitution nor invade/deny/diminish States Rights under the constitution anywhere on US soil.
Case in point has been the execution of foreign nationals by Texas for capital offenses committed and tried under state law. The US has a treaty that says forein nationals arrested in the US will have consular notification and consular representation available. Texas law enforcement has of course arrested many thousands of Mexican nationals for crimes while illegally in this country. Several notable capital murder cases have occured where the Mexican government has petitioned the State Dept to intervene using the treaty consular notification rights as a reason to stop the execution. Texas told them to get lost, the Supreme Court upheld the states right as trumping the treaty the Federal government has with Mexico.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
May 9, 2015 1:50 pm

Way back when I was in law school I was taught that a treaty is superior to prior legislation and vice versa. Maybe I am misremembering, tho.

Reply to  JimB
May 9, 2015 1:55 pm

But see:
In the United States, the application and interpretation of international
treaty obligations implicate an intricate interplay with Constitutional mandates
and federal statutes.4 As a matter of domestic law, the Constitution trumps
treaties.5 However, the same may not be true of other sources of law. Although
not free from scholarly debate,6
acts of Congress remain on a par with treaties,
prevailing over inconsistent treaty provisions only pursuant to either (i) the
“later in time” rule7
or (ii) an explicit congressional pronouncement.8
According to rules of international law, however, neither a Constitutional
mandate nor the enactment of a statute provides an excuse for a treaty
Prevailing opinion holds that an act wrongful under the law of
nations remains so even if a nation’s internal law deems otherwise.10
from the Hastings Law Journal
So I guess domestic law (“later in time”) would override for purposes of domestic enforcement, but would carry penalties in international relations. Maybe even damages.
Jim B

May 8, 2015 1:55 pm

The most telling comment I’ve seen on the UN demands Australia stop mining coal” post :

Peter May 7, 2015 at 11:28 pm
Figueras: follow the career and the money …
“Principal Climate Change Advisor, ENDESA Latinoamérica”
“Senior Advisor, C-Quest Capital, carbon finance company focusing on programmatic CDM investments”

Crispin in Waterloo
May 8, 2015 1:56 pm

Anyone who has read the Copenhagen Agreement to the end and thought about who is accountable to whom will come to the conclusion that there will be a central bureau responsible to no one, which is there by government agreement (lots of governments) and they will cede some of their authority to that central group who will be unremovable. Nice work if you can get it.
It has all the hallmarks of political systems prior to the Magna Carta. Even the Greeks in 400 BC had a better system. They managed to beat the Persians with their ‘inappropriate democracy’ so I am willing to take a chance and have a representative, elected, international, federated system based on population and accountable governance. The UN is not that, by a stretch. It is actually quite corrupt. Also, totally getting rid of the UN is not acceptable. It was created for very good reasons. That it was created badly does not mean it is not needed. Democracies do not have vetoes, for one thing.
I feel many people reject this alternative (a real federation with proper membership requirements) because they have short memories. So, after the next massive war, however long it lasts, perhaps the general population will arise to do it properly next time. Abolishing war is not compatible with national policies of perpetual war. Something’s gotta give. It is going to be very messy, again. After, we will once again sit down to work out how to turn the smoking ruins into a viable planetary society. Just because we failed a couple of times doesn’t mean we are not capable of doing it properly and fairly.

Paul Coppin
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 8, 2015 3:52 pm

Hmm- you just described the E.U….

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 9, 2015 8:44 pm

Crispin said:
It is actually quite corrupt. Also, totally getting rid of the UN is not acceptable. It was created for very good reasons.
“Quite corrupt” is a very good reason to get rid of the UN. It was created to “jaw-jaw instead of war-war”, as I recall Churchill saying. But wars simply got smaller but more numerous after WWII. There are more wars than ever now. And the UN stopped just about none of them, from Korea to Viet Nam to Grenada to the Balkans, to Rwanda to Iraq, Iran, Israel/Arabs, and every other post-WWII armed conflict in-between. So the UN has totally failed in its primary mission, and there is zero indication that it will ever succeed.
Why should mainly U.S. taxpayers finance a thoroughly corrupt organization that has never allowed an external audit of its finances? Where does the money go? Answer: we don’t know! All we have are their assurances: “Trust us.” As if.
Just the fact that all communist and socialist countries demand a world government should be enough of a reason to jettison it. The UN exemplifies everything bad in human nature. Like the Devil quoting Scripture, the UN always says warm and fuzzy feel-good platitudes. But they don’t believe a word of what they’re spouting. Unfortunately, too many people start nodding their heads when they keep hearing the same baseless homilies endlessly repeated.
But a lot of us know they’re lying through their teeth. The UN’s unstated purpose is to destroy America and the West, and looting everything in sight. Never listen to the UN’s words. Always watch its actions. Then you will understand why it needs to be booted out. Would you give your house keys to a known thief? Same-same.
To hell with the UN. It is far too corrupt to save it, or to change it. Totally de-funding the UN and evicting it from our country is the only safe course of action, short of arresting the kleptocrats and razing their UN HQ.
And that’s just my friendly rant. I can’t write what I really think of an organization that absolutely hates America, but loves our dollars. Can you imagine if it had an army? We would be constantly at war with Eastasia — but for real.
We do not need a world government! The entire universe is based on competition. Countries compete economically. The UN doesn’t want that. A UN world government could only be described as the ultimate dystopia.

May 8, 2015 2:03 pm

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto:
“In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.”
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
“I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
And have fun doing it, I can almost guarantee he never envisioned this:

Reply to  u.k.(us)
May 8, 2015 3:27 pm

That’s one high-caliber gal.

Reply to  Max Photon
May 8, 2015 3:41 pm

And she didn’t need any cushions for support……!

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Max Photon
May 8, 2015 5:28 pm

Heather’s quite a character and a great sport. She’s a tough trooper and proves it in many YouTube videos.

Paul Coppin
Reply to  u.k.(us)
May 8, 2015 3:58 pm

Didn’t much care for the .50 cal ricochet, and she should have a light pad behind the buttstock to cushion her shoulder a bit, but gollee .50 cal is a whackin’ gun. Expensive, but whackin’! A cure for some of what ails us…

May 8, 2015 2:06 pm

Commenters love blaming AGW on capitalism, as if a socialist economy would be emissions-free. There is no historical evidence to back up such an assumption – quite the opposite, in fact.
It does, however, provide them with an excuse to call for the end of capitalism.

Another Ian
Reply to  rabbit
May 8, 2015 2:30 pm

How about these too
“Too big to fail” – Bigger than the British Empire then and how did that go?
“One world government” – The British Empire was about a half-world government and how did that go?

richard verney
Reply to  Another Ian
May 9, 2015 4:47 am

WW2 came along, and the US insisted upon the breaking up of the BE in return for support in the war. That is how the US were one of the two big winners out of the war (Russia being the other one).
Of course, it was only a question of time before the sun would set on the BE, and only a question of time before the US became the no.1 global player, it is just that WW2 accelerated events, and the US saw a golden opportunity that it could exploit and so surpass its ‘father’.

Reply to  rabbit
May 8, 2015 2:32 pm

That’s Naomi Klein doing that. But she has zero idea what’s she talking about.

May 8, 2015 2:06 pm

Finally someone in authority with backbone is standing up to the absurdity of AGW despite possible repercussions. From what I’m reading Germany and England aren’t too far behind. People are starting to realize that fossil energy deconstruction is a “burn the village to save it” plan and the real catastrophe looming on the horizon. This will surely cause more scrutiny of the warmist claims and activities and can only lead to uncovering AGW as nothing more than propaganda and a means to an end.

May 8, 2015 2:40 pm

Congratulations Maurice Newman.

May 8, 2015 2:50 pm

I am 100% behind what Maurice Newman says. He’s dead-on.

James Ard
May 8, 2015 2:58 pm

I highly doubt the people who set up the UN didn’t realize an unelected world government would eventually become it’s purpose. The ruling class can’t stand it when us peasants get to cast a vote for governance.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  James Ard
May 8, 2015 6:20 pm

It was set up around the same time as the nascent EU, under the auspices of a common coal and steel agreement. See The Great Deception by Booker and North

Reply to  James Ard
May 8, 2015 6:51 pm

Why can’t they? As Stalin said, “It’s not who votes that counts; it’s who counts the votes.”
They control enough of the media to stampede the mindless masses almost however they want to. They are having a spot of trouble with the CAGW meme because the science, the data is so strongly against them.

David Ball
Reply to  ladylifegrows
May 9, 2015 9:04 am

We have a problem with the media in Canada. They are hatefully against the one man who is doing a great job as Prime Minister. How does one fight against the spoon feeding of lies by the mainstream media to the gullible masses?

Reply to  David Ball
May 9, 2015 10:18 am

David Ball commented:
“We have a problem with the media in Canada. They are hatefully against the one man who is doing a great job as Prime Minister. How does one fight against the spoon feeding of lies by the mainstream media to the gullible masses?”
The “Progressives” aren’t stupid. Over the last 50 or so years they went about quietly taking control of the media by buying it. It’s not just Canada nor just a few countries but rather most of the world. In the US we have media outlets that openly refuse to say/print anything that challenges AGW and constantly bully and shame skeptics. Our POTUS fully encourages and supports this line of attack while proclaiming that wealth redistribution is necessary and ignoring our Constitution to make it happen. To answer your question: The only way to fight it is to buy it back because there will always be useful idiots ready for stupid. In the meantime….be thankful for the few remaining Conservative news oultlets and embrace the internet as a savior to the free world.

mike hamblet
Reply to  markl
May 10, 2015 1:25 pm

There’s not a single country on the planet where ‘progressive’ media leads the debate or has most influence.

Reply to  mike hamblet
May 10, 2015 2:04 pm

What the bloody daylights are you talking about? Name a country on earth where a conservative media is dominant. Putin’s Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, China, the Islamic world, the tribal factions across Africa are the repressed media area where the state (or state religion) controls the media. Everywhere else, liberal and ultra-liberal/socialist attitudes dominate all parts of the culture and their media. To our ultimate failure. (American talk radio – bounded by the free market and with the hosts forced to hear corrections immediately when they are wrong – is an exception.)

May 8, 2015 2:59 pm

Free market ideology extremism is predictive regarding opinion on climate science. Add in some world conspiracy ideation -> paging Dr. Lew!

Reply to  Wagen
May 8, 2015 3:31 pm

Free-market-ideology-extremism. Wow that’s a mouth full. Everything but the kitchen sink, huh.

Reply to  EricS
May 8, 2015 3:44 pm

Ok, extremism may be a bit hard. Let’s call it free market enthusiasm or free market dogmatism, whatever.
“Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ≃ .80 between latent constructs).”

Reply to  EricS
May 8, 2015 4:28 pm

Sorry EricS,
My answer to you I posted some time ago, but “moderation” interferes. Alas, no discussion possible I’m afraid
[Nothing in the queue. .mod]

Reply to  EricS
May 8, 2015 5:16 pm

[Nothing in the queue. .mod]
Not anymore, thanks.
But before:

May 8, 2015 3:01 pm

Extreme progressive political correctness, where disagreement with the meme of the moment reflexively initiates a cacophony of faux-protest through the frappe bubbled lips of the offendodrons, where MSM denial is trumpeted with claims of a jocular hoax, the UN Kollective betrays itself at every turn.
Pure joy Maurice Newman. And thank you for a glimpse of freedom.

May 8, 2015 3:14 pm

They failed at “global governance” in 2009 Copenhagen. Their second stab at the flying apple is Paris, December, 2015.
In the meantime, they are trying to set up the legal framework, and that is the initial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the other so-called “free trade”—cough!—agreements being negotiated in secret in Geneva as I write. They couldn’t get global governance in 2009, so they worked on the legal framework in the meantime.
Want proof? Michael Froman. He’s the current US Trade Representative. Look what he was doing in 2009.

Old England
Reply to  MRW
May 8, 2015 4:48 pm

As I have said for some years that the greatest threat that we face in the 21st century is the removal of democracy by stealth – precisely what the UN, the EU and so many of our political ‘leaders’ are determined to achieve for ‘our own good’.
The EU has gone on record stating that voters can’t be trusted to make the ‘correct’ decisions – the UN shows precisely the same view.
‘Climate change’ is the stalking horse intended to end democracy in any true sense whilst, as the EU has done, creating a fig leaf, semblance of democracy that in reality has no longer any real meaning – as is abundantly clear in the governance of european nations by the EU.

Reply to  Old England
May 8, 2015 5:05 pm


Reply to  Old England
May 8, 2015 5:59 pm


Reply to  Old England
May 8, 2015 7:01 pm

Thankfully, the bureaucratic idiots forgot bout the Internet…

Reply to  Old England
May 8, 2015 7:19 pm

Apparently the E.U. doesn’t even think that I can be trusted to buy a vacuum cleaner rated more than 900watt (from 2017).
Unfortunately some of the most baffling ignorant and stupid people in Europe are the bureaucrats who have taken it upon themselves to control such matters as what type of hoover we are legally allowed to buy.
As with most morons, they also lack the facility to perceive that it is they themselves who are most incapable of making good decisions.
Attempts to steer policy back in the direction of good sense are deemed to be “populist”.
Apparently “populist” is now an insult, like “racist” or “denier”.

mike hamblet
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 9, 2015 6:12 am

Why is it not good sense to get a vacuum that uses less power? Even Mercedes and BMW are creating cars that are more economical. I fear your ‘good sense’ is just reactionary bullshit.

Reply to  Old England
May 9, 2015 3:24 am

Totally agree, to me it is a mystery how the EU have not had their accounts signed off by the independent auditors for 19 years. Actually it is probably a bigger mystery that they have not found auditors who are fraudulent and corrupt as the upper echelons of the EU quite definitely are.
The EU and UN are birds of a feather, don’t let the prols have their say, they don’t know what they are talking about. Controlled socialism by a ruling elite with sumptuous lifestyles and us peasants kept in our place is their idea of Utopia. North Korea here we come!

Reply to  Old England
May 9, 2015 6:52 am

mike hamblet
Why do you think you or some EU bureaucrat can and do know the requirements for a vacuum cleaner of indefatigablefrog?
Your post post is the unsubstantiated ramblings of an arrogant and self-deluded fool who wishes to impose his pointless whims as constraints on others.

Reply to  Old England
May 9, 2015 9:41 am

Mike Hamblit “Why is it not good sense to get a vacuum that uses less power? Even Mercedes and BMW are creating cars that are more economical. I fear your ‘good sense’ is just reactionary bullshit”
Maybe it makes good sense for some…or not, you don’t know…the fact they had to pass a law suggests some people wanted a more powerful vacuum based on their needs but the state wasn’t going to let them….in a free society you don’t want the state telling you what your good sense should be…..and giving you no choice by force. Particularly when it’s for a trumped up reason like energy rationing due to climate change. Which is why climate change alarmism au the highest level of world governments is a massive threat to freedom.

May 8, 2015 3:29 pm

Green is the new Red.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Max Photon
May 8, 2015 6:05 pm

Watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
May 9, 2015 10:32 am

And nothing upstairs.

May 8, 2015 3:41 pm

It appears to me that globally there is a slow movement towards conservatism as observed in recent elections in various parts of the “free” world. The Conservatives crushed the Liberals/Democrats in the latest U.K. elections that came as an utter surprise to the mainstream media and the polsters whom they control. This Conservative win came in the face of the participation by political advisors to Obama coming the UK to provide some American political science to these elections. Ultimately, there was a disconnect between reality and “consensus” political opinion.
In Israel, Netanyahu overcame considerable political odds including a visibly disdainful Obama to maintain his political power and beat back a both liberal and accommodating Palestinian position. The Obama Administration was taken aback by the Netanyahu victory and Obama acquired the animosity engendered with the pro-Israel faction of the Democratic Party.
In Australia, Tony Abbott defeated Julia Gillard in part because of her reneging on her: “no carbon tax platform” when forming a government with the Greens. Abbott’s stance: “rejected carbon pricing as a means to address the issue, (climate change) proposing instead to match the Labor government’s 5% emissions reduction target through implementation of a “direct action” climate plan, involving financial incentives for emissions reductions by industry, and support for carbon storage in soils and expanded forests.” Wiki Certainly this was not a stance in the context of a US Democratic or UK Liberals agenda.
In the US, there is a lively Conservative Republican set of candidates aligned against the Democratic hopeful whose baggage of integrity, transparency, honesty, and wealth accumulation conflicts with her stated agenda but continues to behave otherwise.
For a few years at least, there will be an alternative voice and the climate change cabal will see less air-time as the funding of climate change me-too-isms from DoD, DoE, EPA dries up for a couple of years.
As millennials find the job market strained, their finances strained, and their prospects dim from fixed costs of utilities, housing, transportation, school debt, there will be less of a welcoming of Whole Foods (whole paycheck) GMO, antibiotic, locally produced, etc free foods and more Kroger meat and potatoes issues guiding their political thinking; i.e., classical Liberalism, or in today’s age, conservatism.
Watch the next election. Better yet, Vote in the next election.

Reply to  RiHo08
May 8, 2015 7:09 pm

Better yet, in the US, work against corruption at the local level.
It’s the only chance we have.

Reply to  RiHo08
May 8, 2015 9:09 pm

I would dearly love to agree with your analysis of the UK General Election result but the biggest driver for the substantial late swing swing to the incumbents was the scare story linking two very (seriously bonkers) left-wing parties (The Scottish Nationalists & the Labour Party) with the idea of a Coalition to run Britain. The electorate is very conditioned to keeping its real views to itself given the rise of an hysterical political correctness (Ant-immigration = “Racist”, Anti-AGW = “Holocaust Denier”, Separation of Church & State = “Islamophobic” etc) so they weren’t going to tell any opinion pollsters either before or after they voted. Now we have removed some key Greens from the Government (e.g. Ed Davey) the critical issue is whether or not David Cameron will face up to the impending destruction of our national electrical generation capacity and appoint some one to avert it. It is a very simple task, even now, but requires decisions which run completely counter to the UN & EU policies.

Reply to  RiHo08
May 9, 2015 1:27 pm

And meanwhile, new democrats won a land slide victory in Alberta
Go figure

Reply to  Janus
May 9, 2015 1:37 pm

yeah, what was that about?

May 8, 2015 3:59 pm

I knew this AGW stunt was political as soon as the UK Labour party started putting warning ads on the TV about ‘carbon footprints’. But what I was surprised about, is why so many people would jump on the same bandwagon. Ok, the Labour party footsolder MPs would have to, because they only have one brain to share between 300 MPs. That is only once a year on average, for each MP.
But why did the Tories jump on, and the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail and the London Times. Ok, the BBC were bound to jump aboard, but why did Sky, or Channel 5? Was it the simple threat of: “if you are not being nice to the planet, you must be evil?” What turned them all into lemmings?
I don’t believe in conspiracies (well not many) but I do believe in bandwagons – especially slickly advertised bandwagons. And bandwagons that are profitable, and thus self-perpetuating. You know, things like the Mormon Church and Scientology. But in today’s skeptical world, where we look at TV ads and say: “yeah, pull the other one, it has bells on it,” what made everyone jump aboard? Especially when most of us had no financial incentives? Are all these company execs as cerebrally challenged as UK Labour MPs? **
** The CEOs who run Great Britain Ltd (ie: MPs) are the worst paid CEOs in the entire country. You can easily triple your salary by running a hospital instead. And if you pay peanuts, you get Labour MPs.

Reply to  ralfellis
May 8, 2015 4:12 pm

The U.S. gov’t, has a ‘relationship’ with the International Corp’s which own most of the media. Via this relationship, the media presents the news per gov’t desires.
The CIA owns the the major journalists – you can do a search.
I’ve often thought about chief Justice Roberts and why he changed his stance on Obamacare – my guess is that everyone has dirt and with the all-knowing, all-snooping NSA, he was flipped.

richard verney
Reply to  ralfellis
May 9, 2015 5:04 am

There needs to be a wholesale reform of the public service/state.
No one paid by other people’s hard earned wages/taxes and who is working in the public sector should be paid more than the Prime Minister In fact, I would suggest that the upper cap should be less than cabinet minister salary.. They also need to decimate middle management who are just a drain and for the main part discharge no useful or worthwhile function.
Unfortunately, the politicians have not got the guts to take on the unions, and one would need a large majority if a political party was able to run and stay the course that a proper overhaul would inevitably take.
One of the time bombs that the UK has is public sector pensions and the consequences arising from Labour’s policy in the Blair government of greatly expanding and bloating the public sector. In years to come the unfunded public sector pension bill will greatly expand and it is unclear how this can be paid when the new intake come to retirement age.
The creation of 1 to 2 million new jobs in the public sector is a timebomb, the creation of 1 to 2 million new jobs in the private sector (even if rather low paid and somewhat flexible in nature) is something to shout about.

May 8, 2015 4:04 pm

The origination of the EU was simply a Test in order to observe/study it and then make some changes for a final draft for the NWO/Agenda 21. People, especially women, can’t help but shoot their mouths off – I am sure Figures has received secret condemnation for her (loose lips sink ships) revelations.
[Are you really, really sure you still want this comment to be displayed under your name? .mod]

Reply to  kokoda
May 8, 2015 4:48 pm

Mod…I don’t understand.
The screen name that shows up on my post is ‘kokoda’, which is not my real name. (I did make that mistake your referenced once earlier this week).

Old England
Reply to  kokoda
May 8, 2015 5:09 pm

I have long believed that the EU is the test-bed for the removal of democracy across the world whilst hiding that with a fig-leaf of pretend democracy.
The EU is controlled by politicians and eurocrats whose political background is almost entirely socialist-marxist and who believe that the electorate cannot be trusted to make the ‘correct’ decisions – and tghat unelected bureaucrats need to do that for them.

Reply to  Old England
May 9, 2015 12:47 am

It was a Minister in Harold Wilson’s Labour Govt of the 60s, if I recall correctly , who came out with the classic:
” The man or woman in Whitehall really does know best”
The definitive and perpetual description of socialist conceptions of the value accorded to democracy and voter preferences.

Reply to  kokoda
May 8, 2015 6:06 pm

Too funny 🙂 … reminds me of a scene in Spinal Tap.
* * * * *
Ian: “They’re not going to release the album because they have decided that the cover is sexist.”
Nigel: “Well, so what, What’s wrong with being sexy? I mean, there’s nothing wrong with…”
Ian: “Sex-ist!”
David: “Sex-ist!

May 8, 2015 4:08 pm

Hopefully, this will encourage others to join in and question what the real motives of the UN are.

mike hamblet
May 8, 2015 4:09 pm

It seems like Newman, Abbot and co are being told what to say by Rupert Murdoch, who is also Ignorant and greedy

May 8, 2015 4:15 pm

(NaturalNews)” Increasingly, the news we see (and the news that never becomes public) is increasingly being controlled by monied corporate interests who wield control using their advertising dollars, and by governments that seek to censor information they consider too revealing.”
Debt bondage (modern day slavery) plays a big part in Australia’s decision making .
About 35 years ago I brought my first home for $27,500.00 ,now the average price for a home is about $600,000.00 https://www.mywealth.commbank.com.au/property/average-house-price-in-australia-continues-to-rise–news20141111

May 8, 2015 4:53 pm

Maurice Newman follows no one, except good sense…good on him!

May 8, 2015 4:54 pm
Jeff B.
May 8, 2015 4:59 pm


Curious George
May 8, 2015 5:08 pm

Christiana Figueres does not want democracy. I don’t want Christiana Figueres.

Old England
Reply to  Curious George
May 8, 2015 5:13 pm

Neither the EU nor the UN want democracy as we think of it to continue. Holding on to democracy is the true battleground for the people of western nations in the 21st century.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Curious George
May 8, 2015 5:54 pm

I will campaign against her when her election comes up again.
Oh, wait a minute …

Gary Pearse
May 8, 2015 5:32 pm

The most dumbfounding question is why do we continue to fund the UN’s agendas. Weren’t they created to provide a meeting and talking place to avoid going to war? How did we let them get so far? I haven’t met anyone that has said they support this monstrous organization. Why on earth should I defer to my inferiors in designing a way of life for me.

May 8, 2015 5:40 pm

Tremendously courageous of Newman to say what is clearly true yet goes against the Dogma of the Chattering Classes. This quote is particularly important:
As Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says: “Even if the ­(climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.
That is the entire issue in one mouthful, from a catastrophist. “We know what’s best dears, now give up your X and go on into the nice cattle car.”

May 8, 2015 5:40 pm


Robert of Ottawa
May 8, 2015 5:48 pm

Bravo Aussies.

Robert of Ottawa
May 8, 2015 5:51 pm

Just as an afterthought. Canada’s federal government is of the same mind, I believe, but will issue AGW bafflegab until after the October election, and will show its hand before Paris.

May 8, 2015 5:54 pm

Tried to post this at The Australian but it does not seem to be getting through:
Thank you for this Mr. Newman. The Chattering Classes just cannot accept this blasphemy against the Religion of the Faculty Lounge and will come after you with everything they have. Please hang tough and I sincerely hope that the de facto Leader of the Free World, Tony Abbott, stands with you.

Robert of Ottawa
May 8, 2015 6:01 pm

Bureaucracy is government by no one, not no government.

Stu McDonald
May 8, 2015 6:02 pm

In our world today we’re watching the convergence of power lusters like Christiana Figueres and “Green” doom and gloomers each trying to use the other. Over the long history of human societies the people were often blamed by the ruling elite for every imagined calamity and potential calamity. Calls for sacrifice and punishment arose from the ruling elite and the duped masses. It’s perfect ( for them ) that we don’t fully understand how the earth’s climate actually works and won’t for sometime. They can throw out scary stories everyday and some may resonate with the masses.
The two things that defeat these people are the freedom of people to speak up and challenge their falsehoods and time. Over time their scary stories don’t come true. From Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, Al Gore, Jim Hansen, etc. their stories have all been busts.
No surprise Christiana favours an authoritarian regime where dissent is banned. Freedom gets in the way of enslaving people.

mike hamblet
Reply to  Stu McDonald
May 8, 2015 6:57 pm

It seems that Newman, Abbott and co are being told what to say by Rupert Murdoch, who is also ignorant and greedy

Reply to  mike hamblet
May 8, 2015 10:23 pm

What an insightful comment ! I wonder what triggered this epiphany?

Reply to  mike hamblet
May 9, 2015 2:30 am

Murdoch is famous for not dictating editorial stances to the periodicals he’s acquired, so I doubt that he’d be telling high officials what to say. And I I diubt that Abbott and Newman would jump at his command.

Reply to  mike hamblet
May 9, 2015 3:40 am

Newman is an intellectual, aware that global cooling is imminent and is going out of his way to draw flack upon himself.
Great men of his caliber don’t come along every day, while Abbott is only a political animal and not in the same class.
Murdoch has nothing to do with any of this, except in the fevered imagination of leftoids.

Reply to  mike hamblet
May 9, 2015 4:01 am

Mike Hamblet appears to be a robot, repeating the same mantra. Anyway, to whom it may concern, Maurice Newman is a hero.

Reply to  mike hamblet
May 9, 2015 7:39 am

mike, I believe you’ve already said that at 4.09pm.Got anything new to add?

May 8, 2015 6:51 pm

This is sad news but unfortunately it doesn’t surprise me.
New great post at Icecap btw: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Crux_Flawed_Science.pdf

Reply to  MarkT
May 8, 2015 6:57 pm

woops! Meant to comment on story of Lomborg being sacked! damn Ipad!
btw, link above is new paper on why the positive water vapor feedback in the GCMs is crap.

Frans Franken
Reply to  MarkT
May 9, 2015 9:35 am

It may be OT but it is a great post indeed. Should be on WUWT for discussion.

Reply to  MarkT
May 9, 2015 1:32 pm

Since the AGW decided, all on its own, to go into the oceans circa 1998, it’s going to have a hard time causing positive feedback (unless Travesty Trenberth has better luck with changing some other null hypotheses regarding the Laws of Nature).

Reply to  MarkT
May 10, 2015 6:15 pm

What a clear article!

May 8, 2015 7:22 pm

Just put a lid on it.

May 8, 2015 7:27 pm

***enter the Matrix!
VIDEO: 8 May: ABC Lateline: UN climate chief responds to tirade from PM’s adviser
EMMA ALBERICI: I want to start with the article that appeared today in the ‘Australian’ newspaper, written by the Prime Minister’s chief business adviser Maurice Newman. He’s a well-known climate sceptic, ***for want of a better word, and he’s attacked you quite personally. He says, “Why with such little evidence of climate change does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of millions – billions of rather a year on futile climate change policy. Perhaps Christiana Figueres has the answer.”
Let me ask you the question?
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: Well, you know, Emma, I came to this country with a very open heart for this fantastic country, and with a very open mind for what the Government has decided that they want to do on climate change…
What is from a very broadly consulted point of view in Australia, what are Australia’s advantages? And what are Australia’s opportunities in moving into the ***21st Century energy matrix?…
EMMA ALBERICI: But do you think there would be merit in that kind of meeting to educate him in what you’re talking about?
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: You know, I don’t think people need education. It’s a question about an open heart, an open mind as I said at the beginning. I’m always happy to speak to anyone who would like to speak to me. I’m ***25 hours a day available to anyone…
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: I think he (PM Abbott) is definitely correct that coal has been absolutely crucial for humanity. I also hope that he is very, very correct in saying that Australia is going to be the world’s primary energy source. It depends on how you define energy.
EMMA ALBERICI: No, he said coal would be the principal energy source for decades to come. Do you agree?
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: I don’t think ***science would agree with him. I also don’t think the financial community agrees with that. What I see is a very, very clear retrenchment of the finance community, both on the part of multilateral development banks as well as commercial banks, as well as long-term investors, retrenching from investment in coal just because of the growing risk, asset risk, financial risk that coal is becoming.
So I think that’s a question not to me but rather to those who will finance…
EMMA ALBERICI: On the issue of the renewable energy target that’s now been set today, interested to know your view on the inclusion of burning native wood as a renewable energy source?
CHRISTIANA FIGUERES: …. I would have thought that the conversation was mainly about ***solar and wind. I did not know that there were other things included in the package…
did you ask Maurice Newman to join in this conversation, ABC? so many things WRONG with this interview, not least the fact Figueres has 25 hours in her day (lol). sounds like her grasp of figures is not too good.

Reply to  pat
May 9, 2015 12:57 am

Just a few days ago there was a rerun on British TV of a programme about the iron ore mining of the Pilbara coast of Australia . If I remember correctly 3 tankers/day were being loaded with 200,000 tons each of ore for shipment to China. To convert that amount of ore to metal requires comparable amounts of coal as coke. As a chemical conversion it is not going to be achieved with wind farms and solar panels , so if China needs the steel it will also need coal. I assume that that is one of the uses to which china is puting its parallel import of Australian coal.
If Australia refuses to export coal , China will source it elsewhere , so , thinking globally , where is the environmental gain?
Why , when interviewing this woman, did the journalist not ask such a simple question , so obvious to my own slight and gradually diminishing intelligence?

Reply to  mikewaite
May 9, 2015 4:41 pm

China is already looking elsewhere for coal (Resources). While I was in Ethiopia in 2006/2007, I stayed at a hotel that was fully booked with geologists, scientists and oil explorers, all working for the Chinese looking for resources. They even imported workers from China to conduct the actual mining.

May 8, 2015 9:26 pm

The new world order for Western society. Academia, politicians, and the MSM are running the show with help from opinionated rich liberal extremists. islam is a distraction in this case.

Mike Henderson
Reply to  JBP
May 8, 2015 9:57 pm

To their mind islam is an associate until no longer needed. Islam on the other hand loves them to death.

May 8, 2015 9:55 pm

I left a short comment at New.com AU about 12 hours ago. There are still no comments in the comment section as of now.

May 8, 2015 10:16 pm

“….Stop being afraid and just apply some sense,
And you’ll realise it’s been one big pretence.
Now is the time to start to questioning why,
The world has been fed such an obvious lie.
Money for certain has been at the root,
Energy control is also in there to boot;
Agenda 21, the UN world governance plan,
Influences politicians to blame it on man…..”
Read more: http://wp.me/p3KQlH-uE

May 8, 2015 11:01 pm

Thanks for this insightful essay.
After 45 years working as a development economist in 15 countries, I have come to believe that it is not possible to reduce CO2 emissions significantly without destroying modern industrial civilization both in the developing world and the developed world. Nor do I think climate mitigation is necessary. Adaptation is cheaper and more politically acceptable.
I see a reasonable case for skepticism about the need for climate mitigation policies, while accepting conventional climate science. Mankind has a minor role in climate change but natural factors internal to the climate system have been underestimated. In any event, the risks associated with climate change are not symmetrical. Historical evidence indicates that adverse consequences of warming are much less than the adverse consequences of cooling.
As for climate change during the last 60 years or so, the people of the world have never had it so good and, apart from places where there are civil conflicts, the general trend is to improved health and welfare.
It makes no sense whatsoever to maintain that business-as-usual will bring doom and gloom. And even if it were true that we risk doom and gloom, it makes no sense to blame capitalism or democracy. To paraphrase Winston Churchill. The only virtues of Capitalism and Democracy are that all the other systems are worse, and usually much worse.
Tell me about it!
I have worked in several countries with socialist systems and a few with autocratic but capitalist systems. A country can have great resources, but under socialism that people of that country will be poor. Under autocratic systems, the elite of a country will become rich whether the system is socialist or capitalist.
Europe has several Democratic Socialist parties that are not socialist in the sense of being opposed to capitalism per se, although some members and leaders are closet communists. In my opinion, the German government has laid the foundations for economic disaster mainly because of the influence of closet communists from the former East Germany.
America does not have a significant socialist party, not does Canada. Both the US and Canada have populist parties who ride on the widespread quasi-religious yearning for Utopia to be achieved by social engineering by the state.
Populists have on and off been a significant political force in the US since at least as far back as Andrew Jackson and as far back in Canada as Tommy Douglas. I once heard Douglas explain the position of his party: We regard the economy like a farmer regards his cream separator. The machine has a little lever that adjusts for the amount of cream extracted. Our party is not opposed to capitalism. All we want to do is adjust the little lever. (Paraphrased) That is what Douglas meant by “democratic socialism”.
The climate alarmists seem to have captured the populist movement, at least in the medium term. But it is unlikely that the alarmists can fool enough people to succeed in the long run. Not when jobs and pensions are at stake. Unfortunately, the US two-party system is so rigid that climate-alarmists need only capture a small percentage of the vote to dominate the executive branch and to gridlock the Senate.
Mr. Obama is determined that Senate gridlock will not stop him. It therefore remains for the Supreme Court to determine if the President can bypass Congress in making new law. We will soon know if the President of the US is empowered by the Constitution to “…intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model…” öf the USA.
The Supreme Court must decide how much power the President has to change the US economic model, with or without legislation by the Congress.

chris riley
May 8, 2015 11:14 pm

It is time for the U.S to get out of the UN and for the UN to get out of the US. These people are enemies of liberty and must not be given aid and comfort U.S. taxpayers.

May 8, 2015 11:27 pm

Mike Hamblet you are very wrong I have known Maurice for years and he says what he believes…
he follows no one else at all. A nice honest guy really!

May 9, 2015 12:34 am

Add world government to the coming cashless society and you may need to worry. Dissidents could find their credit card money supply cut off. Hypothetically, of course.

mike hamblet
May 9, 2015 2:39 am

Can’t decide which of the commenters on this site is the wierdest idiot on the planet. All seem to be bonkers, paid for writing or perhaps work in a coal mine? Thankfully science, new technology and (most) governments are working to reduce carbon output. And anyone who gives a damn about the next generation supports that effort.

Reply to  mike hamblet
May 9, 2015 3:01 am

mike hamblet
Everyone who cares about future generations rejects expensive and pointless efforts “to reduce carbon output”. Instead, we who actually do care about the next and subsequent generations promote the use of the cheapest and most efficient energy supplies.
Concern at “carbon output” is only shared by cranks who fear the beneficial global warming which stopped nearly two decades ago may start again.

mike hamblet
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 9, 2015 9:00 am

Can’t eat or drink money. Climate change is happening now – checkout Alaska, California, Greenland, Australia, Africa, Hymalayas. Need to stop worrying about your wallet and look at the bigger picture……?

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 9, 2015 10:28 am

mike hamblet
Yes, climate change IS happening now. It always has happened and it always will happen, everywhere.
But the recovery from the Little Ice Age known as global warming stopped nearly two decades ago. Global temperature provides no indication of rise or fall discernible with 95% confidence. This global temperature stasis will end with further global warming or global cooling but nobody can know which and when until it happens.
You pretend to care for “the next generation” while calling for their wealth to be squandered and providing them with energy poverty. And you make those calls for no valid reason. We who actually do care for the next generation will do all in our power to defend them against the calls of you and your ilk.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 9, 2015 12:21 pm

You might find the present and future climate less frightening if you knew more about the past climate.
Can I suggest a book like ‘climate, past present and future’ by the great Hubert lamb might help you to put today’s climate into its proper historic context? Extremes were worse in the last thousand Years than today and today’s benign climate is remarkable given the rigours of such periods as the little ice age

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 9, 2015 4:37 pm

Australia, I live there. I have not seen any climate change in my lifetime here. So when will it happen?

Warren Latham
Reply to  mike hamblet
May 9, 2015 3:59 am

To “mike hamblet”,
I understand your first sentence; it is for you to decide, or not. The other three are just WRONG: allow me to explain.
All comments here are personal opinion and none is “paid” unless they themselves are in the pay of the bedwetters’ society a.k.a. EPA, HMGov., LocalGov., WWF, (and other “quangos”) all of which are directly in tow of the UN.
Government does NOT work to reduce any so-called “carbon output”: it has jumped on the UN band-wagon of ignorance and monetary greed. (If you disagree, just check the massive list of payments Govt. makes to research entities / universities / reporters / BBC etc., in respect of the so-called “climate change” money-squandering religion. You may need to vomit part way through it).
You obviously misuse the word “carbon” so please read the website “carbon-sense.com ” by Viv Forbes, Australia: it will explain all you need to know using plain English.
If you really wish to reply, kindly acknowledge to everyone here, that carbon-dioxide is NOT a pollutant, thank you. (If you believe it is a pollutant, we shall all be interested to know your words, or not).

mike hamblet
Reply to  Warren Latham
May 9, 2015 9:17 am

There are some real crazies on here though aren’t there. Seems to be a lot of brainwashing – all spouting the same anti EU, anti government, no need to change anything rhetoric. Is this anarchy? If youre all unable to accept change i’d like to know how you get on with no government to maintain the complexity of modern society.
You could say that anything that is harmful to man is a pollutant. Too much oxygen would kill us; too much Co2 will (is alreay

mike hamblet
Reply to  Warren Latham
May 9, 2015 9:28 am

…(is allready) causing huge problems. I’ll leave it there; I know of the climate changes and their repercusions; its measured and videoed, recorded and there are first hand accounts of suffering, sea level rise etc. Ignore it if you want, but dont inteffere

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  mike hamblet
May 9, 2015 9:54 am

For the answer to your question Mike, simply look in the mirror.

Warren Latham
Reply to  mike hamblet
May 9, 2015 3:59 pm

Evidently you cannot bring yourself to admit that carbon-dioxide is NOT a pollutant: you have evaded my simple question.

john robertson
Reply to  mike hamblet
May 9, 2015 5:57 pm

A mirror might solve your confusion.

May 9, 2015 3:00 am

Thankfully, Mike, we are very sensible, & all look & study the science and data and see for ourselves what is correct and what is not and what needs more research, and non are paid for anything. But, do there best to show and find the real truth and in that way help mankind find the best way forward.

May 9, 2015 4:01 am

As someone has said before was the EU founded (foundered might be more appropriate) as an experiment to test the feasibility of a World Government?
Europe is a continent with widely divergent countries, economies, wealth customs etc The EU started as a “Common Market” which to me seemed sensible because it encouraged trade which in turn produced jobs, wealth and greater consumer choice with cheaper goods due to removal of taxes on foreign goods.
The Common Market by stealth became The European Economic Community and finally the European Union, with a flag and common laws that have to be accepted by all the countries within it. This is why we in the UK have a ridiculous energy policy, because we would pay huge fines to the EU if we don’t lower CO2 emissions.
The EU has insisted that water is to be a precious commodity due to AGW and needs storing correctly, priced accordingly and future needs provided by desalination plants. They learned from 1930’s Germany that if there is a common threat (the J*ws then, AGW and the fact that since the EU’s formation there have been no wars in Europe (false logic) ).
A WG would base itself on this model, all countries must be united against a common perceived threat and then ruled by a stealthy encroaching series of laws that transcend individual national governments laws because they are “better” for the common good. Rule would be from an elite which everyone thinks is democratic, but in fact is not (EU parliament which votes on laws made by the EU commission).
The EU is scared stiff that Greece will leave and the Greek government are calling their bluff, which is interesting but also shows that a “one size economy for all” does not work.
The prospect is frightening, but at least we now have a government which will challenge the EU.

Reply to  andrewmharding
May 9, 2015 5:16 am

You ask

As someone has said before was the EU founded (foundered might be more appropriate) as an experiment to test the feasibility of a World Government?

The origin of the EU was the European Coal & Steel Community (ECSC) that is accurately described by wicki here where it says

The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to “make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible” which was to be achieved by regional integration,

The ECSC operated to enable that “regional integration” during its 50-year life that ended in 2002.
As wicki says

The ECSC was run by four institutions: a High Authority composed of independent appointees, a Common Assembly composed of national parliamentarians, a Special Council composed of nation ministers, and a Court of Justice. These would ultimately form the blueprint for today’s European Commission, European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Court of Justice.

But, and importantly, the ” regional integration” of the ECSC and the Agencies it absorbed during its operation was the sharing of activities, information and resources by industries.
The EU’s economic and political institutions were additions to the industrial purposes of the ECSC but were – and are – said to be part of the ECSC’s objective of preventing future war between countries of Europe.
PS Declaration of possible interest by RSC. I was a Technical Advisor of the ECSC.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 9, 2015 6:28 am

Thanks Richard, personally i think war between European countries is highly unlikely and a non-aggression treaty between all the European countries with each one defending every other one if war does break out.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 9, 2015 6:39 am

You may be right. I was answering the specific question that you posed.
If – as I understood you to be suggesting – the EU is being used by some as a model for obtaining a world government then opposition to their actions requires proper understanding of how the EU evolved to become what it is.
I again commend the wicki link about the history of the ECSC. And if I have understood your suggestion then perhaps you may want to copy and save that wicki page because such inconvenient truths as it states tend to get altered on wicki.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 9, 2015 9:51 am

The Euro was first proposed by economist Francois Perroux in 1942 as the currency Hitler would put into use Europe-wide after he won WWII. Unfortunately, Perroux (who was a Pétain enthusiast and one of the most famous economists of the 20th C) was never translated into English. You need to be able to read French. Modern French historian Bernard Bruneteau wrote “‘L’Europe Nouvelle’ de Hitler—Une illusion des intellectuels de la France de Vichy” in 2003, one of the books that explains it. Around p. 194.
The purpose of the Euro was to be Europe-wide, but planned to impoverish the south European and Eastern European countries by taking away their sovereign currencies. Without their sovereign currencies, they could not denominate their debt in their own currencies. Germany and France, therefore, would prosper and rule. Don’t forget that before the Euro became official in 2000, Germany had horrendous debt and was in financial trouble. The Euro cured that; of course it would: the people living in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece, etc. are paying for it.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 9, 2015 10:33 am

If what you say is true then it is good we won WW2 so the 1940’s plans for Naz11sm were not implemented.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 9, 2015 10:44 am

Well, not here. But Europe has adopted them. Took them ages to do it (until 2000). Francois Mitterand privatized the banks in 1981, which caused Guy de Rothschild to swear and accuse the French government of doing to his family in 1981 what the Pétain government did during WWII. He huffed off to NYC for six years to party and complain (in my view, he was right). His cousin, Baron Edmond de Rothschild (Geneva), was far more strategic, and far more savvy about how dough worked globally. He created the Global Warming movement in 1987 with Maurice Strong, and announced it with Maurice Strong and David Rockefeller at an invitation-only five-day meeting after the Fourth Worldwide Wilderness Congress.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 9, 2015 11:08 am

mike hamblet says:
There are some real crazies on here though aren’t there.
Yes indeed. Read what Bruce C wrote above. So you’d better start walking toward high ground, mike. Accelerating sea level rise, ya know. Might getcha.
MRW, andrew & Richard,
Thanks for those comments. I learned something from each one. I didn’t learn anything new from Richard’s critique of Wiki though. I’ve seen the same revisionist history.
And MRW’s comment didn’t mention the most famous and astute economist in French history; Fred Bastiat <–[Merican English spelling & punctuation], who ripped his newfangled socialist countrymen a new one (sorry Richard, but it's true… or at least, that’s how I see it).

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 9, 2015 12:48 pm

Sorry, but I don’t accept your assertions that the euro is adoption of a 1940s Naz1 plan. There are many criticisms that can be made about the EU. Such criticisms are hindered by assertions such as yours that don’t concur with reality.
You say the US has not adopted a universal currency for all its States?
Perhaps you could say which States don’t use the $ as their currency?
And all of the EU has not adopted the euro: the UK has kept the £.
Germany has tried to bail out Greece with massive loans.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 9, 2015 1:29 pm


You say the US has not adopted a universal currency for all its States?
Perhaps you could say which States don’t use the $ as their currency?

No, I didn’t. Where did I say that?

Germany has tried to bail out Greece with massive loans.

If Greece had retained the drachma, it wouldn’t have needed them.

Sorry, but I don’t accept your assertions that the euro is adoption of a 1940s Naz1 plan. There are many criticisms that can be made about the EU. Such criticisms are hindered by assertions such as yours that don’t concur with reality.

OK. Fine. Read the work of Dr. Alain Parguez if interested. He was in the actual meetings when these things were being decided.

Reply to  andrewmharding
May 9, 2015 2:09 pm

You wrote

Well, not here. But Europe has adopted them.

I understood your “here” to be the US. If that is not so then I apologise.
Other than that, what I wrote is simply true.

chris moffatt
May 9, 2015 5:57 am

“Its about time our representatives demanded a little accountability and clarity, from the UN organisations which they so lavishly fund”
This is not likely to happen as long as those so-called representatives are working diligently to implement those same UN organizations’ policies. Can anyone suppose that these representatives are not aware of the true climate situation? as aware as any informed person? The question is ‘what’s in it for them?’ What does the POTUS get out of it for instance? a cushy UN position with life tenure perhaps?
Offtopic question: since climate is a regional phenomenon how does it make any sense to talk about “global climate change”? All climate change is regional.

Reply to  chris moffatt
May 9, 2015 9:00 am

chris moffatt commented:
“The question is ‘what’s in it for them?’ What does the POTUS get out of it for instance? ”
There’s a strong following for Marxist/Socialist ideology. They truly believe that collective poverty is better than individual ability to prosper. In their minds equality between people trumps all else. They say this despite the fact that….although they claim otherwise….there plan always includes an unelected ruling elite to which they aspire.

Reply to  markl
May 9, 2015 9:25 am

brainfart…..should be “their plan”

Reply to  markl
May 9, 2015 11:47 am

markl. There was an item today on the news where the Labour Party spokesman said that they had lost the election because it was all about taking money from the rich and giving it to the “deserving” as state handouts. This was because Milliband is very left wing. He then went on to say that if they had used the word “aspiration”, which is the cornerstone of Conservative policy, the result may have been different. Left wing socialists want everyone the same, but at a lower level than the ruling elite

Reply to  chris moffatt
May 9, 2015 10:05 am

POTUS is clueless. He is not a nuanced thinker, and he has no way of knowing he is being played by his advisors.
Lay off the “There’s a strong following for Marxist/Socialist ideology” horses**t. Most people on this blog are incapable of using the term “socialism” accurately. Ditto: Marxism. (Everyone I see flailing it around here got their definition from social cues or blogs; they’ve never read Marx.) The Number One best explainer of capitalism is, in fact, Marx. This is widely recognized by economists and political scientists of all political stripes. It’s just that Marx came to specious conclusions, which the West does’t accept.
You give the current POTUS too much intellectual strength. He doesn’t’ think about individual abilities…or collective poverty for that matter. He’s thinking about his legacy, and he thinks he has smart people around him to help him create that posterity. He has zero clue how the federal monetary system works, jut like most people on this blog. That’s why he hired Jacob Lew, a lawyer, as Secretary of the US Treasury. An absolute idiot.

Reply to  MRW
May 9, 2015 11:25 am

I agree with you… for whatever that’s worth. I’ve read Marx, too. It’s not easy. But one thing comes across clearly: Marx had no real understanding of human nature. And I don’t care what label they apply, I am opposed to statism by any name. They all want power and they all want their kind to be in charge, whether it’s the Left or the Right. But all most folks want is to be left alone.
You are right about Obama’s legacy. He might be surprised though. And not in a good way.

Reply to  MRW
May 9, 2015 11:52 am

Marx did not agree with capitalism, so he had to explain it thoroughly so that he could debunk it. His explanation was expert. The best that has ever been written. Historians, economists, political scientists, all agree.
But if you live in a country that describes itself as a state, or a nation, then there are rules for the state or nation. That goes without saying. Otherwise, you have anarchy and mayhem. Real chaos.
I don’t like chaos.
I prefer to live in the US. The list of state rules here suit me. I can function within them, and I am cognizant that the rules are meant to benefit the many. Some I like, some not. But on average, this country is the best for how I choose to live my life.
What I don’t like in this country is the failure, or willingness, of the average citizen to recognize and learn how state (nation) accounting actually works. So we vote in people who are harming us.
How many people do you know, dbstealey, who recognize that the $1.7 trillion in treasury securities that China had in October 2008–parked in the NY Federal Reserve, btw–represented the money that US citizens gave China for goods China produced and we bought from them? Why wasn’t that money spent on US goods? Why wasn’t that money retained here, and in the bank accounts of US businesses?

Reply to  MRW
May 9, 2015 12:05 pm

You’re asking questions that I can’t answer. I buy Merican when it’s available, after that, Japanese. They learned Deming well. No Chinese, though. They’re not our friends, for one thing.
The only ones I would put below China would be the UN, if they produced anything. But all they’re good for is taking:

Reply to  MRW
May 9, 2015 12:22 pm

I don’t understand the purpose of the map.

Reply to  MRW
May 9, 2015 2:47 pm

It’s part of Agenda 21. If you click on it you can see it more clearly. You can certainly see what their intentions are. They want to take away all that land and give it back to the prairie dogs, snakes and mosquitoes.
It’s just another reason to evict the UN from our shores — if you need any more reasons. It is infested with the most corrupt bureaucrats on earth, and they hate America (but they love dollars, because they’ve always got their hand out for more. And Uncle Sucker gives it to them.)
BTW, Marx didn’t ‘debunk’ capitalism. If you look at the results, you will see the immense benefits of a free market society. Also BTW, the U.S. hasn’t had real capitalism since before Andy Jackson was elected.

Ed Zuiderwijk
May 9, 2015 8:28 am

Figueroa is potty. China the best model? China is one of the most polluted countries in the world, as were the East Bloc countries of Soviet Europe and for that matter any other centrally planned economy. To put such up as example to emulate is idiotic, to expect it would improve things is insane.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
May 9, 2015 2:53 pm

Christiana Figueres is the alien next to Dr. Smith:

May 9, 2015 8:55 am

This subject needs more press. I came at this debate years ago understanding less about the science and much more about the power politics. Both sides of the coin are needed to truly quantify the values underpinning CAGW, although one will inform the other. It seems that the alarmists are employing this method, digging for the dirty funding and mal intentions, the human weakness behind true skepticism; and we on the other end have not wanted to dirty our hands. Why not, some speculation, while not proof, can lead to understanding. A game I play from time to time: when I hear or read of a person vehemently pushing policy or industry into global hegemony… I check the Bilderberg attendee’s list, usually the name of the Globalist in question can be found therein. From that point on I begin referencing their relationships, partnerships and affiliations. What I have come to understand is that their does exist a very powerful group of global centralists who need to implement a global tax, a global carbon tax in order to properly fund their growth. Problem, reaction, solution.

May 9, 2015 9:02 am

Here’s a summary, in case you missed it for the last (few) years : ;.

May 9, 2015 10:36 am

Newman just figured that out? Most people with half a brain realized that 30 years ago when the issue was first raised. Global warming is just the “hook of the day”, although it has had really good legs. Like previous hooks such as economic justice, save the children, disarmament, gun control, world peace, etc. etc., AGW is the latest ploy for the international left to try and run the world the way they see fit. To do so, the US and other western nations, the protectors of freedom and bringers of unprecedented human prosperity, must be brought down.

Reply to  Ed
May 9, 2015 12:05 pm

Ed, there’s a big difference between someone figuring it out and the press reporting on it. Press recognition comes from citizen outrage that their voices are being silenced.

May 9, 2015 11:11 am
May 9, 2015 12:28 pm

Figueres is one of those individuals that has no respect for democracy. IIRC she, after the mess of Copenhagen, basically said that they, the prospective rulers of Earth, would get on with their ‘project’ without the backing of all that ‘people based nonsense’.
Hitler, Stalin and Figueres. Give them enough power and all of a sudden your view counts for nothing. She is the end of the UN. Do not ever give her independent funding or an army, her storm troupers will be marching through your town two minutes later.

May 9, 2015 1:24 pm

“Maurice Newman, the chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s Business Advisory Council, has accused the UN of attempting to subvert democracy, of attempting to establish a worldwide authoritarian regime, with political power concentrated in the hands of UN officials.”
Ending the nation-state and attaining world peace and organic brown rice for all. I have heard this somewhere before. Where was it…
Ah yes, my entire life, that is where I have heard all of this before.
Result: Figueres’ environmental Fatwas, and a European Union flag, anthem, euro, and Armed Forces.

May 9, 2015 3:01 pm

In a few years, when global cooling begins to bight, the bureaucrats will have nowhere to hide and Maurice Newman will stand out as a human of heroic proportions.

May 9, 2015 7:42 pm

And to think, certain posters continue to whine every time someone makes the claim that CAGW is a leftwing plot.

Reply to  MarkW
May 9, 2015 7:53 pm

It is.

Reply to  MarkW
May 10, 2015 10:47 am

Its not just a left wing plot, the money and power, the thinktanks backing the CAGW movement lay out the red carpet to all potential power players. Remember it was Bush who helped the North American Union gain a heavy legal foothold. Its so strange to imagine a Conservative presence in all the fear mongering and profit taking. When did consevatives ever whip up a fear campaing, maybe im being unfair? And yet, peel back the onion…guess how many Big Conservative Gov players have attended Bilderberg, or have ties to CFR, or the World Bank? Liberals do not own the “Be afraid and centralize” space.

Reply to  MarkW
May 10, 2015 11:04 am

The CAGW scare was deliberately created by Margaret Thatcher a generation ago and is now promoted by David Cameron.
If you think that is a “leftwing plot” then you must be having a laugh or you are deluded.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 10, 2015 7:20 pm

Nah! Monckton suggested that she be cautious during his time as science adviser up to 1986. The speech in 1989 to the UN was, primarilly, written by Crispin Tickell who used a bit more extreme language. As you know this was to promote nuclear power in favour of killing off coal, and the “Dirty man of Europe” lable the UK had at the time. Of course, we now know this was complete bullcarp!

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 11, 2015 11:14 am

I am getting fed up with your fact-free distortions of the history of Thatcher that you promulgate at every opportunity.
Those who want to know why and how Thatcher started the global warming scare for reasons of her own personal political advantage can read here.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 11, 2015 9:19 pm

Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, Thatcher DID NOT *write*, now I stress the word *WRITE*, that speech she gave to the UN in 1989. Tickell wrote it, laced with alarmist nonsense! She was not the creator of the CAGW scare/meme. It was already well established however, as a significant figure in world politics, the UN needed her, shall we say, “approval”? That’s exactly what happened!
May 10, 2015 at 11:04 am
The CAGW scare was deliberately created by Margaret Thatcher a generation ago…”
Now I am quoting you. We will simply have to agree to disagree!

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 11, 2015 10:24 pm

As usual, you present your assertions that are evidence-free while I provide evidence and analysis. Yes, of course we “disagree”.
As I said to you, those who want to know why and how Thatcher started the global warming scare for reasons of her own personal political advantage can read the link I provided to you. Clearly, as usual, reading is too much of a strain for you.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 11, 2015 11:00 pm

History and fact proves you wrong. She did not START the cagw scare, she just endorsed it in front of the UN. The CO2 driven climate change “scare” started WELL before 1989! But lets not put histroical facts in the way of a rant. LOL…

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 11, 2015 11:13 pm

Read the link – if you are sufficiently literate – and you will learn how and why Thatcher deliberately started the global warming scare during the decade before 1989.
I did not mention Thatcher’s speech in 1989, YOU DID. That was long after she had created the scare.
I provide evidence and analysis. You rant, and your evidence-free assertions inform about you and nothing else.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 12, 2015 1:50 am

A link to an article you wrote?

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 12, 2015 1:56 am

BTW, notice how I have not labelled you a troll or illiterate. But thanks anyway!

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 12, 2015 1:58 am

Yes, as you would know if your literacy were sufficient for you to have read the essay then you would know the information is from an an analysis conducted in 1980.
The essay’s introduction explains

In 1980 the British Association of Colliery Management (BACM) commissioned me to determine if there were environmental issues which could affect the coal industry as the ‘acid rain’ issue was then doing. I searched literature (scientific, environmental and journalistic) to identify possible issues and persons interested in possible ‘environmental’ issues. I then interviewed as many of the identified people as possible and – on the basis of the literature search and interviews – I constructed influence diagrams of the identified potential issues.
The influence diagrams indicated two potential problems which my report needed to inform to BACM; viz. ‘global warming’ (as it was then called) and microdust.
I provided my report to BACM near the end of 1980 and they considered it in early 1981 (it is often referred to as my “1980″ and my “1981″ report, but that is the same report). It concluded that positive feedbacks in the political system would cause ‘global warming’ to become a serious environmental issue whether or not any scientific evidence to support it were to be obtained. Indeed, the political feedbacks were so severe that the issue would become more important than any other ‘environmental’ issue and was likely to supplant most ‘environmental’ issues.
Please observe that the diagrams do not mention environmentalists. That is because they had no interest in ‘global warming’ at the time the diagrams were constructed. Indeed, the initial reaction of Greenpeace to Thatcher having raised the scare was to oppose ‘global warming’ because they saw it as a distraction from the ‘acid rain’ scare.
But all environmentalists jumped on the AGW bandwagon when they saw its usefulness.
BACM rejected that report saying it was “extreme” and “implausible”. Since then ‘global warming’ has failed to obtain any supporting evidence but has become the major ‘environmental’ issue such that all other ‘environmental’ issues have become subordinated to it.
John Daly was interested in why I had been involved with ‘global warming’ from the start of the scare and I answered him by explaining about how my 1980 BACM report had been rejected, and I sent him an extract from it including two diagrams. He asked me to update that extract so he could post it on his blog. The article on his blog is the update which he posted in (I think) 1999.

You see, Patrick, those of us who have studied the subject know you are ‘blowing smoke’.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 12, 2015 4:03 am

Can’t see any evidence Thatcher “CAUSED” the CAGW scare in that post.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 12, 2015 4:05 am

Or are you saying her “sceince” advisers in the 1980’s were…rubbish?

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 12, 2015 6:00 am

Try to read the article at the link. If it is too hard for you then ask Mummy to explain it for you.

May 9, 2015 11:22 pm

“Louis LeBlanc May 8, 2015 at 9:04 pm
Figueres, the selected head of the UNFCC, comes from power, wealth, Swarthmore, social anthropology, high-profile appointments among the politically powerful class seeking one-world control, dictated by themselves. The perfect choice for the UN job. No science education or experience,”… but
“politics is in her blood—her dad, Jose Figueres Ferrer, three-times president of Costa Rica, fronted the country’s 1948 revolution, and her mom was a New York-born student activist. Following a career in diplomacy,
” she and her husband, World Bank bigwig Konrad von Ritter (they met at the LSE), moved to D.C. to bring up their two daughters.

May 11, 2015 10:59 am

It has certainly turned into a left-wing plot to grab power and control.
Maybe it didn’t start out that way, but it rapidly morphed.

Reply to  wallensworth
May 11, 2015 11:08 am

Global warming is certainly NOT a “left wing plot”; e.g. the new Tory government in the UK today appointed its new Minister for Climate Change and Energy.
The issue is a ‘left vs right’ issue only in the US and nowhere else.