Guest essay by Eric Worrall
WUWT recently reported how UNESCO allegedly yielded to pressure from the Australian Government, to clumsily excise criticism of Aussie management of the Great Barrier Reef from a climate report. The coverup PR disaster has just become even worse – The Guardian is now accusing UNESCO and the Australian Government, of conniving to try to cover up the coverup, to conceal details of how the coverup was arranged.
UN tries to hide involvement in deleting Australia from its climate report
…
In May, Unesco published a report with the UN’s environment program, Unep, and the Union of Concerned Scientists about the impact of climate change on world heritage sites, which were also major tourist attractions.
Australia was the only continent not mentioned, despite being home to several important sites, including the Great Barrier Reef, which were being heavily affected by climate change.
…
A Guardian investigation revealed in May that three Australian sites were included in an earlier version of the report, but were removed after the environment department objected.
As well, all mentions of Australia were removed from the introduction and other sections. The Guardian later published the draft section on the Great Barrier Reef that had been removed.
The department said it had asked for the changes because it was concerned the information could negatively affect tourism.
Now emails between various government agencies and Unesco have been released to the website Climate Home under freedom of information but almost all the content has been redacted.
…
“Unesco advised that it is their practice not to disclose exchanges of letters or correspondence between the secretariat and its member states, and requested that this type of material not be disclosed pursuant to this FOI request,” she said.
…
If UNESCO and the Australian Government had come clean, apologised, and promised a review, the story would have fizzled and been forgotten. This absurd new twist in my opinion demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that nothing UN agencies say should be trusted.
The UN seems to have an almost pathological need to try to conceal embarrassing or politically inconvenient information, even when the essential facts are already public knowledge.
Update (EW) – fixed a typo in the first paragraph
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Completed No Security Briefings Or Courses At State Dept
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/01/exclusive-hillary-completed-no-security-briefings-or-courses-at-state-dept/#ixzz4GH7aOkar
LOL…..
http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/obama-2008.jpg
Oh, but Obama changed all that in the years since making the statement. You know, just like he stopped oceans from rising, brought peace in the world, improved race relations, and united the people in both his country and the world. Do I need a sarc tag on this?
I wanted the Reoiblicans to start a new series of ads, highlighting a DIFFERENT Clinton scandal/lie EVERY DAY until the November elections. But to cover all of her misdeeds, they needed to start weeks ago. There’s only three months left.
This is odd: “UNESCO allegedly yielded to pressure from the Australian Government, to clumsily excise criticism of Aussie management of the Great Barrier Reef from a climate report.”
There is absolutely no doubt that the Australian Government demanded that UNESCO delete the sections regarding Australia from the UNESCO booklet regarding Heritage Sites in Danger. The Aussie government was proud of the fact and issued a press release on why they did so.
The section on the GBR has been separately published on the web by the authoring organization — The Union of Concerned Scientists. Oh, yes, that’s right, the report was not written by UNESCO at all, but by a blatant advocacy group.
Some of this story is included in my report on the Great Barrier Reef Wars.
Section 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 provides:
“11 Right of access
(1) Subject to this Act, every person has a legally enforceable right to obtain access in accordance with this Act to:
(a) a document of an agency, other than an exempt document; or
(b) an official document of a Minister, other than an exempt document.
(2) Subject to this Act, a person’s right of access is not affected by:
(a) any reasons the person gives for seeking access; or
(b) the agency’s or Minister’s belief as to what are his or her reasons for seeking access.”
In short, the burden of proof is on the government to show that the documents are exempt. The most likely exemption is for documents that affect international relations. Section 33 of the Act provides:
“33 Documents affecting national security, defence or international relations
A document is an exempt document if disclosure of the document under this Act:
(a) would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to:
* * *
(iii) the international relations of the Commonwealth; or
(b) would divulge any information or matter communicated in confidence by or on behalf of a foreign government, an authority of a foreign government or an international organization to the Government of the Commonwealth, to an authority of the Commonwealth or to a person receiving the communication on behalf of the Commonwealth or of an authority of the Commonwealth.”
The Australian Information Commissioner’s Guidelines (footnotes redacted) which must describe the scope of that exemption as follows:
“International relations
5.30 The phrase ‘international relations’ has been interpreted as meaning the ability of the Australian Government to maintain good working relations with other governments and international organisations and to protect the flow of confidential information between them. The exemption is not confined to relations at the formal diplomatic or ministerial level. It also covers relations between government agencies.
5.31 The mere fact that a government has expressed concern about a disclosure is not enough to satisfy the exemption, but the phrase does encompass intangible damage, such as loss of trust and confidence in the Australian Government or one of its agencies. The expectation of damage to international relations must be reasonable in all the circumstances, having regard to the nature of the information; the circumstances in which it was communicated; and the nature and extent of the relationship. There must also be real and substantial grounds for the conclusion that are supported by evidence. These grounds are not fixed in advance, but vary according to the circumstances of each case.
5.32 For example, the disclosure of a document may diminish the confidence which another country would have in Australia as a reliable recipient of its confidential information, making that country or its agencies less willing to cooperate with Australian agencies in future. On the other hand, the disclosure of ordinary business communications between health regulatory agencies revealing no more than the fact of consultation will not, of itself, destroy trust and confidence between agencies.”
The Australian Information Commissioner, using a broad definition of “peer review”, held that information relating to a review of New Zealand’s meteorological data is exempt under this provision. This ordinary correspondence however might not fall within the ambit of “peer review.”
The people have a right to know and this should at least include what the Commonwealth Government says to the UN. Appeal!
The irony is, if climate change weren’t blamed on humans, countries would be trying to get their important sites listed so they could get clean up money. Once again, the environment is harmed by the politics of environmentalism.
You know it’s bad when the Grauniad is catching you on these things.
With the Guardian accusing the Aussie Gov’t and UNESCO of not being green enough,
I am reminded of environmental groups suing the EPA for desired settlements.
UNESCO
This UN organization is another one of the Baby Boomers’ chief cultural makers. I place it along side the book “Population Bomb” by Ehrlich (pictured here)
…in it’s formative power over the 1942-1956 cohort. There are other major philosophical and cultural influences on the Baby Boomers such as Rachel Carson, JM Keynes and Timothy Leary — and many other totally destructive intellectual revolutionaries who ought to be mentioned, because their philosophies are now being implemented in grand social schemes.
In turn UNESCO is the Cannabis Generation’s tool of choice for destroying local and national histories, and replacing them with UNESCO narratives. The dangers continue to tumble out of UN treaties on “Education, Science, and Culture” made with the US. Two examples are the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). **
Incidentally, in Jan of 2015, millions of documents were lost in a fire in the Russian State Library. Among the lost texts were Slavic Language collections and UNESCO documents.
Russian State Library was previously the Lenin Library.
What is CEDAW?
**”Feminist internationalists intend to use international law to coerce the restructuring of the institution of the family and the role of every man and every woman on the planet. Their vehicle is the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, CEDAW aims at reinventing the family and society at large.
And it is no secret. The Preamble of the CEDAW treaty boldly proclaims: “A change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women.” ref: HSLDA
In short, one of the aims of CEDAW is to eliminate any and all differences between men and women in school books.
Some of you may not be aware that on tumblr, children are claiming that they have their own special gender. There are even kids who hate their parents because the parents do not recognize that they are neither a boy nor girl, and do not use the special pronoun invented for the new gender.
This is so widespread that normal kids keep their mouths shut for fear of being “called out,” which is a form of massive online bullying of those who disagree.
This can be said in a few words – the Guardian has no credibility.