Climate summit language reveals real but hidden agenda

The goal isn’t saving Earth from climate disaster – it’s changing the world order

David Wojick, Ph.D.

People complain all the time about UN jargon. But the technical language of the Katowice, Poland climate summit is actually very revealing. It is all about changing the world order.

Words exist because there is something important to talk about. Words also embody basic beliefs. In this context, it is very useful that the ever-green Climate Change News has published a Glossary of the 32 technical terms they think are most important in Katowice.

Analyzing this list tells us a great deal about what is really going on there this week. To begin with, not one word on the list addresses climate or climate change. That means calling this a “climate summit” is just a semantic smokescreen. These folks are designing a New World Order. The primary focus is how the world will be changed and who is going to pay for it – and who is going to be in charge.

In fact, the largest group of terms includes those that refer to the various political alliances at the New World Order design table. There are twelve such groups, plus the term “negotiating group” itself. These are groups of countries that feel they share enough of a common interest to team up. Thus a full 41% of the technical terms refer to interest groups.

The largest negotiating group by far is called the G77 + China. Despite the old name, this group has 134 member countries. I have no idea why China gets special mention, except it is by far the most powerful member.

These are the countries that stand to benefit immensely from the new world order, because its central feature is enormous, never-ending payments from the so-called developed countries to the developing countries.

(I say so-called because the USA is still developing. It’s also important to recognize that the more these rich developed nations are forced to reduce their fossil fuel use, de-industrialize and pay money to developing countries like China, the less developed and wealthy they will become, the lower their living standards will be, the less they will be able to make the never-ending payments.)

Africa has its own group, since those countries stand to make more money per capita then any other region. (Most likely, though, most of that money will go to their kleptocratic ruling elites.)

The United States is part of something innocuously called the Umbrella Group, which includes many developed countries outside of the EU, which is a group of its own. Brexit appears not to have happened here, because the UK is not listed separately from the EU.

The avowed Socialists from the Western Hemisphere even have their own group of eleven countries, further demonstrating that this Katowice business is all about a New World Order, not climate change. Mind you these Socialists are not the only anti-capitalists at the table; far from it.

The next largest language group comprises five wealth transfer terms. The definition specifically says that this is “a central element” of the New World Order (which it calls “international cooperation,” which presumably alludes to the “international community” and “civil society”).

One of these terms is “climate finance.” However, it is not about financing climate, whatever that might mean. It is about the developed countries paying for everything the developing countries do in the name of stopping, or at least adapting to, supposedly human-caused climate change. Annual payments of $100 billion (!) are supposed to begin in 2020, but may well rise thereafter if developing countries decide they need (and will demand) more, which they no doubt would. The more they demand or receive, the more money they will expect to get.

But this $100 billion a year is by no means the big ticket when it comes to payments. That honor belongs to something called “loss and damage. This is basically “compensation for” all of the damage allegedly caused by climate change – which now appears to include all bad weather. Every hurricane, drought, wildfire, snowstorm and flood is now attributed to human-caused climate change, not to mention sea level rise. All must be compensated.

The Paris Accord acknowledges loss and damage, but stops short of requiring the developed countries to pay for it. That they do pay is certainly part of the New World Order agenda. The tentative figure put out by the UN is $400 billion a year, but it could easily get much bigger. There is a lot of bad weather in the world.

One of the sneakier wealth transfer terms is “technology transfer.” In the US, this term is widely used to mean the licensing of new technologies to companies, who then move them from the laboratory to widespread use. At Katowice, the term means something entirely different, including the unlicensing of technologies.

The idea is that companies holding patents will waive them, to allow developing countries to manufacture the patented stuff free of charge. It can even mean that these companies build manufacturing facilities and train the workers, also for free. I am not making this up.

Then there are various important words referring to other aspects of the New World Order, as well as to specific actions to be taken along the way. Chief among these are the “Nationally Determined Contributions” (NDCs), which are what each country (sort of) promises to do to reduce its emissions and the scourge of “dangerous manmade climate change.”

The NDCs are defined as “climate targets,” but of course they are not target climates. They are milestones on the way to the New World Order. As with most of this UN summit language, “climate” is a code word. The NDCs are to be renewed every five years, including in 2020, so this is another hidden agenda item in Katowice.

In short, what is on the table at Katowice is moving toward a New World Order, in the name of dealing with supposedly human caused climate change. One of the central elements is a vast wealth transfer from the developed countries like the USA to the developing countries. Another is the reduction or elimination of national sovereignty, in favor of control and decision-making by the United Nations, international community, “negotiating groups” and New World Order.

This is something the UN has always wanted to do, and the climate change scare is their grand chance to do so – or so they think anyway. Tens of thousands of national negotiators from around the world are hard at it in Poland.

The language is deliberately deceptive. But once you understand it, things get pretty clear. Language is like that.

David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science and logic in public policy.

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dodgy Geezer
December 8, 2018 2:09 pm

I wonder where the Arab countries are in all this. They have an interest in keeping fossil fuels readily available, and can pull the plug on many of the Western nations at short notice, so they are big players in the game.

They also have their fundamentalists, who are looking for an Islamic New World Order run by a Caliphate.

All in all, business as usual in the diplomatic circles. Anyone for a game of Risk! ?

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 8, 2018 2:34 pm

When we played Risk in a rally club I belonged to years ago we added navies to make it more interesting. When playing it I could easily imaging the participants at the Potsdam Conference playing a similar game as they divided up the real world.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 8, 2018 8:51 pm

The elephant in the room is China

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 8, 2018 8:52 pm

“Climate summit language reveals real but hidden agenda”

This is old news, but also current news unfortunately.

I was first alerted to this on reading the following publication from the UN.

In fact exploring the UN its methods and aspirations is a terrible and horrifying saga in itself.



Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 8, 2018 8:54 pm

Page 8 of

is the key alarming statement. The highliting is mine.



Tasfay Martinov
December 8, 2018 2:11 pm

Is Russia going to be always called on to save the world from Fasc1sm?
(This time ecofasc1sm.)

The Poles won’t like this of course but it is what it is.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Tasfay Martinov
December 8, 2018 2:39 pm

Notice, they have the only fairly accurate Global Climate Model so far. At least their scientists are rational.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Joe Crawford
December 8, 2018 4:39 pm

“Fairly accurate” for global temperature change. What about regional temperature change? Precipitation? Other parameters?

It is true of all GCMs…if the global temperature trend looks accurate to some degree but is the sum of garbage regional results and/or garbage parameter results, then the global temperature trend is garbage as well.

Tasfay Martinov
Reply to  Tasfay Martinov
December 8, 2018 3:45 pm

Is there a website describing this Russian climate model? I have also heard that this is the only climate model that approximately tracks reality.

Reply to  Tasfay Martinov
December 9, 2018 1:00 am

Here’s a very good article on the latest version of the Russian model, with links to more reading:

Reply to  Tasfay Martinov
December 9, 2018 1:04 am

Here’s an excellent article on the latest version of the Russian model:

Curious George
Reply to  Tasfay Martinov
December 8, 2018 4:38 pm

Russia excels at forgetting stuff like Molotov-Ribbentropp pact.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Curious George
December 8, 2018 6:36 pm

Russia will never forget the betrayal of Germany in what it thought a pact of trust between 2 thieves.

Dan Sudlik
December 8, 2018 2:12 pm

I wish you were writing fiction. This is why Trump is President and why they are trying to get rid of him. He is fighting the deep state tooth and nail.

December 8, 2018 2:13 pm

“In short, what is on the table at Katowice is moving toward a New World Order, in the name of dealing with supposedly human caused climate change.”

Margaret Thatcher was way ahead of the rest when she noted in her 2002 book STATECRAFT:

“The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.”

Regards to all,

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 8, 2018 2:52 pm


We sceptics are frequently accused of harbouring a ‘conspiracy’ theory about climate change being the vehicle for a new world order.

Being that you are an educated man, can you explain to me how a political desire for a new world order can be considered a conspiracy when it has been eloquently articulated by, amongst others, Christina Figueres?

No one else has so far.

Reply to  HotScot
December 8, 2018 3:02 pm

Lest we forget our History of the Climate Debate

2010: Operation Nonspiracy launched

The climate leadership begins a concerted drive to hose down conspiracist ideation by removing all appearance of secrecy about its ambitions to re-engineer the world.

Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, explains in precise German that, “we are in fact redistributing the world’s wealth by climate policy… one must free oneself of the delusion that climate policy is [about] environmental policy.” It’s a message repeated ad nauseam by public figures from Tim Flannery and Christina Figueres to Pentti Linkola, Gina McCarthy and Jacques Chirac. But it seems that no matter how openly the agenda is spelled out, how often, or in how many languages, skeptics will continue to portray it as some sort of clandestine plot.

Peter Charles
Reply to  Brad Keyes
December 9, 2018 4:00 am

I have brought these items up in discussion several times, with both skeptics and believers. Almost without fail their responses are in the order of, ‘well, they don’t really mean that’, ‘it’s just hyperbole to get their point across’, ‘well they have to say that to get the developing countries on side’, and the one that I truly despair over, ‘don’t be silly, our government would never agree to that’.

The capacity of the human animal to deny reality they don’t like on the single basis that ‘they don’t like it/want it’ never ceases to amaze me.

Reply to  Peter Charles
December 11, 2018 1:08 pm


Reply to  HotScot
December 8, 2018 4:23 pm

Conspiracies by definition are secret.

Yes, some people are up front about wanting a new world order. On the other hand, using CAGW as a casus belli probably supplies enough underhanded skullduggery to qualify their workings as a conspiracy.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 9, 2018 3:22 pm

Bob, She had a degree in chemistry IIRC.

Stephen Wilde
December 8, 2018 2:13 pm

Every bureaucracy places its own advancement ahead of the interests of those who pay for it.
The UN is no different.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
December 8, 2018 2:39 pm

The UN has outlived its purpose and its usefulness.

Reply to  Louis Hooffstetter
December 8, 2018 3:00 pm

Louis Hooffstetter

I don’t believe that’s true. The UN may have “overreached it’s purpose” might be true but it has done much good in its early years.

Nor do I believe it’s desire for global governance is deliberate other than by a few zealous senior individuals. It’s largely an unconscious sleepwalk by it’s adherents into something the world has allowed.

Don’t blame the UN, blame the countries unquestionably supporting it.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  HotScot
December 8, 2018 3:16 pm

The UN may have “overreached it’s purpose” might be true but it has done much good in its early years.

T may have done much good a long time ago, but it has outlived its usefulness. Nothing you say disputes that, in fact you endorse the opinion by using the phrase “early years”.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  HotScot
December 8, 2018 6:45 pm

The UN, built like a solid wooden house in the late 1940’s served a useful purpose during the Korean conflict to contain communism’s march.

Because of that early lesson, the communists and socialists slowly learned how to infest and eat it from within. Now the UN has countries like Cuba and Saudi Arabia on the UN Human Rights Council voting to condemn Israel as Hamas rockets rain down from Gaza. Trump pulled the US out of that farce last June.

The UN just needs to be razed to the ground and left to fallow for a few decades.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 8, 2018 6:50 pm

UN General Assembly Resolution 181

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 9, 2018 2:19 am

Cameron and Blair put KSA on the UNHRC.
Lord Bertrand Russell advocated handing over to the UN all nuclear weapons – the might try that one again.
And it was Gen. Mc Arthur at Inchon, Korea, who stopped communism before DC could use more nuclear bombing.

The UN motto engraved on the wall is the Treaty of Westphalia, the only treaty that works. Of course when Powell was frothing over Iraq WMD with that motto behind him, most had already forgotten it.

So today China’s Win-Win initiative is exactly that Motto – that treaty is greater than the UN.

Reply to  HotScot
December 9, 2018 3:33 am

The UN is the ultimate ‘swamp’ to drain.

Reply to  HotScot
December 12, 2018 12:57 am

Take a look at a Patrick Wood vid on the Trilateral Commission and the UN. Tri lLat members, George Soros, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Kissinger and so many more, platonists ‘n new world order activists all.

Behind Agenda 21, blueprint for global governance there’s the United Nations’ Brundtland Report recommendation for a new economic model and first mention of Sustainable Development, with a capital ‘S’ and a capital ‘D.’ Behind the Brundtland Report you have the Trilateral Commission, an elite organization with powerful members, bankers, directors of industry, politicians, media heavies. Gro Brundtland, ex-Prime-Minister of Norway, was herself a member. And what do the members of the Trilateral Commission want? Why, they want a new world order, a world order based on an economic model first advocated by a group at Columbia University during the economic depression of the 1930’s but discredited in the same decade. In the 1980’s this movement for a new world order became another phoenix arising, thanks to the efforts of the Trilateral Commission. Here’s an informative you tube overview of its history by Patrick M. Wood, financial analyst and author who has studied elite globalization policies since the 1970s when with scholar Antony Sutton, he co-authored the book, ‘Trilaterals over Washington.’

Reply to  Louis Hooffstetter
December 8, 2018 3:05 pm

…+ 42 likes x infinity (+/- 0.97%)

Reply to  Louis Hooffstetter
December 8, 2018 3:33 pm

This is the UN’s purpose. Obviously.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Louis Hooffstetter
December 9, 2018 3:12 am

Yes, I totally agree. Time to stop the cashflow.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
December 8, 2018 3:02 pm

The UN and Agenda 21, dismantling the Nation State. Here’s a history.

Reply to  beththeserf
December 8, 2018 6:32 pm

Thanks for that informative post

I haven’t seen you comment here in awhile

December 8, 2018 2:15 pm

In the best case, it’s intended to subsidize high-density population centers. In the worst case, it’s intended to force monopolies and practices through suppression or marginalization of competing interests. In each scenario, it serves to optimize the political congruence (i.e. secular profit, social progress, political leverage) function with a bias.

December 8, 2018 2:18 pm

of course…….you don’t claim something is a deadly toxin…pollutant
..and then turn around and say +200 countries can increase their pollution until they make enough money

The UN/IPCC doesn’t even believe this crap

Reply to  Latitude
December 8, 2018 3:15 pm

I do not believe that the U.N. actually believes this crap, they just need the uneducated/poor to believe this crap…..”period” !

Reply to  Latitude
December 8, 2018 4:27 pm

Apparently, luminaries like Mike Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, and Bernie Sanders “believe” it . . .

Linda Goodman
Reply to  Goldrider
December 8, 2018 6:54 pm

Goldrider: The so-called ‘elites’ know that in an eco-totalitarian world, they’d have special privileges while the rest of us are force-migrated into ‘low C02’ stack & pack cities with 24/7 surveillance, carbon currency controls & restricted mobility. We might catch a glimpse of the new ‘gods’ as they pass overhead in their flying cars, but they’d no longer have to share THEIR land with the ‘insignificant’ masses [to quote Pelosi].

So what are the odds global warming is the cause of Trump Derangement Syndrome, in terrified True Believers and fascist NWO ‘elites’? Here’s one example of many TDS-infected Hollywood ‘elites’ – all of them intimately connected to climate change and/or its Trojan horse UN sustainable Development. The conservative media reports all their hateful bulls*it, but will not analyze their motives.

Robert “Fu*k Trump!” DeNiro, anti-American globalist…
Creepy “World Government Summit” Targets America, Freedom
”Among them was aging celebrity turned man-made-global-warming theorist Robert DeNiro, who ridiculed his homeland, referring to it as a “backward country, a place where science once reigned and lately has been replaced by ignorance.”

& cutthroat real estate mogul…
“A CHORUS OF VOICES from the Caribbean island of Barbuda is accusing Robert De Niro of being part of a backroom effort to exploit a devastating hurricane to fundamentally change the island’s communal land ownership law in the interest of developers — changes opposed by many Barbudans, but which could aid the actor’s controversial plans to build a large luxury resort called Paradise Found Nobu.”

TDS with too much to lose…
Robert De Niro Bashes Trump Again: ‘Down With This Motherf—er!’

I’m no bible thumper, but here’s an interesting fact: Carbon is 6 protons, 6 neutrons & 6 electrons. The human body is mostly carbon, so 666 is indeed the ‘number of man’. And if cash were replaced with a carbon card, then chip? Is prophecy a warning staring us in the face as SCIENCE? Prophecy, playbook or both?

18 months before Climategate…
Carbon Chastity
“Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe. There’s no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.” – Charles Krauthammer, May 2008

Reply to  Linda Goodman
December 10, 2018 10:47 am

So you max out your carbon credit card and you can’t buy food!

What’s the big deal?


Joe Crawford
December 8, 2018 2:21 pm

Can any culture fully revert all the way back to a stone age society even if they have already been through and exposed to the Bronze Age and the Iron Age? Looks like several are headed in that direction and getting read to test it out :<)

Reply to  Joe Crawford
December 9, 2018 9:14 am

The world has almost 8 billion people. Going back to stone-age conditions cannot possibly support that number of people. Doing so will crash the population, and there is no guarantee the loss of human life has a non-zero limit. It’s the path to extinction.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Hoser
December 9, 2018 11:53 am

Isn’t that what the enviro’s are looking for?

Reply to  Joe Crawford
December 10, 2018 11:18 am

It makes complete sence since they consider themselves to be like gods in intelligence and station and, consequently, won’t suffer the same fate as the rest of humanity!

And that, folks, demonstrates just how stupid they really are!

Margaret Smith
December 8, 2018 2:21 pm

They’re pointing us directly towards the Dystopian world of 1984. Who will be in charge? War could sort that out. One thing is certain – there will be no women at the top tables. Women who support this stuff don’t realise it is only under a free democracy that we women have any rights at all!

Curious George
Reply to  Margaret Smith
December 8, 2018 2:55 pm

This is 1984 already. Google as a Ministry of Truth. As for a new World Order, I like a quote from the BBC: “Parisian hospital authorities said 126 people had been injured in the city, but none seriously. At least three police officers were also hurt.”

126 people, plus three police officers. The World Order is changing.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Margaret Smith
December 9, 2018 4:05 pm

Margaret, I fear their deep secret plans for old шнуте guys (already disqualified to be part of “diversity”) eventhough I disclaim I had anything to do with The Age of Reason/The Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, Slavery, Colonialism, The Technological Revolution … that we are are apologizing for. You may have read a few years back a sinister German Gov report that showed old folk had big carbon footprints. Now what could they be thinking??

This is not to make small your insight regarding the place of women I hasten to add. You are correct that hard won freedoms for women would be lost, with the exception of those like Hillary C. Elitists preserve and augment their freedoms. You and I and еven the non шнуте folk of the diversity klatch, so much fawned upon for political reasons by the crafty elite, will all be in the same boat of misery should they realize their big plan.

Tom Halla
December 8, 2018 2:22 pm

The US and Europe should take the attitude that as there is no net harm, there should be no net payments.

Dodgy Geezer
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 8, 2018 2:28 pm

Good idea!

In fact, when there is good warm weather and the tourist trade is booming, we ought to be given some of that money because the good weather is obviously down to Climate Change as well…

Kevin A
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 8, 2018 2:38 pm

One step further, if we are paying for bad crops we receive money for ALL good crops!

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 8, 2018 2:55 pm

Geezer, I know you say it somewhat flippantly, but you raise an excellent point.

When you meet one of these climate justice warriors or CJWs—and they do exist—don’t pass up the opportunity to inflict cognitive dissonance on them.

“You say it’s about fairness, you use words like compensation and reparation… all well and good. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that researchers managed to discover that AGW had actually benefitted the developed world. What kind of payment schedule should we hold them to for compensating us, in the first world, for all the energy we expended improving their lives?”

This will trigger them to scoff in incredulity (because this will inevitably be the first time such a possibility had entered their minds), then progress to irritation, then refuse to answer.

1 out of 10 may have the integrity to attempt a real response. (I’m lucky enough to have a friend in that tenth.) To the rest you can say:

“I thought as much. Thanks for confirming your utter phoniness.”

4 Eyes
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 8, 2018 5:34 pm

And when they have caught up economically by burning lots of coal and oil and gas they can give the money back because we will all be equal then

Tractor Gent
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 9, 2018 1:30 am

Europe won’t take that attitude, they are mostly as committed to this stuff as the putative recipients. Also, EU is becoming a mini-UN in behaviour – the top, unelected, people get a power complex so we head toward the ‘New EU Order’, or as they call it “Ever Closer Union”. Although we’re trying to get out from under, the UK isn’t immune. Our ‘NDC’ is the 2008 Climate Change Act – a deep, self-inflicted wound that will fester & debilitate us further over the years, all due to the combined idiocy of certain politicians at the time.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 9, 2018 1:47 am

The more interesting part comes if some country decides not to pay … what is the great UN going to do then 🙂

Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2018 2:47 pm

The first question is, in how many languages do we have to say “no, not one penny”? And the second is “what part of no, not one penny did you climate nazis not understand”?

December 8, 2018 2:57 pm

…WOW ! U.N. Agenda 21 on steroids ? Thank God (and the great American voters) that President Trump gave these certified loons a big old fashioned middle finger.

December 8, 2018 3:04 pm

Take the PIK personal, Schellnhubers “Big Transformation” (Contract for Sustainability) certainly well known, on the one hand, and Ottmar Edenhofer:

But one has to be clear: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dying or ozone hole.

a interview in NZZ in German 11/14/2010

It was announced to come, it isn’t new.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 8, 2018 8:40 pm

And the worlds’ financial system has to be brought into alignment with the UN Global Agenda.

The UN Global Agenda is no secret if you read what is contained in UN publications. And the ways and means of accomplishing this Agenda are not secrets either.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Barbara
December 9, 2018 4:48 pm

Barbara, they know that hardly anyone reads this stuff. A good annotated exposé would be read here if someone wants to do it.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 9, 2018 2:33 am

Dr. Schellnhuber was awarded personally his CBE (Commander of the British Empire) by the Queen at the Berlin Embassy in 2004 for explaining exactly that 2 billion is the optimal population. Prince Philip often declared population was inconvenient.
Forcing the world back down the energy use curve will definitely force the population density and longevity back to Roman times. Guess who are thus the first targets?
Sir Henry Kissinger’s infamous NSSM 200 targeting a list of countries for depopulation, de-agro-industrialization is the forerunner.

December 8, 2018 3:06 pm

The Weekend Australian carried an interesting story yesterday by Graham Lloyd, Environment Reporter at Katowicz.
It is entitled “Australia playing key role in climate deal”.
The heading is optimistic to say the least but you will get the flavour of the piece from the opening paragraph-
“Australia is being called to push back hard on moves by China to weaken the heart of the Paris Agreement and give developing countries a blanket exemption from having to report fully what actions they will take to limit emissions.”
And then,
“China is leading a push that includes India, Iran,the Arab group, Vietnam and a broad range of countries from the G77 for a blanket exemption for developing countries from the same rules that would cover Australia EU and other developed countries.”
The article goes on to say that Kyoto only applied to developed country but the ‘ breakthrough’ of Paris was that it brought al, counties under the same set of rules with “ common but differentiated obligations”(?!)
I have not been able to verify all this from other news reports anywhere yet.
The significance of the report is obvious.
It would set at nought Obama’s arrangement with China that it would peak its emissions by 2030 and transparently report its five year achievements in terms of its NDCs.
I also thought that with the bifurcated chasm between developed and developing nations China already had an effective exemption!
Any thoughts?

December 8, 2018 3:11 pm

Gee, wasn’t the UN supposed to be a peace negotiating body?

What in the blue-eyed Crankshaft world gives the UN ANY authority to demand anything of any nation, period? They have none.

They were never very useful to begin with, and now, they want to destroy thriving economies. It’s FAR past time to disband them and send them packing. This goes beyond outrageous.

Thanks for the article and the link.

Reply to  Sara
December 8, 2018 3:49 pm

“What in the blue-eyed Crankshaft world gives the UN ANY authority to demand anything of any nation, period? They have none.”

“Thousands in protests across Canada against UN Compact on Immigration!”


The liberal “Fake News” gives the UN authority to demand anything of any nation, period…

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Sara
December 9, 2018 5:02 pm

Sara, that the UN is unabashedly an anti-American establishment is no secret. If you look at the sum total of all the machinations, if America were to agree to simply collapse their economy they wouldnt care how much CO2 they emitted. American “progressives” and lefty billionaires are a fifth column in this global enterprise. Moreover they are tax exempt charitable organizations! Rescind this designation and investigate this treasonous activity. Europe is already in the bag so its only America holding back plans.

December 8, 2018 3:40 pm

It is way past time to acknowledge that this is not about debating the minutia behind the smokescreen-science that was trotted out to rationalise a global political crusade. That simply keeps academics distracted and rattling their chains while unelected bureaucrats continue to implement the process and the plan rolls on regardless.

Congratulations on the big picture David.

December 8, 2018 3:50 pm

Well, you NEVER really need to read between the lines to reveal TRUE MOTIVATIONS of the Climate Change Mob.

The proposition is:
FORK OVER $10 TRILLION – $50 TRILLION and we promise it will reduce 2100 temperatures by 0.1 C.

Everything the lefties do or say is about money and power.

Always follow the money $$$…Especially when the denominations are in the hundreds of $Billions or $Trillions.

The corrupted “Institutions of Extortion” are already in place (MEDIA, EDUCATION, LAW, and now regrettably even SCIENCE)…and if the Earth doesn’t start cooling soon (trends indicate it probably will in next decade), they will get away with another $10 Trillion.

If we elect another Obama, that number goes up even another $10 Trillion in stolen and wasted monies over the following decade. Trump has only slowed the growth down a little.

December 8, 2018 3:52 pm

‘Its central feature is enormous, never-ending payments from the so-called developed countries to the developing countries.’

Let’s call them so-called developing countries, too. Their time is up. If they aren’t developed now, they aren’t going to be.

4 Eyes
Reply to  Gamecock
December 8, 2018 5:40 pm

If China and India can send up satellites and build power stations and make atomic weapons and make cars and makes all kinds of fancy electronic goods andd have big armies and navies and air forces they are developed. Just because they concentrate their wealth in a few hands leaving so many of their countrymen poor, why do they let off the hook?

December 8, 2018 4:09 pm

Does Katowice happen to translate “cat o’ nine tails” in English? Just wondering …

December 8, 2018 4:12 pm

And who will be making out like a bandit? Those few individuals that control the World Bank and a few national central banks such as the US Federal Reserve System, It will be much easier for them with a globally controlled government. Fossil fuel is a trading commodity over which they have little financial control, They would like to be able to control that and the “global warming scare” seems to be their approach to that goal.

December 8, 2018 5:02 pm

The true intent of the UN is coming out. This is pure Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 and they are nothing more than Marxist/Socialist roadmaps to consolidate power and become the One World Government. AGW is the vehicle to achieve their goal. They’ve positioned themselves such that no Nation wants to pull out from the UN for fear of isolation on the world stage. There are skeptics who, along with alarmists, claim “conspiracy theory” whenever this is brought up and that’s exactly what the UN wants. Delegitimatize the opposition as loonies and obfuscate the science so the average person remains mushroomed. I don’t think successful Western countries will allow a One World Government no matter how it’s presented. Watch the EU self destruct over open borders and real Socialism.

December 8, 2018 6:29 pm

It’s past time to defund the UN and kick them out of NYC. It has long been the last refuge for despots terrorists and socialists. What single good thing have they done in the last 40 years? They are now a force for evil, not good.

M__ S__
December 8, 2018 11:42 pm

I think it’s time to pull the US plug on funding agencies like this, including the UN.

What do they accomplish anyway?

December 9, 2018 1:50 am

Climate Change was only always about some socialist cause. COP24 actually has around 30 odd themes of which but 1 is really about climate change, the 29 other socialist causes are simply trying to use it. It is doomed because of it and the current state of France only sends further warning to politicians what happens if you go down that path.

December 9, 2018 2:50 am

Climate Change is about depopulation, on a scale far beyond the capability of most to grasp. This is not kept secret. Dr. Schellnhuber ,CBE, touts a 2 billion limit.

I think people are just not able to grasp they are being targeted this way, focused on their wallets’ wealth as the are.

UN advocate Lord Bertrand Russell bemoaned the inefficiency of war, a plague would be his preferred method.

That is why Katowice is only one circus – watch Ukraine trying to start a general nuclear war with Russia. Notice the constant drive.

Trump is standing in the way of both of these circus clown acts.

Tom Barney
December 9, 2018 4:10 am

Go back to the earliest Climate summits in Rio and you will find the terms “contraction and convergence” with the clear goal of reducing the economies of the western world to strengthen the third world.

Gary Ashe
December 9, 2018 8:41 am

“All the world’s governments – Saudi included – agreed the 1.5C report and we deserve the truth. Saudi can’t argue with physics, the climate will keep on changing.”

Those dastardly Saudi’s.

Arguing that the climate wont keep on changing.

Want to play a game of guess the age of the pippet that said that……

27 i say,……….said Camilla Born, from climate think tank E3G.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Gary Ashe
December 9, 2018 8:43 am

Camilla is a Senior Policy Advisor in E3G’s Climate Diplomacy team based at our London office. E3G’s Climate Diplomacy programme focuses on how to construct high leverage political interventions which can shape transformational international outcomes.

I’m beginning to notice a little self, so my age guess is now 47.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Gary Ashe
December 9, 2018 8:47 am

And now the motherload.

Camilla has a Bsc in Geography from the University of Edinburgh. She took a particular interest in Communist cultural memory and engaged in a number of projects on post-communist Europe with other European youth.

Alongside her work at E3G Camilla is a trustee with Climate Outreach.

Kevin R.
December 9, 2018 9:49 am

Looks like a sure prescription for starting a world war.

December 9, 2018 12:11 pm

I’ve been looking at who the delegates are at COP24 and the fact that they are building a political edifice on shaky foundations.

As an index of a country’ political concern about climate change, I have used the number of registered participants at COP24. Similarly, as an index of a country’ participation in efforts to quantify the impact, I have used the number of climate stations per country taken from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) web site. For each country and for each year I totaled the number of months with data and divided by 12; it is equivalent to the number of stations operating full-time. The data are at:

The three parties with the largest number of participants are: Guinea with 406, Ghana with 111 and Gambia with 93. Not one of these has a climate station in the GHCN data set. In fact, over 20% of the participants come from countries that provide no climate data to the GHCN.

Looking at the figures the other way around, in terms of climate stations per representative, the USA is in a class of its own: 1017 stations and only 44 delegates – a ratio of 23.1 stations to one delegate. (Kudos to the USA.) The next highest, but still much lower, was Argentina with a ratio of 4.5. In all only 19 countries had more, or the same number, of climate stations as delegates. The select group includes Russia and China; in might be a coincidence but almost half of this group are former socialist countries. All the others countries had more conference delegates than they have climate stations. The full details are given in the table below.
A perpetual grievance of the climate change lobby is that they are unable to convince the world’s politicians to pay more than lip service to their concerns. Yet, the table on my web site shows clearly that those who express the most concern are often those who do least to provide the data necessary to substantiate their fears.

P.S. I made a similar post earlier but my name with a different post appeared elsewhere.

December 9, 2018 1:14 pm

So, is now the right time to get the cast iron enameled Dutch oven I’ve been looking at?

Works quite well on either a gas burner or in the gas-fired oven on a slow heat.

Just trying to keep my carbon level up there in the clouds to upset these con artists as much as I can.

December 9, 2018 1:45 pm

Here is a thought. I just noticed a story headline “GOP leaders rushing to pass border wall, Trump’s justice reform bill before handing House to Dems”.

So why are the heads of the R Party suddenly willing to fully back Trump’s policies with such urgency? Is this an attempt to get Trump to sign on to the Paris Agreement, and other similar propositions?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  goldminor
December 9, 2018 7:30 pm

“So why are the heads of the R Party suddenly willing to fully back Trump’s policies with such urgency?”

Even if all the Republicans back funding the southern border Wall, they still need 60 votes in the U.S. Senate in order to pass the legislation and Republicans only have 52 votes in the Senate, and they need Democrats to vote with them.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell could alter the Senate rules to allow a simple majority to pass legislation instead of 60 votes. That’s about the only way the Republicans could pass the border wall funding by themselves without Democrat help. It is doubtful McConnell will change this rule.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 11, 2018 12:19 pm

Do you remember how Tillerson advocated for a carbon tax, and for staying in the Paris Treaty? That is why a wonder if there is a cabal within the R Party who also want to see carbon taxes/Paris Treaty implementation. There is so much money to be made by the insiders, if the US were to fully back AGW related regulations on a full steam ahead basis.

I hope that Trump does shut the government down versus giving in to what the Democrats are now asking for. Schumer already has shown that the way to force Trump into the Paris Treaty/carbon taxes may be to tie all of that in with the next budget. The Ds may consider giving Trump his wall money as an enticement.

Michael Anderson
December 10, 2018 6:42 am

Being of partly Ukrainian ancestry I share with Camilla an interest in Communism. I’d be willing to bet any person of Hungarian, Polish, Cambodian, Czech, or Albanian ancestry shares that same interest.

I think where we might diverge from Camilla or any other dimwitted propagandized undergrad Westerner is that most of us probably don’t think very highly of it.

Would love a proper citation for the Ottmar Edenhofer quote above if possible, TIA>

Michael Anderson
December 10, 2018 6:51 am

PS it’s okay, found verbatim extracts from the interview with NZZ am Sontag on Quora:

“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…”

Steve O
December 10, 2018 11:12 am

Everything is about the wealth transfers.

Even windmills are just window-dressing. Has your company ever had an electrical cost savings initiative? Did it include things like, “turn out the lights when you exit a room?” Do you know how much money that aspect of the cost savings plan can save? You can round it UP to zero. The reason for including that item is not to save money — it’s to remind people of the cost savings initiative.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights