The Fort Hood shooting, the goverment and mass media denial that this was jihadi terrorism, while President Obama urges us not to rush to judgment, dithers over Afghanistan, declines to attend the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, panders to Iran, and astride an exploding federal budget and tanking dollar is busy pushing socialized medicine…. So, what next?
Right on cue, here comes the United Nations, with its “climate change” plans to operate as the global toll booth for the process of combustion itself — never mind the questionable and politicized science, the Nobel-bedecked quackery, and the UN’s chronic tendencies toward corruption, nepotism, bad ideas, abused mandates, feather-bedding bureaucracies and stages and sugarplums for tyrants. Hoping to lock up your right to exhale, the UN is peddling the costliest hocus-pocus in the history of the known universe, promising against all odds to fine-tune the climate of the planet around the precise global temperatures and sea levels that applied as Al Gore embarked on his movie-making career– give or take a few climate conferences in places like Bali and Rio. The big moment looms with the UN’s climate conference in Copenhagen next month, where UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon hopes to achieve a binding deal that would first and foremost soak U.S. citizens — lopping off human productivity and potential, and requiring the transfer of enormous wealth chiefly from free nations to some of the world’s worst-governed states (think North Korea, Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Laos….).
So, trying to move this project along, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is reportedly making the rounds in Washington today – lobbying Congress to support plans for this UN command-and-control extravaganza. When Ban made a similar pilgrimage to Washington back in March, he accused the U.S. — the UN’s main sugar-daddy — of being a “deadbeat.” That was a breath-taking display of arrogance. But it pales to nothing compared to the arrogance, intrusions and costs we can expect if the UN climate deal goes through. For Ban to be lobbying Congress may also be a violation of the UN charter, which in Article II, clause 7, forbids the UN from intervening “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” Is anyone minding this store?
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
29 Comments
1. David W. Lincoln:Claudia, as you know, Canada is one of the founding members of the United Nations. If worst comes to worst, I will endeavour to get on the ballot, and one of my plans is to have the legislation passed in that Canadian Parliament which made Canada a member of the UN, to have it amended in such a way that Canada is no longer a member of that monstrosity.
I understand there is similar legislation in the US Congress. So, here is something for the tea party legions to organize for: pull out of the UN, or this government under Barry
O, and his hordes of deformed souls, zombies, and similar ilk with their paws on the levers of power, that governments lacks legitimacy.
Which is the same lack of legitimacy that the
Nov 10, 2009 - 5:30 pm 2. David W. Lincoln:“Brezhnev-era apparatchik” referred to by Daniel Hannan, in his 3 and a half minute rebuttal of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in the European Parliament, went viral on YouTube.
I should do a better job of editing. It should
read: Which is the same lack of legitimacy possessed by the “Brezhnev-era apparatchik” referred to…
I guess you can say I did a Gordon Brown.
Nov 10, 2009 - 7:10 pm 3. The Rosett Report » So How Could It All Get Worse? « Snow Report Blog:[...] via The Rosett Report » So How Could It All Get Worse?. [...]
Nov 11, 2009 - 1:05 am 4. Pajamas Media » The UN’s Costly Climate Change Hocus-Pocus:[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]
Nov 11, 2009 - 2:25 am 5. Lazar:Which you haven’t read.
Nov 11, 2009 - 4:30 am 6. Mike Murray:Well put, Ms. Rosett. President Obama’s failure to address and solve — or even to recognize, in some cases — the myriad ills that beset our nation is bad enough. But he goes even further, sometimes even pouring gasoline on the fires that everywhere burn. (Spending like a drunken sailor when we’re drowning in a sea of debt, taxing small businesses into oblivion, and downplaying the risk of terrorism — thereby encouraging it — are prime examples.)
If Obama now acquiesces to the U.N. by handing over Americans’ cash — and, more importantly, their sovereignty — to an international body, he should be impeached. Really.
Inasmuch as a Democratic legislature would never do so, the next best thing is for voters to reduce the number of leftists in Congress in 2010. And then to throw Obama’s sorry butt out of office via the 2012 election.
Nov 11, 2009 - 6:36 am 7. anton:It is bad enough to put up with the idiots that are running the U.S. (heck. we – or at least some of us – voted for them) to have to deal with the corrupt weasels that are/run the U.N. is beyond what any sane person can put up with. China already creates more of the dreaded “greenhouse gasses” than the US. When they get on board, and AlGore gets rid of his private jet and three of his mansions, I might think there was something to this.
I can’t think of anything that the U.N. has done in the last fifty years that worked out right, why on God’s green (pun intended) earth would we trust them now?
Nov 11, 2009 - 6:59 am 8. e:Ban Ki Moon like many politicians imagine that if they create a world government that they’ll be at the top of the list to run it.
The UN wants to vote itself more power, the roots of this problem is no different than Honduras or our current government.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Nov 11, 2009 - 8:11 am 9. JED:There is as much of a chance of the UN changing the climate as there is in giving out free insurance to change someone’s health. People truely must like to be fooled while the thieves await every opportunity.
Nov 11, 2009 - 8:39 am 10. DavidC:Did Soros approve of Moon’s plan? These international characters are looking like the villains in a James Bond movie, while we peasants are being sold pleninary indulgences.
I love the way the Deniers clutch at legislative straws to argue against global warming – obviously because they have no response to the overwhelming science.
A UN charter which says that the United Nations will not intervene in domestic matters is hardly anywhere near the same as someone from the UN *talking* to domestic politicians! Good grief! The desperation in the anti-science brigade is really overflowing now.
Nov 11, 2009 - 9:02 am 11. fling:We need to adapt. Take a look at this article The Great Transition: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21656220/The-Great-Transition-Navigating-Social-Economic-Ecological-Change-in-Turbulent-Times
Nov 11, 2009 - 9:49 am 12. David W. Lincoln:DavidC, your smear of “Climate Change deniers” opens the door to this story: About a year and a half ago, there was an All Candidates forum, and I arrived early. One Candidate asked me to help out on his campaign. I said no. Not that much
later the candidate said that I didn’t have anything to say. My retort was, “I gave you an answer, you just didn’t like it”.
So, to say that the likes of Lord Monckton, Professor Plimer, Professor Lindzen, Bjorn Lomberg, and those written about by Lawrence Solomon as “climate change deniers” – that they have “no response to the overwhelming science” says more about you in this case, saying “they have no response”, as compared to those you smear.
Nov 11, 2009 - 9:50 am 13. Canada Guy:Everyone knows that preventing climate change, or at least the worst consequences of it, is not going to be easy. While the task required is large and difficult, there are some simple, quick, and easy fixes that can make a real difference, and perhaps even buy us more time. But they are being ignored.
http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/11/low-hanging-fruit.html
Nov 11, 2009 - 10:42 am 14. anton:10. DavidC:
For argument’s sake I will allow for AGW, now answer me this: Why should I trust an organization with the track record of the U.N. to solve the problem?
Nov 11, 2009 - 12:38 pm 15. Code Blue:The only way to have a “zero carbon footprint” is to die.
THAT is the Final Solution which the ecofascists and their henchmen at the UN have in store for us.
If you want a one world government that regulates every breath you take and every fart you make (these contain “carbon” as well) by all means jump on board. Live like a peasant while Algore, Prince Charles, UN beureaucrats, Eurotrash diplomats and these Hollywood idiots don’t have to change an iota of their lifestyle; they can afford to buy carbon credits/indulgances while we plebes will be forced to adopt a pre-industrial standard of living c. 1700.
Nov 11, 2009 - 1:53 pm 16. The Rosett Report » So How Could It All Get Worse? | Drakz News Station:[...] here to see the original: The Rosett Report » So How Could It All Get Worse? Share and [...]
Nov 11, 2009 - 2:10 pm 17. SukieTawdry:But it pales to nothing compared to the arrogance, intrusions and costs we can expect if the UN climate deal goes through.
It won’t. They aren’t even close. Even they admit that.
Nov 11, 2009 - 3:39 pm 18. Sick of it:14: Code Blue
Not true. After you die, your body decomposes, thereby releasing all the carbon in your carbon based (former)lifeform.
AGW is a crock of s**t. I wouldn’t trust the government to solve any problem. What are these people thinking? Maybe this time it will be different… He won’t hit me again…he said he’s sorry. What a load of crap.
Nov 11, 2009 - 3:58 pm 19. John "birther" Samford:No evidence to support AGW. Just a bunch of computer models that don’t prove out.
This latest effort to sell the dead horse called AGW is already dead. China and India have not just no but ‘ell no.
The Senate will not ratify it, so we will see if the Usurper does a Clinton and lets it die or if he fighhts for it and goes down to defeat.
What scares me is that the LOST hasn’t been ratified OR signed and yet the Department of State says it is effect. I wonder if there is a copy of the Constitution anywhere in Foggy Bottom?
http://www.america.gov/st/env-english/2008/November/20081120164958adkcilerog0.3376581.html
{snipped}
“The United States is not yet among the more than 150 countries, including Russia, Japan, China, the United Kingdom and most European nations, that have ratified the treaty. However, the United States is now in voluntary compliance with all aspects of the convention.
The U.S. Senate has not voted on whether to approve the treaty. In the U.S. system of government, the executive branch negotiates and signs international agreements but most such agreements cannot be binding on the United States until ratified by a two-thirds vote of approval in the Senate.”
Where in the Constitution does the State Department have the power to decide on “voluntary compliance” for American citizens?
Nov 11, 2009 - 6:56 pm 20. Thomas Rees:Somebody needs to sue the lace pants off those a$$holes.
What is scary is that if this stands, the Department of State will rule America.
Now here is something REALLY INTERESTING!(Originally from Free Republic) Not too long!
It is from a Finnish TV station, YLE, a program pertaining to IPCC Global Warming fraud! I’m sure it will take awhile to nail AlGore for simple money fraud, but this should speed it up!
http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/taman_viikon_mot/transcript_english
Nov 11, 2009 - 7:55 pm 21. C3H Editor:It has become really difficult for the UN and global warming alarmists to push their desired Copenhagen agenda because nature just won’t accommodate them, thank goodness:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/11/as-of-october-31-2009-us-global-cooling-continues-us-cooling-trend-minus-90fcentury.html
C3H Editor, http://www.c3headlines.com
Nov 11, 2009 - 8:13 pm 22. Code Blue:#16: Sick of it
Not true. After you die, your body decomposes, thereby releasing all the carbon in your carbon based (former)lifeform.
I must agree, but please don’t tell algore, Obama, the MSM or the UN and EU, or else Cap ‘n Tax will add carbon taxes to our burial fees and make our heirs pay for the carbon released from our bodies as we decompose. I think the elites will then have found a way to tax us AFTER we die!
Nov 11, 2009 - 8:44 pm 23. Jim Baker:DavidC,
Nov 12, 2009 - 10:46 pm 24. Paul -Indiana:Do you have any idea how much like a religious nut you are? As I have said to you repeatedly, there is no scientific basis for environmentalism. It is a belief system, just like any other, and it takes a healthy amount of faith to beleve in it. Worse, to trample on religious freedom, it is the established religion of our government. It is promoted with billions of the taxpayers dollars and its refrains are sung from the rafters of the halls of government. And you believe. It is fine with me if you believe in global warming and any other such theories, but leave me out of it.
#10. David said “I love the way the Deniers clutch at legislative straws to argue against global warming – obviously because they have no response to the overwhelming science.”
Nov 13, 2009 - 9:42 am 25. hanoi paris hilton:===============
Does that ‘overwhelming science’ include those climate models that are unable to predict recent global temps from data taken in the mid 20th century?
C’mon Ms. Rosette! Tell us what you really think about the UN. Don’t be shy. We can handle it.
Nov 14, 2009 - 9:22 pm 26. Ltw:Lazar at #5 – I’ve read quite a lot of the science thanks, and I find it unconvincing – and I have degrees in physics and engineering so I’m willing to back my own judgement. Far too many of the “thousands of scientists” that are quoted as being part of this consensus are working on what the effects would be presuming the modellng is correct anyway – that is, “assume there’s a 5 degree rise, how would that affect this species/glacier/country” – that’s not proof it will happen, it’s if-then stuff. The number working on whether something is happening and why is really quite low, and there’s a lot of disagreement there.
DavidC at #10 – no one’s clutching at legislative straws except the AGW proponents – we’re opposing the legislation (I’m Australian, but the same thing is going on here). See the difference? Signing up for this treaty in its current form commits both our countries to hand over huge amounts of money to be managed by the UN, which doesn’t exactly have a great track record, and in service of a non-existent cause.
Nov 15, 2009 - 7:43 am 27. Ltw:Paul at #24 – it’s even worse than you think. Even if the models could replicate 20th century data, the surface temperature record is garbage. Changes in land use, poorly maintained stations, A/C units installed directly over monitoring equipment, technology changes, different standards for data collection round the world – even if the models matched the record who knows if they match reality? All this supposedly gets corrected for, but the potential for error is huge – I wouldn’t trust anything less than a few degrees Celsius change out of data as badly corrupted as this, let alone the 0.5 plus or minus that has everyone up in arms now.
And there are a few key assumptions in the models that are very suspect. CO2 by itself is not enough to cause the warming they are talking about (this is not disputed), rather it’s assumed that the rise will drive more water vapour/clouds which retain most of the heat – and this doesn’t seem to be happening. So despite the consensus/majority, the whole theory is a house of cards based on crappy data and some possibly flawed assumptions, pull those out and the whole thing comes crashing down.
Nov 15, 2009 - 7:59 am 28. Lazar:Ltw
who cares?
How to hand wave and hope no one notices…
Nov 15, 2009 - 3:23 pm 29. Lazar:“So How Could It All Get Worse?”
By people like the Instaclutz linking to disinformation and outright lies…
… resulting in action that is too little too late.
Nov 15, 2009 - 3:31 pm