The “green” criminals at UN are talking about climate change and pollution in the same breath when they obviously mean (Man Made) Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – Here’s the fun part – (Man Made) Global Warming doesn’t exist and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) isn’t pollution.
By James Murphy The New American
The UN globalists have taken a first step toward making their international climate regulations enforceable by the UN.
The United Nations voted Thursday to take a first step toward creating a legally binding agreement on climate change. The body voted 143-5, with 7 abstentions, to have Secretary General Antonio Guterres produce a report by the next General Assembly session in September, which identifies gaps in international environmental laws and related legal instruments to enforce such laws.
The resolution also mandates the creation of a working group that will look at options for addressing the gaps in international environmental law by 2019, with an eye toward holding a conference to “adopt an international instrument.” In other words, unlike the Paris Accord, the UN is looking to create a worldwide environmental agreement with teeth.
The United States was among the five no votes, along with Russia, Turkey, Syria, and the Philippines.
“The unprecedented deterioration of our environment is already causing hundreds of thousands of deaths due to planetary warming, water and air pollution, and the deterioration of biodiversity and soils,” said French Ambassador Francois Delattre, who spoke on behalf of more than 90 co-sponsors of the resolution. “These attacks on the environment are affecting the most vulnerable populations first. If we don’t act decisively, we are exposing ourselves to dire consequences: the exhaustion of natural resources, migration, and an upsurge in conflicts.”
Pretty frightening words. But so far, the United States isn’t buying into the scare tactics. Ambassador Niki Haley said in a statement, “When international bodies attempt to force America into vague environmental commitments, it’s a sure sign that American citizens and businesses will get stuck paying a large bill without getting large benefits…The proposed global compact is not in our interests, and we oppose it.”
Secretary General Guterres was also pushing hard for the new resolution. “It is about our duty of care to provide an environment that supports the health, well-being, dignity and prosperity of everyone on this planet,” Guterres said. “Let us support this worthy initiative.”
The catalyst for this attempt to create a new climate agreement with UN enforcement power is French President Emmanuel Macron. Macron has been at odds with the White House since President Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Accord last June. On April 25, Macron addressed a joint session of Congress.
“What is the meaning of our life, really, if we work and live, destroying the planet, while sacrificing the future of our children,” Macron told Congress. “By polluting the oceans, not mitigating CO2 emissions and destroying our biodiversity, we are killing our planet.”
Macron, who took office in May of 2017, is the youngest president in France’s history. His party, La Republique En Marche! is described as trans-partisan and looks to transcend the traditional left/right paradigm through a populist approach to governing.
Thus far, however, Macron is governing as just another globalist. He seems to be intent on getting the United States to heel on climate change. In his speech to Congress, he issued a not-so-subtle dig at President Trump’s campaign slogan. “We have to work together with business leaders and local communities…let us work together in order to make our planet great again.”
Macron went on to chide the president and opponents of the ineffective Paris Accord, hinting that we might have lost our way for a time, but will eventually realize the error of our ways. “And I am sure one day the United States will come back and join the Paris Agreement. And I am sure we can work together to fulfill with you the ambitions of the global compact on environment.”
Climate change has become the globalists’ rallying cry — their cause to unite around. A pact such as the one proposed by the UN is not really about the environment; it’s about control. The pact could have far reaching effects, as Climate Depot’s Marc Morano points out, stating: “The U.N. and France are pushing this new global pact on the environment, which will be binding to all nations that sign onto it. The new pact could become the E.U. on steroids, with all nations that sign onto it being forced to bow to new regulations emanating from U.N. bureaucrats.”
There are well meaning and sincere people who believe that climate change is a real threat. But this UN proposal isn’t about that. It’s about attacking national sovereignty — particularly the sovereignty of the United States. Because globalists don’t care about a hypothetical increase of global temperature at all. All they care about is control.
Photo: IMNATURE/iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus
The Science and Climate Ignorance of Society Needs Correcting, But How? Some Thoughts
By Dr. Tim Ball
Science historians say the Scientific Revolution began with Copernicus when he proposed the heliocentric system that the Earth orbits the Sun. I used to think it was not worth discussing because one in four Americans and one in three Russians think the opposite, namely the Ptolemaic view that it is an earth-centered, geocentric system. You can argue, as I have in the past, that it doesn’t matter for them as long as the Sun rises and sets every day. However, understanding this basic scientific information becomes critical in the global warming debate because the sun/earth relationship and changes are central to the Milankovitch Effect and its impact on climate change. Sadly, the problem of lack of understanding and knowledge is much wider and deeper, as those in the struggle to expose the false or limited science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) know. Skeptics of the AGW claims made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are painfully aware of the unnecessary energy and environmental policies imposed at the cost of trillions and counting.
Copernicus bounced his ideas off trusted friends in a handwritten book of 1514 but did not authorize publication until two months before he died in 1543. As a canon of the Catholic church, he knew their law and the dangers in even questioning it. The only major difference between then and now was the punishment for speaking out. How far have we come in the intervening 475 years? In general terms, a long way scientifically, but a very short distance in societal terms.
Science advanced because, despite almost constant harassment from many groups in society, it was practiced by a few with skills and a determination to uncover the truth through facts and logic. For the most part, they deliberately tried to be apolitical. However, even within the science community prejudice and ignorance made the practice of science difficult and unrewarding. Michael Faraday, in my opinion, one of the great scientist’s in history, suffered persecution and shaming because; he was the son of a blacksmith; he did not go to university; and he belonged to the Sandemanians, a strict fundamental religious group. Regrettably, today two of these are still considered impediments by too many people.
Society did not advance as much because it considered the 15% of the population a fringe group. They were very slow to adapt and adopt ideas from those mad and dangerous scientists; an image promoted by Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein among others. Those opposed to scientific advances exploit these fears and slow things even more; consider the term “Frankenfoods” used to block the benefits of longer storage by irradiation.
A major part of the problem is in the two areas that arguably have the greatest impact on society, politics, and the law. They are also the areas where the percentage of people with scientific skills and interest are the lowest. It is, perhaps, double jeopardy that lawyers are the largest professional group in politics.
My personal experiences, although not definitive, underscore the problems. I appeared before the Canadian Parliamentary Committee investigating the ozone issue. There was only one committee member with any science training, and he had a bachelor’s degree in biology. Two significant events occurred. The first involved another scientist presenting with me. He showed graphs of ozone levels and spoke about them showing the lowest levels recorded over Toronto. When it was my turn, I did what I hope I never have to do again. I threw out my presentation and began by asking the politicians if they realized that there were no readings over Toronto at the time claimed. I discovered that none of them knew that what they were shown was not real data, but computer model generations. I also realized that none of them knew or understood the scientific method and the claim that CFCs causing a hole-in-the ozone was an untested hypothesis. I explained that science advances by hypothesizing and then testing it and the assumption on which it is based.
To underscore the ignorance, one Liberal parliamentarian said, “Dr. Ball, Galileo would be ashamed of you.” I replied that it was beyond my wildest expectations to be mentioned in the same sentence as Galileo and clearly you do not understand the role of Galileo in the history of science. To my knowledge, there were no politicians with science degrees in my two appearances before the US Congress.
It is easy to say the politicians were easily fooled by the deliberate misuse of science, but that is not acceptable. It is their job to do their research, and they have the staff and resources. It was Marc Morano’s job for Senator Inhofe as he challenged the prevailing wisdom. The problem is most are too busy being politicians about issues that should not be political. Those who chose AGW science as a political issue knew they could mislead politicians ignorant of science and far too eager to be ‘green.’
Maurice Strong knew and also exploited another weakness of politicians, their almost total dependence on bureaucrats. He assured bureaucratic control of every national weather office across the world by making them members of the IPCC through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It is the original fake news story perpetuated by the ‘deep state.’
Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change is a good lead into the next problem facing science because she promotes the IPCC deception fed to her by the bureaucrat scientists at Environment Canada (EC). As a lawyer, she is in a group that openly admits they won’t arbitrate science disputes because they don’t know anything about science. Then displays this ignorance by publicly ridiculing those scientists practicing their role as skeptics. As a lawyer, Ms. McKenna should at least know there are two sides to every dispute. Scott Pruitt, a lawyer and head of EPA knows it because he wants a ‘red’ and ‘blue’ team to bring climate science out of politics and back to reality. McKenna would have more credibility if, like her predecessor Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart, she admitted it wasn’t about science. Stewart said,
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral benefits…Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Stewart talks about justice and equality, but how do you achieve that when the science is wrong and the people most hurt by the policies it engendered are the poor?
If they want “world peace” with one military, one law, open borders, global citizenship, no national states, one leader and no freedom – why not just say so?
Instead of first, by fraud, implementing sources of revenue (taxing energy, CO2), then put in place legislation and laws, making countries sign up to all the different agreements and overnational accords, and never let the public know what the hell is going on ..