"Climate Change: A U.N. that can't save the world from war, famine, disease and pestilence now releases a report saying global warming will cause all of the above -- and it's your SUV that's doing it.

The fourth and final assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reads like the Bible, but gospel it is not.

It is a "consensus" in that it started with a foregone conclusion -- that man-made pollution is dooming the planet -- and gathered in any and all opinions that supported it. The report incredibly warns that the 630,000 cubic miles of the Greenland ice sheet will virtually disappear in the near future, raising sea levels by almost 30 feet, and the Amazon rain forest will become a dry savannah.

There will be widespread species extinction, as up to three-fifths of wildlife will die out. The Great Barrier Reef will die. And, oh yeah, winter sports in the Alps will be a thing of the past.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who attended the report's release Saturday in Valencia, Spain, told the Independent, a British newspaper, that he found the "quickening pace" of global warming "very frightening." He did not say if he found the "quickening pace" of Iran's nuclear bomb program "very frightening," or explain exactly what he's doing about it right now.

From genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan to wars and rumors of wars in the Middle East and the Balkans, the U.N. has done little to protect the human species as millions die at the hands of despots that sit on its human rights panel. If Ban wants to prevent famine and disease, let him get busy in Darfur, which he also has blamed on global warming.

Indoor spraying of DDT in Africa could save millions from malaria. Bio-engineered foods could save millions from hunger. The billions wasted on climate change research could provide clean drinking water and sanitation to everyone on the planet.

The Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobel Prize winners), figured that money spent on things like micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification produces 50 to 200 times the benefit for the human species than spending money to effect imperceptible declines in the Earth's temperature.

Wealthier societies are healthier societies, and the key to ending poverty, hunger and disease is economic growth. It is wealthy societies that can develop and afford the technologies to use energy more efficiently and clean the air and water and feed the hungry.

The U.N. report equates the devastation unleashed by the Industrial Revolution it seeks to repeal with the global impact of a comet striking Mexico's Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago. But that just shows the power of natural events, not the threat posed by man. We have repeatedly noted the repeated warming and cooling of the earth without intervention by man.

Our growing world needs more energy, not less. To even keep per capita emissions the same, much less reduce them, would mean freezing everybody's living standards and condemning the world's poor to permanent poverty. And for what?

Accepting something like Kyoto, which would dismantle our thriving free-market economy while reducing global temperatures by an estimated 0.04 degree Celsius over the next century, an amount too small to measure. It would achieve this trifling result only at the cost of literally trillions of dollars over that time -- money that will not come from some imaginary place or "global resources," but out of your pocket.

After all, when the U.N. grandly says "we must work together," what it's really saying is, "Americans must foot the bill." The U.N. would do better to support things like the indoor spraying of DDT in the Third World to fight the rampant malaria that kills millions or bio-engineered crops that promote health while fighting hunger and famine, and oppose things that suppress the economic growth the world needs."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20071119/bs_ibd_ibd/20071119issues01

Edited to add quotation marks

This article is so full of rhetoric that it is unbelievable.

After all, when the U.N. grandly says "we must work together," what it's really saying is, "Americans must foot the bill."

It would seem to me if that's what the "UN" really wanted to say they would have said so. There is not a conspiracy against the US to get it to pay for global warming. Everyone that disagrees with the US is not out to get the US.

What they were saying that it is a big problem that one country cannot solve and"we must work together."

The babble about mosquitoes, malaria, famine etc is so far off the topic of GW that I just shake my head. To use an American example, how would you link the problems in FEMA to the problems in Iraq. You Can't. They are separate. They will be worked on and both will be solved independently.

If this author writes another article, I'm sure he''ll link GW action programs to gun control or abortion. It's all part of a large international conspiracy against the US, Freedom, Joe -Six Pack, and Christianity. NOT.

The UN is mandated to be a peace keeping force that helps people who find themselves in bad situations. The UN is incompetent at that, but they seem to want to control the world's climate without mandate. Meanwhile, they really just want to control the world:

"For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organisation which France and the European Union would like to see established."

That sentiment was expressed by Jacques Chirac in his 2000 UN address on climate change.

http://www.sovereignty.net/center/chirac.html (http://www.sovereignty.net/center/chirac.html)

5th paragraph from the end.


The motive seems clear enough to me; no hidden meaning; no interpretation required.

And yes, gun control is part of this UN strategy: http://www.iansa.org/un/firearms-protocol.htm


See more on this matter by 97T: http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36280

"The UN is mandated to be a peace keeping force that helps people who find themselves in bad situations. The UN is incompetent at that, but they seem to want to control the world's climate without mandate. Meanwhile, they really just want to control the world:"

The UN does do a good job PEACE KEEPING, not PEACE MAKING. Canadians, I am one, are proud of our peace keeping missions. For the most part they have been successful with one exception.

"For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established."

World Governance ???? Do you understand the concepts of paranoia or xenophobia? Just because an idea is started by a foreigner does not make it bad. Not all foreigner are not out to get you. Sometimes they have good ideas. Gee, the US does sign treaties with other countries and groups of countries does that mean that this World Governance thing the US Govt. is conspiring against it's citizens?


And yes, gun control is part of this UN strategy: http://www.iansa.org/un/firearms-protocol.htm

Oh My GOD !!! Foreigners, UN people, and French men have taken over the government of the city of Washington DC - They HAVE gun control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20cnd-scotus.html?ref=us

It is going to the Supreme Court. If it is upheld gun control might be coming to you, or you and your gun toting freedom loving buddies will have to call together a militia and overthrow the oppressive city government and federal Supreme Court.

Your original post was linking to an article that was babble. It still is. GW is a topic by itself. It is not related to World Governance, gun control, mosquitoes, the French or whatever hot button topic.

There is no conspiracy.

There is a huge amount of data on GW side and less data on the Anti-GW side. The debate is being clouded by people bringing in political stuff to a scientific debate.

Is GW happening? Yes or No
Is human activity a factor? Yes or No

If you answer yes to either question, then you should be looking to see what can be done.

Paranoia has really taken over some people and its definitely not the ones that feels GW is happening.

BTW, if the answer is NO to both, do we try to convince everyone on earth it isn't happening and live the way we do or try to improve our lives anyway? hmmm. tough decision.

[QUOTE=dynosor;369202]

And, oh yeah, winter sports in the Alps will be a thing of the past.

Dear dynosor,

Tell me it isn't true.. I'll have to sell that expensive ski gear and take up this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Pw7vKtqpo

But hey, with those predicted rising sea levels, I'm looking on the bright side. No need for evil aircraft travel. I'll just step on to the jetski for a fast tow-in directly from my front door.

Best wishes,

Martin

"Climate Change: [FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3]After all, when the U.N. grandly says "we must work together," what it's really saying is, "Americans must foot the bill." ."]

a bit of an arrogant statement wouldn t you think ,
the UN is the unity of much of the worlds nations , if you want to thumb your nose at it ,then maybe you should understand the UN doesn t need you anyway

its one thing to be proud of our homeland its another thing to knock others while being world wide web

Erm, correct me if I'm wrong, but the US is a founder member of the United Nations and one of only five permanent members of the Security Council.

The small, but growing dissatisfaction with UN policy in the US is seen by many as a political negotiating tool to get the UN to do what the US wants. The US witheld it's subscription fees precisely for this reason so that in 2000 it's debt was roughly USD1.8billion. This debt has decreased in recent years in return for a reduction in US contributions.

Paranoia has really taken over some people and its definitely not the ones that feels GW is happening.


What about those that believe GW is occurring naturally and is a good thing, who also happen to be paranoid?

The point of the original post was that there are plenty of real problems to solve right now; to not only improve life for millions of people, but enable them to survive. Instead of dealing with AIDS & malaria, the UN (IPCC) and people who care more about the "environment" than human life want to scare all of us into wasting resources trying to change the weather by an immeasurable degree.

The UN is a useless organization. Ask those still living in Rwanda and Darfur if they think the UN should be in charge of anything, let alone global energy policy.

The point of the original post was that there are plenty of real problems to solve right now

Got it. I missed that point- too busy turning, trying to reverse engineer a holder and inspecting coatings whilst ACADing a part for export to Dolphin then export to my mill.

Truth be told (and this is a personal opinion), I don't care a great deal about malaria, AIDS and third world poverty etc- I don't live in a third world country and have no intention of moving to one. Saying that, I do agree all of that should be given more of a priority than GW which I absolutely do not care about at all... zero, zilch, like if it was possible to care negatively I would. Even if it does exist, which is highly speculative, I'll be long dead before anything happens and beleiving that when you're dead you're dead I could not give a hoot about future generations- I won't be here then.

The UN does do a good job PEACE KEEPING, not PEACE MAKING.

If the UN was any good at peace keeping, there would be no need for peace making. How many civil wars and genocides have occured in the last 3 decades with the UN standing by?

Why the heck do we want peace? I flipping don't!

I make stuff for the Defence Industry. It's a simple equation: More wars= more orders for me, more orders for me= more orders for my sub- contractors= they buy more stuff= more money all round for who they buy it off who, in turn, pay more taxes to the Govt who will order more Defence stuff :)

More wars please.

If the UN was any good at peace keeping, there would be no need for peace making. How many civil wars and genocides have occured in the last 3 decades with the UN standing by?

Not to mention the ones Bush started!

If the UN is involved forget a solution other than the regular rhetoric how bad the imperialistic USA is, and how we are not willing to pay for the total salvation of the otherwise incredibly stupid world! Take the USA out of the equation and the world would not end. The terrible inhuman autrocities commited by the rest of the world upon its brothers will continue as long as there is a nickle to be made and political correctness is the standard of the day. Russia, China, and the other wannabes or has been world players have done little to abate global warming, that is if it is really man made. Al Gore, another wannabe has found his place with the Michael Moores of our time, African strife will continue, the market will rise and fall as will oil prices, machines which we can control or attempt to here on this site will continue to be built and the excitement of the first program executed will not diminish. To those who actually care, THANKS. To those who only give lip service, may your limit switches fail and you reap the whirlwind of the bit!

If the UN was any good at peace keeping, there would be no need for peace making. How many civil wars and genocides have occured in the last 3 decades with the UN standing by?


Peace Keeping and Peace Making are different concepts all together.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htun/articles/20030925.aspx
To quote from the above link
The Basics: Peacekeeping vs. Peacemaking

"The press repeatedly uses the terms peacemaking and peacekeeping interchangeably, not even acknowledging the sharp difference between the two. Peacekeeping refers to the deployment of an international force that acts as a buffer between opposing factions, and is usually meant to prevent war rather than stop it. Peacekeeping forces are usually invited by at least one combatant. Peacemaking, on the other hand, employs a heavily armed force that aims to stop a conflict. This philosophy arose out of frustration with lightly equipped peacekeeping forces that were often unable to maintain stability."

The UN charter Chapter 2 does not permit intervention in internal affairs of a country (civil war) After there is cease fire then the UN will intervene between the "new" states.

Chapter 7 covers problems between states. The war is usually going before a force can be deployed. There is great discussion about a rapid deployment force, but, there is no political will by countries to do so. For example, does the US want to devote a bunch of soldiers to UN command to quickly deploy a significant force to Africa to get between two warring parties. I know as a Canadian I would not support sending any troops to a location where there was not a desire by both parties to maintain or establish peace. You have to be invited by both parties to keep the peace or you will end up as a third combatant.

Here is the Canadian perspective on the Peace Keeping and Making and on the UN.
http://www.slideshare.net/krgilchrist/canadas-role-on-the-world-stage/2
Look at slide 18 in the presentation.

The UN does not do well with Peace Making. It is like a married couple fighting, the cops (peace makers) can break it up, but, as soon as they leave the fight is on again. If the couple has a desire to stop fighting, then counselors (peace keepers) can work on all the issues. They can separate the parties, disarm, handle disputes, establish boundaries, borders, rebuild physical and civil infrastructure, and the list goes on. They establish an environment where peace can continue and grow.

There is no political will by the member states to get into the role of peace maker. There are heavy casualties when you step into the middle of an armed conflict.

If there is a desire to preserve or establish peace by the combatants, UN members step up and get the job done.

I had to respond to clarify the differences between the two terms.

We have gotten way off the GW topic in discussing these issues. The original link was just babble, trying to tie GW and all the other problems of the world to a great conspiracy. I think you have watched to many Austin Powers movies - there is no real Dr. Evil.:)

There is no conspiracy. GW is an issue by itself.

the UN if looked at with a positve attitude is a good step toward something that may resemble world peace , something which is realistally unachievable .
if more countries were a part of the UN then many disputes may (or may not ) be settled thru mediation ,rather than heat of the moment war , the UN is being built on respect ,iraq could never have been a member because they are not a respectable country toward others or their own , it's a piss pot sized country , a nuke would have erased it from the map , why wasn't it done ? probably because there are many hardworking respectable people trying to raise their children on the hopes that maybe someday they will have the same benefits as our children will have .
what i find troubling is that i see far to often quotes such as "we are the greatest country in the world " , " we're the only ones footin the bill for crap happening in other countries " as well as disrespectful remarks about the rest of the world
many of us are footing the bill , 33% of my wage goes toward taxes ,right of the top of my cheque , not to meantion the taxes on top of taxes for everything else i may buy , it pisses me off to no end when we have the goverment thinking of new ways to gouge my pocket ,while all the while they are spending incredible amounts of my money to rebuild a country someone else destroyed .we're all paying !
i look at the UN as a base for the world leaders to stand on in mutual respect of each others countries and customs ,cause without it (respect ) we will all be at war with one another at some point or other

and sure the UN is or will be big brother but the thing is , it isn't one entity watching us it's everyone watching everyone
does it make anymore of a difference than the way we live now with lil brother watching us

Not to mention the ones Bush started!

Which is why I said: "The last time we heard that immediate action was required to avert impending doom, that action lead the US into an extremely costly search for non-existent WMDs. Any politician that insists on extreme measures without sufficient justification should not be trusted to lead this country."

From GW: Questions for presidential candidates http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36037

...it pisses me off to no end when we have the goverment thinking of new ways to gouge my pocket ... i look at the UN as a base for the world leaders ...

That's what the GW scare is all about; liberating more money from your pocket. And the UN is trying to set itself up as the tax collector.

My miss-trust of the UN's involvement with GW is obvious, but my lack of confidence in the UN's stated intentions is also partly based on personal experience:

Days after the tsunami of 26 December 2004 I donated $1000 to UNICEF at their website created specifically for helping victims of this disaster. As soon as they charged my credit card the confirmation message read: "Thank you for your contribution to the UN general fund."

This pissed me off no end, as I did not intend this money to be spent any way the UN saw fit. I wrote to the UN to let them know of my displeasure and they promptly placed me on a mailing list with frequent letters asking for donations to stop the calmity de jour.

From it's inception the only task the UN has been able to accomplish is to transfer great amounts of money into the pockets of thiefs and tyrants. Blue helmeted thugs routinely rape young girls in Africa while executives rape the American taxpayer.

The only possible use for it in the future is more of the same while they dream of global domination of the masses.

The folks who complain that the US isn't paying enough ( over 25% as I recall) are the ones who won't commit troops to Darfur or other places that some good could actually be done. Past time for UN to follow the League of Nations down the pot!