The Maximum Leaders of the UN hard at work trying to regain their global control

[westwall]

For those who STILL need an idea of what the AGW agenda is all about please read their position papers.

Fox News has the link to the papers so read up before they remove them!

After a year of humiliating setbacks, United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and about 60 of his top lieutenants — the top brass of the entire U.N. system — spent their Labor Day weekend at a remote Austrian Alpine retreat, discussing ways to put their sprawling organization in charge of the world’s agenda.

Details concerning the two-day, closed-door sessions in the comfortable village of Alpbach were closely guarded. Nonetheless, position papers for the meeting obtained by Fox News indicate that the topics included:

-- how to restore “climate change” as a top global priority after the fiasco of last year’s Copenhagen summit;

-- how to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of that climate agenda, and widen the discussion further to encompass the idea of “global public goods”;

-- how to keep growing U.N. peacekeeping efforts into missions involved in the police, courts, legal systems and other aspects of strife-torn countries;

-- how to capitalize on the global tide of migrants from poor nations to rich ones, to encompass a new “international migration governance framework”;

-- how to make “clever” use of new technologies to deepen direct ties with what the U.N. calls “civil society,” meaning novel ways to bypass its member nation states and deal directly with constituencies that support U.N. agendas.

As one underlying theme of the sessions, the top U.N. bosses seemed to be grappling often with how to cope with the pesky issue of national sovereignty, which — according to the position papers, anyway — continued to thwart many of their most ambitious schemes, especially when it comes to many different kinds of “global governance.”

Not coincidentally, the conclave of bureaucrats also saw in “global governance” a greater role for themselves.

As a position paper intended for their first group session put it, in the customary glutinous prose of the organization’s internal documents: “the U.N. should be able to take the lead in setting the global agenda, engage effectively with other multinational and regional organizations as well as civil society and non-state stakeholders, and transform itself into a tool to help implement the globally agreed objectives.”

And for that to happen, the paper continues, “it will be necessary to deeply reflect on the substance of sovereignty, and accept that changes in our perceptions are a good indication of the direction we are going.”

Hammering away at perceptions that nation-states cannot adequately meet global challenges, but the U.N. can, is a major theme of the position papers, which were assembled by a variety of U.N. think tanks, task forces and institutions, including the United Nations Development Program, and the U.N.’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs.




FOXNews.com - EXCLUSIVE: After a Year of Setbacks, U.N. Looks to Take Charge of World's Agenda

 

[Old Rocks]

Faux new

Buy lots of tinfoil for your little hats, there, Walleyes. You wouldn't want to be out of fashion with your wingnut friends.

 

[westwall]

Faux new

Buy lots of tinfoil for your little hats, there, Walleyes. You wouldn't want to be out of fashion with your wingnut friends.

Before you make a complete ass of yourself try reading the UN's position papers there olfraud. You may learn something....though I doubt it.

 

[Old Rocks]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG6taS9R1KM]YouTube - John Birch Society Song[/ame]

 

[Charles_Main]

What is so hard to understand about the AGW agenda.

We have rejected their treaties and ideas so far for one reason and one reason only.

Because they have been less of a tool to help the environment and more of a tool to transfer massive amounts of Wealth from the West to Developing nations.

It was for that very reason that there was Bipartisan opposition to Kyoto.

It exempted Countries like china and India and asked countries like the US to spend billions to not only lower our emissions but help them as well.

The latest incarnation is calling for countries like the US to transfer 5% of their GDP to developing nations each year.

It is about spreading the wealth not global warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

All the international politics aside, the idea of the US getting off petroleum is an anthema to many people here. In spite of the fact that producing our own energy for transportation on a national level and an individual level would be good for everybody except those in the big energy companies.

Using energy alternatives to fossil fuels for the generation of electricity would make our nation a healthier place, and we would be desecrating far less of our countryside.

 

[Charles_Main]

All the international politics aside, the idea of the US getting off petroleum is an anthema to many people here. In spite of the fact that producing our own energy for transportation on a national level and an individual level would be good for everybody except those in the big energy companies.

Using energy alternatives to fossil fuels for the generation of electricity would make our nation a healthier place, and we would be desecrating far less of our countryside.

For me it is not about getting off of Oil. It is about getting off of Foreign Oil. I don't care if it is Domestic Drilling, Solar power, or Scotty from Star Trek that does it for us. That is what I want.

 

[Old Rocks]

Domestic drilling cannot do it. We have 3% of the worlds reserves, and use 25% of the worlds oil.

 

[Charles_Main]

Domestic drilling cannot do it. We have 3% of the worlds reserves, and use 25% of the worlds oil.

Um actually 3% refers to proven supplies. Proven supplies are supplies currently being drilled, or where we have done test wells and found oil but are not drilling it yet. Unproven reserves are all the ones we have not even searched yet. Estimates put our unproven supplies at FAR FAR more than 3%. Some say nearly as much oil as exists in the entire middle east.

That said, I agree domestic drilling alone will not do it. I favor an all of the above approach.

If it helps us get off foreign Oil I am for it.

 

[IanC]

Domestic drilling cannot do it. We have 3% of the worlds reserves, and use 25% of the worlds oil.

your math skills are letting you down again

 

[westwall]

All the international politics aside, the idea of the US getting off petroleum is an anthema to many people here. In spite of the fact that producing our own energy for transportation on a national level and an individual level would be good for everybody except those in the big energy companies.

Using energy alternatives to fossil fuels for the generation of electricity would make our nation a healthier place, and we would be desecrating far less of our countryside.

No, it's not. No thinking person I know is in favour of burning up valuable oil as gas and diesel. We ALL would gretly prefer the oil is used for much more important products like plastics etc. However until a econmically viable alternative is created we realise that to simply stop using fossil fuels unilaterally is ridiculous.

That would be the end of the US as we know it. If you were to suddenly stop the use of fossil fuels people like you would starve. The cities would erupt in violence within days as people scrambled for food and water.

It's only loons that advocate that sort of BS and you, who work in a business that actively pollutes your state, have absolutely no right to lecture those of us who don't. You are the worst type of polluter, you claim to care but you actually don't. I don't understand people like you.

 

[editec]

Hmmmm...

which do you suppose advances the one world government more?

The Global Warming scientists or the international banking and industrial cartels?

Well...which one cost the American taxpayers the most money of late?

Or do you feel that BOTH are part of the same conspiracy?

Just wondering.

 

[westwall]

Hmmmm...

which do you suppose advances the one world government more?

The Global Warming scientists or the international banking and industrial cartels?

Well...which one cost the American taxpayers the most money of late?

Or do you feel that BOTH are part of the same conspiracy?

Just wondering.

Well editec you just answered your question for yourself. Al Gore has allied himself with 4 top execs from Goldman Sachs to further the climate fraud.

The smell of money « JoNova

 

[Old Rocks]

All the international politics aside, the idea of the US getting off petroleum is an anthema to many people here. In spite of the fact that producing our own energy for transportation on a national level and an individual level would be good for everybody except those in the big energy companies.

Using energy alternatives to fossil fuels for the generation of electricity would make our nation a healthier place, and we would be desecrating far less of our countryside.

No, it's not. No thinking person I know is in favour of burning up valuable oil as gas and diesel. We ALL would gretly prefer the oil is used for much more important products like plastics etc. However until a econmically viable alternative is created we realise that to simply stop using fossil fuels unilaterally is ridiculous.

That would be the end of the US as we know it. If you were to suddenly stop the use of fossil fuels people like you would starve. The cities would erupt in violence within days as people scrambled for food and water.

It's only loons that advocate that sort of BS and you, who work in a business that actively pollutes your state, have absolutely no right to lecture those of us who don't. You are the worst type of polluter, you claim to care but you actually don't. I don't understand people like you.

There you go again, trying to put words into my mouth. You are not going to build an electric transportation system overnight. Nor are you going to be able to cease burning petroleum and coal overnight.

However, you and others, immediatly, when anyone points out an advance that makes alternatives more viable begin the denial chorus. And scream incessantly when someone points out that we are very close to viable batteries for electric vehicles. In spite of the fact that such vehicles would be a great bood to the average American, as many could provide their own fuel for the vehicles, and power their homes economically with solar, even at present prices. And those prices are falling quickly as demand is bringing more manufacturing and an increasing less expensive and more diverse technology into play.

 

[Trajan]

You don't have to be a fan or not of the UN.

If you're reasonable person, you read, watch listen, go with your gut and what common sense tells you.

Over the past 30 years I think its safe to say the UN has employed few mechanisms that endanger confidence. And thats from both sides of the political spectrum.

Hate any outward displays of prejudice, displays of violent racist or bias tendencies...uhm, Rwanda?

Don't get down on western nations swinging their big balls around the planet, theres oh, the Ivory Coast, (France), Kosovo, ( Nato) and a myriad of others etc...
Its greatest achievements? Probably the forum and will that it provided, that got everyone aboard for the Korea war and even at that, only because the USSR was not on hand to block a key vote, and , providing a forum for the Cuban missile crisis wherein Adlai Stevenson exposed the Soviets for what they were.

They are supposed to be a NEUTRAL mechanism as in the Sec. gen. etc. and approach each and every situation as a participant with no dog in the fight, using that universal ethical and moral yardstick that was seen as part and parcel of its charter.

The UN has no answers really, its importance has been inflated by folks whose livelihood and out look is built on endless debate that settles nothing, while massacres, starvation and the subject matter just rolls along, this is because no one wants to make a judgment on good vs. evil anymore, you see, while they seek non offending consensus like an old boys club, people starve or are enslaved and die.

That arena has been poisoned by money, nepotism, favoritism and a vacuum of moral standard, it’s a virtual graveyard of fundamental honesty and ethical values that appeals to each of us despite our left or right outlook.

They have provided little real intellectual heft in those decades either or reasonable ethical weight to anything as I said over the last 30 years, the re-creation of the Human Rights Council and all of the resolutions, denunciations etc. are nonsense, that its members are allowed to foster and get away with even in a conversational sense is appalling.

And Oil for Food? For any reasonable person, the very last straw.

Trusting them with virtually anything is a mistake, they simply are not worthy of trust.

Most especially this Climate Issue(s) AGW whatever…it has been allowed to evolve into ( and they have actively participated in) creating an us against them mentality and has allowed what should be a universal cause approached and solved by scientific consensus to denigrate into a dogmatic theme park or circus.


One look at the 4 minutes and 14 seconds of the Copenhagen opening film should tell any reasonable person all they need to know, these folks are dyed in the wool political operatives now, this is all about class envy and money…..there is no neutral scientific forum to be had here.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4]YouTube - Please help the world - COP15 opening film[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

You don't have to be a fan or not of the UN.

If you're reasonable person, you read, watch listen, go with your gut and what common sense tells you.

Over the past 30 years I think its safe to say the UN has employed few mechanisms that endanger confidence. And thats from both sides of the political spectrum.

Hate any outward displays of prejudice, displays of violent racist or bias tendencies...uhm, Rwanda?

Don't get down on western nations swinging their big balls around the planet, theres oh, the Ivory Coast, (France), Kosovo, ( Nato) and a myriad of others etc...
Its greatest achievements? Probably the forum and will that it provided, that got everyone aboard for the Korea war and even at that, only because the USSR was not on hand to block a key vote, and , providing a forum for the Cuban missile crisis wherein Adlai Stevenson exposed the Soviets for what they were.

They are supposed to be a NEUTRAL mechanism as in the Sec. gen. etc. and approach each and every situation as a participant with no dog in the fight, using that universal ethical and moral yardstick that was seen as part and parcel of its charter.

The UN has no answers really, its importance has been inflated by folks whose livelihood and out look is built on endless debate that settles nothing, while massacres, starvation and the subject matter just rolls along, this is because no one wants to make a judgment on good vs. evil anymore, you see, while they seek non offending consensus like an old boys club, people starve or are enslaved and die.

That arena has been poisoned by money, nepotism, favoritism and a vacuum of moral standard, it’s a virtual graveyard of fundamental honesty and ethical values that appeals to each of us despite our left or right outlook.

They have provided little real intellectual heft in those decades either or reasonable ethical weight to anything as I said over the last 30 years, the re-creation of the Human Rights Council and all of the resolutions, denunciations etc. are nonsense, that its members are allowed to foster and get away with even in a conversational sense is appalling.

And Oil for Food? For any reasonable person, the very last straw.

Trusting them with virtually anything is a mistake, they simply are not worthy of trust.

Most especially this Climate Issue(s) AGW whatever…it has been allowed to evolve into ( and they have actively participated in) creating an us against them mentality and has allowed what should be a universal cause approached and solved by scientific consensus to denigrate into a dogmatic theme park or circus.


One look at the 4 minutes and 14 seconds of the Copenhagen opening film should tell any reasonable person all they need to know, these folks are died in the wool political operatives now, this is all about class envy and money…..there is no neutral scientific forum to be had here.

YouTube - Please help the world - COP15 opening film

Hmmm....... Sounds like the US Congress.

 

[Trajan]

agreed. but, well...the UN, climate issues, global warming?

 

[westwall]

All the international politics aside, the idea of the US getting off petroleum is an anthema to many people here. In spite of the fact that producing our own energy for transportation on a national level and an individual level would be good for everybody except those in the big energy companies.

Using energy alternatives to fossil fuels for the generation of electricity would make our nation a healthier place, and we would be desecrating far less of our countryside.

No, it's not. No thinking person I know is in favour of burning up valuable oil as gas and diesel. We ALL would gretly prefer the oil is used for much more important products like plastics etc. However until a econmically viable alternative is created we realise that to simply stop using fossil fuels unilaterally is ridiculous.

That would be the end of the US as we know it. If you were to suddenly stop the use of fossil fuels people like you would starve. The cities would erupt in violence within days as people scrambled for food and water.

It's only loons that advocate that sort of BS and you, who work in a business that actively pollutes your state, have absolutely no right to lecture those of us who don't. You are the worst type of polluter, you claim to care but you actually don't. I don't understand people like you.

There you go again, trying to put words into my mouth. You are not going to build an electric transportation system overnight. Nor are you going to be able to cease burning petroleum and coal overnight.

However, you and others, immediatly, when anyone points out an advance that makes alternatives more viable begin the denial chorus. And scream incessantly when someone points out that we are very close to viable batteries for electric vehicles. In spite of the fact that such vehicles would be a great bood to the average American, as many could provide their own fuel for the vehicles, and power their homes economically with solar, even at present prices. And those prices are falling quickly as demand is bringing more manufacturing and an increasing less expensive and more diverse technology into play.

Gosh you are so full of it I am amazed. You and your sycophants are all about electric vehicles and the vast majority of the public can't afford them you twit. A Tesla is a very cool vehicle but show me an average family who can shell out 60K for one. The same goes for the LEAF and the VOLT. No average family is able to afford those at the moment. My family just took a little trek out to Fort Churchill. A round trip of 184 miles that is completely impossible with the EV's as they currently sit.

You guys are advocating that everyone should buy htese things and they are not viable for the average family no matter how "green" they supposedly are. Even when they do work for a commuter they still cost MORE than the comperable ICE vehicle to travel a comperable distance. On average it is three times more costly to drive a EV than and ICE for a similar distance.

Get real. We want alternative energy sources. We want the people to have better lives. Currently they can have better lives using fossil fuels than any alternative energy source out there. When that changes the public will follow...that is all we have been saying no matter how shrill and idiotic your claims to the otherwise are.

 

[westwall]

You don't have to be a fan or not of the UN.

If you're reasonable person, you read, watch listen, go with your gut and what common sense tells you.

Over the past 30 years I think its safe to say the UN has employed few mechanisms that endanger confidence. And thats from both sides of the political spectrum.

Hate any outward displays of prejudice, displays of violent racist or bias tendencies...uhm, Rwanda?

Don't get down on western nations swinging their big balls around the planet, theres oh, the Ivory Coast, (France), Kosovo, ( Nato) and a myriad of others etc...
Its greatest achievements? Probably the forum and will that it provided, that got everyone aboard for the Korea war and even at that, only because the USSR was not on hand to block a key vote, and , providing a forum for the Cuban missile crisis wherein Adlai Stevenson exposed the Soviets for what they were.

They are supposed to be a NEUTRAL mechanism as in the Sec. gen. etc. and approach each and every situation as a participant with no dog in the fight, using that universal ethical and moral yardstick that was seen as part and parcel of its charter.

The UN has no answers really, its importance has been inflated by folks whose livelihood and out look is built on endless debate that settles nothing, while massacres, starvation and the subject matter just rolls along, this is because no one wants to make a judgment on good vs. evil anymore, you see, while they seek non offending consensus like an old boys club, people starve or are enslaved and die.

That arena has been poisoned by money, nepotism, favoritism and a vacuum of moral standard, it’s a virtual graveyard of fundamental honesty and ethical values that appeals to each of us despite our left or right outlook.

They have provided little real intellectual heft in those decades either or reasonable ethical weight to anything as I said over the last 30 years, the re-creation of the Human Rights Council and all of the resolutions, denunciations etc. are nonsense, that its members are allowed to foster and get away with even in a conversational sense is appalling.

And Oil for Food? For any reasonable person, the very last straw.

Trusting them with virtually anything is a mistake, they simply are not worthy of trust.

Most especially this Climate Issue(s) AGW whatever…it has been allowed to evolve into ( and they have actively participated in) creating an us against them mentality and has allowed what should be a universal cause approached and solved by scientific consensus to denigrate into a dogmatic theme park or circus.


One look at the 4 minutes and 14 seconds of the Copenhagen opening film should tell any reasonable person all they need to know, these folks are died in the wool political operatives now, this is all about class envy and money…..there is no neutral scientific forum to be had here.

YouTube - Please help the world - COP15 opening film

Hmmm....... Sounds like the US Congress.

No argument from me here either.

 

[Charles_Main]

Domestic drilling cannot do it. We have 3% of the worlds reserves, and use 25% of the worlds oil.

your math skills are letting you down again

Actually it appears to me that the problem is not with his math. The problem is he believes the Liberal propaganda which constantly states we only have 3% of the worlds oil. when they know Full well that 3% only refers to Proven supplies, not potential ones.

Just one of the Many lies Obama has repeated over and over.