Saturday, November 30, 2013

Abandon the United Nations?

Pull the plug on the United Nations and allow it to die. It has obviously outlived any usefulness By Jim Yardley

What are we going to do about the United Nations?  Exactly what has the U.N. accomplished? I will grant that the U.N. began with the most noble and loftiest of intentions, but does it still embody those intentions?
It’s ineffectual, it’s corrupt, it’s unelected, it’s dominated by scores of tiny countries which have learned that if they claim discrimination or claim that their “human rights” are being denied, they can make the wealthy, successful nations feel enough guilt (thanks to the leftists within those countries who rarely if ever made any contribution to either the wealth or the success) to shovel money at them even as they declare their undying hatred for the countries who are being shaken down.

That makes the United Nations sound like it has a lot in common with the U.S. Congress, doesn’t it?
In essence, the United Nations doesn’t work. But then the predecessor of the U.N., the League of Nations, didn’t work too well. The European Union isn’t working out too well. I might be wrong, but there seems to be a pattern emerging. Every attempt to take a bunch of disparate nation-states and use normal (i.e., bumbling and power hungry) bureaucrats to create a one-size-fits-all new world order has always failed.

And we pay an awful lot for their ineffective failures. According to an Office of Management and Budget report to Congress, the United States spent at least $7.7 billion dollars supporting the U.N. in 2010, the latest data available.
Does anyone believe that spending that $7.7 billion is making them safer or reducing the dangers of war? Anyone?

We spend more on the United Nations than any other member nation. For instance, the cost of the U.N.‘s “peacekeeping” missions is apportioned among all member states. Now that sounds fair, doesn’t it? Except that the formula used by the U.N. is similar to a formula for taxing Americans—the wealthier you are, the more they’re going to take.
According to the United Nations itself, the top ten nations (out of 191 member states) are supposed to pay 81% of the total costs of “peacekeeping”. And would you like to guess who the U.N. considers to be the “wealthiest” nations, the ones who will be making those payments? Here they are (with the percentage of the total peacekeeping budget they are liable for):

  • United States—(27.14%)
  • Japan—(12.53%)
  • United Kingdom—(8.15%)
  • Germany—(8.02%)
  • France—(7.55%)
  • Italy—(5.00%)
  • China—(3.93%)
  • Canada—(3.21%)
  • Spain—(3.18%)
  • Republic of Korea—(2.26%)
With the exception of the People’s Republic of China, the list of nations that bear the bulk of the financial responsibility for “peacekeeping” appears to be the United States and its allies.

As an aside, given the method used to apportion the obligation for these nearly useless “peacekeeping” missions, it’s interesting, again with the exception of the PRC, all the nations on the list are capitalist democracies. What a coincidence, huh? And even at that, the PRC is the most capitalist non-democratic nation around.
Of course the United Nations does a lot more than just fund ineffective efforts to keep the peace. In 2003, for example, the United Nations adopted a resolution, signed by over 140 General Assembly nations, titled the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Keep in mind that resolution was adopted nearly ten years ago. Have you noticed a massive decrease in government corruption anywhere on the planet? It seems that their anti-corruption efforts are just as ineffective as the U.N.‘s peacekeeping efforts.

The U.N. has, in the past twelve months alone, drafted resolutions that:

  • Speak out against female genital mutilation.
  • Reaffirm the United Nations strong commitment to the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Mali. And to really prove they weren’t kidding around, this resolution came out of the Security Council.
  • The creation of an Assistance Mission in Somalia in order to “[provide] policy advice to the Federal Government and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) on peacebuilding and state-building in the areas of: governance, security sector reform and rule of law (including the disengagement of combatants), development of a federal system (including preparations for elections in 2016), and coordination of international donor support.”
All that, in just twelve months! Busy little beavers aren’t they?

And of course no one could possibly forget that it was the United Nations that drafted, voted and approved the draft treaty for arms control. The one that the Obama administration is so anxious to sign. The one that could be used as an excuse to eviscerate the Second Amendment.

The major stated goal of the Arms Treaty is, obviously, reducing armed conflict. But like most U.N. resolutions, it is written in such a way as to give a great deal of latitude for member states to interpret it as they choose. The treaty regulates the international transfer of all conventional arms within the following categories: battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.
One can only wonder if the language of the treaty would prevent (or at least provide an excuse for the administration to cease) all arms shipments to Israel. Or to Poland, South Korea, Japan, the Czech Republic or any other nation or nominative ally anywhere that is threatened by a totalitarian regime.

When the overall ineffectiveness of the United Nations is combined with treaties that limit the United States to actions that require the approval of our enemies it is a wonder that we remain as members. Yes, America was a founding member of the United Nations, but we were also a founding member of the League of Nations. When the League of Nations was a failure, we recognized reality and let it die. It may be time to recognize reality again and let the U.N. simply die.
Should the United States withdraw from the United Nations, there might be several beneficial side-effects. If the Presidents of Iran or Venezuela want to come to speak at the U.N. to attack the United States well, they can, but only if they speak in Geneva. They would no longer be entitled to speak at the U.N. in New York since the U.N. building in New York would no longer be a diplomatic site. It would simply be a large, ostentatious office building. It would be subject to property taxes. The Ambassadors to the U.N. would no longer have diplomatic immunity. (Mayor Bloomberg could probably balance New York City’s budget by just getting them to pay their parking tickets.)

Yes, it may finally be time to pull the plug on the United Nations and allow it to die. It has obviously outlived any usefulness.
Source: Canada Free Press, Abandon the United Nations? By Jim Yardley (Bio and Archives) Friday, July 5, 2013

UN Agenda 21 is the UN’s blueprint for the world and is based on the global warming hoax.  The UN and their global Marxist NGO minions have spent trillions of our tax dollars running this scam and it’s over. 

We are in a period of global cooling and have been for the past 15 years.  The computer models that gave us global warming have been discredited and actual data, leaked emails and actual investigations have debunked this carbon trading racket.  It has new names like Climate-gate.
The UN has voted to take over all US property, water, minerals and freedom.  Obama is their implementer.  Carbon is not a pollutant and should be removed from the EPA list.

The best reason for the US to quit the UN is the country wrecking implementation of UN Agenda 21.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Friday, November 29, 2013

Global Warming Scam Cover Up

Climate Scientists Subverted Peer Review

The more we learn about the purloined e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit the more it resembles Watergate. As was the case in 1974, there will be no one particular spectacular revelation, but rather an unremitting and unrelenting daily drip-drip that ultimately brings down the house.

The latest gem comes from none other than Rajendra Pauchari, the climatologically untrained head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Without the IPCC there would be no cap-and-tax legislation awaiting debate in the Senate. There would be no meeting in Copenhagen, where, next month, world leaders will attempt to globalize cap-and-tax. There would also be no pledge from President Obama to emissions reductions that have never been passed by the Senate.

“The last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable.”
The e-mails have given Pauchari the onerous task of defending the IPCC from its own “scientific” leadership, now accused (or, perhaps, incriminating itself) of seriously manipulating the scientific literature that goes into the august IPCC scientific reports.

In one of the e-mails, East Anglia’s Phil Jones, long a power player in the production of these reports, said this about some scientific articles he did not like: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
This is pretty serious stuff, because it, and many similar e-mails, paint a picture of IPCC boffins committing science’s capital crime: Trying to game the peer-reviewed literature, which is akin to editing what goes in the Bible.

In this case, Jones is actually speculating about keeping contrary information out of the IPCC reports by blacklisting certain professional journals.
One series of these e-mails called out the journal Climate Research, which had the audacity to publish a paper surveying a voluminous scientific literature that didn’t support Mann’s claim that the last 50 years are the warmest in the past millennium. Along with the CRU head Phil Jones and other climate luminaries, they then cooked up the idea of boycotting any scientific journal that dared publish anything by a few notorious “skeptics,” myself included.

Their pressure worked. Editors resigned or were fired. Many colleagues began to complain to me that their good papers were either being rejected outright or subject to outrageous reviews — papers that would have been published with little revision just a few years ago.
So what is Pauchari’s response to all of this? Denial.

“IPCC relies entirely on peer-reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment and follows a process that renders it unlikely that any peer reviewed piece of literature, however contrary to the views of any individual author, would be left out.”
That’s just not true. The last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable.

These include articles from the journals Arctic, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Earth Interactions, Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Quaternary Research.
We have hardly heard the end of Climategate, but don’t expect some climactic grand finale. In 1974, errors, boo-boos, and downright duplicities slowly piled up.

The same is happening now. Like Tricky Dick, Pauchari may soon be headed home.
Source:  Cato Institute, Climate Scientists Subverted Peer Review, By Patrick J. Michaels, A version of this article appeared in the DC Examiner on December 2, 2009.

The list of discredited global warming mongers should be long and long remembered. The UN was the “inventor”. Al Gore was the “messenger”. Hillary Clinton has been the “cheer leader”. George HW Bush was the “dupe”. Bill Clinton was the “implementer” George W. Bush was the “ignorer”. George Soros was the “investor”. The Chamber of Communists has been its “promoter”.  Regional commissars are its enforcers.  The US Congress continues to be its “enabler”. Obama continues to be its “champion”.  

Simply defunding UN Agenda 21 implementation would more than balance the federal budget.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Scammers want Carbon Credits

At UN Summit, Poorer Regimes Demand Trillions in Climate Loot by  Alex Newman

With United Nations theories about alleged man-made global warming imploding on the world stage, regimes oppressing populations in poorer nations are demanding that taxpayers in wealthier countries start promptly handing over trillions of dollars — supposedly to deal with “climate change.” Gathered in Warsaw, Poland, at the latest UN “climate” summit, and facing massive public protests against the extortion effort, governments are hoping to quickly and quietly lay the foundations for a new global treaty rationing carbon dioxide.

Multiple nations and populations are becoming increasingly suspicious as the UN’s discredited theories are ridiculed by top scientists and experts worldwide, so “climate dignitaries” know they must act fast. Indeed, if what countless scientists refer to as the global-warming “scam” crumbles entirely before 2015, the effort to foist a planetary “carbon budget” on humanity to replace the Kyoto Protocol may be doomed. The hundreds of billions spent on “climate” schemes every year would inevitably start drying up, too, bankrupting countless special interests that now depend on global-warming alarmism and hysteria.   

Already, the new Australian government has vowed to reject UN “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” as it works to dismantle wildly unpopular “carbon taxes” and “climate” machinations imposed under Labor Party rule. It also vowed not to adopt any more taxes or spend any more taxpayer funds on UN wealth-redistribution schemes orchestrated under the bogus guise of fighting discredited notions of “man-made global warming.” Of course, alarmists are throwing a temper tantrum, but around the world and among Australians, the new conservative-leaning coalition has been hailed for its bold stance against the hysteria. Analysts even say Australia is leading the way "back to sanity."

Japanese authorities, meanwhile, recently announced that instead of working to drastically cut carbon dioxide emissions, as previously promised, Japan will actually be increasing its CO2 output. As UN global-warming theories increasingly morph into a global laughing stock, even Russian and Canadian officials are reportedly putting up some tepid resistance to the UN’s grandiose “climate” plans. The climate-hysteria movement is literally in a meltdown over the growing defections, but the wheels are quickly coming off the “climate” bandwagon.

According to the almost comically alarmist U.K. Guardian, the “climate” extortion demands from third-world dictators and governments have “become the most explosive issue” at the UN global-warming summit. Apparently the negotiators have not been reading the news from the real world. The increasingly discredited British paper, which boasts of support from the controversial Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, represents among the last remaining "media" outlets still uncritically parroting the UN alarmism. Still, its “reporting” offers some insight into the ongoing climate machinations underway in Warsaw.

Now, the Guardian reported, the regimes ruling poorer nations are even threatening to “walk out” of the Warsaw talks if Western governments refuse to hand over more wealth extracted from their already-struggling taxpayers. The so-called “Least Developed Countries” (LDC), an alliance of 49 regimes — including the mass-murdering despot ruling over Sudan and myriad other unsavory rulers whose despotism has kept their populations in perpetual poverty — are demanding huge sums of loot from Western taxpayers in exchange for supporting the UN “climate” efforts.

“This is a red line for us,” threatened Munjural Khan, a spokesman for the 49-government outfit, referring to the obscene demand that taxpayers in more-developed counties start funneling even greater amounts of cash to oppressive third-world regimes. “We have been thinking of ways to harden our position, to the point of walking out of the negotiations.” In other words, Western governments better fork over the money — at least $100 billion per year to start with — or possibly lose their chance to foist a global carbon regime on the planet by 2015.   

Meanwhile, the communist dictatorship ruling over mainland China is also ramping up its demands — seeking at least $100 billion in climate booty per year by 2020, to be extracted from Western taxpayers. As Reuters reported in an article headlined “Rich nations must pay up if U.N. climate talks to succeed: China,” the ruthless regime is making threats that are similar to those made by the LDC coalition. According to the communist autocracy’s “chief climate negotiator,” Su Wei, if Western governments fail to hand over trillions of dollars to oppressive governments to deal with “climate change,” the UN scheme will not advance.

“We want to see a very clear roadmap ... we want to see the actual and real provision of financial sources," Su whined, demanding more money while calling on Western governments to continue gutting the economy by imposing ever-more draconian limits on economic activity under the guise of reducing CO2 emissions. A mere $100 billion per year “would be a very important starting point and key to the successful conclusion of the negotiation of a (post-)2020 agreement,” the Chinese Communist “climate” chief claimed.

In essence, the extortion threats mean governments in developed countries hoping to expand their powers and impose radical international treaties on their populations must pay up quickly. U.S. State Department documents released by WikiLeaks revealed that the U.S. government and the European Union super-state have long been bribing and bullying third-world regimes with taxpayer funds. It appears to have worked, but now the poorer governments are demanding even more.

The embarrassing schemes exposed by WikiLeaks were aimed at prodding reluctant governments into foisting “climate” shenanigans on their populations while securing support for a far-reaching global treaty covering every human on the planet. It remains to be seen whether the phony "battle" in Warsaw will result in Western powers capitulating to third-world despots, but resistance to the machinations is growing fast. 

Of course, if the third-world regimes made good on their threats and walked out of the UN summit, perhaps permanently killing the prospect of a global “climate” treaty, it would represent a huge blessing to the world. An estimated $360 billion was squandered on global-warming schemes last year alone — funds that could have been used for productive purposes in the market, for example, or to deal with real problems like hunger and healthcare. It remains unclear where all of the funds were wasted.  

However, the prospect of dictators, power-hungry Western powers, and the UN all giving up on their “climate” schemes now — even despite the implosion of the alleged “science” — remains very slim. Instead, as typically happens at UN conferences, the climate dignitaries will work into the night pretending to develop some sort of hard-won “compromise” that benefits all of the governments involved, at the expense of taxpayers and humanity at large. Then they will get back in their CO2-spewing limos and jets to go home.

With third-world despots emitting increasingly ridiculous demands for hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars for “climate change,” Western governments can pretend like they worked hard to protect their taxpayers — all while fleecing them. The climate, meanwhile, will continue to change, just as it always has. But rulers of developed nations can then seize more power over their populations while funding tyranny in poorer countries by handing huge sums to the ruling tyrants and their cronies. It works out well for everyone involved, except humanity as a whole and those paying the bills, of course.       

The Obama administration has been more than happy to play along even as credible polls consistently show that a sizeable majority of Americans do not even believe the UN’s discredited man-made global warming theories. “Our task now is to fashion a new agreement that will be ambitious, effective and durable,” claimed U.S. “special envoy for climate change” Todd Stern in a recent speech as the EPA was emitting lawless “climate” decrees set to further ravage America’s economy. “And the only way to do that is to make it broadly inclusive, sensitive to the needs and constraints of parties with a wide range of national circumstances and capabilities, and designed to promote increasingly robust action.”

Human emissions of the essential, life-giving gas CO2, which is exhaled by people and required for plants, continue to be blamed by the UN for alleged “global warming” — despite the fact that temperatures have not risen in almost two decades, debunking 73 out of 73 UN “climate” models. Man’s CO2 output, meanwhile, represents a mere fraction of one percent of the greenhouse gases naturally in the atmosphere. However, with so much riding on the UN’s climate theories — including the global body’s shattered credibility — alarmists are still maniacally hyping the discredited notions. 

The end goal, according to the UN, is to foist a so-called “carbon budget” on humanity to ration CO2 emissions and to secure a “complete transformation of the economic structure of the world,” devastating the poor as well as the global economy. To grease the process along, however, advanced-nation governments and regimes ruling undeveloped nations are plotting together to transfer ever-greater sums of taxpayer funds from the citizens of richer nations to the oppressive governments impoverishing poorer nations.

Of course, letting the would-be extortionists walk out of the Warsaw summit and turn their backs on the whole scam for failure to deliver enough “climate” loot would be ideal. It will not happen, though, unless people and scientists speak out loudly and forcefully against the ongoing swindle. The climate emperor still has no clothes, but the UN and its member governments, operating in a sort of bubble, will continue refusing to acknowledge that fact unless humanity yells it from the rooftops.   

Related articles:

Australia Rejects UN “Socialism Masquerading as Environmentalism”

Source: New American, Tuesday, 19 November 2013 17:35  At UN Summit, Poorer Regimes Demand Trillions in Climate Loot  Written by Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at

Support Paul Broun’s HR 75 to quit the UN and HR 662 by Blaine Luetkemeyer, [R-MO-3] (Introduced 02/13/2013. The global warming scam needs to be overkilled throughout 2014. This is a UN designed international crime that deserves months of congressional hearings and a long trial at Nuremberg.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Oops, No Global Warming

Obama & Allies Tell UN to Cover for Lack of Global Warming

As the United Nations prepares to release its latest report on “climate change,” leaked documents obtained recently by the Associated Press show the Obama administration and other governments are pressuring the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to cover up the fact that “global warming” essentially has been stopped for the last 16 years. The explosive revelations, already being described as “ClimateGate II” in the press, come amid a coordinated bid to revive the failing effort to adopt an international carbon regime in the coming years.

According to analysts, the leaked documents confirm once again that the global body’s alarmism about alleged “man-made global warming” is really a political ploy, rather than an issue of “science.” As The New American
reported last week, with the ongoing UN climate deception once again re-emerging in the global media, experts and scientists are lashing out at what they see as the corruption of science — a dangerous trend for humanity. The latest revelations only add further weight to the concerns.    

Drafts of the upcoming UN IPCC report leaked to sympathetic “journalists” ahead of the official release tried to dance around an inconvenient truth that has been plaguing alarmists in the climate debate for quite some time —
for the last decade and a half, the Earth has not been warming. The planetary entity’s supposed “scientists” and computer models had all been frantically warning of “catastrophic” temperature increases as carbon dioxide levels continued to rise. When it did not happen, however, the UN and its allies in the media and national governments were left with egg on their faces, to put it mildly.

Instead of admitting the major blunder or outright deception, the UN doubled down, claiming to now be more confident than ever that human emissions of CO2 were to blame for “climate change” — 95 percent sure, to be precise. UN IPCC “experts,” though, struggled hard to come up with a credible excuse for a lack of warming, leaked draft reports show. Everything from volcanic ash and declining sun activity to natural variability and heat supposedly being trapped somewhere in the deep oceans was implausibly cited to explain away the lack of warming in defiance of all the predictions.

For national governments, though, that was not enough, the leaked documents obtained by the AP
revealed. In comments to the UN IPCC, several governments “objected” to how the lack of warming was addressed. German authorities, for example, called for the reference to the global-warming “slowdown,” as the UN puts it, to be deleted from the report entirely. Officials claimed that a timespan of 10 to 15 years was “misleading” because “climate change” is measured over “decades and centuries.”

The Obama administration, meanwhile, which is trying to bypass Congress by
lawlessly imposing global-warming decrees on the American people, while waging a witch-hunt on “climate deniers,” also had some comments for the UN. According to the documents obtained by AP, the U.S. government called on the IPCC to include the so-called leading hypothesis — the notion that the lack of warming is linked to the heat supposedly being transferred to the depths of the oceans. Of course, the deeply controversial theory remains unproven by actual observation.

For Obama and his climate agenda, the UN’s dubious upcoming report could prove critical on several fronts. Last week, the EPA, following the president’s demands,
announced executive decrees regulating carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants as supposed “pollution.” CO2, of course, is a gas that is exhaled by every human being on the planet and is fundamental to plant life. Man’s emissions of the “pollution,” meanwhile, make up just a fraction of one percent of the greenhouse gases naturally present in the atmosphere. So, it is hardly a surprise that the administration would call on the IPCC to come up with some sort of public explanation.

The Obama administration and political authorities from Germany were hardly alone, though. According to the AP, the Belgian government complained about using the year 1998 because temperatures either remained the same or went lower after that year. Using another year as a starting point could help create a more “upward-pointing curve,” authorities in Belgium said, thereby making it easier for governments to claim that carbon taxes and draconian global regulatory regimes are needed to stave off “climate change.”

Finally, the government of Hungary also expressed concerns that the IPCC report would “provide ammunition for skeptics,” the AP reported without elaborating. In other words, political forces seeking bigger and more centralized government at all levels have been prodding the UN “climate” entity to crank up the alarmism another notch while essentially ignoring or at least downplaying the 800-pound gorilla in the room: the lack of global warming in defiance of climate models and UN predictions. Indeed, more than a few prominent experts, citing the latest data and trends, are even
suggesting the Earth may be entering an era of global cooling. 

Commenting on the latest developments about political intervention, IPCC spokesman Jonathan Lynn attempted to downplay the news of political meddling in the report as simply routine. “This is the culmination of four years’ work by hundreds of scientists, where governments get a chance to ensure the summary for policymakers is clear and concise in a dialogue with the scientists who wrote it, and have the opportunity to raise any topics they think should be highlighted,” he was
quoted as saying by the U.K. Daily Mail.

Experts, however, have pointed out that the UN is really in a tight spot. “This unpredicted hiatus [in global warming] just reflects the fact that we don't understand things as well as we thought,”
said Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado in Boulder, described as a vocal critic of the climate-change establishment. “Now the IPCC finds itself in a position that a science group never wants to be in. It's in spin management mode.”

Considering the utter disaster that was the last IPCC report — flagrant errors even on basic facts, as The New American
documented extensively — climate alarmists are hoping to restore some measure of credibility to the UN institution and its largely debunked theories. That will be tough. Following the last report, for instance, the Dutch government forced the IPCC to retract its claim that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level. It’s actually only 26 percent. 

There were numerous other major errors — or attempts at deception — in the UN “science” and predictions, too. Among other examples, the last report claimed Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, an absurd claim that was later found to have been plagiarized from an advocacy group’s debunked propaganda citing an incorrect magazine article. The IPCC eventually apologized for “GlacierGate,” as the scandal became known. But there was also AfricaGate, ChinaGate, and numerous other scandals.

The bad publicity was so overwhelming that polls showed barely a third of Americans even believed in the UN’s theories by 2009. Numerous IPCC scientists, more than a few of whom
have spoken with The New American, resigned in disgust. Even the former chairman of the UN body, Robert Watson, acknowledged the problems. “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact,” he conceded. “That is worrying.” More recently, studies show that some 97 percent of “climate” computer models overestimated the warming by an average of 100 percent.  

As if all of those scandals around its last report were not bad enough for the embattled IPCC and the climate-alarmism industry, then came
ClimateGate. That particular scandal involved leaked e-mails that exposed leading UN climate alarmists engaged in outright fraud, manipulation of data, deception, unlawful activities, destruction of data to avoid complying with freedom of information requests, and more. It was all to promote “the cause” — theories claiming that human CO2 emissions are leading to dangerous warming and must be restrained by a UN-run planetary carbon regime.

Of course, the hysteria surrounding the implosion of UN global-warming theories by governments and self-styled UN “climate experts” is understandable. If and when what numerous respected experts and scientists have labeled the climate “hoax” comes completely undone — and that moment appears to be approaching fast — the UN, its scientists, and national governments around the world will almost certainly face a public backlash of epic proportions. After squandering billions of dollars on the bogus climate scheme to extort trillions more to deal with it, humanity’s trust in its would-be rulers would almost certainly be all but impossible to restore.

At this point, the UN climate alarmism appears to be on the brink of a total meltdown. A recent report by the Science and Space Research Corporation, for example,
suggests strongly that global cooling is on the way. Numerous prominent experts have echoed those concerns as the Arctic rebounds, Antarctic ice levels soar, the globe fails to warm despite UN predictions, and the thorough debunking of climate models becomes impossible to ignore.  

Another new
climate report recently released by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) — a team of dozens of independent climate experts citing over 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers —  also adds to the growing body of evidence showing the IPCC has either ignored or misinterpreted much of the available data in a bid to hype its anti-carbon schemes. “The NIPCC report demonstrates that the science being relied upon by governments to create multi-billion dollar policies is almost certainly wrong,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).

While the Obama administration and its allies try to pressure the largely discredited UN IPCC to step up the alarmism and explain away or even conceal inconvenient truths, the world appears to be slowly waking up. In Australia, voters recently
delivered a landslide victory to a political coalition that vowed to kill the costly carbon tax and rein in the climate alarmism machine. In Britain, the hysteria is dying, too.

Aside from the alarmist U.K. Guardian, even much of the world media appears to be taking a step back. In the political realm, establishment politicians like Obama continue to push the hysteria to justify the broader agenda —
openly described by the UN as the development of global governance and planetary control. However, as the latest UN report gets torn to pieces by scientists before it is even released, it will only get harder for alarmists to push their claims.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Related articles:

Amid UN Climate Deception, Experts Decry Corruption of Science

Source:  New American, Monday, 23 September 2013 17:35, Obama & Allies Tell UN to Cover for Lack of Global Warming, Written by  Alex Newman


How much taxpayer and consumer money world-wide has this hoax cost since 1992 ?  Leaders in all countries who bought into this scam should be barred from elective and appointed office for life.  Where is the House Bill to defund all Agenda 21 implementation and reverse the damage ?  We have zero confidence in government.  We should pass Paul Broun’s HR 75 and quit the U.N for cooking up this scam and discredit every elected official who was either dumb enough or corrupt enough to support this fraud.


Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Business & Government vs. Voters

A Labyrinth of Laws

Georgia has accumulated a labyrinth of laws allowing city councils and county commissions powers to bypass the voters.  One of these traps was T-SPLOST.  If it had passed, we would have an aggressive 5th layer of appointed, unaccountable central planning government like California. 

What we still have instead is Regional appointees laundering Obama stimulus funds with strings attached, like bike lanes and economic development. 

This blurs the lines between private enterprise and government and leaves the taxpayers holding the bag when central planning fails, as it usually does.  It accelerates corporate welfare and joins government and crony businesses to pick voters pockets. 
Voters are Expendable

The Cobb County Commission vote to move the Braves to Cobb is the most recent example of taxation without giving Cobb voters the right to vote on this billion dollar loss transfer.

Like MARTA, the Braves are in a quest to increase ridership to something above 31,000 per game. Real economic development should involve bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.  The Braves move is recreation development. 
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Braves Stadium

Braves Stadium: How Will Cobb Pay For It?

by Peach Pundit 
As details are starting to materialize after yesterday’s surprise announcement that the Braves plan to move to Cobb County (and almost my backyard) for the 2017 season, there are still many more questions than answers.  We’ll start to try to break these down into specific posts for each of the many issues that this relocation will face (and/or create).
The $450 Million dollar question – an amount that is also still in question – is how will Cobb produce the amount of public money that is at this point still rumored, but not confirmed, as the public contribution.  Dave Pendered of the Saporta Report gives us a primer on how it may work:

The Coliseum and Exhibit Hall Authority (Cobb-Marietta) has the sole power to set the hotel tax rate, according to state law. The Braves began talks with the coliseum authority in July, according to
The coliseum authority now operates three destinations in the Cumberland area near the site of the planned Braves ballpark – Cobb Galleria Centre, Galleria Specialty Shops, and the Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre.

In 2010, the hotel tax generated in excess of $9 million. That figure is based on a report in the Marietta Daily Journal that an 8 percent payment from the authority to the Cobb County Convention & Visitors Bureau would amount to $8.9 million.
I went online today to sample hotel reservations in various Cobb hotels, and it does appear that the local hotel tax is set at 8%.  Note that this is on top of the local sales tax of 6% which is also levied.  Thus, we currently burden our visitors with a 14% charge to pay for the services they receive during their stay.

More importantly, according to Pendered’s article, the maximum amount of the tax under state law is 8%.  For those looking to a quick increase, you’ll need to look to the Georgia legislature.  Now look back at that word quick….Anyway,
$9 million/year won’t service the debt on $450M.  There are other possibilities such as Tax Allocation Districts, CID funds, even local SPLOST dollars.  But those are speculation.  While questions are needed and advised, rampant speculation isn’t necessarily helpful.  But neither are secrets now that the deal has been announced.

In short, we still have more questions than answers on how Cobb County taxpayers will be affected.  Only when we have these answers can we attempt any sort of credible Cost/Benefit analysis and discussion.

Source: Peach Pundit 11/12/13 by Charlie, 58 comments

This $450 million is now being reported as $300 million by the AJC.  So, if this boondoggle requires selling $300 million in 30 year Bonds with a 5% return, the total cost to the voters would be around $600 million.  This $600 million paid off in 30 years would cost about $20 million a year.  If there is $8.9 million a year in hotel tax to contribute to this debt service, the net loss would be about $11 million a year for the first 30 years. This $11 million could have been used to mill and resurface 55 miles of 2 lane asphalt road each year.

Our track record suggests that we would be tearing down this stadium in 20 years and still having to pay off the $11 million debt service for the next 30 years when we tear down the 2nd stadium to build a 3rd stadium. I bet if the baseball teams had to pay the entire cost of building new stadiums, they wouldn’t be doing it every 20 years.

“Go Braves and take them Falcons with ya !”

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader