#UN

UN endorsement speaks volumes

If a politician ever wanted to hunt for the worst possible endorsement, look no further than a reference from the UN. Christina Figueres, former UNFCCC climate chief and world government proponent has been meddling in our Aussie election.

Dr Kerryn Phelps proudly said on Sky News that she attended a meeting with climate scientists and Figueres. Figueres gave Phelps, Zali Steggall, Julia Banks and Rebekha Sharkie her seal of approval because of their stance on climate change (and because of their gender).

Figueres is a piece of work. She warned that climate change is so critical that  gender inequality should be tackled at the same time and she openly defended discrimination against males when it came to hiring in her department. Misandry?

The U.N. is home to many unsavory characters.

Who could forget when the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed Robert Mugabe to be an ambassador? What smell test could he possibly pass?

What about the UN AIDS Executive Director, Michel Sidibé,  who was responsible for creating a toxic environment that promoted “favoritism, preferment and ethical blindness.

Of the 670 staff members at the UN agency interviewed by independent investigators, 18 admitted they had experienced some form of sexual harassment in the previous year and a further 201 said they were on the wrong end of workplace abuse.

One staff member went on the record saying, “U.N.AIDS is like a predators’ prey ground…You have access to all sorts of people, especially the vulnerable: You can use promises of jobs, contracts and all sorts of opportunities and abuse your power to get whatever you want, especially in terms of sexual favors. I have seen senior colleagues dating local young interns or using U.N.AIDS resources to access sex workers.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who made it clear he had a zero tolerance policy with regards to sexual harassment when he took office,  refused to fire him. Despite his term ending in January 2020, Sidibé has offered to quit in June 2019 in order to ensure a stable transition period! In what world does a person outed for turning a blind eye to such a poisonous culture get to leave on his own terms? Sacred cows.

So these incidents prove without doubt the U.N. holds the moral high ground on so many fronts. We shouldn’t be surprised that Phelps thinks Figueres is a credible source. Phelps showed her disdain for the white male patriarchy on International Women’s Day.

Identity politics is poison. The irony within the fight for ‘identity representation’ in climate science was debunked by an internal UNIPCC survey a decade ago. The outcome was simple – it noted diversity (gender and ethnicity) were prioritized over ability. Several delegates, without any scientific credentials, gave the feedback they were way out of their depth and could not contribute any value to the process yet were asked to do so anyway. So much for the benefits of equality over ability?

While these four independent women may say they are conservative at heart, they are of the left. The U.N. endorsement from a hard socialist proves it.

Paying someone to quit smoking on your behalf

img_2516
Jo Nova has put together an excellent piece on the Labor government’s plan to buy carbon credits overseas to atone for our CO2 sins. Buying air we can’t breathe is essentially like paying someone else to quit smoking on our behalf. How do we benefit?!?

Labor leader Bill Shorten may argue that the cost of doing nothing on climate change is a “charlatan’s argument” but CM costed it yesterday. Our CO2 emissions are equivalent to 0.000016% of the global total. No matter what we do our impact is nothing. What does tokenism get us? Zero. Zip. Nada.

Jo Nova wrote,

The 35 billion dollars we will spend on these useless, fraud-prone certificates is $35 billion we are taking out of the Australian labor market, or not spending on medicine, books or holidays in Bali. Angus Taylor, Minister for Energy, has noticed that this means $10b less tax will be paid too, which means less money for hospitals and schools.

There’s nothing wrong with payments to foreigners for real goods and services. But carbon credits buy us 0.0001C of theoretical cooling we don’t need and won’t be able to measure 100 years from now. It’s the dumbest deal Australia has ever made. Fraudsters and bankers will love it.”

Carbon credit markets have had a sketchy past. Hackers broke into poorly protected government and corporate carbon registries and swindled €3.7mn. So the credits we might buy to virtue signal may end up being fraudulent.

Carbon trading is a complete scam. As Jo Nova added,

“Independent modelling suggests the 45% emissions target of the Labor party will cost at least $264bn and as high as $542bn by 2030. The Liberal Party will “only” waste  $50 – $80b.”

All for absolutely nothing. When the economy tanks our politicians can brag about achieving lower emissions targets quicker because our climate policies will have accelerated the death of industry.

Why does climate science fraud go unpunished?

Why is it that whenever climate scientists get caught manipulating figures there are no repercussions? Let’s not kid ourselves. Governments around the world have splurged 100s of billions of TAXPAYER dollars on climate abatement that have been based on research that in numerous cases has been found to involve manipulation. Whichever way we cut it, fraud is fraud.

Take the financial sector as an example. There has been much malfeasance committed in the last few decades that have resulted in humungous penalties.

WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years based on nine counts of conspiracy, securities fraud and false regulatory filings to the tune of $11bn.

Enron’s former CEO Jeffrey Skilling was convicted on 35 counts of fraud, insider trading and other crimes related to Enron and sentenced to 24 years prison and fined $45 million.

Madoff got 150 years for his $65bn Ponzi scheme, Allen Stanford received 110 years jail for his $7bn fraud.

Yet when the scientific community commits fraudulent offences, they’re not even brought to trial.

Take the UNIPCC which was established by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Panel (UNEP) in 1988.

The Climategate email scandal in 2009 and the Climategate 2.0 in 2011 have shown far less faith internally than what is publicly admitted. They point to multiple cases of bullying dissenters, ignoring information that didn’t fit the narrative and data fudging.

NOAA was subpoenaed after Dr. John Bates, a recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, exposes the Karl study which was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Dr. Bates whistle blew on the Obama administration’s efforts to push a costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.

This was fraud. Data was manipulated ahead of the Paris summit. Developed countries committed to a minimum $100bn. The International Justice Initiative at the University of Tasmania, showed that “The total cost for developing countries to implement their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) is more than US$4.4 trillion.”

Bernie Madoff looks a rank amateur compared to the implications caused by a fabricated NOAA publication. NOAA refused to comply with initially polite inquiries to answer whistle blower claims, baselessly arguing that Congress, its employer, was not authorized to request communications from its scientists.  Despite a congressional subpoena, NOAA kept ignoring its master. Some 6 months later they begrudgingly attended a committee hearing and were found out. Punishment? Nothing. Zero. Nada.

Perhaps if these same scientists were held to the types of punishment meted out to fraudsters in the financial world, their scientific publications would “cool” (no pun intended) to reveal the truth. Alas until they face significant penalties, the alarmism won’t abate (pun intended).

Sir David Attenborough’s Climate Change: The Facts

Sir David Attenborough’s narration of Climate Change – The Facts is a one hour BBC sponsored piffle fest, wonderfully timed with the Extinction Rebellion protests. It is a collection of one alarmist liners of “we’re running out of time“, “if we don’t do something now,” or “we’re at a tipping point“. You get the drift. The irony of the title is that few facts are actually presented. A lot of grandiose statements but little in the way of hard numbers. Even when numbers are presented they don’t necessarily prove anything.

Many numbers presented are selected from groups that have been caught red handed manipulating data – including NOAA, UNIPCC and BOM to name a few. Take temperatures in Australia. Sir David puts them forward as rewriting records despite far hotter temperatures recorded a century earlier. Perhaps he should have cited the Bureau of Meteorology scandal of putting a hard floor on cold temperatures.

Some supposed experts spoke of:

1) an explosion in the severity and number of wildfires. The truth is both the area and frequency have fallen in the last few decades. 90% are either accidentally or deliberately lit.

2) rising sea levels and polar melting. Analysis using tide gauges and satellites showed 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls including 709 islands, revealed that no atoll lost land area and that 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted. What sea level rise? The most experienced is around. 1mm pa. Australia’s former climate change commissioner told us a decade ago that waves would lap the rooves of 8 storey apartments despite owning a house by the water.

NASA noted in 2018 that sea ice was increasing. It said an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

3) the tragedy of coral bleaching at the Great Barrier Reef, despite it seen to be flourishing. Scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Sep 2017 surveyed 14 coral reefs between Cairns and Townsville to see how they fared after being bleached and were surprised to find the coral had already started to reproduce.

By all means watch it to see how poor a documentary can be made to sell a story of activism. Hysterics, exaggerations and bias to create fear mongering. Even the background musical accompaniment is designed to pluck at the heart strings. To be honest it’s surprising that Sir David wanted to put his name to it. In decades to come the climate scientists will still be saying we’ve got little time left to fix things.

Marxism 2019 conference – wait til you see the program

Little surprise that the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria is set to host a Marxism 2019 conference to extol the virtues of socialism. Oh the irony of having tiered pricing structures to attend. Those pigs more equal than others can show ‘solidarity’ by paying a higher price. The program is so good that it’s worth clicking on. Some spoiler alert topics CM is desperate to attend:

“Do Nothing and Do it well”

“Marxism 101: what is so special about the working class?

“Is there anything good about the United Nations?”

“Being a workplace agitator”

Why go to stand up comedy? This conference will provide days of entertainment. Just wondering how many Marxists will openly admit they are “high wage”? Most likely most will select “unwaged” to live up to sensible Marxist ideology. Will the organizers be forced to pay the police $50,000 for protection against conservative protestors? Of course not. The protestors will be too busy rolling on the floor laughing.

Stand for America

Former US Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley has started up “Stand for America” to fight for American culture/values, border security, foreign policy, public safety, term limits and to tackle the scourge of “I’m the boss” AOC style socialism. It looks to be very much like why Advance Australia is trying to do down under.

It was always a question of what she would do in her next gig. CM doubts she’ll struggle to raise a lot of donations to support her cause. As an American Sikh woman she also, frustratingly for the Democrats, ticks the identity/diversity box.

Still think she would make a great candidate for POTUS in 2024.

UN hit with yet another scandal

Kết quả hình ảnh cho Michel Sidibé

Independent experts have concluded that UN AIDS Executive Director, Michel Sidibé,  has been responsible for creating a toxic environment that promoted “favoritism, preferment and ethical blindness.” Sidibé accepted no reponsibility for any sexual harassment, bullying or abuse of power that occured under his watch.

The investigation started after Sidibé’s deputy was accused of  forcibly kissing, groping and trying to drag a colleague into his Bangkok hotel room in 2015.

In a survey of the 670 staff members at the UN agency conducted by the independent investigators, 18 admitted they had experienced some form of sexual harassment in the previous year and a further 201 said they were on the wrong end of workplace abuse.

One staff member went on the record saying, “U.N.AIDS is like a predators’ prey ground…You have access to all sorts of people, especially the vulnerable: You can use promises of jobs, contracts and all sorts of opportunities and abuse your power to get whatever you want, especially in terms of sexual favors. I have seen senior colleagues dating local young interns or using U.N.AIDS resources to access sex workers.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who made it clear he had a zero tolerance policy with regards to sexual harassment when he took office,  has refused to fire him. Despite his term ending in January 2020, Sidibé has offered to quit in June 2019 in order to ensure a stable transition period! In what world does a person outed for turning a blind eye to such a poisonous culture get to leave on his own terms? Sacred cows.

Sidibe admitted in an email after the investigation was published, “not all of our staff, in all their diversity, are experiencing the inclusive work culture to which we aspire.” Choice words.

Why do governments continue to fund the UN when it shows time and time again that it operates without any form of governance or ethical code? Remember it wasn’t that long ago that certain people at the UN thought former Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe would make a sensible ambassador for the World Health Organization (WHO). Why would any country seriously want to sign over sovereign powers to the UN with respect to the compact on migration? The UN isn’t fit to run anything of substance.

Why after all the scandals with the IPCC do people put faith in their ability to manage climate change summits? The Delinquent Teenager, written by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise chronicles how the IPCC participants are picked by governments, not for their scientific knowledge and expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.” You can read some of the ridiculous selection processes for lead authors here.

Note the UN promised to streamline. As CM noted 15 months ago,

“The latest U.N. regular budget, while superficially smaller than the previous budget, made no fundamental programmatic or structural adjustments—e.g., reducing permanent staff, freezing or reducing salaries and other benefits, and permanently eliminating a significant number of mandates, programs, or other activities—that would lower the baseline for future U.N. budget negotiations. Despite the Secretary-General’s proposal to eliminate 44 permanent posts, the 2012–2013 budget actually increased the number of permanent posts by more than a score compared with the previous budget. The failure to arrest growth in U.N. employment, salaries, and benefits is especially problematic because personnel costs account for 74% of U.N. spending according to the U.N.’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). Without a significant reduction in the number of permanent U.N. posts or a significant reduction in staff compensation and related costs, real and lasting reductions in the U.N. regular budget will remain out of reach.”