Archive for the ‘UN corruption’ Category

Well, well, more bad news for Al Gore.

February 16, 2007

Hi Brit,

Sorry to keep bringing this up, but news is news.  It would seem that there is another blow to the crotch of the Church of Global Warming riding the wires of the press services, not that it will make it to TV or anything higher than page 30 of a major paper, Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions.  Now, just the title should be enough to make us Deniers sing and dance, but, buried in the report, is this gem, “Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe.”  This brings us back to the methodology the “climate scientists” use to “average” temperature data in order to prove their pre-decided conclusion of Global Warming.  Using this method, each of these weather stations is given the same weight as hundreds of stations in other areas.  Obviously, this has the potential to propagate even tiny errors into serious ones, bringing the whole data set the theory is based on into question.  It’s also interesting to note that the number of weather stations in the Arctic, where the most Warming is said to be occurring, is never mentioned.  For that matter, I spent an hour or two not that long ago trying to find that information on the net, with no success.  Now, I may not be the best researcher, but I can find out what Britney Spears’ beaver looks like, the background of the head writer of the latest IPCC report, raw economic data on almost any country, that John Kerry had the worst attendance record in the Senate last year, and the lyrics to almost any song ever recorded.  That something as important as the number of weather stations in the Arctic doesn’t jump off the screen with a simple Google search, makes me very suspicious of the data.  I would say that I’d just look it up in the latest IPCC report, but only the summary of that has been written.  While we are on the subject of raw data to support Global Warming, just try to find the actual temperature data record.  If you can find it, kindly leave me a link.

the Grit

Advertisements

What?

February 16, 2007

Hi Brit,

I just read this, U.S., developing nations accept Iran aid cut plan, where we learn that, “Western and developing nations broadly accept a U.N. nuclear agency plan to cut almost half its aid projects in Iran.”  OK, I, and all rational people, know that the UN sucks and is run by corrupt twits that should not be trusted to run the local dog pound, but this is beyond belief!  Why in the hell has anyone ever given nuclear aid to Iran, ever!  Now that this insane policy has come to light, why are we not cutting every tiny shred of aid, any kind of aid, every kind of aid to this rabid, Jew hating, terrorist sponsoring state!  For that matter, why does the UN have a nuclear aid agency in the first place?  Excuse me while I take some more pills and pour myself a strong drink.

the Grit

Global Warming, following the money trail

February 15, 2007

Hi Brit,

I’ve said before that the case for “Global Warming, end of the world so we must act NOW” is motived more by money and politics than science.  It seems that I am not alone in this belief, On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!  However, even though the lie of Global Warming is now so entrenched in the public mind that there is no stopping these fear mongers from winning, we can still learn some lessons from this gigantic and corrupt conspiracy.

1.  Always follow the money before trusting anyone’s motives.

2.  Never, under any circumstances, ever, trust anyone either employed by, or connected to, the United Nations.

3.  It’s past time to question why scientific research needs to be funded by the Government.

4.  It’s way past time to question our continued funding of the UN.

5.  Most politicians get their jobs by being good liars.  Why do we expect them to change their ways once they get in office?

6.  We, as a country, have few friends outside our boarders.  We should start acting like it.

7.  Almost all fanatics, be they religious, political, or environmentalists, are evil and should be dealt with accordingly.

the Grit

Great, new evidence of Global Cooling!

February 13, 2007

Hi Brit,

Great news on the Global Warming front!  “Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century. ”  Since we had the hottest year on record was 2005, then, logically, if last year wasn’t warmer, we are cooling.  What fantastic news!  This, of course, means that we can call off all the Climate Change taxes, cut the billions of dollars in research grants for “climate scientists”, and go back to spending that money on fighting disease, poverty, and starvation.  Oh, and we can officially tell AlGore to kiss the collective Global Ass.  Pucker up you evil tobacco farmer!

 The article also adds, “Most places on the globe have warmed in recent decades, with the greatest warming at high latitudes in the Arctic Ocean, Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula.”  Which, obviously, means it’s not a GLOBAL phenomena, but appears to be localized to the poles.  It would seem that the “climate scientists” need to come up with a better story to justify the massive investment in their theorizing.

the Grit

This is most UNusual.

February 11, 2007

Hi Brit,

I did not know that this was possible, but the UN just fired a staff member for being UNqualified, U.N. Fired Staff Members With Academic Degrees From Diploma Mill.  This is disturbing on several levels. 

First, how can such a massive bureaucracy not have several people who have nothing else to do but check the backgrounds of job applicants?  What have they instituted the Old World tradition of buying one’s job?

Second, since the position filled by the UNcredentialed individual is chief of the Human Resources Information Technology Section, how could someone without the proper education do the job to begin with?  Perhaps, besides improving their applicant screening process, the UN needs to prune some of the deadwood from their organizational charts.

Third, this does cast some light on the lack of educational credential listings for the “scientists” working for the IPCC.  Could this be the reason for keeping that information secret?

On the bright side, one down, tens of thousands to go.

the Grit

I found another Global Warming Denier!

February 5, 2007

Hi Brit,

It would seem that we are not alone in questioning the whole Global Warming/Climate Change issue, and this guy has some high powered credentials, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?  Just as a general question, how many Climate Scientists have to tell you that the UN, through their puppet group the IPCC, is not being honest, no doubt for financial and political reasons, about Global Warming before you get the message?  Keep in mind, that the price for this scam is going to come out of your pocket.

the Grit

Global Warming, the real story

February 4, 2007

Hi Brit,

I’ve found a few bits and pieces of evidence that the Church of Climate Science rests on a hoax, but it’s difficult to tie them all together.  Fortunately, I found where someone else has had a go at that task, Statistics needed.  This is the first in a series of articles about Deniers of Global Warming, why the science put forth by the IPCC is wrong, what tactics are used within the scientific community to stifle any hint that the science of Climate Change is not settled, and points out some of the lies the UN has placed in the reports on the subject.  Links to the other 9 articles are included on that page.  Considering that this series contains enough evidence to seriously damage the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming, and we all know how angry people get when their religion is questioned, it would be best to read it soon, as I suspect the host will be brought under great pressure to remove it.

Oh, and I just found this, Researchers build lasers for NASA climate studies, which points out even more of the inadequacies in the current state of Climate Science.

 Oh, oh, and in case there is some question as to what other motives may be at work behind the scenes, 45 Countries Push for New Worldwide Environmental Body.

the Grit

Thank you Scientific American!

February 3, 2007

Hi Brit,

Well, the buy in to the Global Warming hoax is complete with this bit from Scientific American, Final Report: Humans Caused Global Warming.  The once independent and respected science magazine has, obviously, been either bought or pressured by Higher Powers into this trite piece of crap journalism.  What a sad day.

For instance, they say “a panel of climate experts has confirmed,” when they know, or should know, that the “climate experts” have backgrounds in a wide range of disciplines having nothing to do with climate studies.

Then they continue with, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a working group of some 3,000 delegates from 113 countries, today issued its final report here on the state of climate change”  Which is another bit of reportage dung, since this isn’t the final report but, rather, the premature release of the summary of a report that will be issued later, but which will be edited to conform to the political statement represented by this summary.  Shame on you once great science journal.

Then they go on to include this bit of drek, “Some of the models show an ice-free Arctic. We see more severe extremes, heat waves. We see a lot of heavier precipitation, drought increases in a lot of regions. Tropical cyclones are projected to become more intense in a lot of areas with ongoing increases in sea surface temperatures,” says Gerald Meehl, an atmospheric scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and a contributing author. “We see what we’ve already seen but everything becoming a lot more extreme.”  Knowing full well that computer models of climate change are not intended to be predictive, but, rather, are merely a means of testing scientists’ understanding of what has happened to date.  I would ask, “who is paying you off SA, and what is the dollar amount necessary to buy your integrity?”

 Then they slip this in, “This warming would vary from place to place, with some regions experiencing far more,” begging the question of what is actually meant by “global warming?”

Back to computer models we have this pearl of wisdom: For instance, thanks to a diversity of computer models—as well as several runs of each—the scientists can now provide a best estimate for the temperature change based on a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere: three degrees Celsius.  To which I must ask, if the models are worth the cost of the electricity it takes to run them, then why are several runs of each necessary?  The answer, of course, is that the models are tossing dice (random numbers) somewhere in their bowels so each run comes out different.  Keep this in mind when your taxes go up based on these “facts.”

Finally, we come to the real problem with this article, and the IPCC report.  Instead of being based on science, it’s based on politics and committee meetings as is shown by, “The process of drafting this summary report proved contentious at times. For example, a sentence was ultimately removed that said man-made greenhouse gases outweigh the contribution of the sun by a factor of five.”  Sorry to bother you “climate scientists” with this, but “facts” are either true, or they are not true.  Anytime data has to be followed with a plus/minus degree of accuracy, it’s a guess just like an opinion poll.  Scientific American should know better than to fall for this crap.  You disappoint me greatly.

the Grit

IPCC report fixed!

February 2, 2007

Hi Brit,

After the release of the new IPCC study, the news is full of story after story about Climate Change! I’ve got half a dozen in different tabs that I’ve been trying to connect together for a post.  Then I found this, Climate Change’s Carnival Atmosphere, which does a pretty good job of summing things up.

This is the best bit:

 First, the UN isn’t releasing its full report this week – just the curiously edited “Summary for Policy Makers.” The detailed report on the science won’t be issued until May or so because it’s not finished.

If you’re wondering how the UN can issue a summary of a report that’s not even finished, fear not. The UN has announced that changes to the full report shall be made “to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policy Makers.”

Basically, this admits that the results come first, and the research is rigged later to match.  Not a bad scam, but hardly worth the $5,000,000,000 the US is spending a year on this junk.  So, in the coming years, as your utility bill gets larger, your light bulbs become poisonous, you can’t fit comfortably into your over priced “green” car, and your local, state, and Federal taxes shoot through the roof, it’s all for a good cause.  Climate Scientists need the money.

the  Grit

The Global Warming hoax continues!

February 1, 2007

Hi Brit,

Apparently, not everyone on the planet has bought into the Global Warming hoax yet, so they’re putting out this: Satellite data vital to UN climate findings.  While I would be fine with the title, I would also question why the satellite data wasn’t vital to the previous findings.  Could it be because previous satellite data didn’t back up the Global Warming Theory and was thus discarded?

Anyway, even this bit of media biased reporting casts suspicion on the entire Global Warming scheme in its opening line, “The most authoritative report on climate change to date will be released tomorrow in Paris, France.”  If the previous reports were not “authoritative” then why, a rational person might ask, are we in a rush to base policy on them? 

Then we have this bit of scandal, “Predictions for the future of global warming in the report, intended as a summary for policymakers, are based on 19 computer models.”  I would point out that I can have you any number of computer models, within a month, that will show anything you want them to predict.  To verify the projections of these computer games, one has to wait until the date of the projection and take REAL MEASUREMENTS!  This is admitted in the next paragraph of the report, “The ability of satellites to deliver global data on the Earth System makes them particularly useful to study climate change and to validate and assess the quality of climate models.”

Then we have this twisted bit of misdirection, “Satellites are often the only means of studying the Earth’s Polar Regions because of their remoteness, darkness and cloudiness.”  Which makes me wonder how, considering that the greatest warming in the other IPCC reports occurred in the Arctic, was measured without the aid of this satellite data included in the latest report. 

Another interesting quote from the story is, “Satellites are useful for helping build scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane — the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. Using the Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography (SCIAMACHY) instrument aboard Envisat, researchers at the University of Heidelberg in 2005 were able to confirm increased methane concentrations induced mainly by human activities. ”  Which raises the question of why the 2001 report was presented in such a definitive manner if it wasn’t confirmed until four years later?  Of course, that delay, and the obvious agenda being pushed by these “scientists” brings anything they say after the initial report into doubt.

As a parting shot, allow me to present this:

A space-borne instrument known as a radar altimeter offers valuable information on the state of the ocean by providing measurements of the height of the ocean surface. Data acquired by radar altimeters aboard Envisat and ERS show sea levels have been rising by three mm a year since the early 1990s.

I would point out that the alarmist predictions of the initial IPCC report were of sea level rises of several feet, even hundreds of feet.  For the record, 3 mm is 0.11811 inches, so a hundred years at this rate is less than a foot.  Of course, one would have to question the ability of satellite measurements of a wave tossed ocean to have this level of accuracy.

the Grit

The last Global Warming skeptic?

January 31, 2007

Hi Brit,

I have good news!  Even our most liberal news paper, perhaps the most liberal serious paper in the world, the New York Times, is not totally convinced about Global Warming and Climate Change: World Scientists Near Consensus on Warming!  While the rest of the story is full of the usual liberal, Global Warming as religion tripe, there is one bit which is very instructive:

Scientists involved in writing or reviewing the report say it is nearly certain to conclude that there is at least a 90 percent chance that human-caused emissions are the main factor in warming since 1950. The report is the fourth since 1990 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is overseen by the United Nations.

 “It is nearly certain that there is at least a 90% chance,” that, to me, says they don’t know!  You should also note that, instead of the usual 100 year comparison, they’ve shifted to a 50 year time span.  That’s because, it’s obvious that the temperature spike in the first half of the last century wasn’t due to human activity.  They can’t really explain its cause, but, quietly buried in the reports of the liberal media, is the admission that we didn’t cause it.  It only took 20 years for that bit of information to come to semi-light.  Of course, to any rational mind, that would bring up the question of trust to the “climate scientists” findings about the most recent temperature increase.  Unfortunately, there is grant money, political power, and business interests at stake, so the truth will have to wait.

Another question a rational person might ask, is what has consensus got to do with science?  While I did suffer through a public school education, I was always taught that science dealt with fact, not opinion.  It is a disturbing surprise to me that science has devolved into a popularity contest.  If this is going to be the trend in “science,” it seems to me that, to make it fair, we should put it to our elected representative to decide the position science will bow to.  That would at least, save us a few billion on research funding.

the Grit

Would you buy a used car from the IPCC?

January 30, 2007

Hi Brit,

It’s almost time for the new UN-IPCC Climate Change report.  Yea Haw.  Of course, having already sold the concept to the money people, they are, apparently, toning down the dire warnings.  After all, fixing the “problem” too quickly would put thousands of experts out of work.  However, in this story, Clouds a puzzle for U.N. global warming panel, thet they’re really not sure about a lot of things.  For instance, they have no clue as to what effect cloud formation will have on the situation.  And then we have this interesting quote:

“‘In the interior of Greenland, the ice has been thickening,’ said Catherine Myrmehl, of the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Norway, based upon satellite readings. Many scientists reckon Greenland is losing ice overall.”

I do so love science.  The cold unemotional nature of the numbers.  The precise measurements.  The clear exact language used to communicate the findings.  So, if many scientists reckon the ice is going, that’s just dang sure enough good for me.  Let’s just go ahead and shut the whole planet down and cower in the dark like our ancestors.

the Grit

Bat out of hell, bite me world!

January 29, 2007

Hi Brit,

I was in a bit of a nostalgic mood this afternoon, so I put “Bat Out of Hell” on and cranked it up.  Man, what perfect timing!  Global Warming, extremest Muslim terrorists, liberals, Jane Fonda, Britney’s beaver, Big Brother racism, Hillary Clinton, the United Nations, President Bush, AlGore, Iraq, Iran, nuclear bombs, blood in the streets, and the end of the world; screw it all!  So, take a few minutes, put the CD on, crank it up and sing along!

Bat Out Of Hell lyrics

The sirens are screaming and the fires are howling

Way down in the valley tonight
There’s a man in the shadows with a gun in his eye
And a blade shining oh so bright
There’s evil in the air and there’s thunder in the sky
And a killer’s on the bloodshot streets
And down in the tunnel where the deadly are rising
Oh I swear I saw a young boy
Down in the gutter
He was starting to foam in the heat
Oh Baby you’re the only thing in this whole world
that’s pure and good and right
And wherever you are and wherever you go
There’s always gonna be some light
But i gotta get out
I gotta break it out now
Before the final crack of dawn
So we gotta make the most of our one night together
When it’s over you know
We’ll both be so alone
Like a bat out of hell
I’ll be gone when the morning comes
When the night is over
Like a bat out of hell I’ll be gone gone gone
Like a bat out of hell I’ll be gone when the morning comes
But when the day is done
And the sun goes down
And the moonlight’s shining through

Then like a sinner before the gates of heaven

I’ll come crawling on back to you
I’m gonna hit the highway like a battering ram

On a silver black phantom bike

When the metal is hot and the engine is hungry

And we’re all about to see the light

Nothing ever grows in this rotten old hole

Everything is stunted and lost

And nothing really rocks

And nothing really rolls

And nothing’s ever worth the cost

And I know that I’m damned if I never get out

And maybe I’m damned if I do

But with every other beat I got left in my heart

You know I’d rather be damned with you

If I gotta be damned you know I wanna be damned

Dancing through the night with you

If I gotta be damned you know I wanna be damned

Gotta be damned you know I wanna be damned

If Gotta be damned you know I wanna be damned

Dancing through the night

Dancing through the night

Dancing through the night with you
Oh Baby you’re the only thing in this whole world

     that’s pure and good and right

And wherever you are and wherever you go

There’s always gonna be some light

But I gotta get out

I gotta break it out now

Before the final crack of dawn

So we gotta make the most of our one night together

When it’s over you know

We’ll both be so alone

Like a bat out of hell

I’ll be gone when the morning comes

When the night is over

Like a bat out of hell I’ll be gone gone gone

Like a bat out of hell I’ll be gone when the morning comes

But when the day is done

And the sun goes down

And the moonlight’s shining through

Then like a sinner before the gates of heaven

I’ll come crawling on back to you

Then like a sinner before the gates of heaven

I’ll come crawling on back to you

I can see myself tearing up the road

Faster than any other boy has ever gone

And my skin is raw but my soul is ripe

And no one’s gonna stop me now

I gotta make my escape

But I can’t stop thinking of you

And I never see the sudden curve until it’s way too late

I never see the sudden curve till it’s way too late

Then I’m dying on the bottom of a pit in the blazing sun

Torn and twisted at the foot of a burning bike

And I think somebody somewhere is tolling a bell

And the last thing I see is my heart

Still beating

Breaking out of my body

And flying away

Like a bat out of hell

Then I’m dying at the bottom of a pit in the blazing sun

Torn and twisted at the foot of a burning bike

And I think somebody somewhere must be tolling a bell

And the last thing I see is my heart

Still beating

Still beating

Breaking out of my body and flying away

Like a bat out of hell

Thanks Jim; thanks Meat!  Still love it; still a fan.

the Grit

Once again, Global Warming has me confused!

January 29, 2007

Hi Brit,

Well, much to my surprise, Global Warming, the UN, and “climate scientists” have me confused, once again.  As you may recall, the UN lapdog agency in charge of perpetuating the Global Warming hoax, the IPCC, is due to issue a new installment of its propaganda next week in Paris.  Supposedly, the top 2500 scientists involved in studying Climate Change, with the predetermined idea that Global Warming is true, are the ones writing this Great Work of Science, as Edited by Politicians for Who Knows What Purpose.  However, I just found this, New Climate Report Too Rosy, Experts Say?  So, are the experts writing the crap that is pushing us into accepting Climate Change and restructuring our entire civilization, or aren’t they?  Perhaps the Climate Change Zealots should get together and decide just who their Prophets are?  And perhaps, just perhaps, the rest of us should take a step back and wait for the internal religious conflict in the Church of Global Warming to reach a bloody conclusion before we buy into their scam?

the Grit

Die Global Warming! Die!

January 28, 2007

Hi Brit,

This is even cooler than giant robots or rail guns!  US answer to global warming: smoke and giant space mirrors  Hot dang, giant space mirrors!  I don’t even care what they’re for, just the idea of giant space mirrors is great. 

Of course, if you read the article, it points out a big heap of things wrong with the IPCC (you remember, the UN’s Global Warming lap dogs,) including a mention that:

“The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions – as sought by Tony Blair. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing treaty which the US administration opposes.”

Now, at first that may sound odd or, to some, evil – a politician trying to tamper with a scientific report.  However, if you read the fine print of the existing IPCC reports, the ones that riled up all the worry about Global Warming, it turns out that (and you will hear rare mention of this by the liberal press) the final report(s) is subject to editing by politicians from several governments!  Obviously, this has to cast doubt on, not only these reports, but on Global Warming itself.  Thus, I suggest we cancel the UN, forget about Global Warming, and spend the money saved building giant space mirrors.  Oh, and we could make some of them fun-house mirrors, the ones that distort your reflection to make you look weird.  That way, the whole world could have a good laugh.

the Grit

UN career with free ATM

January 27, 2007

Hi Grit

I have been looking over some of the comments you have been making regarding the UN and decided that it must be a good idea to apply for a job with the UN, especially as it seems that free cash comes with almost every title held (hence the title free Access To Money).

Amongst the scandals that appeared to have developed are the misappropriation of millions from the UN development program curtesy of Kim Yong II, which by all accounts has been going on for nearly a decade. Then there is the small matter of $18 million on parking tickets. Of course, added to this is the scandal involving the bribery of officials responsible for the Iraq oil sales. Staying on Iraq, money has gone missing from the redevelopment fund, of which $12 billion was delivered in cash (WHAT!).

Although auditors have brought some of these matters to the attention of the UN and other nations, there is a hitch in the system. Organisations within the UN, such as the UNDP, do not have to show their accounts to the member countries they serve.

Excuse me for being critical Grit, but the introduction of the Sobarnes-Oxley Act was an effort to eradicate corporate problems and bring transparency into business financial reporting. It was also intended to ensure that commercial organisations were run at the highest level of corporate governance. Am I reading here that whilst it is okay for business to be whipped into shape in this way, with one of the most stringent financial regulatory structures in the world, this does not apply to international bodies? Also, who in their right mind would allow such large quantities of cash to be floating about?

Whilst I accept that the US provides a large percentage of the funds that keep the UN running, the rest of us also contribute our hard earned cash as well. Therefore, I think it is about time that not only financial statements should be issued to member states, but also they should be made available to the public. It seems to me that we could cut the UN diplomates by half and it would have no affect on the people to whom the money is being distributed.

If not, can I have a UN job please on the same terms as some of the idiots and criminals they have employed?

the Brit

UN to investigate UN corruption

January 27, 2007

Hi Brit,

I know we’ve had many discussions about corruption in the United Nations, but we can quit worrying, that topic is closed, everything is going to be alright:

Will the U.N. Development Program Probe Be Ban Ki-Moon’s First Cover-Up?

See, the new Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has everything under control.  Under the control, that is, of the same group of auditors that turned a blind eye to the oil-for-food scandal.  I say ban Ban and ban the whole crooked UN while we’re at it.

Note, despite the number of times the word “ban” is used in this post, it is not an advertisement for an underarm deodorant.

the Grit

Guess who wants more money?

January 26, 2007

Hi Brit,

All right, brace yourself, take a deep breath, now guess who has their hand out again.  Give up?  The IPCC!  Once again they are trying to milk the Global Warming cow by predicting even greater disaster waiting in the wings, U.N. climate panel to project wrenching change.  How sad to see science reduced to the level of liberal beggars. 

 Which makes me think (hard to do I know), let us play a game.  Why don’t we cut all the funding for the Climate Change Gang, and see how many keep singing the same tune?

the Grit

IPCC throws in the towel!

January 25, 2007

Hi Brit,

Great news!  The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s lap dog in the Global Warming scheme) has waved the white flag, Warming to raise seas for 1,000 years: U.N. draft.  It now seems that, regardless of what we do, the Global Warming fanatics have decided that it won’t be enough and everyone is going to die.  What a load off my mind!  Now we can instruct our Governments to ignore the twits, save trillions of dollars, and get on with our lives.  Of course, since the IPCC is going to release the report in Paris, France, there may be some doubts as to its accuracy, leaving us stuck with spending lives and treasure trying to solve a pretend problem by politically correct means.  Drat!

There is a funny bit in the article that makes it worth reading:

“The study, by a panel of 2,500 scientists who advise the United Nations, also says that dust from volcanic eruptions and air pollution seems to have braked warming in recent decades by reflecting sunlight back into space, scientific sources said.”

So, for those of you who buy into the Global Warming scam, rip those catalytic converters off your cars and start burning your trash in a barrel in the back yard.  Pollute to save the planet!  Of course, this also means that you can thank the Environmentalist Movement for Global Warming.

the Grit

Fixing the United Nations!?

January 24, 2007

Hi Brit,

Not long ago I posted about the latest UN scandal and we got several comments from gary, talking about changing the United Nations to the United Democratic Nations.  This got me to thinking what it would take to fix the UN so that it would be more useful and less corrupt.  So here goes:

1.  One of the problems I see in the UN is the one country, one vote concept.  Obviously, this doesn’t give a very good distribution of representation.  So, let’s try a two tiered system like the US does in our legislature.  One body would represent countries based on their population, and the other would offer representation just for being a country.  What the heck, let’s add a third body to offer representation based on a country’s GDP.  Of course, all three would need to pass a measure to make it active.  Oh, and considering the rapidly increasing role of multi-national corporations in the world, we might even want to have a forth body to represent them.

2.  Funding.  Now that’s a big problem, not only in making the share of support fair and equatable, but also in keeping the cash from finding its way into the wrong hands.  So, I think UN funding should come completely from voluntary donations from individuals and businesses.  This would give the people a chance to restrain the UN when needed and encourage it when warranted.  To help this along, donations, up to a certain amount, would be directly deductible from one’s national tax owed.  Thus, without a guaranteed source of income, the UN would be prodded to clean up its act.

3.  Which leaves us with the Security Council and the scope of the UN’s authority.  Given the added levels of representation and limited funding, the safe guard of the Security Council shouldn’t be necessary.  Still, we wouldn’t want them meddling in just anything that took their fancy, so some list of things the UN had authority to mess with would have to be fixed in the new charter, with some super difficult process needed to change it.

That’s it for now.  Comments are more than welcome.

the Grit