Let's play pretend!

So from this article, I followed the link to the quoted "Harper's magazine" article and found the following nuggets:

But Kyoto also allows companies to purchase “offsets,” credits from emissions-reducing projects in developing countries. Such projects, which currently account for as much as a third of total tradable credits, are overseen not by the E.U. but by the United Nations.

That would be the UN, that most august and incorruptible organization that has brought you such examples of good governance and oversight such as the Oil-for-food and Sex-for-food scandals. Yup, they're the ones who are going to be overseeing the running of planet Earths' developed industries.

And unlike traditional commodities, which sometimes during the course of their market exchange must be delivered to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on the lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no one.

I would bet this the first time in history that such an audacious snake-oil sales pitch has ever had such a global scope. Re-read that paragraph, let the understanding of the market for pretend goods sink in.

According to a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the margin of error in measuring emissions from the cement and fertilizer industries can be as high as 10 percent. For the oil, gas, and coal industries, the margin of error is 60 percent; and for some agricultural processes, the margin of error can actually reach 100 percent.

+/- 100% ??!?!?! In what field of human achievement is an error rate of +/- 100% remotely acceptable? Hell, even +/- 60% ??? Yet this is the program the UN wants the entire world to sign on to.

Also the article mentions that Goldman Sachs now hosts a carbon trading desk and is intimately involved with the setup of carbon offsets market in the US. That would be the same Goldman Sachs that aided the Greek government in cooking the books that has precipitated the current Euro(€) crisis and the possible collapse of the Greek economy.

Indeed, carbon exists as a commodity only through the decisions of politicians and bureaucrats, who determine both the demand, by setting emissions limits, and the supply, by establishing criteria for offsets.

So the entire carbon trading "market" has been invented out of thin air by people who's primary job is to lie, policed by a multinational with a reputation of dodgy accounting on nationwide scales, overseen by the world's most corrupt organisation.

What could possibly go wrong?

Things that make you go hmmm....

Further to my post about Mr Calma attending the UN anti racist-hatefest, and the confusion as to why someone representing Australia would attend, when the "official" government position was to boycott the conference. In an Andrew Bolt column on Rudd's post-PM ambitions, there was a sentence that caught my eye:

"He [Rudd] also waited until the last minute to pull out of a UN anti-racism conference last month rather than lead in condemning what was in fact a festival of hatred for Israel."

By all accounts, ALL the media coverage about Mr Calma attending was of the "shock and surprise" that a public servant would dissent from the official position. What is of concern is if Mr Rudd did in fact want an Australian presence there but could publicly decry it. The presence could serve as part of Rudd's future campaign to a UN posting whilst his public announcements would serve as a signal to the Aussie electorate that he is taking the "proper" stance.

Let me reiterate, the Durban II conference was nothing but the clearest indication that the UN project is failing allowing the most racist, most tyrrannical regimes in the world a voice to criticise liberal democracies for their alleged failings in human rights. In the end it just results in a lightly worded condemnation of Israel, which most of the world ignores. The wikipedia entry
demonstrates that the problems with this conference are well documented, and I would argue that the correct position was for Australia to boycott. However if it turns out that Mr Calma attended with the tacit acceptance of Big Kev, solely to improve his chances at being elected the
big cheese at the UN after his term as PM, then you might want to ask exactly what other decisions and policy positions he is taking with this aim in mind...

Increasing sales of Uranium to the Chinese?
Introducing an Emissions Trading Scheme?

Can I use "internationalist" as a pejorative term?

Things that make you go hmmm..
(picture source)

Defamation of Space Monkeys

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on 10 December 1948 by the UN General Assembly states:

Article 18.

* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

A fairly straightforward declaration that any individual should be free to pursue his religion or system of beliefs. And by system of beliefs, I take that to mean anything from mystical teapots to atheism, whereas the 'faith' in that there is no God, has just as much right and freedom to be practiced as those faiths that that believe in Him.

So it is without much surprise for anyone who has seen any of the UN's most recent work (see Darfur, Rwanda, etc, etc...), that they have passed resolution "62/154. Combating defamation of religions"

Here's a little sampling of the document, just to give you an indication of the sheer plethora of religions that will be covered by this religious defamation declaration:

From the preamble:

"Alarmed at the serious instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence based on religion or belief, intimidation and coercion motivated by extremism, religious or otherwise, occurring in many parts of the world, in addition to the negative projection of Islam in the media and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims, particularly Muslim minorities following the events of 11 September 2001, and threatening the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,"

Because clearly, September 11 had nothing to do with Islam...I think it was all Dubya's fault or something.

5. Also expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

Wrongly. Oh so wrongly. (Warning, graphic images)

6. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
...

8. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion, as well as targeting of religious symbols;

Oops	Ooops again	Oh shit, oops..again

9. Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular;

"in particular" Well, quite frankly the media has not shown much respect for my pastafarian beliefs, so I don't know why the Muslims get particular attention..Oh yeah, that's right

And here's the real point of this document:

14. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through education and awareness-raising;

For 300 odd years, the West has borne the fruits of the Enlightenment to the rest of the world, the separation of Church and State being the inevitable outcome of promoting Reason above Faith, and now we have the "well-intentioned" yet utterly corrupt transnational organisation wanting to rewind the clocks.

A final word from one of my favourite atheists:

"the U.N. resolution seeks to extend the whole area of denial from its existing homeland in the Islamic world into the heartland of post-Enlightenment democracy where it is still individuals who have rights, not religions."

A futile retraction

picture source

(via LGF)

You may recall a month ago, the world was agog (agog! I tell you) that Israel had the temerity to respond to constant shelling of it's civilian population by shooting at the fuckers that were launching rockets. Allegedly one of the shells struck a school where 40 Palestinian civilians were sheltering and they were all killed.

• Daily Mail: "Gaza's darkest day: 40 die as Israel bombs 'safe haven' UN school"
  
• The Guardian: "Gaza's day of carnage - 40 dead as Israelis bomb two UN schools"
• The Times: "Ban Ki-Moon lambasts shelling of UN in Gaza"

Protests ensued and swastikas were bandied about, rhetoric got heated and the media and everyone got all very nasty at Israel about it's clearly disproportionate retaliation and lack of perfect weaponry that only kills bad guys.

And now a month later, when no one any longer gives a rat's arse (especially the media because they are too busy covering Obama's latest bowel movement) and the damage is done, the agency that first reported this 'war crime' (hint: it begins with a U and ends with an N) has now retracted the report that started all this rage and international condemnation.

What's the bet you're going to see that story in any paper soon?

Gay rights at the UN? ha ha

Just in case any of you were still in the thrall of the UN with the promised Nirvana of Human Rights, you might want to read this story.

Islamic (in)tolerance trumps Gay Rights.

How long do you think before the advances in Women's Rights are slowly rolled back...you know, so as not to offend certain countries.