Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Chasing Rainbows | Main | House to investigate Climategate? »

+++Check this out+++

From Jo Nova

Western countries will jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to an unnamed new UN Fund. To keep this sum up with GDP growth, the West may commit itself to pay 1.5% of GDP to the UN each year. That is more than twice the 0.7% of GDP that the UN has recommended the West to pay in foreign aid for the past half century. Several hundred of the provisions in the Chairman’s note will impose huge financial costs on the nations of the West.

This looks gobsmacking. Needs careful checking though.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (42)

So who will sign it? If Obama does, he will be impeached by the Tea Party.

Dec 9, 2010 at 5:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Wasn't that from Viscount Monckton?

Dec 9, 2010 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

This is not new. $100 billion a year redistribution was raised at Copenhagen as well. It is being recommended by the Club of Rome and GLOBE International.

Se Point 5 here, here and here.

Dec 9, 2010 at 6:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

Yes, this is what they want and they are not going to get it. At least if there's a single brain-cell among them. Oh wait.....

Dec 9, 2010 at 6:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobinson

I thought it was a long-tern (decades long) aim that 1.7% of GDP should be directed to Third World Aid - through the UN. I'd have to look up the references. As far as I can see the Climate Change scam has been seen as a powerful tool to achieve this.

I've never been of the view that overseas aid has been productive in achieving its ends or that the endlessly corrupt UN and its offspring would be effective in disbursing the money anyway. I certainly find it bizarre that the Tories were talking about ring-fencing the aid budget before election when this certainly wasn't popular with their membership or voters.

In the case of the UK, this is largesse with borrowed money which future generations will be saddled with paying.

Time to re-think the role of the UN altogether with a view to downsizing and rationalising it.

Dec 9, 2010 at 6:21 PM | Unregistered Commentercosmic

"Western countries will jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020"

The gov forecasts a national debt of £1.1 trillion by 2011 another few billion thrown at the UN wet dream in promises won't make much difference, we'll already be broke by then.

Dec 9, 2010 at 6:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

GDP of the G20 is about $50 trillion. 1.5% of that is about $750 billion, which is a vastly more than $100 billion.

GDP of the U.S. alone is about 14 trillion. 1.5% of that is about $210 billion, which is still far more than $100 billion.

These sums do not add up.

Dec 9, 2010 at 6:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterSuramantine

@ Suramantine

Thanks for the numbers. Informative.

Aside from the obvious issues of draining badly damaged Western economies of yet more money that they can ill-afford, what really worries me about all this is the distribution of the fund.

There are more than a few examples of what happens when large amounts of money are funnelled into developing countries. None are edifying.

I predict that if this ever gets off the ground it will engender the biggest wave of corruption the world has ever seen.

Dec 9, 2010 at 7:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Definition of Foreign Aid:" What poor people in rich countries give to rich people in poor countries"

Dec 9, 2010 at 7:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Tolson

Phillip, yes, it's from Monckton, picked up by Milloy at Junk Science. The link to the original is:
This comes under the heading of "Be very afraid ..."; the list of organisations the UN plan to set up to handle this stuff is awesome.
If Monckton says,

I usually add some gentle humor to these reports. Not today. Read this and weep.
then I am about to get worried!

Dec 9, 2010 at 7:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterSam the Skeptic

@ Roger Tolson

Yes indeed.

Dec 9, 2010 at 7:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

O/T with full apologies, but this may be of great interest to all:

New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming

If correctly reported at el Reg, this is a very important development in the field of climate modelling. Game changing even.

Many thanks to Don Pablo for linking to it on an earlier thread.

Even the Bish might want to take a minute to look this over.

Dec 9, 2010 at 7:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Also at WUWT.

Dec 9, 2010 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterSam the Skeptic

Thanks Sam - just got back from that very article... ;-)

Interesting, isn't it?

Dec 9, 2010 at 8:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

The NASA story is clearly a plant (pun intended) by denialists.

For, as we all know, the science is settled, the debate is over.

Well apart from the numerous factors yet to be reflected adequately in models. Anf doubts over past climate records.

All this does is increase uncertainty for now. What other material factors remain lurking?

I am increasingly of the view that nobody has the breadth of detailed knowledge of all the niche sciences and that climate science is at a very early stage.

Combine that with our appalling understanding of economics and we have an outstanding example of garbage in, garbage out when assessments of the GDP costs and effects etc. are discussed.

Dec 9, 2010 at 8:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterArgusfreak

Yes it is. It's interesting to see a trickle (hardly a flood yet though one never knows) of statements and papers hitting the headlines that row back on some of the more extreme prognostications.
I wonder if some of the language (and proposals) coming from the more rabid warmists and people like the UN and the misanthropic NGOs is causing a little bit of unease in the community.
The idea that a doubling of CO2 will increase temperatures by only 1.4 degrees C (if it stands up, of course) cuts the ground from under the whole scare.
The Luddites are thrown back on their "peak oil/coal/gas" argument which most of us (laymen like me included) can refute pretty easily. Don't expect the politicians to go quietly, though!

Dec 9, 2010 at 9:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterSam the Skeptic

Is there no one else, (no, not you ZBD), who thinks that Monckton is a bit loose in the flue? I enjoy reading his rants, and I suppose I share his POV regarding the meanderings of "Climate Science" our current flavor of State Religion, but I have deep reservations about his grasp of what will and what will not fly in the US.

He predicted in October a year ago, that Obama would sign a treaty a Copenhagen which would surrender US sovereignty to some sort of UN commission which would then be able to monitor and impose tax-like sanctions on our more energetic activities. I Argued at the time that this was extremely unlikely. I argued that first Obama would recognize that the treaty called for a surrender of sovereignty and although he might not be the last to agree to such, he would never be the first., and second, even assuming he did sign, the treaty would never survive the US Senate which must ratify such things.

And surprise of surprises, Obama didn't sigh the treaty and neither did anyone else AFAIK.

So Monckton is back again, with more of the same.

And this tie it is clear to almost everyone not in Cancun, that no treaty will issue forth.

What seems more likely to be the insidious threat of the Cancun Proclamations is that they will be incorporated in the bureaucratic foundations of the EU, and the US will find itself forced into some sort of compliance if we want to sell anything over there ..... or an economic war.

I can guess who among the regulars here will think I'm giving too much credit to Obama. But I would be especially interested in reading any thoughts, assuming there are any, sharing my skepticism of Monckton's grasp of the world.

I apologize if what I've written here is just plain crazy. I can't tell.

At the time, I took this as an indication that Monckton had no sense whatever of what could or could not be done politically here in the US.

Dec 9, 2010 at 9:13 PM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

Last sentence above should be second paragraph - tri-focals strike again. AKKKK.

Dec 9, 2010 at 9:15 PM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

Nuts. Strike last sentence altogether .

Dec 9, 2010 at 9:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

j ferguson -- I disagree with your assesment of Monckton. Last year he helped alert everyone to what was on the UN website ( buried very deep so it was hard to find). In the statements he made he just quoted from the document especially the use of the word Government. I think he said the world leaders would be asked to sign this treaty ( admitedly what was on the website was a draft and he acknowledged this).
Similarly what he has written in recent days is largely quoting from another document but he is in places interpreting the UN speak which 99% of us are not meant to be able to understand ( just look at the titles of the committees). I agree the whole thing seems " far fetched" but these are UN docs. in the public now and from what we have seen over this whole AGW scam anything is possible. So I think what he says has to be taken seriously.
For those who think it is not alot of money take a closer look at JoNov's thread ( linked by the Bishop at the top) at the top where she equates it to cost per family/yr ( I think she has it in Aust$)

Dec 9, 2010 at 9:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss

What you've written is helpful. I need to go back to WUWT a year ago where I read what I thought was Monckton writing that Obama would sign the treaty. It seems possible that this was a mischaracteriztion of Monckton's piece by Anthony, which would invalidate my perception of Monckton's appreciation of our situation here.

Dec 9, 2010 at 9:51 PM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

When the Cat's away the mice will play, especially in Cancun. Who knew there was something underhanded and rotten in the mix, after all, there didn't seem to be anything happening, right? Can't Warmers be trusted? What's the World coming to?

Dec 9, 2010 at 10:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterPascvaks

Here it is Ross.
He said it. To my mind it was utter nonsense then and would be today as well.

I continue to respect his views on the "science." And to doubt the security of his flue.

Dec 9, 2010 at 11:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

j ferguson --thanks for the link. I take your point given the way he said it at the start , but he has to "create" abit of controversy with something like this to get people to sit up and listen to what could be considered a rather dry topic. In your link you will see that later on in the quote he talks about "if" the leaders sign it etc., what will happen. It is just his style of presentation and if you don't like it ,fair enough.
But this whole business of raising $100 bill/yr and 1.5% of GDP has been talked about in other media. From a comment on another site it was stated that the Advanced Group on Climate Change Financing is chaired by the PM of Norway ( Jens Stoltenberg) and the others are Nicholas Stern , Lawrence Summers and George Soros. Need I say anything more !!

Dec 10, 2010 at 12:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoss

Now that Scotlands first minister has publicly stated that the country has to make plans for future, disruptive winters, aka cold climate chaos, I wonder about how the choice will be made between the purchase of more snow-ploughs and the transference of funds from the poor of this country to the rich of the third world!
One can only hope that the miserable contribution made to our energy status by renewables, in these conditions, will also be a factor in central planning.

Dec 10, 2010 at 12:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

There will not be an agreement, no agreement whatsoever, but they will come back with something. And you will pay for for whatever it is, not them, YOU wil pay for your lifetime!


Dec 10, 2010 at 12:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

I further wonder as to how much university funding would become available to the next generation if, only, our political wise-persons would just wake up and smell the coffee that the spectre of CAGW is, with hindsight, an over-flogged illusion that is rapidly becoming a delusion!0

Dec 10, 2010 at 12:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

Well isnt Monkton a Viscount or something? Of couse he has a few nails missing, though not as many as Charles the Third. Moncton's grasp of climatology is variable - some of his claims are pretty silly.

Like the Goracle he is in danger of becoming an asset to his enemies.

Dec 10, 2010 at 12:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterBill

@RoyFOMR - I heard bits of Salmond's speech about resilience tonight on the news and got the feeling he was moving into "climate disruption" territory - there was certainly no sense of any recanting of the faith as regards CAGW and all that follows.

Dec 10, 2010 at 1:05 AM | Unregistered Commenterwoodentop

Any 'leader' who approves this should be connected from the neck by a rope to a light pole.

Dec 10, 2010 at 1:09 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

The UK government has already signed up to the new UN fund according to the delighfully airheaded Louise Grey in the Telegraph.
The story about the 1.6 degree warming was carried on the GWPF site and the article stated that a doubling of CO2 was now not likely to produce more than 1.6 degrees of warming, they also pointed out that with the current rise in atmospheric CO2 being less that 2ppm per year, the 1.6 degree warming is a number of centuries away.
All of this still assumes that CO2 warming is straight line whereas we all know it is logarithmic dont we?
At Cancun Huhne announced that the UK can lead the world in Wind farm energy production. Not that hard when the rest of the world realises that it is a useless idea. If Huhne looks behind him he will find that while the UK is rushing for renewables, the rest of the world is rushing for Natural Gas from Shale. We even have a site in Blackpool that will start producing next year and latest predictions say it could produce 20% of the UK energy requirements.
I do wish Huhne would show up for his Psyche evaluations now and again.

Dec 10, 2010 at 1:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterDung

I really don't care whether AS believes in his religion. I only want him to buy Cold-weather gear before exporting our dwindling reserves of cash to those who'll never die from hypothermia or black-ice and will never, ever, have to face public trial for mass manslaughter brought about by blind belief in the dogma of renewable energy as being the only way ahead.
FFS, AS, as the death-toll rises from your uncritical, and I don't give a damn about how reasonable it all sounded at the time, I'll even volunteer to learn how to tie the knot.
Caw canny AS, some things matter in politics, some don't. This matters. Choices made by you will ripple through future generations. If you have no doubts about your current choices, then you are a fool because the evidence for doubt is hidden in full view!

Dec 10, 2010 at 1:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch.

Dec 10, 2010 at 1:33 AM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

Hillary Clinton at COP16 committed the USA to contribute to the $100 billion but there were conditions. Transparency and inspection were two of the conditions.

Tom Nelson had the following on his feed this morning:

CLIMATE [HOAX] SPECTATOR: Cancun calling – Night of the long knives | Giles Parkinson | Commentary | Business Spectator

There were reports of numerous walk-outs. US negotiator Jonathon Pershing was said to have stormed out of a crucial meeting on transparency, threatening to reconsider his country’s Copenhagen pledges if India did not offer more on monitoring and verification. Bolivia was also said to have stormed out of talks on forestry (they don’t like market mechanisms) and the UN and the US both cancelled scheduled press conferences at the last minute.

Dec 10, 2010 at 7:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul in Sweden

Hillary Clinton at COP16 COP15 committed the USA to contribute to the $100 billion but there were conditions. Transparency and inspection were two of the conditions.


Dec 10, 2010 at 7:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul in Sweden

re j ferguson

Knot if you've read Pierrepoint's book, which is a darkly fascinating biography. Wondering if treason laws could be applied to politicians working to actively transfer power to foreign entities though, especially if that's to the detriment of national interests.

Dec 10, 2010 at 2:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Nuclear Singer (person who singes) ,
If we might concentrate our minds here for a bit, I find the concept of "legally binding" in connection with an international treaty hilarious. The first time I will take that concept seriously is when the US turns over an accused to the Haig War Crimes Tribunal. My take on the participation of US delegates in Cancun is "lip service" or "going through the motions." Obama may have doubts about the efficacy of the CAGW way of life but would rather dance in step, than do anything substantive in either direction. I suspect that when he was in Copenhagen, he heard from the Chinese that the contents of the proposed agreement were crazy.

We need to take more comfort in the hope that not all politicians are nuts.

If any of the above has any validity, than Monckton's appeals to hysteria vary little from those of the CAGW crowd.

I haven't read the book you've referred to, but will look into it.

In the meantime it might be nice to know what sanction is applied to a nation violating a "legally binding" treaty. Will they take all of our Ipods away?

Dec 10, 2010 at 5:28 PM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

j ferguson,
It would be a stretch, but knot all would get tied up in such details if they could only remember that they have real skin in the game.
Think of what Athenians did to loser Admirals, for instance. Now THAT is commitment to lead.

Dec 10, 2010 at 7:06 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter


Not just the Athenians.

Dec 10, 2010 at 7:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought

The BBC are reporting on the $100 billion per year "Green Fund". It seems the squabbling is about who administers the fund, not whether our money is going to be ripped off us:

Dec 10, 2010 at 11:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterScientistForTruth

So back from the pub where we were discussing Al Gore and his $300m virtual campaign. Filings for his main organ Alliance for Climate Protection showed only $88m in the last years 501c filings. Then wondered how his other venture, Generation Investment Management was going. Not much on the website, but did notice this

The Generation Foundation

Five percent of the profitability of the firm is allocated to the Generation Foundation, which is dedicated to strengthening the field of sustainable development and sustainability research worldwide.

Which directs to a rather sparse website saying it's another 501c in US and also registered in the UK. The UK arm shows-

31 Aug 2009 Income £9 Spending£0 Not Required 17 May 2010 **

So if that's 5% of GIM's profits, not doing very well. In 2007, the US arm received $343k but in 2008, it received.. nothing. Its 'Senior Fellow', Jed Emerson seems to have departed in that year though. Both Gore's charities haven't filed since 2008 that I can find but perhaps things aren't quite on track for the would-be carbon billionaire and he's still got the divorce to pay for.

Dec 10, 2010 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

It looks like some kind of an agreement has been reached:

The New World Government slithers ever closer.

Dec 11, 2010 at 4:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterJonathan Drake

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>