Envirodork of the Day: Ban Ki-moon

It's become a morning ritual of mine: read the news and immediately find another good reason to turn the UN property into a golf course. The last secretary-general used his office space to run a black market scheme with a fascist dictator. Naturally, the Democrats loved him. The current head man over at the hostile occupation site is a simpler sort, he's merely running a scheme of hypocrisy from his private jet.

As the political arm of Al Gore's progressive mental disease, the UN is committed to bringing communism to the United States so Gore can be installed as Head Fat Guy For Life. It uses a squad of debate squashing, common sense assassins called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Right now the IPCC's flying monkeys are meeting to determine exactly what it can do to kick the U.S. economy in the groin. This is accomplished by screaming "Consensus!" and "For the children!" incessantly until policy makers cave in from pure exhaustion.

Apparently, no one has found a way to translate "lead by example" into all the languages spoken at the UN. Ban Ki-moon, fresh from calling for immediate action on climate change, has decided to show his commitment to the cause by flying everywhere but the moons of Jupiter.

Remember, he's the S-G of the United Nations so he doesn't have a real job and isn't truly needed anywhere but at home. Still, he's found a reason to head to East Timor, Japan and New York all in a few days. The juiciest, carbon spewing part of this trip comes on the Tokyo to New York leg where the Banster is flying the wrong way around the world to add even more miles to the fun!

The UN says it will offset the trip by contributing to different environmental causes, which, far from exonerating Mr. B K-m, cements the green hypocrisy. If man-made carbon emissions really were a threat to our very survival do you think the fear-mongers would relax about an egregious carbon output like this just because the Sierra Club got a few extra bucks? That's like getting shot five times and saying that you'll be fine as long as your assailant donates to a hospital charity.

Congratulations Mr. Ban Ki-moon for being today's recipient of the ANM Envirodork Medal of Dishonor. You're the first to receive the redesigned medal! It features a breathtaking view of the earth and a cow farting out Al Gore's head. Enjoy.

I'll let the readers decide whether you're a prophet of change, a planet killing bastard or a full of crap hypocrite.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Eco-Stalin Army Acquires Weapons Of Mass Hysteria

In another attempt to finally become relevant, the United Nations has once again unleashed its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Communism (IPCC) on an unquestioning public. Get ready for all the Gorebots to ratchet up the Chicken Little dance again.

The IPCC is the main weapon for the Eco-Stalins. Its members somehow manage to keep straight faces while claiming that the scientific method, speculative projections and unquestioned claims of consensus can coexist logically. The main mission of the IPCC is to run a kazillion computer models about what might happen then choose the most extreme outcomes to focus on. They then distill all the data and put it in a report called The Summary Of Stuff You Don't Need To Take A Closer Look At (a.k.a. "The Summary for Policy Makers").

What follows each issuance of a report is this: The MSM jumps all over it, swoons like a teenage girl who has just been told she gets to spend the night with Justin Timberlake and tells the world that it will be ending soon if Mother UN isn't allowed to become a supranational nanny.

Emboldened by the fact that Nobel committee has no criteria whatsoever for awarding its prizes and has given it one, the IPCC just issued a report that is meant to induce War of the Worlds type hysteria.

Here are the "key findings" in the report. I'm not planning on waging the battle against Global Speculation all at once today. Plenty of my rantings on the subject can be found here, here and here. I'll go over just a few of my favorites. Any italics are mine.

Global warming is "unequivocal." Temperatures have risen 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. Whoop-dee-la-dee-do. Yes, even right wing nuts like myself can acknowledge that the temperature has gone up. Just as it has in the past. It's where we proceed from that premise that is the cause for division.

Extreme weather conditions will be more common. This from the same people who promised us a plague of hurricanes immediately following Katrina. What ensued was one of the quietest hurricane seasons on record. If you need me, I'll be hanging out at the corner of Skeptical and Underwhelmed.

Even if greenhouse gases are stabilized, the Earth will keep warming and sea levels rising. More pollution could bring "abrupt and irreversible" changes. Or "Fixing it doesn't really fix it but if we don't fix it might be worse." Well, let's get right on that, then.

Human activity is largely responsible for warming. Global emissions of greenhouse gases grew 70 percent from 1970 to 2004. Yet 1934 is the hottest year on record. What kind of cars were they driving then? Here's the real dilemma: you can't accomplish much of what the Eco-Stalins want to accomplish without finding some way to cease all of that meddlesome "human activity."

A wide array of tools exist, or will soon be available, to adapt to climate change and reduce its potential effects. One is to put a price on carbon emissions. Ah, we've waded through the computer projected hysterical fluff and finally arrived at the heart of the mission. We start charging the developed countries for carbon emissions. It's working so well in Europe that the utility companies are becoming wealthier but the dreaded human activity continues unabated. Carbon emissions are up in most of Europe since signing on to Kyoto and people still seem to be driving, using lights and heat in their homes and going online to read about us bastards in the U.S. who won't take this crap seriously. New motto for the IPCC (paraphrasing John Candy in "Splash"): When something doesn't work for me, I stick with it. Hey kids, guess whose carbon emissions did drop last year? Anyone? That's right, the non-Kyoto heathens in the good old U.S. of A.

By 2050, stabilizing emissions would slow the average annual global economic growth by less than 0.12 percent. The longer action is delayed, the more it will cost. Tricky. Let's look at the impact on average global economic growth instead of the projected (since the Climate Commies are such fans of the speculation-as-gospel approach) impact on U.S. economic growth. I'm sure that the percentage growth reduction in poor countries balances that out quite nicely. Looks like the IPCC has brought David Blaine and Criss Angel on board.

There may be some very real consequences to climate change. That most of them are speculative but treated as fact is what should be of greatest concern. Can anyone say United Nations power grab?

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, is from India, which is a major carbon emitter. He's willing to lead a panel that advocates panic-filled solutions from which his country is exempt. The two largest carbon emitters are the U.S. and China. Recommendations to date have involved attempts to coerce the U.S. to legally bind itself to a potential economic disaster. China? Well, lets just ask them nicely to try. You know how responsive they are to what the world wants them to do.

Beware of anything that hints of international control over the U.S. economy. Beware of anyone who calls a prediction a fact.

Lastly, communism may continually fail in practice but in theory it continues to inspire ideologues who resent the United States. Since it can't stand on its merits it has to be repackaged. Peel back the layers covering the Global Warming hype. You can wrap a turd in scented paper but it's still a turd.

You have to wonder why the default position is to let the UN and the Kyoto-philes get their grubby little hands on our economy. We're resented for the wealth that a successful free market economy has created but the efficacy of a free market approach to mitigating climate change seems to be dismissed out of hand. Instead, bureaucratic approaches that have done little more than drive up energy prices in Europe without producing the desired effects are touted as the serious solution.

Pretty paper, but that turd still stinks.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

UN A Hazard To Our Children

This just in from the U.S. Dept. of Duh!: The United Nations is hazardous to our children.

OK-it was actually Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I-Hissy Fit) who said it here and he was talking about the building itself but any launching point for a discussion about getting rid of the UN is good for me. Truthfully, you could ask me what I had for breakfast and I could turn it into a discussion about why I can't stand the U.S.-hating, foot-stomping do-nothings (I'm excessively hyphenated today, aren't I?) at the UN.

Imagine forming a group in your neighborhood the purports to foster good relations between members. Now imagine the group building its meeting place in your back yard after you agree to pay for most of it and inviting people over to insult you. No sober person with an IQ higher than the teens would sign up for such a group, right?

The idea that all the nations of the world should hang out and get along is wonderful. So is the idea that I should be able to date Jessica Biel. Neither, however, is likely to happen soon.

The UN Charter is full of noble ideals about peace, human rights and putting an end to war. (It completely avoids the subject of me hooking up with Jess which, I'll admit, kind of pisses me off.) It seeks to make a better world through a supranational governing body. Basically, it's the Democrats on steroids. "We don't have to change personally but we can let the UN make the world a place full of pretty flowers and puppies."

Much like the 2007 New Orleans Saints, the UN looked good on paper but hasn't lived up to any of its potential. When not overseeing the "Dictator-Psycopath Hosting Program" the United Nations busies itself with other important things, like trying to take over the world rather than help it get along.

Through its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN constantly adds to the shrill, unbalanced climate hysteria. The panel gathers scientists and ill defined experts which then meet up Al Gore's butt to examine computer predictions about what might happen. It then highlights the most extreme predictions, ignores any dissenting voices and screams "Consensus!" A report is quickly issued with much fanfare that tells you you're going to drown next Thursday unless you let a new brand of communism hijack the economy. Next year, the IPCC hopes to branch out into horoscopes and Tarot readings.

Even scarier is the Law of the Sea Treaty, or, L.O.S.T., which is probably the most fitting acronym of all time. This treaty would turn over sovereignty of the majority of the world's oceans to the UN. I don't know if you've looked at a globe recently but there's a whole lotta water out there. Under this treaty, the UN would arbitrate territorial disputes. That's a winner. Because fairness to the United States' point of view is really what the United Nations is all about, right? Sure, and Nicole Richey is going to finish all her lunch tomorrow. If you're an American who wants Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin having a say in what's best for you then L.O.S.T. is your kind of treaty.

Now, with proof that the building itself isn't safe we can finally use the favorite argument of liberals to justify getting rid of it: let's do it for the children.

The United Nations has had well over half a century to try and carry out its charter. Its biggest success to date has been getting into bed with Saddam Hussein for a black market oil trading scheme. That it did quite well, I must admit. It bodes well for them getting into black market carbon credit trading once the Climate Commies succeed in ruining the U.S. economy.

Sadly, we still have wars and people are still mean to each other. Turning the UN into a modern day Death Star isn't going to change all that.

For the first time in months, I agree with Mike Bloomberg. The UN is hazardous but for far greater reasons than he outlined.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)