Books Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
I finally discovered the root cause of this fungus which is infecting everything about our lives (many apologies if you are already aware of this).
The totally undemocratc United Nations which has been the root cause of the AGW stories and subsequent political actions taken; set up a commission in 1987 called The Brundtland Commission. The make up of this group as with the UN itself was not subject to public scrutiny and not elected.This commission produced a report (over 3 years) called 'Our Common Future' and you can see it here:http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htmChapter 2 contains the definition and derivation of the term 'Sustainable Development' and it is dark and evil stuff.The problem is that this whole idea is being locked into all government policy including obviously our power generation policy. Ultimately it is this report and not climate change which is driving the issues.UN Climate Summits have been no such thing but instead have been meetings at which Sustainable Development agreements have been made about which we have been told nothing.Just to give you a few tasters, here are a few extracts from Chapter 2 of Our Common Future:
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Living standards that go beyond the basic minimum are sustainable only if consumption standards everywhere have regard for long-term sustainability. Yet many of us live beyond the world's ecological means, for instance in our patterns of energy use.
The direction of technological developments may solve some immediate problems but lead to even greater ones. Large sections of the population may be marginalized by ill-considered development.
But ultimate limits there are, and sustainability requires that long before these are reached, the world must ensure equitable access to the constrained resource and reorient technological efforts to relieve the presume.
By and about the people who wrote the document:A communications gap has kept environmental, population, and development assistance groups apart for too long, preventing us from being aware of our common interest and realizing our combined power.
These are just a few early points and it gets worse. I hope this does not cause you to feel as depressed as I now feel.
The whole idea that 'development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs' is a good thing is ludicrous.We are keeping resources in the ground because of a future need which may never exist. The human race may become extinct tomorrow because of multiple threats of which the world is aware, dealing with those current threats demands that our economic and technological levels are at the highest we can make them otherwise there may be no future generations.Economic prosperity and therefore our ability to finance technological (relevant) research depends upon the cheapest and most secure fuel and energy supplies.
Dung if you really want to feel depressed (or brought to despair or alternately to mirth) try to find their definitions of "sustainable mining". Unbelievable.
Thanks ST :) and obviously this is not new to you hehe, what angers me is not just the stupidity of the ideas here but also the fact that this is included in UK government policy without voters being presented with it or asked to approve it.
The irony is that all development is actually self-sustaining, else it would not be development.
It's worth looking out for Hilary Ostrov's posts from time to time on what is going on at the UN. An organisation which should be doing good for the world is a hydra, seeking to impose its agenda on us all. Lots of snouts, lots of troughs, disappointingly few doing any good, many actively doing harm (IMO).
Hilary Ostrov's UN Tweets
"The Brandt Report suggests primarily that a great chasm in standard of living exists along the North-South divide and there should therefore be a large transfer of resources from developed to developing countries. The countries North of the divide are extremely wealthy due to their successful trade in manufactured goods, whereas the countries South of the divide suffer poverty due to their trade in intermediate goods, where the export incomes are low."
Nobody knew how this transfer of resources should be instigated back in 1980, and then Global Warming was invented, and the UN loved it.
Trump doesn't, and the USA pays about a quarter of the UN's bills. Trump may be enthusiastic about reducing the transfer of US Taxpayer Funds to the UN.
I do not know whether POTUS can tell the UN which of their budgets to cut.
Hello again golf charlie :)
The document I talked about at the start of this thread (Our Common Future) talks in detail about this need for us to make this transfer of funds to the 3rd world and Cameron's ring fenced Foreign Aid Budget will I am sure have been just another virtue signalling gesture to improve his UN C.V.However like everybody else he seemed incapable of realising that the money helps nobody apart from dictators and terrorists.Trump has already stated that he intends to reduce U.N. funds for action on climate change and considering the amount the US contributes, I feel sure he will get his way ^.^
Dung, the abuse of UK Foreign Aid money etc has been going on for years, but at least us Brits could take some satisfaction from knowing that the Rolls Royce motor cars purchased by the beneficiaries, to show off to the starving, were British built. Sadly, it is Mercedes that now does best out of UK Foreign Aid expenditure, and I am sure many Germans are proud of this achievement.
I am not sure whether to be relieved that the preferred mode of transport for reactionary religious fanatical revolutionaries in the desert is now a Toyota 4 × 4, rather than a proper LandRover.
Thanks Mark Hodgson and StewGreen for your commendations. My blog has been dormant for quite some time - primarily because there's little to report that I hadn't covered - one way or t'other - in the past. And my twitter-record is not really much to write home about!
For those who might be interested in my musings on the abusings of the UNFCCC (and its arms, elbows, hands and fingers), perhaps the following link will yield more substantive stuff:
But one thing I did learn while scrolling through StewGreen's pointer to my twitter-memory-lane is that - much to my amusement - at some point along the way one of the UNFCCC's tweeting-powers-that-be decided that, for some unfathomable reason, I should be blocked. IOW, I am no longer permitted to view their droppings!
I cannot imagine what I might possibly have done to incur such a fate. But - considering UNFCCC's performances in years gone by - I doubt that I'm missing much. After all, there's only so much ... uh ... recycling of buzzwords and mantras that anyone should have to wade through;-)
Hilary, that's interesting. So the UNFCCC is behaving in a totalitarian way (in a very small respect, admittedly), thereby helping to confirm the case you make against it. Not very bright of the people there, is it? Sadly, however, it seems to be all too predictable.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.