carbon emissions rising faster than worst case scenario - what does it mean?

no sweetie ... I mean an education ...

I appreciate you like your indoctrination well done .... but it doesn't help in the real world ...

 

Touche.

 

You quoted the Washington Post? Let me show you a few reasons why your source is propaganda...



Washington Sketch: Globe may not be big enough for One World Government
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The New World Order came into being at 4:25 Tuesday afternoon.

It arrived at the Capitol, until that moment the seat of American government, in the form of the stooped and bespectacled figure of Ban Ki-moon, who as U.N. secretary general is the de facto leader of what conspiracy theorists call the One World Government. One floor beneath the Senate chamber, Ban, a South Korean national, took his place behind a lectern bearing the Senate seal and spelled out his demands.

"I would certainly expect the Senate to take the necessary action; that's what I have encouraged the senators," he told reporters as a trio of lawmakers stood at his side. He added an admonition for the chamber to deliver "as soon as possible."

The One World Government has specific requirements, Ban added, namely a "legally binding" commitment to "25 to 40 percent greenhouse gas reduction . . . as recommended by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

Uh-oh. A U.N. official standing in the Capitol telling U.S. lawmakers what binding commitments intergovernmental authorities expect from them? Glenn Beck was going to burst a blood vessel.

But the man who orchestrated this putsch by the New World Order, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Switzerland), did not appear concerned by the imagery. He called the secretary general "Your Excellency." Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana (a Republican, but he drives a Prius) was equally deferential as he spoke of "the privilege of this distinguished visitor."

And Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) hailed Ban for "the accelerated leadership role" that the United Nations has taken. "Your vision, that in Copenhagen there can be a politically binding agreement that will lead to a legally binding agreement to follow . . . is a very reasonable, sensible and hopeful course."

Somewhere in Manhattan, Sean Hannity was tearing up his script for the night's broadcast.

Kerry invited Ban to lecture the Foreign Relations Committee, but it's not clear what the chairman hoped to gain from the photos of him standing with Ban in the Capitol's Brumidi Corridors. Indeed, it seemed quite possible that a U.N. endorsement of Kerry's climate efforts would embolden its foes, who like the world body even less than they like cap-and-trade. In the pantheon of conspiracy theories, the United Nations is right up there with the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Federal Reserve and the Council on Foreign Relations -- which, as it happens, Kerry addressed a couple of weeks ago.

Even Americans who don't come from the grassy-knoll tradition tend not to regard the United Nations with great confidence. A Gallup poll earlier this year found that 65 percent of respondents thought it was doing a bad job, compared with 26 percent who think it is doing a good job. Ban himself is not terribly nefarious, if only because he is unknown. A Wall Street Journal poll found that 81 percent of those surveyed didn't know who he was. The others may have confused him with the Unification Church's Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Ban's profile could become much higher, and not in a good way, if Americans start to perceive him as meddling in Senate consideration of climate legislation. Even before he stormed the Capitol, Fox News was drawing a connection between global warming talks in Copenhagen next month and One World Government.

"America, if you believe this country is great but you're not really into that whole One World Government thing, watch out," Fox News Channel's Beck warned a couple of weeks ago. His guest, Lord Christopher Monckton of Britain, told Beck that "at Copenhagen, a treaty will be signed that will, for the first time, create a world government with powers to intervene directly in the economy and in the environmental affairs of individual nations." Earlier on Fox News, Dick Morris informed Hannity that President Obama "believes in One World Government." And author Jerome Corsi went on Hannity's show to warn about a One World Government in which "our sovereignty would be subject to the dictates" of the United Nations and other international organizations.

The One World Government was on open display at the Capitol on Tuesday, as international U.N. staffers waited outside the room where Ban spoke to the senators. The secretary general had come with his own world government (armed?) security detail, who stood alongside the Capitol police.

Ban, wearing a gold U.N. lapel pin, unfolded his speech. "Less than a month from now, the leaders of the world will gather in Copenhagen," he said. "They must conclude a robust global agreement," that is "comprehensive, binding, equitable and fair."

Speaking softly but firmly, the South Korean cautioned the Americans that "the world is not standing still," and that "all the eyes of the world are looking to the United States."

After a few minutes, Kerry cut off questioning. "Folks, the secretary general has to get to the airport."

Ban needed to catch the U.S. Airways shuttle to New York. The One World Government Air Force isn't what it's cracked up to be.

You quoted the Washington Post? Let me show you a few reasons why your source is propaganda...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111015034.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

It seems they have an interest in promoting the hidden agenda...
Oh, as a side note, this meeting that is quoted, is just High Treason commited by Obama...


COPENHAGEN -- If the talks that resulted in an imperfect deal to combat global warming provided anything, it was a glimpse into a new world order in which international diplomacy will increasingly be shaped by the United States and emerging powers, most notably China.

Friday's agreement, sources involved in the talks said, boiled down to President Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao personally hammering out a pact both could live with, even if many other leaders could not. Wen even squelched his own negotiator's protests.

What Obama heralded as a "breakthrough" -- after getting India and other rising powers to sign on -- was decried by some nations as too little, too late. The leaders of Europe, Japan and other countries at the summit were largely left to rubber-stamp the deal. The Swedish prime minister's office dubbed it "a disaster."
...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111015034.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

 

The real world?

The world where, other than hydro and nuclear, there are no CO2 neutral alternative energy source? Where "deniers" aren't the ones preventing hydro and nuclear?

Where high energy costs paired with subsidies for alternative energy, further augmented with cap and tax hasn't reduced CO2 emissions? Can the rest of the world afford European energy costs, just to tread water?

A world where MMGW has been front and center for years as the greatest crisis man has faced, where the kids in school are being told mommy and daddy want them to live in a horrible world, yada, yada, yada, yet CO2 emissions have exceeded worst case predictions?

If you really saw the real world, you would have had more success. You haven't because you are caught in religious furvor, and like all zealots, your focus is on the belief, as if that will move mountains - it hasn't, and won't.

From here, I see 3 possible futures.

1. Mankind doesn't find other energy sources, and dies off until we reach a sustainable level - example, China fell from it's golden age to subsistance. That die off can be slow and natural, or global war over food and energy - either way, same result.

2. Global governments gets serious, and takes control of energy. Cap and tax, funding alternative energy that never is cost effective, the world devolves into the very rich (government / royalty) and very poor. We return to the feudal societies that dominated before the industrial revolution.

3. The free market comes up with ways to efficiently harvest sunlight and store energy. Energy prices plummet, and we enter yet another golden age (energy is prosperity).

The MMGW crowd fears the third more than the first, and embraces the second.

Treat government as some kind of savior, and the polticians will get a messiah complex.....

Pick door 3.

 

I don't think you understand much about politics.

in a democracy, politicians are elected to serve the interests of their electorate.

that includes all of us.

that requires they make informed choices on our behalf.

In making good policy decisions they are doing that.

if doing their job gets them a pat on the back, well and good. But it doesn't make them saviours.

 

Maybe it works that way Down Under, but the politicians in the US have had more time to refine corruption.

The US voters didn't want the health care bill, yet it passed. What is even less surprising, is it didn't reduce cost at all, the bill actually increased it.

Increased so the medical, and medical insurance, lobbyist get even more money to buy politicians....

 

So what are you personally doing to clean up all of this? Grizzling about it on and internet board? Writing to your congress person? Doing your own investigations as to who is paying whom? Lobbying for ways to clean up the corruption?

 

Among other places - in this case, I was explaining why your trust of government is higher than my trust in government. My expectation is giving my government huge amounts of money to fix the environment will have the same result as giving them huge amounts of money to fix healthcare.

Repeatedly.

Of course.

The US makes the cost of entry for lobbying pretty high.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/prd/lobbying_info/forms_instructions/compend_lob_forms.htm

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/Public_Disclosure/new_filers.htm

And, sending an email requestiong others to take a political position is considered lobbying.

 

I work in a public health care system - it is not perfect but our average health is much much much better than yours

As for lobbying - that ain't the only way to be heard

 

How is health care organized there?

The point of the showing you the government forms is to demonstrate that any attempt to coordinate people for political ends is considered lobbying, so requires being a registered lobbyist.