The UN aspires to be the global government. It seeks to redistribute global wealth from those who create it to those who don't, from democracies to kleptocracies.
The UN's incompetence to manage wealth was clearly demonstrated during the Iraq "Oil for Palaces, Payloads and Payoffs Prpgram".
The UN's incompetence to keep peace is currently on display in Ukraine.
The UN has clearly moved from mission creep to mission leap. It has exceeded its Peter Principle limit.
I was an expert reviewer for AR6, working groups 1, where the science was front and centre. The authors are all climate scientists. Whilst their work is reasonably objective they permit politician’s to introduce their spin in the talking points that are released to the public eg ‘global boiling.’ Their table 12.12 showing few changes expected in climate impact drivers being minimal through to 2100 should have been the big story and should have appeared in the Summary for Policy Makers under a heading such as “No changes to most climate impact drivers observed or expected.’
I had heard that working groups 2 and 3 were less science and more activist but I hadn’t had cause to look too closely. The Special Reports mix up the scientists and the activists. So SR1.5 continually referenced ‘equity’ and ‘just transitions.’ I volunteered to participate in a Special Report that’s in production. I was shocked to see direct reference to the need to achieve the UN political sustainability development goals. I commented that the IPCC has always claimed it was policy relevant but didn’t prescribe policy. But SR1.5 and this more recent report make clear that ‘equity’ which is a politically contestable notion, is a key goal. Wealth redistribution from well organised and democratic nations to the useless, fanatic and dictatorships.
Here in New Zealand we have a survivor from the 1988 Asheville conference. John Maunder headed up the WMO for a time and he was in attendance. He recalls how uncomfortable he was that the conference statement suggested far more certainty about the role co2 would play in the 21st century than he was comfortable with. His book ‘Fifty Shades of Climate’ is well worth the read.
Currently based in Doha, Qatar. I got involved after AR5. The ‘consensus’ statement that ‘human activities were the dominant cause of warming since 1950’ doesn’t actually appear in the text. I also double checked the references in the surface temperature section and found several were not summarised accurately. Any paper that went against the narrative was minimised. I had a couple of meetings with the NZ IPCC rep which were convivial, constructive discussions. After admitting the ‘dominant’ language was introduced by the bureaucrats in the plenary, not by scientists in the text, he encouraged me to put my hand up for AR6.
I was keen to ensure John Christy’s work on the lack of warming in the upper troposphere featured and Iveas pleased to see that the IPCC changed their position giving medium confidence to models that indicated more warming than that observed, down from high confidence.
I think it’s generally true..An institution may be formed on a noble goal but inevitably will, at some point, choose the perpetuation of the organization as its ultimate goal.
This is what happens when organisations like the UN are taken over by people from the third world of dubious history, character and who’s qualification and experience is far removed from what is required. People who are living high on the hog in Western capitals at other people’s expense while their own people are generally struggling to survive. Nowhere was this more apparent than at the recent ridiculous and irrelevant gathering in Belem. The WHO is another prime example. Mr Trump would do well to expel the UN from NYC and banish this irrelevant joke of an organisation to somewhere like Pretoria or Johannesburg.
Hi Dr. Matt...follower since you first appeared on Tik Tok and with great admiration. As a scientist I would suggest that you continue your evaluation of the UN as industry would (where I spent my entire career). Successes vs failures vs irrelevant...granted, a large undertaking. Increases in budgets over the same time frame. Year by year? Decade by decade. Personally, I believe that the organization has devolved into a collection of political wannabes but neverweres. That the USA, China, and Russis only remain members for their founding member veto power.
The precursor to the UN was the League of Nations. It was dissolved/replaced by the UN after failing to prevent WW2. The League of Nations was focused on diplomacy; it did not have universal membership, nor were there any peacekeeping troops.
At this point, it's fair to say the UN has similarly failed to prevent wars (primary task) despite having universal membership and peacekeeping troops. Anyone remember UN interceding to prevent the conflict in Ukraine? Mostly what they do is sit around figuring out ways to grift more money from the US.
What the Holy Bible says of this horrific decade just ahead of us.. Here's a site expounding current global events in the light of bible prophecy.. To understand more, pls visit 👇 bibleprophecyinaction.blogspot.com
All permanent forms of government should be abolished. Only voluntary exchange and contracts enforced by private courts are necessary to protect people in a free society.
The UN aspires to be the global government. It seeks to redistribute global wealth from those who create it to those who don't, from democracies to kleptocracies.
The UN's incompetence to manage wealth was clearly demonstrated during the Iraq "Oil for Palaces, Payloads and Payoffs Prpgram".
The UN's incompetence to keep peace is currently on display in Ukraine.
The UN has clearly moved from mission creep to mission leap. It has exceeded its Peter Principle limit.
Great stuff as always, Matthew! Happy New Year, mate! More power to your elbow this year, eh?
BTW, my impression is that more people in posuitioons of power are starting to listen to you. Keep it up: I think we are winning...
Thank you!
I haven't commented much for months, but I am always here and usually read them in my email! I never stop rooting for you....
I was an expert reviewer for AR6, working groups 1, where the science was front and centre. The authors are all climate scientists. Whilst their work is reasonably objective they permit politician’s to introduce their spin in the talking points that are released to the public eg ‘global boiling.’ Their table 12.12 showing few changes expected in climate impact drivers being minimal through to 2100 should have been the big story and should have appeared in the Summary for Policy Makers under a heading such as “No changes to most climate impact drivers observed or expected.’
I had heard that working groups 2 and 3 were less science and more activist but I hadn’t had cause to look too closely. The Special Reports mix up the scientists and the activists. So SR1.5 continually referenced ‘equity’ and ‘just transitions.’ I volunteered to participate in a Special Report that’s in production. I was shocked to see direct reference to the need to achieve the UN political sustainability development goals. I commented that the IPCC has always claimed it was policy relevant but didn’t prescribe policy. But SR1.5 and this more recent report make clear that ‘equity’ which is a politically contestable notion, is a key goal. Wealth redistribution from well organised and democratic nations to the useless, fanatic and dictatorships.
Here in New Zealand we have a survivor from the 1988 Asheville conference. John Maunder headed up the WMO for a time and he was in attendance. He recalls how uncomfortable he was that the conference statement suggested far more certainty about the role co2 would play in the 21st century than he was comfortable with. His book ‘Fifty Shades of Climate’ is well worth the read.
Would love to talk to you more about your experience with the IPCC.
Currently based in Doha, Qatar. I got involved after AR5. The ‘consensus’ statement that ‘human activities were the dominant cause of warming since 1950’ doesn’t actually appear in the text. I also double checked the references in the surface temperature section and found several were not summarised accurately. Any paper that went against the narrative was minimised. I had a couple of meetings with the NZ IPCC rep which were convivial, constructive discussions. After admitting the ‘dominant’ language was introduced by the bureaucrats in the plenary, not by scientists in the text, he encouraged me to put my hand up for AR6.
I was keen to ensure John Christy’s work on the lack of warming in the upper troposphere featured and Iveas pleased to see that the IPCC changed their position giving medium confidence to models that indicated more warming than that observed, down from high confidence.
I think it’s generally true..An institution may be formed on a noble goal but inevitably will, at some point, choose the perpetuation of the organization as its ultimate goal.
The UN has been a complete failure. Wars are more common than ever. The only thing nations are united in is the depopulation agenda.
This is what happens when organisations like the UN are taken over by people from the third world of dubious history, character and who’s qualification and experience is far removed from what is required. People who are living high on the hog in Western capitals at other people’s expense while their own people are generally struggling to survive. Nowhere was this more apparent than at the recent ridiculous and irrelevant gathering in Belem. The WHO is another prime example. Mr Trump would do well to expel the UN from NYC and banish this irrelevant joke of an organisation to somewhere like Pretoria or Johannesburg.
Hi Dr. Matt...follower since you first appeared on Tik Tok and with great admiration. As a scientist I would suggest that you continue your evaluation of the UN as industry would (where I spent my entire career). Successes vs failures vs irrelevant...granted, a large undertaking. Increases in budgets over the same time frame. Year by year? Decade by decade. Personally, I believe that the organization has devolved into a collection of political wannabes but neverweres. That the USA, China, and Russis only remain members for their founding member veto power.
The precursor to the UN was the League of Nations. It was dissolved/replaced by the UN after failing to prevent WW2. The League of Nations was focused on diplomacy; it did not have universal membership, nor were there any peacekeeping troops.
At this point, it's fair to say the UN has similarly failed to prevent wars (primary task) despite having universal membership and peacekeeping troops. Anyone remember UN interceding to prevent the conflict in Ukraine? Mostly what they do is sit around figuring out ways to grift more money from the US.
What the Holy Bible says of this horrific decade just ahead of us.. Here's a site expounding current global events in the light of bible prophecy.. To understand more, pls visit 👇 bibleprophecyinaction.blogspot.com
All permanent forms of government should be abolished. Only voluntary exchange and contracts enforced by private courts are necessary to protect people in a free society.