Archive for the ‘United Nations’ Category

China says rich nations must cut emissions by 40%; offers no Chinese cuts

May 21, 2009

China confirmed Thursday that it will demand rich nations cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 in upcoming global climate change negotiations.

In a position paper published for negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December, China — one of the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases that cause global warming — did not commit to any legally binding reductions.

From AFP

Two KFOR helicopters fly over a power plant in the town of Obilic ...

Developed countries shall undertake to reduce their GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in aggregate by at least 40 percent below their 1990 level by 2020,” said the paper, posted on China’s planning agency’s website.

“Developed countries shall take responsibility for their historical cumulative emissions and current high per capita emissions to change their unsustainable way of life and to substantially reduce their emissions.”

The call for a 40-percent cut by rich countries has previously been mentioned in state media, but Thursday’s document spells out the demand as official Chinese government policy.

The December negotiations are aimed at hammering out a new climate change pact to replace the Kyoto protocol that expires in 2012.

The European Union has said it would slash emissions by 20 percent by 2020 compared with the 1990 level and raise the target to 30 percent if others set similarly ambitious targets.

State press reports earlier said China was prepared to commit to improved energy efficiency as its contribution to the talks, but such targets were not set out in the position paper.

The energy-guzzling nation pledged four-percent annual cuts in the amount of energy used per unit of gross domestic product from 2006-2010, but so far those targets have been missed.

Developed nations must also ramp up funding for clean energy technology to developing nations, the position paper said.

As a developing nation China under Kyoto did not accept cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, which are blamed for global warming, higher sea levels and other potentially disastrous changes in the climate.

“Fully aware of the seriousness and urgency of climate change and with a deep sense of responsibility for the long-term development of mankind, China is firmly committed to sustainable development,” the position paper said.

“In the face of international financial crisis, China remains determined to take unrelenting efforts to address climate change.”

[According to the U.N., China is a developing country and not a developed country and thus does not have to cut emissions the way others do.  China has a population of 1.3 billion.  The U.S. population is 300 million…]

Michelle Malkin:

In Berry’s World Four Years Hence: China Will Be the Only Thriving Superpower

Obama Promises Two-State Solution Will Help Israel Be Rid Of Iran Nuke Threat

May 10, 2009

A two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians could diminish the existential threat posed by Iran, U.S. National Security Advisor James Jones said in an interview aired on the network ABC on Sunday.

The interview aired just over a week before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to arrive at the White House for talks with U.S. President Barack Obama.

From Haaretz (Israel)

Jones was asked whether the U.S. would try to pressure Israel into fully accepting a two-state solution, and interviewer George Stephanopoulos cited a Haaretz newspaper report which last week revealed the content of a conversation between Jones and a European foreign minister in which Jones said that “We will not push Israel under the wheels of a bus, but we will be more forceful toward Israel than we have been under Bush.”

Jones replied: “I think it means that this administration is going to engage fully. That is to say, using all aspects of the inter-agency process to make sure that the security of Israel is not compromised, that the issue of Palestinian sovereignty also has its place at the table. There are many expectations around the world, in the Arab World and in the European community that we are at a moment where we can make progress with regard to the Middle East.”

When the interviewer reminded Jones that Netanyahu has yet to voice support for the two-state solution, Jones said “that was the position of the former government.”

“We understand Israel’s preoccupation with Iran as an existential threat. We agree with that. And by the same token, there are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat by working hard towards achieving a two-state solution. This is a very strategic issue. It’s extremely important. And we’re looking forward to having a good, constructive dialogue with our Israeli friends when they visit Washington in the next seven or eight days,” Jones concluded.


McCain Says U.S. Should Not Dictate Two-State Solution


The U.S. shouldn’t dictate to Israel how to proceed with a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, instead allowing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration flexibility to proceed in its own, Senator John McCain said.

“I’m not sure the timing is right, right now, with a new government in Israel, for us to dictate to them their policy,” McCain, of Arizona, said today on ABC’s “This Week.” The U.S. should help “push the entire peace process forward,” said McCain, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Netanyahu, who took office March 31 and will visit Washington later this month, last week outlined his “triple track” approach of pursuing political, security and economic progress for the Palestinians to the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington yesterday. He spoke via satellite from Jerusalem.

Iran to procure Chinese defense system

May 10, 2009
Iran will turn to China instead of Russia to acquire an advanced air defense system after relations between Iran and Russia hit rock bottom, the official Iranian news agency PressTV reported.

From The Jerusalem Post


For years Iran has been trying to purchase the S-300 anti-aircraft missile, which is considered to one of the most advanced systems available on the market and would dramatically increase Iran’s air defense capabilities against any attacks on its nuclear installations.

The S-300 surface-to-air missile system, which can track targets and fire at aircraft 75 miles away, features high jamming immunity making it harder to incapacitate the system electronically, and is able to engage up to 100 targets simultaneously.

Teheran will now turn to China for the HongQi-9/FD-2000 system which reportedly combines elements “borrowed” from the Russian S-300 and the American MIM-104 Patriot system, according to the Iranian news agency.

Read the rest:


Israel is worried about Iran’s nuclear development effort, the work of Russia and China to block effective U.N. sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program, and the “unknowns” of  the American President.

UN accepts Pakistan’s extended sea border

May 6, 2009

The UN has accepted Pakistan’s claim to extend its\ maritime exclusive economic zone to 350 nautical miles from 200 nautical miles. Addressing a news conference here Wednesday, Federal Minister for Science and Technology, Azam Khan Swati said Pakistan filed its case at the UN on 30th of the last month and it got the historic success two day ago.
After the UN acceptance, Pakistan will have right on all the resources of this additional maritime zone. He said under the UN laws a complete survey of the area was conducted which indicates that Pakistan will get economic benefits from this extended maritime zone.
This will enable Pakistan to explore petroleum and mineral resources in general and benefit the offshore maritime industry and market in particular. The Federal Minister said that only twenty nine countries of the world have so far availed the right to file case in the UN.
Earlier, Pakistan’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York filed the claim to United Nations Commission on the Limit of Continental Shelf( UNCLOS) for extension of its continental shelf to 350 nautical miles from the present 200 nautical miles.
The Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) was involved in the preparation of the claim for the last couple of years. The National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), an autonomous organization of the Ministry was entrusted the task to prepare the claim in accordance with the UN requirements. The case was prepared and submitted to Pakistani Mission in New York during April 2009 for submission before the deadline of 13th May 2009. The Pakistani Mission filed the claim on 30th April 2009.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was adopted in 1982 and came into force on 16 November 1994. Pakistan ratified the Convention on 26 February 1997. The Convention entered into force for Pakistan on 28 March 1997.
Under the UNCLOS, Pakistan presently has an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extending up to 200 nautical miles which would be extended up to 350 nautical miles on meeting some conditionalities. Therefore, recognizing this and taking opportunity of UNCLOS Article 76, MoST has been endeavoring to address and pursue this extremely important issue of national interest, to have Pakistan’s Continental Shelf extended from 200 to 350 nautical miles.
Pakistan would accrue substantial benefits from the extension as vast area of more than 50,000 km may be gained after the continental shelf extension. The data acquired during the project will provide a reliable and firm database and foundation, essential for future marine research and exploration of living and non-living marine resources.
It will also provide ‘a good basis for our scientists/ technicians to further promote and develop the marine geological and geophysical research and survey capabilities.

From The Daily Mail, Islamabad

North Korea Threatens Nuclear Test

April 29, 2009

North Korea threatened on Wednesday to conduct a second nuclear test and to test-launch ballistic missiles unless the United Nations Security Council apologises for condemning its recent rocket launch.

“Unless the UN Security Council offers an apology immediately, we will be forced to take additional self-defence measures to protect the highest interests of our republic,” a foreign ministry spokesman said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

“They will include a nuclear test and ballistic missile tests,” the statement said.

The Security Council had condemned the North’s April 5 launch of a long-range rocket and ordered tougher enforcement of existing sanctions.

The communist state reacted angrily then, insisting that the launch — widely seen as a disguised missile test — was conducted to put a peaceful satellite into orbit.

Read the rest from AFP:

Oliver North On Obama’s First 100 Days: “an enormous propaganda victory” For Global Socialist Left

April 26, 2009

At times during our history, international events have provided starring roles for American presidents. Teddy Roosevelt received the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. John Kennedy’s pledge of solidarity, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” offered hope to captive people behind the iron curtain. Richard Nixon’s “secret” trip to Beijing precipitated still ongoing changes in the People’s Republic of China. Ronald Reagan’s tough diplomacy — and his decision to rebuild America’s defenses — turned the tide of the Cold War and hastened the end of an aptly named evil empire.

By Oliver North
The Washington Times

Then there are world events that consumed presidencies and doomed them to failure. Woodrow Wilson’s ill-informed dream of preventing all wars, with the League of Nations, became a nightmare. Lyndon Johnson’s hope of being remembered as a civil rights reformer died with his disastrous decisions on the battlefields of Vietnam. Jimmy Carter’s naked quest for a “peacemaker’s legacy” always will bear the miserable taint of his bungling during the Iranian hostage crisis. Now, with less than 100 days in office, Barack Obama already seems destined for this latter category.

The opening months of the Obama administration’s foreign policy have been marked by stunning naiveté, serious missteps and ideological blindness to hard realities in an increasingly dangerous world. It is now an open question whether he and his “national security team” can recover.

Just days after becoming commander in chief, Mr. Obama acquiesced in Beijing’s demands that U.S. vessels cease surveys within Chinese territorial waters. Russia rebuffed his “hand of friendship” and bribed Tajikistan into closing a U.S. base crucial to operations in Afghanistan. Pakistan replied to his “mutual respect for Islam” by allowing the world’s most notorious nuclear weapons proliferator, A.Q. Khan, to return to business as usual. The Iranians sized up his offer for direct negotiations on nuclear weapons by turning on more centrifuges and locking up an American journalist. His “apologize for America first” tour of Europe brought cheers but no new commitments from NATO for help in Afghanistan. He was applauded for promising to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, but then he learned no one else would take the terrorists housed there.

Mr. Obama’s release of top-secret Bush administration documents on interrogation techniques — and his botched determination on whether to hold show trials for those who authorized such efforts to prevent further terror attacks — shocked allied intelligence services. His performance at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad brought accolades from the mainstream media, but it disheartened those in Cuban, Venezuelan, Nicaraguan and Bolivian prisons who have committed no crimes except to speak out against their governments.

In Trinidad, Mr. Obama sat quietly – and, apparently, attentively – through a mind-numbing anti-American rant by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega during which the Sandinista leader accused the United States of heinous crimes. When asked his opinion afterward, Mr. Obama replied, “It was 50 minutes long.” No rebuttal. No defense of America or his predecessors’ efforts to offer others the hope of freedom.

When Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez gave him a homework assignment – to read the virulently anti-American screed “Open Veins of Latin America” – Mr. Obama accepted it with a smile for the cameras. Perhaps we should be grateful he didn’t bow to Mr. Chavez, as he did to Saudi King Abdullah.

Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican and a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, described the Obama-Chavez photographs as “an enormous propaganda victory for the Socialist dictator.” They also were another stab in the back to former President George W. Bush, whom Mr. Chavez once called “the devil” in the U.N. General Assembly.

The Obama administration’s penitent foreign policy is evident in its approach to the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, which is a U.N. body hostile to American service members – the same ones the Obama administration describes as “disgruntled military veterans.” America’s new willingness to be pilloried publicly was apparent in Geneva last week at the United Nations’ Durban Review Conference on racism.

Read the rest:

Obama’s Presidential Poison: Invitation to Indict Bush Officials will Haunt Obama’s Presidency

April 24, 2009

Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will live to regret.

The Wall Street Journal

Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama’s victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.

If this analogy seems excessive, consider how Mr. Obama has framed the issue. He has absolved CIA operatives of any legal jeopardy, no doubt because his intelligence advisers told him how damaging that would be to CIA morale when Mr. Obama needs the agency to protect the country. But he has pointedly invited investigations against Republican legal advisers who offered their best advice at the request of CIA officials.

“Your intelligence indicates that there is currently a level of ‘chatter’ equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, in his August 1, 2002 memo. “In light of the information you believe [detainee Abu] Zubaydah has and the high level of threat you believe now exists, you wish to move the interrogations into what you have described as an ‘increased pressure phase.'”

So the CIA requests a legal review at a moment of heightened danger, the Justice Department obliges with an exceedingly detailed analysis of the law and interrogation practices — and, seven years later, Mr. Obama says only the legal advisers who are no longer in government should be investigated. The political convenience of this distinction for Mr. Obama betrays its basic injustice. And by the way, everyone agrees that senior officials, including President Bush, approved these interrogations. Is this President going to put his predecessor in the dock too?

Mr. Obama seemed to understand the peril of such an exercise when he said, before his inauguration, that he wanted to “look forward” and beyond the antiterror debates of the Bush years. As recently as Sunday, Rahm Emanuel said no prosecutions were contemplated and now is not a time for “anger and retribution.” Two days later the President disavowed his own chief of staff. Yet nothing had changed except that Mr. Obama’s decision last week to release the interrogation memos unleashed a revenge lust on the political left that he refuses to resist.

Just as with the AIG bonuses, he is trying to co-opt his left-wing base by playing to it — only to encourage it more. Within hours of Mr. Obama’s Tuesday comments, Senator Carl Levin piled on with his own accusatory Intelligence Committee report. The demands for a “special counsel” at Justice and a Congressional show trial are louder than ever, and both Europe’s left and the U.N. are signaling their desire to file their own charges against former U.S. officials.

Those officials won’t be the only ones who suffer if all of this goes forward. Congress will face questions about what the Members knew and when, especially Nancy Pelosi when she was on the House Intelligence Committee in 2002. The Speaker now says she remembers hearing about waterboarding, though not that it would actually be used. Does anyone believe that? Porter Goss, her GOP counterpart at the time, says he knew exactly what he was hearing and that, if anything, Ms. Pelosi worried the CIA wasn’t doing enough to stop another attack. By all means, put her under oath.

Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he’ll soon learn otherwise. The Beltway’s political energy will focus more on the spectacle of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its reputation smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if there is another terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have set himself up for the argument that his campaign against the Bush policies is partly to blame.

Above all, the exercise will only embitter Republicans, including the moderates and national-security hawks Mr. Obama may need in the next four years. As patriotic officials who acted in good faith are indicted, smeared, impeached from judgeships or stripped of their academic tenure, the partisan anger and backlash will grow. And speaking of which, when will the GOP Members of Congress begin to denounce this partisan scapegoating? Senior Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Richard Lugar, John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Pat Roberts and Arlen Specter have hardly been profiles in courage.

Mr. Obama is more popular than his policies, due in part to his personal charm and his seeming goodwill. By indulging his party’s desire to criminalize policy advice, he has unleashed furies that will haunt his Presidency.

Is Obama Climate Change Policy Driven by Top U.N. Officials?

April 20, 2009

“I promise you. We won’t just win New Hampshire. We will win this election and, you and I together, we’re going to change the country and change the world.”

Barack Obama said that while he was running for president……

After he was elected president, he made Susan Rice his Ambassador to the United Nations.

Susan Rice is an affirmed internationalists.  She apparently believe that groups like the United Nations should influence, in fact, in some cases direct, U.S. policy.

Obama, The U.N. and Susan Rice

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice speaks at United Nations ... 
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice speaks at United Nations headquarters, in New York.REUTERS/Chip East (UNITED STATES POLITICS HEADSHOT)

That’s the same United Nations that allowed Iran’s President Ahmadinejad to unleash a hate filled attack on Isreal and the United States today.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad Accuses U. S., Europe, Israel of “destabilizing the entire world”

Many have been watching the United Nations vis a vis Obama policy and on the issue of climate change policy there are some danger signals….


By Edward Barnes
Fox News

A greenhouse gases trading system funded with the support of then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama, which is likely to play a major role in his $650 million cap-and-trade initiative, lists five present or former top-ranking U.N. officials on its advisory board who’ve had enormous influence over climate change matters — including one who received $1 million from a convicted South Korean lobbyist.

The most controversial figure of the five, Maurice Strong, was one of former Secretary General Kofi’s key aides at the U.N. for years until the Iraq Oil-for-Food scandal forced him to leave. Since then Strong has lived mostly in China. Calls to the exchange for comment about Strong’s role, and that of other U.N. figures, were not returned.

The Climate Exchange, which began operations in 2003, provides trading in carbon emissions and their offsets, along with those of other greenhouse gases, is among a group of companies and institutions that voluntarily participate in the program. It bills itself as the only voluntary, legally binding exchange of its kind in North America. Among its member companies are Ford, DuPont and United Technologies as well as a number of electric utilities; other participants include the City of Chicago and Miami-Dade County.

In the latest budget submitted to Congress last month, President Obama proposed backing cap and trade as the nation’s primary response to reduce global warming; a bill with that aim has also been submitted in the House of Representatives. Under the cap and trade plan a fixed number of carbon producing “permissions” would be made available to manufacturing and other industries each year; the totals would be reduced over time, forcing down the overall total of carbon dioxide emissions.

To meet their targets, companies would either have to cut production of the offending carbon-based gases or buy “offsets,” or credits from companies that do not reach their allowed levels or actively create projects that reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Offsets also include planting trees and other activities that remove carbon from the atmosphere. However it is used, the scheme is guaranteed to boost the cost of fossil and other gas producing forms of energy in the U.S., as well as the costs of every economic sector that relies on that energy.

The likelihood of cap and trade or a similar scheme being enacted got a significant boost last week, when the Environmental Protection Agency officially announced that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare via global warming, a prelude to official regulation of the emissions.

The Chicago Climate Exchange is the brainchild of Richard Sandor, an economics professor who has worked for the both the Chicago Mercantile Association and the Chicago Board of Trade. Known as “Mr. Derivative,” for his work in creating interest rate futures markets, Sandor first proposed the creation of the climate exchange in 2000, just before the signing of the Kyoto Accord on greenhouse gas reduction.

Initial funding of almost $1 million which was crucial to the exchange’s launch came in 2000 and 2001 from the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, whose board of directors, which approved the funding, included Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator.

Click here to read about Obama’s early connections to cap and trade.

Paula DiPerna, the Joyce Foundation’s president at the time funding was approved, became the Climate Exchange’s vice president by the time the foundation gave a second, and larger, tranche of money to the budding venture. Barack Obama, by that time an Illinois state legislator, was still on the foundation board.

Along with Maurice Strong, the other current or former U.N. officials on the climate exchange’s 18-member advisory board are: Elizabeth Dowdeswell, former head of the UN Environmental Program (UNEP); Rajenra Pachauri, head of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Michael Jammit Cutajar, former executive director of the U.N. Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC); and Thomas Lovejoy, former science adviser to UNEP and currently senior adviser to the president of the U.N. Foundation, which was originally founded with a $1 billion gift from CNN founder Ted Turner. The foundation calls itself “an advocate for the U.N. and a platform for connecting people, ideas and resources to help the United Nations solve global problems.”

On one level Strong’s involvement in the exchange is not surprising. He has been a player in virtually all the U.N.’s environmental initiatives over the past four decades. His work includes organizing the 1972 U.N. conference on the environment in Stockholm, which was a launch pad for the worldwide environmental movement, as well as the 1992 Earth Summit and the Kyoto Accords.

The New York Times once called Strong, a native Canadian, “The Custodian of the Planet.” In 1972 Strong also became the first head of the United Nations Environmental Program. In 1997, he helped Annan launch a program of internal reform of the U.N., and subsequently served as Annan’s special envoy to North Korea.

Strong left the U.N. under a cloud in 2005, after an investigation into the corruption ravaged Oil-for-Food Program revealed that he had received nearly $1 million in cash from Tongsun Park, a South Korean businessman who was later convicted of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials who ran the program. Strong claimed that the money was an investment by Park in a company owned by Strong’s son. He admitted personally taking other money from Park but claimed it was for an “office rental.” After the revelations Strong resigned his last U.N. post as Annan’s North Korea envoy and moved to China.

Contacted to comment on his involvement in the exchange, Strong originally agreed to accept a list of questions from FOX News. However, after receiving the e-mail, he failed to respond. Among the questions: What was his role on the advisory board? Because President Obama was involved in the early funding of the exchange, did he meet with members of the exchange? Is Strong involved in setting up a similar exchange in China?

The Climate Exchange’s 18-member advisory board is made up of leaders in business, science and academia. According to interviews with members who cooperated more than Strong did, membership is an unpaid position and the advisory board rarely meets. It was originally used to advise the company on “procedures and standards,” such as calculating carbon emissions and setting prices, when the company was being formed, according to one participant. Today most of the advisory board’s work is done over the phone on an as-needed basis, according to a board member.

Also on the board of advisors is another Canadian and close associate of Strong’s: Elizabeth Dowdeswell, another former head of the United Nation’s Environmental Program who is remembered for leading the organization into the deepest crisis in its history during her five-year tenure from 1993 to 1998.

In 1997, the State Department charged that the UNEP under Dowdeswell’s tenure suffered “from a lack of focus, strategic vision and influence.” It also charged that the organization had been “marginalized to a perilous extent.” As a result of the crisis of confidence in her leadership both the US and Britain threatened to withhold funding from the organization.

Dowdeswell, a former school teacher and home economist, was also attacked by environmentalists, financial donors, governments and her own staff for inept management that left the agency “irrelevant,” according to critics.

In response to the firestorm of criticism Dowdeswell announced that she wouldn’t seek a second term in the UNEP position.

Her record shows that she has often followed in Strong’s footsteps. She spent much of her early career as a Canadian bureaucrat in the environmental field dominated by Strong. Her public career began as Saskatchewan’s deputy minister for youth and culture and later Canada’s deputy assistant minister of Environment. From there she followed Strong to the United Nation’s Environment Program as executive director, a post that Strong had created and previously held. She was involved with him in organizing the Rio Summit.

Dowdeswell was also sent a list of questions about her involvement with the Chicago Climate Exchange. She has not responded.

Another member of the advisory board is Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, who has headed the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since May 2002. The panel was co-recipient, with Al Gore, of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for bringing global warming to the top of the world’s agenda.

The panel’s reports over a 10 year period tracked scientific studies and in 2007 concluded that the weight of scientific evidence now showed not only that global warming was occurring, but that it was a man-made phenomenon and that its consequences were immediate and dire. The reports have become the basis for all the proposals to bring about drastic reductions in man-made greenhouse gases, starting immediately.

But the panel’s conclusions did not come without major controversy.

The IPCC reports, compiled by hundreds of scientists around the world, were meant to provide definitive up-to-date answers to questions about global warming based on current scientific data. Yet when the reports were issued, a number of scientists who had contributed to them challenged the conclusions.

They charged that Pachauri, who is an economist and industrial engineer and not a climate scientist, had written the final draft of the report in collaboration with other political figures before it was released, adding errors and unsubstantiated conclusions. The critics also charged that he had over-stepped the mandate of the IPCC by advocating policy, something the panel was supposed to avoid.

In January 2005 Chrisopher Landsea, a leading hurricane expert with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration resigned from work on the IPCC report, saying that it was “both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.” He said that the panel had deliberately linked recent hurricane severity with global warming when no scientific link had been established.

Pachauri is enthusiastic about his involvement with the Chicago exchange. “I believe the exchange has an extremely important role in view of President Obama’s inclusion of cap and trade in the new budget. I see it emerging as the principal market in the U.S. and beyond when cap and trade becomes a reality,” he said in response to questions submitted by FOX News.

He said he joined the exchange board in December 2006 at the invitation of the exchange’s founder, Richard Sandor. He said the advisory board is “designed to consist of thought leaders in the environmental, business, public policy and academic fields from India and all around the world.”

Read the rest:

Green Jobs A Myth?

Obama’s Suicide Machine: Economy, Spending, Debt (Education, Climate, Health Care)

Iran’s Ahmadinejad Accuses U. S., Europe, Israel of “destabilizing the entire world”

April 20, 2009

n a rambling speech, Ahmadinejad on Monday pointed the finger at the United States, Europe and Israel and said they were “destabilizing the entire world.”

Some European diplomats immediately walked out of the room when Ahmadinejad said Israel was “created on the pretext of Jewish suffering from World War II.”

“The UN security council has stabilized this occupation regime and supported it in the last 60 years giving them a free hand to continue their crimes,” Ahmadinejad said.

From Haaretz (Israel)


UN chief Ban Ki-moon condemned Ahmadinejad for his tirade against Israel.

Ban says the Iranian leader “used his speech to accuse, divide and even incite, directly opposing the aim of the meeting.”

“Such outrageous anti-Semitic remarks should have no place in a UN anti-racism forum,” said British ambassador Peter Gooderham, whose country chose not to send a minister to Geneva.

And French ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei said: “It is a pity that Mr. Ahmadinejad is trying to take this conference hostage. We are ready for serious discussion but this is beyond what should have been expected.”

Read it all:

Iran's President President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses ... 
Iran’s President President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the High Level segment of the Durban Review Conference on racism at the United Nations European headquarters in Geneva April 20, 2009. United Nations officials sought on Monday to salvage a U.N. racism conference that Washington and its major allies are boycotting over concerns that it will be used as a platform for attacks against Israel.REUTERS/Denis Balibouse (SWITZERLAND POLITICS IMAGES OF THE DAY)

U.N. Racism Confab Spirals Into Bashfest On U.S., Israel (Ahamadinejad Joins Obama’s ‘America Sucks’ Theme)


Ahmadinejad’s speech also took aim at the United States for its role in the global economic crisis and at Western countries for imposing unfair economic conditions on the developing world. Among his more brazen claims was the allegation that Zionists instigated the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in concert with weapons manufacturers.

Iran’s state TV broadcast pictures showing some delegates cheering and other delegates leaving the conference.

“The president confidently continued his speech despite efforts by some Western diplomats to disrupt his address,” it said.

From the Associated Press:

Delegates walked out of the assembly room as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran spoke during a conference on racism in Geneva on Monday. Photo: Denis Balibouse/Reuters

From The New York Times:

In remarks at a cabinet meeting on Monday, on the eve of Yom Hashoah, the annual Holocaust Remembrance Day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “Six million of our brethren were massacred during the Holocaust. Sadly, not everyone learned the lesson.”

“While we gather to honor their memory, in Switzerland there will assemble a conference allegedly aimed against racism,” he said. “Its guest of honor is a racist Holocaust-denier who does not hide his intentions to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.”

Referring to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s role at the conference, Mr. Peres said Monday: “There must be a limit, even to the neutrality of Switzerland. Today is the day? This is the man to speak? This is the outlook for the future?”

Read it all:

U.N. Racism Confab Spirals Into Bashfest On U.S., Israel

April 20, 2009

President Barack Obama isn’t the only one in the world saying the United States is responsible for most of the world’s problems…. 

According to the Jerusalem Post, Iran’s President Ahmadinejad gave a U.N. conference in Switzerland a history lesson today starting with America’s wrongs in World War II:

“Those in authority at the time set off two world wars,” Ahmadinejad said, in an accusation directed at Western powers. Ahmadinejad went on to accuse those powers of “killing hundred of millions of people and causing mass destruction” also in Africa and Asia.

Ahmadinejad jeered at anti-racism conference

Ahmadinejad then went on to criticize the UN “The Security Council set up after World War II, let’s analyze it. The veto vote – is that equality? Is that justice? Is that equality amongst human beings?” he asked, “Or rather is it arrogance and humiliation? The Security Council must be the most important body for decision-making in order to promote peace. If a law is based on force, how can we secure peace and justice? The seeking of power and arrogance means racism, injustice and occupation.”

At this point the Iranian president’s speech moved to the subject of Israel and the Palestninians.

“As was the case after World War II, armies occupied other territories and people were transferred from territories. In reality, under the pretext of compensating for the evil done in the name of xenophobia, they in fact set up the most violent xenophobes, in Palestine.”

“The Security Council made it possible for that illegitimate government to be set up. For 60 years, this government was supported by the world. Many Western countries say they are fighting racism; but in fact support it with occupation, bombings and crimes committed in Gaza. These countries support the criminals,” Ahmadinejad said.

“Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights at eradictating this barbaric racism. Efforts must be made to put an end to Zionism,” he said.

As he spoke, France walked out of the room in protest. Some twenty delegates were seen leaving the room.

Still, the majority of the delegates greeted Ahmadinejad with a round of applause.

Ahmadinejad also blamed Israel for America’s invasion of Iraq, which he said benefited Israeli arms sales.

He spoke to the UN assembly on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day, which commemorates the slaughter of six million Jews by the Nazis
during World War II.

“Those who won the Second Worl War, considered the world was with them,” he said, “set up laws that were oppressive and trampling.”

Ahmadinejad at U.N. conference today


 America’s Diplomatic Representatives in Iran Host “Jew Hating” Conference

 Is President Obama Madonna, Bono or the Commander in Chief of the World’s Greatest Democracy?


This morning the Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, told his Cabinet that while Israel commemorates the six million Jews slaughtered by the Nazis, “in Switzerland, the guest of honour is a racist and a Holocaust-denier who doesn’t conceal his intention to wipe Israel off the face of this earth”.
Times (UK):


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unleashed a blistering attack Monday against Israel and the United States, calling the Jewish state “racist” and lashing out at Americans for their support.

Ahmadinejad called Israel the “most cruel and racist regime.”

He followed by blaming the United States, Europe and Israel for the world’s financial crisis.

Protestors stormed the stage when Ahmadinejad began speaking and several Western delegates walked out of the room after the Iranian president said Israel was created on the “pretext of Jewish suffering” from World War II.

A wigged protester shouting “Racist! racist!” threw a soft red object at Ahmadinejad, hitting the podium and interrupting his speech.

Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the world Monday to rally against the threat that intolerance could rise as a result of the economic crisis, saying “the time is now” to stamp out racism.

Ban, opening the global body’s first racism conference in eight years, said racism including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia needed to be tackled.

“I fear that today’s economic crisis, if not handled properly, could evolve into a full-scale political crisis marked by social unrest, weakened governments and angry publics who have lost faith in their leaders and their own future,” the U.N. chief said.

Read the rest from Fox: