Homestead mailing list

[Leslie <cayadopi AT yahoo.com>]

Reading the most recent version now.
 
Gotta love some of these excerpts, with their paragraph long sentences....
 
Page 7 of 181, #3
"....demonstrates clearly that negative impacts of climate change are already 
evident and widespread, ............. and are increasingly posing a risk to 
.............. [and to[reduce] poverty] [eradication] [promote poverty 
aliviation,]'................."
 
Ok, the way I read that is now climate change is responsible for a portion of 
world poverty........ and the solultion is going to be TAXING (a/k/a 
mitigation) the developed nations in order to aleviate world poverty in 
developing nations.  i.e. theft.
 
Page 8, #9
"...Failure to implement ambitious and immediate MITIGATION actions by 
developed countries will increase the need for adaptation in developing 
countries and therefore for financial support."
 
Page 8, #10
"The active participation of all stakeholders in this transition should be 
sought [, be they governmental, including subnational and local government, 
private business or civil society, including the youth and addressing the 
need for gender equity].]"
 
Gender equity????? What does gender equity have to do with the adverse 
affects of global warming????   Oh, make sure they tax male and female gas 
farts equitably.... LOL !
 
 
".......all the Parties are in need of a paradigm shift towards low carbon 
development. However, THERE IS STILL NO MODEL FOR LOW CARBON PARADIGN 
SHIFT......."
 
This reads to me like, we know we need to change, but we don't have something 
to change to.......
 
Page 9, #18
"....
 
If you've ever been a victim of "bold mitigation" you know exactly what this 
means.  So US Citizens, prepare you have your wallets raped.
 
Page 11, #20
"In order to fulfill this shared vision, PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO ESTABLISH a 
coherent, cohesive and
 
Page 11, 21
 
".........ensuring that global crises, such as the financial crisis, should 
not constitute an obstacle to the provision of financial and technical
 
I.E. tough luck US, doesn't matter if your economy is collapsing, you still 
gotta pay up to the developing nations...........
 
 
This stuff - developed nations to pay developing nations and compliance ---- 
is repeated over and over.  So far, in my opinion, Monckton is accurate in 
his statement, "Most of the third world countries will sign it because they 
think they are going to get money out of it", and in his claims that there 
are compliance clauses.
 
 
page 11, 1-22(a) (alternative)
 
"..address all the implementation gaps to enable full, effective and 
sustained implementation of the Convention, now, up to and beyond 2012, on 
MITIGATION and adaptation commitments, AND IN PARTICULAR THOSE RELATED TO THE 
PROVISION OF FINANICAL RESOURCES...."
 
 

________________________________

From: Lynda <lurine AT com-pair.net>
To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Wed, October 21, 2009 8:40:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Homestead] Global Warming?

Leslie, the prez can't sign a treaty without Congressional approval.  This 
is one more of those scare tactic things.  It is all over the net.  And, if 
he signs anything without Congressional approval, it is null and void.

And, I've read the Accord, it doesn't say any such thing.

Lynda
--"I'm fascinated by the hard line you're drawing over religion -- It gets
used too much, as an excuse, a fall guy, a weapon, a con.  A lot of people,
maybe most, don't mean it except when it suits them."  Dallas
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Leslie" <cayadopi AT yahoo.com>


Just received these links from someone who claims prez obama is going to 
sign this.

I have only watched the summary.


Transcript of the summary follows for those who can't download it.

There's certainly more than 2 sides of the coin to this global warming issue 
:-)

(Summary)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

(Full speech)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0


(transcript, summary)

Lord Christopher Monckton
Climate Change Expert
10/14/2009

Lord Monckton:

"And what are we doing instead?

"At Copenhagen this December, weeks away, a Treaty will be signed. Your 
President will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it 
because they think they are going to get money out of it. Most of the 
left-wing regimes around the world like the European Union will rubber stamp 
it. Virtually nobody won't sign it.

"I have read that Treaty. And what it says is this. That a world government 
is going to be created. The word government actually appears as the first of 
three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of 
wealth from the countries of the west to third world countries in 
satisfaction of what is called coyly a 'climate debt' - because we've been 
burning CO2 and they haven't, and we've been screwing up the climate. We 
haven't been screwing up the climate, but that's the line. And the third 
purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

"How many of you think that the word election or democracy or vote or ballot 
occurs anywhere in the two hundred pages of that treaty? Quite right. It 
doesn't appear once.

"So at last the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the 
environmental movemenent and took over Greenpeace movement so that my 
friends who founded it left within a year because they'd captured it.

"Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world 
government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies 
with that point of view. He is going to sign. He'll sign anything. He's a 
Nobel Peace Laureate. Of course he'll sign."

<laughter>

"And the trouble is this. If that treaty is signed, your constitution says 
that it takes presidence over your constitution. And you can't resile from 
that treaty unless you get the agreement of all of the other states parties. 
And because you'll be the biggest paying country, they're not going to let 
you out.

"So thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom for the world. It is 
a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. 
But in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign your 
freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever, and neither you 
nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power what-so-ever 
to take it back again.

"That is how serious it is.

"I've read the treaty. I've seen this stuff about government and climate 
debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it 
or no. But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love 
and so admire. It is here that perhaps at this 11th hour, of the 59th minute 
and 59th second, you will rise up and stop your president from signing that 
dreadful treaty. That purposeless treaty for there is no problem with the 
climate, and even if there were, economically speaking, there is nothing we 
can do about it.

"So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to 
your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second 
World War. He quoted from your great poet, Longfellow:

'Sail on, O' Ship of State.
'Sail on, O' Union Strong and Great.
'Humanity with all its Fears,
'With all the Hopes of Future Years,
'Is Hanging Breathless on thy Fate.'

"Thank you."



________________________________
From: "DSanner106 AT aol.com" <DSanner106 AT aol.com>
To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Sun, October 18, 2009 8:18:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Homestead] Global Warming?

exactly. this is the same sort of weather changes during the normal 30 year
climate swings we have recorded going back eons. I just don't see the
whole human caused global warming in this.

Drew


In a message dated 10/18/2009 7:52:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
hstead AT nc.rr.com writes:

Nope. Varying annual and multi-annual pattern are to be expected with
climate change. Check out the change in weather that occurred during
the
state of the Little Ice Age in Europe. Some years were drying and warm,
followed by a couple of years of wet...

"Normal" is always tough to define... remember, the Hudson River used to
freeze over every year.... I don't KNOW the last time that happened...
(OK. I "googled" it.... 2003, but you know what I mean)

Chris
Apex, NC


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <DSanner106 AT aol.com>
To: <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 9:06 AM
Subject: [Homestead] Global Warming?


> Ok, my son played his football game in the snow last night in ALABAMA...
,
> freeze warnings this weekend in atlanta, The last 2 years broke the all
> time snowfall records in my hometown in Michigan, and had it's earliest
> snowfall on record this year already. Yesterday, the BBC announced that
> there
> have been no patterns of global warming for the last 11 years. Is it
time
> to
> call this thing off?
>
> Drew



_______________________________________________
Homestead list and subscription:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
Change your homestead list member options:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/lurine%40com-pair.net
View the archives at:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead 

_______________________________________________
Homestead list and subscription:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
Change your homestead list member options:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/cayadopi%40yahoo.com
View the archives at:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/homestead



 
OK, enough copy and paste on those, it goes on and on, in the original and in 
the proposed revisions and alternate versions.
It is clear to me that developed nations are to pay extortion money (under 
the guise of the politically correct word mitigation) to developing nations 
and compliance is mandatory---- it is repeated over and over.  So far, in my 
opinion, Monckton is accurate in his statement, "Most of the third world 
countries will sign it because they think they are going to get money out of 
it", and in his claims that there are compliance clauses.     There is no 
fear mongering in those two statements.  
 
 
And since it is getting lack, I'm going to search for the word government and 
see in what context.......  
 
Page 13, #38
"The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will 
be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and 
financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the 
following:
 (b) The Convention’s FINANCIAL MECHANISM will include a multilateral CLIMATE 
CHANGE FUND.............
including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, 
to
address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance,
rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a 
MITIGATION
window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive 
forest
incentives relating to REDD actions.
 
(c) The Convention’s FACILITATIVE mechanism will include: (a) work programmes 
for
adaptation and MITIGATION; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term 
technology
action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary 
body on
adaptation, and expert groups on MITIGATION, technologies and on monitoring, 
reporting
and VERIFICATION; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, 
reporting and
verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the 
TRANSFER OF technical and FINANCIAL RESOURCES from DEVELOPED COUNTRIES to 
developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and 
administrative support, including a new centre for
information exchange.
 
 
I don't get the impression existing sovereign governments will be replaced, 
more of a supra-government body that dictates to sovereign nations regarding 
emissions etc. and the redistribution of wealth -err theft --- errr 
mitigation ---- aspects.
 
 
As to Monckton's three points about a government - yes a government body 
being formed, with the purpose of transferring wealth to pay for climate debt 
(mitigation for alleged damage, but only 3rd world's in the world are damaged 
somehow... LOL). and yes, the purpose of the government besides overseeing 
all this will definitely be enforcement.
 
Actually, he erred on the word election - it does appear, ONCE and once only 
on page 137, "the election of executive board members, approval of final 
budgets, and audit process or verification."  However, he is correct in 
stating that the words "democracy or vote or ballot" do not appear at all.

And finally the constitution aspect:
Excerpt from Article VI of the US Constitution.
"This CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in 
pursuance thereof; AND ALL TREATIES MADE, or which shall be made, under the 
authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the 
judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or 
laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
I think that is basis for the constitutional weakness argument Monckton was 
referring to, and the reason for the alleged internet scare tactic.  If the 
UN is creating a new government body SUPRA to all governments that sign the 
treaty, established for the purpose of redistributing wealth, err, 
"mitigation of alleged climate change effects", and for the purpose of 
overseeing compliance and enforcement - well.............. is that really a 
scare tactic?  Or just calling a spade a spade?
 
Even then President-Elect Obama, while running for office, pointed out he was 
a constitutional law professor and candidly admitted that the US Constitution 
is flawed.  It sure appears to me that the flaw here is allowing another 
government body to be supra to our own constitution in this respect. JMHO.
 
 
And yes, Congress needs a 2/3 approval if I recall correctly.  That is why 
video directs viewers to a website or links urging people to contact their 
representatives in Washington ASAP, and urges us to stand up in the 11th hour 
and stop the President from signing this.... which is clearer in the links on 
the web that he is urging people to contact Congress to vote NO.
 
(a) The GOVERNMENT WILL BE RULED BY THE COP with the support of a new 
subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the 
management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and 
bodies."
 
(Note --- COP apparently means "Conference of the Parties" (pg 12).... 
assistance to developing countries in accordance with the 
Convention..........."
integrated SYSTEM OF FINANCIAL and technology TRANSFER MECHANISMs under the 
Convention and a follow
up/COMPLIANCE mechanism. These institutions are robust and effective."
Developing country Parties over riding PRIORITY remains sustainable economic 
growth and POVERTY ERADICATION,....."
 
Come on, who are they kidding?  The global warming treaty's overriding 
priority for developed countries is poverty eradication?
 
 
Page 10, #18
"....[Developing country Parties] lacking sufficient capacity to respond to 
the challenges of climate change
require access [to opportunities to obtain this capacity] [to resources] in a 
timely [sustained and
cooperative] manner.]]............... [Measurable, reportable and verifiable 
financing, technology transfer and compensation must be provided by developed 
countries to address the full costs of adaptation in developing countries, 
supported by appropriate institutional arrangements under the Conference of 
the Parties.]........... DEVELOPED COUNTRY Parties SHALL SUPPORT these 
developing countries in meeting the COSTS of adaptation. "
The intent here is crystal clear to me.
 
Page 10, #19
"..........the economics of ambitious and BOLD MITIGATION ACTION PAYS BETTER 
than shy efforts, both at a global
and domestic level in developed and developing country Parties..........."



>From mmcharry AT gmail.com  Thu Oct 22 00:26:01 2009
Return-Path: <mmcharry AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 1A08C4C013; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:26:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=SARE_MILLIONSOF
        autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from mail-vw0-f203.google.com (mail-vw0-f203.google.com
        [209.85.212.203])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D0C4C010
        for <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:26:00 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by vws41 with SMTP id 41so2788042vws.4
        for <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:26:00 -0700 
(PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.122.170 with SMTP id l42mr3540613vcr.93.1256185559961;
        Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C23BA51833CE4A5AA001443858F2AB94@aspen>
References: <c0d.611e20fe.380b1b5e AT aol.com>
        <C23BA51833CE4A5AA001443858F2AB94@aspen>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:25:59 -0500
Message-ID: <18c9df6e0910212125p75d1e9a1o143a4a03f76d0d04 AT mail.gmail.com>
From: Marie McHarry <mmcharry AT gmail.com>
To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Homestead] Global Warming?
X-BeenThere: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
List-Id: <homestead.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead>,
        <mailto:homestead-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead>
List-Post: <mailto:homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead>,
        <mailto:homestead-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:26:01 -0000

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Chris Clarke <hstead AT nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Nope. � Varying annual and multi-annual pattern are to be expected with
> climate change. � �Check out the change in weather that occurred during the
> state of the Little Ice Age in Europe. � Some years were drying and warm,
> followed by a couple of years of wet...

The Little Ice Age, mild as it was, came close to wiping out Homo
Sapiens. Weakened by the cold, wet, hungry years, people were very
susceptible to the plague. I don't see why that kind of scenario
couldn't occur again. Plus, we are able to move plagues around a whole
lot faster than Medieval folks could.

As for whether it's man made or not.... we've been putting back the
carbon dioxide of millions of years of plant growth in a tiny -- on a
geologic scale -- moment of time. There is also evidence that the sun
is going through an unstable period.

We're spoiled. After the Dust Bowl years, climate settled down until
recently. Now it's making up for lost time.

Marie, thinking now is the time to be building greenhouses and
learning other ways of extending the growing season