Is this why the IPCC is so adamant about AGW?

Question

Under Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council maintains the right to identify threats to international peace and security and to devise means to counter these threats.

This is the Article that is being used to justify IPCC funding, and to circumvent the treaty process that failed with Kyoto. I am not arguing Global Warming. I do not want opinions about Global Warming. Do you think that using AGW as a "quasi-militaristic" threat is a good excuse for the U.N. to try to manipulate the economies of member nations and gain control of them? Do you trust the U.N. to run the economy of your country?

Answer 1

I get disgusted reading arguments that the UN isn't behind the IPCC.  Of course it is and of course it is a bureaucratic grab at power.  It is almost a Duh! question but it is amazing how many people will argue against it.  These people seem to be protecting their cause, the cause of global warming, rather than using common sense.  The IPCC is so clearly about politics, but if you are of the leftist bent, as is the IPCC and the UN in general, there seems to be a disconnect to this reality.

Answer 2

"The Presidency of the Security Council is held in turn by the members of the Security Council in the English alphabetical order of their names. Each President holds office for one calendar month.

Ten non-permanent members, elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms and not eligible for immediate re-election. The number of non-permanent members was increased from six to ten by an amendment of the Charter which came into force in 1965.

Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power.

Under the Charter, all Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to Governments, the Council alone has the power to take decisions which Member States are obligated under the Charter to carry out."

http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp

Any of the 5 permanent members (the US being one of them)can veto any measure. It's not the UN in control, but the permanent members. Having veto power, we are not beholden to anyone and the council cannot act without our approval.

There is no conspiracy to the IPCC. You're being alarmist!

Answer 3

Nope.

The fact that the UN hosts the IPCC is really just convenience in this International effort.  Contrary to what the right wing guys say, this is about science, not politics.

The fact that all the world's major scientific organizations agree about this is proof of that.

Answer 4

Do I trust the UN? Remeber oil for food?

Will the UN use scientific studies to further it's agenda? h**l yes.........

Answer 5

Its as reasonable an approach as anything else.  Pollution knows no boundaries.  Scientists learned last year that 70% of the pollution in LA comes from China and India.  I guess a special panel could be set up outside the UN, but I don't know how disputes would be resolved, etc.  That's why we set up the doggone old UN in the first place.

Answer 6

I think that all eyes are on China and their development.  They have tired time and again to control China.  China getting the Olympics was one of those tactics used to bring China more into synch with the rest of the world and they have been included in far more issues than previously.  Mainly Korea and the Inida/Pakistan conflicts of recent past.

So now the fear is that without the Kyoto protocols in place, China will be out of control and untethered.  Global warming is not a threat in the U.S. because we have 300 million compared to 1 billion and 300 million in China.  If people were really concerned, they would focus solely on China because if they develope just like us, there would be no oil left over and we would probably lose out to the giant, regardless of our wealth and environmental cries.

So, we should conserve because it will help China in the future.  Honestly though, it is all about money.  If even Gore was so concerned about the environment, he would give up his private jet and all the other amenities that he has.  It is not about consumption but control and money.

Answer 7

I don't trust the UN to run its self, I'd like to see us kick it out of NY all together and send it overseas to one of the quack nations there.   If they wanted to prevent a treat, then what happened in Iran, Iraq, Syria, London, Madrid, the World Trade Center, heck you could list that list of failures all day long.