The Week That Was
September 2, 2000


The National Assessment of Climate Change has been heavily politicized to persuade Congress and the public to accept the Kyoto Protocol. Our comments to the US government highlight the inadequate scientific basis of the document and especially of the just-released Overview. See also: Senate Testimony by S. Fred Singer.

The Week That Was September 2, 2000 brought to you by SEPP


Grandiose plans are underway for the 55th annual gathering of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City September 5-9, 2000. Titled the Millennium Assembly and Summit, it is scheduled to take at least two actions designed to turn the corner from a world of sovereign nation-states to a world of disparate peoples subordinated to the supreme authority of the United Nations.

The two actions expected to be taken by consensus are adoption of the Earth Charter, a document whose text has evolved through several drafts since the Earth Summit in 1992, and adoption of a declaration authorizing a new UN commission to implement the various recommendations necessary to bring about global governance.

The Earth Charter's advocates speak of it as though it were the "Magna Carta" of a new regime, but it's not a regime of freedom from arbitrary kings like King John at Runnymede in 1215. It's a charter for submission to global bureaucrats possessing unprecedented powers.

The UN Millennium meetings could draw more media than the presidential debates, and the candidates should state whether they are for or against these radical UN goals.

A portion of the Millennium Assembly is designated as the Millennium Summit, which President Clinton and 160 heads of state are expected to attend, the largest gathering of heads of state in history. Also meeting at the same time at the New York Hilton will be Mikhail Gorbachev and his State of the World Forum, hoping to help induce heads of state to concur in the Millennium Assembly's historic actions.

The Earth Charter demands that we adopt "sustainable development plans and regulations" (i.e., to subordinate human needs to global fads enforced by environment dictators), and that the UN "manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life . . . [to] protect the health of ecosystems" (i.e., not the health of mere humans).

The Charter affirms that "all beings are interdependent" (i.e., personal freedom is irrelevant) and "every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings" (i.e., animals, plants and insects, but not unborn babies). The Charter demands that we "ensure universal [i.e., global] access to health care that fosters reproductive health [i.e., abortion and contraception] and responsible reproduction [i.e., UN-dictated population control]."

The Charter demands that we "act with restraint and efficiency when using energy" (i.e., lower U.S. energy use and standard of living). The Charter requires that we "eradicate poverty," "promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations," and "relieve them of onerous international debt" (i.e., redistribute wealth around the world).

The Charter exhorts us to affirm "gender equality" and "eliminate discrimination in ... sexual orientation" (i.e., adopt the feminist and gay agendas). The Charter demands that we "integrate into formal education [i.e., assign a UN nanny to monitor our schools] ... skills needed for a sustainable way of life [i.e., indoctrination in how we must subordinate sovereignty to the UN dogma of sustainability]."

The Charter demands that we "demilitarize national security systems" (i.e., eliminate our armed services and their weapons). The Charter concludes by proclaiming that the "Way Forward" requires "a change of mind and heart" as we move toward "global interdependence and universal responsibility."

Also to be considered by the Millennium Assembly and Summit is a lengthy Declaration, developed by 1,000 UN-accredited non-governmental organizations (NGOs), called "Strengthening the United Nations for the 21stCentury."

This Declaration calls for "a fair distribution of the earth's resources" (from the United States to the rest of the world, of course), and for the "eradication of poverty" by "redistribution [of] wealth and land." It demands that we "cancel the debts of developing countries."

The Declaration demands the disarmament of all conventional and nuclear weapons, the prohibition of "unilateral deployment of nationwide missile defense by any country," and a "standing Peace Force" (i.e., a UN standing army). It calls for a "UN Arms register" of all small arms and light weapons, and "peace education" covering "all levels from pre-school through university."

The Declaration demands UN "political control of the global economy so that it may serve our vision," and that we "integrate" the World Trade Organization under UN control. It calls for "eliminating" the veto and permanent membership in the Security Council.

The Declaration calls for implementing UN treaties that the United States has never ratified, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which denies the right to private property). The Declaration calls for the unratified International Criminal Court to exercise "compulsory jurisdiction" over all states, enforced by the UN Security Council.

This Declaration also calls for the UN to impose direct taxes such as "fees on foreign exchange transactions (i.e. the Tobin Tax).

Comment: Comments may be superfluous, except to remind that this is the logical outcome of the 1992 Rio UN conference that gave us the Global Climate Treaty (and Kyoto Protocol). Support comes from the sort of people that signed the Morelia Declaration. (You have to read it to believe it.)


Another bombshell from climate researcher James Hansen. He ascribes "rapid warming in recent decades" to non-CO2 GH gases (like methane and CFCs), with CO2 and sulfate aerosols largely offsetting each other. He predicts that "if sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero."

While we disagree with much of his reasoning, we note that the burden of GHG reduction now shifts to CH4 sources like cows and rice paddies. It would put the burden of any future warming squarely on developing nations.

More next week…

[Ref: J. Hansen et al, Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 29 Aug., 2000]


"Big business is finally starting to take the threat of global warming seriously. Eileen Claussen [President of Pew Center] deserves much of the credit" says an article in The Economist of 12 August on p.67 ("Changing the climate of opinion").

It cites a letter of Bill Clinton to Tony Blair. "Dear Tony, knowing our shared interest in global climate change, I have enclosed a report on the benefits of greenhouse gas emissions trading... This new report by the non-profit Pew Center on Global Climate Change supports the view that a flexible, well-designed trading system will significantly reduce the costs of climate change mitigation... With best regards, Bill".

Nice try, Mr. President. Yes, emission trading can lower these cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol IF there are unused (and therefore cheap) permits to be bought. But that increases GLOBAL emissions and thus defeats the purpose of the Protocol. It's a mirage, Eileen; the zealots won't allow such an obvious out….


A recent New York Times story related that "leads" of open water in ice fields near the North Pole filled cruise passengers on a Russian icebreaker with a "sense of alarm." Proponents of the theory of man-made global warming grasped at the story to vindicate their warnings.

But climate experts report that open water at the North Pole is nothing new.

They say that after a long summer of 24-hour days it is not unusual to find open leads just about everywhere -- especially after strong winds break up the winter ice.

Indeed, a 1969 Dutch atlas contains the following passage: "The North Pole Ice Sea is never completely frozen; 3- to 30-meter-thick ice floes continue moving slowly around the pole. At the North Pole the winter temperature is never lower than -35 degrees Celsius."

The atlas goes on to report that summer temperatures can rise to 10 to 12 degrees Celsius -- which is well above freezing.

Actual observations and data from meteorological instruments such as weather satellites and weather balloons confirm that polar regions have not warmed appreciably in recent decades.

Scientists report that the Earth did warm between 1900 and 1940, with the climate recovering from a previous cold period known as the Little Ice Age. As a result of these changes -- which have nothing to do with human influences -- it is warmer now than it was 100 years ago.

Source: S. Fred Singer (University of Virginia), "Sure, the North Pole Is Melting. So What?" Wall Street Journal, August 28,

AND A NYT CORRECTION: North Pole not as wet as reported

NEW YORK (AP, Aug. 29) - Citing a report in The New York Times, The Associated Press erroneously reported Aug. 19 that open water had been spotted on the North Pole for the first time in 50 million years, a possible sign of global warming.

In a correction Tuesday, the Times said it had misstated the normal conditions of sea ice at the pole. It said open water probably has occurred there before because the Arctic Ocean is about 10 percent ice-free during a typical summer.

The Times also said the lack of ice at the North Pole is not necessarily a result of global warming.

Our Comment: Evidently, the editors of the NYT read theWall Street Journal



Go to the Week That Was Index