Blog @ MoreWhat.com

If the recent rev/con of the United Nations on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for 2010 is any indication the world is no closer to being the nuke-free peaceful utopia envisioned by UN rhetoric or that of US President Barack Hussein Obama. Statements made by Iran and Israel merely extend the never ending debate on Middle East peace that is equally illusive.

The following report from a few days ago inspired this post.

Israel denounces NPT ‘hypocrisy’ as Iran hails accord
by Gavin Rabinowitz Gavin Rabinowitz – Sat May 29, 4:24 pm ET

TORONTO (AFP) – Israel Saturday denounced as “hypocritical” a resolution adopted by the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s 189 nations and said it would refuse to take part in a conference on a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East.

Israel said the resolution adopted at the United Nations on Friday singles out the Jewish state and fails to mention arch-foe Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

One may have to take the announcement above at face value until the 28 page doc from the UN is available. As of this writing the following notice was found at the UN’s website.

8:58 AM 6/2/2010
Parts I and II of the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference are still being finalized and will be posted here (in English only) as soon as they are available. Other language versions will be added when ready.

It always seems that some sources are able to receive these items before the general public. But there are other items that help paint the picture.

UN NPT conference backs steps to disarm
Sat May 29 2010 12:05

A Major Gap

The disarmament action plan also inevitably leaves a major gap, since it doesn’t obligate four nations that are not members of the treaty - India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, all of which have or are suspected of having nuclear arsenals.

On the Middle East, Arab states and Israel’s allies had been at odds over wording in the plan to convene a conference in 2012 to begin a process to turn the region into a zone free of nuclear and other mass-destruction weapons.

This Arab proposal for a WMD-free zone, to pressure Israel to give up its undeclared arsenal of perhaps 80 nuclear warheads, was endorsed by the 1995 NPT conference but never acted on.

Israel has long said a full Arab-Israeli peace must precede such weapons bans. But at this conference the US, Israel’s chief supporter, said it welcomed “practical measures” leading toward the goal of a nuke-free zone, and US diplomats discussed possibilities with Israel.

And what about Iran?

NPT 101: Is Iran violating the nuclear treaty?
By Scott Peterson, Staff writer / May 4, 2010
Istanbul, Turkey

Is Iran violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?The answer isn’t black and white. It depends on whom you ask – and how deftly you define “violation.” But in essence, Iran is following the letter but not always the spirit of the NPT.

Iran claims it is in complete compliance with its NPT obligations, including declaring all its nuclear material and allowing inspectors to monitor its facilities. It advocates against nuclear weapons and notes that despite thousands of hours of inspections in Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the United Nations body that monitors NPT compliance – has found no evidence of a bomb program.

It is not like the IAEA never dropped the ball regarding Iraq, Iran or other investigations they have undertaken. No one really knows the status of Iran’s nuke program but their repeated call for the elimination of Israel raises suspicion about nuclear weapons.

But let’s not get all worked up over Israel’s denouncement of this year’s nuclear theatre courtesy of the United Nations. Just last year there was at least one similar response by another nation under similar circumstances.

Friday, September 25, 2009, 00:47 IST
UN passes NPT resolution, India says no

New Delhi: India refused to abide by the UN Security Council resolution asking all non-NPT nations to sign the pact, saying it cannot accept the “externally prescribed norms or standards” on issues that are contrary to its national interests or infringe on its sovereignty.

India maintained that it cannot join the NPT as a non-weapon country even as it reiterated its commitment to no testing and no-first-use besides non-discriminatory universal non-proliferation.

The details may have changed over the years but generally speaking we are no closer to a nuke-free world than we were decades ago. Nothing anyone has expressed improved the chances of the world becoming peaceful. Perhaps focusing on nukes misses the point although it makes for popular news stories. War and other armed conflict with ‘conventional weapons’ as well as violence in general needs to be addressed in addition to nuclear threats before ‘universal’ peace can be achieved. Something that seems unlikely given the history of humans on this planet.

It would be helpful to keep the nuclear club at its present size. It would be more helpful to keep terrorists from making an IED from nuclear material e.g., a ’suitcase bomb.’ It might be fair to state that government leaders over a long period of time have caused this predicament in the way relationships, strategies and tactics have been arranged. Changing alliances and ‘national interests’ at odds with solutions that benefit all or at least do not unduly burden some while others gain are at the heart of the matter.

Until those trends are resolved the larger problem of a nuke-free world and an end to armed conflict are simply wishful thinking.

If only wishing for a perfect world made it so.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook

As much as China and Russia have demonstrated their opposition toward ’sanctions’ against Iran’s nuclear pursuits more impotent reaction appears forthcoming from the security council at the United Nations. As noted below, a ‘fourth round’ of UN sanctions indicates previous provisions have accomplished nothing.

If Iran sends uranium to Turkey and Brazil for further enrichment with the stated medical purposes expressed a minimum of several questions come to mind. What is to stop others from intercepting and/or advancing enrichment to weapons grade? What value can sanctions have if they have not worked to date and Iran’s nuclear pursuit advances unchecked?

Spokespersons from Iran and Turkey have offered political rhetoric on the topic. Western nations have expressed a real concern that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Also in the report below readers are reminded of frequent expressions from Iranian leaders that they intend to eliminate the state of Israel.

And the past and current situation with Iran has done nothing to resolve these issues. But it has allowed Iran to continue unimpeded. It is long past the time for an effective response to Iranian nukes. And all that sending uranium around the planet achieves is higher risk that the material will be used by rogue states or terrorists supported by them.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States and other major world powers have agreed on a draft resolution that could impose a fourth round of United Nations sanctions on Iran.

Clinton made the announcement in testimony to a Senate committee Tuesday, a day after Iran announced a plan to send some of its enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for nuclear fuel.

The Security Council is set to hold consultations on the sanctions draft Tuesday.

Clinton said the plan followed talks among the five permanent Security Council members - the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia, as well as Germany.

She noted the agreement had been reached in cooperation with China and Russia - two nations that have previously resisted imposing more sanctions on Tehran.

On Monday, Iran signed an agreement with Turkey and Brazil to send 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for higher-enriched nuclear reactor fuel to be used in a medical research reactor in Tehran.

Both Turkey and Brazil are non-permanent members of the Security Council.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast accused Western nations Tuesday of “seeking excuses” to avoid resolving the nuclear dispute with his country.

Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said talk of sanctions could “spoil the atmosphere” and lead to an “escalation” of statements that might “provoke” Iranian public opinion.

The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of working to make a nuclear weapon. Iran says its atomic program is for peaceful purposes.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with top Cabinet members Tuesday to consider a response to the Iranian plan.

Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence because of repeated calls by Iranian leaders for the demise of the Jewish state.

What a surprise this is. Imagine that. The UN Secretary General is condemning Israel. Can anyone point to a UN condemnation of the Palestinians or Hamas or Hezbollah or al-Qaeda etc., etc.?

It is amazing that such a tiny place, Israel, surrounded by a massive geography of unfriendly neighbors is so often characterized as the sole problem for unrest in the Middle East.

Maybe the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, could try something new. How about pointing to the activities of others involved with unrest in the Middle East rather than simply single out Israel?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA….

As a result of the blockade, residents have been unable to rebuild thousands of homes destroyed by Israel during three-week Israeli war on Gaza in 2008 and 2009.

Luis Ramirez

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has made a visit to the Gaza Strip and repeated his condemnation of the blockade. Meanwhile, international efforts to get Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations are stepping up.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came the region to press Israelis and Palestinians to return to negotiations. On Sunday, while visiting the Gaza Strip, he condemned Israel for the blockade it and Egypt have on the enclave.

“I have repeatedly made it quite clear to Israel’s leaders that the Israeli policy of closure is not sustainable and that it is wrong,” Mr. Ban said. “It poses unacceptable suffering of human beings. This policy is also counterproductive. It undercuts moderates and empowers extremists.”

Israel has imposed a blockade since the 2007 violent takeover of the Strip by the militant group Hamas. Israeli officials say their restrictions on cement and other construction materials are meant to prevent Hamas from building bunkers to attack Israel.

As a result of the blockade, residents have been unable to rebuild the thousands of homes that were destroyed during Israel’s war on militants in 2008 and 2009.

While in the region, Ban has criticized Israel’s construction of settlements on lands it occupies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

On Sunday, he appealed for Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a prisoner exchange that would result the in the release of Palestinian prisoners and the liberation by Hamas of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Speaking at a Cabinet meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his government will not restrict building in East Jerusalem. The move puts Mr. Netanyahu further at odds with the United States, just before he is due to leave for a visit to Washington this week.

The prime minister said that from Israel’s point of view, building in Jerusalem is like building in Tel Aviv. He said he has made this clear to the U.S. administration. Mr. Netanyahu said that in upcoming indirect talks with the Palestinians, each side can present its position. He said he will make Israel’s position clear during his visit to the American capital.

Israel has not complied with U.S. calls for it to cancel the approval of 1,600 new housing units in a Jewish settlement of East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as the capital of their future state.

The Palestinians have said they will not return to talks until Israel stops all settlement activity.

Special U.S. envoy George Mitchell is returning the region to push along efforts for both sides to start indirect negotiations.

One report attributed to Reuters at the NYT fish wrap and a similar one at Reuters report the IPCC will be investigated by an independent board of review. Each report is slightly different yet share some text and the titles are not the same. Given the scam proportions of AGW and the IPCC this raises suspicion this blog will deal with right now as no time is available for further investigation. But it can make you wonder. Was the NYT taking a little creative license with the report?

Moving to the real problem, how do you convince the public everything is above board when you make a claim that irregularities related to scientists will be investigated by other scientists? Who cares if you claim they are independent? The ones under investigation were described that way too!

This blogger, for one, would like to report on at least one example where confidence is high that so-called scientific evidence on AGW is correct. As much as this issue smells of scam any skeptic worth their criticism would expect at least one example of scientific truth regarding global warming. Everything being false or fabricated is no more believable than everything being correct.

Okay, let’s go back to the report…..

“It will be [made up of] senior scientific figures. I can’t name who they are right now. It should do a review of the IPCC, produce a report by, say, August and there is a plenary of the IPCC in South Korea in October.

“The report will go there for adoption,” he told reporters on the sidelines of a UNEP conference in Nusa Dua, on the Indonesian island of Bali, where environment ministers have been meeting this week.

It would appear that the powers-that-be within the United Nations are simply seeking vindication by any means in advance of the next scam meeting. It is not difficult to believe those in lesser industrialized nations and the third world view the AGW issue as a great strategy for sabotaging their more successful counterparts. Launch initiatives like those suggested by Al Gore and his crew to destroy the economies of ‘rich’ nations to even the playing field.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

When the words war and crimes are used together it speaks to an underlying problem. As a species we have failed to render armed conflict obselete. And given that two or more sides of an issue engage in the practice from time to time additional problems arise in the aftermath. Someone always wants to justify war by finding someone to accuse of war crimes. As if having rules for war somehow makes it more palletable or civilized.

It is no surprise that the United Nations is central to this story. Neither is it a surprise that it surrounds the Israeli/Palestinian problem or that others can cloak their real intentions as participants in the international organization. So after more than a year since the conflict in question took place there’s a new wrinkle in the situation.

The U.N. General Assembly has adopted a resolution renewing pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians to conduct independent and credible investigations into crimes committed by both sides during the 22-day Gaza conflict that erupted in December 2008.

The General Assembly voted to give Israel and the Palestinians five more months in which to conduct investigations of alleged war crimes that are “independent, credible and in conformity with international standards.”

The US continues to support Israel and says the Goldstone report is flawed. Other countries line up on familiar sides of the issue as with any other item involving Israel. It’s a logjam that demonstrates absolutely no probability for resolution. Not just about the 22-day conflict in 2008 but everything else involving the Middle East.

There is nothing ‘united’ about these nations. It should be possible for a large group of nations to impose their will on the occasional problem areas from time to time. But not when the large group supports their own interest rather than the world at large and politics trumps all else.

Just another example that the United Nations is one useless organization.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For more information on the topic click here

Although this post does not offer an exhaustive list of funding provided for earthquake relief purposes to Haiti the reports featured raise questions. But that does not address a broader question on why each ‘natural disaster’ or other catastrophic event is treated the way they are. If ET were to visit the planet Earth the impression for the extra=terrestrial might be that this is the first time humans have encountered such an event.

The shock and awe reaction in the main stream media suggests we have never witnessed such an event. The wailing and gnashing of teeth expressed by those affected and interviewed by the same MSM demonstrate a universal theme. There is the expectation that someone else is responsible to return ‘victims’ to their pre-disaster condition.

No, this is not a heartless rant targeting millions affected by the earthquake in Haiti. It is an observation presented during a crisis to offer suggestions for future events. It seems little if anything is done to effectively prepare for such contingencies by those most likely to be affected. Certainly those who are least prepared to face life in general are not in a position to prepare themselves properly for extreme conditions like a quake. But that is the whole point.

Just as issues like education avoid the responsibility of the family component e.g., good parenting, and the so-called global economic crisis sidesteps greed on every level, preparation for natural disasters receives little attention between events or focus on simple preventative measures addressing those most likely to be harmed.

Most ongoing ‘humanitarian’ efforts elicit funds based on emotional appeals for money to address problems after the fact. Outside of legitimate organizations raising funds to accomplish goals like teaching the have=nots to fish in order to feed themselves rather than give them food to solve an immediate need, most ‘humanitarian’ appeals are a scam.

Here are some reports regarding the current difficulties in Haiti that illuminate the world’s curious reponse to such events.

UN Appeals for $550 Million for Haitian Quake Victims

If millions are affected it is not surprising the UN would request $550 million. If there are 3 million ‘victims’ that is less than $200 per person. But while the request receives much attention during the disaster little valid disclosure will follow documenting where the money went.

Obama Pledges Sustained Commitment To Haiti

Okay, so the UN asks for $550 million and the US offers $100 million. That’s nearly 20% of what the UN asked for and a decent percentage for the US to offer. It seems large compared to what reports show for other countries thus far.

China Sends Aid to Quake-Stricken Haiti

Purely based on the report, China claims they will do what’s necessary to help but the only specific monetary amount is $1 million from the Chinese Red Cross.

Sarkozy Calls For International Donors Conference to Help Haiti

Go figure, France calls for a conference to solve the problem.

France Calls for Cancellation of Haiti’s Debt

Okay, correction, France calls for a conference and cancelling Haiti’s debt. So what does that cost France?

Haiti Aid Pouring in Through Text Message Campaign

Some reporting has warned the public about fraudulent websites accepting donations for earthquake ‘victims’ in Haiti. The bottom ilne warns there are genuine relief sites and frauds. Let the donor beware. The point is the public may represent the only honest source of aid for this event. Are the other sources bogus and do they feed on these events to perpetrate fraud?

And of course to repeat the broader point of this post, why does there seem to be no effort to prepare humans on this planet to be prepared to handle disaster in an effective manner?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

How long can they keep this up? No, not Iran’s so-called ’supreme leader’, the revolutionary guard or that little Hitler named Ahmadinejad but the opposition. At a time when the UN and more importantly, member nations, have done essentially nothing about Iran’s nuclear program(s) people who actually have the stones are taking their case to the streets at great risk. Many have suggest the US and other countries should rise in support of the protests. It it is true that Ahmadinejad and the ruling thugs of Iran stole the election earlier this year there are plenty of legitimate actions other nations could take on behalf of those seeking justice in Iran.

In the VOA piece below another account in this year’s Islamic saga describes the latest threat of Iran’s ruling crew toward protesters. After that an excerpt from an LAT’s report that is not included in the one from VOA. It is another example of concerns that the present community organizer-in-chief in the US may be placing his influence within this well-known news gathering organization.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Issues Stern Warning to Protesters

Iran’s supreme leader has accused the pro-reform opposition of trying to undermine the Islamic system and insulting the Islamic Republic’s founder.Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Sunday the opposition’s relentless protests were disrespectful. State television had broadcast footage of what it said were opposition supporters destroying photos of both Ayatollah Khamenei and the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, during massive anti-government protests on December 7.

Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard called Sunday for punishment of the demonstrators who tore up or burned photos of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. The guard is the country’s most powerful military force.

On Saturday, hard-line Iranian clerics rallied in cities across the country to denounce pro-reform students who staged the violent anti-government rallies.

In the holy city of Qom, cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami accused the opposition of trying to destroy Iran’s Islamic system of government.

Government supporters at the rallies chanted “death to opponents of the supreme leader.”

Defeated presidential candidate and opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi was quoted on Saturday as saying his supporters would not allow any insult against the supreme leader.

Supporters of Mousavi and other reformist leaders held mass protests earlier this year after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad secured a second term in a disputed June election. The post-election demonstrations were the largest in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The opposition accuses Mr. Ahmadinejad of stealing the vote.
from the LAT….

Opposition supporters, however, said the incident was staged by hardliners loyal to Ahmadinejad and aired on TV to discredit their cause.

Now that’s an interesting claim. But beyond this latest episode international action is sorely needed against Iran’s delaying tactics on the nuke problem. Another benefit Ahmadinejad acquires from being allowed to procrastinate on the issue. One could argue that makes the UN and member countries complicit in Iran’s threat to the planet.

BTW, peace on Earth good will toward all.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Some in the ’science’ community are honest and some created Climategate.

Disclosure of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain — a collaborator with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — reveals some scientists’ willingness to suppress or massage data and rig the peer-review process and the publication of scholarly work. The CRU materials also reveal paranoia on the part of scientists who believe that in trying to engineer “consensus” and alarm about warming, they are a brave and embattled minority. Actually, never in peacetime history has the government-media-academic complex been in such sustained propagandistic lockstep about any subject.

Some ‘deny’ Climategate while others have known about the fraud for a long time.

“My presentation will be the unique one,” said Inhofe, a climate change skeptic who is investigating allegations that some scientists manipulated data to provide proof of global warming. “They’re not even close on votes in the United States Senate.”

“They’re cooking the science,” Inhofe said. “The same things that came out on these e-mails is what I said four years ago.”

You need a flawless scheme and ‘perps’ who can carry it out in order to commit the perfect crime.

Obama’s Top Climate Advisers Can’t Get Doomsday Story Straight While Testifying Before Same Committee on Same Day
Thursday, December 10, 2009

Last week, White House science czar John Holdren told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of 6 feet or more in a century.

But Joan Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the same committee on the same day that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of up to 3.5 feet in this century.

As with all investigations the best strategy is to follow the money.

As for Al Gore, the former Vice President brings emotional fervor to his carbon crusade. He travels the country displaying charts and graphs, quoting scientific experts and appealing to philosophers and religious leaders to save the planet from global warming. But he says nothing about his business partners who yearn to trade on the emerging carbon market. And the media pay no attention to the companies offering “carbon advisory services” that will profit from federal carbon emission controls.

Al Gore’s scam is not especially creative. His strategy is well known in the life insurance market. An old technique is to create fear in the mind of your prospect that their spouse and other dependents will be left penniless if they expire prematurely. The claim is the life insurance they buy will protect them from that fate. While the salesman may actually believe he is helping you he knows his income depends on a successful outcome to the presentation. Then there are the scam artists whose only interest is getting rich off your fear, real or imagined.

The faster someone wants you to act on their suggestion the more likely it is a scam.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Soros scheming at Copenhagen: Eco-redistribution of wealth (Michelle Malkin) 

GENEVA — The United Nations called Switzerland’s ban on new minarets “clearly discriminatory” and deeply divisive, and the Swiss foreign minister acknowledged Tuesday the government was very concerned about how the vote would affect the country’s image.

Maybe the United Nations or those specific members expressing displeasure over the minaret ban should review a larger list of ‘clearly discriminatory’ actions and deeply divisive agendas present in the world today.

The Swiss government opposed the initiative but has sought to defend it as an action not against Islam or Muslims, but one aimed at improving integration and fighting extremism.

For those who are content to define opposition to special interest agendas as xenophobic or some other phobia consider this. Special interests pursuing political influence in order to provide special status to their agenda is a dangerous trend. The PR camouflage of an issue of equality is a sham. It echoes a familiar reaction to similar exercises in the past. All men are created equal, some more equal than others.

In the United States, for example, one can observe a plethora of organized efforts to promote agendas based on social, cultural, ethnic, racial or other special interests. The one interest that seems grossly underserved is that of being an American. As if that was somehow an unworthy goal. Perhaps if people would spend more time understanding what it is to be a citizen of their respective country of origin there would be less trouble in the world.

The statement above regarding improving integration and fighting extremism is on point. Imagine that. The Swiss referendum is at odds with the UN.

“A blanket prohibition of minarets is not consistent with OSCE commitments on freedom of religion or belief and the principle of non-discrimination based on religion,” Lenarcic said in Athens, where he will participate in the OSCE Ministerial Council, to be held tomorrow and Wednesday.

The referendum, launched by the Swiss People’s Party and the Federal Democratic Union, was backed by 57.5 per cent of voters and a majority of cantons.

The UN OSCE claims the Swiss are ‘not consistent with OSCE commitments’. But 57.5% of the Swiss voted to ban minaret construction. When will the UN learn? Contrary to the UN, the Swiss ban is supported on this blog.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The hacked emails and other docs that were published on the internet from a ‘leading’ global warming proponent source has raised some discussion. There is the expected shock and dismay that anyone would do such a thing. And there is some commentary on the real point of all this. As an interesting side note, of the 100 entries on the first page of a Google search, about five mainstream news sources cover the story. The NYT, WaPo, LAT, AP and the WSJ are there. But the vast majority of hits comes from lesser known sources. But then who cares what the MSM has to say about it?

The source of the hacked docs had this to say. “The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,” the university said. A completely laughable response from a source who has engaged in dissemination of fake science and other unscrupulous tactics to promote an agenda that to date was suspected but largely hidden. BTW, these were ‘good’ hackers regardless of their intentions as they have exposed a sinister plot.

So what kind of material is in the hacked docs. The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with. Imagine that, the United Nations is involved. There efforts and those of others involved in this sham have conspired to present only what supports their agenda. So who will now step forward to attempt a whitewash of this latest revelation in fake science?

It will come from people like this. …the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics’ research was unwelcome: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday. Opposing viewpoints in a discussion of science will be kept out somehow. That’s reassuring. So much for the validity of any information from the AGW crowd.

The people that will speak out for truth in science are more closely exemplified by this example. “This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

That would be putting it mildly. If there was any question about the honesty of those supporting AGW on this blog before it is certainly gone now. AGW has been exposed for what it is…. fake science.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

As a post-script, the MSM was mentioned as well as a comment of who cares. Of the five listed specifically, this blog views the WSJ as credible and at one time held that view of WaPo. The others listed rarely get it right.

ClimateGate: Both sides of the pond demand probes into data manipulation scandal 

Absolutely unbelievable! Apparently the audacity of the O is contagious. Or maybe this is a product of his recent World Apology Tour. The UN has raised a question on whether the US is killing people indiscriminately with the use of UAVs. Perhaps they should have first asked this question to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah or any other terrorist group. For that is what terrorists do. Absolutely unbelievable! If anyone requires further explanation of this issue there is no point continuing a discussion. The world is truly losing its collective mind. This is beyond audacity. That the UN is the source is the only thing that is not a surprise.

What the hell do they think 9/11 was if not indiscriminate killing? In more than eight years has the UN accused al-Qaeda of violating international law for that? Nearly 3000 civilians killed in the attack on the WTC and the UN wants to know about drones? Wow! And this same organization is involved with determining whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons. How vulnerable do you feel right now?

It will take some time to nominate another story that even comes close to comparing to this one on the absurd meter.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings says the use of armed unmanned aircraft by the United States to hunt down terrorists could be a violation of international law. Philip Alston said Tuesday that Washington must explain how it is sure the United States is not killing people indiscriminately with these aircraft.

U.S. officials have never confirmed the use of Predator drones, but it is widely reported that the Central Intelligence Agency has used them to kill suspected terrorist leaders operating in Pakistan’s largely ungoverned tribal areas along its border with Afghanistan.

U.N. Special Rapporteur Philip Alston questioned the legality of their use under international law. “My concern is that these drones, these Predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions are not, in fact, being carried out through the use of these weapons,” he said.

U.S. officials never acknowledge these strikes, saying they do not discuss operational or intelligence matters.

The Special Rapporteur, who is an independent expert appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, said the U.S. response has been “untenable” and that Washington needs to be more willing to discuss aspects of its drone program. “Otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line, which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws,” he said.

Alston said the United States should explain who is running the program and what precautions are being taken to ensure that these weapons are used within the framework of international law. He added that there must also be accountability and review mechanisms in place regarding their use.

If you are content with the Obama Administration’s handling of matters regarding nuclear weapons and Iran the following information should cause you to reconsider that position.

[But] the more telling detail, as a recent White House “guidance paper” acknowledges, is that the U.S. has been “carefully observing and analyzing this facility for several years.” That timeline is significant, because it was less than two years ago, in December 2007, that a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear programs asserted with “high confidence” that Tehran had “halted its nuclear weapons program” in the fall of 2003.

That NIE gave liberals and Iran a reason to cheer. Some internal critics in the Bush Administration may have sabotaged national security for political gain.

Fast forward to the present, and it turns out the NIE was misleading even on its own terms: Iran did have a covert facility, perhaps for enrichment, and the intelligence community knew or at least strongly suspected it. We are also learning that the NIE’s judgment puts the U.S. intelligence community at odds with its counterparts in Britain, Germany and Israel, which have evidence to show that Iran resumed its weaponization work after 2003.

Three US allies indicate Iran resumed the pursuit of nuclear weapons after 2003 yet the US report cited above held the opposite view. Red flags abound in this story if for no other reason then both positions cannot be correct. If the ‘allies’ assertion is correct then once again US intel is suspect. And if the Obama Administration is acting like the Qom facility is news to them more red flags are raised. Including support for the criticism that current US foreign policy is a strategy of appeasement. In which history and Neville Chamberlain serve as guidance in avoiding a 21st century failure.

Here are some recent reports demonstrating the complacency on the topic of Iranian nuclear weapons.

UN Nuclear Inspectors to Tour Iran’s Second Enrichment Plant Near Qom
Iran’s English-language Press TV reports that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are beginning a three-day visit to Iran, Saturday, to examine the country’s Fordoo nuclear enrichment facility.

The timeline suggests a month long delay between Iran’s preemptive disclosure about the facility in Qom and an impotent UN inspection.

Iran to Respond to UN Uranium Proposal Next Week
Iran has delayed its response to a United Nations-backed uranium enrichment plan aimed at easing international concerns that Iran’s nuclear program is being used to develop weapons.

Above is one more example in an extremely long list of delaying tactics the rest of the world allows Iran to use.

US Says Patience With Iran on Nuclear Issue Not Unlimited
At a news briefing, State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly said the United States would obviously have liked to see an Iranian reply but is willing to give Tehran a few more days. “We’re looking for concrete steps. And we take it as a positive sign that they’ve agreed in principle to take a couple of significant steps - the opening of the Qom facility, and then working out a procedure for having their low-enriched uranium re-processed in another country. At the same time, our patience is not limitless. I think we can stretch things out a few days, and that’s really what we’re talking about. But we’re not going to wait forever,” he said.

Equalling the extremely long list of Iranian delay tactics are statements from the US suggesting ‘we are really serious this time’. There is an uncanny similarity between US rhetoric on Iranian nukes and the useless parental response to a child allowed to dictate the rules.

The US, UN, IAEA and the remainder of the ‘international community’ have not just recently adopted an Iranian appeasement strategy like the parent who spoiled the child with lack of discipline. A list of resources below aid in demonstrating this point.

IAEA, Multilateral Talks, Iran Nukes, What’s Changed?

IAEA, International Community Complicit in Iran’s Nuke Strategy

Iran, the UN, IAEA, Elbaradei and Do-Nothings

IAEA Paper Tiger vs Iranian Nukes

Democrats Raise White Flag in Advance on Iran Nukes

Bush Warns Iran If Controversial Nuclear Work Continues…

US Criticizes Iran’s ‘Partial Answers’ on Nuclear Program

UN: Iran Still Defying Demands to Stop Enriching Uranium

US Spars With IAEA Chief ElBaradei Over Iran

Iran Says 3,000 Centrifuges Are Operational

US Official Criticizes Iran, IAEA Deal on Nuclear Program

IRAN, IAEA Make Progress in Nuclear Talks

IAEA Says Iran to Allow Inspections of Heavy Water Reactor

The bulk of the items above are from 2007 with some from 2009. The titles alone suggest the recurring theme of Iran’s delays and the wait and see appeasement of everyone else. If there’s a betting line in Vegas on this story one would have to guess the odds on favorite is Iran. With time being about the only thing the Iranians need to complete their pursuit of nuclear weapons they have one each round of this game.

One way or another this game will end sometime. An appeasement strategy ushered in WWII. Can we afford to make the same mistake on the possibility of WWIII?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Could someone explain how this solves anything?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:
Pressure Mounts on Iran Uranium Enrichment Program (Right Truth) 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has drafted an agreement to supply enriched uranium to Iran following three days of negotiations at its headquarters in Vienna. If all parties agree to it, the deal could mark a breakthrough after a years-long international standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.

The draft agreement was announced to reporters by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who has given all parties involved until Friday to approve it.

“I have circulated a draft agreement that reflects, in my judgment, a balanced approach on how to move forward,” he said. “The deadline for the parties to give, I hope, affirmative action is Friday, two days from now. And if we do get affirmative action, then I hope that we will have an agreement that we can send to the (IAEA) board of governors.”

ElBaradei said France was included in the draft agreement. Talks this week gathering Russia, the United States, France, Iran and the IAEA, stalled on Tuesday over Iran’s reluctance to have France participate in any deal on enriching its uranium. ElBaradei however described the discussions as constructive and forward-looking.

The IAEA chief did not elaborate on the draft deal, but news agencies report that it is essentially similar to an agreement reached in Geneva earlier this month. That deal would commit Iran to shipping about 75 percent of its lightly enriched stockpile of uranium to Russia for further enrichment.

The material would then be shipped to France to be converted into metal rods before being delivered back to Tehran. The rods would be used to power a research reactor in the Iranian capital making medical isotopes.

More broadly, if all parties agree to the deal, it would defuse international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes , but western nations fear Tehran is trying to build a nuclear bomb.

While the recent decision by the Nobel committee to award the 2009 peace prize to President Obama focused more attention on the US leader no more will be said about it in this post. US diplomatic strategy, success or failure, foreign policy and the role of the US State Dept and White House will be. All the talk about rebuilding America’s image, hope and change, a nuclear free world and ends to conflict needs a reality check. How are things going so far?

Not necessarily in order of importance what is on most peoples’ minds these days in terms of international relations or foreign affairs? From the US perspective the countries of note would include Russia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, North Korea and Iran. Of course the perennial favorites not yet mentioned would be any country in the Middle East. Israel and its neighbors are still without solutions. Russia and China are still vying for top dog honors with the US on the world stage. Upstarts Iran and North Korea at the very least want a seat at the cool kids table. So nothing much has changed.

Here’s a brief recap of events in US diplomatic strategy with a ‘new’ President and Secretary of State.

Still no progress in Palestinian/Israeli peace talks

NECN/ABC) - President Barack Obama’s Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, left the region Sunday after failing again to get Israelis and Palestinians back to the bargaining table. The breakdown of peace talks is taking a toll on Obama’s prestige among Palestinians.

President Obama’s Middle East peace envoy on another trip to the region - more meetings - more handshakes with Israelis and Palestinians - but still no progress, no movement in the peace process.

Not a surprise to see a headline expressing failure in Middle East diplomacy no matter who is involved.

What about Iran?

Putin Says Iran Sanctions Talk Premature

By VOA News
14 October 2009

Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin says it is premature to discuss sanctions against Iran for its controversial nuclear program.

And the view from the US Secretary of State…..

“I believe if sanctions become necessary, we will have support from Russia,” Clinton told ABC television in an interview on Wednesday.

This is merely a continuation of the impotent international community’s response to Iran’s nuclear weapons program that was essentially confirmed again with yet another lie exposed with admission of the previously hidden enrichment facility already known to the Obama Administration. And no one will visit the plant until later this month. Like that will solve anything.

Which makes this next sham almost laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Obama to Preside at UN Security Council

By Margaret Besheer
The United Nations

The United States has taken over the rotating presidency of the 15-member United Nations Security Council for the month of September. U.S. President Barack Obama and other top U.S. political figures will be at the world body this month to highlight issues of importance to the United States.

Another rhetorical masterpiece expressing the desire for a nuclear free world without the substance to support such a notion. The exclamation point is provided by the appeasement strategy reminiscent of a similar process that helped usher in WWII.

And what was the defining achievement by press accounts for the SoS Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Hillary Clinton Helps Turkey, Armenia Open Border - ABC News

Clinton uses diplomatic muscle in Turkey-Armenia row | Politics …

Turkey, Armenia Agree to Ties; Clinton’s Skill Tested (Update1 …

The Daily Star - Politics - Clinton hails Turkey, Armenia steps …

Clinton Helps Save Historic Turkey, Armenia Accord - International …

A more accurate appraisal of Clinton’s participation may be the following…..

Clinton to Attend Turkey-Armenia Normalization Deal Signing

By David Gollust
State Department

The State Department said Thursday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will fly to Zurich to attend Saturday’s signing of accords to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia.

A simple visit to the US State Dept website would bear this out. At least in terms of demonstrating that this State Dept is essentially no different from any other feeble attempt by heads of state to display their conviction to foreign relations or determination to improve conditions in the world. A visit to the website while producing this post featured the following items:

Positive Future for U.S.-Russian Relations

Finding Common Ground With Russia

Secretary Clinton Travels to Europe

U.S. Supports Peace in Northern Ireland

U.S. Supports Emergence of Afghan Government

U.S.-U.K. Advancing Shared Values

U.S.-Ireland Working Together

and travel puff pieces?

So much for the hope and change of a new administration in the US and statements expressed to suggest foreign policy would be successful.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This has to be the last post on the topic of President Obama’s September speech to the United Nations. One cannot endure this abuse indefinitely. Rhetoric that can make or break a speech by inspiring the audience or causing them to reject the notions of the speaker can be tiring in either circumstance. In addition to what was presented in the earlier posts only one last swat at this thing is made possible by President Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama, as the kids in the video chant, finishes his speech with a longer than necessary presentation of his ‘four pillars’ for the future. Here’s the opening quote.

Today, I put forward four pillars that are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

Certainly no reasonable person would object to that sentiment. Prior to this expression about the only honest declaration stated by President Obama was his assessment of the sad state of affairs that IS the United Nations. And that most members simply use it as a political bully pulpit for a self-serving agenda. But other than another opportunity for the President to attempt an oratory masterpiece the pleasant sentiment of his four pillars only serves to extend the useless enterprise that defines the United Nations.

Earlier in his speech Mr Obama endorsed the Millennium Development Goals. This disaster of an initiative has been a pathetic example of how little the UN can accomplish. Can anyone reading this cite one deadline that was met by this collosal waste of time. As with many UN programs the objective is commendable but success is rarely if ever achieved. Is it possible that Mr Obama’s four pillars fall in the same category?

On the first item in the pillars one curious note is offered. Non-proliferation AND disarmament seems redundant or anticipating failure. If the world was to disarm what need would there be for non-proliferation? It seems non-proliferation would be implied if success were achieved at disarmament. For those who would charge this post with nitpicking consider the fact that the genie is already out of the bottle or Pandora’s box has already been opened. Undoing this sequence of events is at best a subject for an undergraduate class in logic.

Peace is threatened by competition. It is in our nature to compete. That natural tendency is complicated by unfavorable tendencies toward greed or the intoxification of power to have control over others for one’s own benefit. To pursue peace and security is met with objections as to whose benefit such endeavors serve. Disputes with regard to the outcome of such noble goals and how each player is affected by this pursuit have contributed to the lack of progress. Again, Mr Obama proclaims a noble pursuit that is not new. And merely proposing that everyone participates will solve nothing.

Connecting planet preservation, or more specifically, climate change to the notion of peace is a mistake. ‘The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied’ according to President Obama. Yes it can. This is another debate that the American President suggests has been resolved. He is incorrect. The point is those who support the dire assessment of climate change versus those who reject the paranoia approach share one common argument. They both come complete with a large group of credentialed individuals in science who agree and/or support their contention. So the ‘danger posed’ can be denied.

For the President to associate laudable goals with questionable agendas does not serve his purposes or anyone else’s. To submit that if you are for peace and not for the paranoia of AGW you are somehow flawed will serve no worthwhile purpose. And to suggest that the US can abandon their nuclear capability while the rest of the world pursues it is naive contrary to the President’s contention he is not.

At this point there is really no reason to deal with the President’s fourth pillar. That would be on the ‘global’ economy and all that goes with it. It is as ‘naive’ as the first three pillars. So much for President Obama’s September 2009 speech to the United Nations. The speech was equal to the task of the UN…. useless.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com