Indigenous leaders protest Poznan climate summit

Via the Global Justice Ecology Project, Dec. 9:

We, the undersigned representatives of indigenous peoples, local communities and non-governmental organizations monitoring the progress of negotiations in Poznan are outraged that the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand opposed the inclusion of recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities in a decision on REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) drafted today by government delegates at the UN Climate Conference.

These four countries (often known as the ‘CANZUS Group’) want to include REDD in the future climate agreement, but they oppose protecting the rights of the indigenous and forest peoples who will be directly affected by REDD measures. In discussions today, these countries insisted that the word “rights” and references to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples be struck from the text.

This is totally unacceptable for indigenous peoples, local communities and supporting NGOs, as the forests which are being targeted for REDD are those which indigenous peoples have sustained and protected for thousands of years. The rights of forests peoples to continue playing this role and being rewarded for doing so has to be recognized by the UNFCCC Parties. Any REDD mechanism that does not respect and protect the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities will fail.

We therefore demand that an unequivocal reference to rights and to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples be reinserted into the Draft COP14 Decision text on REDD.

Poznan, December 9, 2008

Signed by

The Accra Caucus on Forests and Climate Change, comprised of more than 30 civil society organizations from three tropical continents
Accion Ecologica
Friends of the Earth International
Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change
Rainforest Foundation Norway
Rainforest Foundation UK
Tebtebba Foundation
Global Forest Coalition
Global Justice Ecology Project
Pacific Indigenous Peoples Environment Coalition

Photo online.

See our last posts on REDD, the climate crisis and the world indigenous struggle.

  1. Climate change poses new threat to global rights
    Mary Robinson writes for Australia’s The Age, Dec. 10:

    SIXTY years ago today, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the cornerstone document that was created in the aftermath of unimaginable atrocities. This declaration, and the legal documents that stemmed from it, have helped us combat torture, discrimination and hunger. And now, this venerable document should guide us in the fight against one of the greatest challenges ever to face humankind: climate change.

    As representatives from virtually every country in the world are sitting at the negotiating table in Poznan, Poland for the UN Conference on Climate Change, poor people around the world are already coping with the impacts of global warming. From increasing droughts to increasing floods, from lower agricultural productivity to more frequent and severe storms, many rightly fear that things will only get worse. Their human rights – to security, health, and sustainable livelihoods – are increasingly being threatened by changes to the earth’s climate.

    Indeed, the poorest who contributed the least to the problem of climate change are now bearing the brunt of the impacts. Ninety-seven per cent of all natural disaster-related deaths already take place in developing countries. In South Asia, the 17 million people who live on sandbanks in Bangladesh’s river basins could be homeless by 2030 as increasing Himalayan melt water floods their homes. In Niger, changing rainfall patterns are contributing to increased desertification which, for the Tuareg and Wodaabe people, has caused massive losses in livestock and food insecurity. In South America, a loss of snow in the Peruvian Andes in the next 15-20 years will pose a serious risk to the more than nine million people living in Lima, Peru’s largest city.

    But as an important new report by the International Council on Human Rights Policy on the links between climate change and human rights makes clear, the negative impacts on people of changes in climate do not always involve horrific headlines and images of hurricanes, floods or refugee camps. More commonly, they will be cumulative and unspectacular. Those who are already poor and vulnerable are and will continue to be disproportionately affected. Incrementally, land will become too dry to till, crops will wither, rising sea levels will undermine coastal dwellings and spoil freshwater, livelihoods will vanish.

    Carbon emissions from industrialised countries have human and environmental consequences. As a result, global warming has already begun to affect the fulfilment of human rights, and to the extent that polluting greenhouse gases continue to be released by large industrial countries, the basic human rights of millions of the world’s poorest people to life, security, food, health and shelter will continue to be violated.

    Our shared human rights framework provides a basis for impoverished communities to claim protection of these rights. We must not lose sight of existing human rights principles in the tug and push of international climate change negotiations. A human rights lens reminds us that there are reasons beyond economics and enlightened self-interest for states to act on climate change. Because climate change presents a new and unprecedented threat to the human rights of millions, international human rights law and institutions must evolve to protect the rights of these peoples. But, most importantly, states must take urgent action to avoid more serious and actionable violations of human rights.

    The principles of human rights provide a strong foundation for policy making and these principles must be put at the heart of a global deal to tackle global climate change. Urgently cutting emissions must be done in order to respect and protect human rights from being violated by the future impacts of climate change, while supporting the poorest communities to adapt to already occurring climate impacts is the only remedy for those whose human rights have already been violated.

    As we mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is worth remembering that climate change violates the Declaration’s affirmation that “everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which [their] rights and freedoms. . .can be realised.” We must now grasp the opportunity to create the kind of international order that the framers of the declaration dreamed of – even in a radically changed global context they never imagined.

    Mary Robinson is the former President of Ireland, former High Commissioner for Human Rights and honorary president of Oxfam Inter-national.

  2. Why should New Zealand agree?
    New Zealand hasn’t even decided that Al Gore is speaking the truth. Why should they agree to something about indigenous rights if they don’t even agree with climate change.

    “In October 2007 a High Court judge in the UK ruled that Al Gore’s fanciful film, An Inconvenient Truth, depicted “an Armageddon scenario that … is not based on any scientific view”. Yet Gore deliberately persists in repeating the errors listed by the judge in that case. There are now serious discussions afoot to lodge complaints against Gore to the federal financial and legal authorities, in that he fraudulently talks up the imagined “climate crisis” in the hope that he and his “green” investment corporation can profit by the baseless alarm that his falsehoods generate. If that was his hope, it was vain. In the current financial crisis (which, unlike the climate “crisis”, is real), so-called “green” investments have fallen in value nearly twice as far as all other investments. Certainly, it is a serious matter that Gore continues to attempt to profit at the expense of the gullible by peddling falsehoods specifically identified as erroneous by a High Court Judge, who, unlike most of Gore’s audience, had been compelled to hear both sides of the case and had decided that Gore’s side was in at least nine material respects erroneous”. To read the pdf, click below >>>

    The eleven inaccuracies the High Court identified in the movie are:

    1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

    2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

    3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

    4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

    5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

    6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

    7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

    8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

    9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

    10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

    11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government was unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim. (For more information see>>>

    Seriously and honestly, the Pacific Islands are not going under water.

    1. More bogus propaganda from the “climate skeptics”
      You guys never get tired of moving the goal post, do you? There was nothing in the post you are commenting on about Al Gore’s movie. The question of whether Gore did a sloppy job in his movie is entirely unrelated to that of whether global climate change is real—and there is broad scientific consensus on that.

      That said, of course it is impossible to prove that any one given phenomenon such as Hurricane Katrina or the disappearing snows of Kilimanjaro or the drying up of Lake Chad is “caused” by global warming. But when all these phenomena are taken together, they surely add up to a big warning sign.

      Use of the passive voice in phrases like “are expected to rise by about 40cm” allows you to weasel out of telling us by whom and according to what methods. I can point to studies predicting a six-meter rise by the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Legitimate enough for you?

      It has been demonstrated again and again and again that the Antarctic ice covering is melting.

      I somehow doubt that you’d be so sanguine about the Pacific Islands not going under water if you lived on one. Go tell it to Tuvalu.

      Are you finished, or would like to dig your hole a little deeper?

      1. Antarctica in the news
        Maybe our poor friend should try reading the newspaper. From the New York Times, Jan. 22:

        Study Finds New Evidence of Warming in Antarctica
        That is the conclusion of scientists analyzing half a century of temperatures on the continent, and the findings may help resolve a climate enigma at the bottom of the planet.

        Some regions of Antarctica, particularly the peninsula that stretches toward South America, have warmed rapidly in recent years, contributing to the disintegration of ice shelves and accelerating the sliding of glaciers. But weather stations in other locations, including the one at the South Pole, have recorded a cooling trend. That ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models, and global warming skeptics have pointed to Antarctica in questioning the reliability of the models.

        In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations.

        “We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases,” said Eric J. Steig, a professor of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, who is the lead author of a paper to be published Thursday in the journal Nature.

        Because the climate record is still short, more work needs to be done to determine how much of the warming results from natural climate swings and how much from the warming effects of carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels, Dr. Steig said.

        But Drew T. Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, who is another author of the paper, said, “It’s extremely difficult to think of any physical way that you could have increasing greenhouse gases not lead to warming at the Antarctic continent.”

        Dr. Steig and Dr. Shindell presented the findings at a news conference on Wednesday. They found that from 1957 through 2006, temperatures across Antarctica rose an average of 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, comparable to the warming that has been measured globally.

        In West Antarctica, where the base of some large ice sheets lies below sea level, the warming was even more pronounced, at 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit, though temperatures in this area are still well below freezing and the warming will not have an immediate effect on sea level.

        In East Antarctica, where temperatures had been thought to be falling, the researchers found a slight warming over the 50-year period. With the uncertainties, East Antarctica may have indeed been cooling, but the rise in temperatures in the west more than offset the cooling. The average temperature for Antarctica is about minus 58 degrees.

        “There is very convincing evidence in this work of warming over West Antarctica,” said Andrew Monaghan, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was not involved with the research.

        As with earlier studies, the scientists found that more recently, since the late 1970s, temperatures had actually cooled in East Antarctica, a phenomenon that many atmospheric scientists attribute to emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, a family of chemicals used as coolants that destroyed high-altitude ozone. Because those chemicals have since been phased out, the ozone hole is expected to heal, and the cooling trend may reverse.

        The region of East Antarctica, which includes the South Pole, is at a much higher elevation and extends farther north than West Antarctica. While the scientists said the ozone hole most likely had a significant influence on Antarctic temperatures, other factors, including sea ice and greenhouse gases, may play a larger role.

        “Obviously the situation is complex, resulting from a combination of man-made factors and natural variability,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences at Princeton, who was not involved in the research. “But the idea of a long-term cooling is pretty clearly debunked.”

        Dr. Monaghan, who had not detected the rapid warming of West Antarctica in an earlier study, said the new study had “spurred me to take another look at ours — I’ve since gone back and included additional records.”

        That reanalysis, which used somewhat different techniques and assumptions, has not yet been published, but he presented his revised findings last month at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

        “The results I get are very similar to his,” Dr. Monaghan said.

        1. Antaritc in the news – who would have predicted that?
          Please Bill. You can do better then this. Give me some hard fact scientific study. I won’t be insulting you with newspaper articles.

      2. Sure Bill – I will dig deeper
        Suicidal conspiracy

        A conspiracy stratagem was openly presented by Maurice Strong, a godfather of the global environmental movement, and a former senior advisor to Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary-General. In 1972 Strong was a Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and he has played a critical role in its globalization. In 1992 Strong was the Secretary-General of the “World Summit” conference in Rio de Janeiro, where on his instigation the foundations for the Kyoto Protocol were laid.

        In an interview Strong disclosed his mindset: “What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is “no.” The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse.” (Wood,1990) .

        The climatic issue became now perhaps the most important agenda of the United Nations and politicians, at least they say so. It became also a moral issue. In 2007 addressing the UN General Assembly Gro Harlem Brundtland, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, pointing at climatic skeptics stated: “It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the real danger of climate change”. But earlier “scare them to deaths!” morality of “climatists” was explained by Stephen Schneider, one of their top gurus: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but… On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well…we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest” (Schneider, 1989) .

        The same moral standard is offered by Al Gore: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are” (Gore, 2006) . In similar vein Rajendra K. Pauchari, the chairman of IPCC, commented in the last Fourth PCCC Report: “I hope this will shock people and governments into taking more serious action” (Crook, 2007) . Thus IPCC does not have ambition to present an objective climatic situation, but rather “to shock” the people to take actions which would bring no climatic effects (NIPCC, 2008) , but rather disastrous global economic and societal consequences. Implementation of these actions would dismantle the global energy system, the primary driving force of our civilization. This is what Maurice Strong and other leaders of Green Movement apparently have in mind.

        The political and business scale of the problem is reflected by sums planned or already spent to counter the blessed natural Modern Warm Period, one of several similar periods enjoyed by the biosphere over the current interglacial. According to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, during the past 10 years funds for the promoters of the man-made global warming hypothesis received in the United States alone more than $50 billion.

        The International Energy Agency announced in June that cutting by half the CO2 emission will cost the world $45 trillion up to 2050, i.e. 1.1% of the global GNP each year (Kanter, 2008) . For this expenditure one may expect a trifle climatic effect. Even if a substantial part of global warming were due to CO2 – and it is not – any control efforts currently contemplated, including the punctiliously observed Kyoto protocol, would decrease future temperatures by only 0.02oC, an undetectable amount (NIPCC, 2008) .

        Recent and Future Cooling

        Both surface and troposphere observations suggest that we are entering a cool phase of climate. These observations are in a total disagreement with IPCC climatic model projections, based on an assumption that the current Modern Warm Period is due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 (IPCC-AR4, 2007) . The annual increment of global industrial CO2 emission increased from 1.1% in 1990-1999 to more than 3% in 2000- 2004 (Raupach et al., 2007) , and is still increasing. Thus, according to IPCC projections the global temperature should be increasing now more rapidly than before, but instead we see a cold spell. It is clear that cooling is not related to the rapidly increasing CO2 emission. Its cause is rather the Sun’s activity, which recently dropped precipitously from its 60 year long record in the second half of the 20th century, the highest in the past 11 centuries (Usoskin et al., 2003) , to an extremely low current level.

        Sun activity is reflected in the number of sunspots, which normally shows an 11-year periodicity (or 131 month plus or minus 14 month). The current sunspot cycle no. 23 had a maximum in 2001 (150 sunspots in September). NASA officially declared it over in March 2006, with a forecast that the next cycle no. 24 will be 20 to 50 % stronger than the old. But until now the Sun remained quiet, with only few sunspots sighted both from the old cycle, and from the new one declared again by NASA to start on December 11, 2007. However, the Sun’s activity was still low in the first part of 2008 (NOAA, 2008) , and August 2008 was (probably) the first month without sunspots since 1913 (some observations noticed not a “spot” but a tiny short-lived “pore” on 21-22 August). It seems that we still remain in the cycle 23.

        The unusually long low activity of Sun suggests that we may be entering a next Maunder Minimum, a period from 1645 to 1715, when almost no sunspots were visible. This was the coldest part of the Little Ice Age (1250—1900), when rivers in Europe and America were often frozen, and the Baltic Sea was crossed on ice by armies and travelers. Other authors suggest that the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015, reaching a deep freeze around 2050-2060, similar to cooling that took place in 1645-1715, when temperature decreased by 1 to 2oC (Abdussamatov, 2004; Abdussamatov, 2005; Abdussamatov, 2006) . Another analysis of sunspot cycles for the period 1882-2000, projected that the cooling will start in the solar cycle 25, resulting in minimum temperature around 2021-2026 (Bashkirtsev and Mashnich, 2003) . A long-term cooling, related to Sun’s activity, was also projected for the period around 2100 and 2200 (Landscheidt, 1995; Landscheidt, 2003).

        The current Modern Warm Period is one of innumerous former natural warm climatic phases. Its temperature is lower than in the 4 former warm periods over the past 1500 years (Grudd, 2008) . Unfortunately it seems that it comes to an end, and the recent climatic fluctuations suggest that perhaps a new, full scale ice age is imminent. It may come in the next 50 to 400 years (Broecker, 1995; Bryson, 1993) , with ice caps covering northern parts of America and Eurasia.

        1. You’ve hit bottom
          You dismiss the findings of NASA scientists because they were reported by the New York Times, which is (gasp!) a newspaper. Then as an alternative you present a screed from professional climate-skeptic Zbigniew Jaworowski that appeared on the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, a right-wing think-tank whose website is filled with rants denying climate change, railing against Maori rights, gun control, “political correctness” and other standard pet peeves. (My fave is the ultra-wacky “oil is not a fossil fuel” theory.) SourceWatch informs us that it is run by Muriel Newman, a former MP with the right-wing ACT NZ political party. You do not bother to identify Jaworowski as the author of the screed, or to provide the specs on any of the works he cites. Finally, the screed again takes irrelevant shots at Al Gore and Maurice Strong, who we never defended. (And, oh yeah, your pal Jaworowski can’t even be bothered to use quotation marks correctly—and neither can you, or to spell coherently.)

          The NZCPR already exists as a forum for this amateurish propaganda. You are not invited to clutter up my website with any more such posts.

          1. There’s only one way when you reach the bottom and that is up.
            Bill, your argument is a very sad one. Is attacking someone for their choice of vote or choice of political party involvement a tactic you use often?

            Is not scientific evidence even considered by you?

            Why don’t you show me what else you have. The New York times is a bad reference.

            The 5 leading world banks are owned and directed by some of the most wealthiest and powerful people in the world including David Rockerfeller who thanked the world media for keeping their silence for the fruition of the New World Order.

            “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.”

            He went on to explain:

            “It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”

            – David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberg meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle.

            1. Bilderberg bugaboo
              I should have known that was coming.

              Excuse me, you impugned my source by implying it was not objective. When I point out that your source is less objective, I’m accused of “attacking someone for their choice of vote” (sic). This is utterly transparent to anyone who knows how to think.

              “Scientific evidence”? I think the NASA scientists quoted by the Times have greater credibility than Prof. Jaworowski’s arcane spewings about sunspots on a website that promotes oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel wackjobbery.

              You are cordially invited to go away.

              1. Last say

                “Scientific evidence”? I think the NASA scientists quoted by the Times have greater credibility than Prof. Jaworowski’s arcane spewings about sunspots on a website that promotes oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel wackjobbery.

                The New York times did quote NASA but so did Prof. Jaworowski. Yet both were contradicting. I myself would put far greater credibility with an expert than a journalist.

                You are cordially invited to go away.

                *sigh* I have used some of the articles on this site and was quite impressed to have a representative for Oceania. But alas, I am not ideological suitable so I guess all I can do is hope more High Court Judges get to listen to both sides before making judgement.

                Good day to you sir and thank-you for your time.

                1. I hope so
                  Not only are you not “ideological suitable,” but you don’t even know the difference between an adjective and an adverb. You also don’t understand either journalism or logic. Do you think the Times misrepresented the views of NASA’s Drew T. Shindell? That is exceedingly unlikely. So you don’t have to “trust a journalist.” You can trust the experts the journalist quoted. Shindell and the others cited in the story have far better bona fides than your absurd Jaworowski—who only “quoted NASA” on sunspot activity, not climate change. Adios.

          2. I’d be careful representing the Maori

            railing against Maori rights, gun control, “political correctness” and other standard pet peeves.

            I’d be very careful Bill when speaking about the Maori. They are not keen on the United Nations nor “political correctness”.

            And I think if you were actually in New Zealand you would know that the Maori do not like the ideology of the left nor the ideology of the right.

            But at present (2009) they are working with the right wing political party in power.

            Also how did gun control come into this. Not even NZ police are armed.

            1. I’d be careful representing right-wing nuttery
              The Maori and gun control came into it because your NZCPR website is full of rants against both.

              I’ll try again: Please go away.

              1. A bit of honest work wouldn’t go astray
                Bill, your chosen placement for my comments is incorrect.

                I am happy to leave your site alone but would appreciate you putting the comments in order. You can tell where the comments belong in line by the time they were posted.

                My last say post was the last thing I wrote. A bit of honesty wouldn’t go astray. There is enough deceptive behaviour going on in the system.

                Also for future, since you are fighting for rights of people … how about you stop with the discrimination. So I am not an articulate writer. Does that mean my voice should be drowned out by your insults to me?

                You come across to me as the communists under Stalin. If one does not agree with you, they should be outcast or imprisoned. Not a good sign to show just yet.

                And BTW, it is not my site I quoted. If I had of known you had a preference to where the information was posted I would have found somewhere else and maybe even a dozen other experts.

                Nah, you would have just found another way of attacking personally.

                1. A little paranoid, are we?
                  The comments appear automatically in the order in which they are posted. I have no ability to rearrange the order. Sorry to disillusion you, but the Bilderbergers have nothing to do with it.

                  I only point out your poor command of the English language because you purport to be smarter than nearly the entire world scientific establishment.

                  Have I called for you to be imprisoned? No. I will unconditionally defend your right to spew malarky. But not on my blog. I have no responsibility to provide a forum for this noise. You’ve already got plenty of your own. Go play there. Thank you.

                  1. Not paraniod as such – just dissappointed
                    Bill, I it is your site and you can do with it as you please. You also have the right to be UNpolitical correct in the way you treat others.

                    The net is too big to let one site get me down. (your site is just an embarrassing lesson I will learn from)Cheers.

                    1. UNpolitical reality
                      The Bilderberg Maori connection is only one facet of the New World Order. If you are interested in the UNpolitical evidence you are invited to read every thirteenth letter of the UN Charter. Global warming is obviously false as it was snowing earlier right outside my house.

                    2. Had to comment back to the good Doc
                      Bill, could you write something on the economy so that others can comment to show you how the Bilderberg group works above the United Nations and other groups such as the World Economy forum. 28th Jan – 1st Feb 2009.

                    3. Insidious tangled web
                      The machinations of the Biderburgers are well known, what is less known in the West is their connection to war in Groznia.

  3. Snows of Kilimanjaro: almost gone

    The peaks of Mount Kilimanjaro may soon be ice free, scientists warn. Between 1912 and 2011, the mass of ice on the summit decreased by more than 85%, say researchers with NASA's Earth Observatory. Kimberly Casey, a glaciologist based at the Goddard Space Flight Center, who visited the mountain earlier this year, also noticed Kilimanjaro's north ice field had separated. The glacier had been developing a hole since the '70s, but this is the first year in which it had been seen to divide in two. "We were able to walk on land—or we could have even ridden a bicycle—directly through the rift," Dr. Casey said. Scientists now warn it's no longer a question of whether Kilimanjaro's ice will disappear, but when. Several scientists predict it will be gone by 2060. (Daily Mail, Nov. 13, 2012)