Thursday 09-29-16

Forget Agenda 21: UN’s 2030 Agenda Will “Transform the World”

If you think Agenda 21 was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Wait until you learn what the creepily utopian 2030 Agenda has in store for us all.
Once again Germany has stepped forward with their ideas of how to speed up the arrival of a one-world government.
While all eyes were on Obama and his creepily NWO speech, the German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier gave an address which went largely un-noticed.  It was a lengthy speech – you can read his entire address here – but these are some takeaway points:

“We could also choose to put our faith in the power of diplomacy or shrug our shoulders” in the face of the conflicts in Syria, Libya, Iraq and Yemen he said, noting that Europe also faces a choice of fighting to hold the region together or allowing it to fall apart again and be overrun by populists.
“The United States is also faced with a choice; in six weeks’ time, here too, the choice is about the supposed withdrawal from a crisis-ridden world – which some are calling for – or cooperation with international partners to solve some of those problems, he continues, noting that this choice “is important for all of us.” Indeed, “withdrawal, resignation, going it alone, or, responsibility for a better future; that is the choice in many places,” he said.
The United Nations would remain the central forum, for tackling these issues, he said. In the context of all the crisis meetings, “it gives me hope that we have made an important choice, the right choice, of the direction we want to take and that we have chosen unity and sustainability,” he said calling the 2030 Agenda a global pact that is the point of convergence for dealing with poverty and underdevelopment.

Now we know when they want the takeover to be complete: 2030.
We have all heard of Agenda 21, but the 2030 Agenda isn’t quite so familiar. Agenda 2030 emphasizes gender and racial equality, eradication of poverty, and the total abolition of violence and hate. It lays out that the future world is based entirely on these goals and that the only way to achieve these things is through sustainable development and control of climate change. Oh – and the planet will also be totally poverty free by 2030 as well.
Here are a few of the pertinent points:

• It actually came into effect in January 2016.
• Its full title is “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
• The areas covered by the Agenda are people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership.
• The 17 goals and 169 targets of the Agenda seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete those that were not achieved.
• The “Declaration” agreed upon at the United Nations meeting in New York has 53 points.
• Point 2 sets the tone: ‘On behalf of the peoples we serve, we have adopted a historic decision on a comprehensive, far-reaching and people-centred set of universal and transformative goals and targets. We commit ourselves to working tirelessly for the full implementation of this Agenda by 2030’. 

Points 5, 18, 28, and particularly point 29 are particularly interesting. Now, in theory, it’s wonderful – rainbows and unicorns for everyone. It’s repetitive in the extreme, constantly pointing out the sanctity of sovereign nations and saying these issues apply TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET…

So, how can I turn the 2030 Agenda into the arrival of the one-world government?
Simple: it is entirely impossible to achieve what they have laid out without a one-world government, the New World Order we have heard so much about over the last few years.
This is what they are stating WILL be achieved by 2030 with all countries somehow miraculously retaining their own culture, resources, and economies:

• Total eradication of hunger across the planet.
• Total eradication of race inequality across the planet.
• Total eradication of poverty across the planet.
• Total eradication of gender inequality across the planet.
• Total eradication of war across the planet.
• Total eradication of Malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases across the planet.
• Total eradication of TB across the planet.
• A set standard of education for every child on the planet.
• Clean water and sanitation for every person on the planet.
• A decent job for every worker on the planet.
• Sustainable economic growth in every country on the planet.
• Sustainable agriculture across the planet.
• Sustainable livestock production across the planet.
• A reduction in natural resource use in every country on the planet.
• A reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in every industrialized nation on the planet.
• A reduction in flood and drought events is susceptible locations around the world.

There are other odds and ends they have thrown in but the bottom line is that all of these things will be done by the year 2030.
Really?
Honestly?
There are barely a half dozen countries on the planet that can engage in conversation without some disagreement and they honestly expect us to believe that there will be enough international cooperation while retaining nation sovereignty, to achieve even one goal on that list?

The Islamic State will be our friends?
India will give water to Pakistan?
North and South Korea will kiss and make-up?
Iran will stop making nuclear bombs?
Israel and Palestine will finally shake hands and  sort out their differences?
Right..
Achieving ANY of the goals on that list is impossible unless one single government calls the shots and enforces conditions whereby the goals become achievable. That means the removal of sovereign status for individual nations. It means one giant money pot made up of cash from every nation that has cash to finance these initiatives.
Globalism just took on a whole new meaning.

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09/forget-agenda-21-uns-2030-agenda-will-transform-world.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActivistPost+%28Activist+Post%29

Thursday 05-12-16

Six Issues That Are Agenda 21

TOPICS:Agenda 21Tom DeWeese

May 10, 2016

By Tom DeWeese
Every day, in meetings at all levels of government, representatives of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), planning groups, and federal agents surround elected representatives and insist that their policies have nothing to do with international agendas. They regularly publish reports and rail against anyone even mentioning the names Agenda 21 or the new Agenda 2030. “No, no, no,” they insist. “Those people are just crazy conspiracy theorists. Ours is just a local plan for our community.”
Elected representatives are often confused. Issues and policies suddenly appear in front of them with sample, ready-made legislation. And then the unending pressure begins for them to pass it. There is confusion, uncertainty and there is the herd mentality to pass legislation. And it’s passed without knowledge of its origins, its purpose, and especially a lack of understanding of its consequences. “Just do it,” goes the mantra.
What most of these legislators fail to understand is the direct relationship much of this legislation has with a much larger agenda. Most legislation interconnects with other pieces and parts contained in other legislation. Like the children’s song goes… “the toe bone’s connected to the ankle bone…”  And it’s done so well, wrapped in innocent-sounding, positive wrapping, so that most elected representatives will argue vigorously that they passed no such thing.  And most of all, they will answer, Agenda 21, never heard of it. Just local. Just local. Just local.

Well, let me show you how it works and how the toe bone gets connected to the ankle bone ending up with the Frankenstein monster.  Here are six issues that are rarely connected to Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development (especially when we are assured that Agenda 21 has nothing to do with local, state or federal government policy). However, these seemingly unrelated policies, once implemented, help enforce the stated Agenda 21 goal of “reorganizing human society.”

Issue 1: Global Warming/Climate Change.

It has been so discredited in the true scientific community that proponents have become almost hysterical in their continued attempts to enforce Climate Change policy. Most recently the Justice Department is considering legal action against “deniers.”  Why don’t they stop, even to question if their science is sound? They instead use great energy to attack any scientist who does dare ask questions or finds data contrary to the “official” line. Why is it so vitally important that they continue to promote something that clearly is, to say the least, questionable?
It’s because all of Agenda 21 policy is built on the premise that man is destroying the Earth. Climate Change is their “proof.” To eliminate that premise is to remove all credibility and purpose for their entire agenda. They are willing to go to any length, even lies, to keep the climate change foot on our throats.
On the local level this translates into planning policy that controls energy use and the efforts to cut down on the use of cars, enforcement of the building of expensive light rail train systems and bike paths and installation of smart meters, etc.
But don’t take my word for it. I’ll let them speak for themselves:
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart (Former Canadian Minister of the Environment) 
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth (President, UN Foundation)
“It doesn’t matter what is true. It only matters what people believe is true.” Paul Watson (Co-Founder of Green Peace.)

Issue 2: Fear of overpopulation.

This is the central driving force behind nearly every Sustainable policy initiative. It’s the real force behind Stack and Pack Smart Growth cities.
The fact is, in developed nations populations are actually going down. The only real growth in the US population in recent years has been from immigration, legal or otherwise. Open border immigration policy is actually implementation of Agenda 21 as part of the drive to destroy national sovereignty and “nation states.”
Environmentalists insist that the borders must be open to allow as many to immigrate here as possible. They argue that the U.S. has a greater ability to control them and protect the environment than if we left them in third world countries. That’s because the Greens already have a stranglehold over our nation’s industry through massive environmental regulations.
In the face of their fear of overpopulation, however, studies have shown that there is no worldwide overpopulation crisis. In fact one study insists that we could put the entire population of the world in an area the size of Texas with a population density of Paris, France. Overpopulation, and its accompanying environmental degradation, is a problem primarily in countries where the poor are deprived by government to improve their conditions. Nations that refuse to legalize private property ownership for the masses, for example, are a primary reason for growing poverty.
Meanwhile, Sustainablists work to keep these nations from developing or increasing energy use, thereby keeping them poor. Green regulations stop the building of infrastructure. They panic at the idea of increased energy use in developing nations. Instead of working to solve the real problems – the root of poverty- they exploit the excuse of over population and advocate enforcing polices to drastically reduce populations. China’s brutal one-child policy of forced abortions and sterilization has become their model.
Do you think I’m joking? Then consider these quotes from the Sustainablists:
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” David Brower (Sierra Club)
“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At a more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.” United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment.

Issue 3: The destruction of the free market system.

We have heard statement after statement from the UN; from members of Congress; the news media; and from Hollywood, all deriding the free market system as evil, corrupt and a tool of the rich to hold down the poor. So now, after deciding that the poor are expendable for the sake of stopping overpopulation, suddenly the planners are worried about them – if it leads to their ability to raid our bank accounts. So are they really worried about protecting the environment – or are they actually honoring the tactics of Jesse James?
Redistribution of wealth is behind every policy that comes out of the UN, and now the Obama Administration as well. The EPA is the attack dog to shut down entire industries like coal. It has become very difficult to operate a manufacturing business in the US, and nearly impossible to start a new one. Environmental protection is always the excuse, even when Obama’s own State Department said the Keystone Pipeline was not an environmental threat. A couple of years ago, radical greens, wielding torches, demonstrated outside the home of the head of the Keystone pipeline company. Visions of the terror of the Dark Agenda?
At the UN’s Rio + 20 Summit held in 2012, the idea of “Zero Economic Growth” was advocated – just to keep things fair. It was stated that even the building of new roads upsets the status quo and disrupts a well ordered society. Such idiotic ideas are the driving force behind Sustainable Development. Again, images of the Dark Ages come to mind.
Yet, consider “local” planning programs that cut off access roads, and again, discourage cars. What about the EPA’s war on industry. Pretty hard to have economic growth without industry. The timber industry is killed and communities die. Dams are torn down and farmers disappear. Zero Economic Growth in the making. Just local?
Again, not my words, let them tell you themselves:
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, (Earth First).
“Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control” Professor Maurice King (Population Control Advocate)
“We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources…and eliminating the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society… because the free market has proven itself incapable of doing this.” Plannersnetwork.org Statement of Principles. the American Planning Association is a member and supporter of these principles.  

Issue 4: Cheap Energy is the enemy of the Earth.

To the average person the drive to stop any ability to obtain cheap energy makes no sense. People are hurting economically. Jobs are lost. Energy costs are skyrocketing. Any attempt to drill oil, fracking of shale gas, and mining coal are all vigorously blocked by government and green policy. Yet the government spends billions of dollars on “alternative energy” such as wind and solar, which provides less than 3% of our energy needs. Why? What is the motivation to put such shackles on the US economic engine? The excuse is that energy use drives up CO2 emissions and accelerates global warming – the excuse necessary to “harmonize” the US into the socialist, Sustainable global noose.
Many current state and local policies now are moving to increase taxes at the gas pump to keep energy costs high. In addition, Obama just issued an Executive Order to ban any off shore drilling of oil. So, just as the consumer started to get a break at the pump, higher taxes and Obama’s action will force prices back up.  As the prices rise the “planners” will insist that the only solution is to enforce the building of expensive public transportation.
But, according to some anti-energy advocates, the fear of cheap energy goes beyond environmental protection – energy availability helps build wealth for individuals and removes them from the rolls of the dependent – the opposite goal of sustainable policy.
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy is the worst thing that could ever happen to the planet.” Prof. Paul Ehrlich  (Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University).
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” Amory Lovins (Rocky Mountain Institute).  
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” Jeremy Rifkin (Greenhouse Crisis Foundation).   

Issue 5: Common Core.

Many people see the reorganization of the public school issue as separate from Agenda 21. It’s not. Those who are promoting what they call the Agenda for the 21st Century understand that it is going to be a long drawn out process. To “reform” a nation created on the ideals of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty into one that unquestioningly accepts government top down control will take time and a determined effort. There’s no room in a Sustainablist society for those who believe that we were born with our rights and that government’s job is to protect those rights. The sustainable system says government will grant us our rights.
To enforce such a radical turn around of our society requires that the children be indoctrinated to accept it. The effort started in earnest in the 1990s under the Clinton Administration through the massive growth of the Department of Education in such programs as Goals 2000, School To Work and Workforce Development Boards.
The original American education system effectively provided an overall academic education from which students could choose their own futures. No longer. Today, the new curriculum has morphed into what is called Common Core. It’s a State run central curriculum that revamps schools into little more than job training and indoctrination centers.
Because, you see, today’s public education system is also designed to strip the children of their attitudes, values and beliefs that parents may have instilled, and indoctrinate them into accepting global values – global citizenship and a global economy based on the sustainable agenda. Little of American civics and history are taught in today’s classroom. But text books contain whole chapters on the Five Pillars of Islam, while ignoring the 10 Commandments of Christianity. The children are fed an unending diet of the evils of capitalism; the selfishness of individualism, and the social justice of redistribution of wealth. It punishes students for possessing individuality and is designed to eliminate such natural human tendencies. That is the “common” in Common Core. Common values, common goals, common future. Don’t rock the boat of a well-ordered society.
Common Core is the nationally dictated curriculum necessary for the acceptance and implementation of Agenda 21.  Of course, we still elect local school boards pretending they have some say over the curriculum. It makes us all feel safer for our children. How, then do we explain the surge of Bernie Sanders and the Tsunami of Socialism? Well, today nearly every adult up to the age of 40 has gone thought this indoctrination, trained to accept a future chosen for them by someone else.
The education system was fully outlined in a very detailed letter to Hillary Clinton from Marc Tucker of the National Center on Education and the Economy in November, 1992, immediately after Bill. Clinton was elected President.
Said Tucker: “First, a vision of the kind of national – not federal – human resources development system the nation could have. This is interwoven with a new approach to governing that should inform that vision. What is essential is that we create a seamless web of opportunities to develop one’s skills that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone…” coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state, and federal levels” where curriculum and “job matching” will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program.”       

Issue 6: Healthcare.

How is healthcare connected to Agenda 21? Simply Google “Sustainable Medicine” and you will find more than 5,850,000 English language references to the subject. Read through the ideas expressed there and you will find nearly every provision of Obamacare.
An expert on Sustainable Medicine, the late Dr. Madeleine Cosman, put it this way: “Sustainable Medicine + Sustainable Development = Duty to Die.” Sustainable medicine makes decisions through visioning councils that determine what shall be done or not done to each body in its group in its native habitat. Sustainable medicine experts do not refer to citizens in sovereign nations, but to “humans” in their “settlements.” Sustainable medicine is the pivot around which all other Sustainable Development revolves. Principle #1 of the Rio Declaration that introduced Agenda 21 is that all humans must live in harmony with nature. The translation means rationing healthcare, low technology for health care treatment and emphasis on medical care not cure. And that, of course, will lead to population reduction, as called for in Agenda 21.
These are the issues that are not usually discussed or connected to Agenda 21. Yet they are being implemented, step by step, by local planners in policies that are approved by befuddled elected representatives.  It’s all driven through pressure from private NGO groups and funded by federal grants. That’s how it’s done, constantly driven a little bit with each innocent sounding idea. Then, without warning, Frankenstein rises from behind the smokescreen, toe bones and anklebones fully operational.
Americans must understand and connect these dots to everyday issues so they can clearly see the root and long-term goals of these policies that are affecting our personal lives. Elected representatives at every level of government must come to understand that legislative actions have consequences far beyond their understanding. Agenda 21 is the “common core” and it has already invaded every level of our society. Our battle cry must be to stop this monster or watch freedom perish.

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/05/six-issues-that-are-agenda-21.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActivistPost+%28Activist+Post%29

Tuesday 03-15-16

How Gut Bacteria Are Shaking Up Cancer Research

Top scientists at Roche Holding AG and AstraZeneca Plc are sizing up potential allies in the fight against cancer: the trillions of bacteria that live in the human body.
"Five years ago, if you had asked me about bacteria in your gut playing an important role in your systemic immune response, I probably would have laughed it off," Daniel Chen, head of cancer immunotherapy research at Roche’s Genentech division, said in a phone interview. "Most of us immunologists now believe that there really is an important interaction there."
Two recent studies published in the journal Science have intrigued Chen and others who are developing medicines called immunotherapies that stimulate the body’s ability to fight tumors.

In November, University of Chicago researchers wrote that giving mice Bifidobacterium, which normally resides in the gastrointestinal tract, was as effective as an immunotherapy in controlling the growth of skin cancer. Combining the two practically eliminated tumor growth. In the second study, scientists in France found that some bacterial species activated a response to immunotherapy, which didn’t occur without the microbes.

Human Microbiome

That’s increased drugmakers’ interest in the human microbiome -- the universe of roughly 100 trillion good and bad bacteria, fungi and viruses that live on and inside the body. Roche is already undertaking basic research in the field and plans to investigate the microbiome’s potential for cancer treatment, Chen said.
"Certainly, we are already scanning the space for interesting opportunities as the science continues to emerge," he said. "We are very interested in testing these in a controlled setting."
Some experienced investors are skeptical and see the possibility of an approved product for cancer to be at least five years away.

"To therapeutically influence the microbiome long-term in humans is a big hurdle," said Sander van Deventer, managing partner at venture-capital firm Forbion Capital Partners. "The microbiome is very stubborn. Everything we’ve done so far has only had a temporary effect."

Nestle’s Investment

Earlier in his career, van Deventer chaired the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam, the first clinic in the world to perform fecal transplants to fight hospital infection Clostridium difficile with good bacteria. Forbion hasn’t yet invested in any microbiome biotechs, "but we’re looking at all of them all the time," he said.
Efforts are under way to turn bacteria into regulated pharmaceutical products to treat illnesses of the gut, where the microbes reside.
Nestle SA last January invested $65 million in ambridge, Massachusetts-based Seres Therapeutics Inc., which is developing a treatment for Clostridium difficile, which affects the digestive system. That follows early efforts to harness the microbiome’s benefits, which spawned probiotic foods and supplements as well as transplants of healthy bacteria.
The promise in cancer will draw more large drugmakers into exploring the human microbiome, said Bernat Olle, chief executive officer of Vedanta Biosciences, a Boston-based startup.

Treatment Potential

"That’s the sense we get based on how we’re being approached by new pharma groups and how serious they seem to be about wanting to enter the field,” Olle said in a phone interview. Vedanta last year announced a license agreement with Johnson & Johnson on its experimental microbiome drug for inflammatory bowel disease.
Another startup, 4D Pharma Plc, in November said it had discovered a bacterium that produces a response comparable to that of an immunotherapy in animal tests for breast and lung cancers. The London-listed company plans to start trials in patients by the end of this year. To support research in autoimmune and neurological diseases, in addition to cancer, the company has raised over 100 million pounds ($140 million) from investors over the last two years, CEO Duncan Peyton said in a phone interview.
French biotech Enterome is taking a different approach: developing treatments based on bacterial secretions. Enterome plans to close a private financing round of about 15 million euros this month, according to CEO Pierre Belichard. More news may be on the way.

‘Active Discussions’

"We are in active discussions with the usual suspects in the immunotherapy space," Belichard said in an interview in London.
Those active in the field include a wide range of pharma companies including AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., and Merck & Co.
"Personally, I think it’s a fascinating area," Susan Galbraith, head of oncology research at AstraZeneca, said in an interview in London.
Studies have shown that immunotherapies have varying degrees of success even in genetically identical mice, and the Science study from Chicago suggests that the diversity of the microbiome may help explain that variability, Galbraith said. AstraZeneca isn’t conducting its own research in the area and would prefer to wait to see evidence in human trials before getting involved, she said.
The sheer number of bacteria, some of which could actually switch off an immune response, and the question of how much bacteria is needed, make it a complex area of research, Roche’s Chen said. It’s possible that the same bacteria could induce both harmful and helpful responses, depending on the patient, he said.
Still, "it’s one of the most interesting developments we’ve seen in science over the last several years," he said.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/how-gut-bacteria-are-shaking-up-cancer-research

'Unprecedented' UN global data gathering to add huge amounts of information for governments to collect

Six months after giving birth to a cluster of nebulous Sustainable Development Goals that aim to dramatically change the economic, social and environmental course of the planet, the United Nations is working on a drastic renovation of global data gathering to measure progress against its sweeping international agenda.

 

The result that emerged late last week from the U.N. Statistical Commission -- an obscure body of national experts that calls itself the “apex entity of the international statistics system” -- is a document as sprawling, undefined and ambitious as the sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs, themselves -- which  lay out 17 goals and 169 sometimes overlapping targets to transform global society.
In attempting to cover at least some of that ground, the so-called “draft global indicators framework” likely will add huge new volumes of information that governments collect as they measure progress toward what amounts to a global socialist or progressive agenda. 
To the extent that the indicators are adopted or incorporated by national governments, such as that of the U.S., they will also provide a powerful reorientation of public debate as they filter into academic and policy discussions.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

(Flags of member nations fly at United Nations Headquarters in New York. (UN Photo/Joao Araujo Pinto)

In all, the draft framework outlines 230 statistical indicators to measure progress toward the SDGs, including such familiar ones as per-capital Gross Domestic Product and the proportion of populations living below national and international poverty lines.
According to the U.N. General Assembly resolution that called for their creation, the new SDG indicators are supposed to be “simple but robust.” Among the relatively novel measurements the draft framework proposes to develop:
 
■   The “proportion of government recurrent and capital spending going to sectors that disproportionately benefit women, poor and vulnerable groups”
■   The “extent to which global citizenship education and education for sustainable development . . . are mainstreamed at all levels in national education politics, curricula, teacher education and student assessment”
■   The “number of countries that have implemented well-managed migration policies”
■   The “average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status”
■   The “proportion of persons victim of physical or sexual harassment, by sex, age, disability status and place of occurrence, in the previous 12 months”
■   The “mortality rate attributed to unintentional poisoning”
■   The “proportion of national Exclusive Economic Zones [200-mile ocean limits] managed using ecosystem-based approaches”
■   The “number of plant and animal genetic resources for food and agriculture secured in either medium or long-term conservation facilities”
■   “Progress by countries in the degree of implementation of international instruments aiming to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing”
 
The indicators endorsed in the framework are “unprecedent in their scale and nuance,” according to John Pullinger, National Statistician of Britain, and immediate past chair of an expert group of national statistical agencies that pulled together the indicators for the Statistical Commission.
(The U.S. was not an expert group member, but participated in a grouping known as the Friends of the Chair of the Statistical Commission that provided guidance for the effort.)
Among other things, the SDG indicator quest included a “really strong push,” in Pullinger’s phrase, for “disaggregation,” which has been defined by the U.N. as a breakdown of statistics by “income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability and geographical location, or other characteristics.”
Just how that information will be collected, and how enlightening it will prove to be, remains to be seen, as the process to refine and obtain the data, Pullinger indicated, is likely to stretch on as long as the SDG agenda itself, through 2030.

The indicators endorsed in the framework are “unprecedent in their scale and nuance.”
- John Pullinger, National Statistician of Britain

Adding to the complexity, the data search will depend on national governments of all stripes -- democratic and dictatorial, developed and developing -- to come up with their own versions of the facts.
The eyebrow-raising and sometimes improbable diversity of the proposed data-gathering effort is a reflection of the “transformational” SDGs themselves, which aim to touch on most areas of human existence and impact.
They also reflect another aspect of the SDGs -- an uncoordinated degree of ambition that some of the world’s top scientific bodies found at times impractical, redundant and unmeasurable. Those scientific groups, however, were to a considerable degree ignored. 
The same can now be said about the bid to measure their progress, according to Brett Schaefer, a U.N. expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Some of the huge array of indicators are “useful and practical,” he observes, but many “are seriously flawed.”
Like the U.N. itself, many are focused, he says, on “inputs like the level of government spending or the volume of development assistance devoted to a particular issue, rather than the results from those expenditures.”
Others could best be described in Schaefer’s phrase as “transparently political objectives,” including those based on ratification of U.N.-generated treaties, like the Law of the Sea and an international biodiversity convention, both of which the U.S., for example, has not ratified.
Still others, he said, “use imprecise or subjective terms that invite bias or data manipulation.”
Overall, Schaefer was concerned that the immense data collection effort involved on a global scale -- much of it unprecedented -- “will consume significant resources and will likely outstrip the capacity of less developed countries.
“We have got what we have got,” British National Statistician Pullen told Fox News -- meaning, among other things, that the “technical task is to find a set of indicators that speak to the targets.”
“We have to understand that there are a lot more things going on than just statistics.”
Pullinger agreed that “the data needs are vast” for the indicators, but added that “this is just the current case of a fact of life in the world of measurement. As scientists, we are working to understand the world better.”
Some targets, Pullinger said, “are more measurable than others,” meaning that “we need to keep refining them, and consulting. This is normal for the way we work.”
Indeed, as part of the method involved in further refining the data-gathering process, the expert group and the Statistical Commission divided the indicators into three “tiers.”
These depended on whether the data required was “already widely available;” whether a method of determining the data existed but the data “are not easily available;” and where “an internationally agreed methodology has not yet been developed.”
Work on the first two tiers of data is expected to continue for the next full year, while 12 months from now the experts group is expected to “provide a work plan for further development of Tier III indicators” -- and to fill in other “data gaps” as they arise.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/14/unprecedented-un-global-data-gathering-to-add-huge-amounts-information-for-governments-to-collect.html