8 thoughts on “And You Thought The Science Of Climate Fraud Was Bad?”
the UNFCCC providing estimates that in the year 2030, climate “mitigation” will require “$200 to $210 billion” in order to “return greenhouse gas emissions to current levels.”
Extraordinary precision is a sign of correctness!
Looks like the Copenhagen jamboree just got off to a good start…
The logic behind taking drastic measures to cut CO2 emissions today in order to forestall problems due to global warming tomorrow has always been a bit off kilter. Firstly, of course, is the knowledge that there have been times in the not too distant past where the temperature was higher (medieval and roman times, for example). Clearly even a global average temperature a few degrees C higher than today would not lead to massive ecological collapse, and some of the benefits (higher crop yields, for example) may offset some of the problems. Secondly, it’s a bit silly to imagine that we are better situated today to deal with the problems of 2050 and 2100 than will the people of those futures. People who will likely be around 4x or 16x richer (in 2050 and 2100, respectively) and have decades more advanced technology and industry than we have today.
I’d rather a rich Bangladesh in 2100 dealing with flood problems than a still poor Bangladesh in 2100 with no flood problems and yet with all the other problems of poverty.
The central conceit of cAGW fanatics is that they think it’s the most important issue for the entire world, and it really isn’t. So much of the world still lives in poverty, and even if it takes increasing global CO2 levels to the worst predictions and even if those CO2 levels cause every bad outcome they have been claimed to (desertification, rise in sea levels, etc.) it will almost certainly still be worth it to further develop the world’s economies to the levels of the 1st world.
Wow, that is a real mess.
A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:
• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called “the most vulnerable”;
• Weaken the UN’s role in handling climate finance;
• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
My bet is that The One’s fingerprints are going to be all over this thing. Making big public promises to cut US CO2 emissions while negotiating secret deals to get preferential treatment for the US in treaty seems his style. Much like what is going on with the proposed ACTA treaty.
All hail the most open administration in history!
“Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement.”
I thought the left was against colonialization – how can this not impinge upon the right to self determination and hence lead to war?
Space settlement is getting increasingly critical…
I always find the use of “force” and “UN” in the same sentence to be humorous. The UN has never willingly forced anybody to do anything. Remember how many sanctions were put up against Saddam that “forced” Iraq to change? And in the end, it turned out that many UN top administrators were actually receiving graft from Iraq Oil for Food program. That’s not to say Obama won’t cave to the “force”, but then he has a different agenda. However, the rest of the world isn’t as stupid.
The UN has been trying since the 60s to generate its own revenue without depending on member states voluntary donations. Back then the talk was about developed countries paying “reparations” for “imperial colonialism”s raping undeveloped countries resources, with the UN as administrator of the funds. They’ve just relabelled and repackaged the same idea under an environmentalist banner for the same Red purpose.
The UN wants the revenues so it CAN build its own military force so it can force member countries to do what it wants. They’re also trying to generate revenues with proposals to tax all oceanic shipping and to tax fishing vessels fishing at seamounts in international waters (with the WWF as administrator of that for them). The UN is big on the whole NGO thing because they see NGOs as a means of doing an end run on national governments to get to the people for either propaganda or taxation/enforcement purposes.
Check out if your area has a World Federalist Society chapter and attend a few meetings, ask questions, etc. but do so while acting as a true watermelon tree hugger so they wont twig to you being there to investigate. They will quite happily tell you all their plans if they think you are on their side.
At the chapter in Hanover NH I found out about their plans to use the UN Environmental Preserve system to depopulate rural areas of the US force most of the population back to the cities where they can be controlled, and reintroduce wolves, mountain lions, grizzlies, etc to the wilds even of New England. The UN wants all that land put in its trusteeship not just for environmental reasons. It allows the UN to use that land as collateral for deficit financing, just as the US uses the half of the land in the US that is government owned to collateralize its own debt.
I see. Well, my days of taking the NWO conspiracy seriously have certainly come to a middle…
the UNFCCC providing estimates that in the year 2030, climate “mitigation” will require “$200 to $210 billion” in order to “return greenhouse gas emissions to current levels.”
Extraordinary precision is a sign of correctness!
Looks like the Copenhagen jamboree just got off to a good start…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
You really couldn’t make this stuff up.
The logic behind taking drastic measures to cut CO2 emissions today in order to forestall problems due to global warming tomorrow has always been a bit off kilter. Firstly, of course, is the knowledge that there have been times in the not too distant past where the temperature was higher (medieval and roman times, for example). Clearly even a global average temperature a few degrees C higher than today would not lead to massive ecological collapse, and some of the benefits (higher crop yields, for example) may offset some of the problems. Secondly, it’s a bit silly to imagine that we are better situated today to deal with the problems of 2050 and 2100 than will the people of those futures. People who will likely be around 4x or 16x richer (in 2050 and 2100, respectively) and have decades more advanced technology and industry than we have today.
I’d rather a rich Bangladesh in 2100 dealing with flood problems than a still poor Bangladesh in 2100 with no flood problems and yet with all the other problems of poverty.
The central conceit of cAGW fanatics is that they think it’s the most important issue for the entire world, and it really isn’t. So much of the world still lives in poverty, and even if it takes increasing global CO2 levels to the worst predictions and even if those CO2 levels cause every bad outcome they have been claimed to (desertification, rise in sea levels, etc.) it will almost certainly still be worth it to further develop the world’s economies to the levels of the 1st world.
Wow, that is a real mess.
My bet is that The One’s fingerprints are going to be all over this thing. Making big public promises to cut US CO2 emissions while negotiating secret deals to get preferential treatment for the US in treaty seems his style. Much like what is going on with the proposed ACTA treaty.
All hail the most open administration in history!
“Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement.”
I thought the left was against colonialization – how can this not impinge upon the right to self determination and hence lead to war?
Space settlement is getting increasingly critical…
I always find the use of “force” and “UN” in the same sentence to be humorous. The UN has never willingly forced anybody to do anything. Remember how many sanctions were put up against Saddam that “forced” Iraq to change? And in the end, it turned out that many UN top administrators were actually receiving graft from Iraq Oil for Food program. That’s not to say Obama won’t cave to the “force”, but then he has a different agenda. However, the rest of the world isn’t as stupid.
The UN has been trying since the 60s to generate its own revenue without depending on member states voluntary donations. Back then the talk was about developed countries paying “reparations” for “imperial colonialism”s raping undeveloped countries resources, with the UN as administrator of the funds. They’ve just relabelled and repackaged the same idea under an environmentalist banner for the same Red purpose.
The UN wants the revenues so it CAN build its own military force so it can force member countries to do what it wants. They’re also trying to generate revenues with proposals to tax all oceanic shipping and to tax fishing vessels fishing at seamounts in international waters (with the WWF as administrator of that for them). The UN is big on the whole NGO thing because they see NGOs as a means of doing an end run on national governments to get to the people for either propaganda or taxation/enforcement purposes.
Check out if your area has a World Federalist Society chapter and attend a few meetings, ask questions, etc. but do so while acting as a true watermelon tree hugger so they wont twig to you being there to investigate. They will quite happily tell you all their plans if they think you are on their side.
At the chapter in Hanover NH I found out about their plans to use the UN Environmental Preserve system to depopulate rural areas of the US force most of the population back to the cities where they can be controlled, and reintroduce wolves, mountain lions, grizzlies, etc to the wilds even of New England. The UN wants all that land put in its trusteeship not just for environmental reasons. It allows the UN to use that land as collateral for deficit financing, just as the US uses the half of the land in the US that is government owned to collateralize its own debt.
I see. Well, my days of taking the NWO conspiracy seriously have certainly come to a middle…