DOPENHAGEN

Yup!  You read that right, my Friends!

"Dopenhagen" is the only way to spell that fiasco!  The only folks who have anything to cheer about are those of us on the Right.  The Left are almost apoplectic about the abysmal failure of the United Nations to achieve the stated goals of the the grand conclave in Denmark.

And what were those goals?  Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley  has already said it best.  But, in a nutshell, allow me to state those goals in my own words:

1. The establishment of a world government with no provisions for elections, legislatures, or any other form of representative governance.
   
   
2. The transfer of vast sums of money and property from the developed world ( read that as "the United States") to the Third World in order to satisfy our "climate debt".  Ostensibly, these are a form of reparations for the "destruction of the environment" due to our profligate burning of fossil fuels.
   
   
3. Enforcement of these nefarious provisions, without any sort of popular representation or ballots, thereby condemning the Western World to poverty and squalor through the ruining of our economy.  Incidentally, this will also condemn the Third World to abject poverty, since it will, in effect, be turned into a massive and expensive welfare client.  Students of history should be aware of the failure of welfare states to improve anyone's state in life.
   
   

Thankfully, the Copenhagen Conference failed to achieve those stated goals.  They accomplished neither a binding treaty nor even an agreement.  What they came up with was merely an "Accord".  Totally non-binding, it is nothing more than a further statement of desired goals, with none of the Marxist trappings the UN was hoping for.

This silver lining isn't without its cloud, however.  It still provides for vast sums of money and property to be spent on the Third World.  The Copenhagen Accord is still a failure, albeit a very expensive failure.

Now, lest anyone doubt that the goals of the Copenhagen Conference were, indeed, Marxist and totalitarian, please take note of three very well-received speakers at the festivities:  Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Robert Mugabe.  Jonah Goldberg, in today's New York Post, can give you all the details.  One national-socialist dictator after another blamed capitalism in general, and the US in particular, for all the ills of the world -- real and imagined.

Mr. Goldberg even mentioned this delicious irony from the redoubtable Hugo Chavez:

In a typical stemwinder, he belched: "Capitalism is a destructive model that is eradicating life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species."

I don't know how to say "chutzpah" in Spanish, but you've got to hand it to the leader of the world's No. 5 supplier of oil for bemoaning the system that keeps his regime afloat by buying his product.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/wackos_pollute_the_eco_debate_bfMN07qTS6UVqTQUapwnoM#ixzz0aBKhYbQh

 And just how well-received were these tin pot dictators?  Warm applause and exuberant standing ovations.  This, according Lord Monckton, from even members of the developed world, industrial nations who should know better than to sway towards socialism.  And we have far too many of them.

The Messiah, President Barrak Obama, braving a blizzard of snow -- uh, I mean Global Warming,  flew in to Copenhagen toward the end to try to salvage the negotiations.  With much media fanfare, he angrily exhorted China, India, Brazil and South Africa to drop their intransigent demands that they be allowed to burn as much fossil fuel as they want.

Claiming victory in his negotiations (some of which he had to crash, as he wasn't even invited) Saint Barrak promised billions of aid to the Third World and folded to the Group of Four in their demands that they be allowed to burn fossil fuel.

Immediately following this stellar example of diplomacy, The Messiah flew back to Washington, DC, to avoid the worst of today's blizzard that is blanketing the East Coast.

Let's ignore, for today, the delicious irony of The Gore Effect.  What we need to focus on is the reaction of the Left.  It is most instructive:

• The UK Guardian reports on the almost universal reaction that the summit was an abject failure, quoting almost exclusively Left leaning NGO's and environmental groups.
  
  
• The EuroNews web site reports that the Sudan is far from happy, quoting the African delegate, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping:  

“[The Accord] asks Africa to sign a suicide pact. It is a solution based on the values which, in our opinion, channelled six million people in Europe to the (Nazi) furnaces.”

•  The UK Telegraph reports the talks resulted in "a meltdown".
  
  
• SFGate's Thin Green Line blog said the accord was a " 'sham' and a 'greenwash' at best".
  
  
• GMANews.TV tells of Green protests at the summit against the Accord, quoting Bill McKibben, of 350.org:  "I don't know why we bothered to go and elect Obama."  At YouTube, you can see a video of these protests, complete with chants of "Yes We Can!  No They Won't!"

These are but a few of the reactions from the Left.  On the Right, however, that breeze you feel is a collective sigh of relief that global government and the enforced and totalitarian impoverishment of all the world has, for now at least, been averted.

But don't ever think that these crypto-Marxists are going to go away.  They'll be back and we'll have to be ready for them!

Copyright December 19th, 2009

 

Climategate and The Church of Gore

I've been too long, not writing... I know! But I've been busy with my music and acting careers. However, I have been keeping up with current events.

The most interesting, in my mind, has been the eruption of Climategate. It seems that either a hacker or an insider whistleblower released thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The various documents (you can read them here) show the most important proponents of Manmade Global Warming (also known as the Dogma of the Church of Gore) to be obsessed with showing manmade warming regardless of the data, denying skeptics of The Dogma peer review or inclusion in the IPCC reports, trying to prevent their data from being disseminated through the Freedom of Information Act, and other unseemly and unscientific behavior.

Now, I'm not a believer in conspiracy theories, as these newly liberated documents seem to demonstrate. It is precisely because there was a leak that leads me to discount most, if not all, conspiracy theories. After all, someone will eventually screw the whole thing up and blow the secrecy of the conspiracy apart.

That said, I'd like to offer a second hypothesis to explain why so many scientists, politicians and bureaucrats seem to be true devotes of The Church of Gore. I wrote the following in Scientific American, in response to an article entitled Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense. Among other points, the author whitewashed the Climategate scandal as much ado about nothing and relegated the skeptics to the fever swamps of conspiracy theories. It is with that weak attempt at shoring up the crumbling edifice of The Church of Gore in mind that I wrote the following explanation of how we can have what appears to be a conspiracy, and yet have no conspiracy at all:

Well, it took SciA long enough to get to the Climategate story!

Unfortunately, it only resulted in a child plugging his ears and yelling, "La, La, La! I can't hear you!"

I won't claim there has been a Warmist conspiracy. However, one can't deny that there has been, shall we say, a confluence of agendae. It works like this:

1. Scientists, by and large, depend on government financing.
   
   
2. Governments, by their very nature, strive to increase their power over the people that they govern.
   
   
3. Bureaucrats are the primary mechanism of government. Generally they are immune to the checks and balances that elected officals are face with. Even dictators are hemmed in by "the will of the people" at some point. Bureaucrats, too, have an insatiable appetite for power. And they are the ones holding he purse strings.
   
   
4. Government, by its very nature, will be more predisposed to funding research that will further its ambitions to power than research that does not.
   
   
5. Scientists, therefore, have a financail stake in the sort of research they pursue. Dissent is quietly "defunded" and a "consensus" appears.
   
   

If there is any doubt of my observations, one needs merely to consider the proposed "solutions" to the "problem" of AGW/ACC:

1. Strict control over the people regarding their energy usage, the types of cars they drive, mass transit plans, etc.
   
   
2. Carbon taxes, which will ensure that economic activity will be sharply curtailed.
   
   
3. A "world government", which makes interaction between the government and the governed even more tenuous than it is today.
   
   
4. "Wealth redistribution", not only from the developed world to the Third World, but from industry to the new, burgeoning class of "Carbon Billionaires", like Al Gore. This will also have the undesirable effect of turning the Third World into backwards welfare clients, with no hope of joining modernity and freedom.

Sorry, Mr. Rennie. Your claims that there is no "cospiracy" do nothing to address the fact that there are agendae which dovetail together quite nicely. Further, the emails make clear that this problem is worldwide, not limited to the Hadley/CRU. Indeed, it goes right up to the UN and its hopes of becoming the government of the world.

Time to face facts, my Friend! Your appeals to authority are nothing short of totalitarian.

Copyright December 2nd, 2009