University of Portsmouth (UK) students newspaper.
Do we need more “climate summiteering"? If Copenhagen is a barometer of where global governance is at, the answer is obvious. The conference was shambolic. Too much global hubris was bound to lead to nowhere. It did with global-esque proportions and we have now "climate conflict" to add to the long list of climate issues. The "climate bubble" has burst, or at least deflated, leaving the world more disunited than before. As conference garbage is being recycled, polar bears costumes put away for the inevitable next climate pow-wow, it is time to cool it and reflect. It is also time to be positive because it is not the end of the world.
.
Pointing fingers at the hosts for poor management is hypocritical. The eco-friendly Nordic nation took upon itself to organise a planetary event with the most fatuous of aim; saving humanity from eco-Armageddon. The bar was set so high that mundane issues of accreditation cards and queuing up in freezing temperatures were bound to heat up excited minds. In fairness to the organisers, theirs was a mammoth task. 192 official delegations, thousands of lawyers, lobbyists, activists, journalists and climate tourists had descended upon the capital. Everybody who was a “climate somebody” - famous or anonymous - was there, eager to be seen, filmed and heard. Handling the “touch-and-go” influx of world leaders on tight schedules, inflated egos and diverging agendas while keeping an eye on climate warriors, hooded trouble-makers, benevolent demonstrators and, the far more sinister potential threat of terrorism, was never going to be easy. The problem is elsewhere.
.
Reporting live from Copenhagen, a French radio correspondent was critical of the “Danish government's agenda”. The summit could be best described as a “clash of agendas”. Green millionnaire Al Gore came with his carbon trading agenda while poor countries came with "climate justice". Greenpeace with a lot of "climate banners". Behind the world leaders' "climate zeal" lies the naked truth of national interests. To explain President Sarkozy's newly found “vertitude” (green attitude), one needs to look at his many agendas. Hugging Brazilian trees and President Lula da Silva before the conference was primarily a trade-agenda stunt. In the declared war on fossil fuel-generated power, the state-sponsored nuclear industry stands to win a lot. But until lucrative deals are signed, something needs to be done about the state deficit (€1,500 billion). "Climate taxation" is the government's weapon of choice. Some analysts put his eagerness down to resurgent Gallic anti-Americanism, and an attempt at re-invigorating French clout in Africa now wallowing in Obamania. A lot of the "hyper-climatehood" is meant for home consumption too. With upcoming regional elections, the ruling party (UMP) needs to be in a position to counter the rise of the "climate left" (red gone green).
.
Predictably after weeks of "climate overload", most people are experiencing “climate fatigue”. In the absence of CO2 propaganda, one is strangely left with the realization that for two weeks, “Big Climate brother” had been watching and intruding into our lives. Indeed escaping the eco-moralising disseminated from the moral heights of the summit's bunker and relayed by cheerleading media, was simply impossible. Putting the kettle on for a hot brew suddenly felt like a crime. "Thou shall feel guilty" was the message. According to British journalist Christopher Booker, this is precisely the point. Scaring the populace with "climate alarmism" is how a few can impose their diktat on the rest - and naturally profit from it. Hungarian-born education expert Frank Furedi warns that governments are going down the road of turning kids into "Orwellian eco-spies" (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7830/). The fine line between raising environmental consciousness and indoctrination through fear has been crossed.
.
At times, politicians, activists and UN climate luminaries appeared so engulfed in their apocalypse rhetoric that they looked more like the high priests of a cult than the cool-headed deciders we need to address environmental issues in a sensible way. The UN "climate machin" is an unstoppable train, busy justifying its existence, hiding its "climate tricks" and fittingly driven by a railways engineer Dr. K. Pachauri. Unfortunately bad ideas never die and "climate hype" is now big business. While "climate chaos" was making the headlines, the outcome of the big bang summit was eventually decided by a few leaders. What was the background show (conference) all about one might ask? Outside the bunker in the EU, sovereign debt is mounting, economies stagnating and societies are more fragmented than ever. The prospect of social unrest is very real but leaders keep on pledging money they do not have.
.
Emerging economies need more development and freer trade, not hand-outs. Europe proposes protectionism of the green kind. "A disastrous idea" says the London-based International Policy Network (IPN) as it will hit poor countries the hardest. Failed international aid is to be revisited into a vague "climate fund". For corrupt recipient governments, this is heart-warming news because the cash will keep coming. For disappointed young activists, a word of comfort. Even with a non-binding agreement, there will be enough jobs for the "climate boys". Why worry then? “Climate crime”, warns Europol, is rising and already costing taxpayers dearly. Soon it will cost lives and those deaths will not be caused by the climate changing - it has been doing so for 4 billion years - but by decisions taken by a handful of people. The list of bad ideas goes on. The British PM with his "meilleur ami" from across the Channel now wants to turn the Union into a global "climate police" (post-conference proposal for a new agency equipped to "snitch" on countries suspected of non-compliance). Soon perhaps UN "climate-enforcing" operations...
.
Finally there is the central but clearly inconvenient question of the science upon which decisions are being taken. IPCC truth followers and opportunist politicians accuse “other thinkers” - scientists, economists, ordinary folks who dissent - of endangering the survival of humanity. In short of being heretics. This is profoundly disturbing. Yet hope is not completely lost that reason and science may prevail. The French “Academie des Sciences” quietly announced before the summit that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. More voices of reason continue to rise above the politically correct climate brouhaha. The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) suggests that the British climate research institutes (HadleyCRUT and CRU) have “cherry-picked” (Again?!) temperature data of the vast Russian territory. Given that 75% of available data was not used, the report calls for the IPCC to recalculate temperature increase. This is not “flat-earthing” or “sceptic rant” but what science should be about; reason, questioning, transparency, free and open debate.
.
To end on a note of optimism, the failure of Copenhagen is in fact a blessing. By putting themselves under the spotlight, the proponents of warmism stood with no clothes for the whole world to see. The climate change agenda is all about high politics and (carbon) money dressed in a lofty moral garb. Is it essentially anti-freedom and anti-progress. Predictably the IPCC will blame politicians for the failed talks and hope to pursue its illiberal agenda unchallenged. We have seen it all before. When the UN fails it huffs and puffs. Then nothing. Or rather business as usual. It too must be held to account, and "climate resignations" should be tendered. The world is not short of talent and new thinking is clearly needed. In the meantime, we can now all get on with life on earth and look forward to the new year without eco-Armageddon.
.
Pointing fingers at the hosts for poor management is hypocritical. The eco-friendly Nordic nation took upon itself to organise a planetary event with the most fatuous of aim; saving humanity from eco-Armageddon. The bar was set so high that mundane issues of accreditation cards and queuing up in freezing temperatures were bound to heat up excited minds. In fairness to the organisers, theirs was a mammoth task. 192 official delegations, thousands of lawyers, lobbyists, activists, journalists and climate tourists had descended upon the capital. Everybody who was a “climate somebody” - famous or anonymous - was there, eager to be seen, filmed and heard. Handling the “touch-and-go” influx of world leaders on tight schedules, inflated egos and diverging agendas while keeping an eye on climate warriors, hooded trouble-makers, benevolent demonstrators and, the far more sinister potential threat of terrorism, was never going to be easy. The problem is elsewhere.
.
Reporting live from Copenhagen, a French radio correspondent was critical of the “Danish government's agenda”. The summit could be best described as a “clash of agendas”. Green millionnaire Al Gore came with his carbon trading agenda while poor countries came with "climate justice". Greenpeace with a lot of "climate banners". Behind the world leaders' "climate zeal" lies the naked truth of national interests. To explain President Sarkozy's newly found “vertitude” (green attitude), one needs to look at his many agendas. Hugging Brazilian trees and President Lula da Silva before the conference was primarily a trade-agenda stunt. In the declared war on fossil fuel-generated power, the state-sponsored nuclear industry stands to win a lot. But until lucrative deals are signed, something needs to be done about the state deficit (€1,500 billion). "Climate taxation" is the government's weapon of choice. Some analysts put his eagerness down to resurgent Gallic anti-Americanism, and an attempt at re-invigorating French clout in Africa now wallowing in Obamania. A lot of the "hyper-climatehood" is meant for home consumption too. With upcoming regional elections, the ruling party (UMP) needs to be in a position to counter the rise of the "climate left" (red gone green).
.
Predictably after weeks of "climate overload", most people are experiencing “climate fatigue”. In the absence of CO2 propaganda, one is strangely left with the realization that for two weeks, “Big Climate brother” had been watching and intruding into our lives. Indeed escaping the eco-moralising disseminated from the moral heights of the summit's bunker and relayed by cheerleading media, was simply impossible. Putting the kettle on for a hot brew suddenly felt like a crime. "Thou shall feel guilty" was the message. According to British journalist Christopher Booker, this is precisely the point. Scaring the populace with "climate alarmism" is how a few can impose their diktat on the rest - and naturally profit from it. Hungarian-born education expert Frank Furedi warns that governments are going down the road of turning kids into "Orwellian eco-spies" (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7830/). The fine line between raising environmental consciousness and indoctrination through fear has been crossed.
.
At times, politicians, activists and UN climate luminaries appeared so engulfed in their apocalypse rhetoric that they looked more like the high priests of a cult than the cool-headed deciders we need to address environmental issues in a sensible way. The UN "climate machin" is an unstoppable train, busy justifying its existence, hiding its "climate tricks" and fittingly driven by a railways engineer Dr. K. Pachauri. Unfortunately bad ideas never die and "climate hype" is now big business. While "climate chaos" was making the headlines, the outcome of the big bang summit was eventually decided by a few leaders. What was the background show (conference) all about one might ask? Outside the bunker in the EU, sovereign debt is mounting, economies stagnating and societies are more fragmented than ever. The prospect of social unrest is very real but leaders keep on pledging money they do not have.
.
Emerging economies need more development and freer trade, not hand-outs. Europe proposes protectionism of the green kind. "A disastrous idea" says the London-based International Policy Network (IPN) as it will hit poor countries the hardest. Failed international aid is to be revisited into a vague "climate fund". For corrupt recipient governments, this is heart-warming news because the cash will keep coming. For disappointed young activists, a word of comfort. Even with a non-binding agreement, there will be enough jobs for the "climate boys". Why worry then? “Climate crime”, warns Europol, is rising and already costing taxpayers dearly. Soon it will cost lives and those deaths will not be caused by the climate changing - it has been doing so for 4 billion years - but by decisions taken by a handful of people. The list of bad ideas goes on. The British PM with his "meilleur ami" from across the Channel now wants to turn the Union into a global "climate police" (post-conference proposal for a new agency equipped to "snitch" on countries suspected of non-compliance). Soon perhaps UN "climate-enforcing" operations...
.
Finally there is the central but clearly inconvenient question of the science upon which decisions are being taken. IPCC truth followers and opportunist politicians accuse “other thinkers” - scientists, economists, ordinary folks who dissent - of endangering the survival of humanity. In short of being heretics. This is profoundly disturbing. Yet hope is not completely lost that reason and science may prevail. The French “Academie des Sciences” quietly announced before the summit that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. More voices of reason continue to rise above the politically correct climate brouhaha. The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) suggests that the British climate research institutes (HadleyCRUT and CRU) have “cherry-picked” (Again?!) temperature data of the vast Russian territory. Given that 75% of available data was not used, the report calls for the IPCC to recalculate temperature increase. This is not “flat-earthing” or “sceptic rant” but what science should be about; reason, questioning, transparency, free and open debate.
.
To end on a note of optimism, the failure of Copenhagen is in fact a blessing. By putting themselves under the spotlight, the proponents of warmism stood with no clothes for the whole world to see. The climate change agenda is all about high politics and (carbon) money dressed in a lofty moral garb. Is it essentially anti-freedom and anti-progress. Predictably the IPCC will blame politicians for the failed talks and hope to pursue its illiberal agenda unchallenged. We have seen it all before. When the UN fails it huffs and puffs. Then nothing. Or rather business as usual. It too must be held to account, and "climate resignations" should be tendered. The world is not short of talent and new thinking is clearly needed. In the meantime, we can now all get on with life on earth and look forward to the new year without eco-Armageddon.
No comments:
Post a Comment