Lord Monckton’s Sisyphian task, part 2

Yesterday I discussed the impact of the treaty to be voted on at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark this December. I don’t know what possesses these people to host these things in the most frigid times of the year in places like Denmark, but there you are. They probably think they are seeking refuge from the central regions of the Earth, which are all now on fire.

Lord Monckton is a lone voice speaking out against this attempted grab at the world’s wealth, and if it wasn’t a United Nations treaty, I might actually be worried it might be enforced. Apparently the Conference of Parties believes that it was possible to monitor the effects of global warming way back in 1750, when Ben Franklin was the most trusted weatherman. Ben would probably laugh at the warming druids of today, when much of his world was going through a mini-Ice age, and nearly 150 years before that there was a massive heat wave.

The treaty had very little to do with investments in science. You would think that a mere $10 billion could fund the brightest minds in the world in The United Nations Sciency Science Building of Science (a division of the UNSSSSS), invent a car engine that can get 75 miles per gallon, and at least keep the pollution down in Beijing or Cairo or Kuala Lumpur. You know, something that might actually help while they can still pray to the deities of warming.

This treaty also has a lot of dubious claims that no one would unilaterally agree upon. Climate change affects us all economically and socially? If temperatures on average rose by two degrees in Denmark, do you think it would matter much? Would the entire government collapse? No, as they have a controlled destructive government known as “democracy,” one of those words that will never appear in any UN treaty. There are no democracies that will be on the receiving end of the massive wealth transfers that will be expected from this treaty, and that cannot be a coincidence. They very idea of freedom and liberty allows treaties like this to have a culture that would willingly (although likely very grudgingly) hand over its own wealth to another society that has no such desires to surrender its basic impulses and form a civil society.

On page 22:

PP.14 Recognizing that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention.

I have my doubts that this is the ultimate objective, but let’s suppose. Why is the treaty not discussing its own ability to organize scientific innovation? Why is it leaving it up to the creative powers of the individual (democratic, and therefore successful) states instead?

I knew I was in for it when I read this section:

Page 24 (10) [Prevent, reduce or minimize the adverse effects of climate change, particularly on the most vulnerable developing countries, namely: the LDCs, the SIDS and the African countries affected by drought, as well as the poorest and most vulnerable populations in other developing countries such as those in central America] [Minimize the adverse impacts of climate change, to assist in building climate resilient communities and to enhance sustainable development];

Something stuck in my mind when I read that, and it was the story that came out just a few days ago where a pro-democracy award for Africa had to be cancelled because they essentially ran out of candidates. Could you ever see the UN motivated to solve that problem? Cause and effect is not any UN agency’s specialty, but I think I can spot this one easily–the reason they are so poor in Africa is that they have no freedom. It isn’t because of Ben Franklin’s cast-iron stove pipe blowing off CO2 in 1750.

There’s also a lot of ethereal discussions on matters that have no impact whatsoever on the environment (gender issues, creating “synergies and champions”, etc.). There’s also no consensus as to what constitutes a fragile ecosystem. The criteria include:

- small island countries;
- countries with low-lying coastal areas;
- countries with arid and semi-arid areas, forested areas and areas liable to forest decay;
- countries with areas prone to natural disasters;
- countries with areas liable to drought and desertification;
- countries with areas of high urban atmospheric pollution;
- countries with areas with fragile ecosystems, including mountainous ecosystems;
- countries whose economies are highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing and export, and/or on consumption of fossil fuels and associated energy-intensive products;
- land-locked and transit countries.

This is just one of their options for deciding which country would receive aid. I put the ones in bold that particularly sparked my interest, as they seem to describe almost all of the countries in the Middle East. Just how do these people get away with being distributors of all that nasty polluting oil and petroleum products, and still get the aid once it’s burned off? Apparently it’s the fault of the nations who use the oil, but the ones who sell the oil are victims.

We’re not even done yet, folks! Bear with me for part 3…

One Response to “Lord Monckton’s Sisyphian task, part 2”

  1. Steynian 392 « Free Canuckistan! Says:

    [...] THE TRUTH-TELLING Lord Monckton’s Sisyphian task …. [...]

Leave a Reply

Protected by WP Anti Spam