Lord Monckton’s Sisyphian task, part 3

How effective has the Obama Administration been? It’s made everyone just a little more conservative, or at least reminded them that they always were. People are still in the majority in thinking that the Earth is getting warmer over the past few days (it’s not), but more are not embracing the idea that it is because of humans. I can’t wait to be told how much we “hate science” now. Why there was a drop, according to one of our loyal BC warming druids:

Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said politics could be drowning out scientific awareness.

“It’s a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public,” he said.

University professors are always impartial, don’t you know. It would be as if the Internet, an great engine for distributing information, is to be completely discounted and the word of this puffed-up professor is unshakeable. I think it’s much more likely that the scientists are becoming more political, just as everything else is.

This treatyis still on the horizon, however. The reason we have such apprehension about these types of treaties is that we’re never quite sure what it is to which we have to commit. The United Nations is a series of inevitabilities–there’s never a time when the United Nations suddenly dissolves one of its dozens of organizations and grants individual states more liberty. They can’t even do that with the chaos states out there–since when does “peacekeeping” actually remove dictators? It makes it worse by acting as a police force for a broken system.

These mitigation factors, a word that appears all too often in this treaty, seem to allow for the distribution to some of the most extreme climates (including something called “tropical glaciers”, wherever those reside) and the assistance to individuals found on page 129 in one of their alternative methods:

Particularly vulnerable populations, groups and communities, especially the poor, women, children, the elderly, indigenous peoples, minorities and those suffering from disability.

Apparently when a deluge wipes out the entire village, the poor and minorities suffer more. Well, if the poor had less to lose from disaster or having to be refugees, why are they worse off then? What of the wealthy landowner who loses his entire business to a flood? Didn’t he in fact suffer more? Another one of these proposals simply says whoever releases the most greenhouse gas gets the least money. There isn’t even rhyme or reason to this mitigation–it’s simply handing over money to societies with likely no infrastructure or desire to be civilized, which will lead to things like those nations arming themselves as fast as possible. So far it’s a fanciful method of redistributing wealth, but no actual measure of how to reduce any greenhouse gases. They also mention on page 133 the “developing countries’ right to development.” Developing what? Nuclear arms? Polluting factories?

There’s also an auction alternative that is alluded to in this treaty, which allows certain wealthier nations to bid for the ability to pollute in exchange for money. It’s the indulgence system that plagued the Church for so long–sin, but pay us and all is forgiven. Any nations that happen to have a heavily industrialized economy who are still making major cash will be able to pay to emit, with the windfalls passed to the poorer nations, or at least their share. It’s not an innovation treaty so much as a bribery treaty.

The thrust of the treaty is as follows, from Lord Monckton:

So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

I’ve demonstrated that the redistribution policies of this treaty have very little to do with curbing any greenhouse gases so much as rewarding poorer nations for the virtue of poverty. It does not reward innovation but punishes success. I think our lone public voice of criticism is underestimating the willingness of capitulation of President Obama to sign such a treaty. We just want to spread the wealth around…right? To paraphrase Lord Monckton: He’s a communist; of course he’ll sign it.

Leave a Reply

Protected by WP Anti Spam