Docstoc

Durban-Rio UN Summit - what the media is not telling you

Document Sample
Durban-Rio UN Summit - what the media is not telling you Powered By Docstoc
					Durban-Rio UN Summit - what the media is not telling you
Posted on December 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts


By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in Durban, South Africa


DURBAN, South Africa — “No high hopes for Durban.” “Binding treaty unlikely.” “No
deal this year.” Thus ran the headlines. The profiteering UN bureaucrats here think
otherwise. Their plans to establish a world government paid for by the West on the
pretext of dealing with the non-problem of “global warming” are now well in hand. As
usual, the mainstream media have simply not reported what is in the draft text which
the 194 states parties to the UN framework convention on climate change are being
asked to approve.


Behind the scenes, throughout the year since Cancun, the now-permanent bureaucrats
who have made highly-profitable careers out of what they lovingly call “the process”
have been beavering away at what is now a 138-page document. Its catchy title is “Ad
Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention — Update
of the amalgamation of draft texts in preparation of [one imagines they mean 'for'] a
comprehensive and balanced outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties
for adoption at its seventeenth session: note by the Chair.” In plain English, these are
the conclusions the bureaucracy wants.


The contents of this document, turgidly drafted with all the UN’s skill at what the former
head of its documentation center used to call “transparent impenetrability”, are not just
off the wall – they are lunatic.


Main points:


       Ø A new International Climate Court will have the power to compel
       Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to third-world countries in the name of
       making reparation for supposed “climate debt”. The Court will have no power
       over third-world countries. Here and throughout the draft, the West is the sole
       target. “The process” is now irredeemably anti-Western.
       Ø “Rights of Mother Earth”: The draft, which seems to have been written by
       feeble-minded green activists and environmental extremists, talks of “The
       recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between
    humanity and nature”. Also, “there will be no commodification [whatever that
    may be: it is not in the dictionary and does not deserve to be] of the functions of
    nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.
    Ø “Right to survive”: The draft childishly asserts that “The rights of some
    Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change,
    including sea level rise.” At 2 inches per century, according to eight years’ data
    from the Envisat satellite? Oh, come off it! The Jason 2 satellite, the new kid on
    the block, shows that sea-level has actually dropped over the past three years.




    Ø War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease – just
    like that – because they contribute to climate change. There are other reasons why
    war ought to cease, but the draft does not mention them.
    Ø A new global temperature target will aim, Canute-like, to limit “global
    warming” to as little as 1 C° above pre-industrial levels. Since temperature is
    already 3 C° above those levels, what is in effect being proposed is a 2 C° cut in
    today’s temperatures. This would take us halfway back towards the last Ice Age,
    and would kill hundreds of millions. Colder is far more dangerous than warmer.
    Ø The new CO2 emissions target, for Western countries only, will be a
    reduction of up to 50% in emissions over the next eight years and of “more than
    100%” [these words actually appear in the text] by 2050. So, no motor cars, no
    coal-fired or gas-fired power stations, no aircraft, no trains. Back to the Stone Age,
    but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in your caves. Windmills,
    solar panels and other “renewables” are the only alternatives suggested in the
    draft. There is no mention of the immediate and rapid expansion of nuclear power
    worldwide to prevent near-total economic destruction.
    Ø The new CO2 concentration target could be as low as 300 ppmv CO2
    equivalent (i.e., including all other greenhouse gases as well as CO2 itself). That is
    a cut of almost half compared with the 560 ppmv CO2 equivalent today. It implies
    just 210 ppmv of CO2 itself, with 90 ppmv CO2 equivalent from other greenhouse
    gases. But at 210 ppmv, plants and trees begin to die. CO2 is plant food. They
    need a lot more of it than 210 ppmv.
    Ø The peak-greenhouse-gas target year – for the West only – will be this
    year. We will be obliged to cut our emissions from now on, regardless of the effect
    on our economies (and the lack of effect on the climate).
      Ø The West will pay for everything, because of its “historical responsibility”
      for causing “global warming”. Third-world countries will not be obliged to pay
      anything. But it is the UN, not the third-world countries, that will get the money
      from the West, taking nearly all of it for itself as usual. There is no provision
      anywhere in the draft for the UN to publish accounts of how it has spent the $100
      billion a year the draft demands that the West should stump up from now on.




The real lunacy comes in the small print – all of it in 8-point type, near-illegibly printed
on grubby, recycled paper. Every fashionable leftist idiocy is catered for.

Talking of which, note in passing that Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who, in
the topsy-turvy looking-glass world of international climate insanity is the “science”
chairman of the UN’s climate panel, has admitted that no one has been talking about
climate science at the climate conference here in Durban. Not really surprising, given no
real warming for getting on for two decades, no recent sea-level rise, no new record
Arctic ice-melt, fewer hurricanes than at almost any time in 30 years, no Pacific atolls
disappearing beneath the waves.


Here – and, as always, you heard it here first, for the mainstream media have conspired
to keep secret the Madness of King Rajendra and his entire coterie of governmental and
bureaucratic lunatics worldwide – is what the dribbling, twitching thrones and
dominions, principalities and powers of the world will be asked to agree to.


“International Climate Court of Justice”: This kangaroo court is to be established
by next year “to guarantee the compliance of Annex I Parties with all the provisions of
this decision, which are essential elements in the obtaining of the global goal”. Note
that, here as elsewhere, the bias is only against the nations of the West. However badly
the third-world countries behave, they cannot be brought before the new court. Though
none of what the draft calls the “modalities” of the proposed marsupial dicastery are set
out in detail, one can imagine that the intention is to oblige Western nations to pay up
however much the world government run by the Convention secretariat feels like
demanding, just as the unelected tyrants of the EU demand – and get – ever-larger cash
payments from the ever-shrinking economies and ever-poorer tribute-payers of their
dismal empire.
The temperature target: At Copenhagen and Cancun, the states parties to the
Convention arrogated to themselves the power – previously safe in the hands of Divine
Providence – to alter the weather in such a way as to prevent global mean surface
temperature from rising by more than 2 C° above the “pre-industrial” level. They did not
even say what they meant by “pre-industrial”. From 1695-1745 temperatures in central
England, quite a good proxy for global temperatures, rose by 2.2 C°, with about another
0.8 C° since then, making 3 C° in all. The previous temperature target, therefore, was
already absurd. Yet the new, improved, madder target is to keep global temperatures
either “1 C°” or “well below 1.5 C°” above “pre-industrial levels” – i.e., well below half of
the temperature increase that has already occurred since the pre-industrial era. The
twittering states parties are committing themselves, in effect, to reducing today’s global
temperatures by getting on for 2 C°. This is madness. Throughout pre-history, the
governing class – Druids or Pharaohs or Mayans or Incas – thought they could replace
their Creator and command the weather. They couldn’t. No more can we. But try telling
that to the strait-jacketed ninnies of today’s governing “elite”. Speech after speech at the
plenary sessions of the Durban conference has drivelled on about how We Are The
People Who At This Historic Juncture Are Willing And Able To Undertake The Noble
Purpose Of Saving The Planet From Thermageddon and Saving You From Yourselves
[entirely at your prodigious expense, natch].


The emissions-reduction targets: The new target proposed by the staring-eyed
global-village idiots will be a reduction of 50-85% of global greenhouse-gas emissions
from 1990 levels (i.e. by 65-100% of today’s levels) by 2050, with emissions falling still
further thereafter. The West should cut its emissions by 30-50% from 1990 levels (i.e. by
40-65% of today’s levels) in just eight years, and by more than 95% (i.e. more than
100%) by 2050. Alternatively (for there are many alternatives in the text, indicating that
agreement among the inmates in the Durban asylum is a long way off), the West must
cut its emissions “more than 50%” in just five years, and “more than 100%” by 2050.
The words “more than 100%” actually appear in the draft. The Third World, however,
need cut its emissions only by 15-30% over the next eight years, provided – of course –
that the West fully reimburses it for the cost.


The greenhouse-gas reduction target: Greenhouse-gas concentrations in the
atmosphere “should stabilize well below 300-450 ppm CO2 equivalent”. This target, like
the temperature target, is plain daft. CO2 concentration is currently at 392 ppmv, and
the IPCC increases this by 43% to allow for other greenhouse gases. Accordingly, today’s
CO2-equivalent concentration of greenhouse gases is 560 ppmv, and the current lunacy
is to cut this perhaps by very nearly half, reducing the CO2 component to just 210 ppmv,
at which point trees and plants become starved of CO2, which is their food, and start to
die.


The greenhouse-gas peak targets: Global greenhouse gas emissions, say the
mentally-challenged Durban droolers, should peak in not more than eight years’ time,
and perhaps as soon as two years’ time. Western greenhouse-gas emissions should peak
immediately (or perhaps by next year, or maybe the year after that) and must decline
thereafter. The greenhouse-gas emissions peak in third-world countries will be later
than that of the West, and – no surprises here – will depend on the West to pay the cost
of it.


“Historical responsibility”: The nations of the West (for which the UN’s code is
“Annex I parties”) are from now on required to beat their breasts (or at least their strait-
jackets) and acknowledge their “historical responsibility” for increasing CO2 emissions
and giving us warmer weather. The draft says: “Acknowledging that the largest share of
the historical global emissions of greenhouse gases originated in Annex I Parties and
that, owing to this historical responsibility in terms of their contribution to the average
global temperature increase, Annex I Parties must take the lead in combating climate
change and the adverse effects thereof.” This new concept of “historical responsibility” –
suspiciously akin to the “war-guilt” of post-1918 Germany, declared by the imprudent
governments of the world at the Versailles conference, which was no small cause of
World War II – further underscores the rapidly-growing anti-Western bias in the UN
and in the Convention’s secretariat.


Who pays? Oh, you guessed it before I told you. The West pays. The third world (UN
code: “non-Annex-I parties”) thinks it will collect, so it will always vote for the UN’s
insane proposals. But the UN’s bureaucrats will actually get all or nearly all the money,
and will decide how to allocate what minuscule fraction they have not already spent on
themselves. As a senior UN diplomat told me last year, “The UN exists for only one
purpose: to get more money. That, and that alone, is the reason why it takes such an
interest in climate change.” The draft says: “Developed-country Parties shall provide
developing-country Parties with new and additional finance, inter alia through a
percentage of the gross domestic product of developed-country Parties.” And, of course,
“The extent of participation by non-Annex-I parties in the global effort to deal with
climate change is directly dependent on the level of support provided by developed-
country Parties.”


The get-out clause: One or two Western countries – Canada and Japan, for instance
– have begun to come off the Kool-Aid. They have worked out what scientifically-
baseless nonsense the climate scam is and have said they are not really playing any
more. To try to keep these and the growing number of nations who want out of “the
process” bankrolling the ever-more-lavish UN, an ingenious escape clause has been
crafted: “The scale of financial flows to non-Annex-I parties shall be based on the
assessments of their needs to deal with climate change.” Since climate is not going to
change measurably as a result of Man’s emissions, any honest assessment of the needs
of third-world countries “to deal with climate change” is that they don’t need any money
at all for this purpose and shouldn’t get a single red cent. The UN is now the biggest
obstacle to the eradication of poverty worldwide, because its pampered functionaries
divert so much cash to themselves, to an ever-expanding alphabet-soup of
bureaucracies, and then to heroically lunatic projects like “global warming” control.
Time to abolish it.


World government: The Copenhagen Treaty draft establishing a world “government”
with unlimited powers of taxation and intervention in the affairs of states parties to the
UN Framework Convention fortunately failed. Yet at the Cancun climate conference the
following year 1000 new bureaucracies were established to form the nucleus of a world
government, with central control in the hands of the Convention’s secretariat and
tentacles in every region and nation. The draft “agrees that common principles,
modalities and procedures as well as the coordinating and oversight functions of the
UNFCCC are needed” – in short, global centralization of political, economic and
environmental power in the manicured hands of the Convention’s near-invisible but all-
powerful secretariat. No provision is made for the democratic election of key members
of the all-powerful secretariat – in effect, a world government – by the peoples of our
planet.


Reporting to the world government: From 2013/14, the world government will
oblige Western nations to prepare reports and submit them to it every two years. The
format of these reports is specified in obsessive detail over several pages of the draft.
The reports will describe the extent of their compliance with the mitigation targets
imposed by the various treaties and agreements. The West will be obliged to to continue
reporting “greenhouse-gas emission inventories”, for which “common reporting formats
and methodologies for the calculation of emission, established at the international level,
are essential”. Separately, Western nations will now be required to provide information
on the financial support they have pledged to assist third-world countries in mitigating
greenhouse-gas emissions and adapting to “the adverse effects of climate change”. The
world government also expects to receive reports from Western nations on their
financial contributions to the Global Environment Facility, the Least Developed
Countries’ Trust Fund, the Special Climate Change Fund, the Adaptation Fund, the
Green Climate Fund and the Trust Fund for Supplementary Activities”. Western nations
must also provide information on the steps taken to promote technology development
and transfer to third-world countries, and on how they have provided “capacity-building
support” to third-world countries, and on numerous other matters. The inexorable
increase in compulsory reporting was one of the mechanisms by which the unelected
Kommissars of the anti-democratic European Union acquired absolute power over the
member states. EU advisors have been helping the UN to learn how to use similar
techniques to centralize global power just as anti-democratically in its own hands.


Review of Western nations’ conduct: Once the multitude of mechanisms for
Western nations’ compulsory reporting to the world government are in place, the
information gathered by it will be used as the basis of a continuous review of every
aspect of their compliance with the various agreements and concords, whether legally-
binding or not. Teams of five to eight members of the Convention’s secretariat will
scrutinize each Western nation’s conduct, and will have the power to ask questions and
to require additional information, as well as to make recommendations that will
gradually become binding. The world government will then prepare a record of the
review for each Western nation, including reports of various aspects of the review, an
assessment of that nation’s compliance, questions and answers, conclusions and
recommendations (eventually instructions) to that nation, and a “facilitative process”
(UN code for a mechanism to compel the nation to do as it is told by people whom no
one has elected).


Finance: One of the 1000 bureaucracies established at Cancun is the Standing
Committee on Finance, which the draft says will have the power of “mobilizing financial
resources” through flows of public and private finance, “mobilizing additional funding”,
and requiring and verifying the reporting of finance provided to third-world Parties by
the Western nations through a new Financial Support Registry. Finance for third-world
countries is to be scaled up “significantly”, and Western countries will be obliged to
provide “a clear work-plan on their pledged assessed contributions” from 2012-2020
“for approval by the Conference of the Parties”. Taxpayers will be compelled to provide
the major source of funding through public expenditure.


Green Climate Fund: Western nations are urged to “commit to the initial
capitalization of the Green Climate Fund without delay”, to include “the full running
costs” and “the funding required for the formation and operating costs of the board and
secretariat of the Green Climate Fund”. Here, as always, the UN bureaucrats want their
own pay, perks, pensions and organizational structure guaranteed before any money
goes to third-world countries.


Worldwide cap-and-trade: The draft establishes a “new market-based
approach/mechanism … to promote the reduction or avoidance of greenhouse-gas
emissions” – once again for Western countries only. Also, “Ambitious, legally-binding
emission reduction targets for developed-country Parties … are essential to drive a
global carbon market”. What this means, in the plain English that is almost entirely
absent from the 138-page draft, is worldwide compulsory cap-and-trade, centrally
imposed and regulated, imposed on Western countries only.


Patent rights: Under the guise of action to prevent “global warming” that is not
happening at anything like the predicted rate, coded references to the extinction of
patent rights in third-world countries are creeping into the text. For instance,
“identification and removal of all barriers that prevent effective technology development
and transfer to developing-country Parties”; and “the removal of all obstacles, including
intellectual property rights and patents on climate-related technologies to ensure the
transfer of technology to developing countries”. As an inventor with patents to my name,
I can predict what effect any such provision will have. It will prevent the establishment
and development of patent offices in continents such as Africa, which – thus far – has
contributed remarkably little to the world’s inventions, not least because the structure
for protecting and encouraging inventors is rickety or non-existent.


Shipping and aviation fuels were previously excluded from the scope of the
Convention and are now to be included. International shipping and aviation are
described as “a source of financial resources for climate change actions”. More money
for UN bureaucrats.
The new bureaucracies: As though the 1000 bureaucracies created at Cancun were
not enough, another bureaucracy is to be created “to oversee, monitor and ensure
overall implementation of capacity-building activities consistent with the provisions of
the Convention”. There will also be a new “International Climate Court of Justice” (see
above). A “Financial Support Registry” is also to be set up.


The new special-interest group: Meet the “Parties that are alternative-energy-
disadvantaged”. No wind, no sun, no renewables – so, handouts from the West, please.


The new buzzwords: Welcome to the notion of “equitable access to global
atmospheric space”; “Mother Earth” [I kid you not: it's in the draft]; “climate-resilient
infrastructure” and “paradigm shift towards building a low-carbon society”. These
buzzwords are in addition to pre-existing buzzwords such as “climate justice” and
“climate debt” – the latter being the notion that because the West has emitted more
carbon dioxide than the rest it owes the Third World lots of money.


“Rights of Mother Earth”: The draft burbles insanely about “The recognition and
defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature,
and that there will be no commodification [whatever that may be] of the functions of
nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.


“Right to survive”: “The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the
adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.” At 2 inches per century? Oh,
come off it! The Jason 2 satellite shows that sea-level has dropped over the past three
years.


The science is at last to be reviewed in a manner that appears independent of the
discredited IPCC. However, no details of the method of review are provided, and other
parts of the schizophrenic draft say we must defer to the science put forward not by the
peer-reviewed learned journals but by a political body whose reports are not peer-
reviewed in the usual sense.


Legally-binding treaty: According to the draft, the aim is to create a “legally-binding
instrument/outcome”. This is UN code for an international Treaty. The US will sign no
such treaty. Nor will Canada, Japan, France, India and many other countries. On the
basis of drafts as in-your-face idiotic as this, no legally-binding climate treaty will ever
be signed: which is just as well, because no such treaty is necessary.


War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease because they
contribute to climate change. Just like that. The UN draft text asserts: “Stopping wars,
defending lives and ceasing destructive activities will protect the climate system;
conflict-related activities emit significant greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.”
A wave of the UN’s magic wand and peace will reign throughout the Earth, the sun will
shine (but not too much) the rain will fall (just where and when needed), and non-
gender-specific motherhood and non-commodificated apple pie will be available to all.
Ouroborindra, ba-ba hee! It does not seem to have occurred to the Druids of the UN that
they have near-totally failed to prevent wars on Earth – the original purpose for which it
was founded. Yet now, in their gibbering, spastic arrogance, they think to command the
weather. Canute, thou shouldst be living at this hour!


                                             ###


                                         ADVERTISE MENT




Rate this:




83 Votes


Share this:

   
          Twitter97

          Facebook501

          StumbleUpon
          Reddit
        Digg

        Email
     


Like this:

Like

5 bloggers like this.



     

     

     

     

     

This entry was posted in Durban Climate Conference and tagged Cancún, climate change, Durban, greenhouse gas,
South Africa, United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, West. Bookmark the
permalink.
← Skeptic Agrees with Climate Change
                                                                               The tweet end view of Durban →
245 Responses to Durban: what the media are not telling you
1.       JDSmith - Toronto says:


December 9, 2011 at 7:57 pm


This is not only insane but totalitarian.


What can we do?


2.       Carbon-based life form says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:01 pm


Looks like the capitulation is happening. They are acknowledging that nothing they
want will truly happen so they have no reason to inhibit their wish list of global suicide
to reduce the “surplus population”.
3.      DocWat says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:03 pm


Cracked Pots!! I don’t suppose you have any names to credit this document to.


4.      Keith W. says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:06 pm


“Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.” Any Western nation who signs
this must be mad, so they would be out to destroy themselves.


5.      pat says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:08 pm


Any President that agrees to any of this will not only violate the Constitution, but will
destroy his party for 50 years.


6.      rafa says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:13 pm


Since the Illustration, the western world gave itself freedom and individual rights as the
base for progress. Now these climate alarmists want to destroy all we achieved, entering
in a kind of global governance through the back door. Nobody voted them. They were
not chosen by we the people. However they want to rule the world. To take us back to
the Middle Age. To convert us in peasants. These climate alarmists and the eco-wackos
and the civil servants that make a luxury living of this swindle are totalitarians. Excuse
me, I feel like vomiting.


7.      Mike Bromley the Kurd says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Commodification: a) a circumstance where cooperative modification results in an
unrecognisable product; b) the process by which documents produced in a) are disposed
of; c) Google “mud falcon”, except that these people are not climbing the rocks, they are
jumping off the cliff.


It ceased being about science two COP’s ago, now it’s in-your-face backroom
totalitarianism.


8.      albertalad says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:19 pm


This is outrageous! Why ANY western nation would even be in the same room talking
with these criminals is beyond me. And thanks to WUWT and Lord Monckton for
getting this desperately needed knowledge publicly available to the rest of us.


I am shocked at the naked ambition of the UN at their deliberate attack on western
democracy, at the UN’s attack on Freedom, and the UN’s subversive attempts at world
domination and even worse – NOT ONE WESTERN NEWS SOURCE EVEN
ATTEMPTED TO INFORM THEIR OWN PUBLIC! And not one single western
government source attempted to inform their voting public of the enormous stakes at
this conference. That alone can be considered traitorous and all should place on trial for
subversion.


Moreover, the UN should be disbanded immediately. And western nations should never
pay a cent to that den of corruption ever again.


9.      F. Ross says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:20 pm


Thanks for this post Lord Monckton. Very scary stuff..
The ONLY thing Mother Earth needs is an IIAJ; an International Insane Asylum
Jurisdiction in which to put all these nincompoops. With a physical design like a
cockroach trap …no exit.


10.     D. J. Hawkins says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:22 pm


This is exactly why U.S. citizens (those who have a clue) treasure the Second
Amendment. In the end, you possess only those rights you can defend.


11.     Doug in Seattle says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:27 pm


No western politician would sign such a document. Or is that “could” instead of
“would”?


12.     Mark.R says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:30 pm


And to think that most of these guys would happily sign up.
And “commodification [whatever that may be] of the functions of nature, therefore no
carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.
This may mean that if you get sick they will just let nature take its corse no treatment
will be given??.


13.     davidmhoffer says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:37 pm


The most hilarious one of all has GOT to be cancelling war. They have SUCH an
excellent track record at that.
Strangely, what is slowly defeating the warmist agenda is the two worst things that can
befall the human race. The climate appears to be returning to a cooling phase, which
may well cost us dearly in human lives, and the world economy teaters on the edge of
collapse, forcing nations that have been living on credit to cut their spending down to
the basics. These are the reasons that nothing being negotiated in Durban will ever come
to fruition. Sadly, it is not science, facts, logic and reason that doom Durban to failure,
but rampant borrowing and impending crop failure.


Sad is it not that we have progressed so far technologically that the only thing we have
left to fear is nightmares of our own making?


The UN has never served the purpose it was intended for, and does far more harm than
good. It isn’t just the Durban climate BS that needs to get ash canned, its the whole UN
itself. 50% funding comes from the US I was told once. If so, one country could kill it off
with a pen stroke.


14.     Anthony Scalzi says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:39 pm


So the western world has been annexed(their word!) by an unelected bureaucracy.


15.     Dave says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:39 pm


Thank you Lord Monckton for your hard work and incite.


Call me crazy but I am starting to think these warmist are sociopaths.
Many WUWT Readers have made reference to Orwell s 1984 – Here is further evidence
in black and white of the socialist hordes storming the walls. These people are criminals
paid for by hard working taxpayers worldwide. It;s time for brain scans of all politicians,
bureaucrats and NGO;s you will find they exhibit the same low frontal brain activity that
criminals murderers, and unreasoned people. History is filled with these delusioned
individuals that have caused pain and suffering to millions of people with their
unreasoned and frightening ideology’s. We are in another make or break period for
freedom loving people the world.
See:
Tormented Souls, Diseased Brains
A Case for the Frontal Brain
Since sociopathic individuals have marked alterations in their relation to other human
beings, it is only natural that we should first seek whether the part of their brains
responsible for this has some significant abnormality.


All social primates have highly developed frontal brains, and human beings have the
largest one of all. Self-control, planning, judgment, the balance of individual versus
social needs, and many other essential functions underlying effective social intercourse
are mediated by the frontal structures of the brain.
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n07/doencas/disease_i.htm


See High Self-Perception, Low Brain Activity.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/01/07/high-self-perception-low-brain-
activity/10606.html


16.     Dave says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:45 pm


To be perfectly blunt this document scares the crap out of me. Is this how people feel in
a war zone!


17.     Theo Goodwin says:


December 9, 2011 at 8:48 pm


The UN is just a huge distraction in the real world of international diplomacy.
Abolishing the UN would improve international diplomacy enormously.


18.     Mark.R says:
December 9, 2011 at 8:52 pm


This is all that is beening said at http://hot-topic.co.nz/durban-final-hours/#comments


“New text out today, but it was greeted with a veritable storm of protest from the Small
Island States, the EU and the Least Developed Countries – a combined grouping of
more than 120 countries, with more coming on board to oppose.


Why? The text proposes no further action until after 2020 – and that, to the most
vulnerable, is like a death warrant. Ministers were locked in a room for several hours,
took a break and about to go back into the meeting. They’re expected to carry on way
into the night and through tomorrow. China, India and the US are increasingly isolated
as their block and delay tactics exposed”.
by cindy.


19.     RobW says:


December 9, 2011 at 9:04 pm


I haven’t read the comments above yet but here is my opinion. UN, GET
STUFFED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


20.     Richard deSousa says:


December 9, 2011 at 9:04 pm


Have the members of the UN climate bureaucrats in Durban fallen down the rabbit hole
to Alice’s Wonderland where insanity prevails? The US ought to stop funding the UN so
this nonsense will stop.


21.     Zorro says:


December 9, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Absolutely mind boggling. Even the warmists in NZ must be secretly hoping this all fails
big time.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=1077113
2


22.     http://climate-change-theory.com says:


December 9, 2011 at 9:17 pm


This is his best yet. All should study and ponder the implications of Durban.


Why does carbon dioxide have no effect? Let’s look at the quantum thermodynamics
involved.


There are two fundamental errors in the standard explanation of the GH effect.


(1) The application of blackbody radiation calculations (giving that 255 deg.K) should
apply to the whole Earth system, including the atmosphere. As even the models show,
there is quite a lot of radiation emanating from the atmosphere. The surface is merely an
internal interface, rather like the floor of the ocean. You cannot just measure radiation
at TOA and then say what the surface temperature is or ought to be. The 255 deg.K is a
weighted mean of surface and atmosphere and is found at a level in the troposphere
which is well above the surface. The temperature plot swivels around this mean and
results in warmer temperatures at the surface and of course cooler at TOA. There has to
be a declining temperature in the troposphere because warm air takes time to rise by
convection. It does not need carbon dioxide to bring this about.


(2) Oxygen and nitrogen molecules acquire thermal energy partly by absorbing some
incident radiation, but mostly by collision with a warmer surface. As they rise by
convection they will mix with cooler air containing some cooler GHG molecules to which
they can transfer thermal energy by collision processes. Oxygen and nitrogen cannot
cool themselves by radiating IR at atmospheric temperatures. Only GHG molecules can
do so. Hence the GHG molecules (while some of them are temporarily in unexcited
states) will collect energy from several O2 and N2 molecules until they are sufficiently
energised to radiate it out of the atmosphere, some to space, some to Earth. Thus carbon
dioxide can also have a cooling effect (as it removes thermal energy from oxygen and
nitrogen) which could very well neutralise its warming effect. The latter is far less than
has been calculated anyway, because of the reasons in (1) above.


23.     u.k.(us) says:


December 9, 2011 at 9:17 pm


War,
The submarines may announce our determination, the launches from the prairies will
end the fight.


24.     Leon Brozyna says:


December 9, 2011 at 9:19 pm


An interesting piece of work. It might be wise for the UN bureaucrats to refresh
themselves on American history.


They might want to recall the words of the Reverend Jonathan Mayhew from a sermon
in 1750, “No Taxation Without Representation.” Or listen to the words of Mercy Otis
Warren’s brother, James Otis, who said that, “taxation without representation is
tyranny.” They were speaking of direct representation. At best, all we have is indirect
representation to the various UN bodies, selected by who knows whom in DC.


Truly, a sad state of affairs.


25.     Michael Kelley says:


December 9, 2011 at 9:19 pm


I believe Newt Gingrich said he would pick John Bolton for Secretary of State if elected.
Bolton famously said that “if the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it
wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnbolton169120.html
26.     King of Cool says:


December 9, 2011 at 9:25 pm


I am afraid to say that this is the type of spin (is that too mild a word?) that Aussies have
to put up with for possibly another 2 years from one who is still well and truly in the
Cuckoo’s Nest or in some delusional trance:


27.     Lew Skannen says:


December 9, 2011 at 9:26 pm


Nice article.
Interestingly the only other place I have ever seen the word ‘modalities’ used in Nigerian
scam emails.
How appropriate.


28.     JeffT says:


December 9, 2011 at 9:33 pm


Very relevant :
Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961
(Extract from the Educational-Research Complex)


Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military
posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.


In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized,
complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction
of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been
overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields.
In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and
scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly
because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute
for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new
electronic computers.


The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project
allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.


Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also
be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the
captive of a scientific-technological elite.


29.     crosspatch says:


December 9, 2011 at 9:39 pm


Every fashionable leftist idiocy is catered for.


That’s about the size of it. Oh, and a portion of the posting gets repeated at the end for
some reason. Our Congress is in no mood to agree to such a thing unless Obama figures
out a way to bind us to it without Congressional approval, it’s dead on arrival in the US.


30.     crosspatch says:


December 9, 2011 at 9:43 pm


Call me crazy but I am starting to think these warmist are sociopaths.


The political left in general is. It appeals to people who have serious issues with self-
loathing and you see that projected in their policies and rhetoric. I am “bad”, my country
is bad, my race is bad, my culture is bad, my lifestyle is bad. I don’t deserve happiness.
Everything bad in the world is my fault, I make the world a worse place. I get tired of
having someone else’s guilt and self loathing shoved down my throat sometimes.
31.     Anna Lemma says:


December 9, 2011 at 9:43 pm


“The March of Folly”. continues.


As to JD Smith’s question as to what we can do about this….the answer is, we need do
NOTHING, aide from continuing the good work here at WUWT and other “denialist”
[hah!] sites. Any President, any Congress that would entertain surrendering American
sovereignty to these Gaia-worshipping morons would be tossed out of office, impeached,
tarred and feathered and/or strung up on lampposts.


Clinton understood that when Al Gore symbolically signed the Kyoto Protocol — BOTH
knew it would never get gain Senate ratification. As WUWT readers know, the Senate
had already signaled its opposition by a 95- 0 vote.


With Barbara Boxer still delusional, it might get one or two Senate votes today. But not
more. And it’s the Senate, not the White House, that has the power here. No Senate
ratification? The proposed scheme has no force of law in the US.


32.     James Sexton says:


December 9, 2011 at 9:53 pm


JDSmith – Toronto says:
December 9, 2011 at 7:57 pm


This is not only insane but totalitarian.


What can we do?
==================================================
Well, arming yourself would be a prudent start, just in case…… then go straight to scorn
and ridicule of these lunatics And, other than that, just continue what you’re doing.
Contribute the the skeptical discussion and support the others that do the same. With
Providence’s aid, we’ve turned the corner and are winning. Not just on the blogs, but in
the science, and most importantly, we’re winning over the public. As Monckton points
out, nothing is happening in our climate. Its all been rather (sorry I can’t help it)
anticlimactic</b for several years now. :-)


It is rather astonishing that people like that exist, and they are a great
threat to the human experience. They have thwarted humanity’s progress
for some time now. Their misanthropy is palpable. They are scumbags and
should be treated as such.


I do agree with one part of their demands. I believe an international
tribunal should be established. (Outside U.N. control) It should assess the
damage these people have done. Count the lives they have cost, and then
execute swift Justice.


33.     Geoff Alder says:


December 9, 2011 at 10:00 pm


Our local weekly paper, out yesterday, carried the main headline:”Climate talk
detractors land on Toti beach”. (‘Toti’ is quickspeak for Amanzimtoti, the actual beach
onto which Lord Moncton and his team parachuted.) There is also a short editorial on
the subject in their paper, ending with this of the sceptics: “Are we not to at least hear
ther argument before we disregard it?” It all sounds rather much like: “You will be given
a fair trial before we hang you”.
This requires a Letter to the Editor, which I shall soon be writing. In connection with
this, I have placed a pdf of Lord Moncton’s above article onto my Website, and will
invite readers of our local rag to download this from: http://www.alder.co.za/monc.pdf


34.     Christian Bultmann says:


December 9, 2011 at 10:05 pm


it is amazing…’People running around with signs saying ‘the world is coming to an end’
are considered the sane ones by the MSM
35.     DDP says:


December 9, 2011 at 10:05 pm


I propose the establishment of the International Oxygen Thieves Court to counter their
proposal.


However, can someone please hide Chris BuffHuhne’s pen as he may have heard we just
saved some cash by not continuing to prop up the Euro.


36.     John F. Hultquist says:


December 9, 2011 at 10:10 pm


“. . . Druids of the UN . . . ”


How dare you disparage my honorable ancestors!


37.     RockyRoad says:


December 9, 2011 at 10:13 pm


There’s only one appropriate response to these Durban dirtbags:


NUTS!


38.     crosspatch says:


December 9, 2011 at 10:13 pm


The really ironic thing is that China is going to realize America’s nuclear energy dream
and we aren’t. They have scores of plants planned. They have a plan for a fuel cycle using
fast neutron reactors to reprocess and re-use spent fuel. That was our original plan until
Jimmy Carter killed it. Reagan attempted to revive it but Clinton killed it again. China is
going to have a massive nuclear electrification effort giving it a secure source of energy
that is not vulnerable to external supply issues. We aren’t.


The American Dream (or at least one of those dreams) is alive and well and living in
China.


39.     Karl Blair says:


December 9, 2011 at 10:17 pm


If only poor old Pol Pot had thought of this scam, perhaps history wouldn’t have treated
him so badly!


40.     DR says:


December 9, 2011 at 10:18 pm


Is this really what the folks at RealClimate et al want? A totalitarian one world
government?


Is this what Phil Jones wants? All the climategate players? They want this?


Seriously, is it?


41.     Keith Battye says:


December 9, 2011 at 10:24 pm


Yes we all, along with Christopher, think that this stuff is wrong. Completely mad and
anti everything we believe is right. That will not stop them.


With cold eyes they observe us and experience no empathy as they proceed with their
inhumane plans of power accumulation.
The UN is a monster, staffed by mini monsters, that seeks to extend it’s rule over all of
us. The cash flow from this scheme will be huge and with big money comes big
ambition. The USA should, in my opinion, withdraw all of it’s funding from the UN
process as a preparatory step to complete withdrawal. As was pointed out it has been
unable to prevent wars, it’s primary reason for being and in every other endeavor it has
been corrupt and ineffectual.


In the absence of overall political control the UN apparatchiks continue to expand their
reach. The secretary general answers to no one and his appointment is always a political
botch followed by no oversight for his period in office. The “shareholders” have no say in
the operations of the UN, have you ever seen any employee get done for corruption?


Smash the UN by turning off it’s money supply now because once it gets an income
stream that doesn’t need to come from America it will be game over. America really
needs to step up now in the interests of mankind.


42.     Alexander Feht says:


December 9, 2011 at 10:38 pm


Thank you, Christopher Monckton.
I don’t know, how you have patience and energy to go through all this muck.


The UN is not only an anti-Semitic, anti-American, and anti-Western bureaucracy, it is
becoming a flat-out anti-human mob. Hopefully, it would take one decisive, real US
president to put an end to this lunacy. If not — well, it’s revolution then. So much the
worse for bureaucrats.


43.     Scarface says:


December 9, 2011 at 10:45 pm


Omg, the inmates are running the asylum.
Keep fighting the good fight, Lord Monckton, and let the world know what these eco-
freaks are up to. Thanks again for yet another sneak preview in their plans and goals.
We will overcome!


44.     Alex the skeptic says:


December 9, 2011 at 10:57 pm


Does this mean that Obama will be signing on the dotted line of this global-take-over-
by-the-UN proposed contract? Will the US president hand over the key of American
freedom to Mr. Ban ki Moon/Pachauri?
Ditto the leaders of the free world.


45.     Todd Peterson says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:13 pm


Thumper says: I started to giggle partway down the page and didn’t stop until I finished.
This is really to good to be true. This is so over the top it speaks for it self and the people
who wrote it. Lets hound the MSM to publish the report and Invite comment. The
writers at Durban have been wearing trenchcoats all these years. They just Flashed the
western public, showed us what they really are, and folks including most liberals will be
appalled. No liberal I Know is willing to give up anything significant or be inconvienced
to “save the earth.” Folks, I think this is a piece of really good news. They have Exposed
THEMSELVES and that’s the important part.


46.     Pete H says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:14 pm


Hey! They left the Good Lord alone and escorted the Greenpeace leader out of the
conference. Great result!
Even Black over at the BBC is running up the white flag with his “This was never about
getting an agreement but about setting a roadway to an agreement”. Makes me wonder
what they were doing in Copenhagen, Mexico etc!


In other words, “We ain’t got a snowballs chance in hell whilst China, India, Canada
(Bless you!) will not play ball”!


Meanwhile, the BBC TV news keeps the bias going!


47.     savethesharks says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:20 pm


*&^&@mitit* !!!


Time to light the torches.


Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA


48.     savethesharks says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:22 pm


Yes, indeed, the inmates are running the asylum….the foxes are overseeing the hen-
house.


Time indeed…to light the torches.


Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA


49.     petermue says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Nostradamus-TV
December 25, 2058
At their summit, the G3 countries (Liberia, Ghana and Mauritius) have decided to
cancel the debts of the EU.


/sarc?


50.      JPeden says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:24 pm


What, no talking-in-tongues little parasite trolls around to “labor” in defense of the
cream of Climate Science’s psychoderanged crop of Big Parasite Supremists? Maybe
they’ve gone on strike for more of their “fair share” of the booty that has been
imperialistically ripped off the backs of us evil capitalist producers and anyone else with
anything? Nah, probably it’s just a brilliant strategic silence. And they’re no doubt too
occupied by the multiple orgiastic fantasies presented above by Lord Monckton anyway
to even worry about whether he is a “Lord” or not. So far.


51.      crosspatch says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:25 pm


No wonder they are being low key. They don’t want us to see this coming until it has
already hit us.


52.      David A says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:27 pm


Anna Lemma says:
December 9, 2011 at 9:43 pm
“The March of Folly”. continues.
As to JD Smith’s question as to what we can do about this….the answer is, we need do
NOTHING, aide from continuing the good work here at WUWT and other “denialist”
[hah!] sites.”


We are the quire. Everyone has a local newspaper which sooner or later prints a neutral
to pro CAGW article. Using links point out the false lies and misrepresentations
common to all such articles, really we all need to do what we can to communicate more,
Until the world nations adopt a sane approach to inexpensive energy, our economy (the
worlds) has no chance. These people, if they got their way, even in their attempt, are
creating the seeds of war.


Liberal statist have specalized in dividing people, in making minorities feel like they are
owed, now they are trying to do the same thing to nations.


53.     Mac the Knife says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:32 pm


“The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between
humanity and nature”.
EGADS! What uttter dreck! That bitch Mother Nature has been trying two kill me since I
was 9 years old! By freezing, overheating, bacterial and fungal attacks, fang, claw, horn,
brute force, poison oak, poison ivy, food poisoning, tornado, lighting, cancer, and fogged
glasses in the middle of a challenging rapids, she has most determinedly tried to
repeatedly do me in! When does this ‘harmony’ crap start? Never! That’s why they call it
‘survival of the fittest’…..


54.     Steve C says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:34 pm


Thank you, Lord Monckton, for confirming pretty much everything I’d worked out for
myself. I have no intrinsic problem with the concept of ‘globalisation’ – who wouldn’t
want a world in which we sink our various national and international differences and try
just appreciating one anothers’ cultures without needing to slaughter one another? The
prospect of what these psychopaths are proposing under the same name, on the other
hand, which amounts to neither more nor less than worldwide fascism, should send a
chill down the spine of anyone who becomes aware of it.


For an overview of ‘the cause’, download a copy of Agenda 21 from the UN website –
there’s no need to go to any weirdie ‘conspiracy sites’ – and just read it. This crust of
unelected, self-serving parasites want nothing less than complete power for themselves
and complete obedience from the 1-in-14 of us who are permitted to survive. The
depopulation agenda is emphatically not the invention of conspiracy nuts, it is explicitly
stated by the self-appointed UN.


It becomes increasingly urgent for us all, in all countries, to find every possible way of
fighting this corruption. For sure the UN must go, as must the EU and every other body
which presumes to tell any national government what to do – the World Bank, the IMF,
all of them. Within our individual countries, we need to purge from public influence
every “quango”, every “lobbyist” and “adviser”, every “think-tank”, so that our
governments actually have to represent the interests of the people they govern.
All government should be carried out in the open so that anyone who’s interested can
see, and everyone can discuss and influence, what is being said or done by whom. No
more secret cabals meeting in ‘unofficial’ conclaves, or Rothschild mansions, or
anywhere else. A revolutionary concept maybe, but only the creatures feeding off the
rest of us now could find it objectionable.


I was a little sorry to see this very website finding it necessary to boot commenter ‘Stop
Common Purpose’ for excessive self-promotion – Common Purpose are a major
‘globalist’ cancer in the UK and they must, indeed, be stopped – but fear not, there’s
another fifth column to match in your own country, just like them.


As usual, the ancient Greeks had a word for it – let us pass over the fact that it is
implementation of ideas also going back to them which is causing the present situation.
(Read Plato’s Republic lately?) What we need, urgently, is aristocracy – which, by the
way, means rule by the best in society, not by Lord this, that or the other, or somebody
whose many times great-grandaddy helped some king wallop the peasants. What we are
heading for, if it is not stopped in its tracks, is universal kakistocracy. Yep. The very
opposite.
Douglas Adams was right on target when he wrote, in “The Restaurant at the End of the
Universe”, “it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are,
ipso facto, those least suited to do it.” There’s the problem. Let’s get fixing it.


55.     Fred 2 says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:40 pm


“commodification [whatever that may be] of the functions of nature, therefore no
carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.


vs.


“Worldwide cap-and-trade: The draft establishes a “new market-based
approach/mechanism … to promote the reduction or avoidance of greenhouse-gas
emissions”


I know I’m not at the intellectual level needed to comprehend this (thank goodness) but
how can the world both establish and forbid a carbon market? Of course, if any
organization can do this it’s the U.N.


56.     James Sexton says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:46 pm


Alex the skeptic says:
December 9, 2011 at 10:57 pm


Does this mean that Obama will be signing on the dotted line of this global-take-over-
by-the-UN proposed contract? Will the US president hand over the key of American
freedom to Mr. Ban ki Moon/Pachauri?
Ditto the leaders of the free world.
===================================================
Not a chance. Election is less than a year away.
57.     Tez says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:46 pm


At least the UN has now come out and stated what their policies are. They have now
been outed and there is no going back.
Their best resolution is that that everyone must stop spending on defence and stop
fighting wars and give the money that they save to the UN so they can fund the climate
change fight. That should make the UN fabulously rich and powerful. Its a brilliant get
rich quick scheme which surely must have had some Nigerian input.
I’ve got a better idea, close the UN and give the money saved back to those who have
been stumping up for this useless organisation.


58.     wayne says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:48 pm


Don’t take this lightly. Christopher’s right. It is no joke.
Someone is bound to declare war on these environmentalist crazies.
They are aiming to kill, but not themselves, oh no. They have UN ‘live’ tickets.
They are aiming at your country, your family, your children, love ones and friends.
This cancer has grown for decades and few can see it, few let themselves care.
The time has come to remove it.


But be so PC and so quiet now [imn]
Write your representatives, place strategic votes
and be sure to warn people who never visit here at wuwt.


59.     Al Gored says:


December 9, 2011 at 11:55 pm


I first read about this Islander Extortion Ploy in Crichton’s 2004 novel ‘State of Fear’
and have been watching it unfold since then. Amazing how well Crichton told this story
back then. And now here we are.
60.      Awestruck says:


December 10, 2011 at 12:00 am


“marsupial dicastery”. Magnificent.


61.      Richard111 says:


December 10, 2011 at 12:10 am


Lunacy! Total! When the West stops producing, all the money they handed over will be
spent in China. I suppose it’s now their turn to rule the world. All I can say is good luck
to all the peoples who signed up to that document. (world wars for food and land
permitting)


JPeden says:
December 9, 2011 at 11:24 pm


So Far. . . . . indeed! There will be repercusions.


62.      William says:


December 10, 2011 at 12:12 am


The alarmists’ fantasy paradigm amplified verges on madness. Billions of tax payer
dollars are requested to fund a world bureaucracy to transfer trillions of tax payer
dollars to corrupt third world companies and governments. A carbon monitoring
bureau, a biofuel world trading corporation, a carbon off set world trading bureau, and
so on.


A single example of this madness is the massive AWG driven program to convert food to
biofuels. The problem with biofuels is the amount of transportation energy required
would require roughly six times the total amount of the current agricultural land to
produce. Biofuel production requires significant fossil energy inputs. Agricultural
production itself produces significant greenhouse gases. The biofuel concept is part of a
fairytale. We live in the real world not in a fairytale.


Skepticism and scientific analysis is the foundation of the development of practical
environmental policy.


http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/bioenergy/NewsReleases/Biodiesel%20Energy%20Bala
nce_v2a.pdf


Vast amounts of agricultural land are being diverted from crops for human consumption
to biofuel The immediate consequence of this is a dramatic increase in the cost of basic
food such as a 140% increase in the price of corn. Due to limited amounts of agricultural
land vast regions of virgin forest are being cut down for biofuel production. The
problems associate with this practice will become acute as all major Western
governments have mandate a percentage of biofuel.


Analysis of the total energy input to produce ethanol from corn show that 29% more
fossil fuel input energy is require to produce one energy unit of ethanol. If the fuel input
to harvest the corn, to produce the fertilizer, and to boil the water off to distill
ethanol/water from 8% ethanol to 99.5% ethanol (three distillation processes) to
produce 99.5% ethanol for use in an automobile, produces more green house gas than is
produced than the production consumption of conventional gasoline. The cost of corn
based ethanol is more than five times the production cost of gasoline, excluding taxes
and subsides. Rather than subsiding the production of corn based ethanol the same
money can be used to preserve and increase rainforest. The loss of rainforest is the
largest cause of the increase in CO2.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html


The Clean Energy Scam
The U.S. quintupled its production of ethanol–ethyl alcohol, a fuel distilled from plant
matter–in the past decade, and Washington has just mandated another fivefold increase
in renewable fuels over the next decade. Europe has similarly aggressive biofuel
mandates and subsidies, and Brazil’s filling stations no longer even offer plain gasoline.
Worldwide investment in biofuels rose from $5 billion in 1995 to $38 billion in 2005
and is expected to top $100 billion by 2010, thanks to investors like Richard Branson
and George Soros, GE and BP, Ford and Shell, Cargill and the Carlyle Group.
But several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its
proponents intended: it’s dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the
planet in the name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out
to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, which
has been promoted by eco-activists and eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the
fuel of the future, looks less green than oil-derived gasoline.


Meanwhile, by diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks,
biofuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry. The grain it takes
to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. Harvests are being
plucked to fuel our cars instead of ourselves. The U.N.’s World Food Program says it
needs $500 million in additional funding and supplies, calling the rising costs for food
nothing less than a global emergency. Soaring corn prices have sparked tortilla riots in
Mexico City, and skyrocketing flour prices have destabilized Pakistan, which wasn’t
exactly tranquil when flour was affordable.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-
humanity/2403402


Biofuels ‘crime against humanity’
Massive production of biofuels is “a crime against humanity” because of its impact on
global food prices, a UN official has told German radio. “Producing biofuels today is a
crime against humanity,” UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told
Bayerischer Runfunk radio. Many observers have warned that using arable land to
produce crops for biofuels has reduced surfaces available to grow food. Mr Ziegler called
on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to change its policies on agricultural
subsidies and to stop supporting only programs aimed at debt reduction. He says
agriculture should also be subsidised in regions where it ensures the survival of local
populations. Meanwhile, in response to a call by the IMF and World Bank over the
weekend to a food crisis that is stoking violence and political instability, German
Foreign Minister Peer Steinbrueck gave his tacit backing.


Palm oil to diesel.
http://news.yahoo.com/prime-indonesian-jungle-cleared-palm-oil-065556710.html

Prime Indonesian jungle to be cleared for palm oil
Their former hero recently gave a palm oil company a permit to develop land in one of
the few places on earth where orangutans, tigers and bears still can be found living side-
by-side — violating Indonesia’s new moratorium on concessions in primary forests and
peatlands.


63.     Brian H says:


December 10, 2011 at 12:12 am


OK, we’ve all seen the JAXA IBUKI map.
http://pics.livejournal.com/johnosullivan/pic/0002dcxk/s640x480
The industrialized West is a net absorber; the UDN are net emitters.


Plug that into the nonsense from Durban and it all blows to smithereenies.


64.     common sense says:


December 10, 2011 at 12:18 am


Golly, how time flys…It is the 1st April already!!!


65.     AntonyIndia says:


December 10, 2011 at 12:21 am


The Green leftists in the EU bureaucracy want to give China a “carte blanche” (or noir) /
free pass to pollute to their hearts content, additionally subsidized by Western tax
money.
Chinese capitalism = good, Western capitalism = bad.
The self hate of these people!


66.     jason lawrie says:


December 10, 2011 at 12:25 am
The good lord has brought me the best news for a long time. That all of these demands
have been written in clear simple language, and not hidden away in some appendix,
shows that the lunatics are out for all to see.
Sadly, I expect there is one person who will sign up to this sick joke, and that would be
me, courtesy of my Australian prime-minister!


67.     Beth Cooper says:


December 10, 2011 at 12:40 am


The long battle between parliamentary democracy and the forces of fascism continues.
And the centralists and the faceless bureaucrats of the U.N, ( stands for UNelected,) who
dare to call themselves ‘Liberal,’ push their ad hoc working groups and turgidly worded
policies to dupe and control nations. ‘Ad hoc’ and ‘clandestine’ are the favoured modus
operandi.


68.     Nik says:


December 10, 2011 at 12:46 am


I feel so commodified, it’s unreal!


69.     Chris says:


December 10, 2011 at 12:48 am


It is, unfortunately a fact, that third world countries who would most benefit from this
unbelievable nonsense now are a majority in the UN and enthusiastically support any
proposal to hand over western cash.
The UN, long ago ceased to have any useful function. Time to close it down as was the
League of Nations, its predecessor. Western nations just stopped paying their dues It
would soon collapse.


70.     Larry in Texas says:
December 10, 2011 at 12:57 am


This is about as laughable as the Kellogg-Briand treaty in the late 20s or early 30s. So I
don’t put a whole lot of stock in it, because I don’t think it will do as much as some fear
here. I’m actually hoping when Gingrich gets elected that not only does he appoint
Bolton as Secretary of State, but also that he tells the UN this nonsense “world
government” stuff they are proposing must cease immediately, or the US will stop
funding the UN altogether, and kick them out of New York.


71.     Bart says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:02 am


Mac the Knife says:
December 9, 2011 at 11:32 pm


“That bitch Mother Nature has been trying [to] kill me since I was 9 years old!”


Too true, Mac. It’s either religion or Stockholm Syndrome, but a lot of people have some
very weird and delusional ideas about that termagant’s beneficence.


72.     Laurie says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:07 am


“No taxation without representation.” The fact is, when the bill gets too high and the
product isn’t wanted, compliance goes away. Our tax dollars are a powerful tool. We can
fork it over, or not. We recognize the consequences for non-compliance, which is illegal.
Do we recognize the consequences if we are compliant?


73.     Atomic Hairdryer says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:14 am


Naturally the BBC is reporting this draft in it’s usual balanced fashion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16124670


“Agreement on new measures to combat global warming appears within reach at the UN
climate talks in South Africa.


Draft documents issued overnight appear to address the concerns of all parties.”


Other than any parties such as we taxpayers who think this is completely bonkers.


74.     Tucci78 says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:15 am


Barring mention of our Kenyan Keynesian (who should not be discussed in this forum
without the words “felony” and “forgery” and “fraud” used in the same sentence), the
only candidates entering the U.S. presidential election process who is a committed and
repeatedly self-admitted skeptic anent the anthropogenic global warming scam is, of
course, Dr. Ron Paul.


The MSM-anointed “frontrunner” on the Republican Party side is Mitt “the
Massachusetts Medical Marxist” Romney, while the current flavor-of-the-week in the
polls is Newt “Spine? I don’ need no steenking spine!” Gingrich, both of whom are
warmistas to the bottoms of their flabby little hearts.


Anybody else out there understand how and why that “unelectable” old obstetrician is
actually the only genuinely electable candidate in the Red Faction race?


Moreover, with Dr. Paul sitting behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office starting in
2013 instead of either our Mombasa Messiah or any of the nominally Republican clowns
lurching around from Iowa to New Hampshire, the Durban Diddle dies the death.


Instantly, completely, and irrevocably.


75.     Nick says:
December 10, 2011 at 1:18 am


If anybody scoffs at the goals of these “climate totalitarians”? Just examine the
agreement Europe has reached to surrender sovereignty to the European parliament.


It wont take long for these loonies to realise they may be able to exploit the European
bureaucracy to achieve their ends.


76.     ozspeaksup says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:23 am


Senator Christine Milne was on aussie abc radio today bemoaning the fact we aussies
who have such a world leading TAX on C02 about to ruin whats left of our industry,
should be at the top of the line to sign our lives away to the UN…what can i say?
they DO walk amongst us, some (too many) actually manage to get into positions where
they can cause REAL Damage.


77.     Adam Gallon says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:31 am


I wonder what real climate scientists think, now they can clearly see what their work is
being used for?


78.     richard verney says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:33 am


Thank you for posting this.


I started reading reading it but if the proposal under consideration is as you have
outlined under the main points it is so stupid that I found myself unable to read further.
How could any sentient person be so stupid? Is this the level of inteligence possessed by
our political elite? Do they really consider that if Joe Public were informed as to the
contents of this ‘draft agreement’ they would wish our politcal leaders to bind us to it?
Simply put has the world gone completely mad?


THis would be even worse that the present economic problems presently being
experienced by the West. We are very lucky that the West is experiencing these severe
economic problems luckily coinciding with what now appers to be a prolonged cooling
period. It is only these combined factors which will save us from this madness.


PS. If Chris Hume is ever charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice (or
some such similar charge), he will be able to rely upon insanity as a defence. He need
only show a jury that he was promoting such a draft agreement and fully supported and
agreed to its provisions, and I am in no doubt that 12 good men and women would have
no hesittaion in finding him insane.


God help us from our political elite,


PPS “commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary and does not
deserve to be]” Does this expression derive from comity?


79.     Don R says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:47 am


“Surely no western country will sign up to this lunacy!”
Watch Huhne, Britain’s Minister, grasp his moment in the limelight.


80.     Vince Causey says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:49 am


None of this will ever happen – they trotted out the same crap at Copehnhagen, but the
West never signed up.


And even if they did sign up, the West is de facto, bankrupt.
And even if they borrowed more money (from who – the Chinese?) it would be
impossible to acheive without destroying their economies entirely.


They might as well be mandating that the West build a Star Ship with Warp Drive
capability by 2050. Really, it’s as daft as that.


81.     BargHumer says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:51 am


I don’t wish to cast doubt on what Lord M, has said here, but what is coming out of the
reports from Durman with the MSM looks quite different. Of course the MSM is so
biased that they cannot be trusted, especially on this matter, but still, the mismatch
must be saying something that we are missing.


82.     Aussie says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:58 am


This is so crazy that it is hard to believe that these people are on the level… except…
from the first time I heard about the Green Party, I have always believed that they were
Communists in disguise. This whole agenda of alleged Globull Warming, the attempt to
bring all Western Governments under the control of the UN reeks of Communism. It is
very much like 1984 being put into practice.


In the year 1984 the MSM was full of how Orwell’s novel had not come to fruition. Yet,
they are the ones who have foolishly missed all of the warning signs that are in that
novel. They failed to comprehend the message.


The watermelons love to try and bamboozle with their special “knowledge”, yet they fail
on some of the basics in science that most of us who are non-scientists understand.
Things like photosynthesis are totally ignored by them. Instead they talk in riddles about
greenhouse gases as they proclaim the air that we breathe is dangerous. They also fail to
understand the importance of history. It is their failure with regard to history that is
slowly doing them in.
It seems to me that we Aussies are in a worse position because we do not seem to have
the protections to stop the madmen that form our illegitimate government from signing
on the dotted line of any agreement that gets passed at Durban. The truth is that the
fools who went to Durban are so far up themselves that they will commit Australia to
something which will be our destruction in the future. We have a political system that
has not protected us from the minority party watermelons, and since they have managed
a power sharing arrangement they are making the most of their opportunities, despite
the fact that a majority of Australians do not agree with their Marxist ideology.


Why on earth should we have to give money to nations that have been wasting their
resources over the past several decades? Why should we support countries where the
dictators are keeping all of their money whilst the community remains impoverished?
Let the rulers of those nations sort it out, and leave us out of the equation.


83.     Gareth Phillips says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:00 am


“Their plans to establish a world government paid for by the West”
It’s this sort of barking right wing conspiracy nonsense that undermines Moncktons
valid points on climate science and politics.


84.     Allan M says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:15 am


“commodification [whatever that may be] of the functions of nature”


I suspect that they regard the world as their commode.


85.     crosspatch says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:23 am
What we are seeing here is “government health care” for the planet. When a government
takes over health care and your doctor bills become matters of the national budget, the
government begins to create regulations that reduce their expenditure. Basically they
begin to control nearly every aspect of your life. No latex balloons at parties because a
child might be allergic, have a reaction, and that will cost the government money. You
can’t use a ladder to paint your house because you might fall off and cost the
government money so you must have a scaffold built that meets regulations. Oh, and
those playground toys are right out, they must be passed with those that meet
regulations so there is no possible way a kid could get hurt and cost the government
money.


Now we have climate change which is basically planetary health care. Here we create the
notion that carbon is a poison of some sort when it is actually food. We can’t do things
that increase carbon production in the atmosphere because if you do, that is going to
cost you. So now they pass regulations that say what sort of light bulbs you may use.


What this is about is a centrally managed economy on a global scale. We need to get rid
of these people. And I agree, it is time for severe ridicule for the discredited IPCC, the
discredited CRU, and the discredited GISS.


This is about creating fear and then using that fear to manage things.


What is the WORST that could happen? The worst that could happen would be a return
of climate to that which we saw in the Pliocene. Yes, there would be some sea level rise.
Probably a lot of it. But once past that we would see milder climate, better growing
conditions, increased food production, greater biodiversity, a reversion of polar bears
back to brown bears, forests reaching the Arctic Ocean, and likely an explosion of new
species and increased ocean life. We might see us extracted from this ice age we have
been in since the late Pliocene climate transition. Adaptation would be quite easy: just
keep living as we are now. We would not require any special adaptation techniques, we
are already quite well adapted to that climate regime. It is cold that requires adaptation
and if we could forestall a glacial period, we are all so much the better off for it.


86.    crosspatch says:
December 10, 2011 at 2:27 am


“Global Warming” and a return to Pliocene conditions would mean a greening of the
Sahara, and reduction of deserts globally, likely the refilling of Lake Lahontan and Lake
Bonneville and a greening of the Great Basin. It would mean Greenland would be
productive, Canada much more so than it is today, Same with Scandinavia and much of
Siberia. Mongolia would bloom, the Gobi would green. I don’t think it would be all that
bad of a place to live.


87.     Ian W says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:29 am


Keith W. says:
December 9, 2011 at 8:06 pm
“Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.” Any Western nation who signs
this must be mad, so they would be out to destroy themselves.


The UK Representative Huhne – is almost certainly itching to sign such a document. He
has already ‘given’ £1 Billion of UK money to ‘poorer nations fighting climate change’.
The US delegation almost certainly has an unelected Czar or someone from the EPA who
is just as keen to sign away the US rights. Protecting the Constitution has not bothered
anyone in the US federal government or agencies for several years – it is a constraint on
their ‘power’. You have to remember that an International Treaty takes precedence over
all US laws. Does anyone have 100% certainty that the current Administration would
not sign away the US independence?


88.     markus says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:30 am


Commoditization (also called commodification) occurs as a goods or services market
loses differentiation across its supply base, often by the diffusion of the intellectual
capital necessary to acquire or produce it efficiently. As such, goods that formerly
carried premium margins for market participants have become commodities, such as
generic pharmaceuticals and silicon chips.


89.     Nick de Cusa says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:44 am


A colleague of the IPCC’s Van Ypersele at UCL (Université Catholique de Louvain) has
had it and has decided to go public :
http://www.contrepoints.org/2011/12/10/59762-echec-du-sommet-climatique-de-
durban-interview-exclusive-du-chimiste-istvan-marko/comment-page-1#comment-
64000


90.     Shona says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:45 am


“crosspatch says:
December 9, 2011 at 9:39 pm


Every fashionable leftist idiocy is catered for.


That’s about the size of it. Oh, and a portion of the posting gets repeated at the end for
some reason. Our Congress is in no mood to agree to such a thing unless Obama figures
out a way to bind us to it without Congressional approval, it’s dead on arrival in the US.”


I disagre with this, it’s not their Apple tablet/clean motorbike that’s bad, it’s your creaky
PC, scooter that is. And especially the unwashed lumpen masses’ flatscreen TV that is.


The motorbike/scooter thing is a real incident. I’m thinking of getting a scooter because
public transport in my city has become so expensive and unreliable (I need it for my job,
I spend often 3 hours a day travelling round my city for my job), and dicussing this with
a friend who rides a motorbike, he went off onto the fact that scooters pollute and all
scooters should be electric. I kid you not. My motorbike = good. Your scooter =bad.
But I cleaned his pipe regarding wind power killing all those birds and bats lol.


91.     Pete H says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:46 am


The U.N.! A wonderful example of a totally useless waste of time. Lets look at an
example seeing as they have banned war! I know my post is not strictly Climate
Warming related but I hope Anthony will allow my thoughts on the U.N.


I will use for an example Cyprus as it concerns where I live. The U.N. arrived in Cyprus
in the 60′s to keep apart the Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Forget the cause of the grief.
The U.N. were supposed to prevent fighting and arrive at a peaceful conclusion. They
stayed around, soaking up the sun until the mainland Turkish invaded the island in
1973. The U.N. declared the invasion illegal and told Turkey to withdraw. Result? The
island is divided and the Turkish stuck two fingers up at the U.N. who still ride round in
nice cars soaking up the sun! 50 years of waste and no solution and the Turkish
maintain thousands of troops on the North side of the divide!


Now we have a two pronged attack on a sovereign government. The U.N. IPCC with its
undemocratic attempt to enforce eco lunatic rules/laws and the EEC doing the same
thing by forcing those ruddy windmills on the Cypriot government, under the threat of
fines should they not be installed. This island is not known for being windy but some
huge gas finds offshore give me hope that they will soon stick two fingers up to both the
E.U. and the U.N.!


Add to the above U.N. peacekeepers in Rwanda who were ordered to stand by as Hutu
slaughtered some 800,000 Tutsi. Bosnia, the U.N. declared safe areas for Muslims but
did nothing to secure them, letting the Serbs slaughter thousands in Srebrenica.
Remember Annan’s comical negotiations with Saddam Hussein. In 1998, Annan
undertook shuttle diplomacy to Baghdad, reached a deal with Saddam to continue
weapons inspections, and declared him “a man I can do business with” and we are
expected the to be allowed to become a world government? Insane!
I often wonder why the people of the USA continue to allow this morally bankrupt
organisation to base itself on their land when they are so anti USA!


92.     George Tetley says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:46 am


To close this circus down, next years conference is not, I repeat not, in the Maldives, but
Ulan Bartor in February (minus 40 C )


93.     Roger Carr says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:48 am


Mac the Knife says: “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to
ensure harmony between humanity and nature”.
EGADS! What uttter dreck! That bitch Mother Nature has been trying too kill me since
I was 9 years old!


Totally brilliant comment, Mac!


94.     UK Sceptic says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:53 am


…not just off the wall – they are lunatic.


Which is why foaming at the mouth warmist and UK’s Minister for Energy and Climate
Change, Chris Huhne, will quite possibly elbow people out of the way to sign up for it.


Not that anyone will notice of course. The UK media is currently fixated on oh so brave
Cameron playing fantasy Europolitics and vetoing a fantasy treaty so he can look good at
home in the hope that people will finally begin to believe he really is the heir to Margaret
Thatcher (yeah, right) rather than the devil’s spawn of Edward Heath.
We live in incredulous times.


95.     Smokey says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:54 am


George,

Well, at least it isn’t -40°F.☺


96.     Roger Carr says:


December 10, 2011 at 3:03 am


And it was not Mac who wrote: “trying too kill”
Sorry for that extra “o”, pal.


97.     Gary Mount says:


December 10, 2011 at 3:04 am


BargHumer says:
December 10, 2011 at 1:51 am
I don’t wish to cast doubt on what Lord M, has said here, but what is coming out of the
reports from Durman with the MSM looks quite different. Of course the MSM is so
biased that they cannot be trusted, especially on this matter, but still, the mismatch
must be saying something that we are missing.


Directly on the UNFCCC website you can download and read the document for your self.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp38.pdf


98.     Gary Mount says:


December 10, 2011 at 3:07 am
MOD: is blockquote html tag not working?


[Reply: You can use the Test page to find out. ~dbs, mod.]


99.     David L says:


December 10, 2011 at 3:09 am


My initial gut reaction was this is so ridiculous, so insane, that it has zero chance of even
partially taking root. Being an aficianado of history, I then got the sinking feeling that
this is precisely the kind of thing that takes hold.


Dictators throughout history have shown countless times it only takes one individual,
with a small clutch of supporters, to dominate the world win some way with lunacy
either directly or indirectly. The masses don’t have to agree with this: only a few key
individuals.


100.    John West says:


December 10, 2011 at 3:10 am


BargHumer says:
“I don’t wish to cast doubt on what Lord M, has said here, but what is coming out of
the reports from Durman with the MSM looks quite different. Of course the MSM is so
biased that they cannot be trusted, especially on this matter, but still, the mismatch
must be saying something that we are missing.”
What we are missing is a MSM with integrity. Lord Monckton provided a link:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp38.pdf
and just to be sure it’s legit, if you just put: http://unfccc.int into the address bar, you’ll
land at the UNFCCC main page, so that is indeed a UNFCCC document.
The document itself has two dates:
In the header: “7 December 2011″
And the title:
“Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action
under the Convention
Fourteenth session, part four
Durban, 29 November 2011 – *” [Note the asterisk]
“Update of the amalgamation of draft texts in preparation of a
comprehensive and balanced outcome to be presented to the
Conference of the Parties for adoption at its seventeenth
session”
[Asterisk below]
“* The fourth part of the session will be held in conjunction with the seventeenth session
of the
Conference of the Parties. The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action
under the Convention will present the results of its work to the COP for consideration as
per decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 143. The closing date of the session of the AWG-LCA
will be determined in Durban.”


So, what we’re looking at is indeed as Lord Monckton presented the 12/7/11 update of a
11/29/11 DRAFT document of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative
Action.


101.    Smokey says:


December 10, 2011 at 3:19 am


Pete H,


Thanks for that fine account of history. I remember when the Turks had enough of the
Greek generals and simply went in and took half of Cyprus. The UN as usual was
impotent. But they’re getting less impotent because of the $billions we shovel into their
anti-American, anti-West pockets every year.


There is no plausible reason to fund the UN. Every country is fully capable of making
agreements and treaties with other countries without UN interference. The UN has
morphed into a vile self-serving kleptocracy that dreams of heading a one world
government. What is frightening is that some people actually believe that would be a
good thing! In reality, it would be a global-scale EU; an unaccountable, opaque, self-
appointed bureaucracy issuing endless regulations, and we citizens would have no vote
in the process. A truly terrifying prospect.


102.    johanna says:


December 10, 2011 at 3:48 am


Hey, Chris, as we say in Australia, why don’t you tell us what you really think! ; )


Of course, these are ambit claims, and no-one involved seriously believes that they will
be delivered. But, the scope of ambit claims tells us something about what might be
delivered. For example, the option ‘nothing’ is not on the table.


1500 journalists, and yet the coverage has been minimal, and certainly not as
comprehensive as one blog post by C. Monckton. Their editors must be unaware that
their industry is facing extinction. Apart from rah rah stuff about how the planet is being
saved, or boo hoo stuff about how the planet is being stuffed, I haven’t seen one decent
article about what is happening in the MSM. If there have been any, I would appreciate
links.


I particularly love the references to reducing CO2 emissions by more than 100%. What a
hoot! If anyone can provide references about that Alice in Wonderland concept, I would
be grateful.


103.    Levick says:


December 10, 2011 at 4:16 am


I started reading the full PDF last night, thinking it might have the effect of making me
sleepy. I was so disturbed by the lunacy, I ended up not sleeping until 3:30 EST. My
government (Canada) has thus far taken some pretty bold steps at calling out this
stupidity and trust that Minister Kent resists this wholeheartedly.


104.    DirkH says:
December 10, 2011 at 4:24 am


http://climate-change-theory.com says:
December 9, 2011 at 9:17 pm
“(2) Oxygen and nitrogen molecules acquire thermal energy partly by absorbing some
incident radiation, but mostly by collision with a warmer surface. As they rise by
convection they will mix with cooler air containing some cooler GHG molecules to which
they can transfer thermal energy by collision processes. Oxygen and nitrogen cannot
cool themselves by radiating IR at atmospheric temperatures. Only GHG molecules can
do so. Hence the GHG molecules (while some of them are temporarily in unexcited
states) will collect energy from several O2 and N2 molecules until they are sufficiently
energised to radiate it out of the atmosphere, some to space, some to Earth. Thus carbon
dioxide can also have a cooling effect (as it removes thermal energy from oxygen and
nitrogen) which could very well neutralise its warming effect.”


Absorption and emission of IR by GHG molecules should exactly cancel out according to
Kirchhoff’s Law, as long as the gas is in local thermal equilibrium. Thus, CO2 is an IR
redistributor, not a net absorber or net emitter, and the term “heat-trapping gases” often
used by IPCC scientists is political propaganda. (Before any warmist protests that only
journalists use the term, don’t try, there’s ample proof that prominent climate
“scientists” spout it like there’s no tomorrow)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/


105.    TomO says:


December 10, 2011 at 4:38 am


The ticks are deeply embedded and it really is going to be quite messy digging them out.


Even more to cheer you up…..
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/12/06/more-u-n-insanity-paid-for-by-u-s-
taxpayers/


106.    jollygreenwatchman says:
December 10, 2011 at 4:40 am


Hmmmm, seems to me that these totalitarian minded traitors to democracy and
humanity (and betrayers of everything honest and decent) should be given a reason to
fear flying back to their home countries after their public funded jaunt to party town
Durban. They need to know that they will be met with noisy sign waving megaphone
weilding protesters. Signs that declare the returnees to be traitors, etc. Make sure the
media are there for it all, too.


If only they could be refused entry back into their respective countries, eh ?


107.    Stephen Skinnner says:


December 10, 2011 at 4:52 am


“War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease because they
contribute to climate change.”


The AK-47 has become the world’s most prolific and effective combat weapon, a device
so cheap and simple that it can be bought in many countries for less than the cost of a
live chicken. Depicted on the flag and currency of several countries, waved by guerrillas
and rebels everywhere, the AK is responsible for about a quarter-million deaths every
year. It is the firearm of choice for at least 50 legitimate standing armies and countless
fighting forces from Africa and the Middle East to Central America and Los Angeles. It
has become a cultural icon, its signature form — that banana-shaped magazine —
defining in our consciousness the contours of a deadly weapon.
Number built approximately 75 million AK-47; 100 million AK-type rifles


Countries that produce and use the AK47 (past and present):
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bangladesh, Benin, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic,
Chad, Chile, Comoros, Congo-Brazzaville, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Egypt, Namibia, East Germany, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea-
Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya [Anti-
Gaddafi forces], Macedonia, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Morocco, Mongolia,
Mozambique, North Korea, Palestinian Authority, Pakistan, People’s Republic of China,
Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Sahrawi Arab
Democratic Republic, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Soviet Union, Sri Lanka,
Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Turkey, Vietnam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


108.    Taxpayer says:


December 10, 2011 at 4:52 am


The parasites are always with you.


109.    Steve from Rockwood says:


December 10, 2011 at 4:54 am


Should point out that the U.S. is the largest financial contributor to the UN and that
Durban also has enacted a Green Climate Fund that hopes to raise $100 billion by 2020
– mostly from the rich Americans.


110.    Alex says:


December 10, 2011 at 5:00 am


No no it’s out of context, just wait realclimate will explain it. /sarc


111.    Bob says:


December 10, 2011 at 5:09 am


Why are you folks so certain that the US won’t sign on to this? Look at what the Obama
administration is doing to the US energy infrastructure and use without such a treaty.
Those bozo’s would gladly sign on to something like this.


112.    kcrucible says:
December 10, 2011 at 5:21 am


“Is this really what the folks at RealClimate et al want? A totalitarian one world
government? Is this what Phil Jones wants? All the climategate players? They want this?
Seriously, is it?”


So long as they get to be the high priests of the totalitarian government, yes, I think it is.
It’s good to be the king. It’s even better to be the Pope.


113.    kcrucible says:


December 10, 2011 at 5:28 am


“Why are you folks so certain that the US won’t sign on to this? Look at what the Obama
administration is doing to the US energy infrastructure and use without such a treaty.
Those bozo’s would gladly sign on to something like this.”


Oh, Obama might sign the paper, but according to the US constitution no treaty is valid
until the Senate ratifies it by a 2/3 majority. You see how hard it is to get the Senate to
get to a 2/3 majority on less critical issues? It will never happen… the American people
value our independance too much currently. Even some leftists in the Senate that might
LIKE to do it wouldn’t vote for it due to a desire to keep their jobs, since it would be at
odds with the desires of their constituancy. This could only happen if the bulk of the
American public actually thought it was a good idea, hence all of the PR… “science is
settled” BS.


http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm


114.    Otter says:


December 10, 2011 at 5:28 am


From Tom Nelson’s page: Apparently someone named fiona harvey, Twitters that a
‘fake’ document is being circulated, to try and sabotage the talks. I have to wonder if this
is what she is referring to.
Twitter seems to be popular at that meeting. I guess it attracts a lot of Twits. (apologies
to those Decent people who ue it).


115.    Kelvin Vaughan says:


December 10, 2011 at 5:50 am


Fools rush in. What happens if they go ahead and temperatures start to drop
dramatically and crops fail. Shouldn’t they have back up plans in case by some chance,
altough unbelievable as it seems to them, THEY ARE WRONG!


116.    Curiousgeorge says:


December 10, 2011 at 5:51 am


@ DR says:
December 9, 2011 at 10:18 pm


Is this really what the folks at RealClimate et al want? A totalitarian one world
government?


Is this what Phil Jones wants? All the climategate players? They want this?


Seriously, is it?
======================================================


Short answer? YES!


Don’t waste your time trying to figure out why. Just be prepared to stop them.


117.    mrsean2k says:


December 10, 2011 at 6:08 am


Hmmm.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/10/durban-climate-talks-false-
text?newsfeed=true


Are we sure Lord M. isn’t responding to this?


@BargHumer’s caution might be well founded.


118.    William says:


December 10, 2011 at 6:09 am


It is quite amazing that the fanatic AGW believers do not have a basic understanding of
the facts concerning this issues. The madness of converting food to biofuels is one
example. A second example is leveling the stupidity playing field.


Western Countries must compete with so called developing countries China and India
for jobs. As most are aware hundreds of thousands of jobs have moved to Asia. The
“green” subsides and green boondoggles are only applied to Western Countries. The
carbon trading, carbon offsets, carbon taxes, carbon sequestration, conversion of food to
biofuel, will not substantially reduce the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it
will destroy any possibility of economic growth. Western governments do not have
surplus funds to send on boondoggles.


The Chinese have worked out the cost of the green boondoggle programs. They will not
accept legal binding agreements to follow Western Countries as we march off a cliff to
economic ruin.


The following is the current estimated carbon dioxide emission by country and by
geographic region in percentage of total world emissions. Also included below is the
percentage change (comparing 2008 to 2010) of carbon dioxide emission for the
country in question and the geographic region.


The largest emitter of carbon dioxide is China. China currently emits 25% of the world
total, 50% more than the US. China’s carbon dioxide emissions are projected to
significantly increase in the future, as China is putting one new large coal fired power
plant into service every week. The yearly growth of electrical production in China is
sufficient to power five cities the size of New York.


Attached below is an article and a link to a presentation by Richard Muller that presents
the projected yearly increase in carbon dioxide emissions for the world based on the
current observed changes in carbon dioxide emissions and theoretical changes in
emissions based on last year’s Copenhagen meeting.


Source of data used to produce the table below.


http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2_emis/Preliminary_CO2_emissions_2010.xlsx


Projected emissions based on the Copenhagen proposed agreement.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588673072577680.ht
ml


2008 to 2010
% Change___% of Total World
-3.2% 16.4% US
-4.7% 1.5% Canada
-2.0% 1.4% Mexico
-3.2% 19.3%Total North America


2008 to 2010
% Change___% of Total World
-1.3% 0.6% Argentina
6.7% 1.3% Brazil
-6.4% 0.2% Chile
11.3% 0.2% Colombia


9.1% 0.1% Ecuador
13.3% 0.1% Peru
0.2% 0.1% Trinidad and Tobago
3.2% 0.5% Venezuela
-2.1% 0.5% Other S. & Cent. America
3.1% 3.6% Total S. & Cent. America


2008 to 2010
% Change___% of Total World
-6.5% 0.2% Austria
-14.8% 0.1% Azerbaijan
-6.4% 0.2% Belarus
-2.8% 0.3% Belgium & Luxembourg
-18.2% 0.1% Bulgaria
-6.4% 0.3% Czech Republic
-4.9% 0.1% Denmark
12.1% 0.2% Finland
-3.8% 1.1% France
-3.1% 2.3% Germany
-6.8% 0.3% Greece
-8.6% 0.1% Hungary
-6.3% 0.1% Republic of Ireland
-8.3% 1.2% Italy
1.3% 0.7% Kazakhstan
-8.1% 0.0% Lithuania
4.0% 0.5% Netherlands
1.4% 0.2% Norway
-1.9% 0.9% Poland
-1.4% 0.2% Portugal
-17.2% 0.2% Romania
-1.2% 5.0% Russian Federation
-16.0% 0.1% Slovakia
-16.6% 0.8% Spain
-2.1% 0.1% Sweden
-3.4% 0.1% Switzerland
4.0% 0.9% Turkey
8.6% 0.2% Turkmenistan
-13.5% 0.8% Ukraine
-5.7% 1.5% United Kingdom
-5.2% 0.4% Uzbekistan
-6.7% 0.6% Other Europe & Eurasia
-4.2% 20.0% Total Europe & Eurasia


2008 to 2010
% Change___% of Total World
6.7% 1.7% Iran
-2.3% 0.2% Israel
9.6% 0.3% Kuwait
9.4% 0.2% Qatar
13.9% 1.5% Saudi Arabia
3.9% 0.5% United Arab Emirates
11.6% 1.0% Other Middle East
9.1% 5.4% Total Middle East


7.3% 0.4% Algeria
10.9% 0.7% Egypt
3.7% 1.3% South Africa
1.8% 1.2% Other Africa
4.7% 3.6% Total Africa


2008 to 2010
% Change___% of Total World
-8.4% 1.1% Australia
8.0% 0.1% Bangladesh
17.2% 24.6% China
0.4% 0.1% China Hong Kong SAR
18.8% 6.2% India
17.4% 1.4% Indonesia
-5.8% 3.4% Japan
-4.2% 0.6% Malaysia
-11.8% 0.1% New Zealand
2.5% 0.5% Pakistan
8.1% 0.3% Philippines
10.8% 0.1% Singapore
10.6% 1.7% South Korea
2.4% 0.8% Taiwan
4.7% 0.9% Thailand
25.9% 0.5% Vietnam
-2.1% 0.4% Other Asia Pacific
12.7% 42.8%Total Asia Pacific


2008 to 2010
% Change___% of Total World
4.4% 94.6% sum of above
4.5% 100.0%TOTAL WORLD


119.    R. Gates says:


December 10, 2011 at 6:24 am


Lord Monckton said:
” A new global temperature target will aim, Canute-like, to limit “global warming” to as
little as 1 C° above pre-industrial levels. Since temperature is already 3 C° above those
levels, what is in effect being proposed is a 2 C° cut in today’s temperatures. This would
take us halfway back towards the last Ice Age, and would kill hundreds of millions.
Colder is far more dangerous than warmer.”
———-
We are not 3C above pre-industrial levels. Even if you want to really cherry-pick the data
and take the lowest of the proxy data at the very bottom of the LIA to the warmest recent
year we might have had a 1.5C increase, but this would be at the very most and with
extreme cherry-picking of the data. The consensus is that we are about 0.8C above
average pre-industrial global temperature levels.


120.    Blade says:


December 10, 2011 at 6:35 am


First of all, thank you Christopher for an excellent report from the scene. No-one could
have done a better job, and few would have parachuted in (literally). Our UK brothers
have a national treasure in you and of that fact I am jealous! Right about now cowardly
trolls would normally be showing up to snipe at you from afar. Some would also go on
about skeptics and ‘conspiracy theories’ even though these always originate from the
kook left (Oswald, 9/11, etc). Fewer will be heard from though because the fruits of their
actions cheering the AGW madness is becoming clearer.


The UN bureaucrats have gone all in now, this is Agenda 21. What they were missing
earlier on was a mechanism to fold it into, and they found one – Climatology. It is
brilliant really. Perhaps they are whistling past the graveyard though, and are going ‘all
in’ as a last desperate act. That point of view has some merit. However, even here in the
USA, a land that contains free people that are quite naturally repulsed by outside
interference, we have to remain vigilant. The way these things get done (think
Communist 5 or 10 year plans) is in the long term.


The UN must be thought of as an enemy with a 50 or even a 100 year plan. It drafts a
treaty containing sordid ideas as we see in Monckton’s report, then they get 90% of the
countries to sign on (with no opt-out). Then they go to work. They browbeat the
remaining countries over the course of several decades and wear them down. They wait.
Eventually they get a fellow traveler in a position of ‘power’, drum up some phony
opinion polls and presto – it is achieved.


In the USA many of us wish for the conflict that some people fear. Keywords: Freedom,
Independence, National Sovereignty, 2nd Amendment, ‘whites of their eyes’. We feel it
is inevitable. The thought process is that it would be better now (while we’re alive to
help out) rather than leave it to our grandchildren. I guess you could say that more than
a few people here hope President Dumbo tries something this brazen. Or we could
postpone it, kick the can down the road. I’m not sure that is a good idea.


Even though there is rotten cabal actually going through the motions in Durban, the real
blame for their actions (quasi-democratic totalitarian global government) belongs to
each of us that ever helped to elect a brain-dead progressive to any office including dog
catcher. Green, Liberal, Progressive, Socialist (whatever colloquial derivation suits you),
none should ever be elected and placed into a position of power, ever. Regardless of how
many sad stories they tell, or how much they bribe you (with your own damn money!).
They have no national or even ethnic loyalty, and certainly no loyalty to freedom and
independence. They have a common God – and his name is government. To elect these
traitors anywhere is to seal your own doom, even if it takes them a long time. Vote out
every socialist that you can. period. That is the only logical thing to do.
A previous commenter mentioned Kellogg-Briand Pact. This is a good parallel, pie-in-
the-sky post-WWI lunacy that many of us learned about direct from our parents and
grandparents. The US Army and Navy outfitted with wooden rifles and military
advancement stalled (frozen) for over a decade which made for total unpreparedness for
WWII. It actually happened, even after a bloody WWI and even after the USA said *no*
to the League of Nations. It is a fine example of what a group of crackpots can achieve
even with the wind at their face. We must be eternally vigilant and we must also be pro-
active.


US out of the UN.
UN out of the US.


Other folks feel free to insert their country in there as well.


121.    jimbojinx says:


December 10, 2011 at 6:52 am


“UN Calls For Eco-fascist World Government At Durban Summit ” !!!


Drudge headline with over 30 million hits per day !


“Bureaucrats at the UN Climate Summit in Durban have outlined plans for the most
draconian, harebrained and madcap climate change treaty ever produced, under which
the west would be mandated to respect “the rights of Mother Earth” by paying a “climate
debt” which would act as a slush fund for bankrolling an all-powerful world
government……….”.


What the MSM suppresses, Drudge picks up!


http://www.drudgereport.com/
.


122.    David says:
December 10, 2011 at 6:55 am


It’s a pity Lord Monckton doesn’t give page and para references for his various ‘plain
english’ summaries. On a quick skim through the 138-page document I can find very
little of what he describes (e.g. references to ending war and the rights of ‘Mother
Earth’). Have I overlooked them in my quick skim (which is entirely possible)? Or are
they in a different document (maybe the ‘small print’ he refers to?)


123.    Steve in SC says:


December 10, 2011 at 6:55 am


For those declaring and end to war, it sounds like a declaration of war to me.


124.    DirkH says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:00 am


Bob says:
December 10, 2011 at 5:09 am
“Why are you folks so certain that the US won’t sign on to this? Look at what the Obama
administration is doing to the US energy infrastructure and use without such a treaty.
Those bozo’s would gladly sign on to something like this.”


Obama would surely do it, as his hopes for a 2nd term are null anyhow, but the Senate
members (I guess they would have to ratify it; some yankee correct me if I’m wrong)
probably want to stay in DC for a while longer.


125.    chuck nolan says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:04 am


This is of course the same UN that is ending war and poverty and is protecting the
peoples of Rwanda, Somalia, Chad etc. And what a fine job being done there, eh? I’m
sure the people of Ethiopia are eating well today because of major help from the UN.
If history is the teacher it is for sure these people were never students.


126.    DirkH says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:05 am


Stephen Skinnner says:
December 10, 2011 at 4:52 am
“The AK-47 has become the world’s most prolific and effective combat weapon, a device
so cheap and simple that it can be bought in many countries for less than the cost of a
live chicken.”


The power of Open Source. (pre-GPL; the Soviets gave away the blueprints for the
machinery for free; setting the precedent for Richard Stallmann.)


127.    Andres Valencia says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:07 am


Thanks Christopher,


Wow! How you must have suffered to gather this information, it must have been
nauseating.
I feel like I need a shower after reading it.


It is such a hateful document they want signed, like a global suicide pact.
Which governments could sign this?
Even greed should have a limit!


128.    RockyRoad says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:11 am
Much of what these Durban dirtbags are proposing will actually happen in the next Ice
Age–you know–drastic decreases in CO2; Earth’s inability to feed 90% of the current
population; the elimination of country boundaries and the migration of total
populations. Maybe they’re simply preparing to take full credit for the next Ice Age when
it comes along, and perhaps, channeling Harold Camping in predictive ability, they’re
hell-bent on forcing its early arrival.


“Oh, look–plants are starving and global genocide is afoot; national governments are
failing–their economies are so weak they can’t fight wars or protect their citizens; we
know who you are and we know where you (once) lived. It isn’t OUR fault; a new Ice
Age is the only explanation; the science is settled; pay up or die!”


129.    Curiousgeorge says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:12 am


I thought this item from the draft was funny as hell. “Right to survive
77. The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of
climate change, including sea level rise.”


There is no such thing as a “Right to Survive”, either individually or collectively. There is
a right to TRY to survive, but Sorry Charlie, no guarantee’s. Ask any rabbit being chased
by a wolf.


130.    jack morrow says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:18 am


For people who don’t believe the US will go along with this just google Clinton and the
UN gun ban and see what our Sec of State will support. As someone said before–NUTS!


131.    Gallovidian says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:30 am
“This is exactly why U.S. citizens (those who have a clue) treasure the Second
Amendment. In the end, you possess only those rights you can defend.”


At the end of the day you are right.


132.    David L. Hagen says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:33 am


A fake negotiating text was sent to delegates.
However, Monckton’s post addresses an actual earlier Durban negotiating text GE.11-
71432 of 7 December 2011 # GE.11-71432. It is in Official Times Roman (not Ariel), the
linked draft is for Dec. 7th, not Friday 10 December.


The Economic Times affirms Monckton’s summary:
“World must cut CO2 by at least 50% by 2050, says UN draft” AGENCIES Dec 12, 2009,
02.02am IST


COPENHAGEN: Nations around the world must reduce greenhouse-gas emissions at
least 50% by mid-century under a draft proposal being debated by 192 countries in
Copenhagen.


The plan says nations should collectively reduce the heat-trapping pollution that many
scientists say could lead to catastrophic climate change between 50% and 95% from
1990 levels. The draft leaves long-term financing, or how much rich nations should
pay poor ones to deal with global warming, to be dealt with later. . . .
The draft from the UN working group that includes the US says industrialised
countries as a group must reduce their combined gas discharges by 75% to more than
95% during the 60-year period. . . .
Developed nations also would be required to take on legally binding, economy-wide
greenhouse-gas reduction goals “with a view” to cutting collective emissions at least
25% to 45% from 1990 levels by 2020.
The document, set for more reviews and final consideration on December 18, requires
nations and their polluting industries to limit the planet’s temperature rise to between
1.5 degrees Celsius and 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial times to “avoid
dangerous climate change”.


133.    Frank K. says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:34 am


crosspatch says:
December 9, 2011 at 9:43 pm


Call me crazy but I am starting to think these warmist are sociopaths.


The political left in general is. It appeals to people who have serious issues with self-
loathing and you see that projected in their policies and rhetoric.


—


I think it’s very easy for us in the west to be self loathing, provided that: the lights, heat,
phones, computers, TVs etc. come on when we hit the power switch, the groceries are
available at the store when we go to them, our roads are cleared of snow when it snows,
someone fixes the water main break when the streets flood, fuel is available for our
vehicles when we need travel, etc. What it’s going to take to turn things around is for
people to start living WITHOUT all of the conveniences, comforts, and even essentials
they are used to, and realizing that they are a direct result of the radial “green” agendas
(CAGW-ism) of the progressive leftists in this world.


By the way, WHERE ARE THE TROLLS when it comes to discussing these issues?
WHERE ARE THEY? HELLO?? Oh yeah, they’re off consuming petroleum products and
wantonly using power from non-green sources to support their lifestyles (can’t do
without the laptop, ipad, and smartphone, you know!). In other words, they are doing
what they do best – being true hypocrites on the radical climate issues they supposedly
care so deeply about!


134.    chuck in st paul says:
December 10, 2011 at 7:37 am


Don’t you mean “the International Klepto Court”? It seems their only reason to exist is
to use force to take money from ‘the West’, meaning the US. This is getting like a bad
rerun of those inane historical TV movies with self appointed kings and queens running
around raping and pillaging.


It’s time for the West to pull out of the UN and send them packing. Perhaps they could
move their new HQ to Zimbabwe.


135.    Clive says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:37 am


On BBC world news, Dec 10 at ~1500 GMT, Richard Black reported, “…a fake draft
document has been released.” Is this it?


If not, the one submitted is pretty scary.


136.    Barbara Munsey says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:40 am


I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with a lunatic’s right to exist, and to amuse
him- or herself with twiddling in notebooks full of baroque incomprehensible notations
of their lunacy, as long as they’re quiet and pay for their own notebooks.


There is no longer any reason to fund the United Nations, to pay any attention
whatsoever to their lunatic drivel, or to give any credence to any pronouncement,
proposal, or suggestion.


If the funding dries up, the lunatics will go back to an equally-publicly provided park
bench to draw their little diagrams and think up grand councils of dominion, and
anyone who wants to donate a notebook to be filled with crabbed lunacy can do so if
they are so moved.
Enough! Cut off their funds!


Thank you Lord Monckton, and thank you for that lovely video of you literally flying in
to Durban! Give them HELL.


137.    R. Gates says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:51 am


Durban will be a failure much the same as the current attempts to save the Euro. Both
will have long-term repercussions.


138.    pax says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:53 am


“there will be no commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary and
does not deserve to be]”


commodification


com·mod·i·fy (k-md-f)
tr.v. com·mod·i·fied, com·mod·i·fy·ing, com·mod·i·fies
To turn into or treat as a commodity; make commercial: “Such music . . . commodifies
the worst sorts of . . . stereotypes” (Michiko Kakutani).


com·modi·fia·ble adj.
com·modi·fi·cation (-f-kshn) n.


thefreedictionary is your friend.


139.    David L. Hagen says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:55 am
The UNFCC has posted a later draft # FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/CRP.39 9 December 2011
#GE.11-71576 at:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf
The UN is not bashful over the funds it demands nor on how they MUST be spent:


47. The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing
country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed
countries spend on defence, security, and warfare. Fifty percent of that
amount shall be for adaptation, 20 percent for mitigation, 15 per cent for technology
development and transfer and 15 percent for forest-related actions in developing
country Parties;


Herein is central planning at its best.


PS David – on searching – try Adobe’s search tool (accessible by hovering the mouse
over the bottom of your screen) the draft document.
See page 16 sections 77-81 for Rights to Survive #77, An International Climate Court of
Justice, #78,79; Warfare #80-81.


140.    Bob Diaz says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:55 am


This is insane!!!! The Western Countries are being enslaved by this agreement.


I get the funny feeling that if this is pushed in the US, the US News Media will either
look the other way OR carefully leave out the parts about the massive payments, the
mindless rules, and loss of freedom.


141.    Elmer says:


December 10, 2011 at 8:01 am
It’s like the local school board, when their referendum doesn’t pass, they just keep
proposing it every year until it does, usually in an off year election (like this one) when
nobody is paying attention.


142.    John-X says:


December 10, 2011 at 8:04 am


“a comprehensive and balanced outcome” – “comprehensive” = all, total, complete,
everything; in the US, “balanced” = ‘raise taxes.’ “”a comprehensive and balanced
outcome” = we own everything; 100% (or more) tax on all income, all property, all sales,
all activity, all existence


“commodification [whatever that may be:” – v. commodify: to make suitable for a
commode; to digest and excrete as bodily waste. syn: fecalize, enshitificate, dookify,
enturdulate


“War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease – just like that
– because they contribute to climate change.”


Cool, man! How’d they get al qaida and the taliban to sign on?! I didn’t even know there
were al qaida & taliban delegations to Durban!


“This would take us halfway back towards the last Ice Age, and would kill hundreds of
millions. Colder is far more dangerous than warmer.”


Economy-killing taxes, or a people-killing economy? Probably all the same to a planet-
saving greeny.


“So, no motor cars, no coal-fired or gas-fired power stations, no aircraft, no trains.”


Not a single luxury? Like Robinson Crusoe? That’s primitive as can be!


“Back to the Stone Age, but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in your
caves.”
Britain will be up first. After the first winter spent shivering in the dark because the
planet has got so warm, are you going to say, “thank you sir, may I have another,” go
hat-in-hand and wallet open to Emperor Vladimir asking for BTUs, or will you build a
few proper powerplants and get off the green crazytrain?


“…just 210 ppmv of CO2 itself, with 90 ppmv CO2 equivalent from other greenhouse
gases. But at 210 ppmv, plants and trees begin to die. CO2 is plant food.”


Not to worry. With the wonderful technological advances of our age, some otherwise
intelligent young person will invent a way to scrub ALL the evil CO2 from the air, thus
ending the problem of human-caused emissions FOREVER.


“The West will pay for everything, because of its “historical responsibility””


I am historically responsible for excessive consumption of world grain reserves in liquid
form, and excessive emissions of CO2 at one end, and methane out the other. I will write
a check to Gaia and pay for everything. You folks are off the hook.


““International Climate Court of Justice”: “…one can imagine that the intention is to
oblige Western nations to pay up”


Don’t kid yerself that this is just a big-bucks version of a local speed-trap traffic court.
An all-powerful kangaroo court accountable only to itself is free to define “climate
justice” any way it wants to. And that will include re-education of confused skeptics, and
execution of us climate criminals.


“The new buzzwords: Welcome to the notion of “equitable access to global atmospheric
space”


Sounds like they want taxpayer-funded free air travel.


“The new special-interest group: Meet the “Parties that are alternative-energy-
disadvantaged”. No wind, no sun, no renewables – so, handouts from the West, please.”

Ha ha ha! Brilliant! We subsidize Saudi Arabia, because they don’t have enough energy!
“The US will sign no such treaty. Nor will Canada, Japan, France, India and many other
countries.”


THIS is why I’m getting on the Kwazy Kwimate Gwavy Twain. I could just as easily go
into, say, video game design, or “Twilight” screenwriting, but this Kwazy Kwap is even
more fun, and just about as realistic.


143.    Babsy says:


December 10, 2011 at 8:04 am


R. Gates says:
December 10, 2011 at 6:24 am


Thank you so much for your splendid consensus confirmation!


144.    chuck nolan says:


December 10, 2011 at 8:11 am


Bob says:
December 10, 2011 at 5:09 am
Why are you folks so certain that the US won’t sign on to this? Look at what the Obama
administration is doing to the US energy infrastructure and use without such a treaty.
Those bozo’s would gladly sign on to something like this.
——————
Bob, I believe Al Gore already signed it and Obama would sigh it but in the US the
Senate holds the pen and the House of Representatives holds the purse. Obama’s
opinion of the necessity to support CAGW makes no difference as far as a legally binding
agreement.


145.    David L. Hagen says:


December 10, 2011 at 8:18 am
The UN is demanding control over $1.6 trillion per year to control climate. See Section
47 in
draft # FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/CRP.39 9 December 2011 #GE.11-71576 at:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf
See Reuters: Worldwide military spending edged up in 2010 to a record $1.6 trillion, a
leading think-tank said on Monday. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute’s military expenditure database.
http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/research/armaments/milex/milex_d
atabase


Peace is a worthy mission, which the Messiah will bring about when he returns.


2 In the last days
the mountain of the LORD’s temple will be established
as the highest of the mountains;
it will be exalted above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.


3 Many peoples will come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the temple of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths.”
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4 He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.


Isaiah 2:2-4 NIV
For art, see: Swords to Ploughshares around the world
Swords to ploughshares
UN Swords to Ploughshares
Until then, the immediate urgent task is to provide alternative fuels while caring for the
poor. Conventional climate mitigation comes in dead last in benefit/cost.


146.    M.A.Vukcevic says:


December 10, 2011 at 8:21 am


OT but might be of interest:
Recent article by statistician Grant Foster (Tamino)
Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf
is absolute nonsense!


147.    Steve Keohane says:


December 10, 2011 at 8:22 am


Nick de Cusa says:December 10, 2011 at 2:44 am


A colleague of the IPCC’s Van Ypersele at UCL (Université Catholique de Louvain) has
had it and has decided to go public :
http://www.contrepoints.org/2011/12/10/59762-echec-du-sommet-climatique-de-
durban-interview-exclusive-du-chimiste-istvan-marko/comment-page-1#comment-
64000


Here is a translation that supports what is being brought to light here. Thank you,
Christopher Monckton. And congratulations on your safe touch-down in Durban.


148.    Steve Keohane says:


December 10, 2011 at 8:26 am


oops, here’s the translation:
LeBoss
December 10th, 2011 – 9 h 14 min


Main points of the official final Report of DURBAN* to make sign by the present 190
countries (Translated according to **):


A new International Court of Climate. The Court will have power to force the western
nations to pay sums always bigger to the countries of Third World in the name of the
repairing of « climatic debts » assumed. The Court will have no power on the Third
World countries. Here and everywhere in plan, Occident is the only target. Process ” is
consequently anti-western irremediably.


« Mother’s rights Earth up »: The plan, which seems to have been written by weak green
activists of mind and the extremist environmentalists, speaks about « recognition and
defence of the rights of the Earth Mother to assure harmony between the humanity and
nature ». Besides, « there will be no co-marchandisation of (commodification, in
English) [this term is not in the dictionary and does not deserve being there] functions
of nature, therefore no market of carbon will be developed in this purpose ».


. » Straight to survive »: Plan maintains naively that « rights, for certain Parties, to
survive is threatened by the negative impacts of climatic Change, including the elevation
of the level of the sea ». With 5 cm by century, according to data over eight years of the
satellite Envisat?


Oh, that it is wrong! The satellite Jason 2, the youngest child, shows that the elevation of
the level of seas indeed went down in the course of last three years.


War and assertion of force of defence and its equipment have to cease – just just like
that – because they contribute to climatic change. There are other reasons why war must
cease, but plan does not mention them.


A new target of worldwide temperature will have as objective, to restrict « total warming
» for as not much as 1°C above pre-industrial levels. Since the temperature is already of
3°C above these levels, what is offered in effect a reduction of 2°C is today’s
temperatures. It would be to make us go back halfway last glacial age, and kill hundreds
of million persons. More cold is much more dangerous than more heat.
The new target of programs of CO2, for the western countries only, will be a discount of
up to 50 % of programs in the course of next eight years and « more than 100 % » [these
words indeed appear in the text] in 2050. Therefore, no cars with motor, no power
stations in coal or in gas, no plane, no train. Return at the age of stone, but without even
right to light a fire issuing some carbon in our caves. Aeolian, solar panels and other
“renewable energy sources” are the only alternatives offered in plan. There is no
mention of the immediate and quick extension of nuclear power worldwide to prevent
the almost complete destruction of economy.


The new target of concentration in CO2 could be as low as 300 ppmv of equivalent CO2
(that is, including all other gases with effect as well as CO2 itself) .C’ a discount of about
half in comparison with the equivalent 560 is ppmv of CO2 today. It implicates simply
210ppmv of CO2 in himself, with 90 ppmv equivalent CO2 of gas with greenhouse
effect. But in 210 ppmv, plants and trees begin dying. CO2 is the food of plants. They
need of much more than of 210 ppmv.


The target year of crest of gases with greenhouse effect – for Occident only – will be this
actual year. We shall be obliged to reduce our programs from now, independently of
effect on our savings (and the absence of effect on climate).


Occident is going to pay for everything, owing to its « historical responsibility » to have
caused planetary warming “. The Countries of Third World will not be made to pay
whatever it is. But it is United Nations, and not Third World countries, that are going to
recover the silver of Occident, by taking everything almost for themselves as usual.
There is no disposition anywhere in plan for the UNO, to publish count on manner it is
going to spend 100 billion dollars per year, plan demands that Occident must “foot the
bill ” from now.


*http: // unfccc.int / resource / docs / 2011 / awglca14 / eng / crp38.pdf


** http: // wattsupwiththat.com / 2011 / 12 / 09 / durban-what-the-media-are-not-
telling-you/


Here is what “lashed” greens of the UNO (UNFCCC) have pondu*.
After reading you will think probably as me, that “lashed” word is too weak.
149.    novareason says:


December 10, 2011 at 8:33 am


Sadly, a quick wikipedia search for commodification turns up what those dorks down in
Durban are talking about. And it’s apparently a Marxist term!


Didn’t they know that communism has failed in the light of capitalism?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodification


150.    Retired Engineer says:


December 10, 2011 at 8:45 am


“This is exactly why U.S. citizens (those who have a clue) treasure the Second
Amendment. In the end, you possess only those rights you can defend.”


Which is why the UN is determined to limit acess and ownership of firearms, supported
by many members of the current administration in the U.S.


Indeed, all this is crazy. Totally insame. Fifty years ago, talking about trillion dollar
deficits would have gotten the same response. Most folks had never heard the word
“trillion” at all. Today’s madness could well be tomorrow’s policy.


This is not about climate. It is about control. That battle will never end.


151.    RockyRoad says:


December 10, 2011 at 8:47 am


R. Gates says:
December 10, 2011 at 7:51 am
Durban will be a failure much the same as the current attempts to save the Euro. Both
will have long-term repercussions.

And I for one will cheer their “failure”. In my estimation, these “repercussions” will all
be for the better–Europe will have proven (once again!) that socialism doesn’t work; the
earth will continue to warm without a “Climate Court” that forces every Western
government to pay a pirate’s treasure to the UN. The industrialized West has provided
abundant plant fertilizer in the form of CO2 for all nations (even the “pirates”)–
producing a veritable “greening” of the earth! These scoundrels should be paying the
West for climate benefits, not holding them up through the criminal UN.


But R. Gates, I’m calling you out on this–you have hooked your wagon to a failed
hypothesis that has been hijacked by evil forces that would likely eliminate you and your
family were their proscriptions ever adopted, but the sad thing is that you don’t see it for
what it is.


You keep yammering on and on about “repercussions” and fail to see the big picture or
realize the gravity of the situation.


From what institute of higher learning did you graduate that left you so brainwashed
and clueless?


PS> Don’t you find it interesting that the people that say the earth is warming to an
unprecedented degree are also the ones who plan on using that lie as justification to
deny the West their wealth and standard of living, while ALSO denying these same
benefits to the rabble nations that support this chicanery? Talk about brainwashed,
clueless, useful tools…


152.    RockyRoad says:


December 10, 2011 at 8:48 am


It’s so bad, even Fox News is headling it:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/10/un-floats-global-climate-court-to-
enforce-emissions-rules/
153.    JohnM says:


December 10, 2011 at 9:08 am


Communism has transparently not yet failed.
It has ceased to be transparent, having submerged itself in green and environmental
projects, until it could become visible having captured the hierarchy of the main players.
This lunacy is only the part we know about.


154.    Curiousgeorge says:


December 10, 2011 at 9:08 am


@ David L. Hagen says:
December 10, 2011 at 8:18 am


The reality is that those who beat their swords into plowshares inevitably end up being
enslaved by those who do not. The two (swords and plowshares) are not mutually
exclusive, btw; as my ancestors, who were among those who founded this country in the
1600′s, would attest to. I don’t know of a single farmer who does not have at least one
gun in addition to his farm equipment. Most have several.


155.    steve a says:


December 10, 2011 at 9:14 am


I eagerly await Senator Boxer’s endorsement and pray the Democrats begin to promote
this…just in time for the election!


156.    d says:


December 10, 2011 at 9:17 am


Lord Monckton excellent work thank you !!
157.    David says:


December 10, 2011 at 9:29 am


David L Hagen: thanks for the references. You are quite right. Much of the outrageous
stuff is in a few pages I must have skipped. (In my defence, most of the text is extremely
dull). References to Mother Earth are mainly on page 15.


158.    Coach Springer says:


December 10, 2011 at 9:47 am


Extremely important post. The first detailed report I’ve seen of the proposals and I
check a few skeptic sites daily. Of course, there is no science – only poltics, money and
coercive power at Durban. Once the “science” is settled, it is revealed as mindless
totalitarian activism.
Since the MSM would never go to this negative detail, it belongs on every other
information source remotely concerning limited government and or taking a critical
look at the UN or international law.


159.    Richard S Courtney says:


December 10, 2011 at 10:02 am


Christopher:


I hope you are reading this and you are enjoying your time in Durban. You seem to have
had fun getting there.


Thankyou for another fine summary of a draft Treaty. You are a master at distilling
bureaucratic gobbledygook into plain English, and your above article again displays that
mastery.
As you say, the proposals in the draft Treaty are insane. I write to say I think there is no
reason why the proposals should not be daft because their advocates know nothing will
come of them. I explain this opinion as follows.


I said before the Copenhagen Conference that it would be the death knell of the AGW
issue. And so it proved to be. That Conference was a total failure. From then on any
advances towards the political objectives of AGW-advocates were doomed to failure.
(The issue is a ‘headless chicken’ running around as though alive but already dead).


At Durban we now see the bureaucrats, idiots and others who have been on the AGW
‘gravy train’ continuing to ride the ‘train’. Their activities are – and they know their
activities are – pointless, so they can rant about whatever insane nonsense tickles their
prejudiced desires in the knowledge that their rants will affect nothing.


If they still thought they had any chance of obtaining their desires then they would
stealthily progress ‘one-small-step-at-a-time’ until they had obtained so much unnoticed
that the rest would be easy to get. But since Copenhagen they have known they have
negligible chance of getting anything they want. So they now feel free to present the daft
‘wish list’ that is the draft Treaty being considered in Durban and to enjoy pretending
that their wishes may be fulfilled.


Anyway, that is my view.


All the best


Richard


160.    R. Gates says:


December 10, 2011 at 10:23 am


Rocky Road said: (to R. Gates)


“You keep yammering on and on about “repercussions” and fail to see the big picture or
realize the gravity of the situation.”
———-
You sound like some kind of alarmist. Please do tell, what situation or what “big picture”
is so grave?


161.    John West says:


December 10, 2011 at 10:28 am


mrsean2k says:
December 10, 2011 at 6:08 am
Hmmm.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/10/durban-climate-talks-false-
text?newsfeed=true
Are we sure Lord M. isn’t responding to this?
@BargHumer’s caution might be well founded.


Yes, we’re sure and it wouldn’t matter anyway, the parts we’re disturbed by were
WORSE in the real as apposed to the fake. If you read the article you linked: [Emphasis
mine]
In particular, the text said work on a new climate agreement should start in the first
half of 2012, when in fact the countries named want the new phase to begin
immediately, and it said a new legal instrument should be adopted with effect from
2020, whereas the EU wants a text saying “no later than 2020″.


It also leaves out any new interpretation of the “common but differentiated
responsibilities” (the principle by which developing countries were not expected to
undertake legally binding cuts in carbon emissions), and gives a wrong date for
reassessing the ambition of emissions-cutting commitments.


If the text was a forgery, it was a poor one: it was headed with the wrong date
(Friday 10 December, instead of Saturday 10 December) and was printed in
the wrong typeface (Arial, instead of Times New Roman) for an official document.


He linked 12/07/11 DRAFT and the issues he brought to our attention aren’t in dispute
in the fake vs. real draft situation.
OT:
Stephen Skinnner says:
“the AK is responsible for about a quarter-million deaths every year”


So, the person pulling the trigger has nothing to do with it?


162.    davidmhoffer says:


December 10, 2011 at 10:36 am


R. Gates;
You sound like some kind of alarmist. Please do tell, what situation or what “big picture”
is so grave?>>>


Nice totaly out of context retort R. Gates. Let’s run with the totaly out of context thing
and see how well it works.


So…. what you are saying is that there is no grave problem in the big picture. I
completely agree. Durban is a complete waste of time and money because the big picture
clearly shows that there is no problem, grave or otherwise. Thankyou for pointing that
out, and welcome to the world of reality.


163.    bob parker says:


December 10, 2011 at 10:41 am


Julliar Gillard will sign. I’ll put money on that.
She may even be over there shinning boots at this very minute.


164.    Werner Brozek says:


December 10, 2011 at 10:57 am
“Ø A new global temperature target will aim, Canute-like, to limit “global warming” to as
little as 1 C° above pre-industrial levels. Since temperature is already 3 C° above those
levels, what is in effect being proposed is a 2 C° cut in today’s temperatures.”


However what if this were with respect to the MWP instead of the LIA? Then we would
have a ways to go. On the other hand, if we went by the hockey stick, it would appear
that it does not make much difference. Is GISS allowed to make adjustments to the
hockey stick?


“R. Gates says:
December 10, 2011 at 6:24 am
The consensus is that we are about 0.8C above average pre-industrial global
temperature levels.”


Why can they not be more precise? Exactly how much further can we go from the
Hadcrut3 1998 mark for example? It is 0.19 higher than the 2011 average so far.


165.    Snotrocket says:


December 10, 2011 at 11:04 am


Shakespeare, as ever, in ‘The Tempest’, had the right quote for Durban:


“Hell is empty and all the devils are here”


166.    ukipwebmaster says:


December 10, 2011 at 11:12 am


Christopher Monckton – Flying in the face of the climate con trick:


http://www.ukip.tv/?p=2199


167.    davidmhoffer says:
December 10, 2011 at 11:16 am


R. Gates;


Uhm… you say we’re only up 0.8 degrees since the LIA? OK, over half of that was before
CO2 started to increase in 1920. If we assume the same trend since the LIA has
continued since 1920, that leaves about… 0.05 degrees to blame on CO2.


Nice catch! Thanks for pointing that out!


168.    Mac the Knife says:


December 10, 2011 at 11:35 am


Bart and Roger,
I too have written ‘two’ when I meant ‘to’. Were I assaulted with friendly weapons by a
ballerina, I’d have to passionately ask “Et tu, Tutu?”


MtK


169.    Ralph says:


December 10, 2011 at 11:38 am


>>Druids or Pharaohs or Mayans or Incas – thought they could
>>replace their Creator and command the weather.


Careful, Monk – remember, we don’t do god in the UK.


This might go down well in the Bible-bashing belt of the US, but too much of this and we
will set Cromwell onto you again. He gave you a good thrashing for all that
transubstantiation nonsense the last time…..


.
170.    R. Craigen says:


December 10, 2011 at 11:49 am


“Every fashionable leftist idiocy is catered for.”


Uh, don’t you mean “catered to”?


:-)


171.    crosspatch says:


December 10, 2011 at 11:58 am


davidmhoffer says:
December 10, 2011 at 11:16 am


That’s probably about the size of it. Any contribution by humans is likely lost in the
noise of natural variation. This is nothing more than the creation of a new industry to
extract cash from people. What is the combined salary of everyone present at Durban for
just this month? I am guessing this “process” is generating a rather nice income stream
for quite a large number of people when you then factor in the thousands of NGOs
around the world. This industry is probably one of the larger ones on the planet. Now
add all the various consultants that are collecting “green” spending from the various
governments and now you see why we are having economic troubles. This “process” is
siphoning off hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy for something that
produces absolutely nothing. All it produces is ink on paper, rhetoric, and great belches
of CO2 out of meeting halls.


“The Process” is corruption on an international scale.


172.    Ralph says:


December 10, 2011 at 11:58 am
>>DR says: December 9, 2011 at 10:18 pm
>>Is this really what the folks at RealClimate et al want? A totalitarian one
>>world government? Is this what Phil Jones wants? All the climategate players?
>>They want this? Seriously, is it?


Yup. The notion is rampant in UK higher education, with many of our academics
positively hating Western society and its many successes.


This is also what Tony Blair wanted. This is why he opened the flood gates to
uncontrolled immigration (without asking anyone) – to mix up the cultures, prevent
organised opposition, reduce the bonds of nationality, and sow the seeds of ‘divide and
rule’. A divided population can never organise itself or defend itself.


To create a One World Government you need to destroy nations and the cultural bonds
that create nations, and the simplest way to do that is uncontrolled migration. Check out
the Blair government and their close links to Marxists, Fabians, One Worlders and
Common Purpose.


http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/07/the-defence-secretary-and-the-
international-marxist-group/comments/page/2/


.


173.    John West says:


December 10, 2011 at 12:25 pm


R. Gates;
You sound like some kind of alarmist. Please do tell, what situation or what “big picture”
is so grave?>>>


The political picture is grave. Every decade we seem to slide further down the slope away
from liberty and into the awaiting clutches of the global totalitarian nanny state. Unlike
traditional religions, the “green religion” isn’t recognized by many as a threat to liberty
even if “established” by the government. (i.e.: “Mother Earth” is a religious term not a
scientific one, to encode that would be to establish a religion, clearly unconstitutional in
the USA.)


The climatic picture is grave. The balance of the evidence (strat cooling, ocean heat
content, global average temperature, sea level, ice extent, etc.) suggests that the
“modern warm period” is peaking. Global warming is a walk in the park compared to
global cooling. Hopefully, technology will manage to keep up and if we can keep the
fossil fuel haters out of policy perhaps we can keep energy prices low enough such that
we don’t have any major famines or increase cold related deaths.


The scientific picture is gravest of all. The loss in credibility of nearly every scientific
body over the next few years due to “CAGW” activism may not be easily overcome.
Centuries of gains in trust among the common man squandered in a few short decades,
it’s really sad.


174.    Olen says:


December 10, 2011 at 12:37 pm


Considering the high crime rate in Durban the UN has picked an appropriate location
for their plans to redistribute hard earned wealth while blaming those they wish to bilk.


175.    dtbronzich says:


December 10, 2011 at 12:44 pm


For years, one of Science Fiction’s most enduring themes has been the survival of
humanity in a post apocalyptic world; many causes have been put forth for this
apocalypse, from mutated plagues, global thermonuclear exchanges, asteroids, alien
invasions and even temporal anomalies. Never, in the fertile imagination of science
fiction authors did they ever imagine a holocaust by legislation!!!


176.    Sunspot says:


December 10, 2011 at 12:53 pm
.This sort of rubbish suits the Australian “Greens”, whom, unfortunately, hold the
balance of power. One other item on their agenda is the reintroduction of death duties.
Very few Australian voters are aware of this.


177.    dtbronzich says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:04 pm


JohnM says:
December 10, 2011 at 9:08 am


Communism has transparently not yet failed.
It has ceased to be transparent, having submerged itself in green and environmental
projects, until it could become visible having captured the hierarchy of the main players.
This lunacy is only the part we know about.
Actually, this a form of socialism, not true communism; Statist Socialism, known by a
variety of names, but most widely by the term ‘National Socialism’. as Hitler said”Tell a
lie, and make it big enough, no matter how unbelievable…” or something to that effect.


178.    John West says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:21 pm


dtbronzich says:
“Never, in the fertile imagination of science fiction authors did they ever imagine a
holocaust by legislation!!!”


Star Wars II, Galactic Senate grants “emergency powers” to Chancellor.
Star Wars III, Galactic Senate cheers the institution of Galactic Emperor.


The real Holocaust started with ideology legislation:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005681


179.    john says:
December 10, 2011 at 1:41 pm


Follow the derivatives and dark pool trading. Ground zero is LONDON.


http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/the-british-origins-of-lehmans-accounting-
gimmick/


180.    novareason says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:50 pm


dtbronzich says:
December 10, 2011 at 1:04 pm


I’d say that it failed, given that it collapses or destroys the economy of any country that
embraces it’s tenets. It’s retreat into academia and the related realms of enviro-
socialism speaks only to the appeal of idiocy to those locked away in Ivory Towers.


181.    RockyRoad says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:53 pm


R. Gates says:
December 10, 2011 at 10:23 am


Rocky Road said: (to R. Gates)

“You keep yammering on and on about “repercussions” and fail to see the big picture
or realize the gravity of the situation.”


———-
You sound like some kind of alarmist. Please do tell, what situation or what “big
picture” is so grave?
With this response, R., I’m now convinced you don’t know how to read; you don’t know
how to comprehend; and your memory is shot–it was you who brougth up the
“repercussions” in the first place.


I’d recommending checking out the response sequence to this thread, R., but I’m pretty
sure you couldn’t do that, either.


(Why do I waste my time?…..)


182.    R. Gates says:


December 10, 2011 at 1:57 pm


davidmhoffer says:
December 10, 2011 at 11:16 am
R. Gates;


Uhm… you say we’re only up 0.8 degrees since the LIA? OK, over half of that was before
CO2 started to increase in 1920. If we assume the same trend since the LIA has
continued since 1920, that leaves about… 0.05 degrees to blame on CO2.


Nice catch! Thanks for pointing that out!
———
CO2 started increasing in 1920? Ah, you must be back to writing your fictional account
of climate history! For those who want the science and the truth:


http://i39.tinypic.com/if0m5g.jpg


We see that CO2 levels were wavering around 280-285 ppm during the centuries prior
to the LIA, bottomed out around 278ppm during the LIA, and then have been rising ever
since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750 or so. You have to extrapolate
the end of the linked graph as obviously levels are now way off this chart.


183.    Power Grab says:
December 10, 2011 at 2:05 pm


Sickening!


Two themes keep coming to mind:


1. Have you noticed how, in so many spheres of modern life, we keep having to pay more
for less? One rather mundane example is how you used to be able to get a widely-
available cough syrup (I shouldn’t mention names, should I?) that recommended a dose
of 1 tablespoon. Now you can’t find it. The company now only sells a so-called “natural”
product and recommends a dose of 2 tablespoons. It just seems like a way to make
consumers use it up faster – in other words, pay more for less. I see no reason why a
given amount of a cough suppressant ingredient should no longer available in a 1
tablespoon dose, but only in a 2 tablespoon dose.


Another example is biofuel. To make biofuel, you just have to use up so-called “fossil
fuel” more quickly!


i’m old enough to remember getting by with less – that is, doing more with less.


2. Have you noticed how many OUTRAGEOUSLY BAD IDEAS are being proposed by
persons in power? i keep wondering if they’re just trying to distract everyone with the
worst they can think of, so they can then come back with something a little less
overreaching – as if they really knew they could only reach the lesser goal, but not if they
proposed it first.


Both these phenomena seem to be strategies of marketing.


I fail to see how the UN’s proposal of milking the developed countries of so much of
their GDP will leave those countries in the so-called “developed” status for very long.
After only a year or so of that treatment, won’t the developed countries drop to
“undeveloped” status?


If they succeed in reducing the level of electrical service in the developed countries,
perhaps even to the point where people can’t afford to continue paying their utility bills,
and therefore will be unable to continue charging their phones and using their TVs and
computers, then how will Big Brother (the elites at the UN) be able to continue
monitoring the “proles”? It’s not SUSTAINABLE, is it?


One more thing – about the crises in the financial sector – if enough if the world’s
currencies were destroyed, would someone propose using some form of non-money as
the medium of exchange? Is that what carbon exchanges are supposed to be? It makes
me think of the old movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”, where Mr. Potter (the evil banker)
offered the customers of the Bailey Savings & Loan a fraction of the value of their
deposits in the S&L while they were afraid they could not get their money from the S&L
that Potter underhandedly deprived of a large deposit? Or would it go the other way?
You would be offered more than 100% of the value of your local currency if you chose to
hold your assets in carbon credits instead? It’s a marketing angle again. If you can dupe
people into giving up what has been working but appears to be in crisis, and take
something that only helps the sellers of the substitute, who benefits?


These scams are getting OLD!


184.    P Wilson says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:07 pm


obviously it doesn’t matter what goes into abeyance – in this case science – for the
pursuit of “The Cause”.


Even if “The Cause” protagonists said that the reasoning was entirely spurious at some
future date, it wouldn’t matter, as “The Cause” would have been put into effect.


What is bizarre is that a fanciful notion – co2 charlatanism/fiction – was used to realize
this “New World Order”.


185.    R. Gates says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Rocky Road said: (to R. Gates)
“You keep yammering on and on about “repercussions” and fail to see the big picture or
realize the gravity of the situation.”


———-
R. Gates: You sound like some kind of alarmist. Please do tell, what situation or what
“big picture” is so grave?


Rocky: With this response, R., I’m now convinced you don’t know how to read; you don’t
know how to comprehend; and your memory is shot–it was you who brougth up the
“repercussions” in the first place I’d recommending checking out the response sequence
to this thread…


——–
Did you not say that I failed to see the “gravity of the situation?”


So, I ask you again Rocky– what situation and what is so grave about it?


186.    R. Gates says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:34 pm


.
John West says:
December 10, 2011 at 12:25 pm


The political picture is grave.


The climatic picture is grave.


The scientific picture is gravest of all.


——–
Thanks for being so straight with your answer. Obviously your reading comp skills are a
bit more advanced than others.
To your first point I agree, but add the caveat that it is no more so than at all times in
history. Political chaos is the the rule, not the exception.


To your second point- I don’t believe that a significant cooling for the globe is close. By
significant I mean on the order of the LIA. Rather, warming over the next few decades
and centuries is probably more the likely trend. I am not convinced this is a grave
situation.


To your last point– scientific knowledge is exploding faster than ever. So many new and
amazing discoveries are being made every day. How wise we will be in using this
knowledge is of greater concern to me than the trust and credibility of scientists by the
public, as that is more a function of the way the short- term political winds are blowing.
Technology is proof of science’s basic truth ( at least all that the common person on the
street needs). The world now worships technology and the truth that makes it possible is
science.


187.    Lucy Skywalker says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:39 pm


Awestruck says: December 10, 2011 at 12:00 am
“marsupial dicastery”. Magnificent.


Eh, what did I miss? egad, “kangaroo court”. And “dicastery” (Wikipedia) refers to “the
Departments of the Roman Curia” whereof the premier Department is “The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” aka Inquisition.


Definitely a useful new phrase.


188.    davidmhoffer says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:47 pm
R. Gates;
CO2 started increasing in 1920? Ah, you must be back to writing your fictional account
of climate history! For those who want the science and the truth:>>>


Coming from you, that’s a compliment. Nice try, once again. The Law Dome ice core
data has a resolution of somewhere between 30 and 60 years, rendering that plot nearly
meaningless. Further, the IPCC reports constantly and continually refer to 1920 as the
year in which significant rises in CO2 concentration can first be accurately measured,
and they cite 278 ppm (multiple times) as the value in 1920, and they further cite 280
(multiple times) as the accepted “background” level of CO2 in the atmosphere,
attribbuting everything over and above that amount to human activity.


Furthermore, human emissions of CO2 from 1750 to 1920 were pretty much
insignificant compared to post 1920 emissions. Widespread use of fuel derived from OIL
is what drove our emissions higher, and use of oil was nearly zero prior to 1920. The
widespread use of fuel from OIL in everything from railways to automobiles to farm
machinery to aircraft is all post 1920. Given that human emissions of CO2 were
negligible pre-1920, if one were to accept your Law Dome results, one would have to
ask:


What drove the increase in CO2 from 1750 to 1920 since human activity can only
account for a few ppm and your referenced results show many times that? Why does the
IPCC cite 278 ppm in 1920 when the Law Dome shows over 300? But here is the real
doozy:


If the Law Dome results are accurate, what they show is that TEMPERATURE drove a
DROP in CO2 in the LIA and that TEMPERATURE drives CO2 levels, NOT THE
OTHER WAY AROUND!!


I know you hate all caps because you’ve complained before that I’m yelling at you.


WELL YES I AM!! YOUR OWN DATA SAYS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM
YET YOU KEEP SPOUTING IT! HOW DOES ONE GET THROUGH TO YOU WITHOUT
YELLING?
189.    u.k.(us) says:


December 10, 2011 at 2:51 pm


R. Gates says:
December 10, 2011 at 2:34 pm
===========
“………Obviously your reading comp skills are a bit more advanced than others.”


Yes,
R. Gates your writing skills are notable, but, are you sure you want to go there.


190.    R. Gates says:


December 10, 2011 at 3:08 pm


Davidmhoffer,


It is both necessary and convenient for those, like yourself, who would wish to re-write
both history and science to dismiss certain data. I understand that. But to feel the need
to raise your voice while doing so would seem to indicate a certain psychological state
that adds a much lessened weight to your already dubious pronouncements.


191.    davidmhoffer says:


December 10, 2011 at 3:25 pm


R. Gates says:
December 10, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Davidmhoffer,
It is both necessary and convenient for those, like yourself, who would wish to re-write
both history and science to dismiss certain data. I understand that. But to feel the need
to raise your voice while doing so would seem to indicate a certain psychological state
that adds a much lessened weight to your already dubious pronouncements.>>>
Ad hominem attack while completely ignoring the facts raised in my response. Can’t
deal with the heat, then vacate the kitchen. That’s all you got? I used too many caps so I
must be psychotic? My statements are dubious because I used caps to emphasize them?
PUHLEEEEEEZE!


BTW, you welched on your bet with me. Since you’ve made a rather nasty accusation
against me about my psychological state, let’s recount the circumstances of our bet and
see if perhaps one of us has a psychological problem known as “denial”:


1. I said I would wager that if Al Gore’s on air experiment were repeated at illustrated, it
wouldd not produce the results as illustrated.
2. You immediately accepted the wager, and asked “how much?”
3. You suggested that the globes be removed from the jars as they were superflous. As I
have asked you many times, and you have failed to respond, how could the experiment
have possibly succeeded if there was nothing in the jars to convert SW to LW? How can
you claim any expertise in the amtter when you completely blew this fundamental piece
of the equation that all of AGW is founded upon? How also did you expect the
experiment to work when the energy source was an IT heat lamp, not a SW source?
4. Anthony repeated the experiment, and I was proven right.
5. You attempted to assert that all that Anthony’s demonstration of the actual
experiment showed was that Anchor Hawking glass absorbs IR.


For you to call me down for “re-writing history” is, frankly, a bit rich and a lot sad. I’ve
debated you enough times to suggest that you know full well that you are twisting the
facts at every turn to support a false hypothesis.


192.    davidmhoffer says:


December 10, 2011 at 3:45 pm


R. Gates;


while we’re at it, you haven’t responded in the thread by Joe D’aleo to my points about
your lack of understanding of radiative physics and how ridiculous it is for you to be
lecturing Joe D’Aleo on a topic in which you clearly have zero expertise. If you’d admit
to being over your head on this stuff instead of pretending to knowledge and expertise
that you do not have I WOULDN’T HAVE TO YELL AT YOU TO GET YOUR
ATTENTION.


193.    Aussie Luke Warm says:


December 10, 2011 at 4:25 pm


Thank you for the heads up, Christopher. The MSM coverage in Australia has been
(deviously) devoid of any real analysis of what is actually being put on the table.


194.    RockyRoad says:


December 10, 2011 at 4:25 pm


R. Gates says:
December 10, 2011 at 2:14 pm


——–
Did you not say that I failed to see the “gravity of the situation?”

So, I ask you again Rocky– what situation and what is so grave about it?


I’m glad you responded, R., ’cause here’s the “gravity of the situation”:


From what you post here at WUWT it is easy to see you are of the CAGW camp–you
believe mankind is doing terrible things to the climate because of increases in CO2 with
catastrophic impact. Yet this argument is patently false–you blatantly take information
out of context and I post as evidence the recent rebuttals of davidmhoffer above who, to
any thinking reader, has basically skewered you with his rapier-like logic, although that
doesn’t seem to penetrate.


You are commenting on a thread that explains in vivid detail what the COP/UN people
want to do with the world’s economy and yet you make no reference to it at all–you’re
stuck on CO2. I get the strong feeling you are in complete support of this effort to bring
down the West, which is this “grave situation” of which I speak.
I can’t imagine anyone cheerleading for such an assault on the West, but if you’ve
swallowed the swill from one of our “enlightened” universities that the West is evil; that
civilized man is evil because he’s screwed up the environment; that advanced man must
make reparations for harnesing carbon-based sources of energy, then it all points to
this–you have become a self-loathing human.


And it’s obvious that you’re all up in arms about something over which we have little or
no control, which is the climate. Dr. Hansen believes we’re apparently past some
“tipping point” and the UN lies about climate sensitivity so they can foist their control
on an unsuspecting globe, but through it all you’re stuck on stupid–you don’t see this
grave step by the COP/UN as a problem at all; nay, you’re cheerleading it on. You think
it will be the solution.


And in that you are completely mistaken. I laugh at your extreme concern over a non-
issue, which is man’s impact on the climate; yet I am amazed that someone supposedly
of your intelligence doesn’t see the danger in what they propose at Durban. Apparently
your education has filled you with a lot of information but never taught you to think.


Good luck with COP/UN. You’re just the foolish, useful tool they’re looking for.
However, I have a completely opposite view of their efforts and yours.


But keep posting–lots of people read this site and they can see which is the better option
when the two are compared side by side.


195.    Jbar says:


December 10, 2011 at 4:35 pm


World government? I don’t know what you’re so afraid of. We can’t even run OUR
government (US). The EU is about to disintegrate. Arab gov’ts are falling left and right.
The Chinese government is perpetually terrified that the Chinese peasants will revolt.
Even Putin is having a spot of bother. Anyone who is really actually truly afraid that the
UN can hold down a world government is utterly deluded.


196.    Jbar says:
December 10, 2011 at 4:39 pm


Are there really “Lords” in a Libertarian free society?


197.    MarkG says:


December 10, 2011 at 5:03 pm


“World government? I don’t know what you’re so afraid of. We can’t even run OUR
government (US).”


The Soviet Union collapsed because it was based on an insane dream. But it murdered
tens of millions and destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions before it did so.


198.    Babsy says:


December 10, 2011 at 5:08 pm


RockyRoad says:
December 10, 2011 at 4:25 pm


“I can’t imagine anyone cheerleading for such an assault on the West, but if you’ve
swallowed the swill from one of our “enlightened” universities that the West is evil; that
civilized man is evil because he’s screwed up the environment; that advanced man must
make reparations for harnesing carbon-based sources of energy, then it all points to
this–you have become a self-loathing human.”


Oh, I can!!!!! Leftists around the world would rejoice in the destruction of the West,
especially the collapse of the United States.


199.    timbrom says:


December 10, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Mac the Knife. I hope you don’t mind, but I’ve posted your superb comment on my
Facebook page. Classic stuff!


200.    Rhoda Ramirez says:


December 10, 2011 at 6:01 pm


Jbar: It’s been a historical trend; some idiot/s deciding they are better able to rule the
world than anyone else and proceed to destroy/kill/maim lots of people proving that
they can’t.


201.    John West says:


December 10, 2011 at 6:40 pm


R. Gates says: [bold mine]
“To your second point- I don’t believe that a significant cooling for the globe is close.
By significant I mean on the order of the LIA. Rather, warming over the next few
decades and centuries is probably more the likely trend. I am not convinced this is
a grave situation.”


Skeptic! …….. LOL, just kidding. I hope you’re right and we have another 200 years of
warming. (After a couple decades of flatlining just to throw the CAGW train of it’s
tracks.)



To your last point– scientific knowledge is exploding faster than ever. So many new
and amazing discoveries are being made every day. How wise we will be in using this
knowledge is of greater concern to me than the trust and credibility of scientists by the
public, as that is more a function of the way the short- term political winds are
blowing. Technology is proof of science’s basic truth ( at least all that the common
person on the street needs). The world now worships technology and the truth that
makes it possible is science.
I see your point and must concede that, yes, technology will be accepted by the general
public with or without understanding the basic underlying principles, but, my credibility
is important to me and scientist activism is soiling it by association. I think you may
have missed the connection between the trust in science by the general public and the
short-trerm political winds. Without the support of the general public legistlative action
is nearly impossible. I also miss the NASA I used to know and trust as well as many
other agencies and organizations, not to mention being able to simply watch a program
on the discovery channel without being told half-truths, zohneristic factoids, and Gaia
sermons about how we’re raping the planet or some other such nonesense.


202.    R. Gates says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:39 pm


Rocky Road said: (to R. Gates)


“From what you post here at WUWT it is easy to see you are of the CAGW camp…”


——
Really? Please give just one example of a catastrophic post I’ve made, that clearly shows
the C in CAGW. Because one believes in AGW does not automatically make them a
believer in looming catastrophe.


203.    davidmhoffer says:


December 10, 2011 at 7:55 pm


R. Gates;
Really? Please give just one example of a catastrophic post I’ve made, that clearly shows
the C in CAGW>>>


Putting aside for the moment that you couch almost everything you say in vague terms
so you can spin it any way you want later, and putting aside that you were a defender to
the hilt of Al Gore’s alarmist preaching until his on air experiment was shown to be a
hoax and you lost your bet with me that is wasn’t, from this thread:
R. Gates says:
December 10, 2011 at 7:51 am
Durban will be a failure much the same as the current attempts to save the Euro. Both
will have long-term repercussions.


204.    dtbronzich says:


December 10, 2011 at 8:35 pm


John West says:
December 10, 2011 at 1:21 pm Stars Wars re: Galactic Senate
The Senate’s bill led to a dictatorship and war, but not what I was referring to as an
apocalypse. Unfortunately, in my haste, I failed to post the relative paragraph references
which I meant to refer to, thereby making my post rather….scattered, for which I can
only pray your indulgence.
The relevant paragraph was that beginning:” International Climate Court of Justice” and
ending with “ever-poorer tribute-payers of their dismal empire.” By apocalypse I meant
abandoned cities, unburied corpses, desolate infertile landscapes, and unhealthy
radiation counts (not counting Star Wars alien planet environments) .


205.    jjthoms says:


December 10, 2011 at 8:53 pm


davidmhoffer says: December 10, 2011 at 7:55 pm
“…you were a defender to the hilt of Al Gore’s alarmist preaching until his on air
experiment was shown to be a hoax and you lost your bet with me that is wasn’t, from
this thread”


This simple experiment (repeatable) seems to show the CO2 effect is real:
http://tinyurl.com/7xmd6e2
No plastic globes though!


206.    Leon Mintz says:
December 10, 2011 at 8:58 pm


“Madness of King Rajendra and his entire coterie”. They look mad but they are not mad.
I call it “Global Warming Cult”. They have priests/charlatans threatening doomsday and
uneducated and gullable masses to fleece. Al Gore is their High Priest.


207.    Rob frey says:


December 10, 2011 at 9:10 pm


Wow to be honest i thought is it possible they are even proposing me sign this piece of
garbage.
This is the biggest joke i have ever seen. If we sign that we have signed our death
warrant i will be glad to head up up the overthrow of the government i can tell you with
100 percent certainty we will be throwing the fools out on there back sides. There will
never be a Democrat in the white house in the next 100 years. I am livid that we even
went to this kangaroo event to discuss the the systematic redistribution of wealth and
destruction of happiness in western nations. As Maxine Waters put it they can go
straight to hell. What a bunch of crack pots, this is just going to keep revisiting us in one
for or another till we have taken every piece one at a time. Our founding fathers are
rolling in there graves. The statue of Washington is probably crying right about now. I
know any of us Americans that actually read the news are horrified, angry and to the
point of boiling over. We have to get the UN the hell out of here and fast Canada got
smart.


208.    davidmhoffer says:


December 10, 2011 at 9:30 pm


jjthoms;
This simple experiment (repeatable) seems to show the CO2 effect is real:
http://tinyurl.com/7xmd6e2
No plastic globes though!>>>
My issue with R. Gates and Al Gore’s experiment had nothing to do with whether or not
the CO2 effect is real. Of course, it is. The point of my dispute with R. Gates is that he
defended Al Gore’s alarmism to the hilt, but wants us to believe he is not an alarmist. In
addition, he purports to understand the radiative physics involved. If that were the case,
he would never have agreed to take the bet with me for the simple reason that Al Gore’s
experiment as illustrated could not possibly produce the results that were illustrated.
Had R. Gates understood the physics involved, he would have known the reproduction
was doomed to failure in the first place. The he compounded his error by suggesting the
globes could be taken out of the jars, which is ludicrous given that the ONLY way the
experimet could have worked was with something in the jar (a globe being good enough,
but nothing? forget it!)


Then he had the audacity to lecture Joe D’Aleo about radiative physics, and now claims
he doesn’t support the C in CAGW. Well he certainly supported Al Gores version of
CAGW right up until he looked completely foolish for defending Al Gores’s faked
experiment, after which, suddenly, he started aying he was “distancing” himself from Al
Gore.


One can only surmise that had Anthony not caught the fact the experiment was faked, R.
Gates would still be singing Al Gore’s praises.


209.    R. Gates says:


December 10, 2011 at 9:33 pm


davidmhoffer says:
December 10, 2011 at 7:55 pm
R. Gates;
Really? Please give just one example of a catastrophic post I’ve made, that clearly shows
the C in CAGW>>>


Putting aside for the moment that you couch almost everything you say in vague terms
so you can spin it any way you want later, and putting aside that you were a defender to
the hilt of Al Gore’s alarmist preaching until his on air experiment was shown to be a
hoax and you lost your bet with me that is wasn’t, from this thread:
R. Gates says:
December 10, 2011 at 7:51 am
Durban will be a failure much the same as the current attempts to save the Euro. Both
will have long-term repercussions.
———
There is absolutely nothing alarmist in this at all– intended or otherwise. Both of these
are political and economic policy decisions by major world powers that will be have
repercussions for many years. Repercussions can be negative, positive, or neutral. Had I
used some adjective like “dire” etc. then you could call me alarmist with complete
justification. As it stands, you’ve gone once into your world of fiction to create
something that just isn’t there.


210.    Leon Mintz says:


December 10, 2011 at 9:35 pm


I have seen with my own eyes how science is cooked in the Soviet Union and here in
America. I also know a lot about a history of science. I tend to agree with the “Climate
change” supporters that real scientific discussion ended long ago. When you can call the
opponents “enemies of the people” and sent them to Gulag there is no need for scientific
discussion. When in America you can call them “like Holocaust deniers” and deny them
grants and tenure, discussion ended. Try to get PhD if your results contradict your
professor and his granting agency.


211.    Kevin Oram says:


December 10, 2011 at 9:55 pm


What we really need is an all out war – a flat out, existence threatening war, like WW2.
That will cut the air time for these drivelling fools and all their equally drivelling Lefty
chums. (Sarc – maybe)


212.    Rob frey says:


December 10, 2011 at 11:01 pm
The fricking data is bad, nobody in there right mind would certify it. Last i checked you
had better calibrate on a regular basis, sorry from space checking the temp on a cloud
not possible with with the accuracy you are proposing to rape the industrial nations on.
Then throw in some adjustments wtf is this crap because one satellite was not
functioning.


213.    Rhys Jaggar says:


December 11, 2011 at 1:05 am


Does the UN have jurisdiction over the nation states which fund it?


What if a few new governments come in and say: ‘I no longer respect the authority of the
UN’?


That’s the inelectable conclusion I would reach if I stood for office. So long as a US
President agreed with me.


Will the Indian Secret Service have me bumped off if I do??


Answers on a post card to all TNCs who will relocate carbon emitting plants out of
Europe and America.


There is no difference between emitting carbon in England or in China.


One does start to wonder if green idiots will become the 21st century Jews……..


214.    hotrod (Larry L) says:


December 11, 2011 at 1:21 am


As the famous pace picante sauce commercial put it.


“Get a rope”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDj310Bjnc0


Larry


215.    JuergenK says:


December 11, 2011 at 3:12 am


We’ve survived doomsday so often and will so furtheron.
It was predicted by Jehova Witnesses, foreseen by Madam Blavatsky and Nostradamus,
blamed on comet Kohoutek, feared to be in year 2000, calculated by the mayans and
prophesized in the Bible. Yes, doomsday will come sometimes in the end very far in the
future but not now and not 2012 and not by climate change of 2°C.
Now these religious zealots are taking the “sword” to finally “kill” us if we don’t want to
be saved? This world seems to become an ugly place to live in.


216.    Ralph says:


December 11, 2011 at 3:55 am


>>Jbar says: December 10, 2011 at 4:35 pm
>>World government? I don’t know what you’re so afraid of.


The liberal dreamers have fantasies about the One World Government being based on
their liberal world view and their liberal reasoning. But what happens if the One World
Leader is actually Pol Pot, Stalin, Mugabe, Rutaganda, or Hitler? Power corrupts and
this most powerful of positions can corrupt utterly.


And then we have the problem of this One World Leader favouring his tribe, clan or
nation. Do we really want a One World Leader like Gaddafi or Saddam, who only ever
favoured their own clan and trod upon everyone else? A One World Leader is a very
dangerous position, that will inevitably lead to a One World Tyrant.
>>John West says: December 10, 2011 at 1:21 pm
>>Star Wars II, Galactic Senate grants “emergency powers” to Chancellor.
>>Star Wars III, Galactic Senate cheers the institution of Galactic Emperor.


This storyline was based upon the rise of Julius Caesar to the position of all-powerful
Emperor. And while Julius and Octavian were not so bad as a ‘One World’ leaders,
would you really want to live under a One World Caligula or Nero??


.


217.    iheartagw says:


December 11, 2011 at 5:06 am


All of this is well and good and necessary for CFACT to do. But while CFACT was at
Durban mocking CoP, prime minister Lisa Jackson at the U.S. EPA has already issued
two PSD permits for CO2 with teeth. One sets BACT for power generation as NGCC. The
other sets BACT as CCS. The Queen of Hearts is just a hairbreadth away from declaring
CCS as BACT for any new or modified coal-fired power plant. That will result in either
the last coal plant in the U.S., or our electricity rates will “necessarily skyrocket” to the
point that coal electricity will be as costly as solar (i.e., a doubling).


While CFACT is winning in the battle of court of public opinion, they are losing the war
to this country’s statist bureaucracy. If CFACT does not recognize this then all their
efforts are for naught.


It is time for Sen. Inhofe to put his patriotism on the line and once for all lead an effort
to reform the CAA that EPA has so brazenly perverted with a so-called “Endangerment
Finding” that could not withstand the light of day if it were revisited today. Congress will
have to nullify the Tailoring Rule that the Executive Branch crafted to usurp Congress’
authority.


The whole of the problem’s solution for the U.S. lies with Congress.

Now THAT is a scary thought.
218.    Phizzics says:


December 11, 2011 at 7:35 am


The UN can write an agreement that anthropomorphizes the planet, and the President
can sign it, but Congress can’t ratify it. Says so right here:


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”


219.    thepompousgit says:


December 11, 2011 at 8:17 am


“there will be no commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary
and does not deserve to be]


It’s in the Oxford English Dictionary: Volume III, p 563 centre column.


“The action of turning something into, or treating something as, a (mere) commodity;
commercialization of an activity that is not by nature commercial.”


An example of this would seem to be taxing the air we breathe…


220.    Frank White says:


December 11, 2011 at 8:20 am


I have not enjoyed such a comic opera for a long time, but I gather the promoters and
sponsors paid a lot more than necessary to get this huge cast of clowns together for our
entertainment.


221.    klem says:


December 11, 2011 at 8:24 am
“This world seems to become an ugly place to live in.”


And there is no good reason for it. I propose we find the source funding for the UN and
cut it off completly. Along with donations to the WWF, the Sierra club and any other
organization so closely related to the FCCC or its creature the IPCC.


222.    Roman Column says:


December 11, 2011 at 9:46 am


In the first half of the 19th Century good and honest people derided and ridiculed two
German dudes, one Karl Marx and the other Friedrich Engels for their crazy ideas. Fifty
years later, Lenin put into practice Marx’s teachings and after a centrury of worldwide
suffering socialism and communism claimed about 100 million victims.


The story is repeating itself. For the last twenty or so years good and honest people
derided and ridiculed a bunch of eco-zealots, not taking too seriously their plans for
world control and domination. We cannot afford any risk, however remote, to allow
these eco-zealots to continue with their plans, which from this article and the referenced
documents, are at quite an advanced stage. For evil to triumph, all it takes is for good
and honest people to do nothing.


223.    kim2ooo says:


December 11, 2011 at 11:11 am


David says:
December 10, 2011 at 6:55 am


It’s a pity Lord Monckton doesn’t give page and para references for his various ‘plain
english’ summaries. On a quick skim through the 138-page document I can find very
little of what he describes (e.g. references to ending war and the rights of ‘Mother
Earth’). Have I overlooked them in my quick skim (which is entirely possible)? Or are
they in a different document (maybe the ‘small print’ he refers to?)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Page number 15


Rights of mother earth
74. Ensure respect for the intrinsic laws of nature.
75. The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony
between humanity and nature, and that their will be no commodification of the
functions of
nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose.
…………………………………….


224.    davidmhoffer says:


December 11, 2011 at 6:28 pm


R. Gates says:
December 10, 2011 at 7:51 am
Durban will be a failure much the same as the current attempts to save the Euro. Both
will have long-term repercussions.
———
There is absolutely nothing alarmist in this at all– intended or otherwise. Both of these
are political and economic policy decisions by major world powers that will be have
repercussions for many years. Repercussions can be negative, positive, or neutral. Had I
used some adjective like “dire” etc. then you could call me alarmist with complete
justification. As it stands, you’ve gone once into your world of fiction to create
something that just isn’t there.>>>>


OK, so spell it out R. Gates. You said that there would be long-term repercussions.


Let’s work through the logic, shall we? If you were of the opinion that the repercussions
were insignificant, there would be no point commenting at all. It would be pretty silly to
imply that there were repercussions, but that they were insignificant, would it not? Is it
possible to read your vague remark and come to the conclusion that you meant anything
BUT that there would be SIGNIFICANT repercussions?
So, now let’s go onto your opinion as to the repercussions, which you deemed significant
enough to comment on, are, in your opinion, positive or negative. If one were of the
opinion that the repercussions were a net posistive, one would tend to use words like
“this is a positive outcome” or “this is the best thing that could happen”. Who would
couch positive results in a vague statement about “long term repercussions”? You have
an excellent grasp of the written word, is that how you would couch a positive outcome?
As a “long term repercussion”?


I need not even point out the many quotes from your comments on this blog that
illustrate your over all position. But the notion that you said there would be long term
repercussions and now wish to claim that you neither meant nor implied they would be
negative just doesn’t make sense.


But I’ll tell you what, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt. How about you be explicit.
Did you mean that the repercussions would be significant? Or not? Did you mean they
would be negative? Or not?


Simple questions that ought to have simple answers.


225.    davidmhoffer says:


December 11, 2011 at 6:38 pm


R. Gates;
Durban will be a failure much the same as the current attempts to save the Euro. Both
will have long-term repercussions.>>>


Ooops, I almost forgot the most important point. If, as you claim, ( and I quote:)


“Repercussions can be negative, positive, or neutral. Had I used some adjective like
“dire” etc. then you could call me alarmist with complete justification.”


…are we to assume that you mean that the attempts to save the Euro, and the
repercussions of failure, are ALSO neither negative,positive, or neutral? The truth is the
situation that the EU finds itself in is both dire, and negative. You cannot claim that you
did not intend to imply the same of the failure in Durban. If you did, you’d be claiming
that the EU does not have a significant and dire problem on their hands. Your intent sir,
was clear.


226.    Robert J says:


December 11, 2011 at 7:35 pm


Thanks to Lord Monckton for exposing these despots willing to enslave the world in a
desperate grab for wealth redistribution (poor to the rich). Democracy is not on their
agenda, totalitarianism is their ultimate goal. It seems many will not wake up to this
great scam until their monthly bills exceed their income.


227.    savethesharks says:


December 11, 2011 at 8:17 pm


JDSmith – Toronto says:
December 9, 2011 at 7:57 pm
This is not only insane but totalitarian.


What can we do?


=============================


You have to light the torches (in a diplomatic way, of course). But these brutes (because
they are brutes) don’t respond to anything less than appropriately applied force.


Peace, liberty, love, and gold,


Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA


228.    Steve Phillips says:
December 11, 2011 at 11:19 pm


It disappoints me greatly that otherwise intelligent members of the human race believe
anything that fraud Monckton says. You all get so worked up into rabid hysterics by him
and other unscrupulous ‘commentators’ you think there is a conspiracy everywhere you
look. Yet the real conspiracy is against the science and is promoted by vested interests.
All your capacity for rational thought has been thrown out the window. It is very sad.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves.


229.    JJThoms says:


December 12, 2011 at 4:47 am


Comments here are just unbelievably narrow minded.


An example country x notices fish stocks reaching survivable critical levels.
Country x forces its fisherment to put away their factory ships
Country y sees this as an oportunity to increase its fish yeilds with this dwindling
reserve.
Result = no fish = every one unhappy
What should have happened
Countries a to zzz agree to reduce catches to a sustainable level
Result = fish = every happy-ish (smaller catches)


The same is true with GLOBAL environment.


If Countries X+Y+Z create 60% of pollution but then Countries A, B, C, D, E, F,
suddenly up their levels to those of X, Y, Z then the earth sinks into the mire.


IF X, Y, Z say they will reduce their pollution levels but no one else agrees then the earth
sinks into the mire but more slowly.


A world wide agreement is required.
Is this global government – I do not thinks so.
Is this Communism by the back door. – I do not think so.


IT IS SIMPLY INTELLIGENCE at work


Who will organise this mass intelligence? USA, Russia, China, Zambia? All would have
agendas to push.


To attack a global problem needs a global agency – suggest one!


230.    davidmhoffer says:


December 12, 2011 at 5:39 am


Steve Phillips says:
December 11, 2011 at 11:19 pm
It disappoints me greatly that otherwise intelligent members of the human race believe
anything that fraud Monckton says>>>


Oddly, when I cross reference what Monckton says with other sources, he is invariably
correct. It disappoints me greatly that otherwise intelligent members of the human race
would make such an accusation without a single shred of evidence to show itz veracity.


231.    davidmhoffer says:


December 12, 2011 at 5:53 am


JJThoms;
IT IS SIMPLY INTELLIGENCE at work
Who will organise this mass intelligence? USA, Russia, China, Zambia? All would have
agendas to push.
To attack a global problem needs a global agency – suggest one!>>>


You mean like the human rights commission that they set up, which promptly started
villifying every western country for the tiniest of infractions while completely ignoring
the worst human rights abuses on the planet in places like Iran, Syria, Darfur, China and
North Korea? Or do you mean like the global agency set up to trade oil for food with Iraq
and promptly lined their own pockets with the proceeds while looking the other way one
whether or not the money was actually spent on food? Or do you mean like the UN
peace keeping forces that stood idley by while a million people in Rwanda were
slaughtered? Actually, standing idley by is probably a bit of improvement as they usually
high tail out of the region entirely at the first sign that the peace they are there to keep is
in jeapourdy.


Here’s the problem with your suggestion. History shows that the UN has made matters
worse, not better, in almost every problem they have tackled. You might want to ask
why.


Power corrupts.


A central global authority organized by the UN must bow to the will of itz international
members, the majority of which have names like Zambia, Venezuala, Zimbabwe, Chad,
Syria, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia….


The west spent many decades and many lives shedding the shackles of tyranny. You
seem to be eager to welcome those shackles back. You’ve failed to learn history’s lessons,
and you want to condemn the rest of us to repeating history with you.


232.    ScuzzaMan says:


December 12, 2011 at 7:58 am


I know conspiracy theories are unpopular unless they tend to reinforce existing
prejudices, but there have always been people on this earth intent on forging an unholy
alliance between politics and religion, and all the various factions pushing this
wheelbarrow seem quite amenable to that end. With all that history teaches us of the
dangers of such an arrangement, it is both startlingly ironic and suicidally stupid that we
are collectively allowing such a confluence to dominate us again – this time over the
whole earth, for real, and not merely as a matter of hyperbole or big-noting.
Monckton is quite right to refer to the “druids” here: this really is a return to the Dark
Ages in more ways than one.


233.    Gail Combs says:


December 12, 2011 at 9:05 am


Legally-binding treaty: According to the draft, the aim is to create a “legally-
binding instrument/outcome”. This is UN code for an international Treaty. The US will
sign no such treaty. Nor will Canada, Japan, France, India and many other countries.
On the basis of drafts as in-your-face idiotic as this, no legally-binding climate treaty
will ever be signed: which is just as well, because no such treaty is necessary.


Unfortunately Lord Monckton has more faith in the honesty and integrity of politicians
than I have. I think politicans are only faithful to those who pay for them and that is
NOT the general populous.


The facts are:


1. This is NOT in the national Media.


2. The USA has NOT nullified the World Trade Treaty despite an ever deepening fifteen
year loss of trade


3. Instead Congress passed a law that make our farmers, our very source of sustenance
subject to international rule.


4. Congress voted FOR the Bank bailout and the moneys taken FROM American Tax
Payers were handed over to Banks world wide.


5. The World Bank is up to it’s eyeballs in the global warming scam.


Financial entanglements. ~ Secret $7.77 Trillion Bailout:
…It dwarfed the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset
Relief Program, or TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had
committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than
half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.


“TARP at least had some strings attached,” says Brad Miller, a North Carolina
Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, referring to the program’s
executive-pay ceiling. “With the Fed programs, there was nothing.” …


Where the loans actually went:


…..One of the things we would like to address is the “Shadow Lenders.” As you know
the Fed gave support to hundreds of banks and other corporations and then would not
divulge what they had done. One of the sneaky things they did was to use $140 billion,
or 20% of the Fed’s Commercial Paper Funding Facility, $28 billion, to secretly fund
domestic and foreign corporations. Banks around the world benefited. How they did it
was via vehicles known as conduits. This contributed significantly to asset bubbles in
residential and commercial real estate prior to the financial crisis, which began three
years ago, by obscuring risks. Spokesmen for theses facilitators, banks, won’t say
whether their firms borrowed money from conduits that tapped the commercial paper
facility. These people are real beauties. Some transactions allowed companies to
remove assets from their balance sheets and reduce capital requirements. These
vehicles get quite large and were secretly hidden from regulators and Congress. This
criminal enterprise functioned from September 2008 through January 2010.


The total loaned from this facility by the Fed was $738 billion. The Fed says they did
not know what the conduits were doing with the money. If you believe that I have a
bridge you might be interested in. These conduits were similar to SIVs, or Special
Investment Vehicles, where assets, usually their losers, were held off balance sheets. In
pulling this slight of hand they did not need to hold capital against these assets. Thus,
Citigroup, Royal Bank of Scotland, etc. served as a vertical faucet for loans that very
few knew about. As you can see, just about anyone who wanted or needed funds got
them and the fed often didn’t even know where the funds went.

Both Europe, the UK and the US are on life support…..
The established parties in every country represent the financial interests
and on the edges we see the parties of protest. If an establishment
politician steps out of line their money is cut off and they are isolated. No
new direction is allowed. Wages must be lowered; the cost of business
must fall, as well as corporate taxation. All the gains from higher
productivity and lower wages must fatten the bottom line to increase
salaries and options for the leadership. They cannot have constituents
getting anything whether it is in Europe, the UK or the US. The elitists
want all the wealth and world government to go along with it. The
bureaucrats and the technocrats make the decisions and pass their orders
on to the countries leadership.
http://theinternationalforecaster.com/International_Forecaster_Weekly/Bank_Bailo
ut_A_Boondoggle_of_Billions


The Central banks WANT a world government (and control of ALL the wealth), that is
why they collapsed the economy of the West in the first place. They do not have to worry
about the third world countries because the World Bank OWNS those countries already.
(World Bank Structural Adjustment Policies:
http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html)


I am not sure what carrot is being waved in front of China, but with Maurice Strong in
residence, Al Gore giving talks to Chinese Business and JP morgan’s continued presence
I am sure there is one and that it goes all the way back to Al Gore and Clinton selling out
the USA in 1995.


…J.P. Morgan commenced operations in China in 1921 with the opening of an office in
Shanghai. Today, J.P. Morgan in China offers its clients a wide range of services
across investment banking, risk management, commodities, cash management, trade
finance, loans, foreign exchange and derivatives, asset management, futures
brokerage and private equity. The firm serves Chinese and international corporates,
financial institutions and government agencies through its network of offices….
http://www.jpmorganchina.com.cn/home_en.asp
http://www.issues2000.org/Al_Gore_China.htm
http://www.21tradenet.com/news_2011-7-27/214543.htm
http://www.hysta.org/ac2007/speakers.php


234.    Dr. Lurtz says:


December 12, 2011 at 9:33 am


Gail Combs says:
December 12, 2011 at 9:05 am


I agree completely. In addition, World government will need uniform wages around the
world. Someone putting on lug nuts in China will get paid the same as someone in
America. The easiest way… lower U.S., raise China.


They feel that everyone will get along [no war]:
a) if the financial inequities are removed.
b) if religion is made not threatening -> no Hell only Heaven.
c) if world government can remove anyone they feel is a threat to world peace.
d) if world government can distribute food and resources to all equally.


To bring this about, I feel that they are planning WW3 [World War three]. This will
cause reduction in world population on a massive scale. What will be left will then come
under “World Government” control. This is to prevent WW4, but will actually lead to
WW4.


By the way, we can see the “rest of the world” [non-developed] loving climate change as
a reason to enact a transfer of monies directly to them.


What is interesting is the government using CO2 as a reason, under the “police state
power” of the EPA, to slow or prevent U.S. growth. They won’t even let a pipeline be
built!!


235.    Gail Combs says:
December 12, 2011 at 10:27 am


I think this is the major deal that was glossed over:


….The Durban agreement…sets up the bodies that will collect, govern and
distribute tens of billions of dollars to poor countries suffering the effects of
climate change….


EXACTLY what does that mean???


Back to Lord Monckton’s earlier post.


Ø The West will pay for everything, because of its “historical responsibility” for
causing “global warming”…. There is no provision anywhere in the draft for the UN to
publish accounts of how it has spent the $100 billion a year the draft demands that the
West should stump up from now on.


The real lunacy comes in the small print…..


The West pays…. But the UN’s bureaucrats will actually get all or nearly all the money,
and will decide how to allocate what minuscule fraction they have not already spent
on themselves. As a senior UN diplomat told me last year, “The UN exists for
only one purpose: to get more money. That, and that alone, is the reason
why it takes such an interest in climate change.”


World government: The Copenhagen Treaty draft establishing a world
“government” with unlimited powers of taxation and intervention in the affairs of
states parties to the UN Framework Convention fortunately failed. Yet at the Cancun
climate conference the following year 1000 new bureaucracies were
established to form the nucleus of a world government, with central control in
the hands of the Convention’s secretariat and tentacles in every region and nation. The
draft “agrees that common principles, modalities and procedures as well as the
coordinating and oversight functions of the UNFCCC are needed” – in short, global
centralization of political, economic and environmental power in the manicured hands
of the Convention’s near-invisible but all-powerful secretariat. No provision is
made for the democratic election of key members of the all-powerful
secretariat – in effect, a world government – by the peoples of our planet.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/09/durban-what-the-media-are-not-telling-
you/


The real lunacy comes in the small print…..


Since the UN never believed in Climate Change/Globull Warming in the first place, it is
the FINE PRINT that sets up the bodies that will collect, govern and
distribute…


That is the real I gotcha. The United Nations gains the holy grail, the ability to TAX
directly. This is a major step in changing the UN into a WORLD GOVERNMENT.


Read this for an explanation of the real targets for the United Nations
From Carroll Quigley to the UN Millennium Summit:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates14.html


236.    ScuzzaMan says:


December 12, 2011 at 10:57 am


Ask yourself a provocative question: if the UN is merely the puppet, who are the puppet-
masters?


237.    JJThoms says:


December 12, 2011 at 11:06 am


davidmhoffer says: December 12, 2011 at 5:53 am
The west spent many decades and many lives shedding the shackles of tyranny. You
seem to be eager to welcome those shackles back. You’ve failed to learn history’s lessons,
and you want to condemn the rest of us to repeating history with you.
==================
You failed miserably to say how you will tackle global problems like e.g. Fishing,
Pollution, nuclear proliferation.
The west did a good job with tyranising many states in the world. It still has its goes at
others today. Sometimes it is simply revisiting problems it created!


238.    davidmhoffer says:


December 12, 2011 at 11:33 am


JJThoms;
You failed miserably to say how you will tackle global problems like e.g. Fishing,
Pollution, nuclear proliferation.>>>


I made no attempt top address those problems, so how could I fail?


I demonstrated that YOUR solution to those problems is impractical at best, and insane
at worst. The percentage chance of achieving “at best” being near zero. Stop apologizing
for our successes while promoting the grossest failures of humankind as “solutions”.
Pleeze. The only outcome your “solutions” have ever had in world history is death and
history books written in the blood of man’s inhumanity to man.


I shall defend to the death your right to speak as you wish, and so also shall I defend to
the death the imposition of your totalitarian utopia upon freedom’s tree, which, as has
been said, must be watered with the blood of tyrants. You propose tyranny sir, and I say
no.


239.    Jose Suro says:


December 13, 2011 at 4:57 am


Thank you Lord Monckton. The lessons of history are crystal clear, except to the
delusional mind….


Now that the UN’s “Manifesto” is out in the open this might be a good time to look in the
history books for analogues to the consequences of giving delusional minds a free reign
at control of the world.
Best,


J.


240.    Mardler says:


December 14, 2011 at 6:33 am


This book is now so relevant to what is happening that it should be compulsory reading
for everyone:- http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watermelons-Green-Movements-Colors-
ebook/dp/B005BE0S02 .


That is the UK Kindle version. It seems that what may be a hardback version will be
published in Feb 2012. Google for yourselves.


This is far from a mere CAGW bashing treatise: it goes far further to reveal the true
purpose of the green agenda, its’ forebears, its’ (UN lead) future (if they get their way)
and en route Delingpole shows us the origin of the “sustainability” mantra.


It is a MUST read.


241.    Brian H says:


December 14, 2011 at 6:47 am


davidmhoffer says:
December 12, 2011 at 11:33 am


I urge you to correct the wee typo, below. You omitted the word “against”, which I have
inserted in square braces:


I shall defend to the death your right to speak as you wish, and so also shall I defend to
the death [against] the imposition of your totalitarian utopia upon freedom’s tree,
which, as has been said, must be watered with the blood of tyrants. You propose
tyranny sir, and I say no.
With that adjustment, Hear! Hear!


242.    Peter MacFarlane says:


December 15, 2011 at 8:24 am


Is there any point in worrying about any of this nonsense?


After all, they don’t have any means of enforcing their absurd ideas.


They are roughly on the level of the eight-year-old who says “When I am Prime Minister
I will give myself a billion pounds a week pocket money”.


Pointing and laughing seems about the right response.


243.    David says:


December 22, 2011 at 1:46 pm


My eight year old son is more interested in endless computer time for games…much like
climate modellers!


244.    EEN says:


January 7, 2012 at 12:03 pm


Isn’t ‘Climate change’ merely one out of a multiude of delusionary games played by a
knit web of influential and greedy, but frightned people in key positions around the
world in science, banking, finance, business and politics including the Socialist
International, Freemasonry and the UN, who along with Marx, Lenin and Stalin adopted
the Dialectic formula of deception developed by the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm
Friedrich Hegel?


245.    Erw says:
January 16, 2012 at 10:51 am


Sorry to spoil your fun everybody, but if you actually take the time to look at the
document in question, you will notice that this is nothing like a decision, a proposal
from “UN bureaucrats” or anything like that. It is a compilation of all proposals made by
all countries, many of them contradictory and most of them nowhere near any
meaningful support from other countries. So for example, the proposal from Bolivia to
have a new “International Climate Court” is included in the document because Bolivia as
a member of the UN has a right to propose whatever they like, but this does not mean
that a single country supports them, nor that anybody employed in the UN system has
any sympathy for their idea. This is probably a bit too realistic and far removed from
outright conspiracy for it to be taken seriously in this forum, but it is nonetheless fact.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:6/21/2012
language:
pages:132