Chestnuts Roasting On A Copenhagen Fire
*period*
December 10, 2009
Copenhagen is on fire this week, and there's far more heating up than
just the climate.
Heads of state and others are gathering this week at the United
Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, but bonfires already
have been blazing for weeks on that European front.
Let me see whether I can summarize the chestnuts roasting on that
Copenhagen fire.
Shocking e-mail exchanges from scientists at an eminent global warming
research center in the United Kingdom have proved that key climate
change scientists have suppressed evidence in order to "trick" the
public or "hide the decline" of global temperatures.
Rather than focus on the audacity of the ClimateGate cover-up, Obama's
top science adviser, John Holdren, downplayed the e-mails, informing
Congress that the controversy involved a small group of scientists.
And others, including Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., blamed the hackers
who exposed the e-mails rather than the scientists who deceived the
world with false global climate reports.
Similarly, the U.N. was caught recently deleting documents that would
disclose how member states are leading (or not leading) the way in
self-greening efforts.
The scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters documented that
ice melt on Antarctica was the lowest in 30 years during 2008-09, a
fact being ignored intentionally by NASA.
A U.S. scholar is threatening to sue NASA in order to prompt the
agency to release climate change data, which he says have been
manipulated here just like in Britain.
Officials in the Environmental Protection Agency gagged one of their
own senior researchers after the 38-year employee submitted an
internal critique of the EPA's climate change position.
Unlike the U.S., China and India already have opposed foreign climate
governance because it would jeopardize their national sovereignty.
Nearly two months ago, Christopher Monckton, once science adviser to
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, warned us that the real
purpose of the conference is more about global government than it is
about global warming.
In my former column titled "Obama's One-World Government," I detailed
more than a dozen actual statements in the proposed summit treaty that
threaten our national sovereignty, could severely cripple our already
depressed economy and are so globally socialistic that they would make
even a communist blush.
Al Gore made statements back in July that change will be driven
through "global governance."
The U.N.'s climate chief, Yvo de Boer, reported that between $10
billion and $12 billion annually will be needed from developed
countries (e.g., the U.S.) through 2012 to "kick-start" things.
According to the World Bank, adapting for global warming (e.g.,
building larger dams and higher bridges) will cost an additional $75
billion to $100 billion a year over the next 40 years. (A business
professor at the University of Cambridge says it could be as high as
$300 billion.)
A Japanese energy commission revealed that the majority of Japanese
scientists reject U.N.- and Western-backed theories of climate change.
Despite Rep. Ron Paul's call for members of Congress to consider the
joint opinion of more than 32,000 U.S. scientists -- including more
than 9,000 Ph.D.s -- who believe humans likely have little or no part
in the creation of "global warming," White House press secretary
Robert Gibbs justified the White House's position and waved away
opposition by tritely retorting that most people believe in global
warming. A recent survey, however, found Americans' belief in global
warming has declined and is at a 12-year low.
With 16,500 delegates descending upon Copenhagen -- including 140
aircraft carrying world leaders, heads of state and VIPs -- the U.N.
estimates that the 12-day conference will create 40,584 tons of carbon
dioxide equivalents. And could it be merely coincidental that all
these planes are amassing at one place Dec. 7, the very anniversary of
Pearl Harbor? Or are these all signs that our real enemies are looming
on the horizon?
As I consider all of these global warming quandaries, the questions
that keep coming to my mind are:
If there's no final draft of a treaty to sign, why is our president
"contributing to global warming" by flying that super-jumbo 747 Air
Force One to Copenhagen?
Why does Obama want to require American households to pay possibly
more than $3,000 in additional annual taxes to reduce greenhouse
emissions?
In the midst of one of America's worst recessions, where is the
federal government going to get the billions of dollars needed to
fulfill the financial promise to assist developing countries with
green initiatives outlined on Page 11 of the 181-page climate summit
treaty, which says it would ensure "that global crises, such as the
financial crisis, should not constitute an obstacle to the provision
of financial and technical assistance to developing countries in
accordance with the Convention"?
Hasn't the Obama administration charged enough on the nation's credit
cards in its first year in power by its trillions of dollars in
bailouts, borrowing and additional government programs, including
socialized medicine?
How much more will we take? Or should I say, how much more will they
take?
Our government would do well to reconsider and actually live and lead
by the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said during his first inaugural
address, in 1801: "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain
men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to
regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not
take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum
of good government."
Rich
> by Chuck Norris
> December 10, 2009
>
> Copenhagen is on fire this week, and there's far more heating up than
> just the climate.
Third World garbage gleeful at the thought of all that "anti-C02" money
going into their Swiss bank accounts from Western nations.