I want to take a minute and make a few observations before I list the latest Global Warming idiocy.

First of all, I never intended that my blog have such a frequent focus on Global Warming.  Frankly, there are more important things to waste my time on.

But the fact is, the ease at which the Alarmists are spreading their propaganda nearly unchallenged generally pisses me off.

The core of their arguments, according to them, is science.  Specifically, the scientific proof of the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere and mankind's role as the cause of Global Warming.  Science is something I tend to respect, so I should support their findings.

The problem is, the consensus is not a consensus, it is a dog and pony show coupled with a deliberate campaign to discredit the opposition and to suppress contrary finding.

That, my friends, is NOT science, that is politics masquerading as science. 

And since I blog, and politics is often my target, this becomes yet another aspect that meeds coverage.  Had this been a simple scientific debate, I wouldn't bother.  But when science is perverted by greedy men, and their lies and greed are affecting public policy, well I figure it is fair game.

So I chose my way of fighting it.

On to the latest insanity. 

First up, the real goals of the Alarmists are starting to show:

NewsBuster Noel Sheppard reported on the global climate meetings in Bali, particularly the letter sent to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon by a number of prominent scientists stating that the global warming hysteria was overblown. Now comes an attempt by US Senator James Inhofe to warn about the true goals of this movement.

Inhofe is a tireless crusader for truth in advertising where the global warming hysteria crowd is concerned. On the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works site he maintains the Inhofe EPW blog, wherein he and his staff update the hysteria of the global warming crowd. Today, blogger Marc Morano has posted a news release on the website exposing the real goals of the global warming crowd. The question is- will the so-called mainstream media actually report on this? Based on past experience, I would guess not.

According to the press release, the real goal of the global warming crowd is the imposition of world taxes- especially on the United States. Morano quotes 'global tax advocate' Othmar Schwank, of an organization called the Mauch Consulting Group.

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled “A Global CO2 Tax.” Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

In other words, in the manner of hypocritical power grabbers the world over, the method in which they gain the purse strings is less important than the results of gaining control of said purse strings. Morano continues by the eyes by quoting yet another advocate, one Emma Brindal.

So is that bad?  Shouldn't we contribute?  Perhaps not, when the real goal of the money appears to be wealth distribution:

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday. “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

So there we have it. I think a more honest name for Brindal's group would be Friends of Taxing the US to Give Money to the Unaccountable UN. The real goal of all these so-called climate change advocates is the taxation of rich nations so that they can transfer money to poor nations- socialism in action. This is highlighted by the concerns Inhofe's blog also states. Morano quotes several skeptics of global warming, such as Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Writes Morano,

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Lindzen said in March 2007. In addition, many critics have often charged that proposed tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science.

 So there you have it:  Socialistic wealth redistribution, not just in one country, but Globally.

I find that chilling, personally, and another good reason to sack the UN.

He mentioned a letter, above, from Scientists to the UN.  Scroll down below to see the entire letter. 

Meanwhile, the man who would be King, Al Gore is trashing the US:

Gore hits at US over climate change

Al Gore savaged the US government’s “obstructing” attitude and urged delegates at the UN conference on climate change to ignore Washington if necessary to pursue the “moral imperative” of a new global regime.

“My country is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali,” the former US vice-president told 2,000 of the 12,000 people attending the conference on Thursday. “[But] over the next two years the United States is going to be somewhere it is not now.”

And no one challenges his using the same scientifically flawed "facts":

A substantial part of Mr’s Gore’s hour-long address was a recap of material he has used on numerous occasions since making An Inconvenient Truth, his Oscar-winning film, in 2006. He described how scientists are warning of a rapidly escalating crisis unless greenhouse gas emissions are significantly reduced.

Meanwhile others are for imposing even more taxes, this time on babies:

Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert

A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.

...

"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote.

"Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a 'baby levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle."

And people wonder why I call it foolishness.

Hang to your carbon emitters....we are only just getting started on this planet.  The foolish panic has yet to begin.  Wait until they decide we need to weed out the planet's population to reduce carbon.  Will they start euthanizing at age 70 next?

 Trackposted to Sister Toldjah, Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Mark My Words, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, sTIX bLOG, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, , Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Stageleft, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Random Yak, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, nuke's, Wake Up America, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, , The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, CORSARI D'ITALIA, High Desert Wanderer, OTB Sports, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

***

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

• Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
• The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
• Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

[List of signatories]

Trackback URI | Comments RSS