…

Australian scientist, author and climate change activist Tim Flannery came to Ottawa recently to promote his latest book, Now or Never and to press the Canadian government to sign on to Copenhagen. Now I must say that compared to many Canadian green activists, Flannery seems highly reasonable and a nice chap; he even has a sense of humour, a quality that seems to have leeched out of our own green movement some time in the ‘90s.

When I asked Flannery about the notion reported in such climate change boosting newspapers as Britain’s left-wing Guardian, that the deal would mean a massive transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world, Flannery didn’t flinch. In fact he called this essential to the deal.

“We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen. We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case,” said Flannery. “The negotiations now ongoing towards the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society, our relationship with the developing world, our relationship with the environment as well.”

…

Without a discussion of electrics this isn’t a skeptical position but rather an opposing one to Al Gore. Indeed calls out Al Gore and appears on a political show. Opposition to an idea, especially one that is bad, is not science, and that fundimentally is the problem with the fascists right now like Beck.

My point in this exchange was defend Lord Monckton and why he was on Glenn Beck’s show. You probably read the last few comments I posted and not all of them.

I couldn’t care less about Glenn Beck’s and Tor’s politics. I do care that people see who everyone is and their motivation for talking about Monckton the way they are.

I clearly see that ~dbstealey asked this exchange end. It has for me. I only posted this comment to clarify why I had been posting my comments. It appears the original intent was lost somewhere along the way.

—————————————

~dbstealey.

I won’t be back to this thread. I don’t want to be a dork and ignore the requests of moderators.

In case you haven’t noticed, the U.S. isn’t even paid up on its regular membership dues in the UN. It hasn’t paid for years. We currently owe the U.N $1.3 billion, with no immediate plans of paying.

To imagine that Congress would approve a 2% tax (on what? the U.S. GNP?) that would be placed under UN control is not even remotely possible. It would be voted down in a heartbeat.

I am quite surprised that people here don’t realize that the United Nations enacts such flowery rhetoric all the time, and then absolutely nothing happens.

According to you “.. world socialism is a bogeyman that doesn’t fly. To propose that the United Nations will be the one to introduce it is laughable. ..China, India, and Russia will not follow along with any limitations on their economic policies, and if they do, that’s when the U.S. takes its marbles and goes home, because the only reason those countries would go along would be to place the onus on the U.S. economy. So much for the fear of worldwide collectivism. It is a point of view that is just as alarmist as AGW.”

The Copenhagen draft agreement is there for all to read. This is from the United Nations. Why should it be so hard to understand that the UN wants to sneak in a tax (as much as possible, allegedly about 2% of the income of western nations) for the supposed cause of “fighting climate change”, an imaginary enemy about to destroy the world.

UN officials pay lip service to socialism. They weep for the poor while paying themselves obscenely high salaries and perks. They go periodically broke because of these huge outgoings so they would be happy for a secure source of income. Thus funding is a favourite word in their document.

They say “It is also particularly important to provide adequate, predictable, stable, sufficient and timely funding for adaptation purposes particularly by developed countries. Developed country Parties shall support these developing countries in meeting the costs of adaptation.”

“They (we that is) shall also provide new and additional funding to cover the full incremental costs incurred by developing countries in implementing nationally appropriate mitigation actions undertaken in the context of sustainable development.” – Its all our fault you see. We have caused the climate change.

Now if we have to fight malaria it is not necessary to provide better health and sanitation we have to research on how reduce carbon. Pest control is tackled the same way. Hurricanes flooding New Orleans – better dykes and levees? Oh no no – sequester carbon and you wont have Katrina. Polar bears and other species dying? Simply declare CO2 a pollutant and tax it.

They need funds so they say “The establishment of a [Readiness fund][Special REDD-plus fund][a new and additional fund]. The funds shall come from contributions from [developed country Parties], [market-linked revenues], [innovative funding sources including auctioning of national emissions trading allowances or of assigned amount units at international level, and penalties or fines for non-compliance of developed country Parties with their emission reduction and financial resources commitments]. These funds shall be [new and additional to ODA], [complementary to GEF, and bilateral and multilateral funding].”

Alternatively “A window of the relevant financial mechanism established under the Convention through [an International Climate Fund][a special climate change fund][a mitigation fund].”

Of course the money must come from somewhere – from our pockets.

Obama is saying we must have an agreement, Brown is saying we must, our PM is saying so as is Kevin Rudd, the European Nations are saying so – why do you think it is ridiculous that is will happen?

At any rate, I have no interest in discussing partisan politics on this site. I stand by my assertion that skeptics are better off in the AGW debate if they stick to the facts and the science.

And I stand by my assertion that the only audience that matters is the U.S. mainstream.

[Reply: OK then, everyone please leave it at that. ~dbstealey, moderator.]

I find him to not be a serious contributor to the political discourse.

I’d say that’s minimizing.

What I thought was revealing about President Barak Obama in regards to FOX News is the statement from the White House last week that said they are bringing up FOX in particular because they are ‘speaking truth to power’. Odd that. Very odd. They think FOX is ‘the power’ and not themselves.

So they think FOX News and Glenn Beck have power that you say is only a non-serious contribution.

All I can say is long live freedom of the press!! And of the internet!!

p.s. yes, that felt good to say too. ;-)

I find him to not be a serious contributor to the political discourse.

That’s funny…

from what I have observed over the summer he has influenced politics in America more than anyone else. Now the White House can’t stop talking about FOX.

But I think you are blocking that out from your view. It must be most unpleasant.

I dsidn’t ask to change your opinion.

And I didn’t say I was a fan of Glenn Beck either.

But you admit something that was clear from the first—politics are what is important to you.

‘Tor, one of the flaws in subscribing to any debate is that you become pigeonholed. Unfortunately you are either conservative (liberal/republican) or or socialist (labor/democrat) , but there’s not a thing you can do about it because the press express views in dualities only.

Where’s the opinion of the centre? They don’t care and it will never get noticed. Individual accountability provides no scandal or hysteria.
After all this global warming nonsense is over, we’ll be back to the same ol’ rigmarole and history will repeat over and over, despite the best efforts of sites like this.

I really believe that most of us are getting off on the challenge.

I for one am relieved that you got that off your chest.

If you like Glenn Beck and subscribe to his opinions, that’s fine with me. I find him to not be a serious contributor to the political discourse. You keep your opinion, I’ll keep mine.