UNFCCC boss Christiana Figueres’ dreams spell a nightmarish future for Earth’s citizens

Christiana’s nightmare – for the rest of us

By Craig Rucker

This week, as United Nations luminaries gather in Doha, Qatar, for the 18th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, the self-described “daughter of a revolutionary,” has presented her goals. The most important is a massive transfer of wealth – $100 billion a year – from soon-to-be formerly rich Europeans and Americans to UN bureaucrats who claim to represent the world’s “developing” nations and Earth’s poorest citizens.

This astonishing concept is beyond surreal. It contends that the world already has enough wealth; that the developing world cannot or ought not generate any new wealth, certainly not from hydrocarbons, but rather should be content with receiving transfer payments monitored by the UN bureaucracy; and that the industrialized world should be put in an economic straitjacket, and yet charged $1 trillion per decade for climate change reparations and mitigation – on the premise that its carbon dioxide emissions have supplanted the many natural forces that caused extensive and repeated climate changes for eons. 

Coupled with the underlying premise that wealth transfers are the only way to combat alleged planet-threatening, manmade global warming, is it any wonder that the entire Doha conference is like a bad dream (or horror movie)? Or that this ridiculous saga is taking place in the nation that boasts the world’s highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions?

Of course, the UN’s objective in Doha extends far beyond wealth transfers. It seeks a total restructuring of world political power, energy systems and economies – with the UN on top and nation states bowing before its ministers, just as a newly elected President Obama bowed before his eminence, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Just imagine: The gilded Lilliputians have gathered in Doha to strip the giants of their wealth, and oddly enough the giants (the EU and USA) are willing to be stripped naked, but only (apparently) if the emerging economic powers (including China and India) will follow suit and set their own economy-strangling carbon-cutting targets. We are witnessing Mutually Assured Destruction all over again! Except, of course, that China and very likely India will opt out of this charade, laughing all the way to the bank at this grand farce.

Despite 16 years of stable planetary temperatures, and growing evidence that prior projections of rapid warming were based on faulty modeling and outright disinformation, the mainstream media continue to hype the global warming cataclysm talking points.

Associated Press “reporter” Karl Ritter, for example, said the Doha battle “between the rich and the poor” is over “efforts to reach a deal to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2° C, compared to preindustrial times” – when Earth was emerging from the Little Ice Age. He cited a recent World Bank “projection” of an up to 4° C rise by 2100. Even worse, New York Times reporter James Atlas, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, warned that the Big Apple will likely sink beneath the sea in the next 50 to 200 years.

Both predictions must have been buried somewhere in Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Energy Information Administration in 2011 forecast a 53% jump in world energy demand from 2008 levels by 2035. And the International Energy Agency predicted that the U.S. will be the world leader in natural gas production by 2015 and oil production by 2020, with Canada not far behind.

More to the point, despite Figueres’ blathering about increased investments in and reduced costs of “clean” energy, the fact is that oil, natural gas and, yes, even coal, will furnish much (if not most) of this expanding demand for energy. Expensive, subsidized, land-hungry, wildlife-killing, food-price-hiking “renewable” energy will remain a small niche player for decades to come.

It is not surprising that the bureaucrats at Doha are focusing on rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, given their catastrophic worldview that somehow fails to incorporate real economic progress for developing world citizens. They apparently see nothing wrong with the fact that most of the fossil energy production in Africa, for example, has contributed virtually nothing to constructing functional power grids, truck-worthy highways, or even air traffic routing that bolster trade, build local economies, lift families out of poverty, and help eliminate the wood and dung burning that kills millions from lung infections.

Instead, the energy is shipped overseas, to countries that don’t have enough indigenous energy – or to the United States, which refuses to develop its own vast hydrocarbon deposits.

And no wonder. Fossil fuel fired power plants in Africa do not fit the “Clean Development Mechanism” model that the UN devised – and foisted on poor countries – to enable rich nations to dump “clean energy” projects on the poor, while maintaining their own comparatively extravagant lifestyles and purchasing indulgences (carbon credits) to assuage their guilt.

Aside from the fact that someone (Al Gore, international bankers and their kin) will make a killing off any carbon trading schemes – and that the UN bureaucracy is seeking to pad its own employment rolls and pocketbooks – the sad reality is that none of the shenanigans at Doha (or at any previous or future UNFCCC dog and pony show) is likely to improve the well-being of the billions of humans in so-called developing countries one whit.

These people need cheap, reliable, abundant energy and the infrastructure it can support, in order to climb out of abject poverty, lengthen life spans grossly shortened by disease and malnutrition, and terminate the tyranny of neo-colonialists who, in the name of “preventing climate change,” continue to rule over them with iron fists.

By now, everyone knows that “global warming” or “climate change” or “weird weather” is nothing but a smokescreen for those like Figueres and Obama, who view economic growth as either evil or environmentally intolerable – and thus think taking from the rich and giving to bureaucrats who claim to represent the poor will even things out, and is the highest and best thing we can do.

A far better agenda for Doha would be encouraging the emergence of genuine leadership in the world’s poor nations (and its rich nations), to foster energy generation and infrastructure building, and unleash entrepreneurial instincts and wealth creation that truly enrich the lives and fortunes of their people.

____________

Craig Rucker is executive director of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)

This article originally appeared in the National Journal, in its Energy Experts Blog on climate change, December 4, 2012.

About these ads
This entry was posted in COP conferences and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to UNFCCC boss Christiana Figueres’ dreams spell a nightmarish future for Earth’s citizens

  1. Barbara Skolaut says:

    [snip - over the top -mod]

  2. GlynnMhor says:

    Another lustrum, or maybe even two, with no perceptible warming will be needed to finally convince these alarmists and rent-seekers that their paradigm is so moribund as to be unsaleable.

  3. john robertson says:

    Christiana should be encouraged to speak more often. These interesting people, to paraphrase Bugs Bunny,need more of the aerosol that encourages them to come out into the sunlight. Same with the Mann, we should flatter them more so they speak more in public.
    As our economies crash and burn, our local pollies will need the UN to point to and say, it was them, look what they made us do.
    Keep your ammo dry and weapons clean, the UN may need helped.
    Mean time campaign your govt do defund the UN, or be defunded.
    On 2nd thought, the UN is headquartered in New York, CAGW seems to have gotten its start up money from the US govt, (DOE) and USA is broke beyond belief.
    Who better to broker the fictitious flow of funds?
    Beat that for a conspiracy theory.

  4. pat says:

    as with Copenhagen, so with Doha – Mother Nature is on the side of CAGW sceptics. pics are stunning:

    5 Dec: Daily Mail: More traffic chaos on its way as forecasters predict up to six inches of snow and freezing conditions overnight
    Forecasters admitted snow across the South had taken them a little by surprise
    British Gas has 10,000 engineers and 60 4×4 vehicles on standby in anticipation of extra heating and gas problems
    It comes after forecasters admitted they were taken by surprise when unexpected heavy snow blanketed the South of England overnight.
    Experts wrongly said yesterday that London and the South East would be ‘cold and dry’ with ‘scattered showers – some wintry’ in the South West…
    They only predicted that snow would settle in the North, with four inches on high ground and just two inches remaining lower down by morning.
    Instead, a band of snow wreaked havoc as it moved down across the south of England, with the unprepared home counties awaking to wintry scenes and travel chaos…
    Met Office spokesman Mark Wilson admitted today that forecasters had not expected the extreme weather.
    He said: ‘The snow has been heavier than we first thought and it has brought the snow to lower levels. It was in the forecast, but the actual snow that fell was to lower levels than we had earlier forecast.
    ***’This is in the nature of forecasting. It is difficult. The issue of snow was mentioned in the forecast, but on higher ground.’…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243251/UK-weather-More-traffic-chaos-way-forecasters-predict-inches-snow-freezing-conditions-overnight.html

    ——————————————————————————–

  5. pouncer says:

    We have to realize the Malthus or “Limits to Growth” paradigm begins with a hockey stick showing human population growth since the start of the industrial revolution. In this view the Earth and all our resources are finite, and the particular resource of biospheric protoplasm has been stolen from extinct or vastly reduced populations of whales, bison, passenger pigeons and dodo birds to be squandered on useless humanity. We hear this often among those who argue that “even if” the science regarding carbon dioxide and catastrophic climate change might be incorrect, the handover of governance over human economic decisions to select few is justified because of the damage already done.

    Those mourning the deaths of other species are of course actively hoping for vast numbers of human beings to die and release the unfair share of bio-resources back into the wild. Human death is not a bug in this worldview — nor even a feature. it is the whole point.

    “Sustainable” does not, therefore, refer to technology that sustains human beings or culture or society. It refers to systems that re-allocate biological resources to sustain and restore ecosystems apart from and without human beings in the mix.

    The partisans of this goal may fairly be called “counter-revolutionary” or reactionary, in that they reflexively oppose the revolution in production methods introduced in the so-called Enlightenment.

  6. The Green Eye says:

    UN heads farther and farther into La La land…..

  7. HaroldW says:

    Could have done without the gratuitous political sideswipes. Distracting, and detracts from the article’s persuasiveness, regardless of the reader’s political orientation.

  8. Pat Frank says:

    The UN Oil-for-Food program casts a useful light on the true intentions of the UN hierarchy and a paradigm for what would happen to $100bn passing through their hands every year by force of treaty.

    They intend to, and would proceed to, make themselves rich. From pious fraud to pernicious larceny.

  9. Jesse G. says:

    Maybe the rich countries can donate solar plants to the poor nations.

  10. Ian says:

    There is a story in the Australian press today (December 6) that several countries including the US, Canada, China, India, and Japan are to set up an entity separate from the UN to evaluate and develop appropriate strategies for Climate Change. If this eventuates the UN and Ms Figueres may well be largely irrelevant on Climate Change

  11. James Allison says:

    Oh well thanks for your personal views Craig Rucker.

  12. Dr K.A. Rodgers says:

    The Green Eye says:
    UN heads farther and farther into La La land…..
    _____________________________________
    Regretably they seek to take the rest of us with them – for our own good of course.

  13. ferd berple says:

    Jesse G. says:
    December 5, 2012 at 5:26 pm
    Maybe the rich countries can donate solar plants to the poor nations.
    ==========
    Most green plants are solar powered.

  14. Caleb says:

    Midsummer snow in Australia:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8213932/Wintry-weather-brings-snow-to-Australia-in-midsummer.html

    I’m just a little afraid the children will not know what snow looks like because they’ll all be frozen to death.

  15. MattS says:

    @ferd berple,

    “Most green plants are solar powered.”

    I was going to say something similar, but changed my mind. It’s nice to know that there is someone with a similar sense of humor out there somewhere :)

  16. Albert Stenton says:

    These people’s fraud has developed a secondary communications structure where they reflect their ultimate fear of law enforcement by limiting the amount of newly ginned up, additional fraud they announce they just “developed using grants obtained while working at ________.GOV; and that “AS USUAL, THIS RESEARCH is TOO IMPORTANT for us to ANSWER LEGAL FOIA LAW about it. Screw You *CLICK*. ”

    That’s what each of these “news” events is: flaunting that in America, government employees set policy, screw what you want, if you REALLY care, why don’t you work for government like WE do?

    It’s crime.
    It was when Al Gore revealed they were ginning up the “CO2 might have magic properties whereby the Tropopause explodes” fraud to get research dollars. They were ‘starved of the resources they really need, but thank HEAVENs, I lawst thuh UhLeCKSHun so I can save you awl frum puttin in those policies that would have led to YaW’z duHSTRUCKshun.”

    When the Vice President of the United States says he approves of government employees telling you that if you talk about him he’ll sue you and have a restraining order and punitive damages assigned

    when HE has been making statements to PRESS

    you have what is called
    C
    R
    I
    M
    E

    and the nerve to make press announcements regularly so you can remember that if you don’t keep paying for it they have already collected enough resources from everyone else, they’ll just use that, to wipe you out.
    It’s CRIME I said.
    And not one law enforcement officer in this country or the world has been able to stop it.

  17. Zeke says:

    “These people need cheap, reliable, abundant energy and the infrastructure it can support, in order to climb out of abject poverty, lengthen life spans grossly shortened by disease and malnutrition, and terminate the tyranny of neo-colonialists who, in the name of “preventing climate change,” continue to rule over them with iron fists.”

    It is the worst form of colonialism the world has ever seen: the colonials in this case are not even necessarily enriching themselves. The object is only to impoverish others, through enforcing sustainable development on poor countries. For example, look at the activities of the despicable REDD, which introduces “sustainable” agricultural practices to reduce productivity.

    A second example is provided by China’s push to get sustainable agriculture agreements from the European Union to revert back to Medieval farming practices – no pest control, no fertilizers, no high yield crops. In fact, China’s own Sha Zukang, Under Sercretary General UNDESA, presided over the Rio +20 Sustainable Development summit. It seems to me that Beijing is very concerned with helping Western nations adopt sustainable practices. And China is also very keen on getting increased control of the internet in Dubai right now in a treaty-writing conference. I think the COP18 is not where the action is, but Dubai is where to look.

    refs: http://www.seeddaily.com/reports/EU_China_agree_on_ag_sustainability_999.html

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/13836-un-using-propaganda-to-defend-proposed-internet-regime

  18. Aussie Luke Warm says:

    Wow, how can I get on this $100B gravy train? I know! Just stop getting out of bed in the morning, stop going to work…

  19. In concept, there have been times in recent history when most countries have been on a fairly equal footing, ready to make good. Why have some achieved more than others, so that the UN divides the world into rich countries to pay poor countries?
    The answer is not all in land resources. Look at how tiny Singapore has prospered after the leveling effect of WWII.
    The answer is not in a vague concept of “interent country level of intelligence” because the is precious little evidence for this concept except on a minor scale, like Indians who migrated to Fiji becoming better, wealthier merchants than the natives.
    No, the answer lies in quality of Government, which is a shame, because it is so hard to create.You can see the border between California and Mexico on satellite images, indicating different degrees of organisation and success. Remember the Iron Curtain and how quickly those on one side prospered, those on the other did not?
    It’s like a foot race. There will emerge a first place and a last place. The reasons why are amenable to analysis, though the variables are many. Why are Ethiopians such good long distance runners?
    The solution does not lie in the massive transfer of goods or money from rich countries to poor countries. It depends on the WITHDRAWAL of bodies intent on doing this, like the UN, religious groups, many NGOs. The poorer have to learn to close the gap and they do not do that by sitting by the roadside pleading for alms.
    Baroness Thatcher said some wise words. ‘“No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions – he had money too”. Rich countries that give away their wealth become forgotten and unthanked. She also said “It is not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but the love of money for its own sake.”
    It is not heartless to suggest that the UN/IPCC/NGO have fixated on love of money and have exhibited an obscene desire to control it into their personal pockets.

  20. Patrick says:

    “pat says:
    December 5, 2012 at 4:52 pm”

    Pretty amazing pictures there, especially Purley, Croydon. Reminds me of the may 1970’s winters.

  21. OssQss says:

    My apologies, but this was the first thing that came to mind upon reading this …….

    Kinda reminds me of the voting trend in the recent election in the U.S. of A.

  22. This crap doesn’t even hold the plot of a good fairy tail. Maybe a class C movie? The Revenge of the Killer Tomatoes or The Blob comes to mind.

  23. RobW says:

    Hey dennis now you are knocking classic movies, be they bad ones but classics none the less. ;)

  24. Mervyn says:

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, the self-described “daughter of a revolutionary,” ….

    Well, more like “daughter of darkness”!!!!!!

    These people like Figueres are blind. They refuse to acknowledge the real world observational data that reflects 16 years of no discernible warming despite rising Co2 levels in the atmosphere. They ignore this because it busts their mantra about CO2 emissions from human activity being the cause of catastrophic global warming and being the key driver of climate change all underpinned by their greenhouse effect supposition.

    People like her are dabbling in the “climate change occult” … they’re dizzy in the cyber space of climate models and mythical flawed future scenarios riding on the crest of a CO2 wave …

    They’re mad! The frightening thing is that it is people like her who are calling the shots on climate policy.

  25. Amr marzouk says:

    Less corruption is what the poor countries need

  26. RoHa says:

    “Figueres and Obama, who view economic growth as either evil or environmentally intolerable – and thus think taking from the rich and giving to bureaucrats who claim to represent the poor will even things out, and is the highest and best thing we can do.”

    Obama is an American politician, and so, whatever he thinks, he supports the current system for taking from the poor and giviing to rich.

  27. RoHa says:

    giving to the rich.
    (Must clean the marmalade out of my keyboard.)

  28. Thanks, Craig, Good reporting!
    Francisco de Goya y Lucientes (Spanish, 1746–1828): The sleep of reason produces monsters.
    See http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/18.64.43

  29. DirkH says:

    HaroldW says:
    December 5, 2012 at 5:14 pm
    “Could have done without the gratuitous political sideswipes. Distracting, and detracts from the article’s persuasiveness, regardless of the reader’s political orientation.”

    Welcome, UN-assigned concern troll. Report back to your master Figueres that we won’t go away.

  30. DirkH says:

    Mervyn says:
    December 5, 2012 at 8:01 pm
    “These people like Figueres are blind.”

    No; they are smart, well connected, extremely cunning manipulators. Her brother is chairman of Richard Branson’s Carbon War Room. These people have their eyes on trillions of Dollars, and no conscience.

  31. TomRude says:

    Expect more temperature adjustments to show that warming has already exceeded 2C degree by 2020… ;-)

  32. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    I live in fear of what happens when people, inured with the endless COP circi, let down their guard. It will be then that this gang will pounce. As long as we can focus attention on them, they will always bumble and disagree. Still, I’m glad I’m getting old.

  33. John F. Hultquist says:

    . . . the mainstream media continue to hype the global warming cataclysm talking points.

    . . . the mainstream media continue to hype the global warming Catechism talking points.

    There. Fixed it for ya.

  34. Robert Kral says:

    it’s always been about an excuse to accumulate power. Do not underestimate these people. Unlike those of us who actually work for a living and produce something useful, this is all they think about. All day long, every day. Complacency is suicide.

  35. nc says:

    Just look how well in North America transferring money to native reservations has worked out. many rich chiefs and the res continually in a poor state.

  36. RockyRoad says:

    “From each according to their ability; to each according to their need.” (p. 323, 661 & 668 in the large print copy.)

  37. E.M.Smith says:

    @Rocky Road:

    “He who does not work, shall not eat.” From bitter experience applying the former in the early American Colonies and discovering that the result was ‘equality in poverty’…

    Folks forget the the USA started out with many “Utopian” colonies. Universally they failed.

    BTW, the ‘talking points’ of wealth redistribution et. al. are straight out of Marxist doctrine. There is a concerted effort to spread Marxist Socialism globally via the UN. We ought not sign any “treaties” concerning any economic activity that have their grubby finger prints on them…

    For those wondering:

    The basic reason ‘wealth redistribution’ fails is due to an economic propensity called “Marginal propensity to invest”. If you are poor, you consume everything you can. Only a relatively rich person can save extra seed corn, and spend hours inventing a new kind of stove. To the extent that the money accumulates with those who are more wealthy, more ends up invested in growth, and less is consumed. The end result is rising living standards for all. (Vis the entire history of economic growth of the capitalist west and our advance relative cushy lives today.)

    When money is ‘redistributed’ to the poor, the wealth is consumed and investment drops. Less food and material goods are produced. (That results in the need for even more ‘redistribution’…) As the rich are made poor too, they have no money to invest. The average “Propensity to invest” in the society dries up and you end up back in poverty. See Maoist China for an example…

    So it is VERY important to NOT indulge in “income redistribution”. So why would a Marxist push for it? Because their fundamental doctrine included a belief in “The fundamental contradiction of capital” and “The inevitable revolt of the workers”. So,. you see, they dearly desire the workers to get about that revolting and the only way to do that is to do some good old income redistribution to bring about the collapse (that they see as inevitable anyway). It is an absolute anathema to that world view to have increasing levels of investment and prosperity, as then their ‘revolt’ won’t come; and that would mean they were wrong… and they can’t stand to think that…

    Do I like this? No, not at all. I’m not particularly wealthy and have spent most of my life working for a paycheck. But I don’t have to like something to know how it works. And that is simply how economics works. Those who are prone to being frugal and investing, save and invest and grow the productivity. They, then, employ others and raise the standard of living for all, via that investment. “Redistributive Justice” is just a quick ride back to shrinking investment and lower economic prosperity in a collapsing economy… but it would lead to a ‘revolt of the workers’ as they are laid off and sent home… which is what some folks want…

    It pays to read Marx “The Communist Manifesto” so you can spot the doctrine hiding in it’s new clothing…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/socialism-utopia-workers-paradise/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/marx-progressives-socialism-and-agenda-21/

  38. otsar says:

    The U.N. bureaucracy is beginning to resemble Audrey in the Little Shop of Horrors.

  39. u.k.(us) says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    December 5, 2012 at 10:34 pm
    ============
    Not to mention a lifetime employment overseeing the redistribution of the wealth.

  40. wayne Job says:

    The UN seems to think that are the modern Robin Hood, taking from the corrupt and unjustified wealthy and giving to those in need.

    They fail to see that they are more like the sheriff of Nottingham taking from the productive and giving it to Despots.

    I have lived a very long life and the only time the UN did anything useful was when they were dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing.

  41. Ryan says:

    @Craig Rucker

    “Christiana Figueres, the self-described “daughter of a revolutionary,”

    I’m sorry but I really don’t see what your problem is here? She is indeed the daughter of a revolutionary. He wasn’t a Marxist revolutionary however – perhaps you had jumped to the conclusion that he was? He was the revolutionary that brought democracy to Costa Rica. So whats the problem exactly? Figueres is definitely not some red-toothed Marxist but you seem to be desperate to paint her as such?

    Figueres is also not anti-industry or anti-commerce. Far from it. She has regularly pointed out that moving the developing world, already the largest emitter of CO2, towards non-fossil fuel is going to cost money that the developing world doesn’t have. Without the funding coming from those who can more easily afford it there is not a chance in hell that the developing world will oblige and cut emissions significantly when they have more pressing problems like poverty to deal with. Well that is fundamentally correct – if we really needed to do something about CO2 then the West is going to have to bribe the developing world to do something about it because experience has repeatedly shown they won’t do it on their own.

    Where I depart from Figueres view is in the belief that reduction in CO2 emissions are in anyway necessary. I don’t believe that it is necessary and it follows from this that bribing the developing world to adopt renewables is also not necessary. But I don’t think that mis-representing my opponents is the best way to advance my opinions. That is the preferred method of Team AGW but their defensiveness only exposes them as liars and I don’t feel that skeptics should make the mistake of adopting the same kinds of tactics.

  42. Stephen Wilde says:

    Not so long ago, anyone who suggested that such a policy were the true agenda would have been derided as a conspiracy theorist.

  43. Antonia says:

    The world worked far better when nations were sovereign and set their own goals and managed their own currencies. All this inter-dependence nonsense is globalist crap. How dare unelected UN global bodies DEMAND that Australia, Canada etc use their taxpayers’ money to fund them? They’re parasites.

    If only one major nation would exit the UN there would be a stampede. The UN is useless. It’s renowned for talking poor by day and partying by night. It’s a haven for people with 3rd rate degrees from second rate uiversities from the third world.

    Time to close it down.

  44. techgm says:

    Worth repeating and driving home, as Robert Kral says, “It’s always been about an excuse to accumulate power. Do not underestimate these people. Unlike those of us who actually work for a living and produce something useful, this is all they think about. All day long, every day. Complacency is suicide.”

    And they use our money to do it – money that is taken by force through taxes. So, vote the buggers out who legislate the taxes and who make the money available to these organizations (like the UN & World Bank).

  45. Phil Ford says:

    It’s not just the UN, though. As Christopher Monckton has been saying for some time, the UN takes its lead from lessons learned watching how the EU operates. The European Union – a grand socialist/federalist centralizing project if ever there was one – has been a huge, undemocratic success for its bureaucratic/technocratic ideologues – and, having seen how well that has gone, the UN wants for itself the same kind of unaccountable, undemocratic operational autocracy the EU currently enjoys. It’s not for nothing that at each of these COP climate jamborees we hear barely concealed whispers, time and again, about ‘global climate courts’ and ‘green police’ and other such indications of the kind of totalitarian world climate alarmists deeply embedded in the ‘common purpose’ mentality of the UN and EU aspire to for all of us.

    The UN sees itself on a political mission, in much the same way the EU has always done. Deeply marxist, potentially dangerous to free speech, thought and action to everyone on the planet. It all goes much further than the insidious Agenda 21 and the distracting smokescreen of CAGW. Climate change fears are little more than a Trojan Horse – a means by which to sneak in the real business of ‘globalisation’ under the radar. The bigger prize – political and social hegemony – lies well down the road and has nothing at all to do with increasingly comical prophesies of ‘catastrophic’ man-made global warming…

    But like a bug sinking on a peach, as long as they go slowly-slowly who’s gonna take a blind bit of notice…?

  46. Another Gareth says:

    “This astonishing concept is beyond surreal. It contends that the world already has enough wealth; that the developing world cannot or ought not generate any new wealth, certainly not from hydrocarbons, but rather should be content with receiving transfer payments monitored by the UN bureaucracy”

    It sounds to me like something akin to extortion – pay developing nations $100 billion a year or they’ll start competing for trade with the developed world. And there will be some politicians who think buying off the competition would be cheap at twice the price.

    The ‘science’ of climate change has long pointed towards increased globalisation as the best way of increasing the standards of living in developing nations and as a knock on effect decreasing real pollution and environmental degredation.

    Increased trade with developing nations would do all the redistribution these activists desire with the added benefit of reducing prices in developed nations rather than the double penalty of developed nations paying higher prices and higher taxes. The more the global climate change community move away from that conclusion the more their underlying original political motives become clear – high prices, high taxation, redistribution of wealth into pockets of their choosing and highly interfering government.

  47. Silver Ralph says:

    pouncer says: December 5, 2012 at 4:53 pm
    We have to realize the Malthus or “Limits to Growth” paradigm begins with a hockey stick showing human population growth since the start of the industrial revolution. In this view the Earth and all our resources are finite.
    ___________________________________

    By definition, the Earth’s resources are indeed finite. Or do you see an infinite inner-Earth that nobody else can see??

    I simply cannot understand these cries that population control is somehow evil and undesireable. All of our pressures on energy supplies, land and food shortages, water shortages etc: etc: are caused by rampant overpopulation. Do you really think that the world would have any shortages if the world population was just 100 million? No, precisely. Do you think our roads, railways and airports would be jammed to capacity if the world population was lowered by 80%? No, precisely.

    The world needs to alleviate this grave threat to its resources and environment, especially if the Third World want to consume on the scale that the West does. And that can only be achieved through sensible population controlls. Or do you think that humans should have the same population strategy as the lemmings were reputed to have – run out of resources and then jump off a cliff.

    And what is wrong with controlling a population? Just give me one good reason why we should not. In fact, how dare mankind call itself civilised if we cannot control our populations, and rely on starvation and disease to do the reductions for us. What, I ask you, is civilised about that?

    .

  48. Keith AB says:

    There are few things more scary than motivated ignorance on the move. That is what the UN is. A collection of well intentioned semi-competents who think they know what’s best for us. When they get their independent income stream through CO2 or the banking system then we will see a police force to serve their courts and provide ready manpower for social management.

    What is very distressing is the obviously low calibre of our politicians who are going with the flow. They are all trying to appear green, well socialised and empathetic. This is done by their utilising the media which is why they hate sites like this one that won’t play their song. The continual media coverage attempts to appear democratic but it manifestly isn’t as each of you will attest. Mr AH used the democratic process to take over absolute control of Germany. Perhaps the UN sees a model, and will use it in our very best interests of course. The only problem will be is that you won’t have any say and will be controlled by the majority wherever that might be, just know that you won’t be part of it.

    I was always under the impression that democracy was all about doing the most good for the many whilst causing the least distress to the few. Now it’s 51/49 and if you are in the 49 tough titty, you will comply with the wishes of the 51 or else you are labelled as a hateful other and then dealt with. You would have to be an idiot to tolerate this situation and yet here we are and not one person seems to be talking about a different / better model. I know that Churchill said that democracy was quite horrible but unfortunately all of the alternatives were worse and far too many of us just take that at face value and get on with it.

    Well we may be approaching a time, here in the west, where we might have to confront the status quo and as a consequence overthrow it to be replaced with something better.

  49. Did I miss the part where climate change is cured with trillions of dollars and not with CO2 reductions????

  50. Trey says:

    Ah.. the Highway to Serfdom !

  51. P. Solar says:

    “By now, everyone knows that “global warming” or “climate change” or “weird weather” is nothing but a smokescreen for those like Figueres and Obama, who view economic growth as either evil or environmentally intolerable ”

    That may be true of Figueres, but I’m sure Obama has other pressures and is well in step with those who control wealth and select presidents.

    If you could steer clear of snide party politics you article would have more credibility.

  52. Jenn Oates says:

    It’s so frustrating that although I, as a science teacher, have every reason to try to get my students to understand the laws of thermodynamics regarding the finite amount of energy and matter in the universe, it unfortunately seems the economics teachers are doing the same.

    Bill Whittle did a good job blowing this out of the water here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkXI-MNSb8Q That whole series is excellent (as is everything he puts out).

  53. spen says:

    The UK minister for climate change has just arrived in Doha with £2bn to give to developing countries for green energy projects. Of course this is all borrowed money that our grandchildren will end up paying for. The same day the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits that goverment’s borrowing is out of control and the deficit target has now had to be extended. Even the UN couldn,t make a bigger cock up.

  54. Juan Slayton says:

    Silver Ralph: . Do you really think that the world would have any shortages if the world population was just 100 million?

    I suggest you google ‘famine ancient world.’

  55. Snotrocket says:

    I’ve just finished reading a book where the main character is a history teacher. He bangs on about: ‘…history is important: the past informs the present’

    Reading this post brings that home to me inasmuch as our forefathers were slow to react to the rise of Third Reich in the ’30s (and anyone invoking Godwin ‘cos I said that can take a running jump). We are now in similar circumstances and the Green Reich is trying to have its way with our democracy. They have a model, called the EU, on which to base their plans. They think the EU has been a success because the people have not risen – yet. But believe me, and I hear this more often than not these days, it will all end in tears (and, most sadly, other bodily fluids).

  56. Sean says:

    Why do we continue to fund the UN? It is time for this corrupt organization to be discarded.

  57. Mark Ro says:

    Inhofe Video Message for UN Climate Conference:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=704a64c3-c4b6-0747-65d9-b2d6e8ebe36f

    “Of course, the focus of this year’s global warming conference – like all the conferences before – is not the environment. It’s about one thing: spreading the wealth around”

  58. Adrian O says:

    TEN TIMES WORSE or
    TWO SOLYNDRAS/DAY IN THE US

    Craig,
    You are a big optimist.

    Unfortunately, the UNFCCC plan calls for $1 trillion/YEAR not $1 trillion/DECADE

    See the preparatory “ambition raising” meeting in Bonn

    http://unfccc.int/files/documentation/submissions_from_parties/adp/application/pdf/adp1_wschina_21052012.pdf

    That would translate to $1 billion/day in the US alone.

    Or, two Solyndras/day, inflation adjusted, for the foreseeable future.

  59. RACookPE1978 says:

    Silver Ralph says:
    December 6, 2012 at 5:35 am
    By definition, the Earth’s resources are indeed finite. Or do you see an infinite inner-Earth that nobody else can see??

    I simply cannot understand these cries that population control is somehow evil and undesireable. All of our pressures on energy supplies, land and food shortages, water shortages etc: etc: are caused by rampant overpopulation. Do you really think that the world would have any shortages if the world population was just 100 million? No, precisely. Do you think our roads, railways and airports would be jammed to capacity if the world population was lowered by 80%? No, precisely.

    The world needs to alleviate this grave threat to its resources and environment, especially if the Third World want to consume on the scale that the West does. And that can only be achieved through sensible population controlls. Or do you think that humans should have the same population strategy as the lemmings were reputed to have – run out of resources and then jump off a cliff.

    And what is wrong with controlling a population? Just give me one good reason why we should not. In fact, how dare mankind call itself civilised if we cannot control our populations, and rely on starvation and disease to do the reductions for us. What, I ask you, is civilised about that?

    OK. No problem at all Ralph.

    I will pay to castrate you, your children (if any), and your parents and all of your family members and in-laws, relatives, and their families and their descendents. What doctor’s office do you want to use? Do you want anesthetics, or can we do it the old-fashioned way by cutting any or all of your heads off with a somewhat sharpened metallic object?

    Or can I just throw you and your family and your neighbors in an unheated train with locked wooden doors and take you to Siberia between 1860 and 1986? Poland between 1939 and 1986? Cambodia in 1973-76? Red China in the early 1960? The Ukraine in 1932-1941? Where do you want to be buried as a “living sacrifice” and good example of “sustainable” life for the rest of us

  60. James at 48 says:

    Strange … lots of presos being issued by the Scare-istas just now. Coinkydinky?

  61. highflight56433 says:

    Back in the 1950’s came the bomb shelter, and there were sign posted everywhere leading to the nearest. That’s been abandoned unless you are the current white house resident. Now it’s take your wealth because you don’t deserve it and it’s because you’re at fault for spoiling the climate. As the “how to catch a wild pig” expands its grip, there will be no where to hide or run to shelter oneself from this creeping increasing acceptance of global unified control. It’s obvious elections don’t work, and what idiots appointed these demons to be incharge and have their way?

  62. Theo Goodwin says:

    “By now, everyone knows that “global warming” or “climate change” or “weird weather” is nothing but a smokescreen for those like Figueres and Obama, who view economic growth as either evil or environmentally intolerable – and thus think taking from the rich and giving to bureaucrats who claim to represent the poor will even things out, and is the highest and best thing we can do.”

    Once upon a time we had a word for belief systems similar to Figueres’. The word was ‘communist’. In the case of Figueres, “daughter of a revolutionary,” we can modify that to ‘Che communist’ or ‘romantic communist’. Too bad that Political Correctness has deprived us of a word that conveys so clearly the lust for control over everyone.

  63. RS says:

    Never mind the problem or issue, the solution is ALWAYS a global government with unlimited control over life and business.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  64. Snotrocket says:

    RACookPE1978 says:December 6, 2012 at 9:06 am…..to silver ralph (‘population controller’ – which according to the Outer Mongolian OED means ‘mass murderer’)

    I think that nailed what I wanted to say. Well done.

  65. Kaboom says:

    The UN needs to be starved of funding until it drops dead.

  66. john says:

    WOW !!! 100 billion is such a BIG number it is frightening.

  67. john says:

    Oh wait a minute….. that is like 15 cents per person per day I can afford that

  68. peterhodges says:

    The most important is a massive transfer of wealth – $100 billion a year – from soon-to-be formerly rich Europeans and Americans to UN bureaucrats who claim to represent the world’s “developing” nations and Earth’s poorest citizens.

    Who they actually represent is rich western bankers. Rockefeller, Schiff, Baruch, Oppenheimer, Rothschild…. The Gores and Bushes are just lowly errand boys. Although Karina Gore did marry a Schiff!!

    The fact that carbon credits are too be traded on Wall St tells you exactly who is behind this scam.

  69. agimarc says:

    Re: Silver Ralph @ 0535:

    “The world needs to alleviate this grave threat to its resources and environment, especially if the Third World want to consume on the scale that the West does. And that can only be achieved through sensible population controlls. Or do you think that humans should have the same population strategy as the lemmings were reputed to have – run out of resources and then jump off a cliff.”

    While resources on this planet are somewhat limited, the brainpower necessary to put it to ever more efficient use is limited only by our total population. In this way more people = more and better solutions as human ingenuity and creativity are the Ultimate and inexhaustible natural resource (per Julian Simon). Of course, should we get regularly off planet there is an entire solar system out there to exploit – which will also require more people.

    Julian Simon wrote a pair of books describing the concept entitled “The Ultimate Resource” and “The Ultimate Resource II.” They are well worth your while to read. Online version of II can be found at the link to follow. Cheers –

    http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/?3e3ea140

  70. john robertson says:

    Re Silver Ralph, sure it keeps circling back to Eugenics. If you feel your #1 problem is as stated, do your bit and stop living. Thats easy ain’t it?

  71. Kevin Kilty says:

    from wikipedia

    Once Figueres gained control, the legislation he passed regarding social reform for his Second Republic of Costa Rica was not that much different from Calderón’s proposals. In fact, it is believed by some historians (such as David LaWare) that Figueres’ social reforms were more or less the same as Calderón’s Labor Code of 1943, only Figueres had gained the power with which to enact the laws upon the whole country with the complete support of virtually all the country. Furthermore, both of these leaders’ programs were in many cases exactly like the ones Franklin D. Roosevelt passed during the Great Depression that helped lift the US out of its own economic slump and social decline it had faced in the 1930s. Figueres admired what president Franklin D. Roosevelt did, however he noted that “the price he had to pay to get his programs through was to leave the business community free overseas to set up dictatorships and do whatever they liked…What we need now is an international New Deal, to change the relations between North and South.”

    Reading this it is hard to say what sort of revolutionary Figueres was, exactly, but he looks like a populist copy of FDR. However, FDR had to work through existing institutions of our Republic which moderated his behavior; whereas; Figueres had no such limitation. Americans know the mythology of FDR and the 1930s; they rarely know the whole truth. Note here that Wikipedia claims the FDRs programs help lift the U.S. out of its economic slump… They did nothing of the sort. They were effectively Hoover’s programs only bigger, and what they did was to provide relief to individuals, but at the expense of maintaining the economic slump. The “slump” known as the Great Depression did not actually end until the late 1940s with massive investment into capital goods for producing consumer goods–World War II not withstanding.

  72. Lucretia says:

    One only has to look up former Presidential Scientific Czar – back in 1965 called Advisors – Gordon J. F. MacDonald and read the chapter he wrote in the book “Unless Peace Comes” which he titled “How To Wreck The Environment” to realize the long standing plan to take down America and much of the world by weather warfare. He wrote rather than atomic bombs they would use covert (secret) weather warfare of floods, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis and the like and also wrote about using frequencies to control the brain. He even wrote how how weather is princially effected: “Indeed, climate is primarily determined by the balance between the incoming short-wave from the Sun (principally light) and the loss of outgoing long-wave radiation (principally heat). ”
    Definitely worth reading and printing off for your records.

  73. Lucretia says:

    A quick link to Gordon MacDonald’s chapter on weather manipulation in which he titled “How To Wreck The Environment: http://watch.pair.com/weather-modification.html#wreck

Comments are closed.