Guest post by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
The United States must pay for its evil carbon-emitting ways. According to the United Nations Doha Climate Conference that ended on December 8, developing nations should be compensated for “associated loss and damage” from climate change by the wealthy nations. Developing nations will now pursue industrialized nations for compensation from sea level rise, extreme weather, and other events allegedly caused by past emissions of greenhouse gases. Since the US was the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases until 2007 when China assumed the lead, the US is the primary target of this conclusion.
At the 2010 Cancun Conference, delegates acknowledged that industrialized nations were responsible for global warming, stating “…the largest share of historical global emissions of greenhouse gases originated in developed countries…” The just concluded Doha Conference called for establishment of “institutional arrangements, such as an international mechanism” to “address loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change in developing countries.” In other words, let’s form an international body to pursue money from nations responsible for historical global emissions of greenhouse gases, namely the US and other industrialized nations. Compensation could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
Why would US delegates agree to such a position? Unfortunately, our current administration accepts the doctrine of Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in 2009, “We acknowledge—now with President Obama—that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem we face with climate change.”
A major voice at the conference in favor of associated loss and damage was the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). AOSIS consists of 43 members, including the Bahamas, Cuba, Fiji, Maldives, Mauritius, and the Seychelles. These countries are rightly concerned about the threat that rising sea levels pose to their homelands. AOSIS members seek to sue in the International Court of Justice for damages from US-made climate change.
But is the rise of the oceans man-made or natural? Geological data shows that sea levels have risen about 390 feet as Earth has warmed from the last ice age 20,000 years ago. No one can tell how much, if any, of the 7‒8 inch rise over the last hundred years is man-made. Nor is there any empirical evidence that sea level change will accelerate to 20 feet per century as predicted by some climate doomsayers.
Those concerned about the climate also claim that weather events such as Hurricane Sandy and Typhoon Bopha, that hit the Philippines last week, were strengthened by man-made warming. But empirical evidence shows that, on a global basis, neither the strength nor the frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms has increased over the last 35 years.
The theory of man-made global warming is increasingly suspect. The 1990 First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a rise in global surface temperatures of 0.3oC per decade. The report provided a “high estimate,” a “best estimate,” and a “low estimate” for global temperature rise. But 22 years later, global temperatures sit far below the IPCC’s 1990 low estimate. Recent data from the University of East Anglia do not show statistically significant warming in global surface temperatures for the last sixteen years.
Nevertheless, with the full support of the US government, your tax dollars are now in play to compensate developing nations for sea level rise, typhoon damage, droughts and floods. It’s all part of this mad, mad, mad world.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
I agree. Those who fall for the global warming hoax should personally pay for the damages resulting from the perverse government policies enacted in response to this nonexistent problem.
If this is a zero-sum game, first require the beneficiaries of manmade global warming to pay their ill-gotten gains to the losers. Then turn to the alleged perpetrators.
Well, the United States is in the clear as we are not a “wealthy nation”. We are completely bankrupt and getting worse by the minute.
It is not “Climate Change”, It is not “Climate Disruption”. It is not “Extreme Weather”
It is “Climate Extortion” based on false premises. Why should anyone with a clear mind buy into that??
Incomprehensible!
Not being an American I may be wrong, but I thought that the US House of Representatives control the purse strings and that even pres. Obama cannot alone or with the help of the Senate provide these payments even if they wanted. As long as the USA do not sign up to any treaties there should not be a problem. As I understand it such treaties would also have to pass the House of Representatives. Fat chance that would happen. I think the USA is safe just now. Not so with European Union countries. We will be the main providers of funds from empty coffers. We have most of the Worlds foolish politicians.
When are all nations going to demonstrate their sincere belief in rising sea levels by reprinting books, replacing signs, and altering web pages to show altitudes for their mountains and monuments based on the “new” sea levels?
What does China think of is given its expanding use of coal and oil?
Doha delegates claim that weather events such as Hurricane Sandy and Typhoon Bopha, that hit the Philippines last week, were strengthened by man-made warming. But empirical evidence shows that, on a global basis, neither the strength nor the frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms has increased over the last 35 years.
Ah, so the CO2 we emitted has resulted in less severe weather. Therefore, the developing countries must compensate the U.S.
So, um, they are going to pay us when there is not a flood or drought or acceleration of sea level rise, right? I mean, if it is our fault when climate goes wrong, we must also be responsible whenever there . As soon as they pay us for the past 236 years and counting when the weather has been fairly good, we will pay them as soon as thermogeddon hits.
Congress will never allocate money for this scam. They know it would be, at the very least, political suicide.
Anyway, Dr Roy Spencer has now published the November UAH global temperature at +0.28 deg. C. A slight downwards movement compared with October. This presents a further disconnect from CO2 emissions.
Would all those who preach catastrophism caused by man-made global warming please 1) turn off your power supply immediately, 2) stop flying around the world to yet another UN talkfest, 3) hand in the keys to your car, 4) surrender your phone, and 5) walk slowly into the hills to set up your own self-sustaining commune.
John Peter says:
“Not being an American I may be wrong, but I thought that the US House of Representatives control the purse strings and that even pres. Obama cannot alone or with the help of the Senate provide these payments even if they wanted.”
That’s what the Constitution says. But they give our money away anyway, witness Obama’s gift last year of a hundred-odd million dollars to the Palestinians, whoever they presumably are. There is no country of Palestine, and certainly anyone can claim to be “Palestinian”. No matter, we know that money went right into the pockets of the same kind of people who flew commercial airliners into our civilian buildings. They hate us and demand our money. Disgusting that Obama gives them a cent.
[BTW, it is the Senate that must ratify treaties. The House originates spending bills. Supposedly.]
John Peter says:
December 12, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Not being an American I may be wrong, but I thought that the US House of Representatives control the purse strings and that even pres. Obama cannot alone or with the help of the Senate provide these payments even if they wanted. As long as the USA do not sign up to any treaties there should not be a problem. As I understand it such treaties would also have to pass the House of Representatives. Fat chance that would happen. I think the USA is safe just now. Not so with European Union countries. We will be the main providers of funds from empty coffers. We have most of the Worlds foolish politicians.
=======================================================================
Yes and no.
All spending/taxing bills must originate in the House. The House of Representatives were originally the one the people themselves voted for. They would be the ones paying for whatever.
The Senate was originally to represent the State governments. It was up to the states themselves how their senator was selected. Some were selected by a vote of the state’s legislature, not the citizens themselves. That has changed.
Because each state government would have to comply with an international treaty, originally and still, treaties only need be ratified by the Senate.
In other words, the Senate can ratify a treaty that includes a provision saying the US owes the UN money but the House must approve the the payment.
The House itself has no say in ratifiying the treaty itself.
Does anyone have a clue as to when this madness will end? Sheesh!
John Peter,
It would take 66 senators to vote for ratification. Right now, I don’t think the votes are there. However, Obama jas shown that je is not above ignoring Congress, so nothing is certain. Presidents in the past have also used the State Dept. and other methods to give out money against Congress’ wishes, Clinton with the bailout of foreign bond markets and Reagan with Iran-Contra to give two examples. Neither of those instancez came anywhere close to the amounts stated in the article, bit with a sociaist like Obama in office, nothing is safe.
You in the US of A have nothing to worry about. You have sagely not signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. However, Australia, my country has!!! I just can’t believe how stupid our toilet bowl brained politicians are. The Australian Labor Party led by Julia “The Witch” Gillard & Kevin “Krudd” Rudd are responsible. Lest we forget.
Presumably these supposed victims will be required to demonstrate in court that their loss or damage is in fact real, and that there is solid, scientifically demonstrable evidence that it was directly caused by CO2 emissions by the defendants.
That could be interesting.
The lawyers should do OK though!
The US can’t even pay for its own way, never mind the shakedown scam the left are trying to get away with.
Robber says:
December 12, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Would all those who preach catastrophism caused by man-made global warming please 1) turn off your power supply immediately, 2) stop flying around the world to yet another UN talkfest, 3) hand in the keys to your car, 4) surrender your phone, and 5) walk slowly into the hills to set up your own self-sustaining commune.
*
Best suggestion I’ve heard so far. Why don’t we insist on it? Al Gore should lead the way and give up his mega-home. Oh, to heck with it. Let every one of them put his/her money where their mouth is. They can set up camp under the those windmills they’re so fond of, maybe roast chopped birds over the solar panels, or at least eat the thistles growning round and over said solar panels. They shouldn’t let those dead birds go to waste though, they could pluck the feathers and stuff their coats to keep warm, but no, I suppose that’s not the Greenie way. How many clothes would they we left with? Is Winter a good time to start? You know, I think Winter would be a perfect time to start.
Any Greenie we meet who spouts the “we must sacrifice” line, we should ask them if they have sacrificed and what they have sacrificed and tell ’em straight – If they haven’t spent Winter out in the open under those windmills without electricity, without so much as an open fire, they’re not Green at all and have no right to preach to others. We have to start sending them on their way.
Steve-I was reading a UNESCO document from the early 70s recently that laid out the scheme for payments like these from the developed world to the developing not as part of any climate remuneration but just straight international aid. It was based on closing the gap between the developed and developing world. CAGW began as an argument that such aid and changes in Western lifestyles was necessary. Probably because the original excuses failed to work.
A Soviet spokesperson (early 70s, remember?) piped up with a refusal for any of the socialist countries to have to contribute because they had never been imperial powers. And the aid was really reparations for colonial exploitation.
And the countries who refused to contribute in the early 70s are mostly the same countries who have refused to impose emissions limitations now.
Just more proof of the CAGW scam.
Also the 70s report was just looking for an excuse to plan Western economies.
I do believe the creative Statists found one. Or two if we now count Biodiversity as a compelling reason for controlling everything that moves.
There is a fine line which divides redistributive and retributive change.
It is dissociation of risk which causes corruption. It is dreams of instant gratification which motivates its progress.
Does the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) include the UK and Australia?
I suggest that everyone write their representative expressing their views on this situation. We cannot allow congress to transfer wealth for any reason to third world countries that will only use it to increase the positon of the current regeme in that country. None of these funds will benefit the population, and none will every be used to mitigate what damage climate change might have done to thier population.
The lawyers always do OK. The judges are lawyers too. So are many legislators.