Guest opinion by David Archibald
“Everybody Wants To Rule The World” was a 1985 song by Tears For Fears. Now in 2015, a number of parties are doing their best to that end – ISIS in the Middle East, Russia chewing up the Ukraine, China in the East and South China Seas and the UN Climate Change Commission. A draft document out of Geneva gives details of the UN plan to rule the world.
For most of us, the memorable thing from the Lima climate late last year was Greenpeace’s despoiling of an ancient Nazca figure of a hummingbird.
But the Lima conference has been quickly followed by another in Geneva. The purpose of the latter conference was to produce the negotiating text for the climate conference to be held in Paris in December. The Geneva meeting was conducted in a rush with no opening statements, even by the head of the UNFCCC, Christiana Figueres. Ms. Figueres expectation of the climate treaty coming is that it will be “a centralised transformation” that “is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different”.
Just how different is shown by snippets of the Paris negotiating text. Let’s start with this one from page 5:
“All Parties to strive to achieve low greenhouse gas climate-resilient economies and societies, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their historical responsibilities, common but differentiated responsibilities / evolving common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in order to achieve sustainable development, poverty eradication and prosperity for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, taking fully into account the historical responsibility of developed country Parties.”
Animal Farm was supposed to be a cautionary tale about communism. The UN has taken “All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others.” and turned into “All countries are common but some are more differentiated than others.”
How will the UN determine how much one country might be differentiated from another? That is explained on page 85:
“In reviewing and revising Annex I to the Convention, the total amount of greenhouse gases, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent, emitted by a Party to the Convention since 1750 A.D. shall be added and divided by the current population of that Party. Based on the thus obtained per capita greenhouse gas emissions and population size of each Party to the Convention, the average global per capita emissions of greenhouse gases shall be used to evaluate the status of the greenhouse gas emissions of a Party to the Convention. Each Party to the Convention whose per capita greenhouse gas emissions exceed the global average per capita greenhouse gas emissions shall be proposed to be inscribed in Annex I to the Convention, and the remaining Parties shall not be proposed to be inscribed in Annex I to the Convention.”
Why 1750? Are the sins of the fathers are to be visited their sons even unto the 11th generation, which is us? Climate treaties used to be based on 1990 as the start date because that was convenient to the Europeans as the fall of communism in that year had curbed their coal consumption. The European countries were going to be the easy treaty compliers while the US was punished. That was the plan at the beginning. But now it is changed to 1750.
The significance of Annex 1 is that if you are on it, you will be paying for the whole circus – US$100 billion per annum for kleptocracies. What if you don’t want to be on Annex 1, because you know that global warming is nonsense or something? What might happen is hinted at on page 8:
“Option 4: Decides that the developed country Parties shall not resort to any form of unilateral measures against goods and services from developing country Parties on any grounds related to climate change, recalling the principles and provisions of the Convention”
The option says that developing countries are not to have unilateral measures taken against them but who would bother doing that? The implied target is elsewhere. Countries that are allocated to Annex 1 but don’t cough up the cash might have unilateral measures taken against them by “developed country Parties”.
Australia signed up for the UN climate treaty in 2007. Canada pulled out in 2011 and Russia and Japan have rejected new targets after 2012. Perhaps the US will keep us free – Ms Figueres has said that the US Congress is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming.
So that is why the global warming scare is so hard to kill. The end game is world domination. With such a big prize – the biggest possible, facts aren’t even inconvenient. They are not part of the process. It has been a long slog but gird your loins for a battle that might last into mid-century. Lima was COP 20 and Ms Figueres is prepared to take it to COP 40.
David Archibald, a visiting fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I recall that the East Anglia CRU team was thinking along the same lines back in 09.
From the ADAM second-order draft.pdf:
“We believe that one worked example should certainly relate to the design and implementation of a post-2012 global climate regime. Here, we would develop a portfolio of global design principles (e.g. budern-sharing, blah, blah, ) and EU policy options (e.g. compensation measures, blah, blah ) which could deliver a 2100 global climate consistent with Article 2 of the UNFCCC and consistent with other international goals, treaties and conventions (e.g. Millennium Development Goals, WTO, Biodiversity and Desertification Conventions). These options would be such to an options appraisal using the ADAM PAF.”
george smith would call that gobbledygook. Me too.
dummy alert
there’s something I’m not grasping. If you throw a fat politician and a thin politician off a very high building I think they should hit the pavement at the same time ?
That in mind why does a cold thing sink and a warmer thing rise ?
Density.
Since we were owned by Great Britain in 1750, I think they have the historical responsibility for how things turned out. Send them the bill.
From each Annex 1 nation according to their above average per capita co2 production to each non-annex 1 nation according to their needs.
The UN and friends should have a plan B when the planet cools and when CO2 levels drop. Paradoxes are only possible if there are one or more fundamental errors in a theory.
There is very recent, unequivocal observational evidence that the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle cooling has started and there is unequivocal observational evidence that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. This will be the end of the road, a paradigm shift for the warmists. They will need to find a new cause.
The cooling will be significant, in your face, a crisis. The drop in atmospheric CO2 will be unequivocal, require a scientific explanation, there will be public panic in response to the cooling, a major media topic, there be a political price for incorrect scientific conclusions, for the years and years of propaganda.
A basic back of the envelope calculation indicates roughly 50% of the recent atmospheric CO2 rise is due to ‘natural’ sources. Salby is correct. Thomas Gold is correct. There are roughly 50 different observations and analysis results to support this assertion.
I will prepare a summary, for this forum, to discuss Gold’s core Ch4 source of the atmosphere and ocean(implications, higher input into the biosphere of CH4 requires greater sinks) vs the late veneer theory to explain the atmosphere and ocean.
Understanding the implications of Gold’s continuous deep core release of CH4 is the key to solving the current observational paradox (Salby’s conclusion/observational fact that atmospheric CO2 tracks temperature rise rather than anthropogenic CO2 emission). The material is interesting, the analysis and material is readily accessible to a general audience, and the logic is compelling.
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/
This is a very interesting paper. What are the logical implications of Humlum et al’s analysis and conclusions?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
William,
The smarter elements within the GreenBlob knows a global cooldown is coming. A natural cooldown that is. Not a cooldown driven by anthropogenic CO2 increases or decreases. Since it is an unstoppable train (so to speak), they want a CO2 reduction agreement and some miniscule CO2 reductions to be able to claim a causal relation to a (natural) effect. Liberals don’t care that it’s dishonest. For a Liberal (a US Progressive), the end justifies whatever means necessary. The Green Blob just knows most people are scientifically illiterate, willfully ignorant of facts, and will buy snake oil cures if given the chance.
“Since it is an unstoppable train (so to speak), they want a CO2 reduction agreement and some miniscule CO2 reductions to be able to claim a causal relation to a (natural) effect.”
+1 And it won’t happen. CO2 increases/year are probably the most consistent linear climb of all the measurements/data being used to ‘prove’ AGW.
Agenda 21, IMF, the only bank able to buy out the central banks when they go belly up, IS, the elimination of the Middle Class, the influx of refugees who are only refugees because the West is messing up their countries while their numbers screw up our social infrastructure, the crazy eco warriors who are against virtually everything and now have a seat at the table to determine national policies in countries all over the world…. http://green-agenda.com
Now what was the world population in 1750?
1750? Isn’t that in the middle of the LIA – which they say never happened?
When,
“For the 2011 fiscal year, the president’s base budget for the Department of Defense and spending on “overseas contingency operations” combined bring the sum to $664.84 billion.[1][2]”
It seems the only answer is a quarantine, it is obviously a virus that kills its host.
Just gotta wait it out, as horrible as that may be.
Then come up with a vaccine to prevent its return.
It’s been done before.
If one removes the NEWSPEAK rhetoric, the Paris Draft simply means the US will have to pay penance for once having been the longest-running industrial producer and innovator in the world, while China gets a free pass because their industrialization didn’t start until after 1980 because of their insane and failed experiment with Communism.
China adopted some “evil” Capitalist private property rights from 1980, which led to China’s per-capita income increasing from $300/yr in 1980, to around $10,000/yr in 2014… See what “evil” Capitalism does to country? Oh, the humanity!!
The IPCC isn’t about CO2 sequestration, it’s about wealth redistribution on a global scale. The producers and innovators of the past must be punished, and have their wealth redistributed to countries that failed to adopt Capitalism.
The short-term net effect will be that CO2 levels will continue to rise as production is forced to move from industrialized countries (where the CO2 regulations will make production even more uncompetitive) to developing countries that will not be forced to implement any real industry-killing CO2 rules and regulations….
The Paris Draft will fail because it is completely dog-barking mad and the Republican-majority US Senate will NOT approve any treaty signed in Paris. Period! (TM).
Irrespective of the Paris Draft not getting Senate approval, the US EPA will, however, try to implement stricter CO2 emission rules and regulations, and that’s where the battle for sanity and the survival of the US economy and US sovereignty will be fought….
The Paris Draft is, “All sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
“Each Party to the Convention whose per capita greenhouse gas emissions exceed the global average per capita…”
Be sure to include the retro-active cow tax for the last 265 years on each American. And the nitrous oxide from that winter wheat, corn, and row crops for the last two and a half centuries.
Or is this just Chinese and Russian code for the calculation of the savings, equity, and retirement funds – “private wealth” – of English-speaking countries?
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
UN isn’t a World Goverment. But undemocratic politicians sure want to be Leading the World.
So that is why the global warming scare is so hard to kill. The end game is world domination. With such a big prize – the biggest possible, facts aren’t even inconvenient. They are not part of the process. It has been a long slog but gird your loins for a battle that might last into mid-century. Lima was COP 20 and Ms Figueres is prepared to take it to COP 40. is unfortunatly not a movie scenario.
as one of the oldest governments on the earth, this is a dagger strait at the heart of America the only way they could of made that clearer is to make the date 1776
Exactly!
My ancestors were in Virginia in 1750……. and in 1772 were in what was to become the state of Kentucky, surveying for subsequent settlements in ‘the territories’.
This is aimed straight at the heart and soul of the United States of America, the last and floundering bastion of freedom on the planet….. Can’t have that!
http://youtu.be/NLgUI4sfMYU
So that you can get used to it. But remember even he is just a tool.
I am having problems laying out the scenario. The warmists have anchored our imagination as to what is or is not scientifically possible, concerning significant global cooling rather than no warming, the rate of global cooling, and to the possibility of a significant drop in atmospheric CO2.
There are cycles of abrupt cooling in the paleo climate record. It appears now (based on the signature of the changes and the magnitude of the changes that have happened, solar and planetary) that we are going to experience an abrupt cooling event. If that assertion is correct, there will be books written to try to understand how trillions of dollars were spent on green scams that do not work to address a scientific problem that did not exist.
Significant rapid, in your face cooling will be a major media discussion item. The public will most certainly notice record cold winter temperatures and record snowfall, winter after winter. The scientific community will not try to hide, cannot possibly hide significant global cooling (0.6C) and a significant drop in atmospheric CO2. There will most certainly be papers written that discuss the extraordinary observations, the scientific implications of the complete falsification (by observations) of the IPCC scientific paradigm.
The issue is not less warming due to the rise in atmospheric CO2, the issue is the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was not due to the rise in atmospheric CO2 and it appears the majority of the rise in atmospheric CO2 was not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, a complete falsification of the IPCC scientific paradigm.
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf
The next step in the cooling process will be a significant drop in ocean temperatures and average global temperatures. The sudden increase in sea ice both poles is indication that the change has started.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
This emissions since 1750 thing is in a large part the victory of one extraordinary man.
His name is Aubrey Meyer.
This comes close to his idea of ‘Contraction and convergence.’
The justifications of this calculation is that the development and wealth enjoyed today in a particular country is founded on the energy consumed since the industrial revolution. With the aim of equality between countries, every country in the world is allocate a ration of energy (per capita) across the entire fossil fuel period — from the beginning of fossil fuelled industry (18th cent coal fired factories) to a designated time in the future (around 2200). This means that, no matter when they start, all countries have the opportunity to development. Now, some countries have already spent most of their ratio (well spent or squandered). Those that have not are clear to ramp up their spending now. That is the convergence bit. The contraction is that, as a whole world, we all reduce our spending in a bell curve diminishing in 2200. The UNFCCC position is not quite this, but it has been influenced by this sort of rationale, and this specific proposal, via the many 3rd World countries (and first world advocates) who support it.
see http://www.gci.org.uk/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_Meyer
Meyer has been remarkably influential on FCCC since the mid 1990s. See how in my essay on the ‘Price Of Life Controversy.’
https://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/enter-the-economists-the-price-of-life-and-how-the-ipcc-only-just-survived-the-other-chapter-controversy/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-2/#comment-1818363
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/16/un-climate-chief-declares-communism-best-for-fighting-global-warming/
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, a trained economist, and at UNFCCC since 1995, is becoming doubtful of the efficacy of the process of getting her policies approved and seems to be serious in declaring communism best for fighting global warming.
She is quoted as saying that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.
*****************************************
Right-o
But what about the future of we climate agnostics, we sceptics, we “Deniers”? What is to become our fate? This site, and others will be closed down, dissent, in any shape or form, will not be tolerated.
There will be, er, “institutions”, or “secure areas”, for the likes of us, until we have been suitably reprogrammed, when we MAY be allowed to resume our prescribed place in society. For those of us who fail the indoctrination, well, people have disappeared, without trace, before…
Think “Reservations” of the American Indian type.
So far as I am aware, the UN is funded entirely by nation states. It is clearly the case that a ‘breakaway Grouping of evidence-led cooperative nations’ could emerge, whereby countries simply don’t fund the UN any more and fund something else instead.
My view is that the UN climate position is merely one of a multifaceted grouping of ‘ueber-rich scenario planning options’ which are being played out to ensure that the global elite control the world one way or another.
They don’t care if its communism, climate religion, fascism, democracy, mercantilism, capitalism, neoliberalism, call it what you will.
The only thing that matters is that they are billionaires, political processes are controlled by them and the rest must be grateful for the crumbs that they are offered……..
Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.
– Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, 1808)
Time for everyone to read ‘Atlas Shrugged’.
Anyone who thinks the UN has the ability for world domination has clearly never dealt with the UN. For has an organisation its well know for a toxic mix of corruption and for its incompetence, often unable to even control itself. That is not to say that some in the UN are not happy to build such castles in the sky , but ability is a long way down the list of things those in charge of the UN have .
Its worth remembering that appointments to this organisation are often on the basis of ‘whose turn is it now ‘ especially at a higher level, and with no accountability although there is no check on them in reality the minder ideas are often killed off by indifference of its members , after sadly to much money and time has been spent on pursing them.
Let us leave the ‘grand conspricy ‘ claims to Lew paper and his ‘friends’, the UN often throws out such worthless rubbish has this , driven by the ego of its leaders , but in pratice although both a waste of time and resources its little more than land-fill.
Why not donate a plot of land to them, for instance a small section of Antarctica which they can add to as their contingency grows. I am sure they are an industrious bunch. Not sure where they’ll get their energy from perhaps some used windmills and a few solar panels…one can dream
Obvious Communist overtones.
Poverty is caused by Govt. corruption, how is giving them billions of dollars going to help them when their leaders spend most of the year swanning around the world in luxury spending their Nations wealth?
The non-democs outnumber us 2 to 1 at the UN….can’t end well.
Despite this being an otherwise helpful post, and with all due respect, I too was flabbergasted by your statement relating to “… Russia chewing up the Ukraine…”
(By the way, it’s usually just ‘Ukraine’ these days, without the definite article.)
May I suggest you read the following links, for example, to appreciate just how far wide of the mark you are on this matter?
http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1025.php
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/how-neocon-strategy-in-ukraine-has-backfired-for-americans-other-than-neocons-and-warmongers/
And straight from the horse’s mouth:
http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/23137
Regards, a long-time lurker and very occasional commenter…
Jan Smit says:
(By the way, it’s usually just ‘Ukraine’ these days, without the definite article.)
Yes, that’s correct. It’s ‘Ukraine’; just like saying ‘Canada’.
Ukraine is a country. We don’t say “the Canada”.
Is there anyone in Congress who doesn’t know this? Man, I’m flummoxed by the apparent acquiescence even of Republicans. The transformation and surrender of Democrats I now accept. My trouble is it is all created by the American voter!! Has the de-education and self-loathing reached this level? Are we dependent on China, India and Russia to save us – this UN manifesto is already giving them a pass so they might want to help the UN crush the US. How we do we stop the US voter from inviting this upon themselves? Some one tell me I’m over reacting.
All power, no restriction. For an unverifiable and unnecessary cause. How can so many be so stupid and uncaring while believing that they are the opposite? The importance of working together against a foggy fear outweighs all of our experience, knowledge and patience. Telling.