Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Hear this text
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
It’s the second day of the Copenhagen talks on climate change. But what is it really about?
Aside from the usual clap-trap about ‘tipping points’, rising sea levels, polar bears and floods, if you listen, read or watch what has become known as MSM – the mainstream media – you will hear the same words used to describe this purpose of this conference.
You will, of course, hear the word “consensus” bandied about. This is the key word in the environmentalist’s dictionary. It is used to imply that all the scientists in the entire world agree with the same thing.
You will hear the word “deal” being used. The nations of the world are allegedly coming together to arrange a “deal”.
This deal implies an “agreement”.
When the agreement has been reached, “targets” will have been set for emissions reductions, throughout the world.
Finally, it is hoped that these targets will be “legally-binding”.
In other words, on the basis of a scientific consensus, world leaders are at Copenhagen to achieve an agreement about a deal to set legally-binding emissions targets.
The worn-out term “scientific consensus” is used as a stick to beat down any opposition to climate nonsense. Politicians and other players seeking the service of their own interests at these negotiations need to hide their interests behind a greater good. So when any questions emerge about the soundness of the science being used to make decisions, instead of answering them, the big players in the climate debate just trot out the same old lines. Take the words of non-climate-scientist IPCC chair, Rajendra Pachauri yesterday for instance. He said,
“The internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges, many of whom have dedicated their time and effort to develop these findings in teams of Lead Authors in the series of IPCC Assessment Reports during the past 21 years.“
He’s talking about the Climategate emails, and the damaging effect they have had on the credibility on the IPCC’s work. Instead of admitting that there is a problem, he tries to make those involved in the hacking who have something to hide, by saying
“The recent incident of stealing the emails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC”.
But the truth of the matter is that if the scientists involved in the Climategate scandal – for that is what it is – had shared their data in the first instance, there would have been no hacking. But the scientists at CRU did not share their data. As the emails show, they went out of their way to make sure that anyone who did not agree with the so-called consensus weren’t able to see it. So there is only a “consensus” because, in any area, those who do not agree with it are not invited to participate in research. Consensus, my arse.
There is no consensus, so what kind of a “deal” is being forged in Copenhagen? Well, it’s a deal like any other that is made between rich and powerful individuals. It’s a deal only as far as any of the negotiators are concerned. They are only concerned with their own interests. It’s no deal as far as you or I are concerned. Whatever deal they come up with between themselves, we get less. Meanwhile, they will be left in positions which secure their own freedom to quaff expensive drinks, gobble expensive food, lounge around in swanky hotels, fly in first class, and pat themselves on the back at conferences organised to save the planet at our expense. They will make sure that they are able to take full advantage of the deals they make, whether that means making jobs for themselves after they leave public office, or by putting their public roles above public scrutiny. Yet even the delegates at the conference aren’t equal. As the emerging “Danish Text” scandal reported by the Guardian today reveals,
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.
Being a COP15 delegate doesn’t guarantee access to the biggest table. For a long time, climate change activists and politicians have argued that there needs to be a climate deal for the sake of the world’s poor, but this new scandal gives the lie to the claim. As the text reveals, the deals being sought at Copenhagen are secret. Small numbers of players do secret deals with each other, and then use their power to bully and bribe others. COP15 pretends to be a conference, but in reality, there is nothing open or democratic about the shenanigans. The details of the negotiations aren’t public. The interests being bargained for are not transparent. It stinks.
So what kind of “agreement” is it? Well, do you remember ever being asked what you wanted your “democratically elected” representatives to argue for in Copenhagen? That’s right, no one ever asked you. If you told them, they would have just dismissed your opinion as simple “denial”. Their agreement is not something you’ve ever been asked to agree with. The Telegraph reports today that
The Prime Minister wants EU countries to promise to reduce carbon emissions by 30 per cent, rather than the 20 per cent they are currently offering.
So who told Brown that this is what the UK wants? Who told Brown that this is what the people of Europe want? Does Brown even care what either want? Of course not. He’s only interested in getting a deal that will give him an advantage. Stuff what you want. And stuff your interests. There are around 6.7 billion people in the world, but just 20,000 or so of them will be at this meeting, deciding our fate. They will set the terms of the global agreement to which the rest of the world has to endure for the duration of global warming alarmism. If the farce at Copenhagen results in an agreement, it is an agreement between elites, between members of the establishment, about who gets which slice of the pie.
The targets they set will have nothing to do with preventing climate change, and everything to do with regulating the day-to-day live s of every single person in the world. Targets suit our government’s ever-increasing desire to control individuals and their behaviour. Our government loves targets. Except where those targets apply to them, of course. When targets apply to them, they are spun, squeezed, and swept under the carpet. Ultimate, the only target they are interested in is you and your cash. By setting targets, the government can limit your freedom to travel, to consume, and to do things, which makes life easier for them, because once targets are in place, they don’t have to make sure that people can get from A to B, or that there is adequate energy provision. They can explain their failure to deliver the things people need and want as “meeting the targets”.
And there is the rub. When you rightly complain about the effect of these targets, they can say “it’s out of our hands, we’re just meeting internationally agreed targets”. This is the point of making the agreements “legally binding”. Agreements don’t bind our government. They bind you. It lets governments off the hook. Governments seeking “legally binding” agreements at Copenhagen because once these agreements are in place, government’s will no longer be accountable to the public in the way that they have been in the past. Where they once had the role of doing what the public elected them to do, now they are in charge of monitoring what you do and making sure you do as you are told.
That is what Copehagen is really about.
