Shakedown in Copenhagen
If you would know what Copenhagen is all about, hearken to this nugget in The Washington Post‘s report from the Danish capital.
“Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenari — who is representing all of Africa here — unveiled his proposal Wednesday for a system in which rich countries would provide money to poor ones to help deal with the effects of climate change. …
“Zenawi said he would accept $30 billion in the short term, rising to $100 billion by 2020. … This was seen as a key concession by developing countries, which had previously spurned that figure … as too low.”
There was a time when a U.S. diplomat would have burst out laughing after listening to a Third World con artist like this.
But not the Obamaites. They are already ponying up.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack just pledged $1 billion at Copenhagen to developing countries who preserve their forests. Thus, America, $12 trillion in debt and facing a second straight $1.4 trillion deficit, will borrow another $1 billion from China to send to Brazil to bribe them to stop cutting down their trees.
When you slice through the blather about marooned bears and melting ice caps, oceans rising and cities sinking, global warming is a racket and a crock. It is all about money and power.
Copenhagen has always been about an endless transfer of wealth from America, Europe and Japan and creation of a global bureaucracy to control the pace of world economic and industrial development.
End game: enrichment and empowerment of global elites at the expense of Western peoples whose leaders have been bamboozled by con artists.
When Katrina hit New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and Rita came ashore in Texas in 2005, we were told this was due to global warming, and hurricane seasons would now get worse and worse until the world radically reduced the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
President Bush ignored the hysteria. What happened?
As Michael Fumento reports, the 2009 hurricane season ended quietly, with the fewest hurricanes since 1997, and not one hurricane made landfall in the United States.
When the feds sought to list the polar bear as an endangered species, Gov. Sarah Palin protested this “politicized science” and sued, claiming the polar bear was a healthy species whose numbers had doubled in recent years.
Was she wrong?
Is the Arctic ice cap melting? So we are told. But what harm has befallen mankind other than to have a Northwest Passage opened up to maritime traffic in the summer?
The Antarctic ice sheet is nine times as large as the Arctic, and here is what the British Antarctic Survey wrote last April:
“(D)uring the winter freeze in Antarctica this ice cover expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above. Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade.”
One hundred thousand square kilometers a decade?
This would mean Antarctic sea ice expanded by 300,000 square kilometers since the 1970s, or 116,000 square miles, which is an area larger than all of New England.
How can the Antarctic ice cap grow for three decades as the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has steadily increased, unless carbon dioxide has little or nothing to do with global warming?
Unlike the Arctic, Antarctica is a continent, and while chunks of ice are cracking off in Western Antarctica, in Eastern Antarctica, four times larger, the ice sheet is thickening and expanding. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research reported last April that the South Pole had shown “significant cooling in recent decades.”
In April 1992, as the alarm over the Earth’s end times began, scientists worldwide issued what was called the Heidelberg Appeal, aimed at just the kind of hysteria we are witnessing now in Copenhagen.
“We are … worried … at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development,” said the scientists.
“We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look towards the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man’s first appearance in the biosphere. … (H)umanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse.
“We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data.”
Since then, 4,000 scientists and 72 Nobel Prize winners have signed on. Again, it needs be said: Global warming is cyclical, and has been stagnant for a decade. There is no conclusive proof it is manmade, no conclusive proof it is harmful to the planet.
Patrick Buchanan is the author of the new book Churchill, Hitler, and ‘The Unnecessary War,’ now available in paperback.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM




Pat Buchanan wrote:
“When you slice through the blather about marooned bears and melting ice caps, oceans rising and cities sinking, global warming is a racket and a crock.”
And
“There is no conclusive proof it is manmade, no conclusive proof it is harmful to the planet.”
Geez I sure wish Pat would have refrained from saying the former and just stuck to saying things like the latter.
“India’s environment minister said there was no scientific proof to support the idea that the melting of Himalayan glaciers was being caused by global warming, reports said Tuesday.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/no-link-between-global-warming-and-melting-glaciers-india.html
There are many theories as to why simple CO2 and Global Cooling of the last 10 years does not accurately predict the Melting of some Ice Flows and the Increase of others.
From the “brown cloud/particulate” theories, to the “trace-gas catalyst” theories, “MOST LEGITIMATE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS” worldwide acknowledge that the percentage of human influence over the long-term climate of the Earth is currently a matter of speculation.
As the SURFACE of the Earth is mostly covered by water, we have yet to seriously investigate the production of fast-propagating algae capable of replacing the CO2 eating capacity of the Land’s plants and forests. Man’s ability to play a part in planning the future of the Earth’s Climate is largely untested. But the US is a LEADER in cleaning up urban pollution, and remains a SHINING EXAMPLE to developing countries.
This of course would be diminished by the LIBs plan to rob our country of it’s ability to sustain it’s affluence, as they grab what they think is increasing long-term political power.
What President Johnson did for the BLACK COMMUNITY, so the LIBs would like to do for the US POPULATION in general. Look at California’s and New York’s inability to feed themselves. Give the LIBs the power, and America: see your future.
“Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack just pledged $1 billion at Copenhagen to developing countries who preserve their forests. Thus, America, $12 trillion in debt and facing a second straight $1.4 trillion deficit, will borrow another $1 billion from China to send to Brazil to bribe them to stop cutting down their trees.”
In addition to that laughable arrangement of bribing the developing nations, how is the U.S supposed to generate the wealth necessary to pay these ‘reparations’ while also encumbered by cap-and-trade emissions taxes?
“There is no conclusive proof it is manmade, no conclusive proof it is harmful to the planet.”
There is no *proof* in science, Einstein:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing.php
But there is plenty of hard evidence for CO2′s role in recent warming:
http://tinyurl.com/heatisonline
But I take it you’re a gambling man. Future generations say, “Thanks, Pat!”
“There is no conclusive proof it is manmade, no conclusive proof it is harmful to the planet.”
There is no *proof* in science, Einstein:
Yet the global warmers contend just that, eh Popper?
There seem to be three issues at stake here. One: is the earth warming or cooling? Two: if the earth is warming, is the warming caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, or is it due to non-human factors? Three: if the earth is warming, is that harmful or beneficial?
It seems the first question is easiest to answer. From Pat’s data, the answer is clearly no, making the other two questions redundant. As long as you can establish that the earth is not warming, you do not need to make any argument about the human factor behind warming, or the potential harm of warming.
Hand picking data to make your point is the first thing taught in statistics. Pat should read all of an article, but I am sure he has since he has always used these methods.
I have spent the last 35 years fighting wildfires and making decisions based on facts, probabilities and yes, science based data. So yes every person has bias but facts alone are useless unless you look at possible reasons for the data.
One stands out to me…. there is more carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere as best as we can tell from studying ice cores, lake bottoms and as many sources as people can imagine. So the question here is why? I do not suppose that all the carbon that took millions of years to form (unless you think 6000 years is as long as we have been here) being released at tremendous rates in the last 150 years would have no effect on climate.
A single large volcanic eruption affects weather for 1 to 2 years. The amount of coal pollution in china affects the weather in the Pacific NW. If some places are hotter others will become cooler. Mr. Pat is making arguments that are truly below his intellect to make points. How sad.