DOHA, Qatar – Ms. Christiana Figueres, chief secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, has told a press conference here that the 18th Conference of the States Parties will bring about “a complete economic transformation of the world.”
She does not have in mind a democratic, free-market transformation. The intention of these 18 successive annual vacations for the world’s pampered dictators in exotic, sun-drenched locations is what it always was: to create a treaty binding more than 190 nations to do as the Secretariat says. Democracy? What’s that?
Todd Stern, the U.S. lead negotiator, was similarly upbeat at his own press conference here. With all the fervor of an evangelical preacher in an Alabama mega-church, he predicted that the “Doha Way Forward,” following the “Bali Road-Map,” the “Durban Platform,” etc., would achieve a second Kyoto Protocol – a treaty that all the nations of the world would ratify.
At least one nation will not ratify any such world-government power-grab by the world’s ruling elites. In 1997, while Al Gore was president of the United States Senate, it voted 95 to nil not to accept any treaty like the Kyoto Protocol.
The menace to democracy your senators recognized in the absurdly expensive, drawn-out U.N. climate “process” is grave. Shortly before the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics sent me an urgent email with a link to an obscure U.N. website that carried a draft of the then-intended Treaty of Copenhagen.
The 186-page draft was a remarkably detailed blueprint for world government, with the grim Framework Convention Secretariat as its ruling junta. Nowhere in this monstrous document were the words “democracy,” “election,” “ballot” or “vote” mentioned.
It was at once clear that the sole purpose of the climate scam, as the U.N. saw it, was to serve as a Trojan horse allowing it to achieve its long-held ambition of destroying national sovereignty and transferring all real political power to itself.
For this fell purpose, it was essential that the scare be maintained even after all scientific credibility had been lost. That became clear to the U.N. after the catastrophic failure of the Copenhagen talks, helped along by the coldest winter weather Denmark had ever experienced.
Ever since then, the U.N. has been doing its dishonest worst to talk up the climate scare. Here are some recent remarks by its dismal secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon:
November 9: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”
Nov. 13: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”
Nov. 14: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”
At the U.N.’s annual yakfests, it is traditional for “scientists” to come forward with lurid papers describing how Things Are Worse Than We Ever Predicted. That is becoming harder after 16 years without any statistically significant global warming, but they are still at it.
I watched as a head-bangingly sycophantic youth televised an interview with Dr. Riccardo Valentini of the University of East Anglia (where else?) in the makeshift “Climate Change Studio” at the Doha Conference Center.
“Dr. Valentini, today, you’ve published an important and wonderful paper in Nature Climate Science saying that CO2 concentration is rising so fast that there will be 4 to 6 Celsius degrees of global warming by 2100. Is that right?”
The paper – by an amazing coincidence that always seems to happen at these conferences – had come out that very day. The author said CO2 concentration in the last two years had been rising very fast, leading to 4-6 Cº of warming by the end of the century.
“So this is really, really serious and urgent, isn’t it, and governments must do a lot more to cut carbon emissions straight away?”
Yes, said Dr. Valentini, urgency was important. Much more money must be spent.
No one was allowed to ask questions, but I caught Valentini on his way out. I asked how much CO2 would be in the atmosphere by 2100 on present trends. Valentini did not know, but he thought it might be around 700 parts per million.
I said there was nothing new in that projection: The IPCC’s previous assessment report in 2007 had assumed 713 ppmv by 2100. On that central estimate, they had projected only 2.8 Cº warming by 2100 (shortly to be revised downward to 2.2 Cº). Why was he now saying the warming would be 4-6 Cº?
His reply: “I’m not a climate scientist.” He had simply assumed that the climate models 16 years without global warming had proven wrong were right.
I asked him whether trying to prevent that warming would be likely to cost more than letting it happen and adapting to it. He said he rather agreed with that analysis.
The unspeakable BBC featured his paper and his conclusion on all of its main news bulletins. Yet it did not ask him any of the right questions. Like the other true-believers here, it had followed the definition neither of science nor of genuine enquiry but of faith. It had believed without doubting. And without checking.
The climate scam is a mortal threat to democracy. However, if America stands firm for just a few more years, until it becomes obvious to all that the mad scientists were more concerned with grants than with truth, we may yet prevent the world government that Mr. Ban longs for.