Climategate: Beyond the Sleazy Science, Rotten Economics
The United Nations ”climate” summit is upon us, already qualifying as the world’s biggest emitter of hypocrisy –with the Telegraph reporting on the convergence in Copenhagen of ”1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges.
And here’s the beauty of this grand scam. Not only is it based on unsound ”findings” with the UN claiming a “consensus” that never was, based on “science” that was something other than scientific. Beyond that, if anyone cares to venture further, lie boundless vistas of bad economics.
After all, when the UN wizards got done tailoring their conclusions about climate cause and effect, their work was far from over. They went on to produce stacks of calculations about the economy of the planet over the next 10, 20, 30 or 40 years or more. Thus, for instance, do we find such hocus-pocus as the UNFCCC providing estimates that in the year 2030, climate “mitigation” will require “$200 to $210 billion” in order to “return greenhouse gas emissions to current levels.” This is accompanied by a slew of estimates involving such stuff as percentages of global GDP needed for “climate” projects, flows of resources to developing countries two decades from now and prompts for governments to direct what is laughably referred to in this context as ”private investment.” Here’s a sample of this kind of blithe projection about the economy of the planet, gravely informing us of such gobbledygook as the conclusion that if the UNFCCC investment scheme is adopted, and trillions are redirected over the years as the UN prefers, then in 2030 – the emissions reductions of developing countries will account for 68% of all global emissions reductions.
Let’s get real. We can’t even predict with certainty which countries, or how many, will qualify 21 years from now as “developing,” or what, by the year 2030, that term might mean. (There are dynamic processes at work. If America signs on to this climate deal, for instance, that alone could swell the ranks of impoverished nations, and greatly change the ratio of developed to developing countries). We don’t know what technologies might be invented; we don’t know what inventions might never come to be — because they will be choked off by the same state planning which, in the name of “climate mitigation,” would regulate a lot of productivity and initiative out of existence.
It’s hard enough trying to get a handle on where the economies of the U.S., or the European Union, or China might be in another year or two. These things depend on a multitude of factors for which there are no sure oracles: the upheavals of politics, the trends of taxes, the complexities of money, exchange rates and discount rates, not to mention such potential events as large-scale wars. Whatever causes climate to change — whether carbon, sunspots or Zeus having an off-day on Mount Olympus — the economy of the planet, two or three or four decades from now, depends on many things, and climate may be the least of it.
For UN planners to presume that they can reliably calculate the economic future around the planet and across decades is absurd. To pretend to calculate the economic future in neat correlation with potential variations in climate is ridiculous. For UN planners, and politicians jetting into Copenhagen to further pretend they can better organize our lives based on this confetti of calculations is beyond inane. This is the global version of the old Soviet planners sitting down to command the economy of the USSR — and enforcing it would similarly require repression and coercion. Welcome to a world where you wait in line for toilet paper. Unless, of course, you are one of the climate-klatura, entitled to your caviar, limo and private jet, high above the queuing proles.
Behind Door #1 of the Copenhagen summit’s rigged game was Climategate. UN economics is the howler waiting behind Door #2.






The assembled council of cardinals will be faced with a terrible dilemma once the final vote is cast investing St. Al Gore as the new pope. Shall they burn the ballots? Or, would composting them be a more sustainable choice?
Bad science, good science; bad economics, good economics, who cares? It’s still an opportunity for grafts and quick bucks for the connected.
Remember:
The issue is never the issue.
The issue is control.
The whole process, political, economic and “scientific”, has taken on an Alice in Wonderland quality that defies rational description. At the risk of being called a “Bible-thumping fanatic” (I most assuredly am not)I must conclude that AGW and all the rest is the first big-time policy manifestation of a post-Christian West. Nature abhors a vacuum and with God taken off of the table “global warming” (or climate change or global cooling or whatever) is filling the void for those who need to be true believers. (Eric Hoffer noted much the same thing in regards to socialism.) As G.K. Chesterton said “When man ceases to believe in God he will believe in anything.” Those in Copehagen are attempting to do in a few years something that took the Catholic Church centuries. Construct an all-embracing world order of law, morals, ethics and behaviior that attempts to define every element of human behavior.
And just think, it only takes 20,000 of these idiots to slow the rotation of the earth so they can jump off before they burn-up.
Latest U.S. temperatures published for November. Cooling trend continues at a minus 8 degrees(F) per century rate.
see here – http://www.c3headlines.com/
Not one dime for the UN or global warming.
Carbon tax sounds like good economics to me – from government’s p.o.v. at least. With deficits like Britain and the UK have it is the only way the economies can be rescued.
Unfortunately it may easily backfire as people turn to the dark economy (cash, no paperwork no questions asked)
1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges. Simply a scam to transfer all wealth and power to the super rich.Time to storm the Bastille and polish up the guillotine.
I will spell it out: A provisional government, with a private army, instead of those reprobates, deformed souls, and similar ilk in charge of too many governments – a provisional
government will take this to heart: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/CaseforDueDiligence_Cda.pdf
So, will there be a provisional US government, with its own private army, to run the US until such time as a President is intrepid, and all the Valerie Plame’s are swept out of the bureaucracy. For the crowd inside the Beltway have to be quarantined, because they are making a bad situation worse.
Hence, whatever is said inside the Beltway has
to have the weight of a dead letter.
Or, do Americans have to be shown how it is done?
#8:
chambers:
Wow. Conundrum squared.
At first:
Well said. I like the analogy with the Catholic Church…
One post of 1000′s I have read about AGW (forgive the lack of attribution) compared the AGW “scientists” to those “scientists” who served the Inquisition…and produced the “science” the Church wanted…so far, so good…
But, I am thinking, that’s as far as your “rational” point goes. You mention god. Why mention god, at all?
…your references to “this is the first big-time policy manifestation of a post-Christian West”…and then to quote Chesterton, of all mystics…“When man ceases to believe in God he will believe in anything.”
Sorry, I have no idea where this comes from, or is in the least bit rational…
It degrades the entire argument.
How dare you compare people who belive in AGW “true elievers”?…excepting the scientists purveying it.
The issue is not the simple vacuum you present.
The issue is not about any kind of faith or vacuum,
Jesus H. Christ…but that, as I believe, the majority of Americans, who actually think more than you might imagine, have been presented with overwhleming false scientific evidence. And made decisions based on it.
And now, it’s coming out, and those Americans are questioning…based on science…
Time will tell…
It has nothing to do with God. It has nothing to do with temperature. It even has nothing to do with icebergs, polar bears and carbon dioxide. It has everything to do with money and its twin, power.
Old Europe and those fat Belgians cannot wait to re-colonize the New World. Why do you think they always put some imbecilic third world “statesman” as the president of the UN?
That is why litigation, litigation and more litigation is the only answer.
Stop the talking, the complaining, the scientific journals. Bring in the sleazebag lawyers who can drag each and every climate con man through the court system for years using every trick in the book.
But, I am thinking, that’s as far as your “rational” point goes. You mention god. Why mention god, at all?
You can only understand the religion of AGW by comparing it to other religions, not by comparing it to science, that’s why God needs mentioned in any discussion of AGW fraud and the movement based on it. Those who were hiding data, eliminating from publication articles that did not agree with them, and otherwise making sure that only lies were considered were not doing so based primarily on greed. For the most part they were doing so based in their belief that they had the one true way to make the world into a paradise. There’s no way you can call that a scientifically based scam given the fact that the entire thrust of their efforts was to eliminate science from the debate.
AGW and the entire spectrum of associated little frauds constitute nothing short of religion based on saving one’s self by performing “good” works on behalf of Mother Earth. The use of fake science is proof that those behind the AGW scam thought that scientists were the most unassailable and trusted members of society these days. If you’ll recall, Al Gore started off while still VP demanding that Christian churches get behind AGW and make it as important to their faith as Christ himself. When it became obvious that churches weren’t falling in line, Al turned to what he knew was an equally respected (for the most part) and much more easily controlled group, scientists. As history since then shows, it’s far easier to bribe and/or convert scientists than it is to do the same with churches.
have a nice day
Speaking of the UN….
What if CO2 emissions from 6,000 older inefficient PCs in Duluth could be reduced by half by replacing them with one big 5-acre computer in Des Moines run by just 88 people? Think of what we’d save in CO2 emissions! We’ll establish another UN bureaucracy with green jobbers to monitor this mitigation plan! And we’ll finance it all – and a make a ton of money – with an annual fee per ton of CO2 emissions saved – paid by New Yorkers required by law to pony up – every year for the life of the computer in Des Moines, estimated at 20 years. We’ll charge fees for any files printed in Des Moines and delivered to Duluth (but ignore the CO2 emissions generated in transit).Along with the Teamsters, NGOs and bureaucrats, New Yorkers will be thrilled by this plan since these are green jobs and, after all, we’re saving the planet! And what could possibly be better than that?
This is the UN climate change campaign’s outline. Learn more at:
http://web.me.com/teresahplatt/Teresa_Platts_Blog/Teresa_Platts_blog/Entries/2009/12/23_UNCOP_OUT__Did_they_really_ALL_have_to_go.html
Link above, to Tyranny by Treaty, is changed to: http://bit.ly/d8nXwW