The pace and volume of the cheerleading is picking up. Over the weekend, the Vatican announced that climate is now a Catholic issue, and they are setting up an enviro “think tank” (what does God think of Climate Change?) The Australian Academy of Science produced its new advertising to feed the cash-cow called climate-grants (details on that later). The zombie issue of imaginary climate refugees resurfaced — 45 Fijian Villages are “projected” to be relocated in the next five to ten years; which bureaucrat says this, and will they apologize and quit 10 years from now if this turns out to be a wild exaggeration like the last claim?
It’s On. In 2015, we are going to be swamped with climate-spin.
The UNFCCC meeting in Paris is a major money and power-grab, and those with snouts in the trough know that their future fat cheques depend on how well they push propanganda, silence critics, and shout down intelligent debate. At one stage they were asking for 1.5% of global GDP (about $2,500 per Western family of four annually).
How much will they take? As much as we let them.
We can protest now, or protest later, but why wait? They will ask for “as much as the voters will bear”. Let’s mark out the pain-threshold right now. The more they get, the more they want. They deserve nothing.
The meeting, COP 21, is Nov 30 – Dec 11. It is a giant junket, a grand theater to generate headlines and reward compliant serfs in the media, in science, and in the NGOs. The real action is on right now, the negotiations are taking place in the months leading up to the meeting. Whether or not it will succeed will likely be decided long before Nov 30. It’s time for us to get serious.
To beat this wave of government funded fog, you can help support independent science by writing letters, emails and comments and through donations. We get no government grants to show where governments are wrong, and we have some big bills to pay. Dr David Evans has been working full-time using his Fourier work and Stanford level maths to update the notch-delay theory and look at the equations that underlie the models. (If you wonder why we’ve been quiet on it, it’s because he prefers to bury himself in productive solitude and private emails, not hack out issues in the “bloodsport” of mostly pointless ad hom comment wars. He’s been industrious; there is a busy year ahead on the blog.) We have more big news to release on both soon. The notch-delay comes out stronger than before after working through the issues raised last year. This work (and our household) depends on support from independent thinkers like yourself. See the bottom of the post for personal thanks to some direct deposit donors as well. The paypal option is here. US dollars and British pounds are also accepted, and thanks to the falling Australian exchange rate, foreign cash goes an extra long way now. Every contribution helps. Thank you, Jo
We must roast the media for pushing propaganda
The media IS the problem. Letters to editors discussing how their journalists are gullible patsies for not being even a tiny bit skeptical of government propaganda will hurt much more than letters that just dispute science content. Letters about science undermine their confidence as a “scientist”, but letters about their journalistic ability hurt so much more. Journalists kid themselves that they are independent critical thinkers. Wedge them by politely pointing out the questions they didn’t ask.
The “200 countries” headline below is there to pump the illusion of inevitable momentum toward a climate deal. Two hundred countries did what?
Almost 200 countries have agreed a draft document on how to best slow down climate change.
The blueprint is a first step towards negotiations for a deal to be agreed in Paris later this year which would come into effect in 2020.
“The text has grown, so yes that makes June, which is the next time that they will get together, a little bit more difficult, but it does have the huge value that it is recognised as a formal negotiating text and that all parties will be eager to engage with that text,” said Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Real journalists would ask: So what exactly did “two hundred” countries do? Did their parliaments discuss this exact draft? Did a single citizen of each nation sign off on something (and if so, who were they)? Was this agreement anything more substantial than an email to some sub-sub-bureaucrat of the Dept of upper-middle-climate-control? Does “agreement” mean 200 bureaucrats were sent a draft and they didn’t actually say “we want no part of this”?
Euronews, whoever they are, does not bother to try to answer these questions.
How big are those UNFCCC aims?
What’s ultimately up for grabs in Paris is a global bureaucracy that can control carbon emissions (meaning energy) worldwide. It is one of the largest and most ambitious political and scientific ambit claims ever, and it is hidden in plain view (but don’t hold your breathe waiting for the media to point it out).
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.” – Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC 3 Feb, 2015
They are aiming for some sort of UN or global body to be able to override national governments. As the history of federations such as the USA or Australia show, that sort of control will likely evolve to centralize powers even further. This will necessarily entail a class of global bureaucrats, probably not directly accountable, paid what they think they are worth out of tax income, and dispersing funds worldwide according to their agenda.
In the meantime, a bit of redistribution of income is on the agenda: In the draft of UN climate agreement, the developed countries are footing the bill. Vague lip service is paid to “fiscal sovereignty” of developing countries. Developed nations? They belong to the UN.
Option 6: Public sector financing from developed country Parties shall be the primary source of resources, with other sources to be considered supplementary. Different sources to be considered on the basis of clear criteria in order to avoid incidence and ensure fiscal sovereignty of developing countries, and ensure the sustainability, predictability and additionality or resources.]
Here’s the draft. “AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON THE DURBAN PLATFORM FOR ENHANCED ACTION.”
There are 86 pages, please search and add your thoughts on this document below.
Thanks to those who have helped with recent direct deposit donations – Thanks to Tom, Rodney (both of you), Otto, Keith, Willy, Jules, Wilkie, James, Maurice, Fred, Laurie, Roland, George, Aaron, Reed, Nick, oops, A.T.J. and Mr “Big”. I’d like to thank you properly with your full names, but I assume any messages or details are not for publication. Naturally, Paypal donations are just as useful. Thank you to everyone who helps make independent science possible.