Monday, January 18, 2010

Copenhagen: A sound defeat for a hyped agenda

The expectation by many environmental NGOs /civil society groups to use their scientifically-dubious “man is warming up the earth” position to further their agenda towards global governance, did not quite meet with the hoped-for success at the recent Copenhangen Conference. Kim Carstensen, Leader of WWF's Global Climate Initiative simply could not hide his disappointment as he lamented: "Copenhagen was at the brink of failure due to poor leadership combined with an unconvincing level of ambition". But New World Order advocates, schooled in their famous Hegelian principle of achieving landmark successes via series of small almost imperceptible changes, are not known to give up so easily on their Agenda. So it is not surprising that Carstensen concluded with the words: “We are disappointed but the story continues." (
The hiccups at Copenhangen were due to three major difficulties: the issue of long-term climate aid for poor countries, the need to have international verification monitoring of emission levels of each country to ensure they are meeting their commitments, and more fundamentally, the issue of whether the agreement to be developed would be legally binding or just a political deal. Overall, the final document agreed on was a far cry for the much touted treaty that would have established an entity called "Conference of Parties" (COP) which would be responsible for defining and implementing taxing policies for all nations who are members of COP. (see Bill Wilson, "Copenhagen Climate Conference Ruse to Establish Global Government Even to Rule Over American Youth," ,
Though available scientific data are largely unsupportive, green movements insist that man, largely through the release of carbon dioxide – as in cars and other machines associated with development, is the main culprit for causing global temperature increases. [In reality average global temperatures have not increased in the past ten years – and there are better scientific explanation for the increase in temperature witnessed during some period of the last century – basically in terms of solar activities and cloud covers. There are glaring evidences that the world was much warmer than today, some centuries ago. Please see our previous articles, e.g. Vol 11 Nos 1 and 3). The suggested solution is that nations either reduce their carbon emissions and/or pay some global tax on them. Several valid concerns, including the vital role that CO2 plays in growth of plants (our ultimate food source) are quickly waved aside without any valid answer. But more alarming are the so-called geo-engineering options.
In one version, billions of dollars are to be used in deploying so-called "cloud ships". Some 1,900 of these wind-powered unmanned ships are to sail the world's oceans, suck up seawater and spray it out in miniscule droplets through tall funnels to create large, white clouds. It is expected that the clouds would reflect approximately one or two percent of the sunlight that otherwise would heat up the ocean, with the result of cancelling out the greenhouse effect intensified by increasing levels of carbon dioxide being observed in the atmosphere. Incidentally, the basic principle here is quite similar to one used by Svensmark to prove that cloud formation and coverings, which follow activities of the sun, are by far more important factors governing environmental temperature on earth, than CO2 concentration for instance. (See CA! Vo l 11 No1 &3 etc, ).
Another geo-engineering scheme, (actively being sponsored by the infamous US organization, The Council for Foreign Relations (CFR)), is even more audacious. Called “global dimming”, it involves plans to actually pollute the upper atmosphere with sulfur and microscropic particles in order to create an earth shield, in processes expected to mimick the cooling effects from volcanoes. The scheme is reminiscent of efforts by the U.S. military in the 1970s to explore detonating nuclear weapons to make the climate somehow more favorable. Which efforts led the United Nations in 1976 to quickly adopt a convention that prohibited the use of military weapons as a climate-change technology. (,)
Ironically, the CFR experts acknowledge that adverse climate changes, such as inducing droughts, could be caused in turn by geo-engineering efforts to fill the stratosphere with sulfur. However they reason that "The highly uncertain but possible disastrous side effects of geo-engineering interventions are difficult to compare to the dangers of unchecked global climate change." (,
Meanwhile, the troops are back to the trenches, preparing for the next engagement on the environment scheduled for December 2010 in Mexico City.

No comments: