Chestnuts roasting on a Copenhagen fire
Copenhagen is on fire this week, and there’s far more heating up than just the climate.
Heads of state and others are gathering this week at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, but bonfires already have been blazing for weeks on that European front.
Let me see whether I can summarize the chestnuts roasting on that Copenhagen fire.
Shocking e-mail exchanges from scientists at an eminent global warming research center in the United Kingdom have proved that key climate change scientists have suppressed evidence in order to “trick” the public or “hide the decline” of global temperatures.
Rather than focus on the audacity of the ClimateGate cover-up, Obama’s top science adviser, John Holdren, downplayed the e-mails, informing Congress that the controversy involved a small group of scientists. And others, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), blamed the hackers who exposed the e-mails rather than the scientists who deceived the world with false global climate reports.
Similarly, the UN was caught recently deleting documents that would disclose how member states are leading (or not leading) the way in self-greening efforts.
The scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters documented that ice melt on Antarctica was the lowest in 30 years during 2008-09, a fact being ignored intentionally by NASA.
A US scholar is threatening to sue NASA in order to prompt the agency to release climate change data, which he says have been manipulated here just like in Britain.
Officials in the Environmental Protection Agency gagged one of their own senior researchers after the 38year employee submitted an internal critique of the EPA’s climate change position.
Unlikethe US, China and India already have opposed foreign climate governancebecause it would jeopardize their national sovereignty.
Nearlytwo months ago, Christopher Monckton, once science adviser to BritishPrime Minister Margaret Thatcher, warned us that the real purpose ofthe conference is more about global government than it is about globalwarming.
In aformer column titled “Obama’s one-world government,” I detailed morethan a dozen actual statements in the proposed summit treaty thatthreaten our national sovereignty, could severely cripple our alreadydepressed economy and are so globally socialistic that they would makeeven a communist blush.
Al Gore made statements back in July that change will be driven through “global governance.”
TheUN’s climate chief, Yvo de Boer, reported that between $10 billion and$12 billion annually will be needed from developed countries (e.g., theUS) through 2012 to “kick-start” things. According to the World Bank,adapting for global warming (e.g., building larger dams and higherbridges) will cost an additional $75 billion to $100 billion a yearover the next 40 years. (A business professor at the University ofCambridge says it could be as high as $300 billion.)
AJapanese energy commission revealed that the majority of Japanesescientists reject UN- and Western-backed theories of climate change.
DespiteRep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) call for members of Congress to consider thejoint opinion of more than 32,000 US scientists — including more than9,000 PhDs — who believe humans likely have little or no part in thecreation of “global warming,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbsjustified the White House’s position and waved away opposition bytritely retorting that most people believe in global warming. A recentsurvey, however, found Americans’ belief in global warming has declinedand is at a 12-year low.
With16,500 delegates descending upon Copenhagen — including 140 aircraftcarrying world leaders, heads of state and VIPs — the UN estimates thatthe 12-day conference will create 40,584 tons of carbon dioxideequivalents. And could it be merely coincidental that all these planesare amassing at one place Dec. 7, the very anniversary of Pearl Harbor?Or are these all signs that our real enemies are looming on the horizon?
As I consider all of these global warming quandaries, the questions that keep coming to my mind are:
•If there’s no final draft of a treaty to sign, why is our president“contributing to global warming” by flying that super-jumbo 747 AirForce One to Copenhagen?
•Why does Obama want to require American households to pay possibly morethan $3,000 in additional annual taxes to reduce greenhouse emissions?
•In the midst of one of America’s worst recessions, where is the federalgovernment going to get the billions of dollars needed to fulfill thefinancial promise to assist developing countries with green initiativesoutlined on Page 11 of the 181-page climate summit treaty, which saysit would ensure “that global crises, such as the financial crisis,should not constitute an obstacle to the provision of financial andtechnical assistance to developing countries in accordance with theConvention”?
•Hasn’t the Obama administration charged enough on the nation’s creditcards in its first year in power by its trillions of dollars inbailouts, borrowing and additional government programs, includingsocialized medicine?
• How much more will we take? Or should I say, how much more will they take?
•Our government would do well to reconsider and actually live and leadby the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said during his first inauguraladdress, in 1801: “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrainmen from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free toregulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall nottake from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sumof good government.”
Copyright 2009 Chuck Norris. Distributed by creators.com