Free Markets, Free People

Copenhagen Is Not About “Science”, It’s About Income Redistribution (Update)

The Guardian today, in its sub headline above an editorial concerning the Copenhagen summit announces:

This editorial calling for action from world leaders on climate change is published today by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages.

And, as you might imagine, it is an editorial unwritten by any of them. Of course we all know papers routinely give over editorial space for guess editorialists. But this goes beyond that to pure propaganda. And, as you read the editorial, it completely ignores the scientific scandal now growing ever larger and more serious, to declare the “facts are clear” and that the world needs to take “steps to limit temperature rises to 2C.

I’m reminded of how well our steps to limit unemployment by blowing 787 billion we didn’t have worked in a complex economy which apparently those who claim to know about seemingly didn’t. You can imagine my skepticism (and those of many others like me) concerning the assertion we can change anything (much less have an effect) on anything as complex as a global climate.

Yet these 56 newspapers uncritically reprint this editorial (to include the Miami Herald).

In reality, I’ve come to understand this isn’t about “climate change”, this is about the politics of income redistribution. I’ve spoken of it in the past. This has been a goal of the third-world debating club, also known as the UN, since it has come into existence. The IPCC is just a convenient vehicle on which to base their claims and put them forward to the industrialized countries for fulfillment. The underlying “science”, like a wet paper box, is coming apart at the seams. And not a single mention in the editorial. But it becomes clear, the further you get into it, that it is about what I contend it is about:

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

If you were playing buzz word bingo with this paragraph you’d be at the prize table right now picking one out. It hits all of the favorite themes of income redistributionists. And its blatancy should scare you. This is about your wallet, your money and the rest of the world making a claim on it. This is the third world’s dream come true.

In Copenhagen these next two weeks, our “leaders” will attempt to find a way to accommodate those who are making this claim on your money. What they won’t do is question the “science”. They won’t ask how CO2, which science has told us is an 800 year lagging indicator and an effect of warming suddenly became a cause of warming. They won’t question why the models that predict our environmental Armageddon can’t duplicate the past and have been totally wrong about the last 10 years. Or why those models don’t take into account the effect of the sun, solar wind, cosmic rays or cloud albedo – all things which heavily effect our global climate.

Instead they plan on doing what has been in the works for decades – use this as an excuse to loot the riches of the more industrialized world. The 56 tools of that movement who’ve uncritically reprinted this editorial call the Copenhagen meeting “14 days to seal history’s judgment on this generation” and conclude:

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

I go with “stupid” in this case. Unfortunately the real “stupid” thing to do would be to rush into something using unproven, or even untested science, as the basis for the action – but that’s precisely what the plans are for Copenhagen. And we’ve seen this before. Kyoto was simply a less ambitious attempt than Copenhagen. And we “stupidly” sat it out. Temperatures have cooled since.

So my hope is we stupidly do that again. I’ll be glad to suffer the brickbats from the alarmists and the redistributionists. But until we have real science which is transparent, open and actually tested, I’m not willing to consider letting anyone near my wallet and my freedoms. And that’s what our politicians need to know – loud and clear.

UPDATE: If you’re still doubting my point, I don’t think this fellow could done a better job of making it for me:

A similar theme will play out in Copenhagen as rich countries wrangle over how much they should have to pay to help the developing world shift to cleaner technologies.

“There is no agreement without money,” says Rosário Bento Pais, a top climate negotiator for the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm. “That is clear.”



31 Responses to Copenhagen Is Not About “Science”, It’s About Income Redistribution (Update)

  • The comment moderator at the Guardian is doing a good job of deleting comments critical of this editorial and bringing up anything controversial about the climate debate. After all, it’s settled! The debate is over! It’s time for action, donchaknow.

  • I’m reminded of a slogan from a New Deal-era agency (NRA?):

    We do our part!

    This describes MiniTru’s complicity in the global warming fraud.  Witness this headline, hot off the Yahoo! News press:

    Decade of 2000s was warmest ever, scientists say

    So, do whatever you can to support the nobel efforts at Copenhagen (or should I say, HOPEnhagen?)!  Because the earth has UNQUESTIONABLY gotten hotter.  Scientists say so.  And that’s all you peons need to know.

    • Well it may have been getting hotter.  We don’t know.  What we know is that the created or exaggerated a rapid temperature increase to help create a sense of panic.
      What I’m afraid of and what the alarmists would like is for us to fixate on whether there was a temperature increase or not.
      The real things to take away are
      1) Falsifying data to create a panic
      2) Falisfying data to prove the theoretical link between CO2 and temperature
      The Left and Alarmist Scientists would love for us to quibble over tenths of a degree.  The Left gets time and the “scientists” get more money.

      • I’m in favor of giving the “scientists” all the money they want if they’ll agree to actually do science.  That means:

        — Not “losing” their raw data

        — Letting other people, even “skeptics”, see that data

        — Letting other people, even “skeptics”, see their processing methodology

        — Not threatening “skeptics”

        — Not trying to influence the peer-review process

        Otherwise, I will most assuredly fight them over a tenth of a degree because I’m not willing to give them ANY legitimacy until the earn it.  Give ’em an inch, they’ll take a mile, and until they offer better proof than the fabricated crap we’ve seen so far, I wouldn’t trust them to correctly report the temperature at the bank down the road.

  • Actually, Copenhagen (and, before it, Kyoto) are all one big way for the Left to suck the life out of the planet.

    No job? So just die now. We people trying to save the planet took your job because it impacted “climate change.” Hey…are you breathing again? Do you know that breathing, and your “carbon footprint,” is causing “climate change”? It is obvious that you just don’t care about the planet. Sell your home, before we TAKE IT from you. And that car? Sell that, too, and take the bus, whydontcha! Stop breathing, stop eating, stop working at your job that is destroying the planet, and just give all of your money to President Obama, who knows better what to do with it than you ever will, and then sit down and shut up! Anything you say in opposition means that you hate America and want to destroy the planet…and you are also a RACIST thug and a hater! You must watch Fox News! Shut off your tv set, because it is tuned to Fox News, which should be illegal…and, by the way, your tv is not approved by the UN because it also causes “climate change”! Sit down, shut up, and let us do the talking from here on out. No more with you!

  • No idiot left winger, social justice dictates that the government stop stealing my wealth and our future to give freebies to global corporations and third world despots.

  • Considering the speed at which it is being devalued, will any third world country want our dollars if we go all-in with any new ‘carbon trading’ scheme?

  • “Of course we all know papers routinely give over editorial space for guess editorialists.”
    A misspelling, perhaps, but an oddly appropriate one. 🙂

  • Real science?? That’s what you want?? Really? Gee isn’t proving that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as easy as running an experiment in any lab? And then measuring the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and comparing those measurements to ice cores to see that we are at historical highs? Gee, I didn’t know the standard you set was so low! Wow, and here I thought you were all anti-science and believed the earth was only 5,000 years old! Well there’s hope for us yet!

    • Please provide your evidence that the earth is at “historically high” temperatures.

      Note: Using data from CRU or any agency that is merely re-reporting CRU data is automatically rejected as we know that they’ve been cooking the books.  Oh, we’ve also found that the New Zealand scientists were similarly cooking the books.  NASA has also (without explanation) repeatedly revised their list of the hottest years in recent history, so their data is also suspect.

      In other words, there is no proof whatsoever that the earth has genuinely been getting warmer.  Even if we had, it is a leap of faith (not science) to assert that CO2 is the culprit.  Even IPCC will admit (quietly) that they have no idea how other atmospheric gases such as methane and water vapor and phenomena such as clouds or ice coverage affect global temperatures.  There’s also that large ball of plasma about 93 million miles from here that plays a (ahem) small role in the temperature of our planet.  Finally, even those hacks at CRU admitted to themselves that their models weren’t panning out and the recent years got COOLER, not hotter, even as people drove their nasty ol’ SUV’s and used those horrible, earth-killing incandescent lamps.  Oh, and the Red Chinese were building new coal-fired power plants at a rate of (IIRC) one every month or so.  Why, therefore, is it frigid here in No. Carolina today?

      Here’s a tip for you to remember the next time you start yapping about science: science is all about proof and skepticism, NOT about blind faith.  When those of us who don’t believe in global warming say, “Prove it”, we’re doing the first step in science.

      Oh, and I can run an experiment in my lab (I AM a scientist) in which I flick a Bic lighter and measure a temperature increase in the air around it.  This can be done in any lab around the world.  Does that mean that Bic lighters are causing the alleged global warming?

      • Like so much of this debate we are talking past each other. I didn’t say historically high temperatures. I said historically high levels of carbon. And by historically I mean the history of humanity not the entire earth. Hey global warming might not even be that bad, but we will have to adapt somewhat to it. (People in Red States are probably more screwed. Poetic justice.) As for proof, google it your own damn self.

        • Spoken like a True Believer (i.e. Koolaide Drinker).  Step up to the trough little Lemming.  It’s your turn!

        • In other words, you have no proof at all.  And it’s not “talking past each other” when one side wants to take extreme action to solve a problem that the other side not only believes doesn’t exist, but is a fabrication of scientists who made themselves into international con artists.

          Do take this opportunity to read up, will you?  There’s been quite a lot of information about the fraud perpetrated by the CRU scientists posted on this blog, and it’s only the tip of the iceberg.  You assert that there’s some sort of proof of global warming.  Where is it? (hint: scientists don’t talk about “consensus”; they talk about “evidence”)  Other than in the fabricated data and phony computer models of the CRU scientists and their collaborators around the world, that is.  And if there is no proof, then why should we take any action at all?

          Imagine, if you will, that a doctor gives you an exam.  To your utter surprise, he tells you that you’ve got a rare disease that he’s recently discovered.  It means that you only have months to live.  He promises that you MIGHT survive, but it will require him to give you extensive treatments that will require massive, expensive changes to your lifestyle and will likely bankrupt you.  He tells you that you’ve got to start the treatments IMMEDIATELY and demands a huge initial payment.

          — You feel fine.

          — You’ve never seen or heard of the instrument he used to diagnose you, which is of his own design.

          — Things that he identifies as “symptoms”, such as sweating when you are hot, seem like perfectly normal conditions for you, or else he tells you that you have symptoms that you don’t notice yourself.

          — There are competing opinions in the medical literature that the disease even exists, but the doctor assures you that there is a “consensus” among “reputable” doctors that it does.

          — You find that people who are most vociferous in their defense of the existence of the disease are not doctors at all.

          — You find that the doctor who gave you the diagnosis will make a fortune from your treatment and from grants that he hopes to get.

          — The doctor refuses to let doctors other than those he handpicks to see his data or his machine design.  Instead, he engages in viscious personal attacks against any skeptics, comparing them to Holocaust deniers.

          — The doctor has “discovered” similar diseases before and told people that they would die from them, but later had to admit that his discovery was… incorrect.

          — The doctor has diagnosed other people with the disease and told them that they’ve only got months to live… for years.  They are all still alive, though rather poorer from paying his huge fees.

          Now, are you SURE you want the treatment?

          BTW, why would the Red States suffer most from global warming?  Except for the Gulf Coast states and Alaska, most coastal states that would flood due to those melting ice caps are blue, no?

        • The fact that you jump to Red State reference is all the proof we need you have not a clue about it.
          What the hell has politics got to do with it?  How do you know where any of the posters are from?  As they like to say, we’re all in the same boat, a global disaster effects everyone.
          Stop and ask yourself if you really believe that in a complex global climate system if their models can predict PAST climate for which they all ALL the numbers they need and do NOT need to predict the outcomes
          How is ONE simple gas, is THE answer.  Ask yourself why if this ONE simple gas is THE answer, they can wait 10 years to actually achieve a minuscule reduction.  READ WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING for heaven sake.  They aren’t solving the problem now, or next year, or the year after.  They keep telling you there’s a crisis, and they’re going to solve it by restricting the hell out of you today, but their answer isn’t going to take effect for a decade or more.
          Now, exactly HOW much of a crisis do you really think that IS if the answer is 20 to 30 years down the road on actions you take TODAY.   God Lord, use the brains you were given as something more than a means of keeping the air from whistling between your ears.

        • The planet is 5000 years old!?  What are you retarded?  A drive by retard 🙂
          This should be fun.
          CO2 is not a poison and it casuality to temperature has not been established.
          Read this for an explanation of how 450,000 years of measurements show that CO2 levels actually lag the temperature increase and not lead them.

          So yeah there are high levels of CO2 (not maximal) and there were much higher levels in the past, but temperatures are not following the increases.
          The question to why this happening is pretty complex.

    • Mike: CO2 is a TRACE greenhouse gas, about 2%. We (humans) contribute a trace of that, less than 1%, the US contributes 20% of that infinitesimal amount. Now we are down to two-onethousandths  of one percent, and you want to do what? to the economy to affect wo-onethousandths of one percent? Go back to the stone-age? This has been discussed here ad-nauseam, the planet self regulates naturally occurring gasses. You are feel to have your own beliefs, but not your own facts.
      Bonus question, 10 Pts.: Which gas is the predominant greenhouse gas? i.e. (that which controls 97% of the greenhouse effect)

      • Well according to the dept. of energy it’s CO2:
        But I know it’s also water vapor which I think is what you are referring to.
        I know CO2 is a trace gas. The question always is an economic one, whether the cost of any reduction of it on our part is greater than any harm global warming might inflict on us. I live in the north. I’ll be fine. The Red States might be screwed though. (Haha)

  • What all these rags know is the truth: The majority if thinking people knew this was a scam years ago when the facts on the ground (cooler weather, increasing ice pack density, growing polar bear populations) didn’t square up with the rhetoric (Crisis! Calamity! the sky is falling! Cluck!-Cluck!)
    It smelled of “Cloward – Piven Strategy”  from day one, A Marxist gun to your head: gimme all your money! Now: who do you believe? The DNC echo chamber? Make a note of who is lying to you today, and never give them another dime. *Spit*

  • “Instead they plan on doing what has been in the works for decades – use this as an excuse to loot the riches of the more industrialized world.”

    We aren’t industrial anymore.  We are a post-industrial economy where we make money by selling technology and international finance.

    “A similar theme will play out in Copenhagen as rich countries wrangle over how much they should have to pay to help the developing world shift to cleaner technologies.”
    Yeah, but the operative word here is “help”.  Where exactly do you think those poorer countries are going to have to purchase that technology from? 

    The expected climate change cost to the developing world is $600 billion per year of climate change.  The OECD bargaining position is to offer a “political commitment” to pay $120 billion per year.   On raw numbers the OECD comes out ahead.  And as similar “political commitments” have been made in the past – the millenium goals, Kyoto, 3rd world debt – which have not been anymore than 1/3 completed the OECD will come out even further ahead.   Basically the developed world Copenhagen position is to force the developing world to spend about $500 billion per year (mostly with the developed world) or consign their populations to living “sustainably”.

    Copenhagen is rent seeking on the grandest possible scale by the developed world. 

    • And what is the “developing world” going to do if we do not pay the rent?  Evict us?

      • If they don’t get their pay-off they walk out of Copenhagen.  Which would be a bloody good thing. 

        Think the G20 is offering about $120 billion a year in “politically agreed” aid and the G77 is asking for $600 billion in “treaty mandated assistance”.  So the chances of a walk out are high. 

    • “Where exactly do you think those poorer countries are going to have to purchase that technology from?”

      If you pay attention, you will find that the developed countries are supposed to provide the technology for free. Do try to keep up.

    • Dude, either you’re prescient, or you leaked the documents
      Rent seeking it is

      • Heck, I reckon it is rent seeking to have a single per-capita emissions limit and the memo outlines a position even more self-serving than that.  

        Not prescient, just not cynical enough.   

  • Members of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have taken to the media to request that the board suspend the truck rule, which would require exhaust filter retrofits and engine upgrades starting in 2011 and the replacement of pre-2010 model engines between 2012 to 2022. CARB members Ron Roberts and Dr. John Telles allege that CARB had tried to cover up that the lead scientist and coordinator of the research used to justify the new emissions rules, had lied about holding a Ph.D. in statistics. Hien T. Tran’s Ph.D. was the mail-order version, according to local media reports, and senior CARB officials were aware that his falsified credentials before voting on the truck retrofit legislation.

    I’m sure that Phil Jones will tell you that with or without the PhD, a statistician is not a “climate scientist.”

    • It doesn’t matter.  The earth is in the balance, I tell you!  WE’VE GOTTA DO SOMETHING (like make you pay more money for things, including taxes for more regulatory agencies and scientists with mail-order PhD’s).