You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
Copenhagen Collapse
2009-12-16
When an overblown environmental conference culminates with Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lecturing the West on virtue, color it another shakedown.

The United Nations' Copenhagen Climate Conference is going fast into meltdown. It may be because it's not about climate anymore, but fitting a noose on the world's productive economies and extracting wealth transfers.

Poor countries have gone from defending their right to economic development as a reason for exemptions to emissions cuts to claiming a "legitimate" right to vast wealth transfers from the West to prevent emissions. They call it "climate justice."

Monday, the Group of 77, led by African states, shut down the conference for the second time, saying they would pick up their marbles and go home if the West didn't agree to their formula for emissions cutbacks and send them more than the $10 billion promised by the West.

Sudanese diplomat Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping said the African states would "not participate in any negotiations until the issues of Kyoto Protocol are discussed."

Having manipulated the foreign aid racket for decades, the African officials knew just what buttons to push with Western Europeans. Not surprisingly, they won concessions. No doubt they'll do it again to get more, and the Danes and other one-worlders will give them what they want.

It's no surprise it's come to this. It follows calls from environmental extremists like billionaire George Soros to have the International Monetary Fund front billions in cash to third world countries for climate control, creating a vast pool of money for Third World kleptocrats that won't be subject to accountability by pesky taxpayers.

Worse still, some at the World Bank have vowed to divert actual development and disease prevention aid help to global warming causes -- something that didn't sit well with countries that actually care about real jobs and infrastructure.

Meanwhile, a draft climate accord by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, calling for a 50% cut in global emissions by 2050, has been kicked down the road till 2015 or 2016. Gee, maybe it's not the most urgent threat facing humankind after all.

This shows that all the pretty words about going green and controlling climate have turned into nothing but a money-grab.

Maybe the reality is sinking in that the entire science of climate change is a sham.

The hacked CRU e-mails of the University of East Anglia show science has been corrupted by supposedly respected scientists in charge of the climate data at the university from the beginning. They falsified data and repressed inconvenient facts and then tried to silence real scientists who tried to determine the truth.
Posted by:Fred

#5  Group of 77....a new front organization for Jesse Jackson....?
Posted by: Uncle Phester   2009-12-16 10:30  

#4  Who are the biggest contributors to the World Bank? I would think the U.S. A back door approach to getting money from the American people for "global warming scams?" Is there no end to this craziness.
Posted by: JohnQC   2009-12-16 09:06  

#3  Worse still, some at the World Bank have vowed to divert actual development and disease prevention aid help to global warming causes -- something that didn't sit well with countries that actually care about real jobs and infrastructure.

But, but, but will will not divert all investment. We could still Guarantee Choice, Make Health Care Coverage Affordable, Protect Families Financial Health, Invest in Wellness, Provide Portability of Coverage, etc.

Posted by: Besoeker   2009-12-16 05:08  

#2  Sounds like the green version of Durban II.
Posted by: Mizzou Mafia   2009-12-16 02:36  

#1  Sometimes failure is the best option.
Will Obama get this right, for once?
He could vote "Present!"
Posted by: European Conservative   2009-12-16 00:17  

00:00