Elephant in the greenhouse part II

However, you can’t deny that the increased human activity in terms of consumption and production and the impact of human activity on the Earth’s environment is troublesome to anyone who looks at it.

To look at the change and speed of change that’s taking place, it’s troublesome to think about what this may bring in terms of environmental changes and how that then could alter the Earth’s ability to support not only human life, but life of other species.”

A year earlier, Wilmoth reportedly said: “There is a strong case to be made that the world faces sustainability issues whether it has nine billion people, seven billion people or four billion people. Nobody can deny that population growth is a major driving factor [of carbon dioxide emissions], but in terms of the policy response, what are you going to do?”

Stripping out the sustainable development and climate-catastrophist rhetoric that now dominate UN discourse, reveals another developed-developing world wealth transfer ambition. Eerily similar to the ‘new international economic order’ proposed four decades ago in Bucharest as the LDC ‘solution’ to the population problem (see Part I), it has been recast in the language of ‘climate reparations’, ‘climate debt’, ‘climate refugees’ and global ‘contraction and convergence’. Same ambition, new semantics. Déjà vu all over again.

How many climate-bureaucrats does it take merely to discuss controlling the planet’s elusive thermostat?At least 100 for each UN member state. Hence theabsurd annual pantomime of a cast of many thousands ‘debating’ a draft document of less than 50 pages for two weeks in an exotic location, and in the age of the internet.

For the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations, COP21 aims to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, with the aim of keeping global warming below 2°C.The conference is expected to attract close to 50,000 participants including 25,000 official delegates from government, intergovernmental organisations, UN agencies, NGOs and civil society.

No wonder it is all smiles at Paris Climat 2015, - unlike the mood at Copenhagen 2009. For the show must go on. The juggernaut must reach its destination. The alarmist paradigm must be defended at all costs.

Obfuscation, opportunism and politics have triumphed, despite a lack of compelling evidence for causal links between anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and ‘dangerous’ climate change. Hardly surprising when activist climate scientists are, as Garth Paltridge, a former chief CSIRO atmospheric researcher,suggested in a recent post:

quite willing to cherry-pick and manipulate real world data in support of their efforts to save the world.  The scientists on their part have learnt that they can get away with it.  Their cause is politically correct, and is shaping up well to be the basis for a trillion-dollar industry.  That sort of backing automatically provides plenty of protection.

Meanwhile, the followers of the Church of Climatology - many on same side as Prince Charles - earnestly promote a dodgy hypothesis to justify the UN Green Climate Fund (GCF), the annual 100 billion-dollar pot of gold at the end of its redistributive rainbow.

No wonder too it wants an ‘agreed outcome with legal form’ (Transforming our World, Clause 31, page 6, here). For that wouldcreate a global trading casino for ticket-clipping ‘carbon’ traders and national ‘climate-control’ agencies; and give so-called ‘climate refugees’ legal status.

After twenty-one years of conferences, political and reputational stakes are high. The UN wants another role - to manage the ‘multilateral climate change process’ and be ‘the trusted channel for rising to the [climate change] challenge’. For whoever holds the reins, controls the purse.