Global Warming Science: www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming

 

UN Copenhagen Scam

 

[last update: 2009/12/18]

 

 

 

 

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC) COP15 (Conference of the Parties – 15) in December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark – is over.

 

 

[2009/12/18]

 

Obama Wraps Up the COP15

 

“Leaders of the U.S., China and several other major economies said late Friday they had tentatively reached a new climate accord, though they said the pact wasn't aggressive enough to meaningfully curb greenhouse-gas emissions and merely set up a future round of negotiations to hash out the details. … The Copenhagen agreement contained no specific targets for greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. A proposed 50% cut that was in earlier drafts was removed. … The pact calls on developed nations to provide $30 billion to help developing nations deal with the effects of climate change between 2010 and 2012. By 2020, the text says rich nations "set a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion a year" for poor nations. The text says the money will go to the "most vulnerable" developing nations.” [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126112727324796837.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories]

 

“It would kick off with $US10 billion ($A11.28 billion) a year from 2010 to 2012, climbing to $US50 billion ($A56.39 billion) annually by 2015 and $US100 billion ($A112.78 billion) by 2020. The text also proposes a range of innovative mechanisms for raising the money, ranging from a tax on air and sea transports fuels to a tax on financial transfers.”

[http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-draft-accord-agreed-20091218-l1jo.html]

 

So it all worked out well for the scammers after all – as the head of the UNFCCC said: “the northern hemisphere has to pay up” and this was the main goal of the UN conference – wealth transfer, not CO2 reductions. (See below).

 

Obama addresses Copenhagen COP15:

  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-BSQXbotHw&feature=player_embedded

Early in the video he says: “Climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people … this is not fiction, this is science.”

About 8:35 in the video he says: “These international discussions have essentially taken place now for almost two decades. And we have very little to show for it other than an increase – acceleration – of the climate change phenomenon.”

 

Not sure what the “climate change phenomenon” is that’s “accelerating”.

 

 

Accelerating Warming?

 

The figure below left shows the global average temperature anomalies (from the Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) which provides the data used by the IPCC [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) with the last two decades that Obama mentions expanded on the right (the IPCC was created in 1988). There has been 0.2 degrees of warming in the last two decades – all of it the result of the 1997-98 El Nino. According to the IPCC, CO2-based warming is only evident since the 1970s and it stalled a decade ago. Accelerating warming? – Not!

 

 

 

 

Accelerating Sea Level Rise?

 

The figure below left shows cumulative sea level change for 1900 to 2002. The trend shows no increase in rate since measurements began [http://www.wamis.org/agm/meetings/rsama08/S304-Shum_Global_Sea_Level_Rise.pdf]. Since according to the IPCC, CO2-based warming is only evident since the 1970s, all of this sea level rise since prior to 1970 cannot be caused by anthropogenic CO2, and yet the trend has not increased. Thus sea level rise cannot be attributed to CO2. The figure below right shows sea level from 1993 to 2009 [http://sealevel.colorado.edu/]. The last 6 years exhibit a declining rate of increase. Accelerating sea level? – Not!

 

 

See also: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Acceleration.htm

 

 

Oh, Obama, on April 27, 2009, you addressed the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C.: “Under my administration, the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over.” [http://www.pnas.org/content/106/24/9539.abstract]. If only it were true.

 

(See also: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ObamasGovernment.htm for more on Obama and his ideological crew.)

 

 

 

[http://cfact.org/a/1674/CFACT-drops-the-banner-on-Greenpeace-ships-in-daring-land-and-sea-raids]

 

 

Liberal Alexander Cockburn says “Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Farce”

[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/24/anthropogenic_global_warming_is_a_farce.html]

 

 

Copenhagen cyclists try to power a Christmas Tree:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkEbu-S72UU

 

 

 

[2009/12/12]

 

UN Security Stops Journalist’s Questions About Climategate:

[http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/]

“A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen. … However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider. … His [McAleer’s] microphone was cut off after he asked former vice-president Al Gore about the British court case which found that An Inconvenient Truth had a nine significant errors and exaggerations.”

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded]

 

 

 

[2009/11/28]

 

Although the Copenhagen confab was not meant to be a meeting of heads of state, Obama intends to go there and commit the US to reductions in emissions. Apparently the Nobel prize has influenced him.

 

Dateline Nov 26, 2009: “The White House said yesterday that President Obama will attend international climate talks next month in Copenhagen and commit the United States to a specific short-term target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, providing new momentum for negotiations that had been faltering. Obama will travel to the Danish capital on Dec. 9, one day before he visits nearby Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.” [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/11/26/obama_ready_to_commit_us_to_specific_emissions_cuts/]

 

Senator John Kerry (sponsor of the Senate bill [see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/KerryBoxerAct.htm] has Joined Obama in this attempt to subvert US sovereignty. On Nov 10, 2009, Kerry brought UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, to address US senators. “A joint meeting between the UN Secretary-General and a group of US senators leaves hope of a US climate framework to be adopted before the Copenhagen conference, thus paving the way for a global deal. Although the US Senate is unlikely to pass a regular climate bill before the December climate change conference in Copenhagen, it is likely that the Senate can agree on a framework before the meeting. … Ban said he was encouraged by his day-long trip to Washington, describing a Senate framework as "quite important and useful for us to get this negotiation started" and "as a very strong political message and as a sign of commitment on the part of the United States" [http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2568]

 

A Washington Post column about Moon’s senate event states: “The New World Order came into being at 4:25 Tuesday afternoon. … Ban, a South Korean national, took his place behind a lectern bearing the Senate seal and spelled out his demands. "I would certainly expect the Senate to take the necessary action; that's what I have encouraged the senators," he told reporters … The One World Government has specific requirements, Ban added, namely a "legally binding" commitment to "25 to 40 percent greenhouse gas reduction . . . as recommended by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." A U.N. official standing in the Capitol telling U.S. lawmakers what binding commitments intergovernmental authorities expect from them? ”.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111015034.html?hpid=opinionsbox1]

 

The IPCC, which relies on analysis from the Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, is the basis for the global warming scare. I guess Obama is choosing to ignore the recent exposure of CRU emails that call into question the entire assumption of unprecedented global warming. CRU director Phil Jones wrote that global warming skeptics "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." (Jones was a contributing author to the chapter of the U.N.'s IPCC report titled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.") [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml]

 

Dateline Nov 27, 2009: UN COP15 web site reports: “Proposal to exclude Canada from the Commonwealth: In the past, the Commonwealth has suspended Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and South Africa for electoral or human rights reasons. Now, The World Development Movement, the Polaris Institute in Canada and Greenpeace have called for Canada to be suspended from the Commonwealth over its climate change policies … Countries that fail to help (tackle global warming) should be suspended from membership, as are those that breach human rights," says Clare Short, the former International Development Secretary … "If the Commonwealth is serious about holding its members to account, then threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries should lead to the suspension of Canada's membership immediately," says Saleemul Huq, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”

[http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2735]

 

 

 

 

[2009/10/30]

 

The Copenhagen Document

 

The UN FCCC is working on the wording of the agreement they want all countries to sign at the Copenhagen meeting in December 2009. The current text as of September 15, 2009, is available in the Ad Hoc Working Group Cooperative action Under the Convention at:

[http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf] or [http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0Bx4XLQCleuUYMmIwMDg4M2UtY2M2OC00MzZhLTg0YTItNDEyODdkNGU3NmY4]

 

The dominant theme of the Copenhagen conference is made clear in the document – i.e. the transfer of money to “developing countries”. The document also makes it clear that global warming only affects developing countries and therefore the primary concern is the transfer of wealth to the poor countries.

 

The head of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer (appointed by Kofi Annan in 2006), is mainly focused on transferring money for development in third world countries: “"Yvo often defends developing countries, sometimes with strong statements insisting that the northern hemisphere has to pay up” [http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Developmental-Issues/Yvo-de-Boer-global-climate-butler/articleshow/4628270.cms] 

 

This is what the global warming scam is about.

 

 

The following items provide quotations from the UN FCCC working document (bold emphasis added). The quotes are in Times New Roman, my comments are in Arial. The working document contains various alternatives in wording so the final document will be slightly different.

 

In the UN FCCC jargon, Annex I countries include about 40 countries in Europe and North America, plus Australia and New Zealand. It does not include any countries in Asia, Africa or South America. A list of Annex I countries can be found at: [http://www.oecd.org/document/13/0,3343,en_2649_34361_1849485_1_1_1_1,00.html]

 

  • The AR4 demonstrates clearly that negative impacts of climate change are already evident and widespread, in particular in vulnerable regions of the world, and are increasingly posing a risk to ecosystems, food production, the attainment of sustainable development and of the Millennium Development Goals   {Comment: The AR4 provides no such documentation. Global warming is used by the UN as an excuse to increase funding for the MDGs - see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HumanImpact.htm#forum }

 

  • All Parties agree that developing countries face serious adverse effects of climate change as well as threats to their future economic potential due to insufficient access to shared global atmospheric resources.  {Comment: Note that developing countries are the only ones affected by global warming. (Insufficient access to shared global atmospheric resources?)}

 

  • Deep cuts [by developed countries] [by all Annex I country Parties] [by all developed countries] in global emissions by Parties in accordance with their historical responsibilities, as well as the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities, and realistic changes in emission patterns [will be] [are urgently] required to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system and achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention.  {Comment: Deep cuts will only be made by the rich Annex I countries.}

 

  • Failure to implement ambitious and immediate mitigation actions by developed countries will increase the need for adaptation in developing countries and therefore for financial support. At the same time, increased financial support and technology transfer to developing countries will help these countries in their implementation of NAMAs   {Comment: NAMAs are “Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions” in UN jargon. Annex I countries that don’t reduce the CO2 enough need to pay more. In other words it’s not about reducing CO2, it’s about wealth transfer.}

 

  • The active participation of all stakeholders in this transition should be sought [, be they governmental, including subnational and local government, private business or civil society, including the youth and addressing the need for gender equity].]  {Comment: the influence of “civil society” on the UN can be seen here where global warming mitigation gets conflated with every possible social issue.}

 

  • [The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to finance and transfer of technology.] [All Parties agree that to the extent developing countries are expected to take NAMAs would hinge on the extent to which they are provided financial resources aided by vital technology transfer and development  {Comment: Developing countries don’t have to do anything unless they are paid to.}

 

  • [Measurable, reportable and verifiable financing, technology transfer and compensation must be provided by developed countries to address the full costs of adaptation in developing countries, supported by appropriate institutional arrangements under the Conference of the Parties.] It is also particularly important to provide adequate, predictable, stable, sufficient and timely funding for adaptation purposes particularly by developed countries. Developed country Parties shall support these developing countries in meeting the costs of adaptation.  {Comment: No comment needed – this is the goal of the UN FCCC}

 

  • In order to fulfill this shared vision, Parties have agreed to establish a coherent, cohesive and integrated system of financial and technology transfer mechanisms under the Convention and a follow up/compliance mechanism.  {Comment: Financial transfer is what it’s all about.}

 

  • Developed country Parties shall provide support to developing country Parties, … in order to allow developing country Parties to address issues related to social and environmental development, economic diversification…  {Comment: The global warming excuse will be use to pay for social development and economic diversification.}

 

  • [Developed country Parties shall] compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees.   {Comment: The LDCs (Less Developed Countries) clearly want to perpetuate the need for international welfare payments.}

 

  • There must be consistency between the global goal, mitigation commitments and actions by all developed country Parties and the provision by developed country Parties of technology, financing and capacity-building to support and enable nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties. Should such enabling support be significant and consistent with needs, nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties could achieve a substantial deviation from baseline and thus contribute to achieving the global goal. Should such enabling support remain insignificant, nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties would remain limited, their greenhouse gas emissions would therefore increase accordingly and mitigation commitments and actions by all developed country Parties should then be increased to achieve the global goal without the contribution of developing country Parties.  {Comment: The “developing countries” do not have to reduce their GHG and in fact are allowed to increase their GHG}

 

  • Annex I Parties shall ensure that [aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions] [their emissions] do not exceed their assigned amounts, … The difference between the assigned amounts of Annex I Parties and their actual GHG emissions shall be quantified [as an increase in their emissions debt/accumulated per capita emissions/use beyond their equitable allocation of the global atmospheric resources] [and shall provide the basis of] [as an input for the consideration of] fulfillment by Annex I Parties of their commitments to provide financing, technology and compensation to developing countries  {Comment: The convention will assign permissible amounts of CO2 and any emissions over that amount will mean greater payments to Africa.}

 

  • (Section 4. [Generation][Provision of Financial Resources): An assessed contribution, by all Parties except LDCs, updated on a regular basis based on an agreed set of criteria reflecting the ability to pay and greenhouse gas emissions. … A uniform global levy of USD 2 per tonne of CO2 for all countries with per capita emissions higher than [1.5][2.0] tonnes of CO2; the LDCs shall be exempt. … An international adaptation levy on airfares, except on journeys originating from LDCs and SIDS. … A [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties.  {Comment: The funding options being considered are global taxes forcing the US to pay huge amounts of money to the “LDCs”. National sovereignty will be lost to the UN.}

 

 

The Implications

 

It is clear from the document that the goal is to transfer wealth from mainly the United States to the “less developed nations”.

 

The United Nations was the originator of the global warming scare in order to grow into a world government (See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_History.htm) In 1995, in Our Global Neighborhood, the UN Commission on Global Governance (CGG) said: "It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance." the Commission's recommendations: for instance, that some UN activities be funded through taxes on foreign-exchange transactions and multinational corporations. Economist James Tobin estimates that a 0.5 per cent tax on foreign-exchange transactions would raise $1.5 trillion annually -- nearly equivalent to the U.S. federal budget. It also recommended that "user fees" might be imposed on companies operating in the "global commons." including carbon taxes, which would be levied on all fuels made from coal, oil, and natural gas. " [http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html]

 

The CGG also stated: "Charges for use of the global commons have a broad appeal on grounds of conservation and economic efficiency as well as for political and revenue reasons. … A carbon tax introduced across a large number of countries or a system of traded permits for carbon emissions would yield very large revenues indeed.” [http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm] The commission’s report stated: “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”

 

For further information on the UN and its use of global warming to achieve global governance see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalGovernance.htm

 

 

 

The Scam and Obama

 

This Copenhagen treaty is a blatant scam by the UN to force the redistribution of wealth from the “west” to the “developing countries”, while establishing funding mechanisms for the growth of the UN.  The world’s largest CO2 emitter – China – is not part of the countries that will pay. None of the African countries which in total produce 25% of the world’s greenhouse gasses are included in the countries that will pay (see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GWForAfrica.htm).

 

The following figure shows the goal based on the lies of the UN. (See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HumanImpact.htm#forum)

 

 

 

The UN includes NGOs in its current power structure to help overcome uncooperative nations. The Climate Action Network makes perfectly clear what the global warming scam is about: “the “solutions” to climate change that are being posed by many governments, such as nuclear power, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and biofuels are false and are not rooted in justice. ... a climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources” www.climatenetwork.org/bali-blog/ngo-bustle-in-bali

 

Obama said in an address to the UN: “And those wealthy nations that did so much damage to the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead.  But responsibility does not end there. … any effort that fails to help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that climate change have already wrought and help them travel a path of clean development simply will not work.” [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-the-United-Nations-General-Assembly/]

 

See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GWForAfrica.htm for more information on Obama’s desire to fund Africa.

 

 

See Christopher Monckton’s interpretation of the Copenhagen treaty.