Another climate summit
On March 30-31 there will be another climate conference, this time in Washington, D.C. After this conference, four panels of experts are supposed to release consensus reports in late 2009. Then, the Committee on America’s Climate Choices will issue a final report in 2010 that will integrate the findings and recommendations from the four panel reports.
My question is: how much money is put into these conferences, congresses, summits, meetings and seminars? Kyoto, Bali, Washington, Copenhagen? And what is the result? Evidently, millions of dollars are spent on conference facilities, speakers’ fees, travel etc etc. For what good? What have we accomplished so far? And what do we hope to accomplish in the future?
European cap-and-trade is a miserable example of how climate politics don’t work. Now, it may be time for the US to discover the beauties of carbon trading.
I am surprised that, while climate alarmists always call for the precautionary principle when speaking of the dire consequences of CO2-emissions, no one even mentions it when talking about climate politics.
4 comments
It was my experience during 40 years of working in private enterprise in the US, France, Mexico, Brazil, and Spain that government-paid experts and scientists are 90%+ rejects 0f private enterprise. When these are sponsored by the United Nations that doubles their chances to be real idiots with a hidden agenda which is almost always socialism, marxism, nationalization, etc., which would put them in charge of enterprises that had rejected them.
Mark has hit the nail on the head, the Climate Scam is very very bad, it is hurting many people and as usual the socialists hurt those they purport to represent the most. But the real issue is freedom. The climate myth will die as the years go by and nothing happens, but the method for socialists to control humans in the modern age is now well established and will be used again and again by the likes of the UN and Obama etc. We must stand up and vote the socialists out take control of education and allow basic freedom again, make reading George Orwell Compulsory.
Yes, the climate myth will fizzle out, perhaps if “nothing happens” or perhaps because people get saturated by ever-increasing hype.
But by that time there will be a mythology. Perhaps we are seeing the first green shoots; a food crisis, an overpopulation crisis, a water crisis.
To me, the most vulnerable casualty of these crisis is….
Science itself. The more that the public accumulate ghosts of campaigns past, the more sceptical they will be about real science.
The fundamental problem is that the activists speak with the language of science, they misuse the big-talk of science, and they absorb the myth-information peddled by the big Green organizations.
In a democratic society, politicians are obliged to respond to public conceptions (or mis-conceptions), and so each feeds on the other.
But when people begin to realize that they have been mislead, they surely conclude that the science was wrong; after all, Greenpeace and all the rest were only citing the scientists.
And so, in my opinion, the activists are nurtured by the fruits of their destructive activities.
To me, there is an urgent task for scientists. We need to form a forum that will speak in a rational voice for mainstream science. I don’t have time to elaborate here (I am sitting in my bed, trying to stay awake in Singapore) but will do if the drift of this blog flows towards this topic.
Stalwart job, Maggie!
Paul:
“We need to form a forum that will speak in a rational voice for mainstream science.”
I’d be interested to hear what you have in mind. To provide a forum which could support extensive discussion — with graphics, poster-history tracking, sorting and find capabilites, etc. — you’d need the type of forum software used for Richard Dawkins’ forum. See:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/
There are better programs than he uses, but his is an example of the type of forum which I suppose you’re talking about.
Leave a Comment