Climate Change: Copenhagen, December 2009

It could be construed as cynical, but this bash did take place in Copenhagen and in the winter. Cairo in the summer would, perhaps, have been more appropriate as this could focus minds on the entire issue. Global warming and climate change in Cairo in the summer (34°C, June 2009) and not Copenhagen in the winter (-4°C, December 2009).

• In the colder seasons when more carbon dioxide-generating fossil fuels are consumed, it is also the period when less carbon dioxide is removed: plants go dormant (photosynthesis). The winter months form the period of greatest seasonal CO2 production since the two effects conspire to make this happen. Any climate change/global warming issues will also be exaggerated in the winter. This does, however, lead towards a specious argument since gradually any localised atmosphere will drift all over the planet. CO2-quota trading. Nevertheless it is highly dependent on when and where CO2 measurements are made. It's very vulnerable to massaging and the corruption of otherwise good quality data.

The climate change ‘jolly’ (a gathering with the purpose of having fun at others' expense) in Copenhagen resulted in a predictable waste of time with all those national leaders unable to seemingly organise a drink's party in an appropriate venue. The rhetoric essentially descended into farce and how much more they can screw out of the planet in order to save it. Ludicrously, these ‘jolly-attendees’ wasted several days just getting the meeting started and an agenda ‘organised’ with which to move ever backwards. Result: mostly nothing other than preventing it all from rolling back too far (and that’s being very generous). These 'leaders' behave as a bunch of complete amateurs. It appears that it never occurred to the chairperson that an agenda should be agreed before the meeting opened. Perhaps it was, but the squabbles just started as there was nobody apparently in control. Pure farce. Wonderful stuff to present to the world about how those in charge... are leading the charge against this urgent problem. These are the antics of important people doing important things while attending a real all expenses paid (two-week-long) jolly. Clearly, not very seriously. Expensive hotels, good wine and food and first class entertainment: watching each other. This is a reminder of what (probably) happens in the EU parliament proceedings. Except that this is relatively continuous, not just two weeks, but the expenditure is for the entire year. The bash in Copenhagen was a complete failure that ended with nothing and this with less than 200 delegates. The EU parliament has 736 MEPs. Those present would be much less in number, but without a daily roll call this could never be accurately ascertained. Another larger jolly in the making. DA

Any legally binding agreement was always going to be a fiction. Or fantasy based on science: science fantasy. Legally enforceable agreement between nations? And how could that be managed? By some kind of World Court of Justice? Trade embargoes happen, but restrictions on trade and the tension that rises out of that is not likely to smooth matters in this very urgent scenario. Actually a non-starter of an idea. More posturing.

Why has this become so very urgent? The 'science' being exploited suggests the world will melt down ('liquid' global finances have already become very mercurial). That's pure scaremongering. This is not denial or skepticism, but purely challenging the hype. Doubt concerning the accuracy of the statements of pseudo-fact. Like all good scare stories this is (very) loosely connected to fact, but distorted to portray the lie. A growing population generates more carbon dioxide while destruction of trees absolutely prevents regeneration of life-giving oxygen. The cosmetic action of 'plant a tree' may sound a proper solution, but the tree will take many years to properly replace the tree destroyed. In this 'urgent' business this is clearly shown to be what is it. A sham. A con. The 'feel good' factor.

Urgency is defined as being around... 2050. Urgency is +40 years away into the future. For a comparative trip into the past this approximates to around 1970.

URGENCY

The cavalry was seen to arrive with US President Obama in typical PR form. Ever since and before the inauguration, Obama has been portrayed as a messiah. If he speaks, the world must listen. This is the danger. What he says is not necessarily what he believes. Scriptwriters write scripts and these are directed by the unknown conductors. The technical head of state is not necessarily in charge. Like the UQ (aka UK) Ltd, the Queen has limited power and effectively bows to the will of parliament. Those unseen directors that control global affairs. Obama is not a messiah anymore than any other 'leader'. The very fact that the message promotes the unproven should be enough to sound the alarm bells. But it is the message to be broadcast to the world. The US arrives to save the World. Again. Bad boy China faces up to good guy US. The US being the world leader as a polluter telling China how to behave. As a nuclear power telling Iran how to behave. Placing the beast in irons will create anger, hostility and gross unrest. This promotes potential war and the consequential sale of weapons of war. The sustainable market. Perfect.

Posturing cannot disguise the fact that all these ‘leaders’ at the Climate Change bash in Copenhagen have done (unsurprisingly) nothing. Nothing could happen without letting the cat out of the bag that the whole business is a sham crafted to scare the World. Not save the planet. And the projected cost? So far it seems anything between $30-100bn annually with no end date other than when the World has been saved by the US and the Sun has been brought to task by the collective egos and starts to behave itself and cool down a bit. Urgency continued to be emphasised, but this is obviously an attempt to create pressure, though this is probably just for public consumption. This suggests these leaders are actually doing something useful. Urgency seems to point towards a time way off into the future: 2020 or 2030 or 2040 or the target of 2050. No good reason for 2050, but it sounds good: half way through the current century. This suggests that even amidst all the 'urgency' the 'leaders' will save the Earth. The planet will survive. But this is over 40 years away and in a very distant future. Not only do the 'leaders' have the power to save the planet, they also have servicable crystal balls. Urgent action is required by these sincere individuals. Now. To forsee 40 years into the future. It's a very confused message that is basically complete nonsense. Irrational. Nothing new there.

Ice Ages - These are relatively regular occurrences every 20,000 years or so. One 'recently' ended and another will soon be on its way. In the estimated 4.5bn years of Earth history, this amounts to 225,000 ice ages. This defines some sort of perspective (short story).

Certainly, there are probably a lot of sincere attendees though they are from the developing countries. The developed countries are the rich ones and want to keep everyone else in poverty. Shackle everyone else so that all potential competition disappears. THEM and US. The rich nations playing fair.

• There are still those that could not even imagine engaging in dialogue with black Africa. And any trading could only be effected one way as long as America gets rich. And richer and... DA

The entire concept of aircraft use seems to have been carefully avoided, but continues to escalate as though planes don't pollute. Curious. It appears that once off the ground planes stop causing the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Certainly the local atmosphere. Cars don't fly, but continue to be a major localised pollutant. The delegates and their entourage travelling to and around Copenhagen in planes and cars must have produced a great deal of CO2. Heating the venue in the winter created a great deal of CO2. So what? They are trying to save the planet. There were no calls for a reduction in the manufacture of cars. Manufacturing cars that are a known polluting plague and that many people no longer find affordable. Globally car manufacturers are finding it tough in the recession. The answer? Pump in $billions to breathe contaminated air into the dying dinosaur that pollutes the atmosphere. The dinosaur that causes the alleged climate change, but contributes grotesque amounts of taxes from an otherwise waste and useless product: petrol. The consumer who is supposed to buy this product gets no help, even though the producer gets bailed out with taxpayers' virtual money. The same taxpayer who is supposed to buy the product with no financial assistance. The cynical scrappage system helps the manufacturer and car dealer and the government (VAT and Car Sales Tax), but provides the buyer with an instantly devalued product as a result of depreciation that is immediate. The £2000 in the UQ (aka UK) Ltd is negated immediately.

Restricting air traffic would damage trade between countries, but relatively little within countries. On an international footing, like the Copenhagen bash, local (intrinsic) business wouldn't count. Of course, pollution from international aircraft travel spreads the pollution between nations. This is probably covered by CO2-quota trading.

Carbon Quota

• The arguments against smoking are similar: governments appear to be 'caring' by encouraging smokers to... stop smoking. Government doesn't take the issue too far, however, since this would harm the intake of taxation if too many actually stopped buying the product. The product is a perfect one:

Pay tax throughout a lifetime

then die before you get ill

• Government 'caring' costs are instantly reduced to zero.

Incidentally, it is fascinating that the terrorist card has NOT been played. With nearly 200 world ‘leaders’ present, the target must be seen as the golden prize in that these illustrious people are all together under one roof. Taking this building out would decimate politics around the World. And probably catalyse the start of WWIII. This is so suggestive that the centre of operations rests with the governments and as they are all together there is no problem. They wouldn't harm each other, would they? The Mugabe ambush of Prince Charles in Rome at the Pope's funeral is another example: security should have been a real issue, but silence prevailed as it clearly was of no concern.