Donna Laframboise picks up on Steven Goddard’s observation on the solemn pronouncement of the G7 industrial leaders last year. They agreed to “phase out fossil fuel use” by the end of the century. Continue Reading →
A Message from James M. Taylor, Vice President of External Relations at the Heartland Institute
One of the most important battles in the history of the global warming debate will be fought this December at a United Nations climate conference in Paris. The UN is attempting to impose binding carbon dioxide restrictions on the United States and transfer billions of dollars of climate “reparations” from the United States to nations like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. Continue Reading →
The United Nation’s recent Every despot’s ancient plan to install a worldwide, non-elected government is making progress.
It has only a primitive shape, but possesses all the pieces it needs to become a universal government. In other words, it may be small, but it’s perfectly formed.
So far, the United Nations-led battle to save the climate has damaged only science (which is bad enough). But now it threatens freedom itself. Make no mistake, if this treaty gets through, our international dealings will never be the same again and our liberty within the nation will be circumscribed in unforeseen ways.
The new bureaucracy will be agreed by every country in the world (almost)—all going well—in Paris in December. Continue Reading →
Our hard-won democratic freedoms and our right to self-determination will be substantially restricted by this powerful treaty. So it is wonderful to hear that it faces severe difficulties and won’t be accomplished easily. Here are some brief observations to ensure that unscientific scandal-mongers are not the only voices on the subject and so our leaders might perhaps learn something vital about it. – RT
The Herald recently carried an article from the Independent lamenting the difficulty of getting 192 nations to agree that mankind can control the climate. Of course it comes as no real surprise, as the keenest megalomaniacs—I mean delegates—among them have been striving for such agreement for about two decades. Each year they meet in an exotic location, disagree on a climate-control treaty and then choose an exotic location to host their disagreement for the following year. All of this they do at our expense, not theirs. Continue Reading →
IPCC climate talks 2014
The latest climate talk-fest has again degenerated into the poor countries (I mean the developing nations) nakedly demanding large sums of money from the leading countries (sorry, the developed nations) to save them from the horrendous consequences of global warming caused entirely by the leading nations’ appalling development of advanced sources of energy – h/t Len Mills.
But what would it cost us?
via NZ Herald News.
If readers have knowledge of the effects of this measure on the local fishing industry, please get in touch. Here’s the entire Herald story (from APNZ):
New Zealand has voted against further protection measures for Maui’s and Hector’s dolphins at the world’s largest conservation summit in Jeju, Korea.
New Zealand was one of two countries to oppose further protection measures in a secret vote at the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s conference.
A vote was held on New Zealand banning gill and trawl nets in waters up to 100 metres deep – 117 countries and 459 organisations voted for the move.
New Zealand voted against, saying it was not backed by scientific evidence.
The Star-Tribune, published somewhere in the United States, ran an article by Peter Passell, economics editor of Foreign Policy’s “Democracy Lab” and a Senior Fellow at the Milken Institute.
He comes to a radical conclusion:
The idea of a global grand bargain, in which emerging market countries would join the West in an ambitious, cost-minimizing containment program, is dead. The best hope, at least for now, is a pragmatic search for common ground, one that appeals to the angels but relies on self-interest.
A decade late and a trillion dollars short, you say? To paraphrase a former secretary of defense, you go to war with the army you’ve got, not the one you’d like to have.
I’d say the army the warmists actually have is past its best and anyway it has no weapons.