I don't know if I buy this 'world government' claim, but...

...I do think people should at least watch Lord Christopher Monckton and John Bolton discuss the upcoming Copenhagen conference on climate change and what it may mean.

There is a killer arguement from Lord Monckton though to my scepticism on that point - Europe.

People in Europe, especially the British, have been told time and time again that claims that a particular treaty would cede sovereignty from a democratically elected government in Whitehall to unelected European officials were just right-wing or nationalist scaremongering.

And yet that is exactly what has happened. (Don't let the existence of a basically impotent and pointless European parliament fool you here.)

Treaties, just like charters of rights, are living documents that take on a life of their own once passed and very often have consequences that their framers never even imagined.

Mr Bolton is not as concerned as Lord Monckton about the particular significance of Copenhagen.

Part 7 seems to start with the same bit as part 5, but is longer.

Posted via email from Garth's posterous

Spending $40 trillion to fix $1 trillion damage makes sense?

Alan Wood | October 01, 2009

Article from:  The Australian

THE inconvenient truth is that there is no hope the UN climate change negotiations that start in Copenhagen on December 7 will deliver a new Kyoto treaty, with a global agreement on binding emissions targets. This was, of course, the original aim of the meeting but has been abandoned.

 

On Monday The Guardian in Britain quoted a top European official who described the idea of negotiating on targets as naive and said the best that could be expected was that countries would put up what they wanted to commit to.

Just as well, really, if we consider figures published in an article in The Washington Post, also on Monday, by Danish statistician and environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg.

His Copenhagen Consensus Centre commissioned well-known climate economist Richard Tol, a contributor to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to estimate the cost of emissions targets needed to keep the rise in global temperature to under the 2C limit suggested by the IPCC's work. Tol's answer is a global price tag of $US40 trillion in 2100, to avoid expected climate damage costing $US1.1 trillion. These figures are based on mainstream economic models and subject to the usual limitations of modelling over long periods.

But the global warming projections behind all the alarm about climate change are based on complex climate models that also have serious limitations and, according to Lomborg, Tol's estimates are best-case outcomes. They aren't the only reason to be uneasy about the present thrust of UN climate change policy.

Posted via email from Garth's posterous