Many are asking, “Why are they holding this global warming conference now, after it is clear that the sky is not falling as promised?” An excellent question, that, and only I wish I had an exciting answer. Like maybe that Charlie Sheen movie The Arrival, where aliens invade earth and are secretly modifying our climate, was prescient. What better explanation for The Donald’s haircut is there? Come to think of it, what better explanation for Charlie Sheen?
But, no. The dull truth is that it’s the same, tired, old story. Money. Moolah, the great spendoolicks, filthy lucre, the root of all evils, dinero. And lots and lots of it.
Show Me the Money!
You don’t have to believe me. Believe German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who opened the conference by saying “leaders have to show they can deliver what they promised in Copenhagen — a $100 billion a year climate aid to poorer countries by 2020.”
If that isn’t confirmation enough, how about what China’s President Xi Jin-ping said? He demanded “that the richest countries need to raise the level of funding they are providing to poorer nations as part of a global deal to combat climate change.” He spoke of mobilizing “$100 billion each year before 2020” as a start. Only a start.
Mobilizing? As in redistributing, as in taking your money and giving it to leaders of countries who suffer from “climate change,” which, since the earth’s climate has always changed and will never stop changing no matter what, is all of them. Now, since nobody can ever stop the climate from changing, the money given to these countries won’t do anything to the climate. But it will lighten your load. Think of how much easier your empty wallet will be to carry!
Even in Washington’s terms, half a trillion dollars over five years is a lot of money. Where precisely will it come from? A “big fat” tax on “carbon pollution,” says the United Nations. The “leaders of France, Germany, Canada, Chile, Mexico and Ethiopia, as well as heads of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development” are all for it, and so is our Community Organizer in Chief.
Scientifically speaking — and I know speaking of science amidst a political free-for-all is gauche — to call carbon “pollution” is imbecilic. Carbon is literally the backbone of life on this planet. We are made of carbon: even politicians are carbon-based, as unlikely as it seems. Carbon is in no way a pollutant. And neither is carbon dioxide, which is in every breath you exhale. Carbon dioxide, scientists used to say before government grants became too lucrative, is plant food. Plants are often carbon-dioxide limited, meaning their growth is stunted if they don’t get enough. Adding more to the atmosphere helps plant growth, it doesn’t hinder it.
Add to this the scientific evidence that the world’s temperature has held relatively steady these past two decades, a fact completely out of line with predictions, thus proving the predictions wrong. Also, the other aspects of promised doom have failed to materialize, like more storms, droughts and less sea ice. In each case, the opposite is true.
Follow the Money.
All of this (and more) is easy to verify, so we must assume that the world’s leaders know these facts. Yet they are still going through with their charade in Paris. Why? Again, money. But it’s how the money will flow that tells the whole story.
Take India, one of the countries with its eager little hands out. According to Politico, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched “the International Solar Alliance, aimed at shoring up $1 trillion in finance over 15 years.” He wants to fund this from that $100 billion a year Merkel is anxious to give.
Similar stories are found the world over. There are two camps. Those who want to give money, and (the larger in number) those who want to take it. Since we’re talking hundreds of billions, and even trillions, none of those receiving the largess are likely to announce, “You know, the weather outside is not so bad. Please keep your money.”
And those doing the giving, who get to control both where the money comes from and who gets it and what they get to use it for, are not going to admit, “Heck, I guess even if our worst fears are realized and temperatures increased a tenth of a degree by mid-century, it wouldn’t be that bad. Let’s all go home and worry about something really frightening, like war between Turkey and Russia.”
Depressing, isn’t it