The recent announcement by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body charged with whipping up global hysteria over climate change, that “developing countries” would be exempt from emission cuts is proof that the idea of catastrophic climate change is a total scam that’s much more focused on improving economic conditions in the Third World than on combating climate change. The reasoning behind such a conclusion should be obvious, given that if the earth’s climate truly were on the verge of a total and catastrophic collapse, then no one would really care about whether or not developing countries should be exempted from carbon emissions.
The Copenhagen Climate Conference of 2009 is promising to issue some of the strictest regulations yet regarding carbon emissions that would have developed nations basically shutting down their economies while waiting for the economies of developing nations, which will be able to continue spewing carbon into the atmosphere at will, to catch up.
So the real reason behind the global warming hysteria is and always has been, about the redistribution of wealth. If the planet really were in the throes of cataclysmic crises, as the climate change hysterics claim, then reducing carbon emissions, all carbon emissions, would be the key, regardless of whether the “polluter” is a developed or developing nation. As it stands, these so-called strict emission controls that the IPCC is promising are aimed primarily at wealthy nations, while those less wealthy get a pass.
One would think that individuals who have bought into the global warming/climate change scam would take the time to look out their windows, rather than swallow the climate change garbage trickling into their homes through the media. Global warming stopped abruptly some 10 years ago and a new cooling trend has taken hold. Those in rampant denial need merely to look at the streets of London and Madrid where this week 30 cm of snow and ice are wreaking havoc with people’s lives. In fact, severe winters have been a trend in Europe for the past decade, yet somehow this fact seems to be lost on those who insist that we’re all going to die because of climate change.
The very idea of vilifying a substance like carbon and calling it a “pollutant” is the height of ignorance, given that most life on earth is, how shall I put it, carbon-based. There are four elements, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen that make life on earth possible. Without these, no life. Yet the morons at the head of this debate are attempting to convince the gullible and ovine populace that the key building block on which 99% of all earth’s life is based is toxic.
A belief in catastrophic climate change is one of the orthodoxies of liberalism, along with many other, equally silly beliefs. As our own Dr. Tim Ball pointed out in these pages earlier, plant life, which produces oxygen, another necessary element for animal life to survive, does so by consuming carbon and exuding oxygen, which we then breathe. So the whackos that want to outlaw carbon emissions could end up destroying all life on earth as one of their unintended consequences.
But don’t take my word for it. Listen to what the climate change lobby appears to be saying. Carbon emissions from developed nations are harmful, while those from developing nations aren’t. Does that make any sense? Or is this a case of the rumors of earth’s imminent demise being greatly exaggerated?
Klaus Rohrich is senior columnist for Canada Free Press. Klaus also writes topical articles for numerous magazines. He has a regular column on RetirementHomes and is currently working on his first book dealing with the toxicity of liberalism. His work has been featured on the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, among others. He lives and works in a small town outside of Toronto.
Klaus can be reached at [email protected]
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement