WORLD GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CONTROL (PART TWO)

In PART ONE, we discussed how the current UN treaty markup (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2) was based on assumptions without any valid scientific data for support and how actual scientific studies since the 1970s have debunked these assumptions. However, the efforts are still underway for world leaders to meet in Copenhagen in December, 2009 to reach agreement on the current details and approve this treaty. This left us with the following question:
“If climate change is insignificant as proven scientifically thru the use of real-time data, why the world-wide (United Nations, Al Gore, etc.) concerns over the need of a treaty for controlling climate change? And if this treaty is signed by President and approved by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate, why should American citizens by concerned?” Let’s address these questions with the significant details of this treaty, including the “organization” that will be developed and how this “organization” will affect our country.

Basically, this treaty recognizes two categories of international countries: “developed and underdeveloped countries”. This treaty is founded on the principle (see page 8, pp. a) that developed countries have a debt to underdeveloped countries thru financial support and helping to provide adaptations to new systems with low greenhouse (GHG) emissions. All countries (per page 8, pp 12) are required to develop climate response strategies, in line with their individual responsibilities and capabilities (as established under this treaty) to reach a low carbon and GHG emission economy. Developed countries will comply with all provisions within this treaty and will pledge (per page 9) to meet their targets regarding lower carbon and GHG emissions fully, effectively and in a reportable, verifiable manner. All developed countries must present Carbon Neutral Strategies (per page 15) to meet their quantified targets by 2020. Short-term carbon and GHG emission standards shall be met by 2020 with Long Term carbon and GHG emission standards to be met by 2050. These standards include reducing carbon dioxide concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, limit global average temperature rises to 2 degrees Centigrade, all of which would require lowering current 2020 GHG emissions (again, based on faulty unscientific assumptions) by 50% from 1990 levels to 2050.
Developed countries will be required to develop funds to finance full costs for preparation of national communications for developing countries. This funding includes transfer of technology for (to name just a few):
A. mitigation of emissions
B. Development and deployment of low carbon and “environmentally sound” technologies
C. Research and development of such technologies
D. Preparation of national action plans and implementation
E. Taxes on carbon emissions and “carbon-intensive” products and services
F. Share of proceeds from measures to limit emission from international aviation and maritime travel
G. A levy of 2% on international financial/monetary transactions on developed countries.
 

In essence, all funding collected would be used by “developing [aka: underdeveloped]” countries. Page 136 lists eleven different funds to be raised by developed countries, such as Adaptation, Global support for tariffs, mitigation of “Venture Capital” (start-up funds), and climate insurance, to name some of the funds listed. A Multilateral Climate Technology Fund will be established to:
A. Provide technology-related financial resources for R&D, manufacturing and implementation.
B. Developed countries will also assess contributions from:
1. Parts of their regular fiscal budgets
2. Taxation on carbon transactions and/or auction of emission permits
3. Fiscal revenue from energy and environmental taxation.
(Does subsection B remind you of our nation’s ongoing “Cap and Trade” legislation; it should)

The question arises: Who will govern this government-styled structure to ensure that all developed countries meet their financial obligations? A Convention of the Parties, as created by member nations of the UN and under the guidance of the UN Governing Body will be established for implementation, monitoring, reporting and verifying global cooperative actions, with the support of an Executive Board which will manage and disperse the funds collected. Will We, the People, allow for the additional taxes that will be needed to raise the revenue for the various funds required within this “treaty”? Will We, the People allow for this loss of national sovereignty that will be created via the terms of this Co-op style of world government as controlled and monitored by the UN’s Convention of the Parties? Both HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and President BHO have publicly stated recently that the President will not sign onto this “treaty” if the ongoing “Cap and Trade” legislation is not law by the time that the Copenhagen meeting takes place. I ask you: do you believe, given the Marxist/Socialist “tax the wealthy, spread the wealth” philosophies of the current administration, that the status of the “Cap and Trade” legislation will affect President BHO’s decision to sign onto this treaty which emulates his administration’s philosophies and actions? It will probably come down to the We, the People working on our Senators to ensure that 2/3 of the Senate does not vote for approval of this “treaty” (world government).

William (Wild Bill) Conant

WORLD GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CONTROL? PART ONE

In December, 2009, at Copenhagen, Denmark, the latest markup of the United Nations Climate Control Treaty will be deliberated by world leaders, with a potential for resolution of any conflicting ideals and approval by the leaders of the various nations of the world (developed and underdeveloped), including President Obama. China and India will probably not be present and/or not sign into the Treaty; their positions in this matter will be discussed in PART TWO. Recall that any treaty signed by the President MUST be approved by 2/3 of the Senate present (Article II, Section2 of the Constitution of the United States). There has been great concern that this UN “treaty” has the aspirations of forming a one-world government. In order to understand this concern, one must first understand why this “Climate Control Treaty” is of such importance to the UN, along with other influential people, and why the UN has felt that this “Treaty” is justifiable.
This current markup (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2) is a result of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on May 09. 1992. This Convention was followed up by “scientific” studies by the UN’s AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action) earlier in Bonn, Germany, Copenhagen, Denmark and has its roots in the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which occurred on Sept. 16, 1987.
Many claims by this current markup are centered around the assertion by the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 4th Assessment Report of 2007 that warming of the environment is a consequence of human activities (with no consideration of nature’s processes which release carbon dioxide and other gases naturally). These “human activities” resulted in an increase of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. These “increases” are therefore inhibiting the natural release of natural radiation from the earth’s surface thru our atmosphere and into space. Hence, per these claims, a significant amount of natural radiation released is diverted back to the earth’s surface resulting in increases of temperature of the earth’s surface which raises the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. From a physicist’s point of view, if the amount of natural radioactivity from the earth’s surface was 100% reflected back (as opposed to releasing into space), the amount required to increase the temperature of the earth’ entire atmosphere one degree Farenheit in one year(by this additional heat energy emitted by the earth’s surface due to the 100% reflection) would equate to the amount of heat energy created by the equivalent of over 100 “Hiroshima” atomic bombs, strategically placed around the world, ignited at one time, and repetitively ignited once a week for four weeks.
Throughout all of these previously mentioned studies, all conclusions have been derived based on postulated evidence as opposed to actual scientific data. Some of the “conclusions” include:
1. Claims that our environment has warmed up “significantly” because of human activities since 1750, without any reference to actual scientific (data-based) studies. Besides, does anybody believe that accurate environmental studies were performed on temperature change trends in the 18th and 19th centuries?
2. Claims that the temperature of the world environment has increased by a rate of almost 0.5*F per year since 1990; however, no scientific studies with legitimate measuring models are provided as proof.
 

3. Claims that this “increase” in temperature to our environment is due to naturally emitting radiation from the earth’s surface which is reflected back by a buildup of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, thus warming up the earth’s surface, which results in a trending increase of temperature in our atmosphere. Again, no legitimate studies using real-time scientific data to substantiate this claim are directly referenced.

However, scientific studies based on years of actual data collection and use of modern measuring tools (e.g., weather satellite data for atmospheric testing of temperature changes at different elevations) have debunked all of these assumptions. These scientific studies have been performed since the 1970’s by the Hanley Center of Forecasting (in England) and the National Climate Data Center’s studies in the U.S. (as examples). Scientific models, such as the Clausius-Calpeyron relation (which is basically the relation of change of heat and it’s effects to the change of volume (rise in temperature results in rise in water vapor volume, which would cause an increase in atmospheric pressure, resulting in increases of atmospheric temperature; based on the laws of entropy).

So the question becomes :
If climate change is insignificant as proven scientifically thru the use of real-time data, why the world-wide (United Nations, Al Gore, etc.) concerns over the need of a treaty for controlling climate change? And if this treaty is signed by President and approved by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate, why should American citizens by concerned?

THE ANSWER: WORLD GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CONTROL? PART TWO.
(The real politics behind the UN Treaty and why WE, the PEOPLE MUST be Concerned)