Sell-out in Geneva?

THE EDITOR: The ideologues at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cannot yet get even their day-to-day weather predictions correct yet they continue to treat the false flag that they call “climate change” with an urgency that signals certain impending doom for our planet.

For the UN’s Framework on Climate Change, it seems that our climate is inevitably and inexorably headed for apocalyptic and catastrophic change. The primary purpose of forewarnings of peril is to equip those at risk with the tools to avoid harm. I certainly have not heard any positive reassurances emanating from the IPCC’s warnings of doom.

How can the information that is being disseminated by the IPCC be continuously negative? Is it not logical that if the global community were to heed these warnings — if there is any truth to them — that their purpose would ultimately reside in the avoidance of the sad consequences of “climate change?” “Weather” refers to day-to-day changing conditions. “Climate” on the other hand spans a 30-year period.

Several other issues surrounding climate change worry me and the global community needs answers. Why has the IPCC so narrowly restricted its focus on the role that human activity plays in the production of atmospheric CO2 confining its concern solely to the burning of fossil fuels?

Does the presence of clouds and natural water vapour in the atmosphere not have a far greater greenhouse effect? Can humans control either the presence or impact of these natural phenomena on the climate?

What of the millions of tons of methane emitted into the atmosphere by the millions of animals on factory farms or emanating from the many thousands of dams erected across the planet?

The Earth is 70 per cent water with two-thirds of its surface covered by the oceans, which themselves release tons of CO2 into the atmosphere with each passing hour.

What about the correlation between the extent of cloud cover and the intensity of atmospheric cosmic rays? Low clouds have a cooling effect on the Earth — they reflect more of the sun’s energy. My goodness, even the Earth’s periodic entry into a spiral arm of our galaxy impacts on cloud formation and cloud density resulting in a period of global cooling.

Ice core studies have shown that 400 million years ago the planet was in the midst of an ice age during which CO2 levels were far higher than they are today — quite the opposite of what is being advanced today regarding the impact of high atmospheric CO2.

My concern over what the UN’s IPCC is pressuring countries to implement is far removed from sound science and revolves around a political agenda. I ask: if the near panic that the UN is raising has to do with CO2 levels then clearly a simultaneous solution should be advanced that would effectively reduce those levels.

Nothing of the kind is being offered. Rather, what we are being told is that the way excessive CO2 emission would be dealt with is via a “carbon tax.” The plan is to administer this via the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the brainchild of Edmund Rothschild.

The GEF is part of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, and it provides the means for “trading” in carbon. Through this supra-national financing agency, elaborate schemes such as “cap-in-trade,” “debt-for-carbon” swaps resulting in the setting aside of wilderness reserves within poor, heavily indebted countries would be effected. These are exclusive wildlife reserves that are created at the expense of indigenous peoples who occupy those lands.

Brazil has already lost around a quarter of its Amazon reserves to the GEF. What is so utterly ridiculous about such a “solution” is that it does nothing for the excess CO2.

My concern is that in the middle of all these highly sophisticated and technically complex issues, the PNM has appointed a 30-something-year-old young female party group leader — Makeda Antoine — as our ambassador to the UN in Geneva. Is Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley selling us out?

STEVE SMITH via e-mail

Comments

"Sell-out in Geneva?"

More in this section