The mind boggles. Who ever would have thought, even in their darkest, most paranoid dreams, that the Copenhagen climate change talks would be hijacked by a handful of rich nations seeking to give themselves more power and riches while imposing new burdens and new injustices on the rest of the world? And that amongst this avaricious, duplicitous elite one would find the government of a man who now bears the Nobel laurel for his unstinting dedication to the welfare of all humanity?

Yet as unlikely as it may seem - the rich screwing the poor? What next? – that's exactly what has happened at the great international conference that opened this week in Denmark with the avowed intent of pulling the planet back from the brink of a potentially fatal disequilibrium. America, Britain, and, er, Denmark are among the handful of rich nations who have drawn up a secret draft agreement that they hope to impose on the conference in its closing days, when the elite's heavy hitters like Barack Obama and Gordon Brown swan in to take a bow.

The plan would let rich nations emit twice as much per capita pollution as developing countries, while the latter will be subject to stiff new dictates from the rich in order to receive technical assistance for climate change programs. The elite plan also calls for completely bypassing the UN – the only international forum in which poor nations feel they stand on a slightly more equal footing with the elite – and turning over climate change funding and future negotiations to an "independent" board … most likely run by that reliable appendage of empire, the World Bank. As the Guardian reports:

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals....

The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

..."It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

And as noted in a follow-up story by the Guardian:

A spokesman for Cafod, a development charity with close links to some of the poorest countries in the world, said: "This draft document reveals the backstage machinations of a biased host who, instead of acting as nonpartisan broker, is taking sides with the developed countries.

"The document should not even exist. There is a UN legal process which is the official negotiating text. The Danish text disrespects the solid, steady approach of the UN process."

Another shock! Elites clubbing together in secret, seeking to circumvent legal processes for their own corrupt advantage? And, and, and....Americans being involved in such dirty business?! Say it ain't so, O!

The Copenhagen talks have become captive of what we might call the "Reform Syndrome"; i.e., the absolute, urgent imperative to put together a crappy deal that gorges the rich and hobbles the poor in egregious ways -- but which can be palmed off on a compliant media and a diverted public as some kind of "reform." The important thing is that an illusion of positive action be created -- while the same-old same-old keeps grinding on behind the scenes.

This scenario has been playing out in the most crude and brazen fashion during the "debate" over health care "reform" in the United States, which has seen a "progressive" administration literally sell its "reform" agenda to the very corporate interests that are the ostensible target of the reforms, allowing them, again literally, to write most of the "reform" legislation themselves.

And this has been the modus operandi of most of the international climate change efforts, which have seen no appreciable reduction in the pollution that is driving the destabilization of the planet -- but has seen the creation of vast new "carbon trading" markets an other speculative ventures for the rich and powerful to feast upon.

Genuine climate change experts like Sir David King of the UK have been saying that no deal would be far better than the kind of bad deals that are brewing in Copenhagen. And that was before the secret agenda of the "circle of commitment" was revealed. (The same dynamic applies to health care reform, of course: better no bill at all than the monstrosity now wending its way through Congressional intestines. Back off, buckle down, and start again.)

The details of the elite's Copenhagen agenda will now doubtless now be modified -- or plastered over with a new coat of PR paint -- in the light of  the firestorm the revelations have provoked. But the true intention of the rich nations in these negotiations -- as in all others -- is clearer than a shining stream pouring down from a melting ice cap: the weakest go to the wall.

II.
But as Arthur Silber pointed out last month in his articles on global warming, this is what our "complex, intricate... corporatist system," with its "dizzyingly numerous interconnections between "private" business and government," does. This is what it's for. And, as he notes, this is the system that we are trusting to resolve the globe-wrenching problems of climate change.

Silber also makes the pertinent point that while this system goes on its merry way, profiting both from its unceasing pollution of the planet -- which may have already reached the point of no return -- and from the fitful and co-opted attempts to mitigate its effects, millions of people are absorbed by their anxiety over these potential dangers ... even as they ignore, or in some cases, celebrate, vast, man-made catastrophes that could be dealt with today, right now -- and with a bare minimum of cost.

For example, Victoria Brittain details a vast, man-made environmental disaster that could be resolved this afternoon with a single phone call. From the Guardian:

Among all the complex and long-term solutions being sought in Copenhagen for averting environmental catastrophe across the world, there is one place where the catastrophe has already happened, but could be immediately ameliorated with one simple political act.

In Gaza there is now no uncontaminated water; of the 40,000 or so newborn babies, at least half are at immediate risk of nitrate poisoning – incidence of "blue baby syndrome", methaemoglobinaemia, is exceptionally high; an unprecedented number of people have been exposed to nitrate poisoning over 10 years; in some places the nitrate content in water is 300 times World Health Organisation standards; the agricultural economy is dying from the contamination and salinated water; the underground aquifer is stressed to the point of collapse; and sewage and waste water flows into public spaces and the aquifer.

The blockade of Gaza has gone on for nearly four years, and the vital water and sanitation infrastructure went past creaking to virtual collapse during the three-week assault on the territory almost a year ago.

What would it take to start the two UN sewerage repair projects approved by Israel; a UN water and sanitation project, not yet approved; and two more UN internal sewage networks, not yet approved? Right now just one corner of the blockade could be lifted for these building materials and equipment to enter Gaza, to let water works begin and to give infant lives a chance. Just one telephone call from the Israeli defence ministry could do it – an early Christmas present to the UN staff on the ground who have been ready to act for months and have grown desperate on this front, as on so many others.

As Brittain notes, the Israelis have already lifted another part of their strangulating blockade, after a bold intervention by U.S. Senator John Kerry, who in March of this year demanded that the Israelis lift their prohibitions on ... pasta.

But apparently, no American politician can be bothered to pick up a phone to stem the poisoning of the Gaza Ghetto:

Gaza's huge pale sandy beaches used to be society's playground and reassurance of happiness and normality, with families picnicking, horses exercising, fishermen mending their nets, children swimming and boys exercising in the early morning, but these days they are mainly empty, and not just because it is winter. Between 50m and 60m litres of untreated sewage have flowed into the Mediterranean every day this year since the end of the Israeli invasion in January, the sea smells bad and few fish are available in the three nautical mile area Palestinians are allowed in. This resource seems as ruined as the rubble of Gaza's parliament and ministries.

...."We have run out of words to describe how bad it is here," says John Ging, director of operations for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza. Ging heads a team of 10,000 mainly Palestinian workers who run the aid supplies that are all that stand between the vast majority of Gazans and destitution. "We have 80% unemployment, an economy at subsistence level, infrastructure destroyed, etc, but even worse than the humanitarian plight is the destruction of civil society."

Ging's great preoccupation is "the 750,000 children susceptible to an environment where things are moving rapidly in the wrong direction, where the injustice is bewildering, and every day worse":

There is a big problem of insecurity and violence here, and it is getting worse. Most adults display stoic resilience, and cling to a belief in traditional values, but there is a compelling narrative by extremists which becomes ever more difficult to combat. Only lifting the siege would change the dynamic.

III.
Or what about the vast, spreading, man-made disaster that is Afghanistan? As Silber notes, many people who decry the potential disasters of climate change actively support the catastrophic intervention in Afghanistan -- which, as we pointed out here, produces  the very ills that is ostensibly designed to reduce (just as Israel's choking of Gaza does). Yet here too, the vast suffering and degradation of millions of people could be addressed more effectively at a modicum of the cost it now takes to kill and plunder them.

Jeffrey Sachs (via the Angry Arab) takes up this theme at the Huffington Post, while noting the aforementioned inherent disabilities of our present system to address the problems it ostensibly seeks to resolve:

The framing of Afghanistan's governance problems with the simplistic gloss of "corruption" is yet another trivialization of reality, exceeded only by the idea that Afghan President Hamid Karzai can and will turn off corruption at will, and notably in response to US pressure. Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski was on the mark when he questioned the ability of Washington, itself in an era of rampant corruption, to clean up corruption elsewhere. A worthy role for Richard Holbrooke, now the special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, would be to root out flagrant financial mismanagement at the staff of AIG, where Holbrooke had served on the Board during the buildup of the recent financial bubble. The war industry itself, replete with powerful corporations like Fluor and DynCorp that receive billions of dollars in no-bid Pentagon contracts, are also a likely part of the Washington political momentum.

The fact of the matter is that Afghanistan is in urgent need of the basics for survival in one of the poorest countries on Earth -- seeds, fertilizer, roads, power, schools, and clinics -- much more than it is in the need of another 30,000 troops or added military contractors. Development aid directed to Afghanistan's communities, through the UN, could stabilize Afghanistan far more effectively at one-fifth to one-tenth the cost of the coming $100 billion or so per year that will be spent on this military debacle. Yet such support is not forthcoming. ... As Friedman reports, Obama has disdained "nation-building" as "mission creep," thereby disappointingly echoing the Bush administration.

In fact, the US Government's long-standing disdain is for the Afghan people themselves, since there has been not the slightest effort for decades to think through their real needs and wants. As in Vietnam, this mission is all about us. And as in Vietnam, the US escalation has the possibility of causing much broader destabilization in Central and South Asia and the Middle East.

Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that the avatars of such a system would seek to exploit the growing anxiety over climate change to augment their own dominance? Whatever happens to the planet -- or to the Iraqis, or to the Afghans, or to the millions of people going down in the flood of financial flim-flam and health care "reform" scams -- the elites will remain as they are now: well-wadded, well-protected, and well-connected in their fortified enclaves of privilege and power.  

To paraphrase John Ging: We are running out of words to describe how bad it is around here.

| More...

Comments (42)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

john kelley said:

... A heartrending piece like this and I find (0) comments in the comment section... "We are running out of words to describe how bad it is around here." Yes, indeed. _________________ The outstanding derivatives market is valued at 600 trillion dollars. Now, there isn't that much money in the universe. Soooo, clearly they are all bankrupt. But if they are all bankrupt, then bankruptcy becomes a meaningless entity. Especially when you're holding all the guns. 21st century schizoid mission creep is accelerating into uncharted waters.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 09, 2009
Votes: +2

Debbieaussie said:

	... I know it all comes down to meny/power, but I just cannot get my head around all this. What is the use of being the riches most powerful man on the planet when there is noone left? This is so horrifyingly frustrating. G*d this world sucks. Thanks Chris, another great article.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 10, 2009
Votes: +0

Debbieaussie said:

	... sorry sjhouled money/power
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 10, 2009
Votes: +0

Debbieaussie said:

	... all thumbs today
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 10, 2009
Votes: +0

Gabe Gabriel said:

... A truly great piece Chris and a correct interpretation of the news of the world as it stands today. This latest event called the copenhagen climate change, is nothing more than an "establishment of world government" and headed up on the pretense of climate change. I don't know about you????? But the climate in my part of the United States is exactly like it has been for hundreds of years. It is cold in the winter and hot in the summer. Can someone please tell me where the climate is changing? It's not in Texas. Everything is as it has been for a long long time. This is the elite establishment setting up their world taxing authority in order to keep control of all of us while they use other means to kill off as many as possible in the process of their false world government takeover. I don't need to be a college boy to understand that my climate is not changing, and if mine is not then yours is not either, as climate changes are always global in nature. If you think the standard of living has gotten bad in the last few months, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait till a global system starts taxing your every move.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 10, 2009
Votes: -2

Chris Floyd said:

... Many thanks for the kind words. I appreciate the fact that deep-seated skepticism is in order at every turn in our wonderful world. However, I will say that, whatever the weather in Texas, the global climate is changing, significantly. If we are going solely on anecdotal evidence of our local areas, I can say unequivocally that here in England, where I'm living now, the climate has changed demonstrably even in the decade I've been here. And when I visit the home folks back in Tennessee – none of whom are college boys or college girls – they will tell me (as I can see for myself) of the marked change in weather patterns and temperatures; and this is local, agricultural-based personal knowledge that goes back, in some cases, more than 80 years. The question is not whether the climate is changing; it is. Nor whether humankind has decisively contributed to this change, and to the deterioration of the environment; we have. The main problem is that the rich and powerful will take any situation and turn it to their own profit, to the vast detriment of everyone else. Practically every single study or report by "global warming skeptics" is underwritten, directly or indirectly, by huge corporate interests who profit from climate change denial. On the other hand, almost all of the mechanisms for mitigating the worst effects of climate change turn out to be ways to make profits for the rich and powerful and well-connected, without actually decreasing pollution and its effects. As for the fears of a one-world government, which I've been hearing about for almost 50 years now, I think this worry is misplaced. The elite don't want and certainly don't need a one-world government; they thrive on flexibility and unaccountability, on a profusion of venues in which to shift and hide and multiply their money. They love having MANY governments where they can buy influence, strike sweetheart deals. The last thing they would want is some single, global state that would not only cut down the number of opportunities for profit and influence (if there's only one, say, Minister of Defense in the world, and some other fat-cat has bought him, what would the other fat-cats do?) – it would also give people around the world a clear focus for opposition. It would, oddly enough, unite the downtrodden of the world by giving them a common enemy. Besides, anyone who has spent even the smallest amount of time in proximity to our elites, of any nation, when their guard is down knows how deeply xenophobic most them are. Yes, of course, they strike deals with foreign elites all the time – because augmenting their own personal profit and power outweighs any other concern. But most of them despise "damn foreigners" on one level or another, and believe their own nation and culture is vastly superior to others. How could it not be, since it produced such paragons as them? The elites don't need one-world government – with all the bureaucratic red-tape and restrictive laws that implies – when they already have a one-world oligarchy, with all kinds of governments to play with. They can already go to war, loot whole treasuries for the benefit of themselves and their bankers, repress dissent and protest, and, yes, levy taxes, etc., to their heart's content. What do they need a "one-world government" for? But this fear of a future sci-fi tyranny does provide an excellent diversion from the horror-show reality we have right now.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 10, 2009
Votes: +9

jsf said:

Cacophony Excellent words, especially in the comments section. The problem is the cacophony that surrounds us all, and permeates comments sections. The supersystem is supermassive, and has left its doubters fighting amongst themselves. Alexander Cockburn and now globalresearch.ca are climate change denialists, along with tenured and feted scientists. A long comment hereabouts a couple of posts back was from a "non-internventionist" who happens to believe, coincidentally, in constructing a Great Wall around the US, locking up all 12 million non-documented workers, and venerating capitalism as the embodiment of human perfection. So what is being accomplished here when such contradiction abounds in such tight quarters? Still, the words of Mr. CF continue to ring proudly.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 10, 2009
Votes: +0

Jimmy Montague said:

We are running out of words -- I ran out of words some time ago. The depth of my own despair is that there seems nothing left to write about. World War III is a done deal. It started on 9/11, 2001, and has accelerated every day since. Every decision made by world leaders since that day has worked to fuel and spread the conflict further. I think the one thing they're trying to avoid right now (or put off for as long as possible) is a situation where NATO troops get involved in a shoot-out with Russian and/or Chinese forces. At that point the wraps are off and anything goes thereafter.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 10, 2009
Votes: +4

john kelley said:

... Chris,your patience is commendable. And your alacrity with words. The anti global warming folks, 'climategate' aficionados, etc., need to articulate their message. Shock doctrine in reverse and voodoo metrics are not sound methodology. But then, it seems like all sound methodology and reason are being lost in the shuffle. I, too, can't speak for 'on the ground' conditions in Texas, but, from '93 to '03 I lived on a mesa in northern New Mexico and in that decade (particularly the last three years) I witnessed the decimation of the pinons in the predominantly pinon-juniper woodland ecosystem of the area. The mountain pine beetle (which is always present) is the culprit, but the severity of the problem is undoubtedly related to climate-change. According to Wikipedia, "It may be the largest forest insect blight ever seen in North America." It stretches from Mexico to British Columbia and has worsened considerably since I left.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 10, 2009
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

... Gabe Gabriel's comment is fairly typical of what one can read in comment threads at Information Clearinghouse, where a lot of commenters deny global warming because they think Al Gore is a fraud, and where a common sentiment is the "One World Government" fear. As Mr Floyd's excellent and patient response indicates, the fact that Al Gore is a liar about many things doesn't mean that global warming is a lie. It means only that Al Gore is a known liar. Known liars can be overt -- plying only big lies -- or they can be covert and subtle, using facts to pursue a course of action based on lies. In Gore's case, he uses the truth of global climate change to angle for new business venues & vectors. And again, this shows only that Gore is a liar, not that global climate change is a lie. Maybe that subtle difference is not discernible to Gabe Gabriel. Jimmy's comment reminds me of a paper I was pointed toward yesterday. This paper was prepared in 2008 for presentation to a group at the US War College in PA. I suggest reading it, and I think Mr Floyd may find it very interesting and useful. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB867.pdf

report abuse vote down vote up

December 10, 2009
Votes: -1

Gabe Gabriel said:

... My comments are strictly for myself as it concerns global warming. The facts are that in Texas the climate is not changing as far as I can tell. Anyone that thinks the global climate is changing is of course free to think whatever they want. As far as global climate change is concerned why is it that the "main stream media" and the elite are both in agreement that the climate is changing. In my 40 plus years of watching the culture of this country, the U.S., I have never seen the main stream media and the elite ever speak the actual reality of what is going on politically. There is always spin with the powers that be towards what they want you to think. If the main stream media and the elite agree that the climate is changing, then I will as a matter of fact look at what they say exactly 180 degrees opposite of their information. I choose to see things this way and it has always served me well so far. If you want to agree with the government and the main stream media that the climate is changing then you have the answer for yourself already, the government is your answer. As Sean mentioned above about the information clearing house, I have no idea as to what his reference is as it concerns global warming comments there as I have never been to that site, but if there are people there that agrees with me about the climate then that is a good thing as far as I am concerned. Do I think Al gore is a fraud? Yes just as all other politicians are as well. When you start paying your carbon taxes perhaps then you will start to see your standard of living slipping away as well. It seems to be a matter of great convenience for some for the need to be told what and what not to think. And as I read the comments about the climate change, I would like to see some proof of the climate change from you guy that believe it. Could you please post a climate chart for your area for the last 75 years so I will not be left in the dark as to what is going on, if the climate is changing I need to know as like I said before it looks the same from my window.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 10, 2009
Votes: +1

Sean O'Neil said:

... Gabe, pretending at being skeptical while choosing affirmatively to ignore mountains of proof -- that's just dishonest. The proof is readily available for anyone who wants to find it. Or, if you want to NOT find it, you can find pseudo-proof and bogus "science" studies aplenty. It's becoming clear which path you have chosen. You have chosen to pretend at skepticism while denying reality. Good for you! You're now an official climate change skeptic! You should run for leadership of the national Chamber of Commerce.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 10, 2009
Votes: -2

Gabe Gabriel said:

... Here is an interesting bit of information. The EPA cited a 2007 Supreme Court ruling declaring that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act, but the science upon which that ruling was based has now been called into question when emails and internal documents between the UN’s leading climate change scientists were leaked to the public. Contained with in the files was evidence of suppression, manipulation and destruction of climate data. The emails revealed that the entire historical climate record that is the basis for all determinations of climate change is based on inaccurate data and has been manipulated to match a political and economic agenda. I found the above information useful as to show the deceit of the "record keepers" on the climate. My thoughts are if the climate data has been changed and or manipulated then how can you trust the ones that have done this? The hacked emails prove the whole thing is a hoax.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 10, 2009
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

	... Yes indeed, a Certified Climate Change Skeptic! Congratulations on being a disinformation fan!
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 10, 2009
Votes: -1

jo6pac said:

	... O should be careful what he signs on for with the new Amerika racing toward 3rd world status those rules might apply to us. That wouldn't be bad. Thanks Cris
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 10, 2009
Votes: +0

Grandma Jefferson said:

Wait 'Til the Water Runs Out... ...perhaps that might get the attention of some folks, brainwashed by the plutocrats to always parrot their propaganda right on cue, like the good Palovian dogs they are. How eager they are to cut their own throats! And the water is running out, here and everywhere, along with breathable air, non-toxic soil, and everything else. Not that the global oligarchy will do anything but make it worse, as we see in the flagrant rapine unfurling in Copenhagen. But they always survive, and indeed probably hope to eliminate a few billion inconvenient impoverished people (always obstructing progress) as global food production dries up, along with the water and air. Too bad they'll be reduced to eating money and drinking oil. Beautiful work, as always, Chris, and I personally think you should write an end-of-the-world novel, as the blackest of black comedies, in which you unleash your great and mordant wit on the collapse of "civilization", such as it was, based on your most perfect, intricate, and complete understanding of the last 50 years, with the real cast of villains we all know so well. It could make your fortune, and we could all use the laughs, because laughter in the face of our fate all that's left for us now. How about "Escalation Blues, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love DU" as a working title? The Shades of Vonnegut, Carlin, & Bierce would love it.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 11, 2009
Votes: +3

Arnold Berns said:

Listen to ALL the voices ... A copy of The Guardian of 3 December headlined a Suzanne Goldenberg report warning a "leading climate change expert" is warning the Copenhagen summit so flawed that success there entails disaster. The only link found was: http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...ail-hansen (audio) Interestingly, in reading Niccolò Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy" (book 1, chapter 40) mention is given of a similar action - referring authority to an "exclusive executive panel" a "decemvirate" by the constituted powers of republican Rome and relays the political disaster that ensued. This should be known and fair warning taken from history. Whenever such a panel is contemplated, its only source of power must be directly from the public, anything else is asking for catastrophe. The UN can not be safely written out, it must be made the master of such panel, least the panel subverts the world's intent satisfying corporate agendas.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 11, 2009
Votes: +0

Mark Davis said:

... Chris, I always like your take on things, but I don't understand why you still believe that political organizations will ever serve anybody but the elite. You are both cynical and naive at the same time. For example, you write: "Another shock! Elites clubbing together in secret, seeking to circumvent legal processes for their own corrupt advantage?" Then you write: "As for the fears of a one-world government, which I've been hearing about for almost 50 years now, I think this worry is misplaced." Which is it? Think for a second: If you wanted to create a one-world government, how would you do it? First you'd have to beat a drum over and over in the media about some international crisis that all us earthlings are 1) in danger of and 2) contribute to. Eventual command and control through increasing influence is an old strategy; but the scope is ever expanding. Step 1: Create an international taxing authority as the means to "fix" the problem because we have "no choice" but to "act now". Step 2: Create a bureaucracy to administer taxing authority and a police organization to collect/enforce tax. Step 3: Mission creep; expand the powers and "responsibilities" of political organization. Step 4: Set up an international election of "representatives" to give a "voice" to the little people because we all know how much democracy cures corruption and limits elite influence. Step 4: Continue to alternate "representatives" and "leaders" between conflicting factions and puppets to give impression that said political organization is "doing something" and is "responsive to the people". Ignore and repress challenges to legitimacy of political system: that would be anarchy! Gasp! If you fall for the step 1, the rest is easy. CO2 is required for life as we know it. Calling it a pollutant because it is a greenhouse gas makes as much sense as calling H2O a pollutant because water vapor is far and away the largest greenhouse gas. Climate change is to the left what terrorism is to the right: Chicken Little with a gun. At the very least, don't you think a separation of science and state is a good idea? Politics is the problem, not the answer.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 11, 2009
Votes: -1

Chris Floyd said:

... First, I made this point explicitly in my piece: elites like to club together in secret, and circumvent legal processes for their own advantage; hence, why would they want to put in place a gigantic superstructure of legal processes in a one-world government, when they can get all their goodies right here and now? Second, regarding naivete, you seem to think that this messy, grubby, greasy clubbing together of elite factions is some kind of specific, sci-fi, tightly organized, well-oiled, carefully laid out agenda set in motion by diabolically clever archons -- instead of the way that the world has always worked. The greasy looting and powergrabs of elites are like liquified shit: it will pour into every crack and crevice it can find -- and is allowed to get into. This is what elites do. Regarding climate change -- which you seem to think boils down to some kind of semantic game about CO2, rather than a complex of processes -- I have great faith in our inherent human ability to take any and all suggested solutions to the problem and turn it into an instrument of elite power and privilege. But, as you seem not to have noticed, it becomes increasingly obvious that the various elites of the world -- in governments and out of it -- are not actually going to do ANYTHING about mitigating the worst effects of climate change. You quake with fear that they are setting up some kind of vast, efficient global climate-change tyranny, when they can't agree to any kind of enforceable restrictions on emissions. (And as I noted in the piece, they don't WANT to do that. They don't want real restrictions on any activity that might make them money). Maybe that's a good thing; as I say, we humans have a vast propensity for abusing any mechanisms and organizations we set up. As for your argument about CO2. Yes, CO2 is necesary for life. And so is water, as you say. But as you may have noticed in, say, New Orleans, too much water can cause a spot of bother. Again, the processes of climate change are not restricted to those based on CO2; but too much of any element, however natural and essential it is in proper balance, can destabilize or even destroy a system. Ever heard of cancer? It's just the natural process of cell reproduction, which is essential for life, etc. But once it gets hold of you and throws your system into a deadly unbalance, you can sit there and deny it's happening until you're blue in the face. It's still killing you all the same. Finally, to repeat a point I believe has already been made in the comments: It is entirely possible to believe that our grubby, second-rate elites will try to use climate change to augment their power while also acknowledging the reality of climate change. One stance doesn't cancel out the other.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 11, 2009
Votes: +4

Steve Larson said:

No WWW III Had this discussion elsewhere, times ago... Non fighters include: China, Russia, South America, Africa, Canada, Mexico, Asia,etc.... even NATO won't join in the next US demonstration of impotence. While the US thrusts blankly its economic strategy of empires, all, yes all, the rest of the world recognizes that it is long term relationships that wins the race. From mutual defense agreements to construction of real things from roads, bridges, pipelines... the US has been outplayed by the rest of the world. Time is on the side of the many and they know it. Make no bones about, will I: one more invasion by the US will be the last one. Not because the empire will have changed its culture. Not because of you, I, me, the others in America... Not because of counter attacks, nukes, etc. It is simply happening already....they've been doing it for the past years... the rest of the world are treating/mutual defense agreementing the US right out of the game. The blind emperor has no clues. I offer that this prediction will stand the test of time as jury. I'll bookmark and tune back in a year, two... to check my accuracy. I invite you to do the same... wallowamountainman. on a more relevant note...I finely got my old moniker back...this is my first post since my last... off to snowshoe my cardio...remember: Exercise, eat less, sleep well, and have some fun. Be kind to everyone, especially the kids.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 11, 2009
Votes: +1

scott douglas said:

... "'The panel of 2,500 scientists and other experts declared manmade warming 'unequivocal' and wrote that it could lead to climate changes that are 'abrupt and irreversible.'" Scientific American; November 26, 2007. 2007. The Year of Our Lord, Two Thousand, Ought Seven. Two thousand and five hundred dudes, with credentials: Got it? Let's not be stupid. Let's not debate the facts. If you are so skewed in your thinking that you cannot tell black from white nor up from down, go elsewhere. We are adults discussing the possibility of salvaging the 'civilization' -- such as it is -- from the Monsters who have been, and currently are, steering us all into a fast date with Oblivion. We don't need Junior running about in clever circles and pulling on our tails. Get a clue, before it's too late... Whoops! Too Late! never mind... Fuck... |

report abuse vote down vote up

December 11, 2009
Votes: +1

Grandma Jefferson said:

Dear Scott... ...LMAO! you just made an ancient grandma's day. As always. And Chris, it's wonderful to watch Glenn Beck imitators ignore entire paragraphs within your essay, and all the ideas contained therein, a la Mark Davis, in a vain attempt to pose as an intellectual, and twist things into a ride on their favorite hobby-horse, "one world socialist/pinko/commie/whatever gubmint is gonna getcha, here's how!" The resultant failures are inevitably hilarious, as in his case, especially the bit about H2O being a "greenhouse gas". Your patience is truly saint-like. ;-)

report abuse vote down vote up

December 11, 2009
Votes: +1

Grandma Jefferson said:

	... PS I need to change my email and still don't have an "edit" tab in my profile with which to do this. Can somebody help? Thanks!
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 11, 2009
Votes: -1

Mark Davis said:

... "First, I made this point explicitly in my piece: elites like to club together in secret, and circumvent legal processes for their own advantage; hence, why would they want to put in place a gigantic superstructure of legal processes in a one-world government, when they can get all their goodies right here and now?" I assure you that I did not miss that as it prompted my response. Let me ask then: why would they want to put in place a gigantic superstructure of legal processes in a one-Europe (or the US) government, when they can get all their goodies from each individual state? The trend towards more centralized political power and their resultant organizations for the benefit of the elite was something I thought we agreed upon. Perhaps you think this trend has been reversed? Possible and I hope so, but the Copenhagen treaty is an example of this trend continuing. "Second, regarding naivete, you seem to think that this messy, grubby, greasy clubbing together of elite factions is some kind of specific, sci-fi, tightly organized, well-oiled, carefully laid out agenda set in motion by diabolically clever archons -- instead of the way that the world has always worked. The greasy looting and powergrabs of elites are like liquified shit: it will pour into every crack and crevice it can find -- and is allowed to get into." I agree that it's messy, etc. and anything but "tightly organized". As you say it will "pour into every crack". It appears to me again that you are trying to have it both ways: the elite plot together to further their own interests, but the organizations that they create to further those interests are innocuous? If you are interested I've written about this at http://www.strike-the-root.com...avis3.html and http://novakeo.com/?p=1472. "This is what elites do. Etc…" Exactly, it's what they do. And you're right that they could really care less about really doing something to mitigate climate change. I'd also bet they realize how futile the whole prospect is and laugh at the global warming cultists who are so easily duped into supporting their power grabbing scheme. My intent was never to debate the merits of climate change arguments, but to point out the dangers of creating a political organization with the power to tax countries around the world and then redistribute those funds to favored cronies. What is a government if not the power to take money from some to give to others? Once this power is established for one purpose, then do you not think it that it will be used to "solve" other problems real or imagined? I don't think anybody doubts that climate changes as we have gone into and out of ice-ages for millions of years. I do prefer getting warmer to getting cooler as plants and animals prosper when warming compared to cooling. I also accept that men obviously have some influence on our climate systems. We can debate all day as to how much affect that influence has, but even if it is so great as to make people quake at the amount, it does not follow that the solution is to set up a political organization to address it. Please name just one problem politicians have set out to fix and didn't make worse? If we are actually heading into an ice-age, do you suggest pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere? By the way I have no fear of a coming one-world government, indeed I see it as inevitable given the collectivist nature of humans. Seeking solace and protection in the herd is all too common to "quake" about. Pointing out that murder, rape and theft exist and should be avoided does not necessarily invoke irrational fear of these real threats when discussed abstractly. "Finally, to repeat a point I believe has already been made in the comments: It is entirely possible to believe that our grubby, second-rate elites will try to use climate change to augment their power while also acknowledging the reality of climate change. One stance doesn't cancel out the other." You really don't have to keep repeating the obvious. I'm just trying to understand if you simply see no other way to address collective threats other than by creating political organizations with the power to tax. Further, and this main point has not been addressed, do you not see where this first step in creating an international political taxing authority will lead to? I find the position that of course the money grubbers are in control of the existing power tools, but lets give them bigger power tools to screw us even more with as perplexing to say the least.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 12, 2009
Votes: -1

Mark Davis said:

... I usually don't respond to silly invectives as this but if you don't know that H2O is the primary "greenhouse gas" then I thought that perhaps you should do a little more research before making anymore silly comments to avoid additional embarrassment. Try here for a start: http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/climateroles/ I don't know what an intellectual is, but even a poor country boy knows what seeking the truth is.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 12, 2009
Votes: +1

Mark Davis said:

	... My last post above was a response to Grandma Jefferson for those that did not recognize it as such.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 12, 2009
Votes: +1

Greg Shields said:

... Chris, thanks for a well thought out article and further comments. Regarding the global warming issue, supposed attempts to find a fix, and the disconnects exhibited by both/all sides of the issue - I'm with Mr Silber: http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/11/bad-faith-arguments-and-highly.html Regarding the side issues raised in the comments section: Every once in a while the comments section wanders off topic, and some commenters get personal while others dig in for the long haul. Just my opinion, but if you believe in the Star Chamber, tell us once and let it go if some choose not to agree. And those who disagree could try not to sneer. Holidays (fill in the one of your choice/persuasion) are around the corner. I hope everyone here has one or more loved ones to share them with.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 12, 2009
Votes: +0

Chris Floyd said:

... Well, when you lay your thoughts out this way, I don't see many points of disagreement. Your earlier comment came on, to me, like some kind of attack on my naivete, etc. I'm not trying to have it both ways; I thought it was clear -- not just from this piece but from years of writing -- that I believed that the organizations created by elites are hardly innocuous. Quite the opposite. The whole point of my original piece on this subject was to point out the fact that the elite nations are trying to use climate change precisely to foist all kinds of new mechanisms to augment their power and wealth. And because I thought all this was clear from the original piece, I thought your response must have been coming from somewhere else. If I got that wrong, my apologies. I do disagree on the inevitability of a "one-world government," though, whatever the 'collectivist nature' of humanity. First, I think that although there is such a nature, there is also a strong pull in the opposite direction, to set one's group apart (and above) all others. (Also, "divide and conquer" has always been the watchword of elites; as I said before, an actual, official one-world government would give everyone a common enemy to resist, and would actually make for more unity among the dispossessed - -which I think is the last thing elites would want. As for your last question, I see lots of ways to address collective threats without giving the money grubbers bigger power tools to play with. I haven't championed any specific plan out there for dealing with climate change -- much less the creation of "international political taxing authority," so I'm not sure what is so perplexing about my position, which, at the risk of repeating the obvious is: Climate change exists; its effects are and will be woeful; and the rich and powerful will inevitably bend any attempt (with "international taxing authority" or entirely voluntary individual action, etc.) to their own unjust advantage. But yes, I do see other ways to address collective threats beyond creating new tax-levying political authorities. So I hope this clears up all perplexities.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 12, 2009
Votes: +1

Sean O'Neil said:

	... @ Mark Davis -- Water is not a PROBLEMATIC "greenhouse gas" -- it is part of the natural system that predates mankind. The issue with AGW is not what predated man's industrialization of the planet. It concerns man's impact. That's the "A" in "AGW," Mark. Your lame, hobbled attempt at smart-assing a response to Grandma Jefferson falls flat.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 12, 2009
Votes: +0

Grandma Jefferson said:

Dear Sean... ...your chivalry warms my heart. Grandma is used to the rage of the sheep, but friendship is rare, and precious. Oh, and Davis, since you're still skulking around, the fact that a self-serving NASA blog chooses to redefine water vapor as a "greenhouse gas", due to its heat-absorbtion properties, doesn't make it a "gas". After perusuing the press release site so helpfully proffered, I find little data or analysis of same, just pages describing what they do. For facts and hard data analysis, you might check out http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/ if interested. The "One World Gvt" you keep ranting about already exists in the form of the global Oligarchy, which, as Chris keeps pointing out over and over, prefers a diversity of national governments, all of which they control, to pit against each other or combine in various mega pillage endeavors. But this obvious fact is evidently beyond you. You'd get a lot more traction calling up Beck or Limbaugh and singing along with them.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 12, 2009
Votes: +1

scott douglas said:

... The jig is already up on this issue, frankly. The smart money is on the various fortunes to be made in the flux! That is: Amelioration of the results, not the prevention of the catastrophe itself. That is the horrible truth, and that is the attitude of the Global Plutocrats sketched out in Chis's essay, as they attempt to use the issue to pursue their vision of Western dominance of the rescourse holding areas of the globe. I am sorry to be so short with the young conspiracy spinning science-deniers, and very impressed with Mr. Floyd for so dispassionately explaining the realities to the naive visitors, but I simply don't believe that we are having an honest debate here! The point is that the West -- the U.S. Senate and Britain -- are not going to do any thing substantive on the prevention side of the problem; nor is the Coal Whore and Universal Banker, China. They are all agreed to that, under the table, and they are now seeking to use the issue as a wedge against the developing nations. The post is not about the non-issue of the reality or non-reality of Climate Change nor is it about some sinister One World Government! Damn! How much more sinister does the situation have to get, as it actually is! Gimme a break!

report abuse vote down vote up

December 12, 2009
Votes: +5

john kelley said:

	... "The smart money is on the various fortunes to be made in the flux!" Make that, "easy money".
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 12, 2009
Votes: +0

Jimmy Montague said:

Gabe Gabriel's climate Gabe Gabriel says his climate isn't changing and if his climate isn't changing then nobody else is experiencing climate change, either. But I have a friend, an engineer I've known for 40 years, who works in Anchorage Alaska. He goes hunting and fishing and camping in season. He tells me the polar ice cap is utterly gone. It's all happened within the last five years or so. So according to Gabe Gabriel's logic, if the climate changes in the far north, that means it has to be changing at Gabe Gabriel's house. So why can't he see it? Maybe he should go and see Alaska?

report abuse vote down vote up

December 13, 2009
Votes: +1

Grandma Jeffeson said:

There is nothing left to debate.. ...and I'm grateful for that. "Debate" these days is a mere vehicle to excuse inaction, which apparently is considered sufficient for the utter lack of human input, by subsuming our energies into a boring series of meaningless blog entries, as a substitute for the action required for real change. Let us proffer our unconditional admiration to our masters, who have managed to subvert real dissent into a series of purgative blog podtings. It's so much safer than taking to the streets, after all.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 13, 2009
Votes: +1

Jimmy Montague said:

Dmitri Orlov recently pointed out -- I think it was Orlov -- that there are two possible ways to make it big as a scientist. One is to discover new theories, new elements -- new whatever -- and prove them to the world. The second way is to identify and point out mistakes in others' work. The prizes are rich on either side of any argument; the competition in both directions is always keen. Thus there is no way that a global conspiracy among, say, climatologists, could ever take shape and grow. For every climatologist who enters into such a conspiracy, there'd be one or more who refuse to do so. You'd never find 2,500 scientists who would sign their names (i.e.: tie their reputations and hence their careers) to what they know is a hoax.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 13, 2009
Votes: +0

Gabe Gabriel said:

... Fom jimmy's comment above. I think there is a third way that many scientists practice everyday their trade in craft by the act of omission. It is very easy for a professional person just not to say anything that might rock the boat. This actually may be the best of the ways and means by which a professional can stay in good graces with the "government" that gives him his grant money and or finances his or her project. This act of omission is the method by which all of this goes on today and it happens in every area of science. This is how such things as the 911 false flag operation can happen and never see the light of day in an open hearing, by those that know that something is happening but choose not to say anything because their professional life is at risk if they speak up.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 13, 2009
Votes: +0

Jimmy Montague said:

Boy, Gabe Gariel -- you sure are smart to figure that out 2,500 scientists are lying to us. The rest of the world's scientists just keep mum because they don't want to risk their careers. And I suppose those scientists who work for AMOCO and BP and Shell say global warming is a lie -- not because the oil companies pay them to say things like that but because they are just more conscientious than all the other scientists on earth.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 14, 2009
Votes: +0

Mark Davis said:

... Chris, you're right that we don't disagree on much. When I first read your piece my knee-jerk reaction was "Well duh, what the hell did you expect?" and I went all curmudgeon on you. I was critical of what you didn't say as opposed to what you did say. Of course that isn't fair and I apologize. Keep up the good work de-legitimizing the PTB. Perhaps before long you will be criticizing the inherently corrupt political system as much as the obviously corrupt players. Anarchy looks better and better everyday to anybody really paying attention.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 14, 2009
Votes: +0

Art James, bebop-o, GoodCelery! said:

	BP testing Chris Floyd. I'm just testing-out my new comment privy rights. Where do drone honeybees go to evacuate if bees get bombed, kicked-out of matriarchal hive colony, or hear cat scat buzzes? a BP rest stop. drones in DC are abundant politicos never see blue sky, foliage, and never know joy. creeps never know any bliss. they lie down with boar flies.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 14, 2009
Votes: +0

Art James, bebop-o, GoodCelery! said:

K- Street club sip $200 wine rot gut sorry. I came back to see what's new. To read the news is a `boo boo bah. Effete NATO DOD K- Street busters. huh? Elite need to roll into fetal slop balls. Psycho babble gibber slobbers jaws. Funky, foul, despicable toads, feline. Wiggles waggles wastrel worthless woe! Goo goo dung and black red blood lips! Plastic pink carrion stink figures, fakes! Goo goo goons club admiration society! Oy, yesum. yesum, please no wipe lips? 'Um mutter. Well-to-do? Ay geese dung? huh? okay? Wait until karmic death day! apologies? Well? I'm happy you no delete.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 14, 2009
Votes: +0

scott douglas said:

... NPR, breaking from local programing, heard on the ride home -- organized elements in Bangladesh are looking for avenues in which to express the premise that the carbon emitter nations will be responsible for the global and local effects of the carbon/methane poisoning of the atmosphere, and should therefor be taxed for a remedie; that being, immigration quotas from the third world the the supposedly cooler and drier first world. I can't tell you how long and hard I laughed over that one. Oh. Man was that funny. Had to be there, I know.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 14, 2009
Votes: +0

Mark Davis said:

	... Here is an update on how the Cap and Trade scam dreamed up at Enron by Ken Lay is working (just like Chris reported above): http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/12/cap-and-trade-carbon-credit-extortion.html
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 15, 2009
Votes: +0