Thursday in Cancun for the UN Climate Change Conference, we visited their Green Village. As we waited for the doors to open, we were in line with quite a lot of school children – primarily in the 10-14 age range. The exhibits made for a great field trip for kids – except for the message.
As we entered the first exhibit area, we were greeted by an interesting display showing the sources of fuel/energy over the time that man has been on earth. It started with fire and wood for the cavemen and ended with today’s sources of oil, water, nuclear, wind, solar and coal. Included in the timeline was the population for the various time frames.
What was missing was context. Why did we see such an explosion of population numbers as we became more advanced as a society? What enabled people to stop being nomads and live year-round in colder areas? What technology gave us the ability to not worry about gathering wood or water and to build houses and hi-rises for housing?
Energy sources for machines and heating/cooling; coal and steam that are much more effective and efficient than wood and open fires; oil and electricity from coal or nuclear – these are what has allowed us to be where we are today. And, without having to worry about such things and warmth in the winter, we have focused on other technological advances and have grown our families and population.
But that wasn’t being explained to the children. They were being shown has the evil energy sources have led to overpopulation and an ‘attack’ on the planet.
The next exhibit was a world map on a large board. You would press a button in front of one of the energy sources and boxes next to each nation would digitally display what percentage that nation used of that particular source for their energy. France, it was no surprise, had the highest percentage from nuclear power. Mexico, if I remember correctly, had the highest percentage usage of oil. The United States, according to the map, got about 20-30% for a number of sources.
But clearly, there was a problem with the map, so we were told, as not one nation got more than a minute percentage of their energy from wind or solar or other ‘renewable’ sources. Some didn’t even register a full percentage point. The exhibit wanted you to conclude that the use of readily available and proven sources was a bad thing while the non-use of wind and solar was a problem to be corrected.
The common sense conclusion from the exhibit is that various nations use what they have a natural abundance of – Mexico using oil; the US using coal and Iceland using geothermal. France, without an abundance of natural energy sources developed their nuclear power grid. After all, when people look around for a way to improve their lives, especially since the days of the cave men, they don’t look to other continents – they look around and find, then use, what is available to them.
This could have been a great lesson in creativity and ingenuity that led to our industrial revolution and today’s comforts. But the children weren’t there to learn to think critically about such things so they could come to a common sense solution. They weren’t even there to understand why wind and solar aren’t more dominate. They were being a taught a political message and, being children, appeared to be learning it eagerly.
Perhaps the scariest exhibit I saw was one done by children. It consisted of great pictures that they’d done all displayed on the walls of the booth along with two large globes of the earth.
***Aside: I took a nice video of a young lady by the name of Stephanie explaining this project that her school did, but my videos were corrupted in the download process.
***
Stephanie, who spoke very good English, explained the ‘let the children speak’ exhibit, pointing out the differences between the two globes. The first one was very black – black buildings, dark colors, and lots of garbage and pollution all over the place. The shores of the continents were marked by cigarette butts, paper, wrappers, plastic bags, etc… In the Pacific Ocean, there was a huge ‘raft’ of aluminum can tabs. There were very few animals.
The second globe was very green and had beautifully-colored oceans. There were no hi-rises, lots of trees and lots of animals of all kind. Stephanie explained that one globe represented where we are today and how man has contaminated the planet by tearing down trees and polluting it. The second globe represented how the planet could be with houses powered by solar panels on the roofs and a restoration of extinct animals and more trees. When asked where she thought the world was today, she said somewhere in between.
But I was curious – as she should have been – and asked her about the lack of buildings on the future globe. I said that Mexico has millions of people and many of them live in cities in apartment buildings and hi-rises. I asked where all those people would live on the future globe. Either she did not understand my question due to the language barrier, or she didn’t know how to answer this common sense issue. She explained the hi-rises contaminate the planet because you have to cut down the trees in order to build them, but that people in the future globe would live in houses powered by the sun. She explained that we needed to stop cutting down our trees.
When I said that it didn’t seem like enough houses for everyone, she had no response. By that point, I decided my next question might actually produce a scene because I could only wonder how many more trees would have to be cut down to build one- or two-story houses to contain all the people who now live in hi-rise apartments. All those houses would have a much large impact on the number of trees to be cut down than a single apartment building. That common sense perspective – the innate curiosity that should have led to Stephanie and her fellow students wondering the same thing – was missing. But the political message was very clear.
There were actually two problems with this exhibit. One was the merging of issues like pollution (garbage) and conservation with the global warming scare tactics. The second was the indoctrination.
I’ve yet to meet someone who believes it is okay to pollute the planet. No one wants to see garbage by the side of the road or on the beach. Preventing such an outcome really has nothing to do with whether or not the temperatures of the earth are rising due to man’s actions. But again, that common sense observation was absent. But to the believers, common sense and critical thinking are not wanted as they might result in a challenge to the political message. This is indoctrination of young minds so eager knowledge that they soak up whatever authority figures, like teachers and the state (but I repeat myself), tell them. There is no context of opposing views – at least, not without derision and ridicule – and no encouragement of their natural curiosity, lest they ask a question that challenges the ‘consensus.’
And this is our biggest problem. President Ronald Reagan once said ‘the problem with Democrats isn’t that they’re wrong – they just know so much that isn’t true.’ If don’t stop trying to tell our children *what* to think, we will soon end up with a society that doesn’t know *how* to think. And when that happens, we are all doomed.
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Friday, December 03, 2010
Observations from UN-COP16: UN over USA, unemployment vs. green energy
As we drove along the main route to the United Nations global village yesterday, we noticed this woman standing on the median and waving the peace sign at passing motorists.
While we were not able to stop and speak to her, we all thought the placement of the UN flag above the US flag must have been symbolic.
Yes, we recognized that this was our own interpretation, and we discussed whether or not her nationality might be a factor in the message she was trying to convey.
But in the end, just like other motorists passing by and seeing the display, we had to judge for ourselves and I believe the placement of the UN flag above our own is a message that we, the United States, should be subjugated to the UN. And I cannot and will not support that.
Strangely, this concept seems to permeate the thoughts of many across the globe. 'The US must sacrifice for the greater good of the world.' 'The US government must forcibly take money from its citizens to pay for things the UN believes are needed.' 'The US must be brought down a notch or two - its success as a nation isn't "fair" when other nations are suffering.'
Of course, some of these thoughts are found among our own citizens and, increasingly, among elected officials.
The problem is - we are successful as a nation for a reason. No matter how much any other country or governmental body like the UN tries, they will not experience similar successes unless they adopt the principles of freedom, liberty and free markets that we have.
Sadly, people like our president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton believe that the best way to *help* other nations is to throw money at them. Our money.
As I wrote previously, the current plan is to give the UN $100 billion (yes, billion with a 'b') of our tax dollars so 'developing' nations can pursue 'alternative' energy. Never mind that most of these alternative energy programs are not cost effective to begin with - even here in the USA where they survive currently only because of massive federal (meaning our tax dollars) subsidies.
And even if you are in favor of alternative energy and using tax dollars/legislation to prop it up for or force it on people, doing so in other nations cannot be a priority over the other items on the agenda of our lame-duck Congress. Right now, the House of Representatives is discussing extension of unemployment benefits. The Democrats want to give more money to the unemployed and the Republicans are asking 'how do we pay for it because we have no money.'
Now, I'm not saying spend money we don't have on the unemployment benefits rather than the transfer of our wealth to other nations based upon the false conclusions of junk science, but shouldn't those who want the spending for the unemployment be insisting upon that as a priority instead of giving the money away to companies and governments of other countries? Is there no sense of priority for the American people over the rest of the world?
Obviously not - or perhaps the argument will be that both are equally important and the 'rich' need to pay for all of it. But when you have limited - or in our case right now - NO funds, limitations need to be imposed. Without money - and I don't mean money borrowed from the Chinese - we cannot do everything, no matter how much we *want* to. And it's time the American people and our representatives understand that fact.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Live from Cancun - AFP Hot Air Tour - Part 2
apologies for any misspellings ...
EXPOSING THE LIES - speakers
Ohioans Gena Bell and Nita Thomas from Cincinnati are part of the activities here in Cancun - they've already done their skype broadcast to conservatives in Cinci.
Tim Phillips is speaking:
* started the Hot Air Tour to highlight how the left and the environmental movement efforts with Cap-and-Trade would lead to less jobs, higher energy prices and less freedom.
* we're winning the war against these draconian measures, thanks to the American people who have spoken loudly about what a bad idea this is.
* we now see that what they've failed to do legislatively, they're going to try to do through regulatory means via unelected bureaucrats in the EPA.
* the other purpose for today's efforts in Cancun is to highlight the hypocrisy of the people who want all of us to give up our luxuries while they don't - everything from big homes to SUVs to private planes and limos.
* the idea of rationing was promoted just before this conference began - showing a short video to emphasize the hypocrisy. While promoting rationing for us, they held a beachside fiesta with no rationing whatsoever.
* we also don't want Americans to forget the disasterous impact these policies will have on us. Mentioning Hillary Clinton's $100 billion transfer of wealth from us to developing nations to help them meet global warming goals.
* It's one thing for me (Tim) to talk about this - it's another to hear from Americans who know the impacts on real people.
Glenn Callas from Hot Springs, Arkansas:
* shocking to see how many Americans don't have a clue about what's going on. People are making decisions that will hurt my business - and you business - to address a cause based on junk science.
* there is a direct cost to us for these environmental policies - gas prices, according to the Congressional Budget Office, could double. If my gas prices go up, my profits go down and, in this economy, that could put me out of business.
* but it's not just the direct costs, the costs of materials (indirect costs) will also go up. Every piece of material has to be shipped and it will cost more to do that.
* and then there's the cost of compliance - forms and rules and regulations - paperwork that we have to complete.
* and that doesn't even get to the cost of failing to comply - the cost of enforcement and the fines if you don't cross your t's and dot your i's the right way.
* we cannot afford this - we need to stand up for freedom and capitalism and for the principles that made our nation great!
Tim Phillips:
* complimenting James Inhofe from Oklahoma - shared a video with us since he couldn't be here personally -
Sen. Jim Inhofe:
* describes himself as the top watchdog against the Obama Administration efforts on global warming regulations.
* emphasizing how the EPA had taken over the push to implement the negative policies that Congress cannot pass.
* He said in Copenhagen last year that, under no circumstances, would cap-and-trade pass in the Senate. I was right...and I couldn't be happier and Al Gore couldn't be more depressed that nothing is expected to come from the meetings here in Cancun.
* Kyoto protocol was "the first step toward creating one world government" ... it's one of the greatest hoaxes every perpetrated on the American people.
* we must continue to be courageous in this fight and in restoring the American Dream and turning around our economy.
Andrew Breitbart: (has book coming out called "Righteous Indignation")
* glad to be part of these 'hysterical shenanigans'
* amazing to see what's happened in the last 2 years - not about the science, but about the narrative. New media has started to fill in the void about what the American people really think.
* main stream media describes the tea-party movement as extreme, even though a vast majority of Americans agree with tea-party issues.
* media paints the majority opinions as 'extreme' and outside the norm...they are controlling the narrative - but that is changing.
* not an expert in global warming. But I don't need to be an expert to know that they are speaking in language intentionally designed to confuse and they're not saying anything worthwhile.
* they use peer reviews to justify each other and denigrate anyone who dares to question and hold them accountable.
* Gore's movie "Inconvenient Truth" was destined to receive an Oscar and Pres. Obama was destined to win the Nobel Prize just to show that they do control the narrative. But then along come bloggers who help expose the lies and hypocrisy and dare to point out that the emperor has no clothes.
* spent some time at Ariana Huffington's 8,000 square foot home, heard them talk about their private jets and they don't really want to change their lives to help the environment - why don't they use gotomeeting.com? (as I asked in my earlier blog post - great minds....)
* Then came Phlem McAleer and his movie "Not Evil, Just Wrong" to point out all the errors in Gore's film. And adds that it's not about environmentalism - it's about capitalism...
* Compares that film to "Avatar" - the two things you see from the left is a desire to take the United States down a peg (militarily and economically). "Avatar" was anti-military and pro-environmentalism.
* Got a call from handler of James Cameron inviting him to a debate on global warming. Said 'good - we're finally able to engage where we've never been able to engage before.'
* We wanted to put it on film, but Cameron said audio only... Then we realized that they wanted us to back out so they could claim we were chicken ... So the rules continually changed all the way to the point of changing the topic from does the problem exist to what are the solutions?
* Of course, we said how do we discuss particular solutions to a made-up problem? At the last minute, Cameron backed out. And we called him out on it on www.bighollywood.com.
* After the fact, we learned that Rusty Humphries also agreed to do the same thing (debate James Cameron) earlier in the year only to have Cameron cancel that event as well.
* The joke is getting old - we have to take them on and make sure we make it not fun for them to show up to these events and promote their lies.
* Take your cameras and ask a simple question of these delegates: Do you have a message to tell the United States? When they answer, they will degrade our nation, our military and our people and that will expose their lies for what they really are.
Tim Phillips - introducing the UN Global Village (which I'll be blogging about later when my video uploads), and the American pavillion - paid for by your tax dollars.
****To Watch live: http://hotairtourcancun.com/?page_id=178
from the video: we ought to ration the number of UN conferences these people can take on our tax dollars.
* today is the 40th birthday of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
* last year in Copenhagen, the head of the EPA, cheered on by bureaucrats from around the world, said, "even without congressional action, the EPA was going to change the way America works."
* The left has told us where they're going - we need to believe them. They're going to push through the cap-and-trade legislation that you stopped by promoting rules and regulations that accomplish the same thing, despite the opposition of the American people.
* urges everyone to call their representatives and tell them not to let the EPA take over the responsibilities of the duly-elected representatives in Congress.
EXPOSING THE LIES - speakers
Ohioans Gena Bell and Nita Thomas from Cincinnati are part of the activities here in Cancun - they've already done their skype broadcast to conservatives in Cinci.
Tim Phillips is speaking:
* started the Hot Air Tour to highlight how the left and the environmental movement efforts with Cap-and-Trade would lead to less jobs, higher energy prices and less freedom.
* we're winning the war against these draconian measures, thanks to the American people who have spoken loudly about what a bad idea this is.
* we now see that what they've failed to do legislatively, they're going to try to do through regulatory means via unelected bureaucrats in the EPA.
* the other purpose for today's efforts in Cancun is to highlight the hypocrisy of the people who want all of us to give up our luxuries while they don't - everything from big homes to SUVs to private planes and limos.
* the idea of rationing was promoted just before this conference began - showing a short video to emphasize the hypocrisy. While promoting rationing for us, they held a beachside fiesta with no rationing whatsoever.
* we also don't want Americans to forget the disasterous impact these policies will have on us. Mentioning Hillary Clinton's $100 billion transfer of wealth from us to developing nations to help them meet global warming goals.
* It's one thing for me (Tim) to talk about this - it's another to hear from Americans who know the impacts on real people.
Glenn Callas from Hot Springs, Arkansas:
* shocking to see how many Americans don't have a clue about what's going on. People are making decisions that will hurt my business - and you business - to address a cause based on junk science.
* there is a direct cost to us for these environmental policies - gas prices, according to the Congressional Budget Office, could double. If my gas prices go up, my profits go down and, in this economy, that could put me out of business.
* but it's not just the direct costs, the costs of materials (indirect costs) will also go up. Every piece of material has to be shipped and it will cost more to do that.
* and then there's the cost of compliance - forms and rules and regulations - paperwork that we have to complete.
* and that doesn't even get to the cost of failing to comply - the cost of enforcement and the fines if you don't cross your t's and dot your i's the right way.
* we cannot afford this - we need to stand up for freedom and capitalism and for the principles that made our nation great!
Tim Phillips:
* complimenting James Inhofe from Oklahoma - shared a video with us since he couldn't be here personally -
Sen. Jim Inhofe:
* describes himself as the top watchdog against the Obama Administration efforts on global warming regulations.
* emphasizing how the EPA had taken over the push to implement the negative policies that Congress cannot pass.
* He said in Copenhagen last year that, under no circumstances, would cap-and-trade pass in the Senate. I was right...and I couldn't be happier and Al Gore couldn't be more depressed that nothing is expected to come from the meetings here in Cancun.
* Kyoto protocol was "the first step toward creating one world government" ... it's one of the greatest hoaxes every perpetrated on the American people.
* we must continue to be courageous in this fight and in restoring the American Dream and turning around our economy.
Andrew Breitbart: (has book coming out called "Righteous Indignation")
* glad to be part of these 'hysterical shenanigans'
* amazing to see what's happened in the last 2 years - not about the science, but about the narrative. New media has started to fill in the void about what the American people really think.
* main stream media describes the tea-party movement as extreme, even though a vast majority of Americans agree with tea-party issues.
* media paints the majority opinions as 'extreme' and outside the norm...they are controlling the narrative - but that is changing.
* not an expert in global warming. But I don't need to be an expert to know that they are speaking in language intentionally designed to confuse and they're not saying anything worthwhile.
* they use peer reviews to justify each other and denigrate anyone who dares to question and hold them accountable.
* Gore's movie "Inconvenient Truth" was destined to receive an Oscar and Pres. Obama was destined to win the Nobel Prize just to show that they do control the narrative. But then along come bloggers who help expose the lies and hypocrisy and dare to point out that the emperor has no clothes.
* spent some time at Ariana Huffington's 8,000 square foot home, heard them talk about their private jets and they don't really want to change their lives to help the environment - why don't they use gotomeeting.com? (as I asked in my earlier blog post - great minds....)
* Then came Phlem McAleer and his movie "Not Evil, Just Wrong" to point out all the errors in Gore's film. And adds that it's not about environmentalism - it's about capitalism...
* Compares that film to "Avatar" - the two things you see from the left is a desire to take the United States down a peg (militarily and economically). "Avatar" was anti-military and pro-environmentalism.
* Got a call from handler of James Cameron inviting him to a debate on global warming. Said 'good - we're finally able to engage where we've never been able to engage before.'
* We wanted to put it on film, but Cameron said audio only... Then we realized that they wanted us to back out so they could claim we were chicken ... So the rules continually changed all the way to the point of changing the topic from does the problem exist to what are the solutions?
* Of course, we said how do we discuss particular solutions to a made-up problem? At the last minute, Cameron backed out. And we called him out on it on www.bighollywood.com.
* After the fact, we learned that Rusty Humphries also agreed to do the same thing (debate James Cameron) earlier in the year only to have Cameron cancel that event as well.
* The joke is getting old - we have to take them on and make sure we make it not fun for them to show up to these events and promote their lies.
* Take your cameras and ask a simple question of these delegates: Do you have a message to tell the United States? When they answer, they will degrade our nation, our military and our people and that will expose their lies for what they really are.
Tim Phillips - introducing the UN Global Village (which I'll be blogging about later when my video uploads), and the American pavillion - paid for by your tax dollars.
****To Watch live: http://hotairtourcancun.com/?page_id=178
from the video: we ought to ration the number of UN conferences these people can take on our tax dollars.
* today is the 40th birthday of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
* last year in Copenhagen, the head of the EPA, cheered on by bureaucrats from around the world, said, "even without congressional action, the EPA was going to change the way America works."
* The left has told us where they're going - we need to believe them. They're going to push through the cap-and-trade legislation that you stopped by promoting rules and regulations that accomplish the same thing, despite the opposition of the American people.
* urges everyone to call their representatives and tell them not to let the EPA take over the responsibilities of the duly-elected representatives in Congress.
Live from Cancun - AFP Hot Air Tour
apologies for any misspelling ...
INTRODUCTION:
I'm sitting in one of the ballrooms of the CasaMagna Marriott in Cancun as part of Americans for Prosperity's Hot Air Tour highlighting the outrageous costs of implementing the United Nation's recommendations regarding global warming.
Tonight, we'll have Glenn Callas, a businessman and activist from Arkansas, Andrew Breitbart, and Tim Phillips, president of AFP Foundation. They'll all be talking about the negative impacts of the proposals being discussed here in Cancun to address what many are still billing as 'the most serious threat to mankind that exists today.'
If you're a reader of my blog, you already know my opinions on the subject. Tonight I'll be blogging the discussions and highlighting some of the details that help me to come to the conclusion that global warming is so NOT about the temperature of the earth but definitely about controlling our lives and our behavior, along with transferring wealth from people like us in America to, well, everyone else.
In fact, facing massive deficits and fights in Congress over the lack of funds to extend unemployment - again, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recommended that the United States spend $100 billion of our tax dollars to pay for developing countries to cut their own energy emissions in order to stop global warming.
We're about to get started so refresh for the next update.
INTRODUCTION:
I'm sitting in one of the ballrooms of the CasaMagna Marriott in Cancun as part of Americans for Prosperity's Hot Air Tour highlighting the outrageous costs of implementing the United Nation's recommendations regarding global warming.
Tonight, we'll have Glenn Callas, a businessman and activist from Arkansas, Andrew Breitbart, and Tim Phillips, president of AFP Foundation. They'll all be talking about the negative impacts of the proposals being discussed here in Cancun to address what many are still billing as 'the most serious threat to mankind that exists today.'
If you're a reader of my blog, you already know my opinions on the subject. Tonight I'll be blogging the discussions and highlighting some of the details that help me to come to the conclusion that global warming is so NOT about the temperature of the earth but definitely about controlling our lives and our behavior, along with transferring wealth from people like us in America to, well, everyone else.
In fact, facing massive deficits and fights in Congress over the lack of funds to extend unemployment - again, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recommended that the United States spend $100 billion of our tax dollars to pay for developing countries to cut their own energy emissions in order to stop global warming.
We're about to get started so refresh for the next update.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Did you know there was a climate change conference going on?
I'm sitting on my balcony overlooking the hotel pool and the Caribbean Sea answering emails when I come across one from a friend who was surprised to learn there was a UN climate change conference going on. The next email was this article from The Business and Media Institute:
It's a good question. The article details the coverage and the optimism of so many news anchors and show hosts over last year's conference, but notes that nothing is really expected from this one. The article then explains, perhaps, why the media isn't paying too much attention:
We'll see. Tomorrow morning I'll be at the entrance to the conference where I hope to get interviews with attendees and I'll ask them if they've noticed the lack of coverage, too.
Cancun vs. Copenhagen: Have the Media Forgotten About Global Warming?
A Year after broadcast network-hyped U.N. Climate Change Conference in Denmark, same networks don't even mention same event in Mexico.
Crickets chirping
That's the sound you would hear if you were looking for any sort of broadcast media coverage on site at the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference going on now in Cancun. A survey of the broadcast networks over the week leading up to the Cancun event and two days into it shows it hasn't even been mentioned on any of the evening news broadcasts, morning shows or Sunday morning public affairs programming.
However, the same event hosted in Copenhagen in 2009 was all over the radar of the broadcast networks. A similar survey of the same programming leading up to Copenhagen show five reports about the event, with ABC and NBC having reporters on-scene at the conference.
So what happened? Do the media finally getting it about climate change and the United Nations' conference? Or are they just reluctant to cheer-lead alarmism about climate change with a sour economy and lower poll numbers for President Barack Obama?
It's a good question. The article details the coverage and the optimism of so many news anchors and show hosts over last year's conference, but notes that nothing is really expected from this one. The article then explains, perhaps, why the media isn't paying too much attention:
But the most amusing commentary on the Cancun climate summit came on 'Fox News Watch' on Nov. 27. Host Jon Scott referenced 'Red Eye' host Greg Gutfeld's attack on the entire concept of global warming and a psychoanalysis some University of California-Berkley professors offered on alarmism.
"So climate change experts finally got the message and the message is their message reeks," Gutfeld said. "In fact, their scare-the-hell-out-of-us screed was so awful researchers claim that it actually undermined their mission, which I always thought was to scare the hell out of us. But according to Cal Berkeley shrinks, dire predictions about global warming can, quote, 'backfire if presented too negatively,' end quote. Of course, that raises one question, how do you offer dire predictions positively? Hey, we're all going to die, LOL?"
Gutfeld went on to reference other over-hyped 'scares' like the coming ice age, the dangers of nuclear power, artificial sweeteners and DDT. He noted the ad hominem attacks on those pushing back against global warming alarmists but declared these 'shrinks' had it wrong. Global warming isn't an issue the public should be worrying about at all.
"Worse, with global warming, we saw that anyone questioning that hysteria would be labeled a skeptic and treated like a leper,' Gutfeld continued. 'But the ClimateGate scandal proved that inevitably these cocky experts would overstep the science, get humbled, retreat into therapy. Have you seen Gore lately? So now finally shrinks are saying these experts should rethink their messaging. But, no, the shrinks are not telling experts to stop exaggerating consequences, instead, start offering solutions too. Meaning, just assume your lies were right all along and push those curly light bulbs. That ain't going to work either. The jig is up."
We'll see. Tomorrow morning I'll be at the entrance to the conference where I hope to get interviews with attendees and I'll ask them if they've noticed the lack of coverage, too.
What's better for the environment?
I'm on a plane, flying to Cancun to join Americans for Prosperity in their Hot Air Tour during the United Nations conference on climate change. (I love the free internet service Delta is offering through the end of the year!)
As we've learned in various news reports, some of the people at this conference want to impose taxes on some countries - like America - in order to pay other countries. We're supposed to 'pay' for the privilege of using the energy we produce. Who are we supposed to pay? Well, the UN, of course, who will then use our money to pay for their programs.
Now, they say this is all to help the environment because we should be scared to death over their predictions of the temperatures rising a couple of degrees. Personally, having left snow showers and below freezing temps on the first day of December, I really wouldn't mind a couple of extra degrees now and then.
But my wants are certainly not anything the UN concerns itself with - it only cares about the wants of the bureaucrats that run it. And they want control - control of production and manufacturing, control of funds, control over our lives because, as we should know, they're so much more qualified to make decisions for us.
So these bureaucrats and control freaks are gathering in Cancun to 'save the environment' from certain destruction caused by man.
Now, as I'm on a plane flying to Cancun, I suppose some would find it hypocritical of me to condemn others for flying to this conference. However, I'm not one of those who believe that man-made warming is harming the environment. Yes, I do believe in global warming. I also believe in global cooling. Living on the edge of Lake Erie, I'm very familiar with the glacial grooves on our islands and know that at some point in time, this area had to have been cold enough for glaciers to exist here. Common sense also dictates that, since there aren't any glaciers here now, the temperature has clearly warmed.
The earth is a magnificent thing and it has cycles it goes through that cover centuries, so what little impact we may have on the temperature certainly won't make a difference one way or the other. Besides, the temperature was much warmer in the Middle Ages and there was no manufacturing to blame it on, so....
Which leads me to my point. All the people participating in the UN Conference believe man is to blame for the temperatures and they have various proposals and taxes and treaties and rules they want to impose to limit the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yet nearly all of the participants are flying to this event.
So what would be better for the environment: to expend a bunch of carbon to attend in the hopes of coming up with something everyone will agree to in order to limit carbon - or to participate in an electronic format so no one would have to expend the precious carbon they want to regulate?
I believe the latter is better - especially with today's technology.
We've all seen the commercials touting the connectivity provided by the internet. We have distance learning websites that allow students from all over the world to join a class taught by a professor at a university we'd never be able to attend in person. GoToMeeting.com advertises almost non-stop, promoting the ability to hold a meeting with any number of people anywhere.
So why can't the UN use this technology to hold their conference - especially a conference devoted to addressing the 'devastating' impact of carbon dioxide on the environment? If the participants really cared about the environment and reducing their carbon footprints, wouldn't they be demanding the use of such available options?
Well, if they're not hypocritical, they would.
Instead, they're taking a junket to a resort area to discuss how they're going to impose draconian measures on the rest of the world. Correction - on countries like the United States, because, according to too many at the UN, some countries are more equal than others (thanks, George Orwell).
Again, using common sense, I look at the very existence of a conference in Cancun and conclude that it's really not about the environment, so it must be about control. And being the independent, conservative/libertarian, tea-party supporter, personal responsibility person that I am, I'm 'offended'!
Well, actually, I'm much more than that, but 'offense' seems to be the thing that so many seem to care about these days.
Over the next several days, I'll be trying to ascertain just why it is the conferees are really at this meeting. Do they really believe man is to blame for a slight change in the earth's temperature and that developed countries need to pay a tax so that non-developed countries can continue to develop without restrictions? Do they really think that those of us who don't believe man is to blame are akin to heretics for having the temerity to doubt and/or question? Why did they travel if they're so concerned about the amount of carbon in the atmosphere? Would they be willing to participate via internet and would they lead a charge for doing such meetings electronically in the future? Do they really think that laid-off Americans should pay billions (collectively) more for energy just to prevent the temperature from rising a fraction of a degree? Do they believe we need to turn to a World War II type of rationing as one scientist has suggested?
What happens if the scientists are wrong and nothing man does impacts the temperature in any discernible way?
These are the questions I have and I hope some of the attendees won't be afraid to answer these questions - after all, I'm not Phelim McAleer.
As we've learned in various news reports, some of the people at this conference want to impose taxes on some countries - like America - in order to pay other countries. We're supposed to 'pay' for the privilege of using the energy we produce. Who are we supposed to pay? Well, the UN, of course, who will then use our money to pay for their programs.
Now, they say this is all to help the environment because we should be scared to death over their predictions of the temperatures rising a couple of degrees. Personally, having left snow showers and below freezing temps on the first day of December, I really wouldn't mind a couple of extra degrees now and then.
But my wants are certainly not anything the UN concerns itself with - it only cares about the wants of the bureaucrats that run it. And they want control - control of production and manufacturing, control of funds, control over our lives because, as we should know, they're so much more qualified to make decisions for us.
So these bureaucrats and control freaks are gathering in Cancun to 'save the environment' from certain destruction caused by man.
Now, as I'm on a plane flying to Cancun, I suppose some would find it hypocritical of me to condemn others for flying to this conference. However, I'm not one of those who believe that man-made warming is harming the environment. Yes, I do believe in global warming. I also believe in global cooling. Living on the edge of Lake Erie, I'm very familiar with the glacial grooves on our islands and know that at some point in time, this area had to have been cold enough for glaciers to exist here. Common sense also dictates that, since there aren't any glaciers here now, the temperature has clearly warmed.
The earth is a magnificent thing and it has cycles it goes through that cover centuries, so what little impact we may have on the temperature certainly won't make a difference one way or the other. Besides, the temperature was much warmer in the Middle Ages and there was no manufacturing to blame it on, so....
Which leads me to my point. All the people participating in the UN Conference believe man is to blame for the temperatures and they have various proposals and taxes and treaties and rules they want to impose to limit the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yet nearly all of the participants are flying to this event.
So what would be better for the environment: to expend a bunch of carbon to attend in the hopes of coming up with something everyone will agree to in order to limit carbon - or to participate in an electronic format so no one would have to expend the precious carbon they want to regulate?
I believe the latter is better - especially with today's technology.
We've all seen the commercials touting the connectivity provided by the internet. We have distance learning websites that allow students from all over the world to join a class taught by a professor at a university we'd never be able to attend in person. GoToMeeting.com advertises almost non-stop, promoting the ability to hold a meeting with any number of people anywhere.
So why can't the UN use this technology to hold their conference - especially a conference devoted to addressing the 'devastating' impact of carbon dioxide on the environment? If the participants really cared about the environment and reducing their carbon footprints, wouldn't they be demanding the use of such available options?
Well, if they're not hypocritical, they would.
Instead, they're taking a junket to a resort area to discuss how they're going to impose draconian measures on the rest of the world. Correction - on countries like the United States, because, according to too many at the UN, some countries are more equal than others (thanks, George Orwell).
Again, using common sense, I look at the very existence of a conference in Cancun and conclude that it's really not about the environment, so it must be about control. And being the independent, conservative/libertarian, tea-party supporter, personal responsibility person that I am, I'm 'offended'!
Well, actually, I'm much more than that, but 'offense' seems to be the thing that so many seem to care about these days.
Over the next several days, I'll be trying to ascertain just why it is the conferees are really at this meeting. Do they really believe man is to blame for a slight change in the earth's temperature and that developed countries need to pay a tax so that non-developed countries can continue to develop without restrictions? Do they really think that those of us who don't believe man is to blame are akin to heretics for having the temerity to doubt and/or question? Why did they travel if they're so concerned about the amount of carbon in the atmosphere? Would they be willing to participate via internet and would they lead a charge for doing such meetings electronically in the future? Do they really think that laid-off Americans should pay billions (collectively) more for energy just to prevent the temperature from rising a fraction of a degree? Do they believe we need to turn to a World War II type of rationing as one scientist has suggested?
What happens if the scientists are wrong and nothing man does impacts the temperature in any discernible way?
These are the questions I have and I hope some of the attendees won't be afraid to answer these questions - after all, I'm not Phelim McAleer.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Live from Cancun: Bureaucrats gone wild!
Yes, it's a catchy headline invoking thoughts of crazy spring breaks and outrageous behavior. But I believe it's a fitting title for the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 16) taking place in that city today through December 10th.
*** Aside: At least they picked a place where it isn't likely to snow - wonder if they banned Al Gore?
***
And what, exactly, will the bureaucrats be doing in Cancun? Besides lounging on a beach, that is?
Well, they'll be talking about how to curb greenhouse gas emissions; transfer wealth and technology from developed to developing nations; and raise the cost of traditional energy in order to prop up politically popular new sources. At least, that's how Americans For Prosperity and other free-market groups describe it.
I plan to be there to find out. Thanks to a scholarship for travel expenses, I'll be attending COP 16 as well as the AFP Hot Air Tour on Thursday. If you're in the Cincinnati area, you can participate as well - in conjunction with AFP-Ohio and COAST.
Even the introduction to the conference explaining it, makes my eyes swim:
But I'm sure bureaucrats love that sort of thing. As for me, I can't help but think of the scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" where they hold the conversation and decide to hold a meeting to form a committee to examine the options of acting together to form a plan .... to rescue Brian.
Or perhaps the Robin Williams 'acronym' scene from "Good Morning Vietnam" where he says, "Excuse me sir. Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT, because if it leaks to the VC, you could end up an MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP."
Here is a link to the various discussions and the schedule for COP 16.
I'll be blogging from the event beginning Wednesday and will cover AFP's event Thursday evening.
*** Aside: At least they picked a place where it isn't likely to snow - wonder if they banned Al Gore?
***
And what, exactly, will the bureaucrats be doing in Cancun? Besides lounging on a beach, that is?
Well, they'll be talking about how to curb greenhouse gas emissions; transfer wealth and technology from developed to developing nations; and raise the cost of traditional energy in order to prop up politically popular new sources. At least, that's how Americans For Prosperity and other free-market groups describe it.
I plan to be there to find out. Thanks to a scholarship for travel expenses, I'll be attending COP 16 as well as the AFP Hot Air Tour on Thursday. If you're in the Cincinnati area, you can participate as well - in conjunction with AFP-Ohio and COAST.
Even the introduction to the conference explaining it, makes my eyes swim:
The United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Cancun, Mexico, from 29 November to 10 December 2010, encompasses the sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) and the sixth Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP), as well as the thirty-third sessions of both the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), and the fifteenth session of the AWG-KP and thirteenth session of the AWG-LCA.
To discuss future commitments for industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol, the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) established a working group in December 2005 called the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). In Copenhagen, at its fifth session, the CMP requested the AWG-KP to deliver the results of its work for adoption by CMP 6 in Cancun.
But I'm sure bureaucrats love that sort of thing. As for me, I can't help but think of the scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" where they hold the conversation and decide to hold a meeting to form a committee to examine the options of acting together to form a plan .... to rescue Brian.
Or perhaps the Robin Williams 'acronym' scene from "Good Morning Vietnam" where he says, "Excuse me sir. Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT, because if it leaks to the VC, you could end up an MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP."
Here is a link to the various discussions and the schedule for COP 16.
I'll be blogging from the event beginning Wednesday and will cover AFP's event Thursday evening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
