Google translate version of same in French from Belgotopia
After its cancellation in Chile following the current turmoil in this country, COP 25, the annual high mass on climate, will be held in Madrid from 2 December. As every year, it will bring together tens of thousands of participants, most of whom are transported, housed and fed at taxpayers’ expense.
The 25 th “United Nations Conference on Climate Change” is a further step towards the objective longstanding but increasingly affirmed UN: impose a world government term.
A key instrument in this agenda, the climate debate has for a considerable number of years, left the scientific field for the ideological, political and financial fields. He has become the object of all excesses and amalgam, imposing a single point of view on the question, and muzzling all contestation or draft debate. It justifies a profound change in the industrial and economic policy of the so-called developed countries, in practice only European countries, pending the return of the US from the outset of Trump. Some of the leaders of countries receiving compensation for so-called climate disruptions – including China and India – are likely to be confirmed by a generous distribution of funds supplied by taxpayers from so-called “rich” countries.
All circles interested in climate issues will be present,
First of all, part of the scientific world. Today it is necessary to involve anthropogenic global warming, even anecdotally, in any study to see the financial windfall of subsidies. In just a few years, the annual global budget for climate science has grown from $ 170 million to several billion dollars.
The political world has found in the subject a good way to collect votes, and today everyone wants to look greener than green. The implementation of such a policy also allows the creation of a growing multitude of so-called “ecological” taxes and constraints, affirmed or disguised, benefiting in addition to the unexpected approval of a part of the population that we have persuaded that by this means, we will save the planet.
The industrial world is engulfed in the juicy new market, by the premature marketing of so-called “renewable” energies such as wind or photovoltaic. This placing on the market was facilitated by incentives, bonuses, green certificates, network improvements and various tax refunds supported by all taxpayers, financial incentives also essential to impose the emergence of electric vehicles. This is the triumph of what is called “connivance capitalism”.
The financial world also benefits greatly from the system put in place, through investments in companies, banks or so-called “ecological and responsible” funds.
Let us not forget also a constellation of NGOs engaged in eco-responsible citizen actions; and, of course, the powerful ideological and political lobbies who are obsessed with the unconditional support of all for their own purposes.
“Emerging” countries, meanwhile, are impatient to see the annual sum of $ 100 billion promised to them at the Copenhagen conference. A commitment that they intend to remind us imperiously on this occasion.
This convergence of interests has taken on such a global dimension that any backtracking has become extremely difficult, because it would put into play the very credibility of the main pillars of our societies: the political, the humanitarian and the industrialist.
And recently, the religious world joined the movement by the voice of the Pope. (3)
As every year, I come out this ticket barely cleaned according to the new COP 25 …
The aim each time affirmed is to impose imperative restrictive norms on (mainly European) states which would still doubt the existence of a climatic thermostat, with the help of which the man would regulate at will the global temperature. All this is supported by more and more apocalyptic media interventions as the opening date approaches. In fact, almost every day, we are bathed in catastrophic climatic or environmental events, immediately cataloged as consequences of global warming. Currently, we have California fires, and any new disaster within days of the opening of the conference would be welcome.
Because it will be, no doubt, our new last chance to “save the planet”. (1)
All this beautiful world prefers to hide a fact now established: global warming has slowed considerably, if not capped for a long time since 1998, while human emissions of CO2 would cease, it is said, to increase, denying all climate models who did not foresee this embarrassing phenomenon, among other realities just as disconcerting and just as unnoticed elsewhere.
In the note below, Viv Forbes is concerned that Australia alone has sent a team of 114 people – including his Prime Minister – to the Copenhagen Conference. What about the Belgians, whose delegation in Copenhagen had 120 people, in Cancun, 108 participants, the other conferences to match.
A sumptuous “Magical Climatic Tour” !
The Rio +20 conference in 2012 alone brought together 50,000 participants, including more than 100 heads of state. In Marrakech for COP 22 in 2016, 30,000 participants were expected. At COP 23 in Bonn, there were plethoric African delegations; Côte d’Ivoire alone had 492 participants. In Madrid, 25,000 participants are expected, but we bet they will be more numerous …
In recent years in the world, millions of people have died in armed conflicts, others in famines or lack of clean water, and even in our countries citizens are dying of cold because they can not afford to heat or even shelter, while millions of people are parceled in refugee camps, or have taken the dangerous path of a Europe which counts the tenths of degrees which, it seems, threaten the existence even of its populations.
Nobody died because of global warming. An overall warming of 0.4 to 0.7 ° C depending on the sources -sept tenths of a degree- throughout the twentieth century, remember.
So, where are the priorities, and is it wise that taxpayers continue to directly or indirectly fund the annual stays of our (ir) leaders in more tourist than scientific stays, so that they show their presence in cyclical conclaves which also lead to so many failures? It would also be fun to calculate the “ecological footprint” of these gigantic conventions designed to reboost climate catastrophism.
For what were the consequences on the climate of the previous 24 climate conferences?
But the vast majority of my readers are aware of what has just been said. And that’s the problem: we go around in circles in a small circle of convinced . And yet, each of us can extend the debate by intervening in the comments of the media, in social networks, within his private or professional circle etc …
Challenging the conclusions of climate conferences, combating “one-size-fits-all thinking” and restoring an exchange of ideas on these issues that engage the future of our society is paramount and concerns all of us.
Here are the significant parts of the ticket published by Viv Forbes in 2014 in the WUWT site of Anthony Watts (2) (home translation)
Twenty-two years ago, a group of green activists calling themselves “The Earth Summit” gathered in Rio and invented a way to visit the world at the expense of taxpayers: to initiate endless conferences on alarms threatening the environment.
(…) But they discovered the juiciest of the veins with their creation called “Global Warming”, and its sub-branches “Climate Change” and “Extreme Weather Phenomena”.
These “noble causes” have generated a profusion of steering committees, reference committees, policy committees, scientific subgroups, working committees, evaluators and leading agencies, and have generated meetings with 20,000 participants. countries in places such as Rio, Berlin, Geneva, Kyoto, Buenos Aires, Bonn, The Hague, Marrakech, New Delhi, Milan, Montreal, Nairobi, Bali, Poznan, Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, Qatar, Doha, Warsaw, Stockholm , Lima, Abu Dhabi and New York.
The Climate Conferences circuit has become a real boon for airlines, hotels and fine restaurants, even more so than the Olympics or the G20.
Taxpayers around the world have spent the last 21 years spending unnecessary money, which would have been much better spent on flood control infrastructure, drinking water supply for drought-endemic populations, and pollution control. .