Obama Ready to Trade Away American Industry

The "economic and social consequences" will primarily be against Annex I parties, of which the U.S. is the biggest

"A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body." FOX

According to this document, which I am reading at http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032709_informationnote.pdf , its effects are "to limit the scope" under the supervision of the world body as it "7.(a) Considers only those tools, policies and measures that might be taken by Annex I parties for the purpose of effectively addressing climate change;"

Why is this paragraph of vital importance? Because the United States is one of the Annex I Parties. [see list of all parties. http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/annex_i/items/2774.php]

On the other hand, who are those "tools, policies and measures" intended to benefit? 7 (c) says they "Focus primarily, but not exclusively, on those consequences that affect non-Annex Parties."

What does this mean? It means what Fox says it mean in the first paragraph above, and that "that industrialized countries will likely have to [ ] implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an 'effective framework' for dealing with global warming."

In its evasive, double-speak/non-speak method of covering up what it really means, the document says in paragraph 13 that the plan "calls for enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change, including the consideration of economic and social consequences of response measures."

"Enhanced action" means what---that there is already action that is not satisfactory to the non-Annex I parties? And since the document already says it is focused primarily on those non-Annex I parties, the "consideration of economic and social consequences" will primarily be against Annex I parties.

This is in accord with President Obama's "cap and trade" efforts at controlling carbon emissions. The administration is ready to go into this European summit willing and able to sign an accord that by some accounts will hurt the U.S. worse than the Kyoto treaty would have.

On the plus side for free-market advocates and advocates of individual sovereignty, there is this headline: "More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6

More on this next week, after I have had time to read the document further, and read other reviews. The non-committalistic language could mean anything the U.N. negotiators want it to mean. That is why is so vague. But by the time of the signing in December, it won't be vague at all.

Or, quite possibly it will remain vague so that the "world body" can do as it pleases with the redistribution of the wealth of the world and the means of production. That is its ultimate goal.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the ^sm of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^tm,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and

The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,

are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ^tm
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

Warming Down, or Chilling Up?

Do we need to increase our footprints and warm up globally, to prevent record cold temps from arriving even faster?

Twenty years ago today, James E. Hansen testified before the Senate Energy Committee — in a room kept intentionally warm by committee staff — that the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests was already perceptibly influencing Earth’s climate.

Then, as now, Dr. Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was pushing beyond what many of his colleagues in climatology were willing to say — at least publicly.

His critics show few signs of ever accommodating the ideas he now presses, which include a prompt moratorium on new coal-burning power plants until they can capture and store carbon dioxide and a rising tax on fuels contributing greenhouse-gas emissions, with the revenue passed back directly to citizens, avoiding the complexities of “cap and trade” bills. Andrew C. Revkin NYTimes Science

Climate realists around the world have contended for years that the real goal of alarmists such as Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his followers is to use the fear of man-made global warming to redistribute wealth.

On Monday, one of Gore's leading scientific resources, Goddard Institute for Space Studies chief James Hansen, sent a letter to Barack and Michelle Obama specifically urging the president-elect to enact a tax on carbon emissions that would take money from higher-income Americans and distribute the proceeds to the less fortunate. Noel Sheppard (Bio) NewsBusters

The "inconvenient truth" Al Gore wanted us to believe, which some people still believe, in spite of the mounting evidence of record low temps, and in spite of science that says those carbons and other pollutants in the atmosphere are keeping out the sun rather than trapping it inside, must be his worst nightmare: the hell he predicted is not going to burn us after all. It may freeze some of us. We may be in a minor ice age even as you read this.

"Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age," says the website Winningreen. "What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended."

This is a map of the "Ocean thermohaline conveyor system that transports warm, salty waters into the North Atlantic, tempering the climate of Northern Europe. If the conveyor should collapse on its return loop near Greenland and Iceland, Britain's climate could resemble Labrador." The next paragraph shows how that might happen.

"Now that the 1998 El Nino is disappearing off the 10 year scale, things are looking a bit different," says the website Alex Jones' Prison Planet. "Annual North American temperature since 1998 (11 years of data) is falling over the period at a rate of 0.78(F)/decade or 7.8(F)per century. At this rate we will be in an ice age within 5 decades." [emphasis added]

Both sides say the sky is falling. How can both sides be right? "[S]cientists and officials involved in the intensifying international debate on how to deal with global warming say it has taken the United States far too long to put the issue front and center..." But which side is the "issue"? As President Obama put it in his innaugation speech, "science will be restored to its right place" and will be evidence-supported.

Who is to determine which side has the backing of the evidence since it seems to be politically "correct" for the left to claim we are undergoing "global warming", yet other evidence which is not compiled by politically correct scientists says North America is cooling fast enough to put us into the next ice before I die.

If we follow the politics of Al Gore and James Hansen, we risk, if they are wrong, bringing on the next ice age even sooner. This current winter season and the season of '07-'08 set records for low temperatures and snowfall.

What if the act of increasing our carbon footprints staves off the ice age until we can put scientific evidence that is not contradictory to proper use?

China, which has increased its footprint 1000 fold over the last decade has record winters. The U.S. which has reduced slightly its own footprint, has also had record winters, and the average annual temperatures here have been measured as dropping. So do we need to decrease our footprints and warm up globally, or increase our footprints to prevent those record cold temps from coming even faster?

Or, are the choices actually to do the contrary of one of those actions: decrease our footprints and chill down (since the left claims we are warming); or increase our footprints to chill down since the other scientists claim the carbons are keeping the heat out?

"Evidence driven" scientific policies are not made in a vacuum. The policies are specifically metaphysical in nature. And metaphysical policies of the government are political. Whoever wins this "evidence driven" policy debate will probably never know which side is correct.

If we are actually experiencing global warming while at the same time experiencing the onset of the next ice age, everything we do to prevent warming will cause us to freeze that much faster.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/