Political Hypocrisy Demonstrated through Climate Change

I just watched this video here and I wanted to point out the “hysteria” language being used to “sell” the idea that climate change is a threat.

Note at around 0:50 the UN Climate Chief, Christiana Figueres, says that there is “more risk” in not doing anything rather “than doing something.”  There is the hysteria and crisis.  However, I am sure that her definition of risk has to do with the impact on the planet rather than the impact that trapping carbon will impact those who are going to have to pay for it—rich humans, i.e., the United States and the Western “developed” countries while developing nations, including China and India, are still going to be exempt from “stopping” what they are most responsible for “causing.”

Developed countries are going to be charged $100 BILLION dollars to help developing countries “adapt” to climate change by 2020.

Note the hypocrisy here:  The whole point of the hysteria of climate change is to enact more government and erode more liberty on faulty science to STOP climate change.  If we are going to stop climate change, why do we have to pay developing countries to adopt to it?  Thus, here in one speech, in about twenty-one seconds, the UN Climate Chief exposes the illogical nature of the argument of climate change.  It is not about the climate.  It is global hysterics centered on a global redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots.

Further, the implementation of all the climate change plans would only lower the projected warming by 1 – 3.3 degrees Celsius (deg C) NOT stop it completely.  But lets look at these actual numbers.  Figueres says that warming is projected to increase without climate change restrictions to be from 4 – 6 deg C.  With the climate change restrictions she says the earth “could” only warm 2.7 – 3 deg C.  She seems more confident on the 4 deg C than she does on the 6 deg C.  But lets take the 6 deg C rise without restrictions and the 2.7 deg C with them.  That gives a net change of 3.3 deg C.  In looking at this page, we see that the temperature increase actually starts before the increase in CO2-levels in the atmosphere.  More description of this phenomenon can be found here.

But these same articles and charts show that around 18,000 years ago the Earth was around 9-10 deg C COLDER than present time and that for probably 800 years prior to today the Earth’s temperature has been statistically stable!

Thanks to the excellent analysis by geocraft.com and co2science.org for presenting facts in the debate.

Kennedy’s UN Speech in 1961

In writing for my post on The Sword of Damocles, I noted that the first reference of the sword of Damocles was made by President Kennedy at a UN speech in 1961 in reference to nuclear weapons. However, I noticed that it is possible Kennedy is using extortion to push for the elimination of nuclear weapons.  Let’s look.

Speech before the United Nations (UN)

His purpose in the speech is two-fold. First, he wants to pay tribute to the deceased Secretary General of the UN, Dag Hammarskjold, and stop calls for the creation of a triumvirate leadership by the Soviet Union.  Since the inception of the United Nations, the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China hold permanent veto on the UN Security Council (UNSC).  Any one veto is enough to stop the proposals of the UNSC.  The Soviet Union was utilizing this with great effect to keep U.S.-led proposals on Berlin, nuclear testing and other issues from moving forward.  To further solidify their success in the UNSC, the Soviet Union had been pushing to reorganize the Secretariat to provide the Soviet Union a veto on the UN Secretariat by requiring unanimous consent amongst three equal leaders–the triumvirate.  This would keep any unfavored action from proceeding inside the UN.  Kennedy appeals to the body that this would stop the peace the UN has worked on creating and is thus his reference

But to give this organization three drivers-to permit each great power to decide its own case, would entrench the Cold War in the headquarters of peace.

Second, he desires to move forward on a nuclear testing ban, specifically one that would ban all nuclear testing, but is also taking the moral high-ground in proposing an all out atmospheric testing ban known as the Limited Test Ban Treaty.  This is one measure that the Soviet Union has been blocking within the UNSC.  To accomplish these goals, Kennedy is appealing to the UN through the fear of nuclear annihilation and ineffectiveness to resist the change proposed by the Soviet Union and to eliminate the weapons of war which hold the world in fear.  This extortion is not all bad because it demonstrates something the U.S. made clear during the early days of the Cold War—the moral high-ground of the United States.  Kennedy is using the moral capital of the U.S. in contrast to the Soviet Union to push forward and eliminate nuclear weapons.

Is this extortion?

As I have shown in previous posts extortion is using threats to get someone to do something that they would not normally do.  I don’t think that Kennedy’s speech qualifies here.  He is appealing to reason regarding the destructive power of nuclear weapons and wanting to build trust to prevent force instead of relying on mutual assured destruction.  Ironically this mutual assured destruction provided Kennedy great latitude during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the nuclear triad allowed flexible negotiations with the Soviet Union without sacrificing capability; something the Soviets could not say the same.

So, while Kennedy’s speech here is appealing to the horror of nuclear war and destruction to accomplish his goals of extending the moral capital of the U.S., he isn’t extorting the population or the UN because achieving a world free of nuclear weapons is something anyone would do.  However, today as then it still is not probable.