"Ad Hoc Working Group"
- Ny skremmende klimamaktbase planlegges
Av vårt forummedlem Telehiv - diskuter her
Det skremmende nye maktdokumentet har full betegnelse som:
"Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention -
Update of the amalgamation of draft texts in preparation of a comprehensive and
balanced outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at
its seventeenth session: note by the Chair."
Dette dokumentet (på 138 sider) som maktbakspillerne nå jobber med og som altså er laget
for å presenteres for den syttende sesjon, er åpenbart det nye sentrale verktøyet for å komme
opp med en alternativ maktbase til det raskt fallerende IPCC-apparatet, nå ytterligere
dokumentert med Durban-fadesen.
Dokumentet er så grovt manipulerende med alle eksisterende og demokratisk intenderte
overnasjonale styringsorganer at det krever en nærmere gjennomgang: Det er nå
maktpåliggende for alle kritiske og demokratisk fokuserte observatører å kunne se i tide hva
som nå planlegges for å opprettholde et forlenget klimaregime med klare trekk inn mot den
samlede kodeks for ny global ressursstyring.
CFACT og Christopher Monckton synes å være de første som har sett bl.a. det folkerettslig
problematiske og andre overkjøringsstrategier og har jo allerede opponert på stedet i Durban
med ulike aksjoner, og Monckton har nå lagt ut artikkelen "Durban: what the media are not
telling you", der han tar for seg sentrale elementer i dette dokumentet. For letthets skyld tar
jeg utgangspunkt i hans emnevalg og kommenterer derfra.
durban-what-the-media-are-not-telling-you
Hovedelementer i dokumentet som bør observeres
1. Et nytt "International Climate Court" som skal drive inn betalinger fra de vestlige landene
(for overføring til den tredje verden) innenfor konstruksjonen "klimagjeld" (climate debt).
2. Et nytt folkerettslig prinsipp introduseres: "Rights of Mother Earth", som innebærer "The
recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity
and nature". Videre, "there will be no commodification (forøvrig et ord selv ikke engelsktalende
forstår) of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that
purpose".
3. Slagordet "Right to survive" introduseres: Dokumentet sier at "The rights of some Parties
to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise."
At det ikke foreligger troverdige data som viser verken uvanlig temperaturøkning eller
havstigning er åpenbart ikke noe hinder..
4. Klimaklanen vil med dette dokumentet ikke bare beslutte at de kan styre verdens klima,
men også beslutte å avskaffe krig: "War and the maintenance of defence forces and
equipment are to cease" - fordi de bidrar til klimaendringer. Panalet tar ikke opp andre
årsaker til at krig bør slutte.
5. Det skal settes et nytt globalt temperaturmål: man vil nå sette en limit på "global warming"
til så lite som 1 C° over preindustrielt nivå (hva nå man har besluttet det var). Monckton
kommenterer på dette punktet med at "Since temperature is already 3 C° above those levels,
what is in effect being proposed is a 2 C° cut in today's temperatures. This would take us
halfway back towards the last Ice Age, and would kill hundreds of millions."
6. Det nye CO2-utslippsmålet (NB: for vestlige land) vil bli "a reduction of up to 50% in
emissions over the next eight years" og "more than 100%" (ja, det står slik i teksten!) by
2050". Monckton kommenterer: "So, no motor cars, no coal-fired or gas-fired power stations,
no aircraft, no trains. Back to the Stone Age, but without even the right to light a
carbon-emitting fire in your caves. Windmills, solar panels and other "renewables" are the
only alternatives suggested in the draft."
Moncktons siste kommentar er viktig å notere seg: "There is no mention of the
immediate and rapid expansion of nuclear power worldwide to prevent near-total
economic destruction.". Noen som kan huske at folk har nevnt før (jeg ble erklært
konspiratorisk amatør for dette på forskning.no, bl.a.), at atomlobbyen kan ha sterke motiver
for å henge seg på klimasaken?
7. Det nye CO2-innholdsmålet ser ut til å kunne bli så lavt som "300 ppmv CO2 equivalent"
(inkludert alle andre drivhusgasser i tillegg til CO2), dvs. en nesten halvering av dagens 560
ppmv CO2 equivalent. Monckton kommenterer at dette da "implies just 210 ppmv of CO2
itself, with 90 ppmv CO2 equivalent from other greenhouse gases. But at 210 ppmv, plants
and trees begin to die. CO2 is plant food. They need a lot more of it than 210 ppmv."
8. Drivhusgassnivået for 2011 utpekes som høyeste aksepterte (NB: Men igjen; bare for
Vesten!). Herfra må utslippene kuttes. Der foreligger ingen økonomiske
konsekvensvurderinger for dette.
9. Dokumentet skisserer gjennomgående hvordan Vesten skal betale for alt, grunnet dens
"historical responsibility for causing global warming". Den Tredje verden skal ikke betale noe.
Men merk: Det er FN og ikke landene i den tredje verden som skal motta pengene fra de
vestlige landene.
Planen sier heller ikke noe sted at FN må avlegge regnskaper for hvordan de hvert år skal
bruke de 100 mrd. dollar som skal inndrives fra de vestlige landene bare på dette.
"International Climate Court of Justice":
Et nytt maktsenter vi skal få kjenne på kroppen framover?
Denne "domsstolen" skal iht. planen etableres neste år (merk dere det!!) "to guarantee the
compliance of Annex I Parties with all the provisions of this decision, which are essential
elements in the obtaining of the global goal".
NB: Igjen, denne domstolen er bare innrettet mot vestlige land, land fra den tredje verden kan
ikke trekkes inn i denne retten. Motivet er åpenbart å sikre at man har gjennomdrivingskraft
for innbetalinger fra de rike landene.
Monckton har forøvrig noen interessante utsagn om "The temperature target" i dokumentet:
"At Copenhagen and Cancun, the states parties to the Convention arrogated to themselves
the power - previously safe in the hands of Divine Providence - to alter the weather in such a
way as to prevent global mean surface temperature from rising by more than 2 C° above the
"pre-industrial" level. They did not even say what they meant by "pre-industrial". From
1695-1745 temperatures in central England, quite a good proxy for global temperatures, rose
by 2.2 C°, with about another 0.8 C° since then, making 3 C° in all. The previous temperature
target, therefore, was already absurd. Yet the new, improved, madder target is to keep global
temperatures either "1 C°" or "well below 1.5 C°" above "pre-industrial levels" - i.e., well below
half of the temperature increase that has already occurred since the pre-industrial era. The
twittering states parties are committing themselves, in effect, to reducing today's global
temperatures by getting on for 2 C°. This is madness. Throughout pre-history, the governing
class - Druids or Pharaohs or Mayans or Incas - thought they could replace their Creator and
command the weather. They couldn't. No more can we. But try telling that to the
strait-jacketed ninnies of today's governing "elite". Speech after speech at the plenary
sessions of the Durban conference has drivelled on about how We Are The People Who At
This Historic Juncture Are Willing And Able To Undertake The Noble Purpose Of Saving The
Planet From Thermageddon and Saving You From Yourselves [entirely at your prodigious
expense, natch]."
Om "The emissions-reduction targets" er Monckton like krass, ikke minst om det absurde
skillet mellom kravene til vestlige/rike versus andre land:
"The new target proposed by the staring-eyed global-village idiots will be a reduction of
50-85% of global greenhouse-gas emissions from 1990 levels (i.e. by 65-100% of today's
levels) by 2050, with emissions falling still further thereafter. The West should cut its
emissions by 30-50% from 1990 levels (i.e. by 40-65% of today's levels) in just eight years,
and by more than 95% (i.e. more than 100%) by 2050. Alternatively (for there are many
alternatives in the text, indicating that agreement among the inmates in the Durban asylum is
a long way off), the West must cut its emissions "more than 50%" in just five years, and
"more than 100%" by 2050. The words "more than 100%" actually appear in the draft. The
Third World, however, need cut its emissions only by 15-30% over the next eight years,
provided - of course - that the West fully reimburses it for the cost."
Og når det gjelder "The greenhouse-gas reduction target" mener Monckton at den rene
biologiske galskap utøves:
"Greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere "should stabilize well below 300-450 ppm
CO2 equivalent". This target, like the temperature target, is plain daft. CO2 concentration is
currently at 392 ppmv, and the IPCC increases this by 43% to allow for other greenhouse
gases. Accordingly, today's CO2-equivalent concentration of greenhouse gases is 560 ppmv,
and the current lunacy is to cut this perhaps by very nearly half, reducing the CO2 component
to just 210 ppmv, at which point trees and plants become starved of CO2, which is their food,
and start to die."
Planen for inndekning - fiskalregimet bak makten
Monckton skriver:
"Who pays? Oh, you guessed it before I told you. The West pays. The third world (UN code:
"non-Annex-I parties") thinks it will collect, so it will always vote for the UN's insane
proposals. But the UN's bureaucrats will actually get all or nearly all the money, and will
decide how to allocate what minuscule fraction they have not already spent on themselves.
As a senior UN diplomat told me last year, "The UN exists for only one purpose: to get more
money. That, and that alone, is the reason why it takes such an interest in climate change."
The draft says: "Developed-country Parties shall provide developing-country Parties with new
and additional finance, inter alia through a percentage of the gross domestic product of
developed-country Parties." And, of course, "The extent of participation by non-Annex-I
parties in the global effort to deal with climate change is directly dependent on the level of
support provided by developed-country Parties."
The get-out clause:
Hvordan skal noen rike men uvillige land bli positive til ny maktplan?
Jo, ved å få lov å komme seg ut av den nye pengeklemmen!
Monckton kommenterer dette slik:
"One or two Western countries - Canada and Japan, for instance - have begun to come off
the Kool-Aid. They have worked out what scientifically-baseless nonsense the climate scam
is and have said they are not really playing any more. To try to keep these and the growing
number of nations who want out of "the process" bankrolling the ever-more-lavish UN, an
ingenious escape clause has been crafted: "The scale of financial flows to non-Annex-I
parties shall be based on the assessments of their needs to deal with climate change."
Since climate is not going to change measurably as a result of Man's emissions, any honest
assessment of the needs of third-world countries "to deal with climate change" is that they
don't need any money at all for this purpose and shouldn't get a single red cent. The UN is
now the biggest obstacle to the eradication of poverty worldwide, because its pampered
functionaries divert so much cash to themselves, to an ever-expanding alphabet-soup of
bureaucracies, and then to heroically lunatic projects like "global warming" control. Time to
abolish it."
World government:
Alle konspirasjoners mor blir mer og mer sannhet!
Monckton:
"The Copenhagen Treaty draft establishing a world "government" with unlimited powers of
taxation and intervention in the affairs of states parties to the UN Framework Convention
fortunately failed. Yet at the Cancun climate conference the following year 1000 new
bureaucracies were established to form the nucleus of a world government, with central
control in the hands of the Convention's secretariat and tentacles in every region and nation.
The draft "agrees that common principles, modalities and procedures as well as the
coordinating and oversight functions of the UNFCCC are needed" - in short, global
centralization of political, economic and environmental power in the manicured hands of the
Convention's near-invisible but all-powerful secretariat. No provision is made for the
democratic election of key members of the all-powerful secretariat - in effect, a world
government - by the peoples of our planet."
Reporting to the world government:
Styring med den nye maktbasen
Monckton:
"From 2013/14, the world government will oblige Western nations to prepare reports and
submit them to it every two years. The format of these reports is specified in obsessive detail
over several pages of the draft. The reports will describe the extent of their compliance with
the mitigation targets imposed by the various treaties and agreements. The West will be
obliged to to continue reporting "greenhouse-gas emission inventories", for which "common
reporting formats and methodologies for the calculation of emission, established at the
international level, are essential". Separately, Western nations will now be required to provide
information on the financial support they have pledged to assist third-world countries in
mitigating greenhouse-gas emissions and adapting to "the adverse effects of climate
change". The world government also expects to receive reports from Western nations on their
financial contributions to the Global Environment Facility, the Least Developed Countries'
Trust Fund, the Special Climate Change Fund, the Adaptation Fund, the Green Climate Fund
and the Trust Fund for Supplementary Activities". Western nations must also provide
information on the steps taken to promote technology development and transfer to third-world
countries, and on how they have provided "capacity-building support" to third-world countries,
and on numerous other matters. The inexorable increase in compulsory reporting was one of
the mechanisms by which the unelected Kommissars of the anti-democratic European Union
acquired absolute power over the member states. EU advisors have been helping the UN to
learn how to use similar techniques to centralize global power just as anti-democratically in
its own hands."
Kontroll med klimapengebingen:
"The Standing Committee on Finance" fikser det!
Monckton:
"One of the 1000 bureaucracies established at Cancun is the Standing Committee on
Finance, which the draft says will have the power of "mobilizing financial resources" through
flows of public and private finance, "mobilizing additional funding", and requiring and verifying
the reporting of finance provided to third-world Parties by the Western nations through a new
Financial Support Registry. Finance for third-world countries is to be scaled up "significantly",
and Western countries will be obliged to provide "a clear work-plan on their pledged
assessed contributions" from 2012-2020 "for approval by the Conference of the Parties".
Taxpayers will be compelled to provide the major source of funding through public
expenditure."
Den som ikke betaler sitt innskudd
... dette skal kontrolleres av The Green Climate Fund
Monckton:
Western nations are urged to "commit to the initial capitalization of the Green Climate Fund
without delay", to include "the full running costs" and "the funding required for the formation
and operating costs of the board and secretariat of the Green Climate Fund". Here, as
always, the UN bureaucrats want their own pay, perks, pensions and organizational structure
guaranteed before any money goes to third-world countries.
Den gode, gamle røverhandelen skal revitaliseres til nye makthøyder:
Worldwide cap-and-trade
Monckton:
"The draft establishes a "new market-based approach/mechanism ... to promote the
reduction or avoidance of greenhouse-gas emissions" - once again for Western countries
only. Also, "Ambitious, legally-binding emission reduction targets for developed-country
Parties ... are essential to drive a global carbon market". What this means, in the plain
English that is almost entirely absent from the 138-page draft, is worldwide compulsory
cap-and-trade, centrally imposed and regulated, imposed on Western countries only."
Skips- og flydrivstoff skal inkluderes i fiskalregimet
Monckton:
"Shipping and aviation fuels were previously excluded from the scope of the Convention and
are now to be included. International shipping and aviation are described as "a source of
financial resources for climate change actions". More money for UN bureaucrats."
Jeg er også bekymret for balansen i verdenshandelen, da nervøsitet i transportsektoren trolig
svekker handelsbalansen for de fattigste landene - stikk imot de idealistiske klimarøsters
påstander.
En ny og stadig større levevei for klimabyråkratiprodusenter åpnes
opp
Monckton:
"The new bureaucracies: As though the 1000 bureaucracies created at Cancun were not
enough, another bureaucracy is to be created "to oversee, monitor and ensure overall
implementation of capacity-building activities consistent with the provisions of the
Convention". There will also be a new "International Climate Court of Justice" (see above). A
"Financial Support Registry" is also to be set up."
HAR NOEN HUSKET VITENSKAPEN OPP I DETTE?!?!
Nei, dessverre, det er etter hvert få ting som tyder på at det nye klimamaktregimet fremdeles
gidder å henvise til vitenskap i det hele tatt. Man ønsker åpenbart å legge bak seg IPCCs
verste blemmer ved å slutte å snakke forskning (der man bare dummer seg ut uansett, siden
basisargumentene er gale) og heller holde seg til ren maktutøvelse nå når den institusjonelle
maktbasen er så solid fundamentert (hvem kan da gjøre noe med at vitenskapen bak er feil,
forfalsket, tendensiøs og pill råtten?).
Som Moncktons gjennomlesing indikerer, at: "the science is at last to be reviewed in a
manner that appears independent of the discredited IPCC. However, no details of the method
of review are provided, and other parts of the schizophrenic draft say we must defer to the
science put forward not by the peer-reviewed learned journals but by a political body whose
reports are not peer-reviewed in the usual sense."
Overordnet mål: Klimaaktbasen skal sementeres med en
"Legally-binding treaty"
Monckton har liten tro på at dette kan sikres på demokratisk vis:
"According to the draft, the aim is to create a "legally-binding instrument/outcome". This is
UN code for an international Treaty. The US will sign no such treaty. Nor will Canada, Japan,
France, India and many other countries. On the basis of drafts as in-your-face idiotic as this,
no legally-binding climate treaty will ever be signed: which is just as well, because no such
treaty is necessary."
Det store spørsmålet er derfor: Vi vet de satser på å få til bindende lovgivning
uansett - hvilke institusjonelle utspill vil vi snart få se fra denne globale klanen?
Dette blir mer og mer kritisk for dem dess mer Durban-modellen rakner.
Tillegg til artikkelen (finnes som original HER):
I min artikkel [ovenfor] om de nye strategiene man tumler med i det såkalte ad-hoc
dokumentet viste jeg bl.a. til at man planla en kjempeforretning rundt en verdensomfattende
cap-and-trade, og kalte mitt avsnitt om dette for:
Den gode, gamle røverhandelen skal revitaliseres til nye makthøyder: Worldwide
cap-and-trade:
der jeg siterte Monckton:
"The draft establishes a “new market-based approach/mechanism ... to promote the
reduction or avoidance of greenhouse-gas emissions” – once again for Western countries
only. Also, “Ambitious, legally-binding emission reduction targets for developed-country
Parties ... are essential to drive a global carbon market”. What this means, in the plain
English that is almost entirely absent from the 138-page draft, is worldwide compulsory
cap-and-trade, centrally imposed and regulated, imposed on Western countries only."
Jeg avsluttet artikkelen med å spørre:
"....hvilke (andre) institusjonelle utspill vil vi snart få se fra denne globale klanen?
Dette blir mer og mer kritisk for dem dess mer Durban-modellen rakner."
Nå har vi fått svaret, og det er rimelig grotesk:
1. Når vitenskapen rakner fortsetter man på det allerede vellykkede retoriske løpet med å
anklage oss alle for å ruinere framtiden for våre barn (skyldfølelsestricket med avlat som
medisin), enker og faderløse (fattigdomsargumentet; vi ruinerer verdens fattige med klimaet
vårt), og utrydde de fleste av klodens arter (biodiversity-skremslene).
2. Det gjenstående "trick" var åpenbart og måtte komme, det ser jeg nå: Jamføring av
klimaskatt med krigsutgifter.
Draftet FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/CRP.39 av 9. desember 2011 innebærer at FN krever kontroll
med over 1.6 billiard dollar pr. år! (mener at det engelske "trillion" er "billiard" på norsk?
Uansett, i amerikansk-engelsk tilsvarer trillion 10 opphøyd i tolvte, det vil si et ettall etterfulgt
av 12 nuller.)
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf
I kap. 47 kan vi lese oss til at dette faktisk forsøkes:
47. The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country
Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence,
security, and warfare. Fifty per cent of that amount shall be for adaptation, 20 per cent for
mitigation, 15 per cent for technology development and transfer and 15 per cent for
forest-related actions in developing country Parties;
Det groteske er selvsagt at inndriving av klimaskatter (mot rent hypotetiske og
udokumenterte klimakrisevarsler) nå rangeres som like dramatisk viktig for
menneskeheten som krig, og derfor skal prises på samme nivå.
Vi har spurt her på forumet før: Når er bunnen nådd?
Svaret: Den er kanskje ikke nådd ennå?
Tillegg:
Langtidskonsekvensene ved dette institusjonelle
røvergrepet kan vise seg meget skadelige for nøytral
forskning
Når vi nå har fått brettet ut hvordan det skal tas ytterligere global styring med
klimaforskningen (les: produksjonen av klimaskremsler) gjennom nye og enda mer enorme
fiskalprogrammer (her: ved nye fiskale overføringsmodeller som skal følge krigskostnadene ...)
gjenstår å se hvordan verden der ute - etterhvert som diverse gjenlimte øyne og ører åpnes
(hvis vi kan våge å tro at slikt er mulig i den helkommersielle medieverden?) - reagerer på
disse hemningsløse kapitalinnhentingsstrategiene?
Som retorisk og institusjonell sementering av klimakrisemaksimeringen er dette så djevelsk
smart utpønsket at jeg frykter at dette er noe av det mest "vellykkede" de har klekket ut på
lang tid. Og der det moralske nivået er omvendt proporsjonalt med metodene man bruker for å
bygge opp en finansiell basis som gjør at man til slutt ikke trenger å forsvare seg
vitenskapelig, man vil ha så mye "forskningspenger" å smøre med at alle ønskede svar kan
kjøpes pr. hyllemeter etter behov.
Min alvorlige spådom og påstand er at dette siste grepet er så maktfinansielt utspekulert at
kritisk opposisjon her er tildelt et slag som kan vise seg å sette faglig opposjon langt tilbake -
selv om "IPCC-vitenskapen" samtidig blir mer og mer avslørt.
I så fall er vi kommet langt på vei mot et enormt vitenskapelig uføre:
De overnasjonale institusjonene har da fått endelig bekreftet at all forskning som
inkluderer global styring og kontroll heretter kan forvaltes ut fra ren økonomisk makt
uten å måtte gå veien om faglig dokumentasjon og påfølgende seriøs åpen diskurs.