Tyranny of the Political Elite
The Paris Climate Accord presented to participating nations and adopted in 2016, made four impulsive and irrational claims:
1. Based on the warming indicated by computer models over the past century, this validated a prediction of major warming in the future;
2. It was assumed that future warming would bring with it catastrophic consequences including droughts, floods, storms, a rapid and momentous rise in ocean levels, a failure of farming and agriculture and a plethora of tropical diseases would ensue;
3. It was assumed the world could avoid impending weather calamities and disasters by reducing carbon dioxide and other gas emissions into the atmosphere to reach safe levels; and
4. It assumes that emissions reduction must be made irrespective of cost and that the aftermath could prove so consequential that no cost was too high to prevent these predicted disasters.
These claims were contrived despite a deficiency of any science to prove climate change was a reality and 17 years of stagnation in temperatures. Further, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) invalidated the increases associated with weather activities in claim number two (2). After the Climate Accord, the temperatures have actually decreased slightly in the past 8½ years. At the time of the Acord, CO2 was at approximately 398 parts per million (PPM). The current value is 417 PPM, yet the global temperatures have subsided somewhat.
The Accord was ratified by 196 nations, except for a withdrawal by the USA under the Trump Administration whose participation was later reinstated by President Biden just hours after becoming President. The Accord is not an agreement relative to specific reductions of gas emissions by any nation, this entire accord is basically a proletarian promissory note. The only country with major reductions in carbon dioxide emissions has been the United States. This was done largely by converting coal energy plants to lower-emitting natural gas.
The majority of participants, those representing smaller nations, expect to receive large sums of monies because the Accord provides for any damages purported to be caused by climate change – not a great deal of evidence is essential. The cause of anthropogenic climate change is said to be the fault of developed nations which have emitted multitudes of greenhouse gases since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
China asserts that since it was not a developed nation at the beginning of the industrial revolution, it should be in the same position as the smaller third-world or developing nations and be a recipient of funding. This has not, as far as I know, been challenged by developed nations.
Most of the measures included in the Paris Climate Accord were supposed to happen 7 years prior at the 15th session of the United Nations Conference of Parties (COP15) in Copenhagen, but Climategate interjected. This is the event where Russian (alleged) computer hackers broke into the servers of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and released thousands of emails and files to the public.
Obviously from the content, there was a significant degree of deceit, dishonesty, and duplicity going on with climate science and scientists the world over. The backlash of the emails and data, released just a month prior to COP15, placed enough pressure on the COP participants to hold back on several proposed mandates. Many in the legacy media, supporting devious science and Climategate participants said the primary importance was not the scandalous content of the documentation released but rather who the hackers were. Former Scottish civil servant Muir Russell was tagged to lead a full investigation into the entire affair, and after seven months, with obvious prejudgment and prejudice cleared those involved.
In ‘issues’ surveys, quite often conducted around election time, clearly show constantly that ‘climate change’ arrives at or near the bottom of the poll each and every time. Climate change is much like most progressively mandated woke issues. The left creates a situation or an issue and then if anyone opposes that issue, they are immediately subject to cancel culture and the leftist will often cite they have become victims - victims of their own manufactured and harebrained issue.
