Friday, January 15, 2010

Chestnuts roasting on a Copenhagen fire
Exclusive: Chuck Norris reveals why climate summit is going up in smoke

Posted: December 07, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Chuck Norris
Copenhagen is on fire this week, and there's far more heating up than just the climate.

While heads of state and others gather this week at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (Dec. 7-18), bonfires have already been blazing for weeks on that European front.

Let me see if I can summarize the chestnuts roasting on that Copenhagen fire.

Shocking e-mail exchanges from scientists at an eminent global-warming research center in the United Kingdom have proven that key climate-change scientists have suppressed evidence to "trick" or "hide the decline" of global temperatures.

Rather than focus on the audacity of the climate-gate coverup, Obama's top science adviser, John Holdren, downplayed the e-mails, telling Congress that the controversy involved a small group of scientists. And others like Sen. Barbara Boxer blamed the hackers who exposed the e-mails rather than the scientists who deceived the world with false global-climate reports.

Similarly, the U.N. was caught recently deleting documents that would disclose how member states are leading (or not leading) the way in self-greening efforts.

The scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters documented that ice melt on Antarctica was the lowest in 30 years during 2008-2009, a fact being intentionally ignored by NASA.

A U.S. scholar is threatening to sue NASA to prompt the agency to release climate-change data, which he says has been manipulated just like over in Britain.

Officials in the Environmental Protection Agency gagged one of their own senior researchers after the 38-year employee submitted an internal critique of the EPA's climate-change position.

Unlike the U.S., China and India have already opposed foreign climate governance because it would jeopardize their national sovereignty.

Nearly two months ago Lord Christopher Monckton, once science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, warned us that the real purpose of the conference was more about global government than global warming.

In my former column, titled "Obama's one-world government," I've already detailed more than a dozen actual statements in the proposed summit treaty that threaten our national sovereignty, could severely cripple our already depressed economy and are so globally socialistic that they would make even a communist blush.

Al Gore actually made statements in July 2009 at Oxford that change will be driven through "global governance."

Based upon the coverup of declining global temperatures at the leading British research center, two members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences released a statement Thursday calling for the Academy to revoke Al Gore's Oscar for his global-warming treatise, "An Inconvenient Truth."

The U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, reported that $10 billion to $12 billion annually will be needed from developed countries (like the U.S.) through 2012 to "kick-start" things. According the World Bank, adapting for global warming (like building larger dams or higher bridges) will cost an additional $75 billion to $100 billion a year over the next 40 years. (A business professor at the University of Cambridge says it could be as high as $200 billion to $300 billion.)

WND reported that the Coca-Cola corporation is spearheading its own coalition of more than 100 companies "pushing a United Nations climate treaty to bind the U.S. to cap-and-trade emissions regulation, commit the world's wealthiest nations to a potential $10 trillion in foreign aid and, possibly, form a proposed international 'super-grid' for regulating and distributing electric power worldwide."

Japan's Energy Commission revealed the majority of Japanese scientists reject U.N. and Western-backed theories of climate change.

Thousands of leading international scientists from premier scientific and academic institutions (like MIT, Harvard, USC, Princeton, Carleton University in Canada, University of Bologna, Pulvoko Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Danish National Space Center, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Institute of Geophysics in Paris, University of Auckland, etc.) oppose what are being called mainstream scientific assessments on global warming.

Despite calls from U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, for members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of more than 32,000 U.S. scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who believe humans likely have little or no part in the creation of "global warming," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs justified the White House position and waved away opposition by tritely retorting "most people believe in global warming," despite that Americans' belief in global warming has declined and is at a 12-year low.

With 16,500 delegates descending upon Copenhagen, including 140 aircraft carrying world leaders, heads of state and VIPs, the U.N. estimates the 12-day conference will create 40,584 tons of carbon-dioxide equivalents. And could it be merely coincidental that all these planes are amassing on one place on Dec. 7 – the very anniversary date of Pearl Harbor? Or are these all signs that our real enemies are looming on the horizon?

As I consider all of these chestnuts roasting on the Copenhagen fire, the questions that keep coming to my mind are:

Why is our president going to Copenhagen?

If there's no final draft of a treaty to sign, why is our president "contributing to global warming" by flying that super-jumbo 747 Air Force One to Copenhagen?

Why does Obama want to require American households to pay possibly more than $3,000 annual additional taxes to reduce greenhouse emissions?

In the midst of one of America's worst recessions, where is the federal government going to get the money to pay for the billions to fulfill the financial promise to assist developing countries with green initiatives, as it outlines on Page 11 of the 181-page climate-summit treaty: "… ensuring that global crises, such as the financial crisis, should not constitute an obstacle to the provision of financial and technical assistance to developing countries in accordance with the Convention"?

Hasn't the Obama administration charged enough on the nation's credit cards in its first year in power by its trillions of dollars in bailouts, borrowing and additional government programs, including socialized medicine?

How much more will we take? Or should I say, how much more will they take?

Our government would do well to reconsider and actually live and lead by the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said during his first inaugural address in 1801: "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."


Post a Comment

<< Home