In light of the recent attack in Paris, and with police claiming they cannot ensure the security of the many participants to COP 21 including the pope and other heads of state, no public demonstrations will be allowed. Period.
The emphasis has been on the hundreds of thousands of supposed supporters who had been expected to march in solidarity with the aims of the conference (whether or not it would have manifested.) No mention has been made, however, of those who oppose the conference and its goals. No mention will be made of them at all as they will, thanks to the new normal of global security, not even be allowed to show up. This has turned out to be a tremendously effective way to silence dissent. Is this the future of global governance?
The fear was that support for the ‘environmental’ goals would be overshadowed by those who denounce them. Public apathy on the subject is rampant and the arguments against anthropogenic global warming are gaining momentum. In no way did they want a repeat of many G-7/G-8/G-20 conferences in which protestors turned out ‘en masse’ while support for the policies was nowhere to be seen.
Surely their numbers must be substantial. The CO2 poll at the top of this blog shows that fully two thirds of respondants believe that the world would be better off if CO2 levels were not reduced.
One can only wonder, had the events of Nov. 13th in Paris not occured, just what the conference, or more precisely, the scene outside the conference, would have looked like. Just lucky, I suppose.
Since all demonstrations were banned for the reason of security (anti-terrorism,) all demonstrators will be seen as terrorists; hence, if you are a skeptic, you’re no better than a member of ISIS.
With the unelected writing policy to be sold by the elected to the electors, and with an absolute media blackout on dissent, it is difficult to see how the ‘international order’ could be headed towards a democratic future.
Sun Tzu wrote that the best way to win a war was not to fight in the first place. Wise words taken to heart in Paris. One more in a long list of debates which alarmists have done everything possible to avoid.
It all started here at COP 2.
COP 2 took place in July 1996 in Geneva, Switzerland. Its Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S. position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which:
- Accepted the scientific findings on climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its second assessment (1995);
- Rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;
- Called for “legally binding mid-term targets”.”
“In the State Department, he worked with Vice President Al Gore on global environmental and population issues, supporting the administration’s views on global warming. A supporter of the proposed Kyoto Protocol, Wirth announced the U.S.’s commitment to legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions. From 1998 to 2013, he served as the president of the United Nations Foundation, and currently sits on the Foundation’s board.”
“The United Nations Foundation was launched in 1998 with a $1 billion gift from Ted Turner to support the United Nations causes… The main issue areas that the Foundation addresses are child health, climate change & energy, sustainable development, technology, women, girls, and population, and supporting the United Nations.”
How is it that the philanthropists who are the most ardent supporters of medical programs to save more lives (especially in the 1/3 world) through health services, disease reduction, and mass vaccination, are the same alarmists who decry over-population as the number one threat to humanity in being the number one cause of climate change (0:58)? These Ehrlichians, these Holdrenites really need to clarify why they routinely spend billions funding these programs to save millions of lives while publicly stating that it is a death sentance to us all. In order for people to voluntarily agree to have no more than one or two children, poverty must be eradicated. Funding health services will only make that problem worse, if one listens to the men who share the views of the Ted Turners’ and the Bill Gates’ and the Al Gores’ of the world. When notable people say one thing yet do another, it should be noted. When objecting to these incongruencies is not tolerated, it should be feared.