Professor Happer is referring to the UN climate conference underway now in Spain.
Professor Happer is referring to the UN climate conference underway now in Spain.
The UN Climate Change Conference is happening now December 2 – 13, 2019 in Spain. https://unfccc.int/cop25
The UN uncontrolled bureacracy is contemplating $250 Billion in new tax revenue from carbon taxes, $40 Billion from currency transaction taxes, an additional $15 Billion to $75 Billion revenue from taxes on financial transactions, and a $40 Billion to $50 Billion in new tax revenues on international billionaires, among other sources of revenue.
Jerry Pournelle’s iron law of bureaucracy: “In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.”
Read Professor Jamal Munshi’s article AN UNCONSTRAINED BUREAUCRACY. Here is the link: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/25/un/?fbclid=IwAR3Or_duNhNM-0XRCzylYYxun_0C26SnsKAaelYHnKdcKBoN0aLatQSlJzE
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer. In an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online: Edenhofer lays out just what the climate talks are all about:
NZZ: The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
Edenhofer: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
NZZ: That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
Edenhofer: Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet—and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400—there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
NZZ: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
Edenhofer: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
At the Copenhagen COPE meeting, Janos Pasztor, the director of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Climate Change Support Team, admitted: “This is not a climate-change negotiation. … It’s about something much more fundamental. It’s about economic strength.” The nations at the negotiation, he added, “just have to slug it out.”
On the same date, Edenhofer added this:
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which [re]distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.
Reference for chart and more information:
An Unconstrained Bureaucracy: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/25/un/?fbclid=IwAR3Or_duNhNM-0XRCzylYYxun_0C26SnsKAaelYHnKdcKBoN0aLatQSlJzE
Dear Senator Schatz,
I am responding to your e-letter to me which was your response to my previous e-letter to you. For your reference, your e-letter is copied below.
Why wasn’t Obama impeached? Where were you when the travesties listed here were being done by the Obama administration? There was no investigation of Obama, but there should have been on many issues.
There is today and for the last 3 years a blatant double standard and illegal disruption by Democrats of legal actions by the President Trump. You, sir, are part of that unconstitutional action. Democrats have blocked legitimate actions of the President, such as protecting U.S. borders.
Under Obama, gun running, drone killings, Benghazi, etc. should have been investigated. Obama’s DOJ should have investigated Biden and his son as well as the Clinton Foundation.
Obama himself acknowledged that he did not have the authority in the Constitution, under law, to do things he did, for example DACA.
Obama sent billions in cash to Iran’s tyrants, without approval of Congress, even though no nuke deal was signed by Iran; that was neither an Executive Agreement nor a treaty; it appears to be attempted but failed bribery.
Obama authorized bombing of Libya, but there was never a threat to the U.S., (which means Obama’s action was unconstitutional and illegal). Libya’s president was killed, their gold-based economy was destroyed, thousands of surface-to-air missiles were lost to terrorists, and each one could bring down an airliner. Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice et al lied to the world about Benghazi. Obama/Hillary funded, trained and armed ISIS to make war on Syria…without Congressional approval.
Obama sent unknown millions of dollars to the UN “Green Climate Fund” in Korea, and promised a billion more, without informing Congress, which had already voted against such funding. The global warming/climate change agenda is a fraud, as I have informed you previously. You, sir, are endorsing fraud of Hawaiians and the American people. There is no scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis that human-produced CO2 causes any measurable warming. The evidence against the fraud and you is right here from the lab on Mauna Loa.
Democrat operatives who visited President Obama and his staff many times, as noted on White House logs, were filmed on undercover video admitting that Democrats have interfered in elections for 50 years, they bussed in voters from other states, they instigated violence at the 2016 Trump/Pence rallies. What have you done about it? Nothing.
Now, as everyone now knows, Obama authorized spying on candidate Trump, and soon enough we will find out that Obama probably authorized Brennan to direct the coup against Trump, a duly elected President.
Meanwhile, Trump has done nothing even remotely close to Obama’s many travesties against the Constitution and the office of the President. In case you or your staff have not noticed, the witnesses in the sham ‘impeachment inquiry’ in the U.S. House testified under oath that they saw or heard no illegal action by President Trump and the current prosecutor in Ukraine, who is also a member of Ukraine’s Parliament, is insisting that Trump and Ukraine’s current President investigate Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Burissma about $7.5 billion. Yet you and your colleagues want to investigate Trump instead of the Bidens.
What have you done Senator? You have worked against the Constitution you swore to protect. You and your staff and colleagues in Congress are encroaching on the Constitutional authority of the executive branch. That is dereliction of your sworn duty. You failed to investigate and prosecute these many illegitimate actions by Obama and his administration. That is dereliction of your sworn duty.
Clare L Bromley
U.S. Senate letterhead
Dear Mr. Bromley,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
The process of impeachment requires two distinct proceedings carried out by the separate chambers of Congress as mandated by the Constitution. First, the House of Representatives determines whether to impeach an individual by approving the Articles of Impeachment. If a simple majority of the House passes the Articles of Impeachment, the matter is then presented to the Senate to conduct an impeachment trial. A conviction on the impeachment requires the support of a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
Impeachment is not a proceeding to overturn the results of an election. It is a means of ensuring that law and order is followed by the highest powers in our country. In addition to the constitutional grounds of treason and high crimes, prior impeachments by the Congress have recognized three types of conduct that could constitute grounds for impeachment:
(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;
(2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and
(3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.
I will remain vigilant and will fight against policies and agendas that undermine the founding principles of our government or diminish the fundamental rights that define who we are as a nation. If the House of Representatives pass Articles of Impeachment, I will be ready to act according to the responsibilities of the Senate mandated by the Constitution. Mahalo again for contacting me.
U.S. Senator Brian Schatz
The letter immediately above was sent on November 25, 2019 to Senator Brian Schatz official U.S. Senate website address. The letter immediately above is also a comment under this article on West Hawaii Today newspaper. https://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2019/11/23/nation-world-news/impeachment-inquiry-crossroads-keep-going-or-time-to-vote/
It is also published here on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dear-senator-schatz-bud-bromley/
For as long as I can remember, I have felt that I was living in the wrong time of history. I don’t know whether my time was long ago or far in the future.
I am far more comfortable reading Edward Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, or the Biblical books of John or the Koran, or the Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series of books, as compared to recent history, such as the works of Niall Ferguson, and by that I mean no slight to Dr. Ferguson and his exceptional works.
My frame of reference is not today. How can that be?
Beyond Déjà vu, I feel and think that I have lived through the present situation before and at the same time time will live it again. A humbling experience.
You may have experienced the feeling of being “in the zone.” Everything you do is right and effortless and fits the situation. You scored the basket. You closed the deal of a lifetime. The love of your life accepted your proposal. Your child was born and healthy.
What I am attempting to describe carries with it that same feeling of completeness, but I took no action nor felt compelled to take any action. I am watching.
“In reading The History of Nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities, their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do. We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.” –Charles Mackay (1841)
You have to read the article at this link. Facts and timeline.
Karl Mark, the infamous exponent of socialism/communism/collectivism, writes in his “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, “Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.”
Marx realized that religion was a solace for the hard realities of life, and he (and Friedrich Engels) codified a system of propaganda, economics and totalitarian government which is intended to substitute for religion. They dreamed up an all powerful, pervasive government as solace for the people.
Marx and Engels devised socialism as college students in the mid 1800s, before the U.S. Civil War. Marx and Engels were envious of the power of religion to meet a real need of the people, more than they were critical of religion. They wanted their socialism to become the opium of the people, and it does so. Of course, opium solves immediate pain, but opium is also addictive and leads to counter-productive changes in behavior. Thus, Marx’s opium metaphor is illusory and false; the solace of socialism is illusory and false. It may treat an immediate symptom, but in the end its repeated use creates worse problems than before. Their sophomoric ideas of economics and government, their illusions, are quickly gone after the revolution, and replaced by painful, deadly and soul-less tyranny anytime and everywhere it is tried. It cannot be done differently this time or next time. The damage is done. When you run out of other people’s opium, you soon suffer a painful death.
Giant wind turbines, nuclear power plants, large solar installations, dams, high speed trains, highways for electric cars, etc all require massive amounts of concrete. The cement that holds concrete together is made by burning limestone (calcium carbonate), at very high heat which generates massive amounts of CO2 emissions.
In the production of cement, first there is the very high heat emitted to the environment, generated usually by combustion of fossil fuels which also produces CO2 as a by-product, second is the generation of huge amounts of CO2 by the chemical reaction that yields cement. Cement production is generally reported as about 4% of total human CO2 emissions, but that does not include the CO2 emissions from the high heat source. To produce cement, CO2 must be removed from the oven.
Is a so-called “green” environment or civilization itself sustainable without cement and concrete? Can someone re-invent this fundamental building material which has been used for millennia? Is that necessary?
CO2 is one of the gases emitted by volcanoes, generated by the same chemistry required to produce cement. Molten lava or magma in contact with limestone releases CO2. The high heat of the volcano is burning limestone which was deposited as sediment on the floor of oceans and lakes over millennia, for example the famous 500 foot cliffs of chalk in the Seven Sisters on the Sussex Coast of England. CO2 and its ultimate sink, limestone, are part of the earth’s natural carbon cycle. Burning limestone puts CO2 back into the atmosphere where it can nourish plants, which feed all life and make the earth greener and healthier. The hubris of global warming / climate change proponents proposes interfering with earth’s carbon cycle.
CO2 in the atmosphere is not and has never been the cause of any significant or even measureable amount of global warming. It is a mistake, intentional or not. Statistics professor Jamal Munshi’s papers show that the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are not detectable as an anomaly, a change in slope (2nd derivative), in the onging, slowly increasing net global average CO2 concentration. This has bee routinely measured for decades at the Keeling lab on Mauna Loa in Hawaii.
The annual CO2 emissions by humans into the atmosphere are estimated to be in gigatons, which seems to be a large amount at our human scale, but the normal, continuous, billions of reactions per second which make up the flux of CO2 into and out of the natural environmental sinks of CO2, such as the surface of the ocean and soil, are orders of magnitude, exponentially, larger and compensating – by physical mechanisms such as Henry’s Gas Law – for additions of CO2 by humans.
In other words, even if we assume that the planet is warming, human CO2 is not a significant or even a measureable cause of that warming. Since fossil fuel emissions are not detectable as a change in the routinely measured trend of net atmospheric CO2 concentration, then human CO2 cannot be significantly affecting any other component of climate, good or bad. Even if humans wanted to or needed to change earth’s warming trend, it is not possible to do that by controlling CO2 concentration. Global warming proponents incorrectly identified CO2 as the problem.
Physical theory supports that empirical data. Global warming proponents have identified the wrong cause of global warming.
Attempts to control atmospheric CO2 are a dead end and would fundamentally de-construct civilization. Civilization and society as we know them are constructed with concrete. What would life be without cement and concrete? Future historians will laugh at the destructive hubris of 20th and 21st century humans.
There are references at the end of these blog posts: