They've all got it in for me!
That most alarmist of worshippers at the altar of Gaia has a catchy headline at the top of the front page:
Copenhagen – Historic failure that will live in infamy
It is further billed as a “Green activist’s searing despatch from Denmark“. I’m certain that Mr (or perhaps Ms, who can tell) Garman will be enjoying their moment of fame on the front page, but let us consider the “searing despatch from Denmark” in more detail:
The most progressive US president in a generation comes to the most important international meeting since the Second World War and delivers a speech so devoid of substance that he might as well have made it on speaker-phone from a beach in Hawaii.
It’s hard to know where to begin, really. Presumably, Garman is one of that strange breed that believes that “progressives” are people of substance. One need only look at the immense achievements of “progressives” like our own Harman or Smith or Mandelson to disabuse ourselves of this notion. But it is further curious to assume that the Chicago-machine politician known as the “Teleprompter Jesus” across the pond would have anything of substance to say ever. Widely regarded as America’s answer to Blair, Obama is certainly better-looking than Saint Tony, but without the assistance of teleprompter, he makes George W. Bush look articulate! In fact, as frightening as the concept may be, I think he may actually be less intelligent than Bush and he is also not nearly as good a politician as Blair.
His aides argue in private that he had no choice, such is the opposition on Capitol Hill to any action that could challenge the dominance of fossil fuels in American life. And so the nation that put a man on the Moon can’t summon the collective will to protect men and women back here on Earth from the consequences of an economic model and lifestyle choice that has taken on the mantle of a religion.
Is that not perhaps the most astonishingly ironical lack of self-awareness that has ever occurred in the whole of human history? An alarmist who proclaims the end of the world through mankind’s misdeeds, who demands the sacrifice of our lifestyle, our economy and, almost certainly, our lives on the altar of an unsubstantiated belief, accuses someone else of turning their chosen lifestyle and economic model into a religion.
Quite extraordinary!
Then a Chinese premier who is in the process of converting his Communist nation to that new faith (high-carbon consumer capitalism) takes such umbrage at Barack Obama’s speech that he refuses to meet – sulking in his hotel room, as if this were a teenager’s house party instead of a final effort to stave off the breakdown of our biosphere.
Indeed: a Chinese premier who has seen Communism fail to deliver a decent life for his nation and is grudgingly allowing his people a better life is not showing proper obeisance to environmentalism. How dare put the interests of his people above those of environmental activists.
Late in the evening, the two men meet and cobble together a collection of paragraphs that they call a “deal”, although in reality it has all the meaning and authority of a bus ticket, not that it stops them signing it with great solemnity.
And thank goodness for that!
I found this next statement particularly telling:
Obama’s team then briefs the travelling White House press pack – most of whom, it seems, understand about as much about global-climate politics as our own lobby hacks know about baseball.
Notice that our activist is not concerned about the science, or even the economics of this whole folderol. The only thing that matters is the politics. Because, of course, the science is settled, the economics don’t matter and only politics can save us. The fact that any agreement achieved at Copenhagen would not even be thought through to the normal piffling extent for which politicians are so justly renowned and would be full of catastrophic consequences has not occurred to our intrepid correspondent. The fact that they have agreed some initial steps is, in itself, frightening enough. The world would be rendered unfit for human habitation if they had gotten away with it.
Things have come to a pretty pass when it’s only the incompetence of politicians that has saved us from immediate disaster.
(Or perhaps it was ever thus.)
{ 10 comments }
The most progressive US president in a generation…
Was George Bush Jnr. Just ask Bob Gandalf. Yes a warmonger.(Just like Blair, and he’s a progressive) Yes keen to keep the US on top.(Wouldn’t you?) Yes hopelessly encircled by corporate interests.(Aren’t they all?) Yes he lessened, lowered and removed a number of trade tariffs on African goods.(Shock!) Yes he used US taxpayer money to fund AIDS awareness programs and better healthcare for impoverished Africans. Yes he extended Clinton’s welfare system.(When what he should have done is address why more and more people were needing it) His troops and vast gobs of US public donations were never long in coming after natural disasters.
How can Obama be the most progressive US president in a generation? He hasn’t done anything. Judging people by the promises they make is where we went wrong with Blair.
Despite what everyone says, I for one am deeelighted with the deal laid out at Copenhagen, which explicitly urges the nations of the world to consider our global environment. I have utter faith in Leader Brown’s concord with Sarkosy in developing an EU police force able enough to know when to turn the lights on and off in whatever part of the planet is misbehaving. It is truely as fine a result as the World Cup coming to England in 2018 under Beckham’s fine tutelage.
Can somebody pass my medecine please, I’m feeling a bit odd……
help!!
I’m being watched!!!!!
Aghhhh!!!!!!!!!!!
The all seeing eye of the British Government, Blink!
The Climate Scientologists didn’t get it all their own way. GOOD!!
Chaps
While accepting every premise put forward about the vacuity of Odrama and the incompetence of politicians the world over, I remain unclear on two points re this climate change thing.
First, why would instituting a Kyoto II screw up the planet?
Second, if this is a conspiracy by government to control us more, why are so many of the main polluter-leaders so against it? It’s not like yer yellow peril to miss out on such a golden opportunity….is it?
There have been two absolutely major explosions since the Second World War: population (it’s trebled since 1955) and industrialisation of the planet on a mind-boggling scale.
In order to achieve this without folks having nuclear plants next door and four families in the attic, a gigantic proportion of chlorophyll-producing thingies have been replaced by not very useful thingies. As you can tell, my grasp of this topic is awesome.
I accept entirely that other factors are in play here – because any planet is subject to everything from sunspots and volcanic eruption to stray hits from meteorites.
But isn’t it a bit eccentric to suggest that those two big things arriving (and all that greenery going) have nothing to do with CO2 levels at all?
Yes of course, all these climate nutters are drenched in sanctimony and unable to see any other viewpoint: the Left has always been like that – and this is, for sure, the Left having found something else to moan about, Socialism being no longer saleable.
But does being an earnest Leftie make you a pathological liar?
Not necessarily, my dear Watson. Sorry, Wilson.
As you know Thadders, we differ on this one.
YM x
John W: Kyoto II would be very unlikely to screw up the planet. Conversely, it is extremely unlikely to save the planet as well. What it will screw up, however, is the economies of the humans on the planet. It is, in effect, a global tax on all business. In terms of justification, there was a lot more justification for the Poll Tax, and remember how popular that was!
The main pollution leaders are against it because it will … screw up their economies! You will notice that all the people pushing for this tax are white-collar busybodies. I don’t think you’ll find anyone in the beleaguered remnants of the UK’s manufacturing industry who has any enthusiasm for this.
“The Climate Scientologists didn
As usual, I don’t know what I think about this, other than to doubt that puny humans could destroy the Planet. And in the light of two of the coldest Summers I can remember, with France now covered in snow and ice, I suspect I could be right.
Certainly it seems like a good idea to reduce carbon emissions, especially in big cities, but I doubt that we have to go to their sort of lengths to do that.
But one thing I am certain sure of is that they aren’t going to convince the likes of me while they go on messing about with the evidence. And paying themselves vast sums of money to talk a load of ill informed rubbish.
I don’t know about climate change but I do know Councils don’t!
driving this lunchtime near my home to find the Council out limiting the road to single file – Why? – Simple!
They’re painting the white lines on the roads even though the roads are covered in frost/ice and it looks like snow……
Don’t ya just love these people…………….?
{ 1 trackback }