The nations of the world have issued their demands for this month's Paris climate conference, and the Government of Bolivia has cut to the chase:
The capitalist system is a system of death. Hence, capitalism is leading humanity towards a horizon of destruction that sentences nature and life itself to death. In this regard, for a lasting solution to the climate crisis we must destroy capitalism.
Yeah, but, as the American media like to say about Trump, where are the specifics?
Oh, don't worry. The Bolivians have a ten-point plan:
1. Adoption of a new model of civilization in the world without consumerism, war-mongering, and mercantilism, a world without capitalism; build and consolidate a world order of Living Well that defends and promotes the integral rights of our peoples, undertaking the path of harmony with nature and respect for life.
2. Construction of a climate system based on responsibility to Mother Earth, the culture of life and the full realization of humanity in their holistic development, humanizing the economy, surpassing the simplistic approach to decarbonization of the economy.
"Decarbonization" is just the beginning:
5. Elimination of patents on technologies and recognition of the human right to science and technology of life.
If that means every Bolivian peasant has the right to have Michael E Mann as his houseboy for three months a year, I'm in favor. The Mann gang, on the other hand, are fully supportive of the Bolivians on the need for an international climate court:
7. Establishment of the International Court of Justice Climate and Mother Earth to enable countries to fulfill their international commitments to climate change in a context of respect for the rights of peoples and of Mother Earth.
8. Allocate the resources of the military machinery of the imperial powers and the war-mongers to finance the activities of the peoples against climate change.
Guido Fawkes found the picture above of President Hollande welcoming Bolivia's Evo Morales and noted:
If you look closely you can actually see him patting down FranÃ§ois for "imperial war-monger" cash...
Oh, I like this one:
9. Eradication of commodification of nature and carbon markets promoting business climate millionaires, which do not solve the problem of the climate crisis.
That means you, Al Gore.
10. Decolonize natural resources environmental colonial biased views that see the peoples of the South as forest rangers of Northern countries and communities as enemies of nature.
I've no idea what that means, but it's bound to be expensive. [UPDATE: Hugh Fisher writes:
It means "f**k off western greenies, we'll clear the rainforest if we want to".
On May 20 the Bolivian government passed a new law allowing oil and mineral exploration in national parks and other protected areas: The local environmentalists are protesting, and they're getting lots of backup from Europe and North America. Who, being mostly white, are therefore Evil Colonial Imperialists according to current progressive thought.]
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
BjÃ¸rn "Skeptical Environmentalist" Lomborg has been doing the math on global warming â€“ and it's worse than we thought.
Even if every nation in the world adheres to its climate change commitments by 2030 the only difference it will make to "global warming" by the end of this century will be to reduce the world's temperatures by 0.048Â°C (0.086Â°F).
Which is margin-of-error territory. Yet, as my old pal Delingpole points out, we now have a $1.5 trillion-a-year climate industry dedicated to advancing ineffectual gestures. The Bolivians are at least demanding a bang for their buck.
~The biggest single boon to the transnational Big Climate cartel was the cartoon climatology of Michael E Mann's hockey stick. As I write in my new book:
Discussing 'that unknown fraction of warming since 1950 that can be attributed to humans', Dr Judith Curry cautioned that it's important to include the A (for 'anthropogenic') in AGW:
'If you leave out the "A", people are misled into thinking that all warming for the past 1,000 years is caused by humans (the "hockey stick" argument).'
She's right. Mann's hockey stick showed that there was no such thing as 'global warming' until the Industrial Revolution took off. So, in Mannworld, 100 per cent of 'global warming' is anthropogenic. How did the IPCC come to promote an 'outlier' (as Dr Curtis Covey described the stick) by an obscure individual of no previous distinction as the consensus of the world's scientists?
Because it suited their political goals. Which is what it's all about. If you haven't yet picked up a copy of my book - "A Disgrace to the Profession": The World's Scientists on Michael E Mann, his Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science - I hope you'll consider it for your lucky loved ones as we approach the Christmas season. You can get it in old-fashioned print, or, for instant-gratification types, in Kindle and Nook.
~As to the court case - Mann vs Steyn - Robert Tracinski notes en passant here that we're now in the fourth year at the District of Columbia Superior Court. I voluntarily submitted to their jurisdiction (I don't live or work in the District of Columbia, and nor does Mann) because I naively assumed they had the minimal competence to adjudicate a 270-word blog post in under half a decade. They don't. It's somewhat frustrating to be trapped in a choked toilet of a "justice" system where everything is actionable but there's never any action.
Nevertheless, it will eventually come to trial, and I will be fighting to win. Because Mann and the Big Climate thugs are entirely serious about shutting down any and all dissent on this issue. Thus:
Just over one-in-four Democrats (27%), however, favor prosecuting those who don't agree with global warming.
Mr Tracinski's column is about merely the latest example, the New York Attorney-General's attempt to use securities law to do an end run round the First Amendment:
This is part of the whole "consensus" scam that is central to global warming hysteria. The idea is to make it impossible for scientists who are skeptical of global warming to receive any funding or get published in peer-reviewed journals â€” and then declare that, lo and behold, there are no published scientists who are skeptical about global warming! The idea is to proclaim a spontaneous "consensus" that you created by excluding anyone who disagrees with you.
To be sure, this case will take forever to go through the courts. (Mann v. Steyn just entered year four.) But this is another case where the prosecution is the punishment. Just the prospect of being dragged through the courts and publicly maligned by prosecutors is deterrent enough.
This prosecution is not really aimed at Exxon, which has pockets deep enough to fight if it chooses. And if it wanted to, Exxon could really fight. It could use the processes of discovery and cross-examination to expose plenty of examples of lying about climate science on the part of politicians and government agencies. It is obvious, however, that Exxon's executives don't have the courage to do this.
He's right. That's the difference between a big multinational such as Exxon and a third-rate hack loser such as myself. For the global corporations, it's easy to put a price on what they need to do to make the problem go away. The New York Times report even provides Exxon with a not so thinly veiled hint on how easy it is to get on board:
Last month, 10 of the world's biggest oil companies, including BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Saudi Aramco, Repsol of Spain, Eni of Italy and Total, made a public declaration acknowledging that their industry must help address global climate change.
Why not make it 11 big oil companies, Exxon? Wouldn't that be easier?
So I agree with Mr Tracinski. Exxon will not fight, they will "settle" - which will be a victory for Attorney-General Eric Schneiderman and Big Climate intimidation. But I will fight on, and I will win or lose - and at least that way we will all know where we stand. If you fancy propping up my end of the case, please do consider picking up a copy of "A Disgrace To The Profession".
~There are other ways to support Mark's side in the upcoming Mann vs Steyn trial of the century, if you're so inclined:
You can buy a gift certificate starting at $25 (and soaring way up from there), for yourself or your friends and family. The gift certificates have no expiration date, so if, in ten years' time, your favorite nephew has a sudden burning desire for $100 worth of Mark's disco CD, it'll still be valid. On the other hand, if you want to buy a certificate and sit on it until Mark wins the case, that works, too.
The gift certificates are available online here. Alternatively, US and Canadian customers can make a telephone purchase by calling (866) 799-4500 toll free from 8am to 3pm Eastern time on weekdays.