- The Washington Times - Sunday, December 20, 2009


As the Copenhagen climate summit wound down, some thoughts on its theoretical foundation and inherent value were in order.

The business-as-unusual practiced by the Climategate scientists unfortunately did not foreclose business-as-usual at the summit. The world would have been better off if it did. But, apparently, socialist “goods” must be peddled regardless of their real worth in the climate-negotiation marketplace.

So far, with masterful artistry, climate modelers, along with their skilled political, journalistic, academic and financial groupies, were able to avert a situation that would have at least hobbled the efforts of mere mortals. Shady practices that may have cooled others’ work became only a simple misunderstanding of how a certain elite group chats among itself. It serves critics right for eavesdropping, then interpreting lofty conversation as mundane. Perhaps we should all just be grateful that we got “value added” climate data instead of the raw stuff.

So, now with that little misunderstanding cleared up, the rich in earthly spirit, wisdom and bounty can continue with their critical role of identifying and remedying the needs of a planet in crisis.

In Copenhagen, earthshaking deals by sapient and noble negotiators were made on behalf of the less fortunate of the globe, which included all those lacking the time and money to experience the climate-summit opulence.

Nevertheless, a reasonable and compassionate person could have been easily confused by the climate-change circus. After all, aid to the planet itself and its poorest inhabitants was ostensibly proffered. But, the summit’s delegates of doom apparently ignored the very terra firma and languid populace they claimed to champion. They focused on cutting carbon emissions, which would accomplish very little or nothing on climate change; however, because such carbon cutting slashes use of accessible, inexpensive energy sources, it would further impoverish the poor.

The only way this makes sense to the reasonable compassionate person is to figure the delegates had been duped (via Climategate and self-deception) into believing the Earth is in trouble and could be remedied by impotent human action, or to suppose the delegates have nefarious reasons related to money, power or both.

Even religious people at Copenhagen seemed hell-bent on advancing the vaunted wishes of their Mother rather than the humanity-enriching and liberating desires of their reputed Father. Christianity, for example, includes grace, truth and mercy. Ignoring the power of the Almighty excludes grace, disregarding uncorrupted climate science tramples truth, and turning a blind eye to the plight of the poor mocks mercy.

Regardless, a “mortal” sin was being absolved by both the secular and sacred representatives. The sin was arrogance in the form of the belief that humans can cause long-term global climate change followed by the certainty that humans can then mitigate such change.

All this prompts a reasonable and compassionate question: When will trillions of dollars be sensibly negotiated to truly help those who so desperately need a beneficent world? Pure drinking water, sufficient medical care, liberation from political oppression, air cleansed of real contaminants (which do not include carbon dioxide), these are among the extremely urgent needs of the world’s poor and unfortunate - not deliverance from phantom pollutants via the mea culpa efforts of the self-righteous. Let’s face it, without real help now, many of today’s poor of the world will not even be around next year, let alone in 10 years.

But with the move in Copenhagen toward global governance overseeing the transfer of wealth from rich countries to those in power in poor countries, we will all end up losers, especially the needy of the world. The misguided save-the-planet-from-ourselves socialist mind-set will inevitably produce an engorged wealthy class who take advantage of financial opportunities that emerge with hysterical perceptions and rash actions, an overburdened middle class made to feel guilty and required to repent by “cutting back,” “doing without” and “forking over,” and an escalated impoverishment of the poor who always, always end up worse off.

So much for the sanctimonious words and deeds of the Copenhagen cabal.

Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist and co-author of “Environmental Risk Communication: Principles and Practices for Industry” (CRC Press/Lewis Publishers, 2000).

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide