The Patriot Post® · Rebuking the Islamic State by Fighting Climate Change?
On Monday, government officials from 195 countries convened in Paris for a climate conference to advance their Orwellian master plan to save us from ourselves. It would be laudable if these government officials were meeting to discuss how to unite to defeat the Islamic State — the real threat to humanity. But for now, despite Paris being the target for coordinated terrorist attacks just weeks ago, it is more important for these world “leaders” to discuss how to combat the ever-changing temperature.
During a press conference last week, Barack Obama announced his intentions to attend this Global Climate Conference, oh so bravely in the face of terrorism. Some of his comments were perhaps the most laughable if not dangerously ignorant remarks ever uttered from a commander in chief. He proclaimed, “What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children.”
Powerful rebuke? This isn’t just weak rhetoric, it’s madness. It’s also a lie. Does Obama or anyone else in the world really believe that the Islamic State will consider this meeting in Paris as a rebuke to jihad? The message this sends to the Islamic State is that world leaders are more concerned with the false threat of the world burning up than they are about a large group of terrorists committed to killing innocent people.
Keep in mind that this “climate change” summit is being held by the United Nations. The UN can turn out an estimated 40,000 people from 195 different nations to address the “threat” of climate change, but it somehow can’t get that many people on board to hold a conference to fight Islamic terrorism. As Investor’s Business Daily notes, “That would require hard work and genuine dedication. Fighting global warming is easy, though. It’s not a real enemy. It didn’t kill and maim hundreds in Paris.”
The fact that so many of these world “leaders” are more concerned with the perceived threat of climate change instead of the real threat of Islamic extremism is not only alarming, it’s nefarious.
And if you thought that these climate talks would result in a treaty that would never be passed by Congress, think again. On the eve of this climate change summit, France conceded to Obama’s demand that any accord reached on the world’s temperature won’t be called a “treaty.” And it might not even feature emissions reductions targets that are legally binding.
Team Obama would certainly be delighted if the word “treaty” could be left out of these talks, because Obama takes every opportunity possible to push his agenda without having to get congressional approval. He has used this same tactic for the Clean Power Plan and the Iran nuke deal. And now he is hoping it can work again.
Yet as determined as Obama and other world “leaders” are in reaching a global agreement to fight climate change, it may not be achievable under the current benchmark that is bringing so many world leaders together in the first place. That benchmark is two degrees Celsius — a number warming alarmists have been talking about for decades.
Of that number, The Wall Street Journal’s Gautam Naik writes, “Many researchers have argued that a rise in the planet’s average global air temperature of two degrees or more above preindustrial levels would usher in catastrophic climate change. But many others, while convinced the planet is warming, say two degrees is a somewhat arbitrary threshold based on tenuous research, and therefore an impractical spur to policy action.”
So the claim that there is consensus that man-made climate change is a fact is, well, a lie.
As George Will put it, “Everything is said to confirm global warming, and global warming is now said to cause everything else. It is a theory which can no longer be refuted, which means it is no longer a scientific theory.”
In reality, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming “emerged from a political agenda, not a scientific analysis,” says Mark Maslin, who is a professor of climatology at the University of London. Moreover, the UN’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change doesn’t even acknowledge the two degree Celsius figure in any of its reports.
Further, The Washington Post notes that mathematics may pose a greater problem than politics for these climate change attendees. For all the hype about ensuring that our worldwide carbon emissions are controlled to prevent global warming, some scientists and analysts suggest that the two degree Celsius target may be out of reach. They state that “sticking to two degrees may require extremely harsh cuts that could damage economies, or the assumption of future technologies that have not been invented yet.”
It is imperative that Americans pay close attention to what comes out if this climate conference. We know that the UN is corrupt and we know that Obama never lets a “crisis” go to waste. And while we don’t consider climate change to be a crisis or a threat to national security, he and most leftists do. We hope wrangling bureaucrats don’t manage much damage, but in the meantime, we will just have to wait and see.
On a final note, if these world leaders are so concerned about carbon emissions causing global warming, then why aren’t they concerned about the estimated 300,000 tons of CO2 that will be emitted by all of those traveling to Paris?