After all the posing of politicians and the deliberations of the delegates, it’s worth pausing for a moment to assess where we stand in the aftermath of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. The elephantine conference has labored and brought forth the “mouse” of the Copenhagen Accord.

Consider the intentions of the Internationalists and radical environmentalists: This conference was supposed to be the decisive battle. Ever since the eco-fringe dropped the notion that human activity was going to cause a new Ice Age, we have been beaten over the head with the notion that the last two centuries of human technological progress were going to destroy the world through global warming. Shrill rhetoric coupled with a false proclamation of scientific consensus was placed at the disposal of those who had been seeking a way to unify the economic and political order of the world under the authority of the United Nations.

The Copenhagen conference was supposed to result in an expansion of the Kyoto Protocol. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon pressed for over $100 billion a year in wealth transfers from the First World to the Third World (some estimates pushed as high as $1 trillion by 2020) and Ban went so far as to lobby members of the U.S. Senate to pressure them to support “cap and trade” to help fund such transfers. Meanwhile, conference planners such as Michael Zammit Cutajar maintained that a 200 page Copenhagen accord would be so long “no one will read the whole thing” and that it was necessary that “the big political bosses ... tell their guys ‘start moving’”. The media was flooded with “end of the world” stories of environmental doom; Google even released a version of Google Earth showing the predicted devastation.

The President of the United States was clearly “on board” with the projected conference; his “Climate Czar” at the State Department, Todd Stern, was already on record as personally advocating the creation of an E8 — the environmental equivalent of the G8 — to serve as a global “board of directors” for the environment. In the weeks leading up to the conference, President Obama went so far as to simply commit the nation to massive subsidies for “green power” development in India — without any authorization from Congress, of course. And then there was the absurd, illogical, and probably illegal move by the EPA to simply declare carbon dioxide a pollutant.

With many within the American and International political and media elites pushing the Copenhagen agenda, playing fast and loose with environmental data and models which critics maintained were dubious — at best — the “fix was in” for Denmark.

And then the Climategate scandal laid an axe to the root of the theory which was the ideological support for the entire conference.

Critics (e.g. Dr. Alan Carlin of the EPA) of the theory of anthropogenic climate change had been questioning the ‘science’ of global warming for years. But with the release of internal documents from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, followed by reports from New Zealand and Russia which also raised fundamental questions have the “science” of manmade global warming, the entire theory was fundamentally undermined in the minds of the public in a way it had not been for years.

And then the Internationalists discovered that not everyone was a prepared to be as pliable and ‘environmentally-correct’ as America and the European Union. The totalitarian regime in China wasn’t all that interested in having outsiders monitor its compliance with an environmental treaty (surprise, surprise), and the poor nations which had been promised big payoffs in Copenhagen were outraged when suddenly they realized they would be expected to eventually conform to the environmental restrictions of a treaty, too, and that all the talk about “global democracy” might mean “shut up and sign the treaty we’ve already written.”

The end result? Well, lots of money was spent, and countless tons of carbon dioxide were discharged into the atmosphere by the delegates, media and other ‘interested parties’ from 192 nations all descending on Copenhagen. There was a lot of highly entertaining staged street theater. And, of course, there was the usual “Gore Effect” snow fall.

Oh, and there was the non-binding “Copenhagen Accord.”

For the moment, it certainly looks as if the conference ended in the best way it could, from the standpoint of human freedom and economic prosperity. There was no possibility that the bureaucrats would return home without “doing something” and thus far the ‘target free’ accord was about the most minimal step imaginable.

Now it’s time to keep up the pressure.

The “Climategate” scandal was obscured by the absurd amount of attention lavished on Tiger Woods and the Salahis. No doubt the forces behind the Copenhagen Conference are hoping the scandal will just “go away” if the public can be distracted by other matters.

Given the federal funding which has gone for “climate” research, and that which has been proposed to supposedly mitigate the effects of global warming, Congress needs to investigate the matter thoroughly with open hearings. Also, given the President’s inclination for rule by decree, there will be an on-going need to monitor the fate of Mr. Obama’s plans to ship American tax dollars to India and who-knows-where-else.

And the Internationalists certainly aren't going to simply give up and go away.

According to the official conference website, the Copenhagen Accord is part of building a “new world climate order.”

The rich-poor disputes in Copenhagen that dominated the two-week climate conference and almost blocked any deal at all have almost disappeared after the summit.

"This breakthrough lays the foundation for international action in the years to come," German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag.

"Copenhagen is a first step toward a new world climate order, nothing more but also nothing less. Those who are only putting Copenhagen down are helping those who want to blockade rather than move forward," the chancellor added.

One brief observation: For as much as some folks make a habit of mocking “conspiracy theorists” for talking about a “new world order,” it is interesting to note just how much of the talk about a “new world order” comes out of the mouths of the people who are trying to bring it about. When the German Chancellor tells a leading German newspaper “Copenhagen is a first step toward a new world climate order” and the official Copenhagen conference website runs the quote, who’s to blame for talk about a “new world order”?

Rt. Rev. James Heiser has served as Pastor of Salem Lutheran Church in Malone, Texas, while maintaining his responsibilities as publisher of Repristination Press, which he established in 1993 to publish academic and popular theological books to serve the Lutheran Church.  Heiser has also served since 2005 as the Dean of Missions for The Augustana Ministerium and in 2006 was called to serve as Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). An advocate of manned space exploration, Heiser serves on the Steering Committee of the Mars Society. His publications include two books; The Office of the Ministry in N. Hunnius' Epitome Credendorum (1996) and A Shining City on a Higher Hill: Christianity and the Next New World (2006), as well as dozens of journal articles and book reviews.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

DDW said:

	Yes, this is very encouraging And yes, the pressure on elected officials must be kept up. STAY AWAKE, PEOPLE, STAY AWAKE!!
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 22, 2009
Votes: +5

Pat Henry said:

Congressional Investigation necessary to bring this to a head Call for a Congressional investigation of the whole affair - Pres and Sec'y of State publicly stating their intentions to break Constitutional limits, false "science" trying to coerce intra-country business-strangling regulations and to set up international sovereignty-breaking structures, pledges to spend money we do not have during an economic crisis, and subversive groups backing the process. I did this at the beginning of last week. I hope the JBS site will post an action letter to help others do the same.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 22, 2009
Votes: +6

Marie Devine said:

Employment Lifestyle Caused Problems-Turn To Garden Paradise Lifestyle God is against nations joining together for protection, wisdom, prosperity etc. He frustrates, confuses and destroys their plans. (Psalm 1, Psalm 2, II Chronicles 16:7-9, II Chronicles 20:35-37, Leviticus 26, Isaiah 8:9-14, Isaiah 30:1-7) CO2 is needed for plant growth; more makes faster growth. The POWERS are still trying to get the nations to give them power through legally binding goals that will allow the UN and World Bank to control activities within their nations. They have no solutions for other nations. The way to get to pre-industrial levels of pollution is to turn from the employment lifestyle that created world problems to a garden paradise lifestyle with trees, plants and pets that provide fresh food around us. God promises rain in due season to those who follow His truths and terror and 4 x 7 curses to those who reject His word UNTIL they turn to Him in truth.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 22, 2009 | url
Votes: +6

Andrew30 said:

Science fiction from the CRU The CRU is has not been practicing the scientific method for almost two decades. The scientific method requires that the researcher publish the original data, models and procedures needed for a skeptical analysis of any of their work. Since they are not using the scientific method then they simply are not doing science, they are writing fiction. Ponds and Fleishman may have been wrong, but they were at least real scientists. They did their experiments, published the results and their data, procedures and description of the apparatus and the methods. They where shown to be in error, fine, but they were still scientific in their work. The outputs from the CRU are in comparison junk, so I ask, why are these fictional ‘research’ papers allowed to remain in the realm of scientific publications? Why do people continue to quote the CRU as if they were the work of Einstein rather then the work of Mark Twain?

report abuse vote down vote up

December 23, 2009
Votes: +5