It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.There were 192 countries represented in Copenhagen to discuss Climate Change or the effects of man’s CO2 output as it increases the Earth’s temperature. One country, China, stop the whole process from moving forward. Delegates were there for two weeks Dec. 7 through Dec. 18, 2009 and save for China no one, not one single delegate mentioned an exit strategy.
In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature.
The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.—NOAA
An exit strategy you say? What is a global warming exit strategy? An exit strategy is simply this:
If scientific evidence continues to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that CO2 emissions are not inextricably linked to the earth’s temperature rising, and if there is continued proof of global temperatures cooling then the accord reached at Copenhagen and any future Climate Change decisions shall be null and void. That is the exit strategy or statement that should go into any agreement made about Anthropogenic Global warming (AGW).
You may ask why an exit strategy is needed. It is needed because some scientists have shown that CO2 emissions and the earth’s temperature, rise or fall, are not synchronized. Therefore, for example there could be elevated CO2 levels and cooler temperatures. Meaning that caps and regulations on emissions will not solve nor do they have the desired effect on global temperatures because there are other causes—causes that most likely are completely out of man’s control. (see 1:50min video)
If that is the case then all of the carbon that was expended to get to and meet in Copenhagen for two weeks was futility exhausted and here’s why.
Specifically global temperatures were not the primary discussion in Copenhagen. A global Carbon cap and trade agreement was the focus of Copenhagen. If the proof is in the pudding then let’s look at the pudding or the agreement or the accord reached in Copenhagen as that agreement is credited to U.S. president Barry Hussein Soetoro.
The agreement or accord, if you will, speaks primarily to cuts and lowering CO2 emissions with only cursory mentions of lower temperatures. Further the agreement puts in place a wealth transfer mechanism based solely on carbon increases but nothing is in place to stop payments if temperature goals are met or reversed.
What that accomplishes is, it severs actual cause and affects results as they relate to actual global temperature. So temperatures could be actually lowering while countries would be locked into a global warming agreement or treaty and they would still be forced to pay for CO2 emission that have nothing or little to do with temperature increases until 2020 and beyond.
Therefore whether temperatures increase or decline it makes no difference because all regulatory and monetary efforts are base on CO2 outcomes rather than actual global temperatures. If anyone in any of the 192 countries represented would have actually been concerned with Climate Change they would have addressed temperature increase and decline more strictly rather than CO2 emissions due to the fact that current scientific date shows that CO2 emissions and earth’s temperature are not linked as first hypothesized. (see previous post)
Nonetheless, below is the Agreement brokered by U.S. president Barry Hussein Soetoro. See for yourself that temperatures are not the focus only CO2 emissions and monetary reparations based on CO2 outputs.
In the accord
• Agreement that “deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science”
• A pledge of $30 billion from industrialized countries to poor nations over the period 2010 to 2012 to start in 2010
• A further pledge of an estimated $100 billion per year from industrialized countries to poor nations starting after from 2020
• “Long co-operative action” needed to keep the global temperature increase below 2C
• Rich countries should submit proposals for economy-wide emission reduction targets for 2020 to the UN by January 31
• By the same date, developing countries should produce plans to cut the rate of growth of their emissions
• There should be international monitoring of any emission cuts in developing countries that are funded by rich countries
• A reassessment of the accord by 2015 to check whether emission reductions are on track to keep the temperature increase below 2C
• Consideration in 2015 of strengthening the goal to 1.5C
Not in the accord
• Emission targets, either for 2020 or 2050
• A date by which global emissions should peak
• Any deadline for turning the accord into a binding treaty
• A commitment on how much of the climate protection funding would be additional to existing overseas aid pledges
• Agreement on an international body to verify the emissions reported by each country
With only minimal mention of temperature and all monetary incentives tied to carbon emissions there is no question that temperatures and temperature reduction were not the Accord’s objective contrarily monetizing carbon emissions was Copenhagen’s goal and objective.
This is all an effort to place humanity on environmental lockdown while Internationalist control the planet with environmentally friendly draconian international edicts called Kyoto protocol or some other fascist anti CO2 international environmental treaty.“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. (see previous post)The fact is the Barry Hussein Soetoro Agreement struck in Copenhagen was not meant to lessen temperature increases it was meant to create a carbon trading system by regulating carbon emission.
The reason China objected and didn’t buy into the Copenhagen agreement is because they viewed the agreement as an infringement on their sovereignty. China did not want to give up its economic freedom. No nation would object to lower temperatures if there were proof that there is an imminent threat to the planet and it was proven that man could do something about it.
There was no proof presented in Copenhagen that man-made Global warming is an immediate or imminent threat so China said no. And China's no stalled the international plan for an international carbon trading system.
Because there is no proof that there is an imminent threat of man-made global warming, China alone said no to Barry Hussein Soetoro’s agreement!