Somehow, I sincerely doubt that ISIS was really thinking about the big yearly climate change meeting which will take place in Paris in a few weeks when they planned their attacks. But, hey, the murderous ISIS attacks give those who want to enact draconian policies that put more control of people, private entities, energy, and economies in the hands of centralized government a chance to show just How Brave they are.
Why Paris climate change talks won’t allow protesters (+video)
A highly anticipated UN climate conference scheduled to start in Paris in two weeks will go on as planned, though many of the side events, like marches and concerts, will likely be canceled as France tries to balance a “business-as-usual†approach with increased security concerns.
But not so brave that they’ll allow protests and marches and stuff.
The terrorist attacks in Paris, which have killed 129 people and injured hundreds more, left some people worried that the French government and United Nations might cancel the COP21, where countries are expected to map out a global accord to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
But officials say that the main part of conference, the negotiations, will go on as planned.
“The feeling is we should go on with business as usual, because you can’t give in to these terrorists,†an unidentified European diplomat told Politico on Saturday, adding that his prime minister will attend.
Perhaps the attendees can pass a resolution of condemnation against ISIS for their huge carbon footprint. Seriously, how much carbon pollution was created by all that travel and the use of fossil fuels? Were the guns and bombs they used locally produced?
Mr. Fabius told Reuters that many world leaders have committed to come to the summit, despite the violent Friday attacks that shook the world.
He quoted some leaders as saying: “We not only planned to come, but now we have to come, because we have to show to the terrorists that we are not afraid of them.”
That’s French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who famously stated that the world has “500 days to avoid climate chaos“, 565 days before the Paris Conference on the Parties. If they do not come up with a (fascistic, authoritative) agreement, will the world end?
Some experts are saying that the conference may devote more time to discussions linking climate change with national security, a theme often stressed by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, reports Reuters.
Well, if that is the case, then the attendees are part of the problem
Politico reports that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change expects the event to draw about 10,000 government representatives to the Le Bourget conference center in a northeastern Parisian suburb, plus 3,000 journalists and about 7,000 climate activists and other observers each week.
So, over 20,000 people taking long fossil fueled trips to complain about ‘climate change’, which they blame mostly on the use of fossil fuels.
Say, I wonder if they would ever consider that terrorism is causes by writings in the Koran?
Also, if we don’t allow all the climate marches and protests and stuff, aren’t the terrorists winning?
Ain’t it amazing how none of these brilliant people, people who tell us that all of this is science, have never heard of video-conferencing?
Yeah, but VC doesn’t allow them to go on a taxpayer funded working vacation to an exotic vacation spot, along with all the free food and stuff.
Again, and you know this, a conference like this adds trivially to atmospheric carbon dioxide pollution.
Have you held a 10,000 person videoconference from 6 continents? 8AM in Chicago is about 8PM (the night before) in Shanghai and 2PM in Paris.
Your objections are juvenile. Since you Deny that global warming is occurring why are you concerned about any conference (other than to ridicule those with whom you disagree).
Meanwhile, the Earth continues to warm from CO2 we continue to add to the atmosphere.
The earth doesn’t continue to warm from CO2, and if it does warm, that’s no proof of the cause. And again, there’s absolutely no proof warming would be dangerous to the planet-just speculation. “500 days till climate chaos….children won’t know what snow is..” What in the world would make these frauds think they can predict the future, especially because they’ve failed miserably on most, if not all of the others?
Except for the fact that the conference is trivial to begin with as it is more of a dog and pony show than will actually do or accomplish anything other than to destroy economies and lives. That is not trivial but warmists treat it like it is.
You might have a valid point if these conferences were always that large and always worldwide. They are not.
The hypocrisy of the conference is the issue and your denying that is childish.
You don’t think hypocrites should be ridiculed and held to the standard to which they demand others adhere? That says the problem isn’t those who point out the hypocrisy, but those who ignore it.
JEFFERY’S DICTIONARY: “juvenile” – anything that Jeffery cannot understand, refute or deal with; above the intellectual level of most leftists and AGWers.
Jeffrey wrote:
No, I sure haven’t, but I have worked night shift before. If this conference is that important, that vital, then maybe some of the conferees could adjust their schedules.
Or is that just for us commoners?
I’m not interested in pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning.
-President skinny black guy
11/16/2015
William,
Your repeated cries of hypocrite are meant to demean those with whom you disagree. It’s an attempt to win the argument by personally attacking the debate opponent. That’s why it’s juvenile.
The Deniers have lost the scientific argument and that’s why they do not argue evidence.
The Earth is warming from the CO2 we continue adding to the atmosphere.
It is laughable that you would think that others are demeaning those with whom they disagree. You do it all the time without ever thinking that you are wrong. Who would have ever thought that a hypocrite would be a hypocrite on being a hypocrite?
No, it’s an attempt to show the depth of the convictions of those in the AGW movement. Clearly, for those in the movement, the depth of their convictions is small but yet they are willing to demand others do what they will not. Since that is the case, one begins to see that absent of their actions following their own beliefs, something else must be afoot which is what Realists have been saying all along.
Except the argument is not lost or the science settled. The data doesn’t work or fit but yet it is the Realists that are called names and dismissed by those who believe in AGW. If the AGW’s really believed that the evidence is there, they would share it – all of it. Instead, they have tried to hide the data, distorted and changed the data and then even attacked with the threat of crime those who would speak out against them.
Realists want the data and discussion to be allowed. Warmists want the debate criminalized.
Jeffrey wrote:
Actually, it is calling into question the beliefs of the warmists. How, exactly, are we supposed to take your positions seriously when you (plural) don’t behave as if you take them seriously?
Email either our esteemed host, or me, a picture of you with your Nissan Leaf or tiny hybrid, so that we can see the evidence you (individually) take your words seriously; I’d really be interested in seeing that.
I met one of my site’s former commenters several years ago, a very proud lefty. He was driving a Highlander Hybrid, and was oh-so-proud of how he was saving the environment. Well, I did something really radical, and ran the numbers: based on the EPA’s fuel economy numbers and the MSRP of the regular and hybrid Highlanders, and the then current price of gasoline, the break-even point (not counting additional interest or having to replace the battery pack after five years) was 143,000 miles. He was somewhat disappointed in that when I informed him.
But, it’s more than just that. The left tell us that they are so very, very concerned about the plight of the less-well-off, but they continually propose policies which would make life harder and more expensive for working-class Americans. Perhaps this is why the Democrats, who claim to be the party of the working man, have lost the support of white working class Americans.
Then again, it’s impossible to be both the party of the working man and the party of the non-working man; perhaps that’s why working Americans are leaving the Democratic Party.