So what’s to worry about? Haven’t we been reassured that UN coalitions led by President Obama will vanquish 4 billion years of climate change (“the gravest threat to our planet, national security and future generations”) along with a lesser threat posed by the spread of radical Islamic terrorism (ersatz workplace violence)?
Remember when he promised during his June 4, 2008, speech upon winning the Democratic primaries: “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal”?
And also when on the day before ISIS (or “ISIL”) attacks in Paris which killed 130 people he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “From the start, our goal has been first to contain, and we have constrained them.”
As a matter of fact, both problems are apparently related. Speaking at the recent UN Paris climate fear-fest, Obama observed that by fostering “dangerous” ideologies, climate change “in some ways is akin to the problem of terrorism and ISIL.”
He even hailed the conference as nothing less than “an act of defiance” in the face of terrorism. (Take that, you climate crisis skeptics and head-severing evil-doers!)
Still, there’s obviously lots more work to be done. For example, the Obama Administration and heiress-apparent Hillary Clinton have both declared unfinished business in combating a leading cause of terrorism, namely, lax American gun control legislation.
As Obama said in the immediate wake of the December 2 attack by two ISIS-connected assailants which slaughtered 14 people and wounded 21 at the San Bernardino, Calif., Regional Center, “And we’re going to have to, I think, search ourselves as a society to take measures that would make it harder, not impossible, but harder, for people to get access to weapons.”
Presidential hopeful Clinton agreed. Placing blame on guns while avoiding any mention of more than a dozen homemade pipe bombs found in the two murderers’ possession, she told a New Hampshire campaign audience, “No matter what motivation these shooters had, we can say one thing for certain — they shouldn’t have been able to do this.”
And the climate conference didn’t accomplish quite everything that the 500-person White House entourage and 40,000 political leaders from nearly 200 countries in attendance might have truly wished for either.
Among other items, the December 5 “Draft Conclusions Proposed by the Co-Chairs” recommended that parties be united in emphasizing the importance of promoting, protecting, and respecting gender equality and the empowerment of women. (After all, would feminist Mother Nature expect anything less?)
Climate isn’t the only big change they have in mind. Speaking at a February 2015 Brussels press conference, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretary Christiana Figueres said, “This is the first time in history of Mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 250 years, since the industrial revolution.”
That UN-coveted transformation would begin by having the developed countries transfer between $100 billion and $450 billion of their unfair fossil-fueled prosperously to those other 90% poorer countries.
Proposed “Green Climate Fund” recipients would include China, the world’s biggest CO2 emitter, along with India, which ranks third after America.
In exchange, China has volunteered to halt the growth of their emissions by 2030 . . . provided of course that it doesn’t hurt their economy.
By the way, China recently admitted they have been burning up to 17% more coal per year than previously disclosed. Meanwhile, India’s government has announced plans to triple coal-fired electricity capacity by 2030.
While wildly cheered by participants as a “historic deal,” the “not-really-a-treaty” climate accord produced much more global hot air than it will prevent. All terms, including national emission caps, progress reviews, and green slush fund contributions are entirely voluntary — with no provisions for international oversight or penalties.
We can thank the White House for this. Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly contacted French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius just hours before the final vote to insist that the binding term “shall” be revised to “should.”
This was essential to avoid certain loss of a U.S. congressional treaty challenge.
Now that satellite records show no statistically significant rise in global temperatures over the past 19 years despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels and overheated UN predictions, perhaps it’s time to chill a bit to consider a greater threat.
Let’s worry more about delusional political leaders and their policies: those that conflate global terrorism and temperatures with a need for more stringent gun control; draconian restrictions on affordable energy essential to lift populations out of poverty; and attacks at home upon America’s constitutional separation of powers by those who would impose an imperial presidency.
NOTE: This article first appeared at: http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/Obama-Climate-ISIS/2015/12/21/id/706639/#ixzz3vAIbZdaE