"It was meant, in Gordon Brown's words, to strike a global green new deal to tackle climate change and pull the world out of recession at the same time," reported Geoffrey Lean for London's Sunday Independent on April 5.
The U.K.'s Prime Minister Brown was referring to the G-20 meeting held in London on April 2.
Brown was anticipating, no doubt, a coronation of sorts for his role in promoting the cause of climate change on his home turf.
Alas, however, the G-20 meeting on climate change failed.
The world press marked the failure of G-20 with a flurry of headlines. Latin American Herald Tribune: "Fidel Castro Slams Climate Skeptics"
Al Gore may have proclaimed that global warming "science is settled" but the foregoing headlines indicate that the world community has yet to accept his reasoning.
Just when it appears that the global warmers have hit an immovable block, they find a way around it. They will not give up easily.
Heretofore all attempts to combat climate change (formerly "global warming") have failed at the doorstep for lack of a means to finance the programs.
The latest word, as of April 9, is that G-20 has found a way to use the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to create a new form of currency, "paper gold," to jump start, among other economic issues, protection of the global climate.
"Paper gold" is a little known form of global currency, known technically as "Special Drawing Rights" (SDRs), which the U.S. Treasury has been encouraging the IMF to issue by the hundreds of billions of dollars.
SDRs were created in 1969 after a string of liquidity crises. The world's major governments, seeking a solution to the liquidity problem, created SDRs as a kind of global money, which other countries agreed to accept and exchange for dollars or other hard currencies.
Inasmuch as the United States is the principal backer of the IMF, the bill for climate change costs will eventually land on the doorstep of the U.S. taxpayer.
President Barack Obama has stepped forward and said the United States would lead by example the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and confront global warming.
Following President Obama's lead, the Democrats in Congress are planning a sweeping House bill that "would set up a cap and trade bill for carbon emissions from the transportation sector — all with the slashing of emissions 20 percent within about 10 years."
A budget that would satisfy the Democrats' requests weighs in at $3.5 trillion, a weight far too heavy for the American taxpayers to carry.
Money in the minds of the Democrats would appear easy to come by. The Republicans have given a flat “no” to such proposals.
Meanwhile, environmentalists are frantically calling out, "We can't wait to address global warming" until the Arctic melts down.
The nation's own government scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced this week that "the Arctic summer may be ice-free by the time a child born today reaches his 30th birthday."
Global warming alarmists point out that the pace of global warming is coming faster. They warn that a shrinking ice shield in the Arctic "replacing the white reflective ice with dark water means the planet will be absorbing even more of the sun's heat — like turning off the air conditioner on a hot summer day."
There you have it — the best possible case for the global warmers.
Global warmers constantly point out the dire consequences of global warming by noting that a warmer globe will create weather situations that will bring on excessive rain storms, flooding, tornadoes, and hurricanes. For the most part, they are describing normal temperate zone weather.
There is no evidence that warmer weather creates excessive health hazards with the exception of short, excessively hot spells that in the past have caused some deaths.
Past history, some 600,000 years as evidenced by ice cores from Greenland, have revealed no period where warm weather created catastrophic living conditions.
A recent publication by Collegians for a Conservative Tomorrow (CFACT) compares warm and cold periods of the past:
"If we look at the historic record — let's say the last 3,000 years — we see that people really suffered during the cold periods. During the ‘Little Ice Age,’ from around 1400 to 1850, things were really cold in Europe. Harvests failed. Food became scarce. People starved. There was much disease.
"Before that, however, we had a 'medieval warm period' around 1100 A.D. Temperatures then were at least as hot as they are now, maybe hotter. During this time the Vikings were able to discover and settle Greenland (they actually grew crops in Greenland). Life was good in Europe. Cathedrals were built. Wars and violence decreased. People prospered. There was plenty of food, even a surplus."
The global warming alarmists would have you believe that man is the cause of climate change. If man were the cause, he could change the climate. The climate is the sum total of all the days of weather. He would have to start by first changing the weather.