News / Brèves
Copenhaguen Summit / Sommet Copenhague
Back to previous selection / Retour à la sélection précédente

Lies have short legs, or the emperor’s new clothes in Copenhagen

Printable version / Version imprimable

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

The unbelievable intention of subjugating the world to a global dictatorship, on the basis of the greatest scientific fraud in history, has failed. The British Empire, whose various representatives had confessed their real goal of massive reduction of the world’s population, in an unprecedented manner, thus suffered a major defeat at Copenhagen. The positive results of the conference are due to the defense of national sovereignty and a qualitatively new level of cooperation between China and India, as the Times of India noted.

President Obama, on the other hand, cut an extremely bad figure, when he, first of all in his eight-minute speech, used formulations which were taken as insults to the Chinese, and then forced his way into a meeting of the heads of state of China, India, South Africa, and Brazil, ignoring the protest of the Chinese protocol officers, and saying that he would not have these countries negotiating in secret. The Brazilian daily O Globo commented that fortunately "no one was seriously hurt."

The result of the mammoth summit at Copenhagen was a massive defeat for all those who, despite Climategate and a growing number of scientists who are distancing themselves from the thesis of anthropogenic climate change, wanted to force their paradigm shift on the world. That the arrogance of the conference president, Connie Hedegaard, considerably strengthened the resistance of the developing countries, could only have been a surprise to the climate ideologues, who have missed the fact that the center of this historical moment shifted long ago to the Pacific region.

More realistic was the comment by Republican Congressman from Texas, Joe Barton, who traveled to Copenhagen: "... I don’t consider what China is doing to be obstruction, I consider it to be reality. They are not going to, all of a sudden, put aside all of the technology and economic development they are doing just to meet some political goal in the West.... I don’t hold it against them. What would we have done in 1850 if England, France and Germany said ... ’You can’t build factories’? We would have told them to go jump in a lake."

Instead of seizing on the failed agenda and demonstrably unrealizable chimera of a world climate dictatorship, governments and all responsible people should turn toward an honest and unconditional analysis of the events. Because not only has Climategate brought to light the methods by which certain "scientists" have become experts in fraudulently getting research grants, but it has also demonstrated the unscrupulousness of certain politicians and members of the media, through which they have disregarded the consequences of their climate policy on the developing countries.

Even though it doesn’t please members of the western "mainstream" media to hear it, the leader of the G77, Lumumba Di-Aping, was right when he pointed out in a press conference, that every attempt was made to force the developing countries to sign a "suicide pact." On the other hand, honest economists in the United States and Europe have discussed the fact that the proposed Climate Treaty would in fact mean the destruction of whatever development already exists in the Third World. Every day a large number of people die of starvation, of lack of medical care, of a lack of infrastructure. The proposed climate treaty would result in a massive increase in the death rate, social chaos, and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse would follow, governments would fall, and a collapse into a New Dark Age would result.

But serious scientists have also shown a readiness to admit their mistakes. For example, a number of prominent members of the American Physical Society (APS) are circulating an open letter to the leadership of the society with the demand that they retract a 2007 position paper that supported the theory of global warming. The paper was based on what is now admittedly corrupt science, and the integrity of the APS is at stake.

Before the summit, Russian President Medvedev met with a group of Russian scientists, who, back in 2005, had gone up against the British climate ideologue Sir David King, the former advisor to Tony Blair—among them the head of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yuri Osipov, and Academician Yuri Israel. Osipov stressed that there had been no scientific basis for the Kyoto Treaty, although King had exercised enormous pressures on its behalf. Medvedev assured the scientists that he would take their advice that Russia would not be drawn into playing someone else’s political game. The business world has ascertained, he said, that the energy-saving business is a lucrative source of income; obviously it is the smell of money that motivates some political leaders to participate so enthusiastically in this debate.

In this connection, it is very interesting that one of JP Morgan’s top bankers, Blythe Masters, is now responsible at that bank for trading of C02 emissions. Ms. Masters’ claim to fame is that she invented the creative financial instrument called Credit Default Swaps, which has had a not inconsiderable influence on the onset of the global financial crisis. In a kind of modern selling of indulgences, producers in the industrial nations, for example, buy emission credits through Climate Care, a firm located in Oxford, which sells ovens for $8 each to village women in Uganda. Naturally, financial products deriving from these emissions are sold to outside investors, and we are back at the same old swindle that brought on the collapse of the financial markets in July 2007.

German Chancellor Merkel, as a natural scientist and former environment minister, should have demonstrated the same integrity as the scientists of the APS, and arranged an investigation of the new facts that have come to light about climate research. Such an investigation would have to not only unearth all the background of Climategate, but also inquire into, for example, whether mathematical models for climate prediction development are suitable in the first place, or whether they lead precisely to the type of mistaken results in forecasting achieved by the whole economics guild, with respect to the development of the financial system.

But other habits of thought which have been established in the meantime, must also be called into question. At the world Population Conference in Bucharest in 1974—that is, before the cultural paradigm shift—it was perfectly clear to all the NGOs participating, that "overpopulation" was a "Rockefeller baby." The real problem is not overpopulation, but a lack of development, which "cries to Heaven," as Pope Paul VI’s 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio quite correctly stated.

The Danish daily paper Berlingske Tidende ran the following headline during the Climate Conference: "A New World Economic Order Has Taken Over the Climate Summit." This is probably not yet true, but it was a respectable step in the right direction. Now there must rapidly be follow-up, because the global systemic collapse is in full swing, the series of actual and potential sovereign defaults is becoming longer and longer: Iceland, Dubai, and soon Greece, Spain, and other countries could follow. The question of a New Bretton Woods system, the reintroduction of the Glass-Steagall standard, and a just new world economic order is becoming ever more urgent. In this context, the Climate Summit in Copenhagen was a partial victory.