'Biodiversity': The New Big Lie

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Recently
by James Delingpole: Royal
Society: Doh!

 

 
 

And so it begins.
With all the shamelessness of a Goldman Sachser trading in his middle-aged
wife for a hot, pouting twentysomething called Ivanka, the green
movement is ditching “Climate Change”. The newer, younger,
sexier model’s name? Biodiversity. (Mega hat tips to: Hilary
Ostrov
and Ozboy
at Libertygibbet
)

When I say
shameless, I’m talking so amoral it makes the Whore of Babylon
look like Mother Theresa; so flagrant it makes Al Gore’s, ahem,
alleged drunken “Love poodle” assault on the Portland
Masseuse look like an especially delicate passage from Andreas Capellanus’s
The Art of Courtly Love.

Consider this
summary
of the UN’s two-week Convention On Biodiversity
, launched
on Monday:

Delegates
from nearly 200 countries are being asked to agree to new 2020
targets after governments largely failed to meet a 2010 target
of achieving a significant reduction in biological diversity losses,
a goal set at the last biodiversity conference
in 2002. And one of the same issues that led to failure the first
time around could jeopardize this meeting: money.

Developing
nations say more funding is needed from developed countries to
share the effort in saving nature. Much of the world’s remaining
biological diversity is in developing nations such as Brazil,
Indonesia and in central Africa.

Do you see
what’s going on here?

OK. Here’s
an even bigger clue. Here’s something, unbeknownst to the world’s
taxpayers and free citizens, which the UN
technocrats stitched together in June
.

Busan/Nairobi,
11 June 2010
– History was made, Friday, in the South
Korean port city of Busan, when governments gave the green light
to an Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

The independent
platform will in many ways mirror the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) which has assisted in catalyzing world-wide
understanding and governmental action on global warming.

The new
body will bridge the gulf between the wealth of scientific knowledge
– documenting accelerating declines and degradation of the
natural world – and the decisive government action required
to reverse these damaging trends.

Its various
roles will include carrying out high quality peer reviews of the
wealth of science on biodiversity and ecosystem services emerging
from research institutes across the globe in order to provide
gold standard reports to governments.

“Gold
standard”, eh? Now where have I heard that phrase before?

Suddenly it
becomes clear why they kept Pachauri on at the IPCC. Because the
IPCC simply doesn’t matter any more. Sure it will go on, churning
out Assessment Report after Assessment Report, bringing pots of
money to the usual gang of bent scientists prepared to act as lead
authors. But the world’s mainstream media – especially
all those environment correspondents who so lovingly transcribe
the press releases of Greenpeace and the WWF as if they were holy
writ – will have moved on, according to the dictates of the
United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) fashionable crise
du jour.

“Never
mind ‘Climate Change’,” they’ll say to themselves.
“Our readers and viewers aren’t really so into that now
all the winters seem to have got so very cold. Biodiversity, that’s
the thing.”

Read
the rest of the article

October
22, 2010

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare