The real agenda

If anyone still doubted that the supporters of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) have another agenda at the root of their cause, George Monbiot dispels that doubt today in The Guardian.

The best way to give the poor a real voice is through a world parliament.

Er ... OK. So the best way to give the poor a voice is to move the government as far away as possible. Yep - that's really going to work. What a dribbling loon. Anyway, back to the issue - do AGW supporters believe in the theory because they are really concerned for the future of the earth or do they believe in it because it gives them a route to establish their "world government".

Those of us who want a world parliament are often accused of trying to invent a system of global governance.

There's your answer. Straight from the horses mouth. Moonbat then tries to shrug off his personal crusade as just giving us what we want.

But there is already a system of global governance. The UN security council, the World Bank, the IMF and the World Trade Organisation make decisions that affect us all. They do so without our consent.

Very true, but they do so also only with our cooperation. The global "governance" only goes as far as any nation allows it and certain nations - Iran and North Korea being prominent recent examples - often refuse to play the game. This is one of the things that Moonbat and his cohorts forget. "International law" does not exist. What "international law" is a series of agreements between consenting nations to abide by certain treaty agreements - and a treaty can be changed or cancelled at any time by any nation.

We then move to the crux - at least what I perceive to crux to be - of Moonbat's agenda.

Those who claim, like the British Eurosceptics, that regional or global decision-making is unnecessary are living in a world of make-believe. No political issue now stops at the national border. All the most important forces - climate change, terrorism, state aggression, trade, flows of money, demographic pressures, the depletion of resources - can be addressed only at the global level.

Wrong! First of all, few Eurosceptics claim that regional or global decision making is unnecessary. On the contrary, it has always been necessary and that is why we have such a thing as a "Foreign Office" to negotiate regional and global decision making on our behalf. What we Eurosceptics don't agree with is the idea that a single negotiator can work on behalf of a dozen or more disparate nations and peoples all of whom have different needs and requirements. Secondly - and more importantly - all of those "important forces" - apart from one - can be controlled or stopped at the national borders by national governments. The one that can not, as Georgie well knows, is climate change.

That is why it is so crucial for him and his ilk to establish climate change as a man made event rather than the entirely natural event - and an event completely beyond the control of any national OR "world government".

But at least he's admitted what it's really about.