Let me restate the reason for this negotiation, since in recent weeks there has been a concerted fight back against the notion that such a negotiation is even necessary. It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege.

It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity. Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act.

Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible. Also the same science is telling us that time is running out. So action has to be now.

The two statements above are contradictory with one suggesting the science doesn’t need to be “as certain as proponents allege” and the other asserting the science supports and motivates what proponents allege.  I also found revealing Blair’s assertion that as a “matter of precaution” it is time to act.

The speech uses the potential for crisis to motivate action rather than crisis itself.  Just the potential for climate change should be enough to empower government to seize control of the means for production, economic output, reproduction decisions, and social conduct of its citizens.  Given the incredible impact draconian legislation will have on the economy and the freedom of individuals around the world I would suggest we err on the side of liberty rather than fear.

“The whole world needs to adopt China’s one-child policy,” writes Canadian journalist Diane Francis, mother of two.

Ahhh, ya, what I meant is that you should adopt China’s draconian and tyrannical human-rights violating one-child force abortion policy.