The Guardian has two stories that identify what is really the basis of the argument about climate. The problems with the science pale in comparison as that was just of a tool being used to justify a much more important end. What end? See the story Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri, for instance:
Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world’s leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Another clue is in Climate change: Looking south.
Unless there is huge collective effort at Copenhagen all these small experiences will snowball. Within a generation, there could be wholesale migrations of peoples whose lands have become unviable or who have been displaced by resource wars; and there will be widespread loss of life through flood, drought and epidemic. This wretched vision of the future is not revelatory. It has been acknowledged for years.
The theme is that the world is in crisis and that humans, especially Western Civilization (the ‘rich’ people), have caused this. Mankind is too stupid to be able to find any way out of this pending catastrophe and the only way to salvation is for a global government to take control and regulate even the most minute aspects of choice and behavior. Not only are the ‘rich’ to be handicapped with many burdens on their ability to produce that which has made them wealthy, they must also have those riches taken from them and given to others who are not able or willing to produce themselves. It is a dismal view of humanity. It doesn’t mesh well with history, such as that of agriculture or that of energy supply in the last century. When such visions have been implemented, they have failed in misery. Yet the desire continues despite reality.