Obama Should Skip Copenhagen's Tax and Fraud Fest

President Obama flies to Copenhagen Tuesday for a fresh round of taxes and spending. To slay an imaginary beast called “global-warming,” Obama and other leaders will discuss a treaty that forces industrialized nations to shake themselves down and enrich the developing world. Even worse, Copenhagen occurs as climatic computer models misfire and climatologists substitute science with deception.

A treaty draft states that “The government will be ruled by the COP” or Conference of the Parties. It will execute “public policies…to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate…”

The treaty arranges the “transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries” via “a multilateral climate change fund” and other schemes. By 2020, these disbursements should “meet the full costs incurred by developing country Parties” — some $50 billion to $140 billion yearly.

The draft’s many revenue options include penalties and fines, a 2 percent tax on international financial-market transactions, a global carbon tax from which developing nations “shall be exempt,” and “mandatory contributions” of 0.5 to 1 percent of GDP. Today, this tax alone would equal $72.2 billion to $144.4 billion in brand-new, annual, compulsory US foreign-aid payments.

More maddening, this tax-and-spend treaty is a costly solution to an imaginary problem. So-called “global warming” threatens Earth about as much as the Loch Ness Monster. Like the Oracle at Delphi, computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issue frightful visions of a boiling planet come 2100. Too bad they so inaccurately foresaw Earth’s conditions just before 2010.

Expressing century-long trends, IPCC once predicted that CO2 concentrations would reach 838 parts per million in the year 2100. In fact, after nearly a decade of data, actual measurements extrapolate to a level that year of just 572 parts per million. By century’s end, IPCC’s computers say there will be 146.5 percent more CO2 on Earth than last September’s readings actually indicated.

Similarly, IPCC models warned that Earth’s temperature would trend higher by the 2100 equivalent of 7 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, nearly 29 years of satellite and surface data show a long-term warming tendency of 2.7 degrees F. IPCC prophesizes century-end temperatures 259 percent higher than what actual measurements indicated last September.

Data from just this decade reflect a cooling trend of 1.98 degrees F by the year 2100, rather than the IPCC’s 7 degrees F of model-inspired “warming.”

Of course, UN computers are no better than the data on which they dine. These data look quite dodgy considering e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). These hacked messages show influential British climatologists and their American counterparts distorting and concealing facts that contradict their faith in so-called “global warming.” Read on:

• “We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage.”

• “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series…to hide the decline” in temperatures, Professor Philip Jones, CRU’s chief, wrote in a November 16, 1999 e-mail to Penn State professor Michael Mann.

• As Jones e-mailed Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone…” Jones also wrote: “I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails.”

• “We need to cover our behinds on what was done here…”

CRU still wants scientists to trust its conclusions, although it now admits that during an office move, it discarded years of original weather-station observations. This is like telling an IRS auditor, “Just read my tax return; I chucked my receipts.” Meanwhile, as officials investigate, Professor Jones has stepped aside.

The Copenhagen treaty codifies world government fueled by fraud, justified by faulty data, and financed with massive, new, global taxes. Obama should stay here and focus on resuscitating America’s economy.