The headlines say the representatives at the United Nations climate conference in South Africa reached an agreement. But the real story is that the meeting only produced an agreement to start more talks on a deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol by 2015 with emissions limits that won’t be in effect until 2020.

Despite the uncertainty of such a proposition, one official, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, South Africa’s foreign minister, nevertheless had the nerve to claim “We have saved planet Earth for the future of our children and our great-grandchildren.”

Apparently she’s forgotten that the alarmists have said that global warming must be solved now — that Prince Charles traveled to Rio de Janeiro 33 months ago and lamented that the world had “less than 100 months” to save itself.

So if we have roughly 67 months left, that puts the beginning of the end at some time in 2017. So why bother with framing a treaty that won’t start until 2020? Won’t that be too late?

It’s never too late, though, to continue scaring the public in hopes it will eventually give in and follow the alarmists and their asinine ideas.

The world might be lost in five or six years, but there’s always enough time to keep pushing for a corrupt redistribution of wealth that will drain developed nations.

In the absence of such a deal, some conference representatives proposed a global climate court of justice that would let climate change “victims” force the rich, top carbon dioxide-producing countries to pay up.

Jonathan Verschuuren, a professor of international and European environmental law writing for Radio Netherlands, assures us that “a climate court will certainly not materialize” because “the world’s industrialized countries have more sense than that.”

Yes, the industrialized nations should have more sense than that. But do they?

Last week we wrote that “developed nations typically make a lot of noise about cutting greenhouse gas emissions” but aren’t willing to sacrifice their economies to the chimerical benefits of steep cuts. At least, that’s been the history. But the future is, as always, unsettled.

What if, for instance, voters re-elect President Obama and turn Congress back to the Democrats, and the British bring back the Labor Party? If so, an international climate court isn’t so unlikely, is it?

With the science incomplete, corrupt scientists, the alarmists exaggerating the case and the socialists itching to collect from all, a climate court could do more damage to the U.S. than the Axis powers ever could.

http://news.investors.com/Article/594567/201112121848/durban-conference-climate-change-warming-court.htm