Just in time for Obama to announce it, and it only cost the USA 100 billion dollars. Thanks Hillary.
UPDATE: Statistician William Briggs points out in an email to me that he mentioned in an essay here that Lord Monckton had predicted this sort of outcome a month ago:
The forces of darkness will realize that some deal is better than no deal. Lord Monckton, on a guest appearance on the Glenn Beck program a month ago, had it right. He predicted the early stalemate, but said it would end at the last possible minute, after an all-hours marathon session:
From which the bureaucrats would emerge, their ties over their heads, where they will announce, “We’ve done it. We’ve come to an agreement.”
Leaders and ministers from 28 countries including Australia have outlined a draft accord to fight global warming.
The details of the draft are not known yet but the move came hours before some 130 world leaders were set to convene in the dying hours of the climate summit at Copenhagen.
Representatives from key blocs, covering both rich and developing countries, embarked on late-night negotiations in a desperate bid to hammer out a draft climate change agreement.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was also participating in the talks, which continued into this morning.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Brazilian President Inacio Lula da Silva were all seen as the talks got underway shortly after 11pm in Copenhagen.
Among industrialised countries, the participants were Norway, Russia, Spain, Britain, the US, Denmark, Australia, Germany, France, Sweden and Japan.
Representing small island states were the Maldives and Grenada, with Sudan, Algeria, Ethiopia and Lesotho from Africa. Sudan is also the leader of the G77 group of 130 developed countries, Algeria heads the Africa Group, and Lesotho leads the bloc of Least Developed Countries.
Major emerging present economies included China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico. Besides Brazil, other countries in which deforestation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions include Colombia and Indonesia.
There are two transnational groupings included: the European Commission and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
More than 130 heads of state and government will convene today for the final day of the climate summit talks.
AFP
h/t to WUWT reader Patrick Davis
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re: Jim (12:34:30)
I got some real good snake oil Jim…
Monroe (09:34:42) “I hope our leaders here in BC take a hard look at this carbon tax.”
Don’t you think it is more than a little telling that it was set up by right-wingers and now opposed by left-wingers? Lol. They already did think it through carefully – they realized it would minimize the 2010 Olympics deficit. I think wealthy people also hoped it would reduce traffic congestion in Vancouver so their commutes would become smoother, but that doesn’t seem to be working out as planned. I’m guessing you vote NDP?
BREAKING NEWS: Sydney Morning Herald reports 11th hour Copenhagen deal forged
I was very disappointed when I read this story.
Going by the headline I was expecting a story of shocking deceit about a document which had been invented by unscrupulous people. Maybe those nice people at CRU? They’re very good at forging data.
I think Mikey nailed it…
“You have to feel sympathy for the poor fools. They’ve got to conclude some sort of face-saving “deal,” regardless of how meaningless it is, or how unratifiable it is when they tele-transport back to the real world. They have to salvage something from this shambles to try and keep the momentum rolling to the next jolly shindig in Mexico.”
I agree with pretty much all of what he’s said. Except for that first part.
I have no sympathy for anyone who thinks I’m stupid enough to take their word on something of this magnitude. I don’t know which angers me more; that they are lying to me or that they think I’m stupid enough to believe them.
I think the “respect” shown to Hugo Chavez tells us more about true goals of this farce than any climate fraud evidence we’ve seen to date.
I egree with Paul. Wealthy people are a whole problem and should not be allowed to have too much wealth. They must give some to the hard peoples of China and third worlds who must not work so much to make money. Climate change is nature revenge upon greed and fatness of west!
anna v (08:04:16) :
hunter (05:23:55) :
You are mistaking my post for JPeden’s post. Sorry, J.Peden that my italics did not work so the quote and myself could be clear.
That’s good, no problem. I was just about to tell hunter I had no idea what he was talking about, that’s all.
But, anna v, to refer to the U.S.’s 250 bases, if that’s indeed the correct number, around the World as proving “imperialism”, is a non-starter. Because you have to prove or at least look at why the basis exist. The number means nothing apart from that consideration.
So I’m not going to do it myself apart from what I already know. We’ve still got about 100,000 troops in Europe as a component of NATO. After the 2nd World War we kept 200,000 there for decades. We protect Europe, or don’t you think you need us?
We’ve also got 20-30,000 in S. Korea to help prevent a N.Korea invasion, about 40,000 in Japan if the figure I last heard was correct. The latter are there to obviate the need for Japan to think it needed to rearm after WWII. We’ve still got some in Haiti who were sent to try to stabilize Haiti during the Clinton Adm. when there was a dispute over a problem involving an elected leader there – Juan Aristad?
We’ve got some at Gitmo, Cuba, which was in fact also an ideal place to keep the illegal enemy combatants who won’t be any better off in Thompson, Illinois, also a town which I think now has some increased risk of a terrorist attack that Gitmo didn’t. Gitmo also serves as a sphere of influence/national defense base in relation to Central and South America, where Communist and Dictatorial threats to the region abound. Or should Hugo Chavez and those other despots have their way, and unite?
We pulled out of Saudi Arabia, where a base had been established to enforce the “no fly” zones in Iraq after Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait and subsequently entered into surrender agreements. The U.N., but mainly the U.S., threw Iraq out of Kuwait. Remember?
We’ve got Naval bases I don’t know where and how many, but the American Navy is the main one which protects the shipping lanes of the World and responded to the Tsunami first along with the Australians, the U.N. getting there at least a week later and taking even more time to even do anything at all. I’d guess there might be at least 75,000 troops on those ships. Maybe we should cease that “imperialism”?
Now we have a base in Iraq, but do you really want to say nothing good was accomplished there, so that we should pull out and let it slide back into a Saddam Husein-like Dictatorship or an Islamic Theocracy? Do you care about the oppression of people, obviously including Women? Do you worry about Iran in particular wanting to destroy Israel, or Al Qaeda terrorism? Might you entertain that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a strategic military move to get AQ to fight where we wanted to fight, not where they wanted to? We won, and now AQ and the Taliban are squeezed between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Shouldn’t we try to even more seriously disable them?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the bases are all sensible, and have nothing to do with “imperialism”, which imo is simply name-calling and a tactic of diverting blame for various problems onto the U.S.. The left needs this kind of diversion and a lot of people need “hate objects” so as to divert away from actually thinking about other problems, especially their own.
Otherwise it is you who needs to make the argument that U.S. bases are indicative of “imperialism”. Numbers of bases don’t mean anything in themself.
[REPLY – When the poor have cried, America hath wept: Imperialism should be made of sterner stuff!]
Paul Vaughan (00:43:45) :
J. Peden (00:17:55) “Paul Vaughan, then I apologize for my extrapolation.”
Find me a permanent seat on the gravy train and all may be forgiven.
I’ll be sure to let you know, but unfortuneately I’m sol myself, except perhaps for some “gravy train” dog food I might-could scare up.
J. Peden (21:25:57) :
But, anna v, to refer to the U.S.’s 250 bases, if that’s indeed the correct number, around the World as proving “imperialism”, is a non-starter.
I did not say that the US is irrational led by crazy people. Of course there is a US reason for each base.
Do a master clear.
Substitute China and Chinese wherever you say US and americans, and tell me what you would think is happening?
If you read carefully what I said, I was not against a peaceful US imperium. I am against bloody wars. The bases should have been kept as deterrents and reminders of who is boss, but the spirits after the fall of the soviets were ripe for a peaceful takeover of the US plastic culture over the whole world. It was Kosovo/yugoslavia for us in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan for the wider area that opened our eyes.
A good friend of mine and a staunch US supporter ( many of us educated in the US with all that rhetoric of liberty and democracy etc) told me bemused: if I had been told in my youth that in old age I would be chanting “americans, killers of nations” ( a favorite slogan of communists during the cold war) I would have thought I was mad.
Moderator,
[REPLY – When the poor have cried, America hath wept: Imperialism should be made of sterner stuff!]
True, but which America? The one that is starry eyed at home believing in democracy liberty and all those great values, or the one ordering army invasions and bombings? There is a cognitive dissonance there.
Democracy should, like a flower, bloom spontaneously from a culture. It takes time to nurture democratic feelings, and bombs are much faster, but one cannot preach democracy, or emancipation of the females, using bombs and expect to be loved and respected and not seen as the invader that you are.
anna v (08:04:16) “Democracies have internal struggles that in the end bring down […]”
If I understand you correctly, I agree that this started evolving into an increasingly serious problem after the fall of the iron curtain (but I am starting to see signs that the ‘higher-ups’ are now well-aware of this and finding ‘creative’ solutions….)
J. Peden (22:01:56) “perhaps […] some “gravy train” dog food”
A welcome laugh. Ice after Copenhagen, windows wide open, cold air blowing in – very nice.
Perhaps the Chinese leaders have no intention of starting down a path that might eventually commit them to surrendering their national sovereignty to some universal world government such as that envisioned by Lord Monckton.
******************
anna v (01:26:34) :
Moderator,
[REPLY – When the poor have cried, America hath wept: Imperialism should be made of sterner stuff!]
True, but which America? The one that is starry eyed at home believing in democracy liberty and all those great values, or the one ordering army invasions and bombings? There is a cognitive dissonance there.
Democracy should, like a flower, bloom spontaneously from a culture. It takes time to nurture democratic feelings, and bombs are much faster, but one cannot preach democracy, or emancipation of the females, using bombs and expect to be loved and respected and not seen as the invader that you are.
******************
Anna V – It appears to me that you are trying to stuff a messy world into a few neat, conceptual boxes. In the real world democracies have to make deals and team up with dictators. In the end, the US does not dictate the government for every country and in the real world one has to work with what one has. You are fond of looking back on history, so let’s look back on it. Nations that have or had the means have always attempted to influence world events even to the point of capturing and enslaving other nations and those that don’t have the means have always complained. War is a common thread. War is a common thread because entrenched dictators and tyrants do not respond to talk. In an ideal world, everyone would be nice to each other, say please and thank you, and “just get along.” That isn’t world we live it – that world exists only in the minds of idealists.
Re: Jim (08:06:42)
I think you are misreading anna v. In your “real world”, I imagine actions having consequences, such as backlash (ever-adjusting balance). Surely tough guys (who get power as a benefit) can take a little criticism ….if they are also level-headed good guys (as opposed to iron-fisted, censoring dictators) – i.e. taking criticism gracefully (& hopefully applying operational optimism to learn from it) is part of the job for good guys (‘positive customer experience’, etc.).. I guess it all comes down to whether those in power are easily alarmed by criticism (not exactly a desirable leadership quality…)
Paul Vaughan (10:31:14)
Hey Paul. Actions have consequences, as does inaction.
Re: Jim (19:26:50)
Perhaps we are in agreement.
anna v:
I did not say that the US is irrational led by crazy people. Of course there is a US reason for each base.
Right, anna v, you said what I said you said, anna v:
People who were staunch supporters of US policies during the cold war, were mightily disillusioned with its policies after the end of it.
You may not see it from in there, but the policies were and are imperial policies of total control. What other country has over 250 military bases on foreign soil, when there is no longer a communist takeover threat? except for trying to impose complete control the world over?
That’s what you said, that America is an imperialistic country because it has 250 military bases around the World. While you have still not proven that any of the bases represent U.S. “imperialism”. Resist right here, anna, the urge to think that somehow that is my problem or that I’m just being jingoistic or whatever other excuse you might use that does not involve you. No, as a matter of being reasonable, you have to prove what you said.
But especially, you should wonder why you resist doing it. I’m saying you are probably using the “imperialism” charge against the U.S. to avoid something else you’d rather not think about, as I’ve mentioned before.
Likewise, your argument claiming that I would think like you if the bases were Chinese is irrelevant, except that it is obvious projection! I would first analyze why the Chinese had their bases just like I said you should, and that’s exactly why I said you should. Because that’s the reasonable thing to do.
But cutting to the chase once again, why don’t you focus on your own Country, or better, your own mind first? I’m suggesting that you are ignoring what’s really bothering you, and it ain’t the U.S.A..
I’m serious. You need to at least wonder why you don’t want to back up your claim rationally when you are trying to affix some kind of rather serious pathology to “America”.
If you want to short cut it, forget about analyzing the U.S. bases and America. Start looking at the very way you are thinking to begin with, especially about yourself and life.
Re: J.Peden (01:18:58)
Your attack on anna v is unhelpful. Sometimes my students come to me upset; it doesn’t help if I get upset back at them. If your intent is to defend good leadership, the strong silent approach might be more convincing (particularly in a forum that rails against alarmism). Season’s Best to All.
Paul Vaughan (11:23:50) :
Re: J.Peden (01:18:58)
Your attack on anna v is unhelpful. Sometimes my students come to me upset; it doesn’t help if I get upset back at them.
I wasn’t upset. anna v should take my advice so that she doesn’t have to be so upset.
This in no way releasess me from my obligation to get you a seat on the gravy train.