Obama trying to save Copenhagen Summit – what comes afterwards?

And here’s the stagecraft coming.

Here’s how the rest of it might go down.

By William M. Briggs Source: courtesy of Pajamas Media

First, some good news.

A lefty organization sent me an indignant press release stating that the Danish police have “aggressed on protesters outside the Bella Center.” By this, they mean that the agitants, who moments before were shouting “Push the police away!,” were physically held back from entering an already crowded room.

It is true that it is depressing to see the heretofore useful word aggression turned into another mouth-numbing verb. But it’s heartening to hear that a group of professional whiners were told “No.” True to form, when turned away the perpetually petulant started screaming “Rights! [1],” by which they mean, as they always do, “My desires, not yours.”

And can it be a coincidence that we now hear from Russia — the land where the Climategate emails were first posted — accusations that the Hadley Climate Research Unit fiddled Siberian temperature data [2]? The charge is that scientists only considered stations which showed warming, and tossed those which did not fit their preconceptions.

What makes this delicious is that the stations Hadley chose had large chunks of missing data, and the stations ignored had uninterrupted records. This makes sense: it’s easier to homogenize [3] data that isn’t there. The explanations to come will no doubt provide for some light comedy.

The best news of all are the rumors that “progress has been halting [4]” in Copenhagen. The word stalemate is showing up with increasing frequency in news reports.

Government ministers can’t agree on the best way to take money from their own citizens, give it to an opaque, above-the-law organization, and yet still control it; because, of course, with all that money comes power. Negotiators are skittish about how they can ensure that the money pledged will actually be paid into the pot, and if it does, who gets to dole out the funds. Everybody wants a piece of it, but nobody trusts anybody.

However, I believe this is only a spate of temporary sanity.

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.”

My money is on Viscount Monckton. The Russian revelations about data manipulation, like the rest of the Climategate story, will be resolutely ignored by negotiators. Some kind of real-money deal will emerge. There’s too much momentum and too much vanity on the line. The One himself will even appear on the icy slopes of Denmark. You simply cannot have so many celebrities and political will in one place, and expect them to concede defeat. It is just not in their nature.

But that’s an easy prediction. What about what comes after?

First, the greeny groups will smell blood in the water. They will use the Copenhagen deal, here in the U.S., to claim that cap and trade must be passed. They will say: “The world agrees something has to be done!” Weak-minded politicians — of which there is never a shortage — will find this argument convincing. Still, the best the greens will do this year will be a publicly stated “commitment” to “tackle the issue,” right after the new year, after the left secures its health care power grab. “You’re right, it’s devilishly important” will assuage some greenies, and will quiet them enough so that the Democrats can mount some sort of campaign counterattack in 2010.

Democrats know they’re going to lose a good chunk of seats by passing health care — they don’t want to start a riot by tacking on another tax so soon afterwards. They will wait to see if they lose their filibuster-proof majority. If so, they will be able to blame the failure of cap-and-trade legislation on “uncaring, denialist” Republicans.

Meanwhile, back at the UN, it will be broad smiles and CO2-emitting champagne toasts. “To humanity!” they will cry, but as they place their glasses on the salvers, not a few of them will twist their mustaches and think to themselves: “Money!”

Of which, it will be gradually revealed, some will have gone missing.

Shock! Horror! Who could possibly have known! It will, of course, have gone to brothers-in-law in various countries. Most organizations receiving our coerced largess will turn out to be “green consultancies,” of the kind that spend a ton of money (by hiring cousins and other familia) but produce nothing.

After a decade of global temperatures stubbornly refusing to play nice, and things turning out to be not nearly as bad as predicted, the Copenhagen-created program will not die.

No government created entity ever kicks off simply because it isn’t needed.

It will morph into an ossified, entrenched behemoth whose mission will, through time, quietly morph into “environmental justice.” Climate change, the original impetus, will have been long forgotten.

Place your bets now.

Advertisements

162 thoughts on “Obama trying to save Copenhagen Summit – what comes afterwards?

  1. First of all, the money doesn’t start flowing immediately. Second, I’m not so sure much will come out of Copenhagen. Third, you are too optimistic that cap-and-trade will pass Congress. I think you are not entirely convinced of the body of information that you have been covering and that your outlook shows a sign of unnecesssary pessimistic resignation. A successful fight is just beginning…buck it up, my man.

  2. “No government created entity ever kicks off simply because it isn’t needed.” That summarizes my thoughts.

  3. Sorry I don’t bet against a certainty
    You missed one thing, the smug little papers writen by historian 20-30 years from now wondering how the world got that stupid?

  4. ‘It will morph into an ossified, entrenched behemoth whose mission will, through time, quietly morph into “environmental justice.” Climate change, the original impetus, will have been long forgotten’
    Totally agree with this statement just as, no matter how much we complain, the science no longer matters. It’s gone beyond facts and figures and evolved into a movement. Was it Tony Blair who recently said that it doesn’t matter if the science is right or wrong anymore.
    I am still in total disbelief that in a modern society that democracy can be so massively abused. Then again even though the new world elite may think that they are all powerfull I still think that nature has a few tricks left. With the suns influence at a modern minimum and a couple of volcanoes clearing their throats I am more than happy to receive a few pairs of thick socks this christmas.

  5. The words “Redistribution of Wealth” is meaningless to me. It’s a divisive issue used and implanted within your minds weather it happens or not, in order to keep you divided from others by having you simply thinking about those words, so they repeat them over and over again.
    A natural redistribution of wealth would occur if everyone simply had to play by the same rules and those rules were enforced.
    The best rule book I have ever come across in my lifetime is called “The US Constitution”.
    Those rules are no longer enforced and different rules are made up for different people or groups of people as we go along. Sort of like Calvinball.

  6. im with mauibrad on this they can pledge all the money in the world, but just like kyoto it will be a meaningless gesture. the regressive wing of the democrat party has made the rest of the party walk the plank too many times on unpopular legislation. 2010 elections are gonna be a bloodbath. im feeling better about our chances of defeating these people all the time.

  7. My first move away from the left came in the late sixties, when I was about nineteen at Sydney Uni. The crippled Governor of NSW, Roden Cutler, was inspecting a small troop of cadets on the main lawn of campus. The rad students approached and began to jostle both cadets and governor. The governor continued to hobble down the line of cadets, who remained at attention.
    Finally, a small number of engineering students formed a cordon and protected Sir Roden. Didn’t take many engineers to hold back that mob. I’m ashamed to say I stood back and merely observed. But it got me thinking.
    Needless to say, like the Copenhagen agitators, the radical students saw themselves as victims in this exchange.
    (Incidentally, Sir Roden Cutler lost his leg in the process of winning the Victoria Cross. The story of his daring in Syria is worth a movie.)

  8. At some point China will get sick of lending money to the US to squander. It will be interesting to see how much of the madness survives when there’s no money left.

  9. It’s a total reality disconnect. No melting ice-caps, no sea level rise, no warming for ten years, minus 4 in Copenhagen. Hey, perhaps their beloved ‘Mother Nature’ is trying to send a message to the greens.

  10. An interesting piece and the predictions are pretty accurate I’m afraid. Still I hate the political dividing in it. If we are to fight the climate alarmism we have to keep on pumping reason and logic in the debate. It is too late for Copenhagen but if we are right, time is on our site. I see everywhere around me that people begin to question the unhealthy alliance between science and politics on both sides of the political line. The raw data that Nature provides will do the rest, so we can keep the debate clean of the health care system or the saving of the capitalistic system by means of taxpayers money

  11. Yep, sounds like a fairly good estimation of what will happen!
    I think I wrote somewhere on this blog before…..It’s like a soap opera…..you can tell what the plot line is going to be for the next however long just by watching ten minutes of one episode…
    I wish so much that the script writers would put a “twist” or two in the script, but i think we all know that politicians could never be creative enough for that!
    That’s why they’re sooooooo predictable
    heh….

  12. Looks like sea ice extent is back to 2004 levels. bet that does not get a mention at COP or in the negotiations!

  13. ‘Leaked UN report shows cuts offered at Copenhagen would lead to 3C rise.’
    Ha!!
    That’s funny……’leaked’ uh huh!

  14. Ten to twenty years from now, when the papers are “discussing” the upcoming ice age (as they did 40 and 100 years ago) the same gov entities will be pumping out two things: 1) proofing that the next ice age is coming, and 2) denials that they even said global warming was really happening. Just like they did regarding the last “impending ice-age.”
    The media will uncritically accept their assertions, as will the greenies. We skeptics will still be, well, you know the drill.
    Unless, of course, we keep our energy going and keep some light of reality shining through.

  15. O/T. I live about four miles from UEA-CRU. This morning we all awoke to a heavy fall of snow and no electricity. Much of South-East England is in the same state. It is not uncommon to get the odd flurry at this time of year but this amount of snow, pre- Christmas is beyond my recall. Oh, I forgot, 2009 is one of the hottest years ever, I must be imagining it. How I explain to my miserable hens that they are too I can’t quite fathom at the moment.

  16. the job for the beauracrats is to right something the politicians can hold up to justify the waste of resources time and egos that have gone into the process.
    To admit the whole thing is a waste of time and money would be unacceptable in the electorate, given the bias of the MSM.
    So Monkton is probably right a document with high sounding principals will be agreed to, but as usual the the fine print will have all sorts of weasle words which will later allow the politicians to sidestep from any undertakings made.

  17. I’m hopeful that like all enormo gestures – Copenhagen will go precisely nowhere.
    Hot air, some more green millionaires and then the bubble will burst a la dotcom mirage.

  18. I wonder how much of the recently agreed one trillion plus dollar stimulus money will be frittered away by the new socialist regime headed by obama?
    All that borrowed money, money that was supposed to stimulate the US economy will be utterly wasted on third world greedy despots and their love of the good life, it will be a running joke from now on that when it rains in some third world cesspit the despots will demand more cash and when it doesnt rain they will demand more cash, they will be able to allow the ruination of their nations and blame it all on global warming and the best part is the Copenhagen freak show will actively encourage and handsomely reward bad third world governance.
    Third world despots will be encouraged to starve their own people which they then blame on global warming and hey presto the money for new private jets,Swiss bank accounts,new mercs and beemers wil rain on them.
    This is the new deal that is supposed to save the world? Trillions of borrowed dollars that should be spent on the very people who will have to pay off the debt is being used to drag the world into a new dark age of corruption. The very poor uneducated third world poor that the freak show cultists promise to ‘help’ are the ones that are going to suffer the most and all the while the rich get richer.
    The wealth redistribution is going to make the rich richer and the powerful even more powerful and the ordinary masses are going to pay for it all.

  19. In the UK, all our main political parties have bought into the EU superstate and the climate change scam.
    We have in effect got a ‘Quisling’ parliament and Government running the UK on behalf of the EU.
    On the back of a massive economic downturn and the collapse in trust of our politicians,the coming general election could see great gains for the more extreme political parties.
    50% of our people don’t believe in AGW,and that is before the pain of carbon cuts and taxes kick in.
    You Americans are lucky that gun ownership is a right.
    Trust me.

  20. “If so, they will be able to blame the failure of cap-and-trade legislation on “uncaring, denialist” Republicans.”
    Shouldn’t that read…
    “…will be able to _continue_ blaming “uncaring, denialist” Republicans”?
    Peaking into the sausage factory all these years, that’s pretty much been the story. It’s always those “damn, dirty republican apes!” (because they’re in bed with big oil, you know) even though, at least in my state, republicans are of the mind that we should “do something” just as much democrats are. Both sides voted down cap and trade, but they clung to the perception of thier super-human powers (which is, of course, that super-heroic ability to instantaneously suck away massive amounts of purchasing power…)

  21. Why would a Middle Eastern kingdom be funding a British Climate research business?
    Oman has just completed a massive investment in LNG, and developed and installed new CO2 removal technology in their process; this lowers the carbon footprint of their gas. So using their gas to drive electricity generation will be less costly once CO2 is taxed.
    They have no problem with this whole thing.
    Saudi Arabia, who have oil and not so much gas, are in a different position, they have a problem with this whole thing.
    Just an observation; a 4 degree rise in temperature in the Sultanate of Oman or Saudi
    Arabia would change it from really hot to really hot.
    Maybe it is just good business.
    http://www.omanlng.com/
    Oman LNG L.L.C
    Formed: Set up by Royal Decree in February 1994.
    Location: Head office: Muscat; Plant: Qalhat near Sur (approx 340 km from Muscat)
    Products: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
    Shareholders: Government of Oman 51 %, Royal Dutch/Shell Group 30%, Total Elf Fina 5.54%, KOLNG 5%, Partex 2% Mitsubishi 2.77%, Mitsui 2.77%, ltochu 0.92%.
    The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: “The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)” By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)
    This is important to know, for two reasons.
    Firstly, the key institution providing support for Global Warming theories and the basis for the IPCC findings receives funding from “Big Oil” and the nuclear power industry.
    Secondly, the research from the institution which is perceived to be independent publicly funded research, is actually beholden to soft money, CRU is in fact a business.
    The funders of the CRU are on the bottom of this page from their website:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
    So, there a business set up in the early 1970’s, so what?
    I thought that this might explain a bit about how we got to where we are. I am not a conspiracy theorist but to me it looks like this may have been a very, very long term plan. Of course it could all just be coincidental, but it does seem to fit the observable information.
    A few weeks ago I explained the apparent CRU fraud to a friend of mine, a believer in AGW; he said ‘Why would they do it?’ I indicated the Jones had received 22 million, etc, but he countered, ‘For a fraud this large, going on for this long, there would have to be billions of dollars to be made, not millions’. That made sense.
    So I looked into it a bit. First this is no short term thing, it covers two or three decades, involves many countries and government on both sides of the isle, the US alone has had 4 different presidents and the UK a similar number of prime ministers, Canada the same. So is it not political in the partisan sense of the word.
    If, and this is a big if, you make the assumption that the objectives were:
    1. Provide a smooth replacement of the use of oil in power generation and transportation, so as to avoid a panic over Peak Oil.
    2. Get people to buy into Nuclear Power so that base load electrical power generation would not consume the available fossil fuel supply.
    3. Get the people to really want to pay for it all.
    Note: The IEA put a date on peak oil production THIS WEEK, so if the CO2 scare does not pan out they are already starting to put the ‘Peak Oil’ story into play. It is also the 2020 date, why am I not surprised.
    http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15065719
    Then the following is not unbelievable.
    The newer scrubber technology for coal fired plants was moving along well back then, and in fact today their scrubbers can remove pretty much everything except CO2. However there is really not much money in coal, it is abundant, easy to handle, local in most instance to the base load demand for electricity, and a coal fired power plant is not much more complicated, or expensive, then a good steam engine.
    Since there was not enough money in coal it would not be financially rewarding to simply try to promote coal as a replacement for oil.
    So they looked at the situation and realized that the difference between the different technologies to replace base load power generation was the amount of CO2 per kilowatt/hour.
    At that point CO2 became the target. That happened sometime between 1985 and 1988.
    Now, the environmental movement is comprised mostly of followers, you can look up ‘dihydrogen monoxide’ (water), on many occasions at environmental conferences comedians and light news organizations have managed to get lots of environmentalists to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. So apparently they do not do a lot of independent analysis before making a conclusion, they are mostly followers.
    So if you need a large number of followers, there is a ready supply, but you need people, a few leaders, to tell the followers what to think. The followers do not need to, or perhaps even want to, know the reason or the facts; they just need something or someone to follow.
    Now you gain control of a climate research business, and begin the task of demonizing CO2, you realize that it will take years but that is OK, there are billions of dollars waiting at the end. Slowly over time you manage to get control of the worlds climate data and begin adjusting it, you use what you have been told by the marketing people to present the information needed in as clear and scary manager as is possible. Remember the two biggest motivators are fear and greed, and in this case, because of the number of followers greed will not work. There are simply too many followers to pay them all off.
    So there we have it, a campaign of fear, based on non-science emanating from a few leaders that ultimately drive the followers to do something that would just not have been possible after Three Mile Island.
    They are marching in the streets of Copenhagen in support of nuclear power. They do not know this of course, but that is what the plan on the table says. Check it out, look at exactly what are the big technologies being pushed at the summit. I will give you a hint, it is not windmills.
    They are also marching in Copenhagen against big business, while supporting one of the biggest businesses possible, the World Bank. Is it not strange that the Dutch Text looks to have the World Bank control the trillions being put on the table? So they are marching against exactly what they are supporting, they are simply followers.
    Perhaps you can fill in the blanks between the possible objectives I mentioned earlier and where we find ourselves today. Fill in the blanks, connect the dots and follow the money. Look at the funders, how many are involved in delivery, support, financing and maintenance of the movement of liquid energy and the generation of nuclear power.
    I do not think this was ever about the environment.
    There are lots of other things that may tie into this, like GE buying and now selling a
    TV network, they needed then but do not need it now, a bit of a stretch perhaps but GE is a big player in gas and nuclear power generation. Look around, there are others.
    That said; I do believe that the world does need to move to nuclear power for base load power generation, and I do believe that the Peak Oil problem is a real threat to stability.
    So I agree with the objectives and encourage the outcome, I just do not like them messing with the science and trying, nay succeeding, in conning the masses to agree to it all.
    Perhaps there was someone inside the CRU that felt the same way; the means were wrong regardless of the merits of the objectives, so they let slip the package in the hope that someone could figure out what they could not just come out and say publicly.
    This thing would not need thousands of scientists to be involved. All that was need was for one or two people in perhaps five or six countries to adjust the raw data. Anyone using the data when making a comparison to CO2 would find the results that had been seeded into the data. The scientists would not be aware that they were being played. They would honestly think that their conclusions were correct. Only none of their predictions would ever be confirmed.
    All the papers that used the data, and all the papers that used those papers for support, would therefore be invalid. In the vast majority of the cases I would expect that the authors are without blame, they made no mistake. The mistake was encoded into the base data before they even started.
    Only the ones that actually were in control of the raw data and making the ‘adjustments’ needed to know of the exact requirements of the adjustment needed to seed the outcome into the data. When a scientist begins to say things like “the data must be wrong”, or “our monitoring is deficient”, perhaps they might not have been in on the ‘adjustments’ and they are likely frustrated because their model ‘works’ for the past and recent past. Think “We can’t explain the lack of warming”, perhaps the author of that email could not, but perhaps someone else could.
    It would only have taken a dozen people in just the right places, and remember it took years to pull this off.
    So who might have put these people in just the right place all those years ago, and why?

  22. I’m Up for a bet. I’ll put ten dollars on it but when it comes to pay up the bills will be worth ten cents.
    We are forgetting the pending inflation. When Obama makes the banks dump their money, mostly from the 800 trillion bail out, out of excess reserves into the investment market then runaway stagflation will kick in.
    Yes the UN will get lots of first world money in the next few years but they will need a wheel barrow full to rip off the price of another bottle of champaign. Copenhagen is a treaty to tax a bankrupt to pay for programs that will only block cheap energy, including solar, and ruin many real ecologies.
    On Lew Rockwell’s site http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north791.html
    Gary North wrote about climategate and used a post I made on this site.
    I suggested that they would declare victory and go home. Copenhagen has botched even that.
    Actually I don’t gamble at all I’m to broke. lol.
    The global financial system is teetering. Held up by props that are as hollow as the hockey stick.

  23. It will be interesting to count the ‘weasel’ words that are sure to be found in the final Copenhagen ‘accord’ document.
    As per Kyoto, there will be plenty of promises, but little action. As science hasn’t a clue of the future direction of Earth’s climate, this is a good thing.

  24. I wouldn’t compare it to health care if I were you, most developed capitalist countries have perfectly decent national health care without it being some kind of socialist plot. To argue otherwise is a global projection of a silly American domestic conservative obsession.
    Not that I’m saying I approve of Obamas health care plans, i’m not American, it is not my place. I’m just saying that to the rest of the world the health care comparison may seem a little silly.

  25. Has the US got this sort of money to be practicing this kind of largesse? Add’s to the trillions of $ of debt – much of it owed to China!!! Ha! Ha! Ha!
    Of course printing the 100 billion/year is an option.
    The world and the US have gone mad. Well the useful idiots in the western democracy certainly have.

  26. In Aus , Krudd and Wrong are on a slide out of power..yay!
    avoiding double dissolution enabled them to manage to screw it up that little bit more for the incoming party.:-(
    And yes I hope to be here and reading the reports on the mass psy-ops that suckered the rich wanna be rich, and infamous..!
    imagine, with a shudder, if it wasn’t for communication on the net these mongrels could have gotten away with it.
    now I wonder also as USA is more than broke..how does Hillary think you are going to pay all that money to 3rd world??
    more fiat money perhaps?
    ah well depression disaster and act of whatever you believe in, regardless You WILL be forced to keep paying them..well after the temps have got colder, and the seas don’t rise!
    because theres No way the 3rd world PTB will ever give up such a cash cow as USA and Aus. at least leeches drop off when sated, this lot, no way!

  27. Why is it that the greenies have not noticed that they have been had over by the politicians, the market makers and big business? Its the money that counts. If they had stuck to pollution and green ideals like wildlife and deforestation they could not fail to win battle after battle. If cap and trade is pushed through it will be the end of the greenies. They will be sidelined with “move along nothing to see here”

  28. Are Hillary and Obama going to pay for this $100 billion out of their own pockets?
    http://www.usdebtclock.org/
    Or just hope that the Chinese will want to buy more bonds? Sadly, the words Republic and Banana spring to mind.
    (Not that things are much better in the UK – after 10 years of boom we got nothing to show for it, apart from two illegal wars and £175 billion public expenditure deficit).

  29. Carl Chapman (01:01:41) :
    At some point China will get sick of lending money to the US to squander.
    Not as long as we keep buying their products. Only when we can no longer purchase their wares to their advantage will they cut off the lending. They have learned how to use capitalism to their communistic aspirations.

  30. Just listening to Stern – he’s just claimed that deserts will be under water due to Climate Change – in the next breath he says this is simple fact and not alarmist.
    Oh the irony.

  31. This is truly obscene. No news of this so far or have I missed things already?However, those of us who have half a brain, can see that the lie is a lie, they know it is & so do we, I won’t er-run the panto routine again.
    The BBC are doing their dammedest best to perpetuate the lie. I was away in Southampton on Wednesday watching darling daughter get her award after getting a First in her Nursing Degree, proud & tear moving moment for Dad!
    Well, on Newnight, the BBC got its pet green promoting reporter to host in his own home a group of neighbours, supposedly some doubters, some believers, & some neutrals, naturally enough as a pretence to balance. Well to sway the neutrals & doubters, they had a “scientists” who conducted an experiment live on tv in reporter’s own kitchen. The experiment consisted of two 1 gallon plastic water jugs, the type used in water dispensers the world over, with sealed lids fitted with thermometers, one would have just “air”, the other CO2 added via a third smaller container, with dissolved bi-carbonate of soda to generate CO2. Now, I did not see all the experiment start to finish, it was a long day followed by a delightful family dinner, then back to the hotel. What I saw was the bi-carb being dissolved, the “scientist” had mentioned earlier that most of the earth was covered with ocean & I got the impression that the containers had water in them. The “scientist” said they needed heat from sunshine, at which point the camera panned to the outside window to show snow falling at night, the irony clearly being missed by one & all there, so two heat lamps were applied to the containers. At first & embarrassingly the plain air container was warmer than the CO2 filled one, but over several minutes the CO2 container started to warm considerably! The whole thing was broadcast with an air of desparation to convince the public of their guilt based on a failing conference jooly in Copenhagen. Guess what, all present were miraculously convinced it’s all our fault.
    Now, from what I have read here, on ICECAP, CA, Climate Change, from Lord Monckton, SPPI, Bishop Hill, & several others, something seemd a little too convenient to me. Was there some small exo-thermic chemical reaction when dissovling the bi-carb that caused the heat? Were there other factors I did not see or figure out – I’m no chemist – or did the CO2 cause the heating up to occur or was the water vapour contributing to the temp rise as well? I am very suspicious of the experiment. Any one, especially the chemists out there, any ideas as to what I actually saw? As I say it was late in the day when I saw that part of the programme.
    BTW, it’s frigging cold over here right now, with half the Uk covered in snow with icey winds, as is Denmark. We in the west just have the usual British weather at this time, after weeks of heavy rainfall, it all freezes down with icey winds, ( at least the dog didn’t get too wet over the fields this time). Oh the irony is unbelievable!
    AtB

  32. I have to wonder: If these people are so intelligent, why would they schedule a conference on global warming in Copenhagen in December? Have they never heard of Murphy’s Law?

  33. Carl Chapman (01:01:41) :
    “At some point China will get sick of lending money to the US to squander. It will be interesting to see how much of the madness survives when there’s no money left.”
    China can’t pull the rug from under the U.S. too abruptly, but I agree that they will soon put the lid on the cookie jar (loans to the U.S.).

  34. On Thursday, Hills (Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State) indicated that a large block of the funding from the U.S. would be to “mitigate” the impact of global climate change in the poor, undeveloped/developing nations.
    mit·i·gate (mtgt)
    v. mit·i·gat·ed, mit·i·gat·ing, mit·i·gates
    v.tr.
    To moderate (a quality or condition) in force or intensity; alleviate.
    See Synonyms at relieve.
    v.intr.
    To become milder.
    ——————————————————————————–
    [Middle English mitigaten, from Latin mtigre, mtigt- : mtis, soft + agere, to drive, do; see act.]
    ——————————————————————————–
    miti·ga·ble (-g-bl) adj.
    miti·gation n.
    miti·gative, miti·ga·tory (-g-tôr, -tr) adj.
    miti·gator n.
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved
    This means that IF your glaciers melt and your rivers run dry, IF the ocean rises
    and your seacoast is inundated, or IF your seals and polar bears actually suffer
    a loss of range, THEN you’re in line for the $$$.
    Something has to have actually HAPPENED for any mitigation to kick in. This
    mean real events, not computer projections that print out fantasies not backed
    up by documented observations.
    You can be certain the fiscal “conservatives” in many nations will INSIST the
    the proof is scientifically valid… not eminating from any of the recent peer
    groupings.
    Once the Copenhagan rally is over, reality will take over.

  35. “rjb (00:46:28) :
    im with mauibrad on this they can pledge all the money in the world, but just like kyoto it will be a meaningless gesture. the regressive wing of the democrat party has made the rest of the party walk the plank too many times on unpopular legislation…”
    This is far from meaningless. I believe the intent of this gesture is to show that Obama’s “policies” are supported by and are part of the “world society”…and that aura would help pass both health care AND crapNtrade back here at home. See?…everyone ELSE in the world supports what we do!…YOU should TOO! The perception at home is that people are questioning the bills…this shows that everyone ELSE supports what’s going on.
    “Cassandra King (01:38:26) :
    I wonder how much of the recently agreed one trillion plus dollar stimulus money will be frittered away by the new socialist regime headed by obama?”
    This is a layup…ALL of it. Why stop now?
    “I wouldn’t compare it to health care if I were you, most developed capitalist countries have perfectly decent national health care without it being some kind of socialist plot. To argue otherwise is a global projection of a silly American domestic conservative obsession.”
    A bit O/T, but I beg to differ. I have friends in both Canada and England, none of whom would agree with your statement. Allowing politicians to add further complexities in the form of over 100 additional bureaucracies and untold costs to a system that 85% of the population in the country are very satisfied with is considerably more than a domestic conservative obsession.
    And for those that are continually surprised that “science doesn’t matter”…it never mattered, other than providing a highway by which the flow of vast amounts of money could be controlled.
    I think it’s time to move to one of these 3rd world island communtities that will benefit from all of this largesse…life is going to be pretty damned good there with this sudden influx of cash, even if only a small percentage makes it there.
    Definitely time for some umbrella drinks. I’m tired of buying oil and wood to stay warm in the midst of the hottest decade on record.
    JimB (a.k.a Palau Jim)

  36. Redistribution of Wealth = The socialist dream of the Robin Hood Syndrome.
    I.M.H.O Most of the leaders will now be waiting for ClimateGate and the flow on from this to hit the fan.

  37. Apparently quite a lot of “things”are rotten in the state of Denmark. As usual, common sense is less common than one whishes. The panhandling of a non event as man made global warming, driven by “herd”instincts of supporters and profiteers, will do great harm to numerous people. In stead of focusing on efficiency improvements including our coal based technologies we experience religeous belief systems. As long as more than a billion people need decent facilities to live we better improve all technologies (including nuclear) in stead of concentrating only on”green”. Never forget CO2 is the most important gaseous fertilizer.

  38. Sorry to be defeatist but this article ‘The Great Green Land Grab’ by AA Gill in the Sunday Times has the strong ring of truth to me:
    “This chilly melee is the tipping point. Not the climatic one — more important than that. Copenhagen is where
    the principle and the process of environmental change and global warming have gone from being the
    exclamation of a pressure group, and a charity whine, to being the orthodoxy, the accepted wisdom, the
    mainstream.
    The environment was outside the big tent. Now it’s inside and it makes absolutely no difference what opinion
    polls or referendums say. It matters nought that the Green party has singularly failed in every democracy. It
    doesn’t matter that they’re all as boring and righteous as goodness. It doesn’t matter that scientists fake
    messages and bury statistics, that they do everything in secret. None of this matters now. It doesn’t even
    matter if it’s actually going to happen. All that matters is that the people who matter think it matters.
    When the heads of nearly every government turn up here to make promises, sign agreements that they will
    undoubtedly break and fudge and chuckle over and lie about, that’s not what’s important. They may bounce the
    cheque, but they won’t bounce the reason for writing it. They’re on board for global warming.”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6954391.ece
    Unless there is a smoking cannon about to be revealed, I fear that all the revelations in the world about the railroad engineer’s conflicts of interest won’t matter a jot. For now, they’ve won.

  39. Was watching BBC2 last night and after Newsnight, on came a documentary entitled ‘The Climate Wars’.
    I must confess that I turned off after amidst the preamble came the obligatory line “no serious scientist now doubts that the Earth is warming and that human beings are causing it”.
    How can they broadcast this shit with a straight face?

  40. I go to some sceptic pro-science blogs most days and I have noticed that they have all come out with a pro-AGW piece recently, having never gone there before. Ranging from rant to cool anger really. No actual taking down of science like they usually do, just puff pieces.
    The sceptics must be getting under their skin I reckon. They particularly don’t like having their own arguments thrown back at them, such as “all scientists agree” is the logical fallacy of arguing from authority. They know that, but they can’t help themselves when the scientists are on their side.
    Then Randi of JREF came out with a piece sceptical of AGW and they went ballistic. One of the sceptical communities mentors going all loopy and non-warmist. Many couldn’t handle it. Too funny!
    It’s impressive how many comments on those blogs are sceptical of AGW. Funny that – ask people to be sceptical of non-science and they become sceptical of “approved” science.
    I think this whole Copenhagen and Climategate thing has got a lot of people reading.
    Which is why this should not become a political discussion. Every time one of you rants about Obama being a Marxist you put off someone who would like to be sceptical but can’t stand to be around right-wingers.
    Stick to the science. The economics even. But leave your political problems elsewhere.

  41. @Nigel Brereton (00:42:24)”no matter how much we complain, the science no longer matters. It’s gone beyond facts and figures and evolved into a movement. Was it Tony Blair who recently said that it doesn’t matter if the science is right or wrong anymore.”
    Apparently, this is called “post normal science” (Google it). Scary, scary; science is not about finding the truth but about how science can be dicked out with to fit political expedience.
    It occurred to me last night that the reason the British Prime Minister claimed that “the future of humanity is at stake” this week is that, perhaps, he has gambled on carbon credit trading paying for all the quantitive easing and humungous national debt he authorised this year. Cabinet papers released in 30 or 50 years time will probably show how, in December 2009, he realised that he has lost the bet, and all the young UK climate-changers he misled are paying for this through taxation for the rest of their lives. We Brits are so stuffed.

  42. Alan the Brit (02:26:01) :
    Re: BBC experiment
    The experiment performed by supposedly ‘a scientist’ was at best a joke, at worst a travesty of scientific experimentation. I’ll just make 2 points:
    1. CO2 concentration in the air is about 350 parts per million. Jugging by amount of bubbles in CO2 generating bottle, it could have had (to be cautious) at least 10% or 100,000 per million concentration.
    2. Temperature differentials, if I remember correctly, rose to some 3-4 degrees C. Equality in the heating lights wattage, distances, angles, volumes of water, etc, etc, was not shown, altogether a very unscientific approach.
    p.s. congratulations to your daughter.

  43. “It is true that it is depressing to see the heretofore useful word aggression turned into another mouth-numbing verb.”
    Excellent point, sir, and I’m glad to see that somebody else is bothered about this trend to make nouns into verbs. eg. tasked. Give us back our nouns and let’s go back to using proper verbs.
    It seems to be another aspect of the dumbing down of the language from the media/public relations/politicians.
    On a weather-related topic, BBC weather presenters have taken to talking about rain ‘spilling’, as in “The rain will be spilling from the west.” Do weather presenters in the USA or other English-speaking countries talk in this silly way, as well?
    The image comes to mind of somebody up in the sky carrying a bucket of water and not managing to keep all of ther water in the bucket.

  44. True enough…. but I think you underestimate the growing rage and determination of the conservatives…..

  45. In his bood Diplomacy, Henry Kissinger identified the mess that the 1919 Treaty of Versailles became as being down to world leaders doing the negotiating instead of leaving it to their ministers and diplomats, who had room to lose face on some issues in order to get what was needed in others passed. We appear to have learned nothing since then.

  46. Here he goes blaming America and giving away more cash.
    What the hell does reducing our own emissions have to do with giving other nations $100B?
    This makes no sense. The science is phony and the supporters are all Hugo Chavez fans.

  47. Listened to Lord Stern 2 hours ago on Radio4 and he was optimistic. A few funny moments: Monitoring – Governments would need access to the data and methodology that their peers would use to calculate their emissions(!) – Transparency was imperative for trust (YES REALLY,HE SAID THAT). Poor Nations wanted to know where the NEW MONEY was coming from.The front-runners were Air/Maritime tax, Special Drawing Rights and a Financial Transactions Tax.THE PRESSURE WOULD COME FROM VOTERS AND PEER (OTHER GOVERNMENTS) PRESSURE – GLOBAL CO-OPERATION,INTERNATIONALISM ( WORLD GOVERNMENT ?????)

  48. There will be an agreement and it will be around the $100Bn dollar mark to be paid in 2020 to the despots and their families in the third world. And it will be as successful as Kyoto:
    “Between 1997 and 2004 (the most recent year for which we have complete statistics), carbon dioxide emissions rose as follows:
    Worldwide Emissions increased 18.0 %
    Countries that ratified the protocol increased 21.1 %
    Non-ratifiers of the protocol increased 10.0 %
    U.S. (a non-ratifier) increased 6.6 %
    75 % of Kyoto signers had more CO2 growth than the U.S.
    U.S. emissions have risen only 0.2 % per year since 2000.
    Randall Haven, “Kyoto Schmyoto”, American Thinker, December 11, 2007 http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html
    And don’t pin too much hope on Climategate, the British establishment have form in putting seemingly impeccably qualified people in place to investigate something in public life who subsequently, and against all the evidence presented, find for the establishment. We shall see, but if Steve McIntyre isn’t called to give evidence to Sir Muir Russell’s enquiry, and even if he is, you can look for a clean bill of health being given the CRU at UEA. You see in the whole scheme of things he is unlikely to bring down the CRU on the basis of these e-mails. The only good outcome I can see is that there will be more transparency and the future adjustments of the data will be much harder for them to do under a cloak of secrecy.
    My bet is he’ll see nothing wrong in the emails, will suggest a strengthening of the peer review process and make the release of information from the university independent of the holders of the data. Then we can move on please, nothing to see here.

  49. the chinese leader – wen jiabao – has boycotted the heads of government (incl. obama) closed meeting (NY Times)

  50. We need a Sir Humphrey Appleby-type of bureaucrat who can psychobabble everything away so the deal will be felt as a win for the alarmist yet in reality is what we in Sweden call a castle of air. Maybe you english speaking people have a saying like that, I’m not sure.

  51. Can you say, oil for food? Wonderful! A new slush fund for Kofi’s successor to loot ten ways to Sunday!
    BTW, don’t look now but Lindsay Graham, (RINO-SC) is beating the climate change drum and talking cap and trade.

  52. Depressing though this is, politicians are always going to find a way to burn taxpayers money. Copenhagen will be a fudge and ultimately, just like all the other climate agreements nothing much will be delivered and we’ll have a repaet of this shambles every couple of years until the politicians and press realise that all is not what it seems. We must do what little we can to keep chipping away. The science will win in the end, it always does.

  53. This was an easy call. All left leaning politicians will agree to more taxes. Even Arnold of Swartz thinks California can be saved be somehow controlling climate along with taxes. It’s like a real world Blazing Saddles.
    I disagree a bit with the predictions. The green movement always does a full court press and would use no agreement as a reason to “lead the world” or such. There is a real chance, however, if the polls look like utter disaster, the Democrats will go into their own full court press as well. By that I mean raising a point of order in the Senate on the filibuster and then, by simple majority (either 51-49 or 50-50 with Biden breaking the tie) eliminating the filibuster. It can be applied on individual bills or the entire Senate. If Reid sees he’s going to go home to grow sand in Nevada then what has he to lose and, as always, it will be “historic”. They’ll sell it through the media as “up or down votes”, “modernizing the Senate”, etc., etc. It’s hard to see a downside to them if they go that route. It’s unlikely the GOP would regain control of the Senate in 2010. Even if they lost control of the House in 2010 they would have the Presidency and the Senate to “compromise” or “triangulate” for at least another two years. If they take the bloodbath in 2010 that some seem to think, then it would be better to make the move soon, even next week, then pass the bills and do full campaign mode until 2012.
    Think immigration, think allowing illegals to become citizens just by registering to vote, think card check, think carbon tax, think about all the things the left has wet dreams about. If they happen to lose in 2012 it will still take years to unravel, if it can be done at all.
    If I were in their place looking at the cards being dealt I would seriously game it out. I’d know it would be unlikely we’d ever have the chance again in my lifetime. We’ll know in a couple of months how committed they are.

  54. A second thought. Was the fact that there was no heat exchange in sealed containers, as there would be in a real climate, rather than the primitive model in the experiment?
    It’s all about wealth redistribution anyhow, but the west greeny left have realised that humans are, well, human, & some of us are greedy. Most magnanimous of the African’s to limit their wealth grab to just $100Bn/yr as opposed to their first demand of $400Bn/yr! If Mugabe is any example of who we are to dole out freebies then my hands are staying firmly planted in my pockets. The goings on in Copenhagen a reminiscent of Early 80s UK with violent strikers, whipped & stirred up largely by covert Marxists agitators, deplorable!

  55. Because the BBC can say what it likes, truth or not. Mainly not!
    It is beyond arrogant and sadly mainly Left Wing Green Hystericals.
    I suggested Richard Black should find something suitable to do, other than
    fail at journalism. Using his quote “I have run out of ideas”.
    Rejected twice.

  56. Greg (01:29:28) :
    You won’t have to wait even 10 years for the reverse scare. This would make round #5 and 4 reversals.

  57. @ThousandsOfMilesAway
    It is a repeat—the original was broadcast months ago.
    The funny thing is that the presenter, a geologist (IIRC) previously did other programmes where he expressed the sort of typical geologist’s point of view about climate change being natural.
    Anyway, it is again hilarious how hard it seems to be to produce a convincing programme showing climate change to be mostly man-made. Just watch him jump from one non-sequiteur to another. And use really big graphs. You know, really big, coz that makes them more real big like.

  58. “What makes this delicious is that the stations Hadley chose had large chunks of missing data, and the stations ignored had uninterrupted records. This makes sense: it’s easier to homogenize [3] data that isn’t there. The explanations to come will no doubt provide for some light comedy.”
    It makes the use of FILNET much easier. And then there is the question of how decades of data went missing.

  59. A well written (methinks you have been thinking about this for a while), and rather depressing article, which is probably 95% right. As people have said, this was never really about the environment, but rather about getting a one world government, and redistribution of wealth, mostly to people who are wealthy already. And the draft agreement seems to confirm most of that.
    This is going to result in a severe curtailment of funds for “climate research”. They’ve outlived their usefulness, and very few politicians will want to be seen to be associated with “tainted” people. That’s a pity because there has been some great insights into what is causing the climate to change largely by people who are “skeptical” of the mainstream opinion.
    The UN will most likely collapse under the weight of its own corruption. Any body that can give a standing ovation to the likes of Chavez and Mugabe have their value system so seriously skewed that they cannot prevail in the long term.
    I think Democracy itself is going to come under the spotlight. China (and the other BRIC countries to a lesser extent) are wiping their backsides with us competitively speaking. We’ve had one hand tied behind our back with the currency manipulation, now we’ll have two, with this transfer of wealth.
    People are going to see that the two fastest growing countries in the last thirty years, China and Japan, were both one party states, to all intents and purposes. They’re going to look at the costs of Democracy, and wonder is it really worth it, would we not be better going over to that sort of system. Looks like they’re getting their wish that we live in interesting times.

  60. The thing which Copenhagen really has to do, is to extend the life of Kyoto so that the emissions trading rip-off can continue.
    I think they’ll manage that.
    Not such a fantastic far reaching rip-off as they would have liked, but good money all the same.

  61. Eh. Copenhagen is an example of the politics of cultural despair. None of the Western leaders there is sure what he or she believes in – on what platform can they agree? Some carbon-blood money will be given to poorer countries, lots of handshakes in front of the cameras – otherwise, words, words, words.
    Still a depressing spectacle, though.
    See “Copenhagen and the politics of cultural despair”

  62. Commenters on here will remember Monckton’s point that the Copenhagen treaty isn’t just about cranking up the $2 Trillion per year Carbon Trading scam but is also about moving to World Government.
    Check out:-
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580496,00.html
    OK, I must confess. Fox News isn’t actually my favourite. (Although they leave BBC for dead on news). But have a look at this article. And check out the links to the “Belgrade Process”.
    How cool will this be? Do we get to go to Bali in February to see what’s next in store for us? Should be warmer than Copenhagen!
    According to another posting:-
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,499244,00.html
    “So tangled is the U.N.’s environmental organizational structure, and so disorganized the central control, that the report says is not even possible to know how much money the U.N. system is spending on simply managing its environmental actions. (Such records, the report demurely states, “are not available.”) But even a “rough estimate” is breath-taking: about $1.65 billion in 2006, the last year for which statistics were apparently available.”
    And won’t it be great when Rwanda and Iran and Zimbabwe and Columbia and Equatorial Guinea and The Maldives can all get in the act of making sure we’re ‘Sustainable’? No doubt at our expense?
    Just though I’d ask.

  63. “what comes afterwards?”????
    Blizzard of course! Forecast for DC:
    heavy snow with accumulations of 5 to 10 inches through sunset Saturday.
    Winds… 10 to 20 mph through the event… with gusts of 25 to 30 mph Saturday and Sunday.
    http://www.wunderground.com/auto/wtop/DC/001.html?
    I live in fairfax 🙂 Ex-xc skier, now in the south..CAN”T WAIT!!!!!!

  64. You couldn’t make this up? They did?
    UnReal Climate are asking scientists to show them their code?
    My post which will be censored no doubt
    Show us your code?
    This is priceless coming from you lot at UnReal Climate?
    It does not matter one jot about these papers because the leaked emails show that there is man made up global warming.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8420057.stm
    Enjoy the UK basking in snow, sunshine!
    That’s weather not climate it has been piss poor peer reviewed?

  65. I strongly prefer Professional wrestling. It is much more honest. It is less rigged and safer. More intellectual for that matter.

  66. Symbolic gestures should be made only with symbolic resources, not real ones.
    Fact 1: governments of developed countries around the world are increasingly strapped for cash. Prediction 1:This situation is not going away, as the realities of demographics and the relentless growth of bureaucracy combine to grind government finances into finer powder.
    Fact 2: a cold hungry populace is not as cooperative as a warm well-fed populace. Prediction 2: Look for some counter-vailing force to emerge fuelled by growing reaction to climategate, UN malfeasance and greenie extremism. A mainstream media channel will both aid and profit immensely by this.
    Fact 3: we are in the midst of ongoing debasement of currencies and a continuing developed-country currency crisis. Prediction 3: These will provide justifications for amending commitments to the Copenhagen wealth transfers, and eventually all foreign aid, even existing programs, will be re-labeled as Copengeld.
    I agree with the morphing of labels predicted in the original post. Global Warming became Climate Change is becoming Climate Justice will become Biosphere Justice. It’s just too easy.

  67. GOD, give us men! A time like this demands
    Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands;
    Men whom the lust of office does not kill;
    Men whom the spoils of office can not buy;
    Men who possess opinions and a will;
    Men who have honor; men who will not lie;
    Men who can stand before a demagogue
    And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking!
    Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog
    In public duty, and in private thinking;
    For while the rabble, with their thumb-worn creeds,
    Their large professions and their little deeds,
    Mingle in selfish strife, lo! Freedom weeps,
    Wrong rules the land and waiting Justice sleeps.
    Josiah Gilbert Holland

  68. Copenhagen is not different from health care. Health care legislation is not about health care and Copenhagen is not about climate change.
    It’s ALL about control and redistribution of wealth.
    Not many paid attention when Obama claimed he was about to engage in a “fundamental transformation” of this this country.
    He wasn’t kidding.

  69. ThousandsOfMilesAway (03:06:33) :
    “How can they broadcast this with a straight face?”
    How can a skilled potter throw a pot perfectly in about a minute, whereas most of us would have a mess of clay rotating eccentrically, and looking nothing like a pot, no matter how long we took? Practice.
    The BBC have lots of practice.

  70. “…the Copenhagen-created program will not die.
    No government created entity ever kicks off simply because it isn’t needed.
    It will morph into an ossified, entrenched behemoth whose mission will, through time, quietly morph into “environmental justice.” Climate change, the original impetus, will have been long forgotten.
    Place your bets now.”
    Well, yes, William M. Briggs, it will become an ossified, entrenched behemoth. However, let those who want to remainwithin its grasp, do so.
    My bets:
    1. The anti-U.S.A. President Obama will be found to be ineligible to be President. (Even Nancy Pelosie signed one document that would not affirm his eligibility.) All laws and proclamations and executive orders he signed will be null and void.
    2. Elected members of the House and Senate will be required to read and debate all bills, and to discuss all bills with their constituents before voting on them. They will receive no pensions after leaving office.
    3. The U.S. will leave the United Nations and send its headquarters elsewhere, perhaps to China, or Venezuela.
    4. This time the U.S. will not save Europe’s bacon. Those who want to live in a free world can emigrate to the U.S. (or other representative democracies) and live a life of careful study, apprenticeship, and hard work for reasonable affluence. We have known from the beginning that there are “problems” in Europe.
    5. People and businesses of the U.S. will turn forthrightly to developing its abundant natural resources, forgetting wind turbines and other environmental nightmares.
    6. With its new found affluence, the U.S. will support those countries, and only those countries, whose governments either are or are moving toward representative democracy. No more “help the poor people of the world” with a glassy-eyed, unrealistic, I-am-so-moral-and-righteous piety. Globalization, gone.
    7. Government bureaucracies will be downsized severely and universities will be off the federal trough and will be prevented from contributing to political contests.
    8. And of course, national security will once again become a priority.
    Perhaps science will flourish once again.

  71. Turnabout is fair play. Here in the USA, “W” left Obama a financial mess to clean up. Obama is creating a large number of other messes that the next Republican president will have to clean up.
    Sigh.

  72. It’s all so depressing. Even if you win, you lose. I still hold a vision from Logan’s Run in my head. Just as those who reached the old age of thirty rose up in the air and went ‘poof’ in a spectacle viewed by all, I see these radical lefties doing the same. Up, Up, and POOF, they’re gone.
    It hasn’t happened yet, though.
    BTW, looks like Old Sol is roaring back to life! Flux is up to 87! About a week ago it was as low as 70.

  73. The “Plan” in 1975 was to melt the Arctic icecap with soot to prevent global cooling. But we didn’t act…
    http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
    “- There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production
    – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.
    – evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively
    – Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded
    – they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century
    – the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading.
    – causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases
    – Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.
    – the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers
    – But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures
    – The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

  74. Predictions of a deal seem to be very premature. If you watch the live news they are reporting that major obstacles (thank you China and India) still remain to any binding agreement.
    Even if they do get a deal, there is no way that the Senate is going to pass Cap and Trade.
    But there’s no way these one world socialists are going to give up even if they fail in Copenhagen. Way too much money to be grabbed.

  75. There seems to be a misconception that bureaucrats and politicians are gifted with some sort of magical powers of seriousness and decisive intelligence.
    They are not. They are bananas. After this farrago of nonsense in Copenhagen is over, it will be time to push the climategate button again and again and again

  76. wow.. Obama demands a deal in wich the USA does not have to make any commitments.. the time for talking is over, he declares.
    I am the new world order leader of the UN!!! (whining, stamping his feet on the ground like 6 year old, who doesnt get what he wants.. )

  77. Oh and what comes afterwards? the announcement of live outside our own planet and how we urgely need a one world government to protect us from evil aliens!
    mark my words, 2010, the year we make contact…

  78. The emperor’s new carbon credits
    Dec 17, 2009 by Mark Steyn
    http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/17/the-emperor%e2%80%99s-new-carbon-credits/print/
    Nor are we allowed to make jokes about Rajendra Pachauri. I always love those experts who go on TV and say you can’t pronounce on this subject unless you’re a bona fide climatologist. Dr. Pachauri, the head honcho of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a graduate of the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. He’s not a climatologist but a railroad engineer. So, if he ever avails himself of a free half-hour with a Copenhagen hooker, I’m sure, like the Bombay to Cochin express, he’ll pull out on time. But it’s hard to see why he should be presiding over a multi-trillion-dollar shakedown of the global economy. For one thing, Dr. Pachauri has one of the largest carbon footprints on the planet. He’s in favour of “hefty aviation taxes” to “deter people from flying,” but fortunately once you’re part of the transnational jet set nothing can deter you. He flew 443,243 miles on “IPCC business” in the year-and-a-half run-up to Copenhagen. I’m not sure whether that includes his two weekend round trips from New York to Delhi, once for a cricket practice, once for a match.

    Answer: because after 1960 the tree rings show no express elevator up the thermometer, but in fact a decline. That’s the “decline” that Dr. Phil Jones, in his leaked email, is trying to “hide.” Because, if you don’t hide it, a basic truth emerges—that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, and the planet managed to survive and indeed prosper during it. It took two dogged Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, to demolish the hockey-stick fraud, and the enraged priests of the Settled Science cult have spent the years since 2006 trying to stick it back together. Dr. Keith Briffa had a crack in 2007 for the IPCC report. As usual, the CRU refused, in defiance of basic scientific etiquette, to reveal its raw data, but eventually the Royal Society ordered them to. And, when they did, it emerged that Dr. Briffa had cherry-picked a few trees from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia to obtain the desired result.

    It’s the speed that impresses. In 2008, carbon trading worldwide reached $128 billion. That’s why Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are hot for emissions schemes. According to the writer Jo Nova, carbon is on course to become the largest traded commodity—bigger than oil or gas. As she says, it’s the subprime mortgage of the commodities market. Like Al Gore, the world’s first carbon billionaire, it’s testament mainly to a kind of globalized gullibility. In the blink of an eye, the “settled science” of a small number of ideologues was propelled upwards into a “peer-reviewed” “consensus” and then an international fait accompli.
    Had he been around this week, Hans Christian Andersen, that great son of Copenhagen, might have given us a sequel to one of his famous tales—“The Emperor’s New Carbon Credits,” perhaps. But an age in which the hookers are free but the British Parliament is proposing issuing each citizen with a “carbon allowance” is beyond satire.

  79. ThousandsOfMilesAway (03:06:33) :
    Was watching BBC2 last night and after Newsnight, on came a documentary entitled ‘The Climate Wars’.
    I must confess that I turned off after amidst the preamble came the obligatory line “no serious scientist now doubts that the Earth is warming and that human beings are causing it”.
    How can they broadcast this shit with a straight face?

    Answer: The same way the Leninists in the old Soviet Union used to broadcast their lies about the glories of the Communist Party and the evils of Yankee imperialism. It’s the party line, and if you don’t repeat it, you’ll lose your job—if not your head. It’s amazing how hearty the average apparatchik’s appetite can be when his livelihood and social standing depend on swallowing the official swill.
    So the Pretender Obambi is coming to bless the assembled dignitaries in Copenhagen with pontifical stiffness, banal platitudes, and egregious falsehoods, all in the name of the tyrannical ideology represented by thugs like Hugo Chavez, and convened under the pretense of saving the world from entirely fictional ‘climate change’.
    Some innocents will ask, “How can the US and the other Western nations pledge billions of dollars to the ‘developing’ world in the name of this fictional crisis? How is it in their real interests?”
    The answer, as usual, is to “follow the money.” It will go toward establishing a new bureaucracy under the aegis of the UN, which will then extend its regulatory, controlling tentacles into the economic life of every nation on Earth. And those tentacles will be manipulated by the very puppet masters who stand behind the Pretender Obambi.
    It’s ‘global governance’ they want, not ‘CO2 mitigation’ and all the other nonsense that are the ostensible excuse for the Copenhagen charade. That’s why all the world’s ‘leaders’ are there, why Chavez is greeted enthusiastically for condemning capitalism and the USA, why the greenshirted enviros, the useful idiots, are encouraged to run rampant in the streets, to demonstrate a ‘popular movement’ against ‘climate change’.
    It is all a charade, put on for public display. Watch the men behind the curtain, the ones in closed rooms wearing suits and ties. They are making deals, and they are not really about ‘climate’, but about power.
    /Mr Lynn
    PS It was 8.4 degrees F here in eastern Massachusetts this morning. And it’s only December 18th.

  80. Dave UK (01:42:04) : “You Americans are lucky that gun ownership is a right. Trust me.”
    Dave UK (01:47:01) : “God I wish we had guns.”
    Ah yes, my across-the-ponder friend! They’re as important and useful as…as… as a cellphone, a fork, a knife, etc!
    Anyway, here’s the problem as I see it. Liberty-loving folks are too spread out. But if many more could concentrate in one place… Well, together we just might make an authoritarian-proof stronghold, or at least a much more resistant one.
    (but let’s not kid ourselves….A strong, growing, and enduring pocket of enlightenment in a Dark Aging world would accomplish (given an exodus of the productive class from the various Sheeplevilles over the world, given how the oppressors would predictably manage things in their rotting kingdoms) a relatively instantaneous victory).
    We’ve got the rights here in the ‘states, we just lack the solid support of numbers. Better take advantage of this while you still can…

  81. Green Bubble?? I sure hope so –
    I see this runup, and grouptalk, and billions being squandered hopefully having similarities (at least in the US) to first, the dotcom bubble, and then the housing valuations bubble. Someone much wiser than me said that when the people at cocktail parties only discuss the vaule of their portfolio, the dotcom bubble had arrived and you should get out. It popped just when there were millions of internet investors. Next, the cocktail party discussion was how high the value of their home had risen – then POP, the housing valuation bubble. Well, all the talk this holiday party season is how green everyone is, and what is being done to curb greenhouse gasses.
    Well, evident to those who actually look at the data crtically, and give a hoot, the wheels are falling off this green wagon. Climategate, Russian station cherry picking, inaccurate computer modeling, just to name a few, demonstrate that the rationale for all of this climate change legislation and regulation is just as faulty as the rationale for stock prices on dotcom companies in 1999, and the rationale for housing prices in 2006. Let’s hope this green bubble pops under the weight of all this snow falling in Copenhagen now, and DC this weekend.

  82. However, and for sure, they will sign the Kommisariat for Climate Change which will allow the UN to have an international court to punish those countries/individuals which does not follow what the “Qliphots” elite has decided to impose on all of us. With such a compromise all independent states will gradually disappear from the face of the earth, and finally, our grandchildren will drink the “Soma” of oblivion (a kind of specially formulated “kool-aid” which will make them feel happy all the time)…….

  83. This brings a new meaning to “New World Order” …
    “This is not a climate-change negotiation,” said Janos Pasztor, director of the U.N. secretary-general’s climate-change support team. “It’s about something much more fundamental. It’s about economic strength.” Countries, he added, “just have to slug it out.”
    Frankly, this is now sounding more like a negotiation on setting a World Industrial Plan with climate change as a pretext. More or less locking in industrial output and market share globally. Given the the two largest up and coming industrial countries, China and India, are trying to opt out, it seems pointless if at least the underlying pretext has no validity. It seems that the EU (and(I guess the US) thought they could sucker them in, but these folks are no fools.
    Time will tell, but if there is an agreement .. were China & Russia just playing the part of “bad cop” while the US & EU played “good cop” in an attempt to get the CRU e-mails out there .. making it look like the “global consensus” was falling apart, so the “developing” nations would grab a hold on any money that may be offered, believing that if AGW is eventually “debunked” that they could keep the money anyway and walk away from the agreement. But since this is really a World Industrial Plan, they really don’t get to walk away.
    I keep trying to imagine what happens as 2nd and 3rd world countries realize that they have been dupped or mislead or just plain negotiated badly. We are talking trade wars, the likes of which have not occurred in over a century, and that means quite possibly real wars as well. Using a phony pretext, like AGW, will only make this possible outcome even more likely.

  84. DoJo (03:04:41) :
    I’m inclined to agree, although with a rather more jaundiced perspective. This has all the hallmarks of tyranny and the potential to initiate major conflict in so many ways. We in Europe are now virtually powerless to prevent it. Our only hope is that the sun won’t play ball and you guys can use the freedoms you have left to put a stop to it peacefully. I never thought I would ever see the day where science was subverted for the advancement of minority political pressure groups but such is the caustic nature of the third-way. Truly evil.

  85. Leaked document: Emission targets at Copenhagen could still produce “catastrophic” global warming
    posted at 7:49 pm on December 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
    How wonderful that this very not-minor revelation is buried fully 10 paragraphs down in Time’s dispatch from the conference.
    http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1948612,00.html?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29

    Even if diplomats make progress on a deal in Copenhagen, however, it’s becoming increasingly clear that any viable agreement will fall far short of the level of carbon cuts that science demands. A paper leaked from, and confirmed to be authentic by, the U.N. on Thursday night contains an assessment of the emissions-reduction pledges put forward so far in Copenhagen. It calculates that even if all developed and developing nations keep their promises, atmospheric carbon concentrations would rise as high as 770 parts per million, and temperatures could rise 3°C by the end of the century. The upper safe zone in temperature rise, according to many scientists, is 2°C, and the limit called for by vulnerable island nations is 1.5°C. “This document shows that for all the U.N. spouts about 2°C, the plan comes nowhere near it,” says Bill McKibben, the environmental writer who runs 350.org, an environmental group that calls for far deeper carbon cuts. “This is the real Climategate, and it shows that any agreement we sign at this summit will be the equivalent of a suicide pact.”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/17/leaked-document-emission-targets-at-copenhagen-could-still-produce-catastrophic-global-warming/
    So, has anyone seen this document?

  86. There needs to be a revival of that classic Brit comedy skit – spitting image. So many of the characters in climategate, and the situations, and behaviour, demand that they be torn limb from limb by such vicious pertinent humour.

  87. ” Wormsnapper (01:05:20) :
    It’s a total reality disconnect. No melting ice-caps, no sea level rise, no warming for ten years, minus 4 in Copenhagen. Hey, perhaps their beloved ‘Mother Nature’ is trying to send a message to the greens.”
    ——————————
    The greens don’t do listening to nature. Irony of ironies.
    They only do repression of humanity and try to enforce a disconnect between humanity and nature.

  88. @ Stephan: It is a repeat—the original was broadcast months ago.
    Very true, but such is the mindset of the BBC that ANYTHING they can do to push the hype and hysteria on AGW they will do with great telish.
    Try to get some answers out of them about this institutionalised bias and you may as well try to swim to the moon. Believe me, I have been trying for over 3 years to get answers out of DG Mark Thompson and Trust Chairman Sir Michaels Lyons.
    Still, when it all eventually goes tits-up for them, it will be interesting to see their reactions!

  89. Each winter in the north seems harsher than the last lately, the arctic is at normal ice growth again, and soon will be above normal. The more the alarmists propagandize, the more people will see through the lies. A tide among men will come one day that will sweep the lies and these liars away. It will not be today, but it is not very far off. It happened with communism and it will happen with universal socialism’s green guise.

  90. When your attempt at recreating the Congress of Vienna with a third-rate cast of extras turns into a shambles, when the data with which you have tried to terrify the world is daily exposed as ever more phoney, when the blatant greed and self-interest of the participants has become obvious to all beholders, when those pesky polar bears just keep increasing and multiplying – what do you do?
    No contest: stop issuing three rainforests of press releases every day, change the heading to James Bond-style “Do not distribute” and “leak” a single copy, in the knowledge that human nature is programmed to interest itself in anything it imagines it is not supposed to see, whereas it would bin the same document unread if it were distributed openly.
    After that, get some unbiased, neutral observer, such as the executive director of Greenpeace, to say: “This is the single most important piece of paper in the world today.” Unfortunately, the response of all intelligent people will be to fall about laughing; but it was worth a try – everybody loves a tryer – and the climate alarmists are no longer in a position to pick and choose their tactics.

    … too funny

  91. When it gets colder I will move to this planet, recently discovered, called Pandora, you have all seen it on the telly, haven’t you?
    But then again, it will pobably suck since the “cans” will be there with their guns killing stuff that move.

  92. @ Dominic: Gordon Brown and Al Gore star in “An Inconvenient Turn”.
    Hilarious!
    But what is the unelected moron Gore doing so close to the epicentre of the negotiations?

  93. Pamela Gray (06:09:08) :
    “I voted for an idiot.”
    You voted… what else are you going to get nowadays? ;o)
    Seriously, it is getting hard to find a good candidate to vote for now that politics is just another (very!) well-paid job and not a civic service/responsibility.
    Today’s voters in the U.S. are only deciding whether to elect a Demlican or a Republicrat. Both parties are driving the U.S. down the same road. The only difference I see is that the parties disagree on whom to fleece to foot the bill for their fantasies.

  94. H.R. (02:45:41) : Already China is changing US bonds into assets, making big investments in thirld world countries and companies. (like in Brazil Petrobras oil shares). What would anyone of us do about it ?, well they will do the same but in a bigger scale, say buying gold…they would buy gold mines instead, etc.

  95. Obama has the worst poll numbers in his first year in office than any other president in the modern era—far worse than George Bush in his first year. He will get even worse poll numbers after his Copenhagen trip.
    He is not popular in America. He was wildly popular just one year ago. No president has ever fallen so far so fast!

  96. DocWat (03:02:56) :
    A lot of your ROW patients come to the US for your healthcare. Why is that?
    ———————————–
    Because there are fortunes to be made by providing rare treatments for those few who can afford it in the US.
    “A lot” should actually read “relatively not many”, when it comes to UK citizens by the way.
    On average, would you rather be poor and ill in the US or poor and ill in the UK or most other developed countries outside the US?

  97. White house Gibbs is a mental midget. He whines about the communist Red China not agreeing to verification. Kinda like the climategate data, formulas and files not accessible for verification.
    Cheaters don’t want transparency. This Copenhagen pulpit is is a tool for Obama to sloganeer and campaign. Lots of Nations are fed up with his platitudes.

  98. “Ten to twenty years from now, when the papers are “discussing” the upcoming ice age (as they did 40 and 100 years ago) the same gov entities will be pumping out two things: 1) proofing that the next ice age is coming, and 2) denials that they even said global warming was really happening. Just like they did regarding the last “impending ice-age.””
    I agree..except you left off #3 and 4
    #3) It’s our fault
    #4) We can fix it

  99. geronimo (03:41:00) :
    There will be an agreement and it will be around the $100Bn dollar mark to be paid in 2020 to the despots and their families in the third world

    These 100 Bn should be adjusted to inflation!!!! Tell Hillary!

  100. Don’t know if this has been posted yet, but I just saw that the conference will drag on into the weekend. So more champagne and caviar for our brave saviours of the world.
    Except of course for the Greenpeace zombies and the other “useful idiots”, who will be freezing their privates off. Can’t say I’m sorry about that 😉
    By the way, I’ve been following several blogs, MSM’s and online sites here in the Netherlands for the last six months or so, but I can’t help feeling there has been a dramatic shift in popular opinion regarding AGW. The (sometimes large) majority of the comments are, to put it mildly, not very favorable of our friend Al the Goreacle, and AGW in general. It looks as if more and more people are beginning to wise up to the fact that 1) AGW may not be happening and 2) Al Gore is a liar and just in it for the cash.
    Of course I’ve been posting my opinions and links to that effect frequently on a number of sites, so I’d like to think that that may have helped just a tiny amount.
    But the fact is, I’m not one of the few anymore. Maybe there’s hope yet.

  101. The average Japanese and German never imagined the Emperor, the Kaiser and good old Adolf would end up destroying their countries and much of the world. The average American can’t imagine the President and the US Congress ever destroying the country and much of the world. But isn’t it just amazing how stupid the Japanese and the Germans and the Americans and everyone else can be sometimes?

  102. But isn’t it just amazing how stupid the … Americans … can be sometimes?
    It’s really just those folks who think they can get somebody else to pay their bills

  103. I’ve always thought Presidents are supposed to be smarter than me. I have stopped laboring under that naive assumption.

  104. My bet is on another false flag event. If you’re going to talk conspiracy, you might as well go all the way. To assume this large scale corruption and collusion is simply an isolated event surrounding climate change… well, that’s simple thinking.
    Men in positions of extreme power have always proven themselves bloodthirsty. I look for some event which leads to the expansion of war upon the earth. This has been the pattern of human affairs for the entirety of history. Got broke? Whip the people into a hateful fearful stupor and lead them into conflict. Never fails.
    You asked for my bet. I bet on history. Man will never change.

  105. Here is what the goal of Voodoo economics looks like.
    “The declaration will likely call for preventing global temperatures from going up more than 2.0 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times, according to a participant in the meeting.
    Small island nations, their very existence threatened by rising seas, have called for a cap of 1.5 degrees.
    It will also tally up the pledges from rich nations on cutting greenhouse gases by 2020, and propose a target for all countries by mid-century.”
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-draft-accord-agreed-20091218-l1jo.html
    does this mean the poor countries (america is the poorest of all) will get rebates from warming and pay rebates if it gets colder?
    “Pledges”
    Like pledging to lose weight after the holidays?
    These people are all crazy.

  106. If you read the UNEP document spelling out the agenda from the ” Belgrade Process”
    http://74.125.113.132/custom?q=cache:Qj7h3pqI45MJ:www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/LinkClick.aspx%3Ffileticket%3DzG6SzFxbt8U%253D%26tabid%3D2227%26language%3Den-US+belgrade&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
    you will notice some similarities and subtle references between what Obama say’s in this speech and the agenda described in the Belgrade Process. Anyone who thinks this is over simply because nothing firm has come out of Copenhagen had best think again. This fight is far from over.
    Here’s Obama’s speech, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/18/obama.copenhagen.tran
    Partial Excerpt:
    * Quote:
    So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.
    After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.
    First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I’m pleased that many of us have already done so, and I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.
    This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants.
    Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.
    Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if — and only if — it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.
    Endquote

  107. First of all, our Hilary said they were going to “mobilise” $100b, not donate it. Ask yourselves, why the careful choice of words?
    Secondly she clearly qualified her announcement with the suffix “by 2020”. So nothing for ten years guys.

  108. Vincent (07:23:19) :
    “First of all, our Hilary said they were going to “mobilise” $100b, not donate it. Ask yourselves, why the careful choice of words?
    Secondly she clearly qualified her announcement with the suffix “by 2020″. So nothing for ten years guys.”

    Kicking the can down the road…
    .
    .
    Good eye, Vincent. I missed those subtleties.

  109. “This document shows that for all the U.N. spouts about 2°C, the plan comes nowhere near it,” says Bill McKibben, the environmental writer who runs 350.org, an environmental group that calls for far deeper carbon cuts. “This is the real Climategate, and it shows that any agreement we sign at this summit will be the equivalent of a suicide pact.”
    One can only hope.

  110. Neo (07:07:50) :
    “It’s really just those folks who think they can get somebody else to pay their bills”
    ___________
    Doesn’t that pretty much cover the vast silent majority?
    JonesII (07:10:02) :
    Pascvaks (06:57:21) :”Remember they lost the war….and then they were obliged to drink “kool-aid”…”
    ____________
    How do you say Kool-Aid in Chinese? Oh well, if the kids today don’t care why should we.

  111. photon without a Higgs (07:10:07) :
    I’ve always thought Presidents are supposed to be smarter than me. I have stopped laboring under that naive assumption

    You are touching a key issue. In the distant past the people in charge of governing over the peoples of our world not only were supposed to be the smartest, in intellectual terms, but more importantly, they were expected to be the most noble among the noblest, and the meaning of this word referred then to conscience, so they were expected to be the more conscious ( in emotional, ethical terms) people.
    Then it came an epoch when all that order was turned up side down and the ruling classes were replaced by the merchants, and, among these, the worst of their class, “clever” enough to not to be in charge they themselves but put instead their servants, selected among the meanest of them, individuals capable of killing their own parents or sons if their masters commanded them to do it. The hieratical order was fatally broken.
    However there were atempts to revert this new order several times but in all these atempts the elite members were not properly identified and all those atempts ended in war among brothers killing each other while the elite became richer and richer, achieving more power everytime.

  112. Clever leaders, hmm, yes..and that is why so many leaders of the Royal clans around the world are inbread, to keep the intelligentia within the family

  113. @gtrip (02:34:16) :
    “I have to wonder: If these people are so intelligent, why would they schedule a conference on global warming in Copenhagen in December? Have they never heard of Murphy’s Law”
    It’s becoming clear that ALL of these UN bureaucrats and their captured warmist ‘scientists’ aren’t all that smart.

  114. Well summarised. A sad but predictable outcome is inevitable. This is exactly the way negotiations work. Nothing ever gets done until the eleventh hour when the “heat is on” (not due to global warming!). This must be the age of parasitic organisations that thrive on making money from producing nothing. Whether it is standards organizations like ISO or certification organizations like FSC, they produce nothing but manage to make a handsome living from collecting rent. Now we will have another who will be monitoring C and CO2, the 2 most ubiquitous substances responsible for life on this planet. It couldn’t get any weirder. As long as we are affluent enough to support these leeches I suppose the madness will continue.

  115. I’m in favor of excluding from the recipient list of the global largess, all of the current and former members of OPEC.
    Smoke that one Ugo C!
    Actually I’m in favor of excluding from the list all governments the principle members of which have remained in office more than 8 years, as well as any organization which supports either through action or in-action, acts of piracy on the high seas. Of course, areas run by warlords are excluded as well.
    You get the idea – let’s figure out how to eliminate the recipients list.

  116. wsbriggs (09:19:35) : Who’s money are the developed coutries going to give?
    Think they are in a position of receiving charity instead.

  117. OT
    Alan the Brit (04:31:41) :
    A second thought. Was the fact that there was no heat exchange in sealed containers, as there would be in a real climate, rather than the primitive model in the experiment?
    I guess there weren’t any thunderstorms going on in the CO2 bottle either?
    Why didn’t they just show exploding Soda Pop cans heated by the Sun? The bicarbonate carbonation comes out of solution as CO2, gas pressure increases, and bango! I suspect what their “experiment” is doing is more dependent upon CO2 coming out of solution easier than water vaporizes as the solution heats up in a closed unexpandable space, increasing the pressure more, than on a “greenhouse” effect of CO2. But I don’t know for sure.
    Here’s a discussion of their experiment at WUWT.

  118. OT, further to the above OT: “increasing the pressure more which then translates to increased atmospheric temperature

  119. “artwest (06:45:34) :
    DocWat (03:02:56) :
    A lot of your ROW patients come to the US for your healthcare. Why is that?
    ———————————–
    Because there are fortunes to be made by providing rare treatments for those few who can afford it in the US.
    “A lot” should actually read “relatively not many”, when it comes to UK citizens by the way.
    On average, would you rather be poor and ill in the US or poor and ill in the UK or most other developed countries outside the US?”
    Oh…sorry…I’ll take the U.S. any day. First, I cannot be refused treatment at any hospital I walk into, regardless of my insurance status. Many people use the terms healthcare and health insurance interchangeably, and they are quite different. People that don’t have health insurance can still get health CARE. People that I’m aware of travelled to the U.S. to get knee replacement surgery. That my be considered a “rare treatment” where you are, but it’s pretty commonplace here. We’re not told to wait until they both go bad, nor are we told that we’ll need to get in line and wait a year.
    We can do this all day long, the bottom line is that healthcare in this country is pretty good, and has a few things wrong that need to be fixed, most of which are not addressed in a 2,000 page bill.
    JimB

  120. So, what progress will Copenhagen make?
    A few more platitudes about saving the world.
    Another step towards a world government.
    The third world to be carved up between East and West.
    A realisation by even more of the ordinary people of the world what this sham is really about. Money, power and the end of our already eroded personal freedoms.
    I can’t wait to see how the accord document tries to confirm success while moving the goalposts on the original intent.

  121. @LB “I wouldn’t compare it to health care if I were you, most developed capitalist countries have perfectly decent national health care without it being some kind of socialist plot”
    Name one that does’t use the threat of force to make people pay for it.

  122. Pascvaks (07:42:21) :
    How do you say Kool-Aid in Chinese? Oh well, if the kids today don’t care why should we
    Just don´t worry, in these parties they invite tea…

  123. Don’t you know that in English, “Any noun can be verbed” ? 😉
    The core problem at the bottom of ‘a deal’ is that China is the country who has the money, and they don’t want to play. Right behind that is Russia, who knows the truth, and can likely be bribed with a big enough bribe, but not if China will not loan the USSA or UK the money with which to do the bribing.
    So “the west” (i.e. the EU nameless machine, the UK, the USSA, and the ‘followers of the crown’ in Australia, New Zealand, Canada…) is supposed to pony up a Big Pot of money, but we don’t have it. The “willing to be bought” (i.e. Russia, India, et. al.) are lined up hands out demanding a BIG payout (having been lead to believe it is coming), and the “unwashed true believers” are ready for a lynching of a deal doesn’t happen because they think it will be the end of the world….
    But the banker, China, doesn’t want to loan us the money. Even if we promise to pay it back some day… Because they have figured out we will borrow dollars at $1000/oz gold and $70/bbl oil and pay them back at $3000 / oz gold and $200/ bbl oil. And they would rather just go buy the gold and oil now…
    (NOT speculation. China is inking deals all over the planet to buy resources and dump dollars. $200 B of US Treasuries swapped to Brazillian PBR Petrobras in exchange for 20 years of oil. Deals for BTU Peabody Wyoming coal to be hauled in Burlington Northern SantaFe trains. etc. BNS being bought by BRKA / BRKB. Ignore the “honey words” and look at contracts signed and rail car loadings…)
    So whatever ‘deal’ they sign is toast. China is not a sap and will not play one. Russia is only in it for any money they get, then will walk away with the money and claim climategate shows things are ‘not kosher’ and resume selling oil, coal, gas, etc.
    Yes, it’s only the curtain closing on ACT 1 of a 3 act play, and who knows what paper will be signed. But just remember, it is nothing more than “climate peace in our time” with them saying “I hold in my hand, this piece of paper, guaranteeing climate peace in our time!”… It will make great ridicule fodder later.

  124. The Irony of a deal being done in a snowy -3C Copenhagen today is delicious. It just over a year since the UK parliament passed the climate change bill, on an equally snowy day which heralded the earliest snow in London for 70 years.

  125. “street theater,” “a sort of Nuremberg rally” — Lord Monkton

    The deal has already been done, and Copenhagen is just the “celebration of how green we all are,” apparently to involve the world in what appears like reality, when it’s all just cheep theatrics.
    “Nothing is real in Copenhagen – not the temperature record, not the predictions, not the agenda, not the “solution”.”
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans
    That world is on the precipice of a new dark age is a far more realistic assessment than either global warming or cooling. One can only hope and pray for some miracle to save us, because it’s gone so far now that it is beyond the ability of any group or even nation to avert. G-d help us!

  126. tallbloke (12:36:43) :
    “The Irony of a deal being done in a snowy -3C Copenhagen today is delicious. It just over a year since the UK parliament passed the climate change bill, on an equally snowy day which heralded the earliest snow in London for 70 years.”
    Ahhh, what delicious irony, said the goose to the marinade.
    Being as we are in the stew, it’s no wonder we can appreciate it’s flavor. But when they get done cooking our goose, we’ll be a lot less able to appreciate it, I fear.

  127. The communists in #Copenhagen have no idea what killed their beloved treaty. Now is the time to expose the warmists ‘science.’ We have the momentum.

  128. Pamela Gray (06:09:08) :
    I voted for an idiot.
    I’ve got that beat, I voted for Jimmy Carter. Obama’s closing in pretty fast, though.

  129. Pamela Gray (06:09:08) :
    I voted for an idiot.
    But you have recognized that and *learned*.
    “Snatch the pebble from my hand, Grass–”
    *swoosh*
    “–hopper. Dang.”

  130. Alba (03:28:14) :
    “It is true that it is depressing to see the heretofore useful word aggression turned into another mouth-numbing verb.”
    Excellent point, sir, and I’m glad to see that somebody else is bothered about this trend to make nouns into verbs. eg. tasked. Give us back our nouns and let’s go back to using proper verbs.
    It seems to be another aspect of the dumbing down of the language from the media/public relations/politicians.

    Fowler, in Modern English Usage, under “Noun and verb accent, pronunciation, and spelling,” notes the practice of forming verbs from nouns but makes no objection to it.
    Bill Bryson approves of it in his recent Made in America: An Informal History of the English language in the United States.
    p. 18: “Turning nouns into verbs … gave the age such perennially useful innovations as to gossip (1590), to fuel (1592), to attest (1596), to inch (1599), to preside (1611), to surround (1616), and several score others.
    pp. 72-73: “In the nineteenth cenetury, Americans … turned nouns into verbs. The list of American verb formations is all but endless: to interview, to bankroll, to highlight, to package, to panic, to audition, to curb, to bellyache, to demean, to progress, to corner, to endorse, to advocate, to splurge, to boast, to coast, to oppose, to demoralize, to placate, to donate, to peeve, to locate, to evoke, to rattle, to deed, to boom, to park, to sidestep, to hustle, to bank, to lynch, to ready, to service, to enthuse — all these, and many, many more are Americanisms without which the language clearly would be very much the poorer.
    “The nineteenth century was, in short, our Elizabethan age, and the British hated us for it.”

    =============
    gtrip (02:34:16) :
    “I have to wonder: If these people are so intelligent, why would they schedule a conference on global warming in Copenhagen in December? Have they never heard of Murphy’s Law”

    It wasn’t just “in” December, but at a time that coincided with the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. I’ve speculated that they took a long-shot chance that a Democrat would be elected president, whereupon they could give him a Peace Prize and then use his propinquity to the Copenhagen summit to tiddlywink him into attendance. If I were a convention-planner, I’d have done the same.

  131. PS: Of course, that’s not to say that some verbed nouns like “to aggress” aren’t cringeworthy, just that the practice can’t be sweepingly condemned.

Comments are closed.