US and the United Nations Climate Change Conference

jank

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I never disputed he could be OTT. I issue is with certain posters here doing the typical leftist "He's a loon,etc" and can't dispute what he's saying [Hell there are some leftist loons that were wishing he would have died last night from his appendicitis surgery [And this is the 'Loving" and "Inclusive" crowd here]

Who wishes him he would have died? Some keyboard warriors or do you think everyone thinks like that or rather you want to think that everyone (lefty) thinks like that

Some terrible stuff was written on blogs about Ted Kennedy when he died but the people who write that are just bitter, sad keyboard warriors. The same holds true for the above but at least I know that everyone in a sterotype doesnt thinks like that. People say $hit to get a reaction, like eh......BECK!
Doesnt mean they believe it, sure PJ is the best example on boards of this.. tales from the dark sides (to borrow a phrase ), New World Order , Commie take overs and all that. He doesnt believe it though he is just trying to wind people up and give this board some traffic and long may he continue.

JohnMc1

bobbyjoe wrote: »

This is boring me.

I wonder why. You're not looking good.

Obama is racist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI_0Kt_e3Go

Wow only where you don't get the whole story. What a shock. This was after his loud mouth Prof friend was arrested and Obama not knowing the facts said the Cop acted stupidly.

Health care is Nazi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APd0OBfOlc

Again only a clip. What a shock. One of Obama's czars wrote years ago about adding sterilizers to the drinking water to sterilize Americans.

Rockerfellor Communist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szlLM5lCNJg[/QUOTE]

Can't you really say that's just a coincidence? A hammer and a sickle conveniently there?:rolleyes:

Basically you still offered up nothing because you stil can't [or won't ] dispute it.

Scofflaw

JohnMc1, you've picked up about 3-4 infractions in the last couple of pages. I'd suggest you might like to take a break, chill out, and so on, rather than run yourself into a siteban as you're currently doing.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Overheal

Dun Dun DUUNNNNN!!!!

ABC News wrote:

Senate Democrats sidestepped a Republican boycott Thursday, pushing a climate bill out of committee in an early step on a long and contentious road to passage. Other committees still must weigh-in on the measure, but the partisan antics early on threatened to cast a pall over the bill — one of President Barack Obama's top priorities — as it makes its way to the Senate floor and as nations prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, next month to hammer out a new international treaty to slow climate change.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, had delayed the crucial vote for days because of a Republican protest over whether the cost of the legislation had been fully examined. But the California Democrat moved quickly to pass the bill Thursday, which for the first time would set mandatory limits on heat-trapping gases, without any of the seven GOP senators on the panel present. The measure cleared the panel on a 11-1 vote.

Boxer said the Republican demand for more analysis was "duplicative and waste of taxpayer dollars." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has agreed to do a full analysis on the final version of the legislation.

"Advancing the bill is a necessary step on the road to garnering the 60 votes we need," said Boxer, who introduced the bill along with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. in late September. "We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott, we have had the will to move this bill forward."

Former Vice President Al Gore, in town to promote his new global warming book, "Our Choice," said in an interview with The Associated Press that he doubted Boxer's move would have any lingering consequences.

"She clearly made the right decision and because the requested analysis is in fact going to be forthcoming ... it was obviously the right way to go," Gore said.

Gore seemed to lower his expectations for Senate action before the Copenhagen conference, saying that a draft "that reflects consensus support, carrying realistic expectation of 60 votes" would make the chances better than 50-50 that 192 nations could reach a binding agreement.

"That's the threshold that will enable the United States to play the leadership role the rest of the world expects of us," he said.

Earlier this year, Gore called on Congress to overcome partisan differences and pass a bill.

Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the committee, said in a statement that the Democrats' action would signal "the death knell" for the Kerry-Boxer bill. Before the vote, he implored the panel to not proceed with what he called a "nuclear option." He left shortly after making his statement.

Of the 11 Democrats present at the vote, only one — Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. — voted against the legislation, saying that concerns he had with the bill were not fully addressed. The "yes" vote of Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., was added after the vote.

Baucus specifically cited the bill's call for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. He said he would like to see that target lowered to 17 percent, with a trigger to raise it to 20 percent if other countries adopted similar measures.

"I am going work to get climate legislation that can get 60 votes through the U.S. Senate and signed into law," Baucus said.

To move the bill out of committee without Republicans present meant the Democrats could not amend the legislation, and many Democrats on the panel expressed disappointment that they did not have a chance to improve the bill.

"The failure of the Republicans to participate means we cannot offer amendments. This is a very good start, but as the chair has acknowledged it is a start and only a start," said Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa. "It is regrettable that we could not move forward in a more constructive way."

Specter said that the vote would send a signal to other countries in advance of a climate change conference next month to hammer out a new international treaty.

"It is not the best signal, but it is a signal that the Senate is ready to move forward," he said.

Now the legislation will be merged with legislation written by at least five other Senate panels. And in the hopes of broadening support, Kerry announced Wednesday he was working with Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham and the White House to secure votes.

The House narrowly passed its version of the bill in June.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/WireStory?id=9007646&page=1

Still you're hardly going to see this thing pass through the same way the PATRIOT Act did.

Pocono Joe

jank wrote: »

Doesnt mean they believe it, sure PJ is the best example on boards of this.. tales from the dark sides (to borrow a phrase ), New World Order , Commie take overs and all that. He doesnt believe it though he is just trying to wind people up and give this board some traffic and long may he continue.

Telling stories about me again huh? You forgot about my rather eccentric thoughts that war with Iran is just around the corner. Whats that I see…. Ooooops.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=8765343

Overheal wrote: »

Still you're hardly going to see this thing pass through the same way the PATRIOT Act did.

Yeah I agree. Doubt it will get passed as the bill lacks enough support for full approval. Probably done just as window dressing in order to save a little face before the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen next month when the United Nations expects us to shell out 2% of our GDP to Third World countries. Without any Republican support and Baucus' defection against the bill, it would make the 60 votes needed for passage by the Senate difficult.

Then again, it sometimes boggles the mind how idiotic our elected officials can be.

Overheal

More to the point, while this does have socialistic and some might argue even communistic principles attached to it, its not really in the same league as founding USSR 2.0 This entity is to be tasked with climate change. Not setting flat wages in participating countries or stopping you for your papers when you cross into Montana.

Pocono Joe

You are correct about “socialistic and some might argue even communistic principles attached to it.” The thread was never intended to be about a New World Order or Commie take over. That was interjected by a few posters who might have been stealthily trying (or unintentionally) to detract from the original intent of the thread (In regards to Climate only… UN setting up a “Government” to monitor and control, and the “Treaty” to be signed by government’s like ours) to give the appearance of inconsequence and/or attempting to send it to Conspiracy Theories. IMO

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

You are correct about “socialistic and some might argue even communistic principles attached to it.” The thread was never intended to be about a New World Order or Commie take over. That was interjected by a few posters who might have been stealthily trying (..........)

emm....thats what yer man was saying in his speech.

LostinKildare

Like the US, Australia's been trying to pass a climate change bill ahead of Copenhagen, and as in the US, it's been met with strong opposition from the Right.

Yesterday the Australian prime minister gave a speech that smacked down climate change deniers, world government conspiracy theorists, and other obstructionists -- with reference to Monckton and also various US Republicans.

It's a pretty great speech. I hope BHO was taking notes.

The full text is here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/the-pms-address-to-the-lowy-institute/story-e6frg6nf-1225795141519

Here are some extracts (I know it's long, but it's good):

The opponents of action on climate change fall into one of three categories: First, the climate science deniers; second, those that pay lip service to the science and the need to act on climate change but oppose every practicable mechanism being proposed to bring about that action; third, those in each country that believe their country should wait for others to act first.

Together, these groups, alive in every major country including Australia, constitute a powerful global force for inaction, and they are particularly entrenched in a range of conservative parties around the world.

As we approach Copenhagen, these three groups of climate skeptics are quite literally holding the world to ransom. Provoking fear campaigns in every country they can. Blocking or delaying domestic legislation in every country they can. With the objective of slowing and if possible destroying the momentum towards a global deal on climate change.

<snip>

The first category of those opposed to action is the vocal group of conservatives who do not accept the scientific consensus. This group believes the science is inconclusive and does not provide an evidentiary basis for anthropogenic climate change.


<snip>

Climate skeptics are also a powerful political lobby in the United States.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said on 6 March 2009:
“We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I am using my finger quotation marks here, is part of the cooling process.”

House Minority Leader John Boehner said on 19 April 2009:
"The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide.”

Republican Congressman John Shimkus said on 25 March 2009:
"If we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?"


<snip>

Attempts by politicians in this country and others to present what is an overwhelming global scientific consensus as little more than an unfolding debate, with two sides evenly represented in a legitimate scientific argument, are nothing short of intellectually dishonest. They are a political attempt to subvert what is now a longstanding scientific consensus, an attempt to twist the agreed science in the direction of a predetermined political agenda to kill climate change action.

It reminds me of the efforts of the smoking lobby decades ago as they tried for years to politically subvert by so-called scientific means that there was any link between smoking and lung cancer.

Put more simply: these climate change sceptics around the world would be laughable if they were not so politically powerful – particularly in the ranks of conservative parties.

<snip>


Lord Monckton describes the potential Copenhagen agreement as a plan to set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never before seen. Enter the “world government” conspiracy theorists.

Lord Monckton also publicly warned Americans that "in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever."

<snip>

Janet Albrechtsen, in her understated neo-conservative way, refers to the potential Copenhagen agreement as a UN “power grab”. This gaggle of world government conspiracy theorists are so far out there on the far right that they rub up next to the global anarchists of the far left.


<snip>


The climate change deniers now form the comfortable bedfellows of the global conspiracy theorists – in total bald-faced denial of global scientific, economic and environmental reality. These arguments – thinly veiled attempts to create a new climate change global conspiracy theory – are now being used in Australia.

Like the arguments from climate change deniers, these arguments have zero basis in evidence.

<snip>


Where is the evidence basis offered by the new league of world government conspiracy theorists that climate change can be effectively dealt with by market means or by uncoordinated national means?

Answer – there is none.


The truth is that the do-nothing climate change skeptics offer no alternative official body of evidence from any credible government in the world. Absolutely none. The truth is they offer zero evidence. Instead they offer maximum fear, the universal conservative stock in trade.


<snip>

The third group of climate deniers are those who pretend to accept the science but then urge delay because they don’t want their country to be the first to act.

<snip>

It is an endless cycle of delay – and I am sure that with December almost upon us, the eighth excuse cannot be far away – which will be to wait until the next year or the year after until all the rest of the world has acted at which time Australia will act.


What absolute political cowardice. What an absolute failure of leadership. What an absolute failure of logic.


The inescapable logic of this approach is that if every nation makes the decision not to act until others have done so, then no nation will ever act.

The immediate and inevitable consequence of this logic – if echoed in other countries – is that there will be no global deal as each nation says to its domestic constituencies that they cannot act because others have not acted. The result is a negotiating stalemate. A permanent standoff.

And this of course is the consistent ambition of all three groups of do-nothing climate change deniers.

<snip>

Their aim is not to convince every person on earth of the follies of acting on climate change. Their aim is to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible.


By slowing the actions of each individual country, they aim to slowly drag global negotiations on climate change to a standstill. By hampering decisive action at a national level, they aim to make it impossible at an international level.


If Copenhagen does not deliver the outcome we so urgently need, no individual climate change skeptic will be responsible, but each of them will have played their part.

<snip>

For people who claim to hold the conservative torch, their scepticism is in fact radical in its riskiness and recklessness. By deliberately undermining and eroding the capacity to achieve both domestic and international action on climate change the skeptics are attempting to force the world to take the single most reckless bet in our long history.


They are betting our future, the future of our children and our grandchildren, and they are doing so based on their own personal intuitions, their personal prejudices and their deeply ingrained political prejudices.

And they are doing so in the total absence of any genuine body of evidence.

<snip>


Climate change skeptics in all their guises and disguises are not conservatives. They are radicals.

Overheal

I believe I've just been labeled a radical for agreeing with this:

House Minority Leader John Boehner said on 19 April 2009:
"The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide.”

Republican Congressman John Shimkus said on 25 March 2009:
"If we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?"

Pocono Joe

Nice informative piece Lost. In rebuttal, I offer Senator Inhofe’s Point by Point Rebuttal to Senator Kerry’s 30 minute filibuster when he appeared before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to speak on behalf of the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill.

You can watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAwjer7YiMI&feature=player_embedded

Or you can read it here:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=9909b4bd-802a-23ad-4f8b-c6806dffd024&Issue_id=

LostinKildare

Overheal wrote: »

I believe I've just been labeled a radical for agreeing with this:

House Minority Leader John Boehner said on April 19 2009:
"The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide.”

Republican Congressman John Shimkus said on 25 March 2009:
"If we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?"

I’m sorry to hear that you agree with those statements, because they betray a stunning ignorance of the issue (and basic science).

Boehner's "The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical" is a doozy of a straw man. Does he (or you?) think that the debate is about whether carbon dioxide is a carcinogen? That would indeed be comical, if anyone had asserted that -- CO2 is not a known carcinogen, and carcinogens (cancer agents) are harmful to people, not to the environment. He doesn't know what he's talking about. The implication of "Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide” is that CO2 is harmless. In fact, in elevated levels it is toxic. Let's put Boehner into a sealed room and start pumping CO2 into it and see how long it takes for him to change his mind. Will he recant before he loses consciousness?

Shimkus: Yes, of course plants consume CO2. The point is, the rate at which fossil fuel use adds carbon to the atmosphere greatly exceeds the rate at which plants can remove it. The aim is not to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere, but to stabilize the amount of CO2 by curtailing emissions to a level closer to the rate at which plants can consume it. And also by curtailing our destruction of the earth’s plankton, rainforests etc that take carbon out of the air.

Why oh why do you reject the overwhelming expert scientific consensus in favor of the idiotic ramblings of shamelessly ignorant politicians like Boehner and Shimkus?

Overheal

ah but nowhere in that did i read put a plant into a c02 filled box and watch it change its mind.

im not as concerned, truthfully, about human life in this equation. the fact remains clear if we left our cars running and died tomorrow the planet would probably be quite alright.

they've been targeting global warming at environmentalism after all, which puts planet first and human second. if youre telling me they've really only been caring about no.1 after all - well i shouldnt be all that impressed, should i?

LostinKildare

Overheal wrote: »

ah but nowhere in that did i read put a plant into a c02 filled box and watch it change its mind.

im not as concerned, truthfully, about human life in this equation. the fact remains clear if we left our cars running and died tomorrow the planet would probably be quite alright.

Oh I see, you're not concerned with the fate of humans, as long as the plants survive! Who cares if the earth can sustain human life? I think Boehner and Shimkus would ask you to please stop "agreeing" with them. Even those asshats would probably rather concede that their science is shaky than say that they are not concerned about the survival of our children and grandchildren.

they've been targeting global warming at environmentalism after all, which puts planet first and human second. if youre telling me they've really only been caring about no.1 after all - well i shouldnt be all that impressed, should i?

That is absurd. The aim of environmentalism is the preservation of an habitable earth for this and future generations. It puts "planet first and human second" only if you think that our present level of conspicuous consumption of resources is necessary to human survival. That is, you literally cannot live without an SUV.

Overheal

LostinKildare wrote: »

Oh I see, you're not concerned with the fate of humans, as long as the plants survive! Who cares if the earth can sustain human life? I think Boehner and Shimkus would ask you to please stop "agreeing" with them. Even those asshats would probably rather concede that their science is shaky than say that they are not concerned about the survival of our children and grandchildren.



That is absurd. The aim of environmentalism is the preservation of an habitable earth for this and future generations. It puts "planet first and human second" only if you think that our present level of conspicuous consumption of resources is necessary to human survival. That is, you literally cannot live without an SUV.

But I cant! Have I shown you pictures of Sweetness yet?



Hmph! 17mpgs ftw

Im just pragmatic. I'd surely love it if the species survived but if it came right down to Us or It I'd choose It.
Either way, you have yet to say whether the two statements I highlighted were scientifically incorrect. Obviously unless plant life grows at a rate which matches the output of C02 we will end up in a bad way from a net gain of the stuff.

But in agreeing with the 2 highlighted statements im somehow a radical, and against climate policies, and everything else. Im not really. I just happen to agree with the statement that c02 buildup is not an issue for plant life. Im not saying youre calling me a radical, LiK, but the article is and I think its mildly misleading.

LostinKildare

Overheal wrote: »

Im just pragmatic. I'd surely love it if the species survived but if it came right down to Us or It I'd choose It.

Why you see it as a zero-sum game? Do you think measures to preserve both the earth and humankind are futile?

Either way, you have yet to say whether the two statements I highlighted were scientifically incorrect.

Reread what I wrote above, please.

Do you think CO2 is a carcinogen, which Boehner thinks is the issue? Scientifically incorrect.

Do you think that carcinogens act on the environment rather than on animals? Scientifically incorrect.

Do you think that CO2 is harmless, as Boehner suggests? Scientifically incorrect.

Do you think that reducing carbon emissions will have a deletrious effect on the earth's plant life, as Shimkus suggests? Scientifically incorrect.

I have explained why all these notions are incorrect in my post above.

Obviously unless plant life grows at a rate which matches the output of C02 we will end up in a bad way from a net gain of the stuff.

Plant life cannot save the day now, Overheal. You must say bye-bye to Sweetness.

I just happen to agree with the statement that c02 buildup is not an issue for plant life.

Straw man. Neither Boehner nor Shimkus said that.

Boehner said nothing about plant life.

Shimkus did not say that CO2 buildup is not an issue for plant life -- he suggested that we would be doing harm to plant life and therefore the planet if we decreased our production of fossil fuels. Here is the full quote: ""If we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere? So all our good intentions could be in vain. In fact, we could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world are saying."

Im not saying youre calling me a radical, LiK, but the article is and I think its mildly misleading.

I don't know that you would qualify as a radical under Rudd's definition unless you are a skeptic activist or actively obstructing change, if that makes you feel better. Though he does also seem to implicate those who cling to their "personal intuitions, their personal prejudices and their deeply ingrained political prejudices" instead of accepting the disturbing scientific evidence and the need to make changes (I don't know if this describes you, I'm only sayin'):

their scepticism is in fact radical in its riskiness and recklessness. By deliberately undermining and eroding the capacity to achieve both domestic and international action on climate change the skeptics are attempting to force the world to take the single most reckless bet in our long history.

They are betting our future, the future of our children and our grandchildren, and they are doing so based on their own personal intuitions, their personal prejudices and their deeply ingrained political prejudices.

And they are doing so in the total absence of any genuine body of evidence.

Overheal

Well im not offering up solutions but neither am I saying no to this climate bill. Just making observations. If the folks I elected feel thats to be the case then so be it. As I said I dont think this is necessarily a bad thing. It is a bit of an economic handicap though. Perhaps in the end a necessary one. But everyone will have to be on board with it: it does no good if the US and Europe are tying a hand behind their backs if Africa and Asia start taking this new source of income and go off with their own industrial age, chock full of pollutants. China for example, is an extreme source of these emissions and they will have to be severely curtailed going into any climate change agreement.

Pocono Joe

At times I wonder if the whole carbon dioxide thing is not just the flavor of the month.

So how about methane? Although it is only about 10% of the emissions of CO2 here (which you might recall from science class is reduced in the atmosphere by the activity of plants), we never seem to hear much about methane's effects. While CO2 emissions have increased by 31 per cent during the past 250 years, methane, which has a higher warming potential and a longer lifetime in the atmosphere, has increased by 149 per cent during the same period. Methane in the atmosphere is believed to be responsible for one-fifth of global warming experienced since 1750. Human activity only contributes about 3% of the total amount of atmospheric CO2 each year, yet the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims that methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, and human activity produces nearly 400% more methane than natural sources.

In addition, is it not true a dairy cow will typically produce around 176lb (80kg) of methane per year from burps and solid waste? Also, it takes about 284 gallons of oil to produce a cow, and eating one pound of hamburger does the same damage as driving your car for more than three weeks. Are people being told that in regards to carbon dioxide gas emissions of human activities, about 77 percent comes from the combustion of fossil fuels and 22 percent is attributed to deforestation? Is it not true that most rain forest deforestation is caused by cutting down of indigenous plants in order to grow soy beans to feed cattle and chickens? Do you hear climate advocates calling for the destruction of all cows, sheep, goats and camels, and to become vegetarians?

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be doing things to promote better forms of energy and find ways to use less of it. What does concern me is that steps are being undertaken to impose regulations, primarily on First World countries, that will decimate economies for something that might, or might not, have any negligible impact on climate change.

Yeah... I know I'm a radical.

spank_inferno

Agreed, the whole carbon thing is such a red herring.

From what I recall reading (in actual science books)
All human activity combined contribtes to 5% of the worlds co2.

But Methane is a whole different matter.

Anyone willing to tackle it?
... thought not.

Pocono Joe

I wonder how much impact the ClimateGate scandal will have on the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen next week? It is interesting to see how the different factions are currently battling the scandal out. The Australia vote sure was a kick in the teeth to Global Warming alarmists. I guess we will know the full impact once the conference is underway. Bet it won’t be pretty though.

And for your viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded#

Overheal

afaik we arent going with the intention of signing a new treaty or agreement, we are going in order to come to an agreement about further talks. Not much more.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/256924/november-30-2009/something-is-melting-in-denmark---dan-esty

Stephen T. Colbert wrote:

I believe in the free market, and when Al Gore's movie started making money I believed in it. That is also why I now believe Global Warming is caused by teenage vampires.

Dan Esty wrote:

They are not gonna get a new treay done [in Copenhagen]. Lets be clear on that. We are not going to have a Beyond Kyoto agreement that lays out the gameplan for a global effort on climate change. But they can commit to a further schedule of negotiations... for example, they are going to focus on discussions of Forests, which has never happened before; They're going to commit to really bringing All of the countries of the world together. Previously we just had the Developed Countries taking action.

Overheal

JohnMc1 wrote: »

You tell me. You're so against him. Where is he wrong? What is he presenting that is not true?

Well, I can at least be certain that Copenhagen will in fact Not be the end of US sovereignty.

So theres One: your Hero-man bleeds, and can be wrong.

Pocono Joe

Overheal wrote: »

Well, I can at least be certain that Copenhagen will in fact Not be the end of US sovereignty.

Yeah, their original intent was to have a UN governing body and getting global decision makers to agree on a new climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol from 1997. But without the US, it just won’t happen. I’m not quite sure what the goal of the conference currently is, except maybe to listen to some flowery speeches and non-binding lofty goals, talk again about getting something done once the ClimateGate scandal calms down, and of course to party on dude. Don’t know how third world countries will like the UN telling them to quiet down temporarily on their monetary demands from us for MORE, MORE, MORE!

canbyte

Overheal wrote: »

Well, I can at least be certain that Copenhagen will in fact Not be the end of US sovereignty. .

Maybe Yankees can relax but smaller countries better watch out what they sign. Real sneaky stuff in that treaty.
More info
http://canbyte.newsvine.com/_news/2009/12/02/3578937-the-copenhagen-climate-treaty-has-a-bug-a-poisonous-bug

jetfiremuck

Its just a guilt trip perpetrated on people who are made feel guilty about ruining the planet etc. Its all B.S.

Overheal

canbyte wrote: »

Maybe Yankees can relax but smaller countries better watch out what they sign. Real sneaky stuff in that treaty.
More info
http://canbyte.newsvine.com/_news/2009/12/02/3578937-the-copenhagen-climate-treaty-has-a-bug-a-poisonous-bug

Im from Seattle

Pocono Joe

So, why do you think Al Gore cancelled his $1,200 per ticket handshake and push for his newest book “Our Choice” at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen? Is the conference toast? Or could it be that he prefers to hide behind his Oscar in his mega mansion in TN, clicking his heals chanting “There’s no place like home” now that apparently the science ISN’T settled and there DOES need to be additional discussion on Global Warming? I guess he really can't take the heat (pun intended).

Pocono Joe

So the Obama administration is now warning us and Congress that if we don’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency (with its new powers to regulate greenhouse gases) will take a "command-and-control" role over the process that will hurt businesses. They made it clear Tuesday night that the EPA will not wait and is prepared to act on its own.

In effect Obama is threatening us to either get climate legislation done or he will bankrupt our country. How much more does the man and his administration need to do to us before the American people take off their rose colored glasses?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/administration-warns-command-control-regulation-emissions/

Nodin

In effect Obama is threatening us to either get climate legislation done or he will bankrupt our country.

Please note the following.

1+1 =/= Godzilla

Pocono Joe

Nodin wrote: »

Please note the following.

1+1 =/= Godzilla

With that math, you could be a czar in the Obama administration. I have been taught that 1+1=2, which is why Obama’s actions scares me so.

Just wanted to add this... Linked below is an excellent piece with Karl Rove on an O’Reilly segment I saw last night. He claims GW Bush had us on track to reduce greenhouse gasses by over 12% come 2020 through technology, and without cap and trade legislation or energy taxes. Obama’s administration is willing to destroy our economy to reach 14%. Hmmmmm.

(WARNING to all Progressives… make sure the duct tape is wrapped tight before watching… as to not allow one’s head to explode)
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/27823905/rove-s-review.htm