Green rollercoaster
After almost two weeks of discussion, the Copenhagen conference on climate change is over. A discussion over what it accomplished is still ongoing.
Commentators can be roughly divided into those who think that the conference accomplished something significant and those who think it didn’t. Within each group, however, there is a considerable disagreement regarding whether that is a good or a bad thing. As a result, one can find those with radically different views of climate change agreeing that the Copenhagen conference accomplished very little.
What is your view of the Copenhagen run-down? Do you think it accomplished what it set to accomplish and did you approve of what it set to accomplish in the first place? Do you think that the next conference will accomplish more or less in its goal of limiting carbon emissions?








For what it’s worth, I am still trying to digest what all the camps have to say. I believe that the planners underestimated the potential for stalemate. That seems abundantly clear. I will be away for some days and really hope I am not the only one commenting by the time I get back.
Well, Thank god nothing much was done. The ability to really mess up the united states was in possible, but fortunately the recent releases of information on how the AGW proponents have been messing withthe data, roadblocking opponents, and generally have generally not been playing nice has really hit at thier credibility. Come on, the same warming is being seen on OTHER PLANETS. Are martian moms in SUVs warming Mars too? Is the fact that the MWP was degrees warmer than is is now or has been in the last 30 years starting to sink in? Is the fact that ALGORE has a carbon footprint of a small city starting to make people realize that he is being disengenuous? Is the fact that Hansen had to change his numbers when busted, that East Anglia’s source numbers were “eaten by the dog on the way to school”, and that ice core samples, the best long term HARD data, disagrees with AGW is maybe starting to be noticed?
Sheesh people, these same AGW folks said we were headed into an ice age in the 70’s and early 80’s. They just cant stop being wrong.
Yes, yes I hear you. But NASA? They don’t sound like a liberal bunch. I still have my front door open and I am willing to invite a credible scientist inside who can explain the “no change” version, but so far they don’t have anybody to match say – NASA, and it is getting drafty in here.
I have been trying to clear the holiday debris and read, but to me, it appears that Copenhagen was 80% political posturing. BUT before all of you get in a wad, whether you actually believe Santa is real is not as important than if you get to lead the next century in the expedition to where Santa lives. THAT is where the most important posturing is happening. Now as for the stalemate, imagine developed countries reining in industry and blessing poor countries filth producing economies. Good luck with that. On the flip side, we used and abused these countries during our own industrial revolution, and now we say tut, tut! mustn’t pollute! But back to the matter at hand. The real power play is who will lead the posse and what form will it take. I fear that the far right will filibuster this into the ground, Congress will therefore not be able to take any action at all, and other countries will assume the leadership of this debate. How sad if we wake up some day and find out America must abide by certain rules set by an international body we did not participate in. Can’t happen??? Tariff wars may be in our future.