« Remember, when the Sky Was Falling | Main | Congressional Crapola »

18 December 2009



George, a nothing deal! This form the KQED blog:

Some bullet points from the President's news conference, right before be bolted for the airport:

- "All major economies have come together."

- Contains the three key elements: transparency, mitigation and finance

- Mitigation goal to stop warming at 2 degrees (C) "…by action consistent with science."

- Nations have "much farther to go."

- Accord is "not legally binding" and sets no deadline to achieve one that is*

- A legally binding pact was "not achievable at this conference."

- Getting to a legally binding agreement will be "very hard and is going to take some time."

- "This is hard within countries. It's going to be even harder between countries."

And here's one to set a cheery tone for the coming year:

- "Kyoto was legally binding but everybody fell short, anyway."

*Earlier drafts of the agreement reportedly set the end of 2010 as a deadline for signing something binding.

The US President and other heads of state left the Bella conference center before the agreement was actually signed. He said negotiators will remain in Copenhagen and attach many of the details to the deal in the form of "appendices," before signing. President Obama said he was confident that as he departed, delegates were "moving in the direction of a significant accord."

Here's an early reaction from a major environmental group, in this case Friends of the Earth:

- "Sham Deal Requires Nothing, Accomplishes Nothing."


Oops! Should read "from the KQED"

Account Deleted

I like reading the other side of whatever is topical. The Guardian, Kos, and HufPo - et al. The standard line on climate-gate is that the comments were taken "out of context"! What the context was, they never quite say. Anyway, the main thrust is that these were purloined private messages and we need to look for the hackers and throw them in jail. The Left is actually quite upset with the results from H. C. Anderson's fair city. That they expected a substantive outcome from the Circus of Loons is metric proof that they are an ignorant and incompetent bunch. The conservative blogs and press called the plays before the offence even huddled. And were they ever offensive! How much did Hil put US down for? We would buy our way into the good graces of the greenies. Hil took a couple more shots of "Affluent Nation Guilt" and doubled down on what ever was on the table. That'll show 'em! We'll print and give out super-tanker loads of cash to the "affected' nations. Strange, how the most climate-stricken countries are the same basket cases from earlier in the last century. The more money we give them, the worse off they become. Anyway, we did get a funny movie from the conference and a lot of filmed evidence of what happens when free-thinking folks ask questions of the not-to-be-questioned-class. A lot of people in '39 were aware that Chamberlain was a donkey's behind and said so at the time. It mattered not. Oh, brave new world!

Anna Haynes

George, I'm curious - when you look at NSF's Science News Archives, do you see any news that appears to support your climate science views?

(I think "yes", "no", "some", or "not applicable" would be valid answers. But please, only answer after you've looked, ok? it should only take about 60 seconds.)

Tired of the Lies

"There are three distinct groups involved here – 1) scumbag ‘scientists’, 2) True Believers, 3) sleazebag politicians. Groups 2 and 3 are ignorant of earth’s climatology and climate modeling. I grant that Group 2 probably consists of good-hearted, well-meaning people concerned about humanity, but they possess neither the knowledge nor the tools to understand how the AGW issue is framed, let alone proved. They just listen to Groups 1 and 3, and then join the damaging background chorus." -George Rebane

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad