Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Environment

How Did Bush Do It?

Some weeks ago I said on Kudlow and Company on CNBC that Obama wouldn't want to come back from Copenhagen in December 0 for 2, and that he'd probably sign on to anything to be able to say a "breakthrough" had been accomplished.  Turns out the exceedingly weak non-binding "agreement" that the White House is trumpeting won't even by signed by the principals.  Some agreement.  All those carbon emissions in Copenhagen for this?  

The whole exercise looks more and more like the Woody Allen joke about trying to find a framework to turn a concept into an idea.  Now we're told there won't even be a real agreement next year as hoped; maybe 2016 instead.  Stick a fork in this business; it's done.  It is worse even than Churchill's line about disarmament--a "prolonged and solemn farce."  I'd put it below the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1921 1928 that promised to outlaw war forever.  How'd that work out for everybody?

I expect a theme to emerge from the greens in the coming days: It's really George W. Bush's fault.  We lost so much time during his eight years that we couldn't possibly rescue the issue in just one year of Obama.  This is desperation time.  (Or it shows what a true evil genius Bush really was?--Ed.)  Meanwhile, kudos to India and China, which wouldn't go along with this charade, though they'll happily take our money (which we'll borrow from them) if we indeed try to go through with this charade.  They took the line from Apu on The Simpsons, telling us and the Eurocrats: "You are not the boss of me!"

UPDATE:  I'll add updates as noteworthy things come in, but no matter how much US greens will try to spin the result, just refer them to this statement from John Sauven of Greenpeace UK: "The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport.  There are no targets for carbon cuts and no agreement on a legally binding treaty.  It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different mode of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen."  Yeah, John, we're all waiting with baited breath for that radical new mode of politics to arrive.  How many times has it come and gone now?  Oh, and what was that bit the last few years about "the reality-based community"?

UPDATE 2: Stephen Spruiell over at Planet Gore has a complete rundown of the gnashing green teeth over the Copenhagen result, but the headline in the Guardian says it all: "Copenhagen Ends in Failure."

Categories > Environment

Discussions - 5 Comments

They are like Stage IV melanoma ... they will not be beaten ... they will come back again and again and again.

The contempt I have for them is like sour bile in my throat.

It's amazing, isn't it, Steven, that even with the worldwide liberal media conspiracy (I'm shocked they let you get on the air over at CNBC!) and all of those politically bought-off scientists (the ones not working for the honest research teams at Exxon, Shell, or Koch), that Cassandra's voice (the environmental whackos will destroy America!!) finally got through the filter, and we can resume business as usual - global warming is a huge hoax, or well, at least nothing to fret about in the slightest, let the market decide, etc., etc.

Also, why have do you have "baited" breath? Are you fishing for compliments again? ;) [Or maybe he just has the same sour bile in his throat that Don is struggling with? I think he didn't know the correct word is "bated" - Ed.]

Politically bought off scientists, Craig? You mean like the guys in the East Anglia e-mails, which revealed they received funding from BP, Shell, and, um, Exxon? I guess you missed those when you read through them. Heh.

Whoops, missed your reply, Steven. If true about Big Oil funding the CRU researchers (links, please!!), that's quite a revelation you mention there! Why haven't I seen that brought up before, even on the right-wing sites, blogs, and FoxNews (your mention of it here in the comments is the first I'd heard it)? Why haven't you played that up, big time? That would seem to be a great card to play to delegitimize those CRU scientists, wouldn't it? So, instead of two separate blog-posts about how the CRU crew doesn't have any sense of humor at all (in your view), why not highlight that find? Surely, it would help to make people even more skeptical of their research, wouldn't it?

Something about that claim strikes me as grossly counterintuitive, though. WHY would the oil giants - which clearly have much to gain from stopping any progressive reforms to acknowledge global warming and take steps to minimize it - want to pay (ethically-challenged) scientists who continually produce research which provides backing for environmentalist claims (global warming is real, caused by humans, and needs to be minimized by reduction in fossil fuel usage)??? I have read some items about CRU getting funding from some sustainable energy groups, but not anything about Big Oil funding.

Remember this is the same corporate petroleum consortium that said:

"Unless 'climate change' becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts..."

From this little memo, back when the issue was really starting to get more public attention:
http://www.edf.org/documents/3860_GlobalClimateSciencePlanMemo.pdf

Now, how in the world were the CRU scientists working to make climate change a non-issue? And why would the execs at Big Oil want to be funding them? Because they secretly wanted to hurt their own profits?

In what I'm sure is an entirely unrelated matter, it was also interesting to see here:
ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html?wt.rss=rss

that ExxonMobil has also funded (in addition to AEI and Pacific) another, lesser-known group that you are (or have been) with, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020304/climategate-peak-oil-the-cru-and-the-oman-connection/


Just Google "CRU funded by big oil" and lots comes up. That's just the first hit I saw. I have no idea of the ulterior motives, etc.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/14680