COPENHAGEN WRAP-UP

The much-anticipated Copenhagen Conference on climate change began with a blizzard and ended up chilling the aspirations of attendees who wanted binding agreements on emissions  cuts.  Delegates from 193 nations plus over 100 leaders, including President Obama, tried to mesh their agendas. But the consensus of the conference was: We need more conferences.

Copenhagen wasn't really about curtailing climate change anyway. It was about shaking down rich countries. The idea was to get the United States, Europe and Japan to agree to give money to poor and developing nations to get them to do things like preserve their forests, or adopt technologies that cut down on carbon emissions. It's foreign aid to bribe them not to grow the way we did.

African nations and other poor countries are demanding the developed world pay them  "climate reparations" for our supposed "historical contribution" to planetary warming. There was no binding agreement on this, but there was wide consensus that developed nations will agree to transfer $30  billion dollars a year to poor nations increasing to $100 billion dollars per year by 2020.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. would pony up $30 billion of that..  These transfers will do nothing to cool the planet....they'll enrich the global elites and impoverish Americans. Climate doom and gloom is a ruse to empower a world body and to spread the wealth.

There are other problems with using the threat of catastrophic global warming to get countries to agree to specific admissions targets. 

First :  The science itself. Climate-gate, the widely reported hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, opens the curtain on the manipulation of data and the exclusion of points of view that do not necessarily support the idea that the planet is warming...

Global warming is cyclical.  It's been dormant for a decade.  The whole warming scare is based upon computer modeling. But scientists who pointed this out were squeezed out or otherwise silenced and a consensus was built without them.

 The second problem is the impossibility and impracticality of setting specific requirements for each country's emissions reductions:  The goal was  80 percent by 2050.  Meeting  that would  require massive changes to the U.S. economy .Economic suicide at this point in history.  The Wall Street Journal  pointed out that when there's this attempt to force nations to shift to cleaner forms of energy certain realities get in the way. Specifically, the Journal points out, "Fossil fuel is cheap and convenient.  In places where its use is growing most rapidly, its production of heat-trapping gasses is widely viewed as less important that its boost to economic growth."  Climate change is a phony problem. Pollution is real. When a country grows and gets richer, it can afford to focus on cleaning up pollution. Climate is controlled by forces outside man's control that will not be impacted by this global redistribution of wealth.