Obama is Going to Copenhagen Climate Conference

It's official. President Barack Obama is going to drop in at the United Nations' Climate Change Conference on December 9. He is likely to announce a U.S. goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020.

I will be writing daily dispatches from the conference starting on December 13, so I'll miss the president's visit.

Comments

[J sub D]

Think he'll address a joint session of congress about Afghanistan troop levels, give America a POA&M on that little issue beforehand?

Nah.

[John H]

Just think, if he's half as successful as he was with the IOC, we won't have global warming in America for another hundred years!

[Old Mexican]

You don't think the e-mails will come up during the Conference, do you?

Nah.

[Chris]

Now that is just craziness. The fact that three of the most prominent climatologists, upon who's work the lions share of AGW research has been based on have been caught fixing the game, could not possibly have any relevance to anything.

[briareus]

Hush your mouths, citizens. Your opinions have already been decided for you, and policies based upon them. The comfort you've demanded is now mandatory.

[ransom147]

Shut up! Be happy!

[smartass sob]

I don't think Obama or the rest of the Left is going to let anything like doctored information get in the way of their plans. They want a world-wide government and the global warming scam is their means to it. Obama isn't going to pay any more attention to "Climategate" than he has to objections about the health care bills.

[Chris]

I REALLY wish you were wrong.

[Chris]

Stupid HTML Crap. There was supposed to be a:

*Clicks Ruby Red Slippers*

After that.

[bigbigslacker]

I heard on NPR it was dubious research that was ignored. Amazing spin job.

[Kevin]

John H, beat me to it. I was going to mention that I hope this goes as well for him as his Olympic bid.

[Michael Ejercito]

By how much would reducing greenhouse gases reduce global temperatures?

[briareus]

Pssh, that's so easy, why don't you ask something difficult?

//rolls eyes//

There is no solid answer to that question. It leaves out huge chunks of the equation such as the definition of "greenhouse gases", time, and particulates (to name a few). How much over what time frame? Are you asking me how much it reduces global temperatures if I don't drive my car to the mailbox or are you asking how much if the industrialized countries all quit burning coal at once?

You answer can't be meaningfully answered.

[sage]

OK, how about this: How many polar bears would we save by reducing carbon emissions? How many old French women would be saved from heat-related deaths? How many people would be spared from contracting malaria?

I thinking Michael is asking for a cost vs benefit number, which is not unreasonable when we will spending eleventeen quadrillion dollars and reducing our standard of living at the same time.

[briareus]

The idea of asking for a cost v benefit is certainly reasonable, but without some reasonably framed parameters it cannot be answered.

I may as well ask you how many pumpkins the planet can sustainably produce each year before we start to affect the earth-lunar lagrangian points.

[Michael Ejercito]

OK, how about this: How many polar bears would we save by reducing carbon emissions? How many old French women would be saved from heat-related deaths? How many people would be spared from contracting malaria?

What value is there to polar bears?

Is there an industry in making polar bear fur coats?

[Russ R]

"By how much would reducing greenhouse gases reduce global temperatures?"

If the US were to take immediate action as proposed in the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (17% emissions reduction by 2020, 83% by 2050), the impact on global temperature would be -0.04 degrees Celsius by 2050, and -0.11 degrees by 2100.

Assuming all the other Kyoto-bound nations adopt similar measures, the global temperature reduction would be doubled... -0.08 deg Celsius by 2050, and -0.22 deg by 2100.

More details.

[Paul]

I thought I heard this morning on NPR that we had to reduce them 80% by 2020?

[The Libertarian Guy]

Can't be done. Not without pounding sand up the anal cavity of free enterprise.

[Tony]

Is it not conceivable that there are more important things than free enterprise? Given that it's free enterprise that is mostly responsible for this problem, don't you think capitalism enduring a little gritty ass rape is a small price to pay to solve problems of this magnitude? Or does your unquestioned faith in magical markets mean that this system must be preserved no matter the consequences?

[WhereYou'reWrong]

Damn straight, Tony, because it was free enterprise that refused to build more nuclear power plants from the '70's on while environmentalists and liberals and government begged them -- begged them -- to build more nukes and save the planet.

[Tony]

Okay... and it was also free enterprise (of a sort) that has been dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

I'm not making a moral judgment, just assessing facts. Free enterprise can and does cause unpredicted external problems, which is why it needs to be regulated. It should be a means, not an end.

[WhereYou'reWrong]

Given that it's free enterprise that is mostly responsible for this problem,

I'm not making a moral judgment, just assessing facts

Nope, no moral judgements here...

[Joe]

No, free enterprise = human life. How else does Paris get fed (among other things)?

[Morris]

We eagerly await your uninformed gibberish commentary, Ron. Give it your best.

[sage]

Who's boiling a turd in here?

[briareus]

Morris uses any given opportunity, even an obtuse one, to slime Ron Paul.

[briareus]

One thing that cracks me up about Morris' comment is that, support him or not, Ron Paul is anything but uninformed.

[sage]

And the funny thing is, Morris is a troll, while Ron Paul has not even commented here, that I know of.

[smartass sob]

Perhaps he was refering to Ron Bailey. 😉

[sage]

When you deal with a troll, you can make their comment into anything you want.

[2999]

I sincerely doubt that there will be any serious effort made to decrease emissions by 17% in just 10 years.

I'll bet that emissions will be slightly higher in 2020, whether legislation is passed or not.

[J sub D]

For the US? Yeah.
For the world, a lot higher.

Seems like some of those energy impoverished folks (all three fucking billion) are going to want refrigeration, transportation and television. Some of them are even going to get themselves (OH NOES!) air conditioning.

[prolefeed]

A bigger, readable version of that funny jpg attached to the post:

http://thebsreport.files.wordp.....&h=325

[Rich]

You don't think the e-mails will come up during the Conference, do you?

They had better come up like projectile vomiting.

[sage]

Holy crap. I'm seeing an ad to the right for a Michelle Obama all porcelain doll. Four fucking payments of $40! That's a lot of money for a cool reactive target.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Isn't it telling that Missus Obama is a fervent anti-capitalist, yet would give her official okey-doke to producing such a useless trinket as a porcelain replica of herself?

[Zoology Saturday]

Gadhimai festival is a Hindu festival that is held once every five years at the Gadhimai temple of Bariyapur, a village in southern Nepal. The event involves what is believed to be the world's largest sacrifice of animals ? including buffaloes, pigs, goats, chicken and pigeons ? with the aim of pleasing Gadhimai, the goddess of power. About 5 million people participate in the festival, a majority of whom are Indian people from the states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, who flock into Nepal prior to the festival to circumvent the ban on animal sacrifice imposed by the Indian government.

A month before the ritual in 2009, Nepalese authorities had ordered their officials to find goats to meet a "severe shortage". Their efforts included a radio campaign urging farmers to sell their animals. This was intended to find animals for the ritual sacrifice, as well as to meet the expected high demand for goat meat during the festival.

The Gadhimai festival of 2009 started on 24 November, with the temple's head priest performing two rituals named Panchabali and Narbali. More than 20,000 buffaloes had been sacrificed on the first day. It is estimated that 300,000 to 500,000 animals will be killed during the Gadhimai festival of 2009. The ritual killings were performed by more than 200 men in a concrete slaughterhouse near the temple. Three children had also died of extreme cold during the festival.

[anonymous]

Did they manage to stop Global Warming?

[KenK]

Barry HO will be be searching for a way to hide the decline - in his ratings!

[Chris]

Give this man a rim shot please!

[Barney Frank]

Did someone say "rim job"?

[Greg V.]

If we all ate more veal, that would solve the problem right there! Too many cows grazing! Where's my seat on this damn conference!

[bobzmoose]

I'm not expecting much out of this... Except an increase in my energy bill. Taxes on the middle-class = YES WE CAN!

[Team Blue Cheerleader]

Just think, if he's half as successful as he was with the IOC, we won't have global warming in America for another hundred years!

Why do you hate America?

[joshua corning]

Why do you hate America?

It is weird how we remember things. The left wing's chant that the right wing hates America seemed like a side show.

I am of the opinion that the youtube video of that honors student being beat to death in Chicago was the reason why Chicago was taken off the Olympics list.

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dp.....ion_albert

[CoyoteBlue]

Let's just say that beating teenagers to death in the streets, wasn't a winning marketing strategy.

[Tulpa]

I'm sure the Rio de Janeiro police have never beaten kids to death.

[FTW]

(^_^)

[The Libertarian Guy]

Liberals snipe on the "take back America" mindset, and yet Howard Dean not only used that them in his (thankfully) ill-fated presidential bid... he wrote a book with that phrase in the title.

Hypocrites.

[Canada Guy]

The US and China have finally announced real numbers for their targets to reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately these numbers, especially from the US, are far too weak. We need a strong agreement at Copenhagen, but this won't get us there. In many ways, a weak agreement at Copenhagen could be even worse than no agreement, as it would lock in targets too small to make a significant difference.

http://www.selfdestructivebast.....rgets.html

[JB]

Fuck Obama and his legion of Global Warmist true believers.

Fuck every aspect of their sick and twisted religion.

[Episiarch]

Test

[Episiarch]

I just tried a test post, and it blocked me, but Anonymity guy gets through.

[Russell Seitz]

Ron,

_ Nature_ has opened a hole in the paywall to this interesting interview with Hansen :

http://www.nature.com/climate/.....9.124.html

[PicassoIII]

Bet the uber greens don't like this part.

He also believes that any sensible US climate strategy has to include nuclear power. On this score, Hansen again runs afoul of many American environmentalists who are reflexively anti-nuclear. "I don't think the public understands the issue," Hansen says. "You have to compare coal versus nuclear. Neither is ideal, but the safety record of nuclear is unmatched. Also, there are many countries that have it and are going to use it."

[django]

Now this is fucking funny, especially the cat with the glasses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

[James Ard]

Seeing as how Global Warming is nothing but an international attempt to take America down a notch, our politicians that push it are committing treason.

[Derek Wall]

carbon trading con details at the no nonsense guide to climate change here http://another-green-world.blo.....guide.html

[Women]

I'm not an "Obama is always right" type, but the problem here is Congress, not Obama. He cannot promise anything that cannot get through the Senate, and we are for the foreseeable future stuck with Senate rules that allow Big Oil and Big Coal's senatorial whores to block more substantial reform. We have to fix the Senate rules (which cannot be changed in mid-term) and reform the campaign finance system. Each of those projects requires a long, dogged fight, and neither is likely to happen soon enough.