Climate Talks in chaos as G77 walks out of Copenhagen

Pretty funny considering one of the 'solutions' presented by scientists to the global warming apocalypse is to intentionally block out the sun with particulate matter.

Dear lord these whackjobs are scary.

Obama and Pelosi both left the conference early because of the massive snowstorm hitting the DC area today.

Let's pray our leaders can keep the temperature rise from killing us all.

Sounds like everyone's confident that all the projections of reserves of fossil fuels are wrong by a factor of 10

Or perhaps those fusion plants will be working by 2050

The point is exactly the same.

I'm not even bothering to reason with this. I didn't even say we'd passed peak oil or any of that full scaremongering stuff.

But if you think it makes any sense to compare the lifetime of oil reserves with the lifetime of the Earth's atmosphere or the lifetime of the sun then you are a complete moron.

If we're lucky, Pres. Obama () will take another road trip to sell Cap and Trade when it comes up in the Senate. He's almost sure to lose it that way!

A probable problem, overhyped by politicians, hijacked by communists, the science debased and attempts to tackle it handled by a group of self-serving leaders/parasites.

People actually expected a consensus from that ghoulish goulash of rotted shit?

As for peak oil, the original claim was for US oil alone - not global - and was pretty close to what actually happened.

Give the wide range of uses we have hydrocarbons, burning them is the equivalent of withdrawing your life savings and chucking them in a fire rather than purchasing a heater with some of the funds

The greenies need to give proper, reasonable business reasons for changing how we live - otherwise it isn't going to happen. Whinge, bitch and moan all you like, but if you go to the negotiating table with an awful lot of stick and little in the way of carrot, you're going home disappointed.

Yep, the proper argument for the green movement should have been the profit motive. If the greens had started that way 30 years ago, they'd be much farther along, plus their argument would be laid out on the table for all to see. There would be no need to fudge data or silence dissent.

As it is such people started at their default authoritarianism, which lends itself to dire predictions and false science. It also tells us all we need to know about them.

Well, that's the problem for them. Despite all the claims, oil and coal are still the most efficient energy generators on Earth.

The only way to make green cost less is to spend a lot of money in R&D.

We are headed that way, but it's slow going and has been for a long time. There's some great new techs on the horizon but they haven't made them even remotely competitive with current fuel tech on a cost basis yet.

I think it's likely we are going to have to chose to be less efficient to be green at least for the next generation.

And that's why progress is slow - nobody wants to do that.

That's why I'm starting to suspect that this whole thing has nothing to do with pollution or Global Warming. It's a power grab done in the name of such things, but it's not about environmentalism. Carbon credits are about controlling which businesses are allowed to work where and how much. If carbon credits pass in some form, I'm putting the entire deficit of the USA on the fact that they'll exempt some "favored" industries, just like they do with all kinds of other taxes. What that means practically is that it will be almost impossible to manufacture consumer goods in the USA, that in all likelyhood the government will use the carbon credits to force drug companies to sell their drugs below cost, and so on. Say buhbye to the American auto industry as well. I mean they make products that pollute.

The German auto industry has to meet much more restrictive emission goals than in any other region of the world, yet it is the most innovative and most productive auto industry in the world. How do you explain this?

This is what it's really about. This is what it always is really about. And if the shitholes that get the cash thrown at them actually use the money for environmental goals I will be shocked.

Oh, and how are we supposed to pay for these new environmental welfare states anyway?

The same way we pay for the useless stimulus package, cash for clunkers, health care reform, and every other impotent money pit that Obama and the gang are ramming down our throats: Pick-pocketing from the most productive, hardest working Americans, the ones who innovate and invest and are the core of our economy.

It's funny how they think fossil fuels are a finite resource yet can't seem to grasp that so is money.

For liberals, money is not a finite resource. You can always just print more of it!

​

Why not just cut out the middle man and let the less developed countries borrow from the Chinese?

I just read in Scientific American that if Pakistan and India have a nuclear exchange the resulting firestorms could throw enough particulate matter in the air to blanket the Earth for 10 years.

Global nuclear winter.

A billion dead from starvation as food becomes difficult to grow.

Look I'm mostly talking about the auto plants -- there is literally no way that you can build a cap-n-trade friendly auto factory in the USA. Which means that those jobs will likely go to places where they can bribe the locals to ignore cap-n-trade and have minimal environmental laws. As far as the tax code goes -- look at how the current tax code. There are tax credits for going to school, but none for starting a business, there are credits for buying a house but not for renting an apartment go down the list of tax laws and you'll find some weird stuff. And they WILL do this with cap-n-trade -- certain industries are considered "good industries" others are "bad industries". It's not going to be a simple "okay if you produce X tons of CO2 pay $Y" it will depend on how the government views your industry and your product. Make lifesaving cancer drugs -- good, making industrial chemicals -- bad.