"On the second day of Copenhagn,
the GreenFrauds gave to me. . . "

I found a blog this morning published by the people at the Copenhagen meeting called "Climate Thinkers Blog." So now I guess there are two camps: Climate Skeptics, sometimes called Deniers; and Climate Thinkers. I just love the way the Leftists label these issues. I think "pro-choice" was the Leftists showing their greatest inspiration in this area.

They have some interesting titles for their blog posts:

"Time is up--the deadline is Copenhagen." Realizing that to the poor farmers in Mali, who are suffering from droughts and sudden showers, and the pacific islanders whose homes are disappearing in the waves there is no plausible explanation for failure. Huh?

"Crisis rhetoric needs to be matched with crisis action." Right. Isn't that the whole point of the word "crisis"? [M]any scientists, together with many developing country leaders, now warn that 2C warming will not be safe and we should do everything we can to limit warming to far less than that. The "crisis rhetoric" of the GreenFrauds is one unsupportable assertion after another. Here this woman makes two of them in one sentence--first, that the climate will warm 2 degrees centigrade and second, that if it does, the cause is anthropomorphic and we can do something about it. Neither one of those assertions is supported by the "settled science." But no GreenFrauder worth their salt (has salt been banned by them yet?) will let facts get in the way of good crisis rhetoric.

"Climate Change Impacts: Prevention and Management Challenges for Sahelian Cities." This is certainly one of the places where the GreenFrauds want to send U.S. industrial wealth for redistribution. For those who don't know, since geography isn't taught in schools anymore (for example, 15 of 20 recent high school juniors didn't know what continent France belongs to) I'm guessing that many people don't know that the Sahel is a geographic and climatic region of Africa. If someone doesn't know where the continent of Africa is, I'm afraid that's beyond the scope of this post.

"Put Farming First." Wow, how did that get in there? The EPA CO2 emissions fraud fiasco will end up putting farming last in this country. A generation ago we used to feed the world. Who do they think will feed us when they destroy farming in this country?

"Our Low-Carbon Future." I can only imagine. Here's a quote from this post: The task facing the world is to meet the environment’s “carbon constraints” while creating the growth necessary to raise living standards for the poor. Why does he put "carbon constraints" in scare quotes? Well, I don't know how we're going to "raise" the living standards of the poor if we kill the world's golden goose of American industry. I guess when the U.S. looks like a third-world country, then by comparison the poor of "developing" countries won't seem so poor, and therefore their standard of living will appear to be raised. Seriously, that's the only thing I can imagine that these people are thinking. It's simply not "fair" for the U.S. to be a rich country.

That's all of that blog that I can stand. It's canned climatechange crap, straight up.

Doctor Zero has a good article this morning: how soon will it be before we are hearing that the GreenFraud movement is "too big to fail"--cutting off the billions of dollars poured into the global warming hoax would cost thousands of jobs, and destroy the corporate barnacles that grew around the shadow of climate change legislation, such as Al Gore’s carbon credit sales. The transnational elite planning to divide the wealth of nations through climate-change hysteria is even less accountable than Barack Obama’s corrupt Democrat Party. As Mark Steyn memorably put it, where would we go to vote these guys out of office?

Dr. Zero continues: The larger government becomes, the more its arrogant ruling class believe themselves worthy of royal treatment… and the more justified they feel about lying to the public for their own good. That is why the climate change elite gathered in Copenhagen this week is outraged that anyone would dare question their right to save a foolish world from itself, by lying through its teeth in a bid to seize power.

I also like this article today from American Thinker about "Watermelon Marxists": as a tool for watermelon Marxists -- green on the outside and red on the inside -- climate change orthodoxy represents an opportunity to achieve age-old dreams of Communist wealth redistribution. Don't take my word for it. Listen to Cass Sunstein, Obama's new regulatory czar and perhaps the most powerful bureaucrat in America.

Said our buddy Cass: We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.

And of course these hypocritical frauds, even while they're giving our money away, will make damned sure that they have theirs. It reminds me of the former U.S.S.R.: it was the forced labor camps of the gulags for "the people" and VIP dachas for the ruling class, and we will see the same thing in this country if the Leftists get their way. You can bet your life that people like Cass Sunstein aren't going to be negatively impacted by carbon emissions--or anything else. They will continue to live the high life on the "raging rapids of taxpayer cash surging through Washington" (what a great image--that quote is from Doctor Zero).

Update. Excellent article today in Forbes online: "Capping Emissions, Trading on the Future," by Joel Kotkin. Copenhagen is set to have nations like the U.S. cut carbon emissions at a draconian rate--up to 80% by 2050, while "developing" (developing how--I guess with the billions of dollars we'll transfer to them) nations will be able to increase their carbon emissions. And this makes sense why? As Kotkins asks, if rising CO2 levels are truly a global crisis, then why are we willing to let any country massively increase their carbon emissions?

Kotkins points out that there is something of a rebellion against the emissions trading schemes, particularly in parts of the U.S. like the south and the midwest--even among liberals in Congress like Wisconsin's Russ Feingold and North Dakota's Byron Dorgan. Analyst Aaron Renn says that costs of compliance will vary by region, with California, for example, coming out a big winner, at the expense of the midwest and south. Says Renn, One might even better name this bill 'The California Economic Recovery and Competitor Hobbling Act of 2009.'

Update #2. Here's an article today from the guys at MISSOURAH.com: "The Global Government Environmental Death Cult." Science is not done by politics or consensus. A scientific conclusion is not something you believe in, as proponents of global warming believe in their apocolyptic computer models. In fact, most of our greatest advances in science involve one or a few scientists taking a radically different view of the world and eventually reshaping our perceptions using the scientific method. However over the past few years it seems there has been established a politcally contrived environmental scientific “Consensus” that threatens to rival or even outstrip the power of the Catholic church during Galileo’s time.