The election, by acclamations, took place right after Copenhagen, a normally warm and rainy city, received more than four inches of snow.
But, seriously, once more, Obama managed to piss off everyone. Leftists think he did next to nothing in Denmark. Conservatives did not want him to promise anything because the whole concept of global warming is a cult belief. The Third World maffiosi were the most angry because they were promised peanuts to add to their fleet of gas-guzzling limousines. OK, let’s be fair; I don’t know for a fact that they will use the climate funds from the rich countries on cars. Could be on prostitutes or at the baccarat table in Monte-Carlo instead.
The President-Emperor and the Sec. of State, the ineffable Bill Clinton’s wife, promised 100 billion American dollars yearly by 2020. That’s $600 annually for my wife and me. Places at 2% interest over ten years, that would be: $7500. If I banked that amount, added nothing to it and compounded the same 2% interest for another ten years, that would come to over $9,000.
That’s only direct costs, in the form of additional taxes or of additional borrowing. The indirect costs in the form of strictures on production and transportation would be much greater.
Conservative friends: Relax a US President may not enter into an international agreement without ratification by the Senate. The Kyoto Agreement was rejected by something like 97 to 1.
The Russian Institute of Economic Analysis said Dec, 16th that British climate scientists have been cherry-picking Russian weather data, ignoring data from 75% of all Russian station and 40% of Russia’s surface area. The Russian landmass itself is about 12% o the total world land area.
That’s a new and independent accusation of fraud. It’s not related to the recent scandal (“climategate”) at the University of East Anglia.
Here is the reference to the UK Telegraph article covering this matter:
Two fact to remember , taken from a Bjorn Lomborg column in WSJ, Tuesday Dec, 15.
He is the author of a new book Cool it! And previously, of The Skeptical Environmentalist
Lomborg’s approache is interesting because he does not fight any of the warmists’ assumptions or models. He takes them as are and follows them to their logical conclusion.
Here is my summary of two points he makes, with this approach:
1 Fighting malaria: To attack this scourge by reducing carbon emissions (adopting all the assumptions of the warmists) would save one (1) life to 78,000 with more direct measures.
2 Saving the lives of small children. Oxfam ( an old, and, in my opinion, respected charitable organization ) thinks rich nations are going to pay for global warming reduction by diverting money from their foreign aid. If they diverted 50 billions (not that much) 4,5 more million children would die. In return, we would get a reduction of temperature of one thousands of one degree F. That’s 1/1000 of a degree. It’s so little, only sophisticated thermometers can detect it.