Assessments of Copenhagen

failureIt is now widely recognised that the misguided Copenhagen Conference was a complete failure. Those political leaders and policy makers who refuse to accept this reality are merely burying their heads in the sand and are forfeiting the trust of the public.

–The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 20 December 2009


The world’s political leaders, not least President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, are in a state of severe, almost clinical, denial. They insist that what has been achieved in Copenhagen is a breakthrough and a decisive step forward. Just one more heave, just one more venue for the great climate-change traveling circus – Mexico City next year – and the job will be done. Or so we are told. It is, of course, the purest nonsense. The time has come to abandon the Kyoto-style folly that reached its apotheosis in Copenhagen last week, and move to plan B.

–Nigel Lawson, The Wall Street Journal, 22 December 2009


The biggest losers of the Copenhagen fiasco appear to be climate science and the scientific establishment who, with a very few distinguished exceptions, have promoted unmitigated climate alarm and hysteria. It confirms beyond doubt that most governments have lost trust in the advice given by climate alarmists and the IPCC. The Copenhagen accord symbolises the loss of political power by Europe whose climate policies have been rendered obsolete.

–Benny Peiser, The Observer, 20 December 2009


India hailed Tuesday the lack of targets and legally binding measures in the Copenhagen climate accord and vaunted the united front presented by major emerging countries at the chaotic talks. Facing parliament for the first time since the UN talks last weekend in the Danish capital, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said India had “come out quite well in Copenhagen”. The Copenhagen accord “bears in mind that the social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries,” Ramesh said.

–AFP, 22 December 2009

20 Responses to Assessments of Copenhagen

  1. Rob N. Hood December 23, 2009 at 10:42 am #

    What…? No joy in Mudville…? I guess this grand failure is such a relief to all the deniers, they are sitting back and taking it easy after such stressful times. I suspected all along this would happen though. Didn’t I tell you not to worry so much? The real powers that be got your back. The ones you thought were going to enslave you into a Socialist nightmare future turned out to be the second tier eilite I said they were. Your side wins again.

    I would think this would be a good time to step back and re-examine some things. Or not, if you’re a hard-core concrete thinker. Merry Christmas.

  2. paul wenum December 23, 2009 at 11:53 pm #

    Enjoy Christmas. I will, as well as others.

  3. Rob N. Hood December 24, 2009 at 9:53 am #

    Consider this: Many Supreme Court observers expect a ruling, quite possibly on January 12, 2010, in the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission that would lift all limits on corporate funding of elections, meaning that national and international corporations could swamp the election system with so much money that any influence from actual citizens would be utterly negated. If you were a corporation and you owned the legislature, and laws were being passed requiring people to purchase products, and you owed it to your shareholders to maximize profits, what would you feel compelled to do? Exactly.

    The U.S. Department of Justice recently claimed that, for purposes of keeping illegal government-funded activities secret from the public and the courts, telecommunications corporations were effectively part of the executive branch of the government. Might the same argument not be made, in the none too distant future, about “health” corporations funded by government mandate? If the federal government can force me to give money to major campaign funders, where does the government stop and the private business begin?

    • Rob N. Hood December 24, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

      Large Corporations/Industries, such as health care for example – those are dictatorships. And when those dictatorships exist in monopoly situations, as it does in the health insurance market, the customer-company relationship is a king-serf relationship. Forcing individuals to give those dictatorships and kings money without even a choice of a public institution the individual partially owns is immoral.

      Just another example that the people running things, even now, are not wide-eyed Liberals. They are bought and paid for by Big Business.

  4. paul wenum December 24, 2009 at 11:46 pm #

    You know nothing about running a business. You put all corporations in boxes other than the one’s YOU support. Your rants are getting surreal to say the least.

  5. Rob N. Hood December 25, 2009 at 5:24 pm #

    Again- if you bothered to pay attention, and have any amount of open-mindedness you would recall that I am referring to LARGE MULTI-NATIONAL Corporations. These are different entities, to say the least, from ALL other types of businesses. And to cut another long sotry short- it was ONE of the main things our Founding Fathers were trying to get away from when they came here and also why they fought the war of independence.

    Some people have no sense for history, or reality beyond their own noses, or how the world really works with regard to things that occur underneath the veneer of respectibility and “what’s good for business is what’s good for everyone” mentality. If you’d truly stop and consider what I am saying instead of the usual knee-jerk reaction of defending entities that not only don’t need your defense but crap on you just as much as anyone else. We all need to wake up to these facts. For example, if you don’t feel ripped off every time you pay more than $2 for a gallon of gas there is something wrong with you. I am not talking about market capitalism, I am talking about libertarian corporatism. There happens to be a BIG difference, which you apparently don’t care to learn about.

    • Hal Groar December 31, 2009 at 12:19 pm #

      Have you checked out the fed. state and local tax on a gallon of gas lately? If you get rid of those, then you are paying about $2.00 a gallon.

      • Rob N. Hood January 1, 2010 at 10:27 pm #

        True, but that is also not a BIG difference (tax). Most countries pay MUCH more tax. Have you driven our roads lately? Where I live they are BAD… and have been for years. Gas tax helps pay for that obviously. All you guys focus on is tax tax tax. I don’t like them either, but we would not have a semblance of a civilizational without them now would we we? No of course not. You know we are getting ripped off for gas and it’s the oil Shieks and other ultra-elite who are padding thier fat asses, at our expense. This is happening NOW. But you guys aren’t angy about that, no. Instead you focus totally on what may occur at some unkwown point in the future. Being pro-active is great, but you guys put huge blinkers on when it comes to what is actually occurring. I just find that very odd, and very frustrating.

  6. paul wenum December 25, 2009 at 11:15 pm #

    Theory is fine. Implement your finite definition of “perfect,” not “knee jerk.” You sound, as if you have never ever been in what we in business, call “The trenches.” Reality is we work for it and earn it! Go back to looking up comments/theories in books you read or have not read in school. Degrees are a wonderful thing if used with knowledge/experience behind comments made. Absent “The Trenches,” You lack all credibility. By the way, Climate change is natural. Enough said.

  7. Rob N. Hood December 27, 2009 at 9:27 am #

    And you wonder why I talk about people being brainwashed. You continue to respond robotically, as if you haven’t even read what I posted.

  8. Paul Wenum December 27, 2009 at 8:50 pm #

    A man/woman that stands for their beliefs is what you call robotic. I read what you post,however, you are “Robotic” like a broken record.

  9. Rob N. Hood December 30, 2009 at 8:15 am #

    Usually you guys accuse me of postings that aren’t on topic, meaning I post a variety of things, which is true. So which is it?? (again you are contradicting yourself).

    Re: the post above- do you really want large mulit-national corporations, that may or may not have the USA’s best interests in mind to have unlimited influence on our political process. Doesn’t that subtract, dramatically, the influence individuals, like you and I have? Isn’t that contrary to what you believe in/want? Why aren’t you angry about, let alone even interested, this issue??

  10. Paul Wenum December 30, 2009 at 10:34 pm #

    I feel like I’m talking to a hole in the wall. As previously stated. There are good companies and bad just like people. They come and go just like criminals in the night. Mutli-national corporations only exist if YOU and others BUY their product or services!!!! Think about it. (Dems/Rebubs included)

  11. Rob N. Hood January 1, 2010 at 10:32 pm #

    Thank you for that elementary lesson on being a consumer Paul. I thought of that concept, which is not a bad one mind you, when I was in my teens. My point (I am very tired making it) is this: the multi-nationals have so much power and have cornered the market (monopolized) in so many clever ways that your simplisitic advice is no longer a viable option or answer. I can help a little sometimes, maybe keep a small local business open a while longer, but the big guys have everyone and everything in their sights. To the detriment of course of communities, and medium and small businesses. Your continued denial about this and/or defense of the corporate elite continues to amaze and puzzle me.

  12. Rob N. Hood January 1, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    And oh, Paul, shame on you for using a vulgar term (hole in the wall). Get out of the gutter! 😉

  13. Paul Wenum January 2, 2010 at 10:02 pm #

    I think that’s a Casino in Danbury, Wisconsin??

  14. Rob N. Hood January 4, 2010 at 8:40 am #

    Well, it ain’t Tea Bag, WI.

  15. Rick Drayson January 4, 2010 at 7:23 pm #

    Time to actually wake up and taste reality Rob N Hood.

    There are no such things as good companies and bad companies. This is because corporations do not exist. They are not real in anything other than a virtual construct sense.
    There are only good and bad people making decisions under a companies name.

    Now reading between the lines in this article it appears to me that the socialists pushing for the climate change act are hinting that since demcractic means of negotiating are failign that they will use that failure as an excuse to impliment non-diplomatic force in order to get your hard earned but guilt racked dollars into their hands.
    Just what any good socialist would do, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pott, Mugabe et al would be proud.

    • Rob N. Hood January 5, 2010 at 10:40 am #

      WRONG- corporations were legally given “personhood” with the same rights an actual human being has. Look it up. You don’t know what you are talking about.

  16. Paul Wenum January 4, 2010 at 8:31 pm #

    No, that’s in Washington, DC

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.