• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Copenhagen Conference Begins While The Global Warming Scare Ends

    The United Nations climate change conference begins in Copenhagen today, but it may spell the beginning of the end to the global warming scare.

    For nearly two years, this meeting was touted as the biggest global warming conference since the 1997 meeting in Kyoto, Japan. That conference resulted in the Kyoto Protocol, with emissions reduction targets for developed nations. These targets expire in 2012, thus Copenhagen was seen as the pivotal time and place to expand the Kyoto approach into the future. American wisely stayed out of Kyoto – which has been a failure, as developing nations like China were exempted from reductions, and many developed nations have failed to live up to its commitments – but many thought President Obama would sign the U.S. up to a post-Kyoto deal.

    But economic, political, and scientific reality is intruding. Even with the President promising to attend the conference on the critical final day, it does not look like much will come of Copenhagen other than the usual consolation agreement to try again next year.

    The economic reality is that substantially reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels is prohibitively expensive, especially given the lingering recession.

    The political reality is that China and other fast developing nations insist on being exempted from binding, verifiable, and enforceable targets. But since these nation’s emissions are rising much faster than those of the developed world, exempting them would render any treaty almost meaningless.

    The scientific reality is that global warming is proving to be far from a crisis. Climategate – the leak of emails showing gross misconduct amongst scientists with important roles in promulgating the official UN science – further adds to the doubts. The fact that temperatures have been flat for over a decade doesn’t help either.
    Pro-Kyoto negotiations will try their best to make Copenhagen their big moment. But most likely, action on any new emissions reduction targets, both via treaty or domestic legislation (currently stalled in the Senate) will be punted into 2010. However, the above mentioned economic, political, and scientific realities aren’t going away. And 2010 is an election year, making it harder for Washington to sign on to something unpopular like a de facto energy tax in the name of addressing global warming.

    Global warming alarmists have long thought of Copenhagen as a turning point on this issue. They may be right, but not as they intended.

    For background on the Copenhagen conference as well as live updates from it during the critical final week of December 14 – 18th, go to www.heritage.org/copenhagen.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    18 Responses to Copenhagen Conference Begins While The Global Warming Scare Ends

    1. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Reducing air pollution is commendable. Twisting science, however, to fit a political end is criminal.

    2. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      PS: Let us always remember those American souls who were murdered and seriously wounded when Japan's uniformed thugs launched their unprovoked attack against Pearl Harbor.

    3. Ebba, Europe says:

      There is no Climate gate, just a lobbygroup for coal.


    4. linkslife.uk.com says:

      The conference is just for do something not for deal something ;D

    5. Richard S Courtney, says:


      Good joke. I laughed.

      But one of the most incriminating of the leaked (perhaps hacked) emails from CRU was from me 6 years ago. It complains at frequent alteration of climate data as a method to subvert the peer review process and, thus, to prevent publication of my paper that showed the HadCRUT, GISS and GHCN data sets are worthless. I did not laugh at that blocking of my paper's publication.

      Now the leaked files of computer code from CRU show that the HadCRUT data set is pure pseudo-science. If my paper had been published 6 years ago then this could have been sorted out years ago. And I do not laugh at that, either.


    6. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Dear Richard S. Courtney, Falmouth UK,

      Great point. This is, indeed, no laughing matter.

      Unfortunately, over the decades, social programming has now reached a zenith. Deception is relatively easy when people want desperately to believe in a cause. Logic and pure science easily take second seat to skilled manipulators.

      The ability for many to admit maybe they were wrong is unacceptable. That is the real danger.

    7. Ebba Europe says:

      Dear Mr Richard Courtney

      The foundation of science is that it shouldn´t be biased or bought. Since you have chosen to work for the Heartland Institute and thereby has chosen money before science there is nothing strange in that you have a problem getting your articles accepted or peer reviewed.

      As a PhD student I find it hard to understand such a choice especially in such a serious matter which will be a matter of life and death for the victims of global warming. Will you be remembered in history books as a person who committed a crime against humanity?

    8. Roger S., Ma. says:

      Dear Mr. Courtney: Any chance of prevailing against your so-called colleagues in legal action? If they were fudging data to suppress publication of your well-supported results, and their fudging produced the "success" you mentioned, damaging or impeding your career while advancing theirs, then common sense (I'm not a lawyer, in this case unfortunately!) suggests you may have against them a substantial case for civil damages.

      Criminal indictments may be another matter, but here too, common sense suggests that if they were being compensated for their work, either privately or publicly, then their activities constitute fraud and become the duty-bound concern of the nearest DA's office. Filing specific charges may help in rousing such DA's from their lethargy!

      Ebba: your objections are simply ridiculous! Utterly absurd! Science, properly understood, is never a matter of who is paying, who performing, but of the parties' respective integrity.

      Why should scientists not be paid for their work? Why particularly involved and difficult work not be paid commensurately well? Why excellent work not demand a premium price? Why should the source or level of compensation have anything at all to do with proper science including a proper peer review? What makes you implicitly assume the CRU minions worked free of charge, or for a pauper's wage? Or that they should have had to?– Don't bother answering: I can guess!

      Let me tell you this: Arguments "ad hominem" or "ab homine", as well as "special pleading" including attempted "guilt tripping", as you appear to indulge yourself, have no place in an educated discussion –of anything. (Makes one wonder what they teach PhD's or PhD students, these days?! How people with such proclivities manage even to be accepted into any such reputable program?! — See: not a good basis for discussion, is it?)

      Mr. Courtney: Stick to your "guns", and let the real science fall where it will. Then we'll see what to do about it, or how best to do it. Your efforts, and of those like you, are the thin thread suspending mankind over the abyss of a new barbarism, just as they were the thin thread which brought mankind out of all of its previous iterations. Those of us who value truth thank you! I do! For once, a well-worn Latin phrase may be appropriate: "Illegitimi non carborundum" !!!

    9. Tom Lawton, MA says:

      I don't remember the scientists who were receiving money from governments and foundations having their personal integrity attacked because of their funding sources, although governments and the UN may have an agenda.

    10. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Dear Ebba Europe,

      OR are you really Al Gore checking in on this blog?

      Regardless, enjoyed the sick video showing the poor girl hanging onto a tree limb as a tsunami rolled underneath.

      You people will stop at nothing. Then I hope you appreciate the right of dissent.

    11. Bobbie Jay says:

      all of a sudden people are focused on coal? Keep it on the side. Let's get rollin' on natural gas, nuclear, and OIL!

    12. Pingback: Video: Copenhagen’s Implications for American Sovereignty | Conservative Principles Now

    13. Pingback: Copenhagen Consequences Video: China is the Main Culprit | Conservative Principles Now

    14. Pingback: Video: Copenhagen Should Follow Byrd-Hagel Resolutions | Conservative Principles Now

    15. Pingback: Video: Copenhagen’s Implications for American Sovereignty | Step Down Obama

    16. Pingback: Copenhagen’s Implications for American Sovereignty | The Aperio Movement

    17. kelvin, Australia says:

      Obama is certainly in a pickle. At least he's getting the US back in global climate talks – that's obviously a step

      in the right direction. Speaking of -we shouldn't stop working at our local level just because world leaders are

      making speeches :-) http://www.tictacdo.com/ttd//Apply_green_trends_i… The web is filled with great

      suggestions on how we can help on the microlevel.

    18. kelvin, Australia says:

      As individuals we also have to walk the walk if we want to talk the talk… small changes = big impacts.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.