• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Crazy in Copenhagen

    Would you sign a contract for how much you’ll be paid 40 years from now? Unless you were independently wealthy and could care less, of course not—because you have no idea how to gauge the purchasing power of that income in some future society. You have no way to guess what life will be like then, given the rapid changes you’ve seen just in the past decade alone. So it would be insane to bind yourself to a future salary a decade from today, let alone in 2050.

    It would also be foolish to sign a contract that obligates you to limit how much you spend on food and transportation.

    So why are world leaders rushing to sign a contract for how much their countries can emit–from nature and all of life’s activities–in 2050 by as much as 50% below 1990 levels? They have no idea what life will be like then—especially now that science and scientists are being called into question. Even if politics is not part of the scientific equation then, in all likelihood we could have the technology we need to make emission caps moot.

    Even if the U.S. doesn’t sign a new ‘Kyoto II’ agreement in Copenhagen next week, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation to constrain American life to the tune of more than a household spends on groceries every year for eight years.

    The problem with countering insanity, it’s been said, is that insane people think they are sane, so they keep on doing what they’ve been doing no matter the evidence.

    Let’s hope enough sane leaders are going to Copenhagen who have the courage to say “the sky is falling” on climate hype, and demand we rethink this gambit through.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    12 Responses to Crazy in Copenhagen

    1. Sora, Kansas says:

      This whole thing is just a giant waste of time. Unemployment is at, what, 10.2% right now? We can't even save ourselves, yet we want to save the world? We can't even predict with 100% acuraccy what the weather will do in 24 hours– let alone fourty-one years! Its all vain words in the end, because there's nothing we can do to affect the climate– for better or for worse.

    2. TrueMinority , US says:

      There are so many of us out here, and they arent listening. They don't care if they lose elections. They know that policies are hard to undo. (unless they George Bush Tax cuts)

      In a recent radio interview with 55KRC in cincinnati, Congressman Steve Driehaus acted as if he didnt even here about the hacked emails and climategate.

      Was he serious?

    3. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Climate-gate reminds me of something Paul Harvey, the great

      radio commentator, once said on his radio broadcast, Paul Harvey News and Comment, back when the debate was slowly

      changing from another myth, global cooling, which was popular in the '70s, remember when the same climate scientists said we were headed for another ice age, a la the

      2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow? Anyway, Paul Harvey

      said that the same scientists who were pushing global cooling

      in the '70s, were currently pushing global warming so they could get grants. When Paul Harvey said "currently," it wasn't

      right now, 2009, when he said it. It was back in the early 1980s___either 1980, or 1981, I think. I'm not sure. How perceptive! He was right then and he's right now. The University of East Anglia's CRU is guilty of scientific fraud. All its research is fatally flawed. For the past 11 years, the temperature of Earth has gotten colder, not warmer. Al Gore says that Earth has a fever. What fever? Where's the fever?

      If Earth does have a fever, it's from all the hot air being blown out by those who say that Earth's heating up and we're the cause of it. News flash, we're in an interglacial period, and everything's just fine. The only fever I see is that

      of the global warming alarmists who want to turn the clock back two hundred years. How can we do it? Launch our nukes toward North Korea and pray Kim Jong-il can hit the broadside of a barn door. Maybe we could harness all the hot air from Al Gore's bloviating. How about we just admit the truth and say we're wrong? I don't trust Al Gore, I don't believe Al Gore, where's his degree in climate science? He doesn't have one. I used to say that I'd only believe Al Gore if he had scientific degree. I'm going to revise that and say not even if he has scientific degree. The head of ICCC has to be climate scientist. Right? WRONG! He's a bloody economist! Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, had step down pending an investigation of his tactics. He's a climate scientist. He's one of the people we should be listening to. NOT!

    4. Sora, Kansas says:

      @Blair: Heck, Al Gore doesn't even know the temperature of the earth's core.(remember his "its like a billion degrees" comment on one talk show?) Let alone how the weather works.

    5. Charles, The Republi says:

      Growing up watching great sci-fi programs (Star Trek, Space 1999 & etc), I just knew by now that we would be colonizing Mars. But instead we have the EPA classifying CO2 as a Public Danger (a Declaration of war on plant life?) We have Global Warming that has caused a White Christmas on the Texas coast in 04 & significant snowfalls in the same region 12/10/08 & 12/4/09. An Economic Stimulus Plan that is destroying the economy. These people have driven themselves insane with the quest for power. They ignore both the will of the people & the lessons of history. They manipulate data both scientific & economic. Truth & reality are not important. They see their goal, but I doubt if there is much thought to the consequences. The irony is if they acheive their goals, that still won't be enough.

    6. Roger S., Ma. says:

      You can argue all day and all night about the human effect on Global climate: Is it cooling? Warming? Simply changing? That's not the only issue. Another issue is what to do about it: Be passive? Active? Reactive? Pro-active? — Apparently none of the models currently out there, and none of the data, are conclusive.

      Yet all the world's potentates are gathering in Copenhagen. Does that make them "insane"?

      My view: Don't anybody dare think so for even a second! They are NOT insane. They are, on the contrary, extremely purposeful. Most of them are heavily invested in some form of government sponsored "climate-trade" scheme, where they stand to lose or gain enormous sums of YOUR money. Can't be saner than that IMO!

      The fudged "science" was only a foil. It can now be safely ignored, because those crooked CRU minions have accomplished what was needed: to cast doubt upon common sense and get sufficient support to generate a "benefit of doubt" concerning the truth, so it may be spun either way. That's all any of them ever needed or wanted!

      To my mind, that isn't insanity (unless truth mattered, which it seldom does to those looking for unearned profit and undeserved power), but extreme greed and extreme deviousness.

      The voters will have to start drumming these crooked political hacks out of office ASAP. Copenhagen is as "pretty" as Kyoto and at least as lovely as where they'll meet next: too nice for any of them!

    7. Pingback: Saudia Arabia drops ClimateGate Bomb on Copenhagen « VotingFemale Speaks!

    8. Pingback: EPA to Attack US Economy by declaring CO2 toxic; without CO2, all plant life would die « VotingFemale Speaks!

    9. peter dublin says:

      crazy yes…

      Re Copenhagen,

      These kind of gatherings generate a mass-hysteria for a common cause.

      Like George Orwell’s Animal Farm book, where mass hysteria meant one pig

      overtrumping another in self-sacrificial willingness

      - except here it’s always someone else (not the jet-setting politicians) who has

      to make the sacrifice…

      "We must all cut down to save the planet"

      There is no energy shortage

      (given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with CO2 emission

      limits set as deemed necessary)

      and consumers – not politicians – PAY for energy and how they wish to use it.

      Notice: If there WAS an energy shortage, its price rise would

      – limit people using it anyway, and make renewable energy more attractive

      – make energy efficient products more attractive to buy.

      No need to legislate for it.
      http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x

      And since when do light bulbs, TV sets etc give out any CO2 gas?

      Not like cars.

      And cars are taxed.

      They could of course tax the bulbs etc, and lower the tax on energy

      efficient alternatives.

      Governments make money on the reduced sales, they can pay for CO2

      emission processing and renewable energy, and consumers keep choice.

      Yes, taxes are unjustified, but better for all than bans.

      Few seem to know about the industrial politics behind the supposedly

      environmentally justified bans
      http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax

    10. Bobbie Jay says:

      Leaderships of third world countries, understand you're people are poor because of inept and controlling leadership. I do believe the condition of your people is caused by personal choices and decision making of man. Nature is out of man's control, but is accountable for all, including inclement weather.

    11. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Dear TrueMinority US,

      Oh, they CARE if they LOSE their election.

      That is why the electorate needs to remember what they are doing. These people will surely try to spin their way out of their actions when they start campaigning.

      Keep getting the word out on these people – every vote does count, especially when we need to counter the fraudulent votes from "some" community organizations.

    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.

    ×