Every industrialized nation has burned coal to get the energy they need to produce electricity, make steel or heat their homes. They did it because it was the cheapest and most readily available form of fuel, and it still is.

Now our President, in his generosity, promises to send billions to other countries so they can meet emission standards. How generous he is, with other people's money. I would be far more impressed with his generosity if he were giving away his own money (including his salary, book deal revenues, the money he spends on his kids private schooling and the money he plans to make after leaving office).

That's the thing about liberals, they always want to invite everyone to lunch, but they never seem to be around when the check comes.

I am surprised that very little science is used in this discussion. In contrast, dire predictions of losing our sovereignty and very costly measures are emphasized if the climate treaty is to become reality. I did not read anything about the costs that will be incurred if we do nothing. What about the huge spike in the amount of CO2 that is now in the atmosphere. How can this not be a topic of this discussion. In addition, where is the discussion about the lives that will be lost (the summer 2003 heat wave in Europe that resulted in over 2000 deaths in Paris is one recent example), the large costs that will be incurred to aid the island nations and coastal areas to deal with the rising water levels, the costs due to increased storm intensities, and the changes that are occurring to many of the worlds flora and fauna?

I am willing to listen and have an intelligent discussion when what is said is based on unbiased science, but what I hear and read here are certainly things that make me leave in frustration.

By Nick Loris In response to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference December 7th through 18th, The Heritage Foundation is launching a video series to cover all the details and aspects of the climate summit. We’ll address all the angles (climate, en…