• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Dispatch: Great Britain's View of the Copenhagen Outcomes

    FIFE, Scotland—The White House, the U.S. mainstream press and other assorted Obama defenders are giving the impression that the President salvaged a good outcome at Copenhagen, or so I’ve heard while spending Christmas in Scotland (the holidays being what the locals call vacation, something they spend in Europe, which is a place not here but across the Channel).

    The narrative of Obama sweeping in and eking out good outcomes is not at all the reading here in Great Britain, where papers on both the left and the right have denounced the climate change conference as a farce that produced very little of value. If the leftist papers do see a silver lining it is that the President of the United States now feels more at ease sitting down and negotiating with socialists and communists from the Third World than with America’s (former?) allies in the West and Japan. Some silver lining, but there you have it.

    As for the climate gabfest itself, all was doom and gloom. The very leftwing Guardian — think New York Times on steroids — started an editorial with the question “Does the human race deserve to survive?” They also had such headlines as “Bickering and Filibustering as the Biosphere Burns,” with British understatement having become but a memory of the past here, like bowler hats and running the world. Meanwhile the Telegraph (conservative to the point of being nicknamed Torygraph) blares “Brown Blames U.S. And China for Climate Failure.” The consensus is Obama’s Copenhagen efforts were a complete failure.

    The Guardian did celebrate the fact that “the rich world was forced to haggle with the bigger emerging economies on more equal terms than ever before.” Everyone on the left felt comforted by the fact that Mr. Obama burst uninvited into a meeting late Friday with Inacio Lula de Silva of Brazil, Wen Jiabao of China, Jacob Zuma of South Africa and Manmohan Singh of India.

    Obama said “I’m going to sit by my friend Silva” who is of course a socialist leader who is popularly known as Lula. Never missing an opportunity to demonstrate the president’s weakness, not friendship, Lula then went back to Brazil and criticized the U.S. and their position at the conference.

    That this group reneged – legitimately – on giving up economic growth because the bored and rich in the industrialized world are badly in need of another crusade against capitalism does speak volumes about a new world order. That some of them tried to shakedown the West into paying down billions because of some mythological “carbon debt,” and that Obama gladly acquiesced, is more the stuff of ghost of Christmas past, to wax Dickensian in the land of his birth.

    But everyone here recognizes that, Obama or no Obama, Copenhagen produced no binding deal on “keeping temperatures from rising above 2 degrees Celsius”—a rare example of modesty in gabfests of this type.

    That my brother-in-law couldn’t get his car out of his snow and ice-bound farm here in Fife, that Copenhagen was snowed under and the Eastern Coast of the United States was digging itself out from under two feet of snow should have given the young and the restless at Copenhagen some pause, but alas no.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    8 Responses to Dispatch: Great Britain's View of the Copenhagen Outcomes

    1. Derek Wall says:

      my analysis of climate scepticism here http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2009/12/c

      all a bit like those who said tobacco didn't cause cancer back in the 1960s?

    2. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      It sounds to me like those countries who try to "shake down" the West are no different than "organized groups" and unions who try to shake down local businesses, corporations, and government to get their way. It is no different than our governmental extreme leftist politicians.

      Obviously, Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky has gone global.

      What a template for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, eh?

    3. Stirling, Huntingdon says:

      "the President of the United States now feels more at ease sitting down and negotiating with socialists and communists from the Third World than with America’s (former?) allies in the West and Japan."

      He never has been a "Pro USA President." I just wish he had run for office in one of those 3rd world countries enstead of here. :(

    4. Pingback: Obamarama Didn’t Play Well In Copenhagen « The Divine Lamp

    5. Roger S., Ma. says:

      "Derek Wall": a former Principal Speaker of the Green Party. — Why former? – Isn't it easy to tell?!

      Argument "ad hominem"? — Indeed. — As were 90% of yours; the remainder neatly twisted half-truths!

      "Anything that may be asserted without evidence — as AGW or ACC — may be rejected without evidence!" (A first corollary to "Ockham's Razor": "Facta non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" : Facts are not to be multiplied (in context: enlarged, emphasized) beyond necessity. Which leaves us, alas, with the need to select facts to support a hypothesis

      as well as to refute it. Admittedly not an easy task, this is the work of serious science, precisely!

      Meaning, again in context: "scientists" all utilizing the same "massaged" data while conveniently "losing" the original raw data (something a real scientist would guard with his life); conspiring to keep even this secondary data from free public access and scrutiny; further, conspiring to keep dissenting peer inputs from publication; further, rarely if ever citing peer dissent (with proper refutation where possible, acknowledgment and words of caution where not): such "scientists" arouse deep suspicions, to say the least, even with non-"peers".

      From there it is only a short step to viewing their present and past efforts as "junk science". True or not, they have only themselves to blame. Especially so, as the taxpayer who has been funding their very lives for so many years has the absolute right to demand a proper accounting of activities and results; in his language, not theirs!

      The real tragedy of "Climate Gate" has been to set us back in one fell swoop many steps from obtaining a proper answer to key questions: What is the precise nature and degree of man's impact on the local and global climate? Which parts are attributable to which of his activities? How do their relative quantities stack up? With what degree of certainty? What will be the real effects, short, medium, and long-term? Which effects will be more "synergistic" than others? What detailed tactics, as well as overall strategy, could deal with these effects without harming mankind's overall abilities to deal with anything at all?

      In short, we needed facts, but got not only politically convenient and correct fictions but, what is far worse, something half-baked in between! Motto (in many cases): "Happy grantsmanship". Now it will take still more time — which we allegedly no longer have — to correct this mess. And you're upset that we're upset?! Guess what: you're "fired"!

    6. Bobbie Jay says:

      my analysis of climate realism: as long as the world exists and to our knowledge, every living being and creature has dealt with climate change and evolves to adapt.

      As mankind is nature, so is climate change. and like mankind, nature controls itself. There is nothing mankind has done or continues to do, that has effected or will change nature's climate.

      If the oceans flood the earth, goodbye. There is nothing man can do to stop or prevent. What man can do by his choice, is accept the truth and stop the deception leading to intentional global destruction.

    7. Roger S., Ma. says:

      By the way: "Tobacco (doesn't) cause cancer" — "Smoking" it MAY! — A perfect illustration in microcosm of the difficulties surrounding debates about, and inherent in, good "climate science"!

    8. Bobbie Jay says:

      I don't believe it is tobacco that causes the cancer. It's the government mandates or approval of carcinogenic ingredients used in cigarette manufacturing.

      Have manufactured cigarettes and tobacco been researched separate and individually?

    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.

    ×