Hi All,

FT.com

[url=http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The-Copenhagen-conundrum-pd20090728-UCTGD?OpenDocument] Copenhagen conundrum
Gideon Rachman, Financial Times
8:20 AM, 28 Jul 2009

Excerpts,
" At the moment, efforts to deal with global warming are focused
on a huge international summit in Copenhagen in December.

It was convenient to blame the lack of international progress on George W Bush.

But it is becoming increasingly apparent that the arrival of Barack Obama in the White House
will not be the game-changer that many climate change activists hoped for.

When Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, visited India last week and
appealed to her hosts to limit emissions she was rebuffed.
The Chinese may be a little more polite in Washington this week.
But the substance of what they say is likely to be just as unyielding. "


http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.n...enDocument

In a way the above is a cheering read, if you fear the present orthodoxy
will lead to a western economic meltdown, as I do.
But, the total lack of any possibility that the policies
are based on wrong science is taken as a given.
I suspect the article trying to make the point of itself being that "denialists"
on both sides of the (none exisitent in the article writer's mind, obviously)
climate change (wrong science) debate, is to avoid the possibility that the advocates of the
Copenhagen conference's aims are actually wrong.
Whilst also having a cheap (unfounded) dig at skeptics.

I wonder if people like this will make a noise as they eventually
vanish up their own b***sid*s, as they inevitably will.
He got paid to write that rubbish...

Moreover, that which comes from the Copenhagen "Summit" has recieved much backlash.

This website:

WebCommentary is provided by Bob Webster and supported by Lord Monckton. It offers a "petition" to Repudiate the Proposed Treaty of Copenhagen.

As an aside, it links back to Globalwarmingskeptics blog. Perhaps it would be helpful if the GWS blog site linked folks to here?

of course india and china are telling obama/clinton to frig off. They are busily turning their countries into a developed one. They are more concerned about economic prosperity than chasing ghosts and goblins.

If obama is supposedly the saviour, he would realize that in past history, developed countries tend to be more clean and efficient than developing ones. A better approach would be to help countries like china and india become a developed country faster, then their emissions level would automatically plummet. Why would anyone in their right mind endanger economic prosperity for unproven climate change claims ?

(11-25-2009 12:13 PM)mcclane Wrote:  If obama is supposedly the saviour, he would realize that in past history, developed countries tend to be more clean and efficient than developing ones. A better approach would be to help countries like china and india become a developed country faster, then their emissions level would automatically plummet. Why would anyone in their right mind endanger economic prosperity for unproven climate change claims ?

Another point that is not made often enough. I get very exasperated at the few skeptics who do manage to get some media to air their views at times for leaving out basic points like this. The problem with TV is of course it is a "sound bite" medium and time is limited. But they often seem to sound like they are concentrating on "it will ruin our economy" without going that one step further like you did above and explain exactly how bad that is on so many levels.

mcclane:

Quote:If obama is supposedly the saviour, he would realize that in past history, developed countries tend to be more clean and efficient than developing ones. A better approach would be to help countries like china and india become a developed country faster, then their emissions level would automatically plummet. Why would anyone in their right mind endanger economic prosperity for unproven climate change claims ?

I agree with your statement here,that the more developed a nation is the better they are equipped to deal with pollution.

Unfortunately it appears that China is trying to develop too fast and now in danger of collapsing from excessive growth.