The climate change talks in Copenhagen are taking a strange turn. First, we have nearly all of the important "developing nations" walk out at some point. First it was African nations, now today we have China and India walking out. It would seem that things are not going quite as planned at the Climate Change Conference.

Then we find out; even if the Climate Change science is not fiction, as Obama said earlier today. the Copenhagen conference will not result in lower global temperatures.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. It is an honor for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. All of you would not be here unless you -- like me -- were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, it is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. This much we know.

If you have to point out that it is science and not fiction, you are on pretty shaky ground.

As a matter of fact, even if all of the concessions were met there would be no benefit to the climate.

Emissions gap

Meanwhile, a leaked document prepared by the UN climate convention secretariat confirms that current pledges on cutting greenhouse gas emissions are almost certainly not enough to keep the rise in the global average temperature within 2C.

The analysis says that to achieve that goal, global emissions should be kept at or below of 44 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in 2020.

But if enacted, the current maximum pledges from developed countries would leave emissions 1.9Gt above that figure; minimum pledges would mean missing the target by 4.2Gt.

Unless this gap is closed, it says - for example by developed nations raising their current overall offer to a cut of 30% from 1990 levels by 2020 - global emissions will "remain on an unsustainable pathway that could lead to concentrations equal or above 550ppm, with the related temperature rise around 3C."

The analysis was based on a number of recent studies, notably the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook.

Joss Garman of Greenpeace commented: "The UN is admitting in private that the pledges made by world leaders would lead to a 3C rise in temperatures.

"Every politician in Copenhagen is now put on notice. They have one day left to step up or they will forever be remembered as the people who let this happen."

What in the hell is the point of all of this? If global temperatures are not going to be effected, what is all of this about? Lowering, or stopping the rise of, global temperatures is the entire stated point of the Copenhagen Climate Conference right?

If you take a peek at some of the protesters outside of the Copenhagen talks you will quickly find that the climate is not really the target of this conference.

How many "Save the Planet" signs do you see here --without some Anti-Capitalist message? I thought this was about Climate Change! Could it be that the entire Climate Change ordeal is a fraud?

Now, some would say that these people are extremists, and that most of those at the conference do not share these extreme beliefs. The only problem is that many of those involved in the conference have shared the exact same beliefs. Take a look at what Hugo Chavez had to say. Chavez's comments were followed by a standing ovation!

Then President Chavez brought the house down.

When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.

When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.

But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

And the Ethiopian President Meles Zenawi – who made a sensible and considered and detailed proposal about how to get financing to help climate change adaptation and mitigation in poor countries? He was far less enthusiastically received.

Revolution!?

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

This story is sad, but still amusing.

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (WTVC-TV) - A 4-year-old boy, beer in hand, is accused of stealing Christmas presents from his neighbors. It's a strange story, but also a sad one.

April Wright is 21 years old and is going through a divorce with her husband who is in jail. She says she is not sure how her 4-year-old managed to get out of the house, open a beer, and steal the neighbors presents from under their tree. Now she's just glad he's okay and says she won't let it happen again.

I hope April Wright practices better judgment in her future endeavors.

I wonder who brought this incident to the attention of the media? Oh yeah... judgment...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Alan Greenspan is warning of possible problems with the national deficit.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on Thursday backed a call for creation of a bipartisan commission to make the tough calls needed to cut the record federal deficit.

"I trust any such taskforce will address the very thorny issue of the asymmetrical consequences of too much or too little fiscal restraint," Greenspan said.

The 18-member commission would weigh tax increases, spending cuts and other approaches needed to prevent the ballooning national debt -- currently at $12 trillion -- from compromising the United States' long-term strength.

The commission -- a tried-and-true Washington tactic for politicians to offload painful choices -- could make it easier for lawmakers to sign off on unpopular measures like trimming retirement spending or raising taxes to get the budget back in line.

How in the world is this commission going to address "spending cuts?" The house just approved a measure to increase the debt limit by $290 billion. Does anyone "really" buy into this mess?

The result of the commission's findings will result in a recommendation of tax increases. If the government is increasing the debt ceiling, how is there any hope of reducing the deficit? This is surreal.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Get a load of this!

‘And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen. That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private’

“Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we’re considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider.

This is insane! What is this legislation "really" attempting to accomplish? Is this not tyrannical!?

If the "rules" of the Senate are bypassed, what good are the rules? What the hell is going on here!

The American people didn't elect a dictator, or did they?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Now we have this words that the "pay czar" is going to limit the salaries of some companies which received bailout money.

BY DEBORAH SOLOMON IN WASHINGTON AND SARA SCHAEFER MUÑOZ AND ALISTAIR MACDONALD IN LONDON

Authorities on both sides of the Atlantic are moving to enact tough curbs on pay, in an indication that governments are taking increasingly aggressive steps to rein in compensation after the financial crisis.

In the U.S., the Treasury Department's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, is poised to enact tougher-than-expected rules for employees at companies that received large amounts of government assistance. The U.K. on Wednesday slapped banks with a 50% tax on portions of bonuses they pay to individuals, in perhaps the most aggressive move yet by a government.

Mr. Feinberg has already capped salaries of top employees under his review. ...

I have a question. Why is it that CEOs "need" to have their salaries capped? I know that these companies received bail-out money, but there are plenty of private institutions which receive government money. Football (the NFL) for example. Many city and state governments are involved (financially) in the construction of stadiums. Why is there no cry to limit the pay of professional athletes?

There also have been quite a few movies which have received government funds during production. Where is the outcry to limit the pay of actors?

Athletes and actors generally don't employ many people. A CEO who brings a large company "back from the brink" could potentially save thousands of jobs. Why is the CEO looked at as a bad guy, but the athletes and actors are not? Moreover; why is the government even involved in pay decisions at all?

Just a thought...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.