Mr. Obama goes to Copenhagen -

Mr. Obama goes to Copenhagen

Unlike Stephen Harper, the U.S. president plans to attend next month’s climate change conference


The White House has confirmed U.S. President Barack Obama will attend the global climate summit in Copenhagen next month, a meeting which Canadian officials have already dismissed as unlikely to produce a meaningful follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol. Though officials in Stephen Harper’s office say plans could change should world leaders decide to meet there, Canada’s prime minister isn’t planning on attending the summit, opting to send Environment Minister Jim Prentice instead. So far, 65 world leaders have confirmed they’ll be in Copenhagen, but Obama’s presence stands out as the conference organizers’ biggest coup. “The world is very much looking to the United States to come forward with an emission reduction target and contribute to financial support to help developing countries,” says Yvo de Boer, the UN’s climate treaty chief.


Filed under:

Mr. Obama goes to Copenhagen

  1. I truely believe that Canada should not send anyone.

    Wait for a 'real' review of the fallout from climategate, then Canada can laugh all the way to the bank.

    • Right on. The AGW scam is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated in the last while. It dwarfs the Madoff ponzi scheme. Al Gore had the nerve to show up on CBC today and pontificate that the oil sands are endangering future generation, And that they are greede. To hear it from someone that shamelessly amassed hundred of millions from selling the fraudulent hockey stick chart is amazing.

      • Please provide evidence that Al Gore has profited from his climate change advocacy. Most deniers of AGW have swallowed hook line and sinker the idea that he profited and never actually looked into it themselves. (hint: a denial website with an out-of-context half-sentence is not actually proof.)

        • You really need to get out more if you do not know that Big Al is becoming rich off of his scam. Maybe you can tell us how many bathrooms he has in his house and how much electricity he uses in a month. maybe you can also tell us why he refuses to debate anyone without first getting all questions approved first, if he goes at all. Until then, you are just foolish. Also, did you know that he REFUSED to sign a pledge promising to use LESS hydro than last year? Why would that be???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/

          • Wow, that's a lot of question marks. Glad there's no shortage of those!

            Can you tell me where I could go to find out about all this stuff you're so certain of? The biggest complaint I hear about people who agree in AGW is that they see it as religion. So why are you fighting me with your own religious fervour? Try sharing facts with links, not just hearsay.

            The pledge, for example: he was challenged by another senator (Inhofe, who doesn't believe in global warming at all regardless of scientific evidence) to use less energy than the average US home. That's different than wat you claim. Gore comes from a large rich family, and has a large home. Demanding that he use less than the average family might require him to move — no wonder he wasn't interested.

            I'm not familiar with your claim about him debating, but your useless comment doesn't make me any better-informed, does it?

      • Also, "fraudulent hockey stick" betrays your lack of knowledge in this area, and suggests you trust others to research for you. For example, did you know that this was dealt with over four years ago, and that repeated and more careful studies of many factors all show a similar hockey stick even with the old data removed??

        • Any one who questions the AGW cult findings and theory is a “denier” Galileo was also a denier that almost was burnt on the stake for questioning the scientific and political consensus. Science is not built on consensus but on critical examination and transparency. Science is not matter of belief and trust of a leaders and establishment. . The most dangerous combination for humankind is a combination of politics and “science”. The Nazi extermination machine was based on the science of racism with the totalitarian political enterprise. Eugenics was practiced in Canada based on fake science. The mere fact that AGW “scientists” resorted to withholding information, doctoring data to suit their hypothesis, destruction of documants and obstructing publication of critical papers is a proof that the AGW is a scam. The climate gate is only the tip of the iceberg. There is lot of money at stake “research” funding, traveling to conferences, acting as advisors for crap and trade establishment.

      • Also, "fraudulent hockey stick" betrays your lack of knowledge in this area, and suggests you trust others to research for you. For example, did you know that this was dealt with over four years ago, and that repeated and more careful studies of many factors all show a similar hockey stick even with the old data removed??

    • Why is this approach appropriate for potentially catastrophic global climate change, but not OK for H1N1? Or seatbelts? Or bicycle helmets? Or home fire insurance?

  2. I agree – the revelations contained in the emails and other documents show at a minimum that the consensus on the climate change data is pretty wobbly at best with a very good chance that it is fraudulent and manipulated at the very least.

    Besides, in the world of tele/internet conferencing there is NO NEED for anyone to leave their country and fly to Copenhagen to meet thus increasing carbon emissions (which only benefit the likes of Al Gore) – also given that it is winter in northern country, I have my doubts that the meals etc. will be that other favorite cause of the climate change crowd – 100 mile eating!!!

    • I agree that it's a shame that international conventions and negotiations still seem to require physical presence (and huge expense and carbon emissions), but I think it will be a long while before the ego-driven heads of state will be willing to agree to things without meeting each other in person first.

      As for the the recent revelations re emails: it doesn't change the consensus, it just casts doubt on those researchers and their work. Have you tried counting the number of researchers involved vs the number not involved? Or have you read about whether they were massaging data for aesthetics vs actual mathematical calculation and extrapolation? The Washington Post (which regularly publishes AGW denial talking points) covered this today:

      The point of peer review is the allow the data to stand on its own, and I truly hope we get to see that more — from both sides! Most deniers simply point to scandals or TV specials or novelists rather than actual science on this.

  3. Good on Harper for not participating in this farce. The cult of Global Warming is nearing its end and will be revealed to be history's greatest scam.