The "climate summit" or whatever the hell was "supposed" to have happen in Denmark is now officially over, finished, done.
And man alive, are some folks highly pissed off about it all. And I am not talking about Al, not my pal, Gore. Some of the countries who thought that Go-bomb-them would arrive, fresh from the "peace" prize deal, and "save the world". Yeah, sure he would. Well, guess what happened? Go-bomb-them arrived alright. He then proceeded to have "closed door" meetings with China and maybe somebody else. When he "emerged" from the back room deal making, there was a "consensus". Yes boys and girls, our "dear leader" has made some back room deal with China, India, and maybe Russia and Brazil to "help" those poorer countries "mitigate" the effects of climate change. You heard where Hi-Larry told the world how "we", the US of A, is going to put up $100 billion for this. More borrowing by us now. Well, what will that $100 billion get those poor folks? I don't know, but if I had money to invest in this "help", I'd put some money into inflatable air mattresses or rubber life rafts. You know, the sort of item that folks who are about to be flooded might find useful.
I really shouldn't joke about this, but the whole truth is, global warming is NOT happening. No, I do not refer to the "leaked" emails that show how the data has been doctored. REAL science shows that, if anything, the globe is cooling. Just look at the climate in the old US of A recently. We have had record low temperatures and early snow falls. Record early snow for many areas in fact. Also, the real data show the the globe is not warming. The doctored data also did away with the "uncooperative" Medieval Warm Period. Well, hey, that didn't fit the "model" so, the data HAD to go. Isn't that how you "do" science? Toss out any data that does not support your pet theory? Oh, you don't do that? Oh, dear, well, back to the old drawing board then. Also, Al, never my pal, Gore is the big loser here.
But, back to Go-bomb-them. He says the "deal" that was made in Denmark is a good start. Well, maybe, maybe not. If you are Al, never ever my pal, Gore you don't like it much as the spotlight is now off you. Maybe that is permanent, then the deal will be good for sure. Gore has been riding this "global warming" for way too long. He and his pals now have to figure how they will scam us out of all that money they were going to make from "cap and trade" which is carbon trading. Carbon trading, which needs to die a very swift and painful death, is just the new derivatives for the stock market and the banksters to get even richer off of. Gore was dead sure to be very rich from that scam as well. After all, Gore has set himself up as THE guru of "global warming". Maybe now he will just go home to Tipper and sulk for the next 30 years.
OK, NOW, back to Go-bomb-them. Sorry about that detour. Sort of sorry,maybe. Maybe not.
Many other world leaders are very disappointed with Go-bomb-them. They were certain that the new "peace" prize winner would be on their side in this "global warming" deal. He sold them out. Like any sane American could not see that coming? How many of you are surprised that Go-bomb-them sold out the "poorer" countries on this deal? Come on, be honest. How many of you are really surprised about it? How could any American who has been awake and sentient this past year be surprised that he "sold out"? He has done that to America since the inauguration. Now, the other world leaders get to feel like those Americans who voted for him. Screwed. Hey, what can I tell you/them? The guy is just the typical American politician. He knows who pays his bills. Yep, the big banksters. They don't want to waste money with global warming. They don't want to waste money on global cooling either. they just want MORE money, any way they can get it. The more, the better. Legal means or any other way, as long as they get tons more money, that is all they care about.
OK, so the average, sane American should have seen this "sell out" in Denmark coming. Well, so should those world leaders who are so surprised. Why? Did they read or listen to the "prize" speech? I have only seen portions of the damn thing. I said recently here that I decided not to read it. I have not read the entire speech yet and may not. I have seen enough of it and I have read some analysis of it by others to know that it stunk to hell and back. After hearing or reading a speech by a person who won a "peace" prize use the acceptance speech to praise war, well, they have no excuse to say they are surprised now.
This brings up another point. One reader of this corner asked if I heard the speech. I told him no, I didn't listen to it. He said I should read it and then blog on how pissed off it made me. Well, I still didn't read it, see above. BUT, I have seen enough of it to be pissed off to a degree. So, here ya go buddy, my "pissed at the "prize" speech rant".
Go-bomb-them "won" the Nobel "peace" prize this year. For what, nobody really knows. The nominations closed in February. He took office in mid January. Within his very first week in office, he authorized drone air strikes on Pakistan. OK, now before the nominations closed, he was nominated. For what? What peace did he achieve in, oh be generous, and say six weeks in office? He didn't have a peace plan for the Palestinian/Israeli mess. He didn't end any war. He DID escalate the sort of war in Pakistan. I say sort of war as we are not "officially" fighting there, yet. It is a sort of war in Pakistan from our side of things. More like our Afghan war sort of "spills" over across the border into Pakistan.
OK, so, he was nominated for the "prize". Fine, even though we still do not really know why. Later, we find out, lo and behold, he has WON the "prize". How? Beats the hell out of me, ask the Norwegians. THEY voted on the damn thing.
Now the rant regards the "prize" speech. Parts of the "prize" speech that I have seen get this old veteran highly pissed off. NOT as angry as I might be if and when I ever read the entire yak-yak. It wasn't JUST that during the "prize" speech he dismissed BOTH Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. No, now that alone was bad enough. BUT, he didn't stop there. He went further. He made the remark that war is necessary to achieve peace!!!!!! What the HELL!!!!!! We "have" to have war in order to have peace???? Since when?? YES, sometimes, after a war there is a period of peace. Wars do not bring peace however. Negotiations bring peace. War and blood shed, slaughter, rape, and all that comes with war is NOT needed to have peace. Peace only requires the opposing sides to sit down and talk like sane, rational human beings.
And to think that SOME Americans actually thought the guy was a "peace" candidate during the 2008 campaign! Well, if anything, the "prize" speech sure as hell ruled him out from being a "peace" person to me. I did not believe the guy when he was running for this current job he has. I voted for Ms. McKinney. THAT would have been real change. A black woman as president of America. Wow, that would be history for sure.
This "prize" speech just shows that Go-bomb-them loves was as much as W. Shrub. Go-bomb-them, I think, actually enjoys being a "war president". Just as W. Shrub did. Some commentators have said that we are now in the third Shrub presidency. I am not 100% certain of that, but this "prize" speech sure goes a long way to convincing me of that.
So, cheer up folks. Go-bomb-them did not sell us to Gore and the "greenies". Not by a long shot. Am I happy about the outcome of Copenhagen? Not really. I am glad that they did not get a legally binding document from it. That would have been disaster in my opinion. What they got, is a "deal" where each country can set their own goals as to reducing "green house gases" and it is NOT legally binding in any way. The "poor" nations did not get the huge handouts of money that they still want to comply with the agreement. Well, they don't need much money now. They can set their own goals, and why would anybody pay them for that? You can also bet the farm that the $100 billion Hi-Larry mentioned, well, that will sort of "evaporate". Hey, global warming can do that to money uncle Sam "promises" you know.
In the end, yes, I am gloating a bit. Al, never to be my pal, Gore lost out. Hopefully he lost big time huge. If we never see or hear from him again it will be too soon. Go back to his mansion and sulk. And don't forget to pay that electric bill there Al.
The warming crew lost out also. Well, maybe now we can get the real, honest science on climate.
As to the climate, I do think it may be changing. But, if anything, it is getting cooler. Back in the early 1970's that WAS the big worry. The coming ice age was in many science magazines at that time. Maybe they were right then, just off with the timing. I also believe that conserving our natural resources is a very good idea and we all ought to do what we can to conserve. Using energy efficient appliances and vehicles just makes good sense. It is also good for the personal "economy" (personal finances) as well. If you need a new ride, buy one that gets better mileage than what you own now. You will save money every time you fill up and save on resources as well. That is a good thing to do, smart even. There are all sorts of tips on how to save energy and other resources that do not cost much to do. It just makes sense that to be good stewards of this planet that we use the resources wisely. Leave some for the kids. Don't be wasteful with what we have. Everybody and the planet will thank us for that.
Oh, one last comment on what drives global warming, even global cooling for that matter. It is seen most every day by most people. Yep, right out there in the sky. The sun. That is what drives our climate. When solar activity is looked at along side climate data, well, let me just say that it all falls into place. And, we have accurate data on solar activity, sun spots, that go back hundreds of years. There IS a correlation folks. Some scientists know this. I even remember reading about sun spots and climate way back in grade school. How many of you remember back in the 1950's a school
magazine" the "Weekly Reader"? I know that the grade school I went to in Illinois had us get it. In 1957, it was IGY, International Geophysics Year. There were all sorts of interesting science articles in that little newsletter/magazine that year. I do not claim to remember much of what I read then, but the solar activity and climate stuck with me. There were articles on the connection during the early 1970's and talk of global cooling/ new ice age also. The idea of solar activity driving our climate is not new.
Aha, so, you ask, then why all the fuss on global warming? Well, you cannot make huge piles of money if the sun drives the climate. BUT, if people are causing "global warming", well, hell, there are tons of money to be had from that. We make them stop what they have been doing for years and have them do something new. See how the scam works? Well, it was supposed to work.
Poor Al, never ever my pal, Gore, he was set to be richer than Bill Gates.