- Today’s featured article: Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Sun hands out the “Copenhagen flatulence awards“. Hilarious — go read it all.
- Green Jobs in Germany: the grass is not so green
- Jerry Pournelle: Damage control in Big Science. See also Samuel Thernstrom’s response.
- Noted skeptic James Randi expressed some mild AGW skepticism and immediately had to issue a ‘clarification‘ following flak from the usual suspects. A lot of people have an interest in making this a false dichotomy: either you’re uncritically on board with strong AGW, or you’re a ‘global warming denier’. (Which are ‘fighting words’ to this Jewish AGW agnostic here.) Just to show you we’re talking ideology here, not science.
- Rasmussen Reports (h/t realwest): percentage of likely voters who believe global warming is primarily due to one of the following causes: 50% long-term planetary trends, 34% human activity; 6% some other reason; 10% not sure. 32% thinks it is a very serious problem, 25% somewhat serious, 23% not very serious, 18% not at all serious. 59% consider it likely that scientists ‘cooked’ at least some research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. 71% say job creation higher priority than combating AGW.
- “Copenchange – the musical” by noted Pastafarian Snork/Earth2Moonbat
- And meanwhile, the Northeast is coping with as much as 2 feet of GoreFlakes™. C2 denizens “littleoldlady” and “robomonkey” reported live from Philly and DC, respectively, on coping with the snow. See also DC cop brings gun to snowball fight.
- Kenneth Anderson: Compenhagen [sic] as UN redistribution politics, not climate change substance. “At bottom, the question is one of legitimacy and what it means to say that a climate change deal requires, in Secretary General Ban’s words, an ‘equitable global governance structure’ to administer it, and the many, many, many things that apparently fall under its tent. What is this global governance? What makes it equitable and, therefore, legitimate? Is it legitimate to do a deal of global proportions, on climate change or anything else, and not involve everyone? If your issue is simply the substance of climate change policy, and not UN politics, then you don’t much care about these abstract issues of legitimacy, global governance, and the UN. Until the end of Copenhagen, in which it turns out that — given the breathtaking scope of things to be governed under the rubric of climate change, starting, really, with the whole of the global economy — that the meanings of global governance, legitimacy, and the UN matter after all. . . . That’s not a problem for me, because I ascribe minimal legitimacy to the UN and zero to the General Assembly and its members qua members. But for a large number of international law experts and devotees, among others, this is a problem.”
- UPDATE 1: Shady deals by UN climate change guru Rajendra Pachauri. See also “A liberal con worth billions” at the Stratasphere.
- And speaking of Strata, here he explains why he sees [strong] AGW is pure science fiction. We link, you decide.
- UPDATE 2: Roger Simon: “I have seen the future and it stinks“. “I saw it with my own eyes: COP15 was only peripherally about ‘climate change’ and almost entirely about UN hegemony.”
- And Dutch novelist Leon de Winter, who appears to be an AGW believer: “Mr. President, You Can’t Save the Economy and Save the Planet”
- more updates to come as the day progresses
<– Link to yesterday’s roundup —
— Link to tomorrow’s roundup –>