Copenhagen Crash: Danish Text Has Socialists at Each Other’s Throats

j0437315The British newspaper the Guardian reported a bombshell from Copenhagen today as a leaked document known as the “Danish text” revealed plans by “rich” nations (i.e. those nations that were smart enough to adopt free-market democracies to produce tremendous wealth for themselves…before stupidly moving to embrace counterproductive socialism) to turn plans for a UN climate treaty on it’s head.

The Guardian now reports talks are in “disarray.”  What a shame (not).

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol’s principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act.

Imagine that: “rich” countries don’t want to turn into Third-World cesspools.  Perhaps President Obama and other leaders in the West are slightly smarter than I’ve given them credit for (even if it was driven by the socialist elite nest-feathering instinct).  Although that “circle of commitment” business certainly sounds creepy enough to fit this Orwellian bunch (are secret handshakes in blood involved?).

If socialists really want equality as they claim, why shouldn’t the dirty nations–which have so far been given a pass–have to trade places and now toe the line?

Really, if we are to believe the silly hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming and accept that our emissions are about to cook our lovely planet, everybody should be cutting emissions, not just the evil “rich” countries.

But of course it isn’t about equality with socialists, is it?  It isn’t really about saving the planet with socialists, is it?

It’s about demonizing the free market, punishing capitalism, consolidating power over the masses, and securing as many creature comforts for the ruling elites as possible, isn’t it?

I just love it when their duplicitousness is exposed, don’t you?

I’ll love it even more in 2010 and 2012 when most of these socialists are gone from our government and our freedom is no longer in the gun sights of these people.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark
  • brianrutledge
    Science and politics usually mix like oil and water. The problem with us lay people declaring we know one way or the other if anthropomorphic global warming is true, is that none of us has a complete understanding of the science. Therefore, we rely on 'hand-me-down' information that may or may not be true. I personally am a skeptic about man-induced global warming , but could well be wrong.Gonna wait some more to try and form an opinion if possible.

    Unlike evolution, which is a fact, I will continue being patient on this issue and will also refuse to be intimidated or influenced by the 'sky is falling ' Al Gore types. Heck, maybe we should simply measure the hot air emanating from him. Bet that would be good for a degree or two of temperature elevation
  • You don't have to be a scientist to realize AGW is a load of hogwash; common sense alone relating to solar activity and historical climate change is more than sufficient.

    (And evolution theory may just have less scientific support than AGW theory--definitely not "fact")
  • brianrutledge
    Like I say, I am very skeptical of AGW, but don't claim to understand all the science behind solar activity, oceanic CO2 exchange etc., etc. , so it would be arrogant of me to simply call it hogwash.Same thing was once said about the germ theory. Many derided it when first proposed. The politicos trying to use AGW as a self-serving advantage are hogwash indeed.

    Evolution is different. Afraid it is so established now that unless someone can disprove it, it is now a fact. Remember, in science, facts are not absolutes, but are what is held as current knowledge until disproved. That is what the Discovery Institute and the Institute of Creation Reseach want to do scientifically, but so far haven't.
  • Kinda like bloodletting to cure people of illnesses was "fact" until disproved. AGW "science" and evolution "science" are on a par with that "scientific fact."

    In other words, a commonly accepted fallacy, with acceptance enforced by peer pressure, with little regard to the truth.
  • brianrutledge
    The bloodletters of yesteryear did feel it was fact. If the patient got better, then it worked. If the patient died, then they would claim it was an act of God. Wish us oft sued docs today could use that one in court !

    My only point is that even if some one-eyed,autocratic Mongolian savage was pushing AGW, I would still have to be deeply knowledgeable about both scientific sides of the argument to make an informed decision. It is an area of science that I personally know little about, so that's why I use the word skeptical. Biology and evolution are subjects I am quite a bit more comfortable with and personally believe evolution to be fact.

    If I had the last say on whether the AGW agenda should be pushed, I would say 'absolutely not.Let me study it and I'll get back with you in 10 or 20 years'
  • I would say at the very least let's continue to study it and revisit any thoughts of action on it in several years.

    But since, as you've pointed out before, since strictly speaking we can never know something with absolute certainty, I'll settle for the "pretty darn convincing" historical and scientific data (along with common sense) which tells me this is a load of hooey....and press on with the business of protecting my freedom, my prosperity and my country.
  • D. King
    Socialists at Each Other’s Throats.

    I'm shocked! Lies and under handed deals? Say it ain't so, not at Hoaxenhagen.
blog comments powered by Disqus