Sorry, I don’t know why I said “Teach”. It doesn’t matter anyway. You’re all the same. jk.

Yes, I read all two hundred plus pages of it. And yes, my assessment is quite accurate.

No, actually, even if you only read through pages 62 and 112, you are horrible at summarizing. Nowhere in there does it say that we will allow other countries to control our lives. That’s you inserting your fear-mongering.

You don’t think AGW is fact, but yet you continue to avoid my evidence that I’ve presented to you. If it’s so obviously bunk, you should be able to very easily refute every claim I’ve made.

Perhaps if these least developed countries weren’t mostly run by socialist dictators…

Ah… oversimplification. All of the least developed countries are run by dictators who can’t be trusted, therefore we shouldn’t enter into agreements with them. You raise an interesting point about whether the money received by SOME countries would reach the intended recipients, but do you have any proof for your assertion that they are all this way?

Care to provide an example, Reasic?

I see where you’re going with this, and your reasoning is flawed. There is a HUGE difference between agreeing to reduce our carbon footprint and giving another entity direct control over anything in our country. Nice try.

Yes, I read all two hundred plus pages of it. And yes, my assessment is quite accurate.

Starting with the premise that AGW is a fact. It is not. It begins from a faulty premise. Not “understanding” but rather a meme.

Perhaps if these least developed countries weren’t mostly run by socialist dictators, stealing the wealth from those who are actually providing an economy and handing it over to deadbeats (after skimming a bit off the top, of course) maybe they would not be so less-developed.

And you think that siphoning off a massive chunk of the US’s economy is going to help? Given the track record of the people who will be getting this money, I wouldn’t trust them with a jar of gasoline and a wet match.

Nonsensical. Really. Care to provide an example, Reasic? You seem so big on demanding them from others, put up or shut up. Name ONE aspect of our society that has NOTHING to do with fossil fuel or electricity or carbon dioxide. JUST ONE.

Which means that they get to eat our economy AND set whatever standards they see fit to make sure we halt our naughty ways.

Did you even read the pages in question? Yes, this treaty starts with the understanding that man is causing global warming, so they’ve lost you already. It is also understood that the least developed countries will be the most disadvantaged, as a result of climate change. Developing countries are also generally exempted from certain regulations, so that they have the chance to develop to a reasonable level.

…there is literally NO aspect of our lives that these governments will NOT have a say in…

Your fear-mongering is nonsensical, and is not based in fact. You clearly either didn’t read or didn’t understand the draft of the treaty that you saw.

The American public has NO SAY in this; this will all be determined by FOREIGN bodies. So ass-hats like Chavez, who has certainly shown how much he LURVS the US, will be getting a massive chunk of OUR money, and these people will be setting our Cap and Trade policies. Not our elected officials, not the American people.

Considering how much of our society can be affixed to climate hysteria, there is literally NO aspect of our lives that these governments will NOT have a say in; how warm or cold we keep our houses, what food we eat, what we can wear, what is being taught in our schools, what cars we can drive, IF we are allowed to drive, even how we USE THE BATHROOM. ALL of these things and millions of other things are DIRECTLY related to our use of fossil fuels and therefore falls under the plans listed in the Copenhagen treaty.

That specific enough for you, dipstick?

Let me ask you a question. If you were a scientist who has discovered through honest, rigorous research that the planet is warming due to human activity, what would you invest in? I don’t know what he’s invested in, but would it really prove anything? How about we stick to the data, which you have yet to provide to support your claims? You keep making baseless assertions about a cooling trend, fraudulent data, etc., but never with any evidence to back it up. Let’s look at the evidence and base our decisions on that, rather than red herrings about who’s invested in what.

If the planet is not warming, how do you explain the temp graph I provided from NASA? How do you explain the accelerating melting of ice sheets, glaciers and icecaps? How about rapid arctic sea ice decline and sea level rise?

If man is not at fault, how do you explain the fact that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen to levels not seen in over 650,000 (or more) years? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which means that more of it warms the earth. That’s basic atmospheric science. Yes, the earth has always gone through natural cycles, but it has never had carbon-producing humans living on it.

Please explain for me what, specifically, you disagree with.

You might also want to forget about seeing ANYthing from this conference based on fraudulent agw… Brazil, China, India and South Africa plan to walk out if the more advanced nations violate ANY of their NON-Negotiable demands.

Where in the plans are “foreign nations given a greater say in OUR laws”? What about the plans makes you think we’d be giving “sovereignty of our country over to people who are running their own countries into the ground”? Where does it say that anyone else “will be overriding the wishes of the American voters”?

Are you just talking in general about signing agreements with other countries? Are you generally against treaties and such, or do you have specific examples of how this could occur? That’s what bugs me most about you, Otter, and Teach. Youo’re all hot air. Where are the specifics? I guess you can just make up any claim you want, if you never have to back it up with evidence.

Otter,

Hansen hardly agrees with you. He thinks it doesn’t go far enough. He wants to see the major source of the problem (fossil fuel usage) specifically targeted in these talks, and he has a point. Talks like this are a compromise between nations, so there is a lot of give and take. Inevitably, there will be some dancing around the issue, rather than getting right to the source of the problem, so that certain countries don’t walk away. This is unfortunately how it must happen. If Hansen had his way, all of the major oil-producing countries would walk away. There has to be compromise to keep everyone at the table.

You can do your own google, though.

Have you read the Copenhagen plans, Reasic? Apparently not. Just keep trusting the Obamessiah, I’m sure it’ll all work out just fine.