Halloween Murder Mystery: Who is killing Copenhagen?

With premature obituary notices popping up all over, it’s probably time to ask: who is killing Copenhagen? Who is responsible for the slasher attacks on the United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen this December?

The wound have been oozing for a couple of weeks now, with the most recent and most worrying being revealed by the United Nations itself.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said last week that it is “unrealistic” to expect a binding treaty from Copenhagen. Janos Pasztor, director of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon’s Climate Change Support Team, followed up saying there was no time left to seal deals that will commit the world to actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This bit of pessimism caused such a stir that the secretary-general himself jumped out on Wednesday to resuscitate the Copenhagen corpse, saying - unconvincingly - that, “we are still keeping ambitious expectations and targets.” Then he redefined “success” to include a conference result that did NOT yield a legally binding agreement.


So, what zombie army is responsible for the world coming into a long-anticipated climate conference with no intention of making the long-delayed climate commitments?


Well, one scary picture might feature the face of Christopher Monckton, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and a poster boy for groundless climate change denial.

Lord Chris has no scientific background whatever (he graduated with a diploma in journalism) and yet reaps a fortune in speaker and consulting fees from “think” tanks that really don’t want to think about climate change. His most recent outing, a Halloween horror flick in its own right, was rendered on behalf of the Minnesota Free Market Institute. It’s a textbook example of the energy-industry sponsored climate confusion effort that Richard Littlemore and I have documented in our book Climate Cover-up.


The perpetrators, as in this case, are most often dressed in costume. Everyone knows you can’t believe oil and coal industry executives when they question climate change, so those execs fund front groups and think tanks to masquerade as credible experts. Sometimes they also set up phony front groups, like the one that the Astroturf champions at Bonner & Associates are in so much trouble over.


But the think tanks are around all the time, concealing the source of their funding and offering “independent” advice from behind that mask. Here’s a few of the most active:

American Enterprise Institute. AEI once offered to pay “experts” $10,000 to write papers that countered the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is a co-sponsor of the Heartland Institute’s annually climate deniers conference. AEI has received close to half a million from ExxonMobil. And former Exxon Chairman Lee Raymond sits on AEI’s board of directors.

Cato Institute. Cato is the main front for the most prolific climate denier,
Patrick Michaels, a man who featured prominently in the now famous Vampire memo. Cato is the second largest recipient of funding from Koch Industries - the second largest private corporation in the United States whose main business is refining oil.

Americans for Prosperity.
AFP has been running the “Hot Air” tour across America, bringing a hot air balloon to cities and small towns for an event at which they try to frighten small children by “exposing” what they say will be the massive costs and job losses that will result from global warming legislation. AFP is run by Tim Philips and is the third largest recipient of funding from Koch Industries.

Heartland Institute. Heartland’s main client seems to be big tobacco. It operates a
“Smokers’ Lounge” But apparently that’s not scary enough to Heartland also organizes an annual climate change denial conference in New York City. It is on record as having accepted funding from ExxonMobil, as well as major grants from Koch Industries.

Heritage Foundation.
Heritage is a D.C. granddaddy and a frequent funder of Dr. S. Fred Singer, a man who has denied the health risks of smoking, the risk of the ozone hole, the danger of asbestos, the hazards of DDT and, of course, the very existence of climate change. Heritage, with a budget of about $50 million a year, has received funding from from Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries and other fossil fuel companies.

American Petroleum Institute. API is an industry association, rather than a think tank, but it’s still immersed in the world of costumes and fake science. For example, in 1998, it sponsored the Global Climate Science Communication Action Plan, a strategy document outlining how to set up fake grassroots organizations and hire rent-an-expert spokesters like Fred Singer and Pat Michaels to sow confusion about climate science. This year, API ran phony “Energy Citizens” rallies this summer across the U.S., paying energy industry employees to dress up like regular Americans and “trick or treat” for weaker climate legislation.


American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. ACCCE is another more thinly disguised front group (they accidently put the name of their funding source in their actual title), but they are still capable of scary tactics. For example, they spilled $40 million during the last presidential election pretending that coal could be clean – sponsoring TV ad campaigns and paying people to dress up in “clean coal” costumes and try to get their pictures taken with politicians.


It is, of course, traditional for people to wander around on this particular weekend in masks and disguises. There should be a law against letting coal and oil company representatives do it all year around.


The plan seems clear:

Hammer these groups and think tanks until they lose all credibility and vanish.

Is victory imminent or is it more like Afghanistan?

You may need more troops. and there seems to be no shortage of soldiers for the opposition up there in the mountains.

Rick, you’re quite right, it’s a tough fight.

“There’s a sucker born every Minute”

And like PT Barnum, your side is all mouth, no facts.

I’m totally independent. I’m against everything. I could even be against myself. That, however would be wrong so I have no choice but to take sides with myself seeing as how I’m always right.

sure you might believe that too, but you’d just be wrong.

Contrarian sites are generally not all that conversational. They’re more like news sites. The ones that have comment sections tend to get over run with comments which leaves me out of the conversation pretty quick.

I’m not always critical but I see little benefit in just agreeing with everything in a given post. In my mind, the purpose of comment sections is to offer alternate views or to politely disagree with some part of the post.

Clapping is best left to Seals.

Mr. Hoggan,

Isn’t it more than a bit hypocritical of you to suggest Lord Monckton, The Third Viscount of Brenchley shouldn’t speak on climate change because of a lack of scientific credentials while not raising the same issue about Al Gore? Furthermore, only looking into the funding on one side of the debate solidifies your hypocrisy. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the work of Joanne Nova.


If money is perpetuating one side of the debate, it’s clearly the alarmists’ side.

On his Glenn Beck appearance Friday, Monckton challenged Gore to a debate. Will Gore continue to run like a chicken or finally face him? I’m sure your co-author Littlemore could give Gore some tips, he did so well against Monckton when he went up against him.


Rather than just wave you magic climate change wand and dismiss all of Monckton’s claims as groundless, why don’t you take them one by one.


Another classic case of an Al Gore Kool-Aid drinker attacking the man without attacking the science behind his claims.

your treading on hot coals.these guys are disciples of algore. check out the bio’s. btw, algore talking of an increase in sea level by 5,000 feet in just 5 or 10 years over in Dubai. (i made up the 5,000 but then again he made up the 220 feet. did he really say 220 feet?? ).And dont mention funding…algore and his $300,000,000 dont count. its only how much exxon spends and if you dont think second hand smoke makes your clothes smell or some crap like that… mark, wait for the ad hominem attacks on monckton…..BTW, what happened to the HITLER piece? i had footnoted replies about the one world government aspects of this movement. would love to see that conversation persist.

Well, if Al Gore claimed to be a scientist he’d be subject to the same criticism as Brenchley. Gore draws attention to the science. There’s a big difference. He got his Nobel for raising the alarm to a global threat, not for doing the science personally. Monckton, on the other hand, claims to have the scientific background to dispute the experts.

And please don’t invoke Joanne Nova. In terms of climate credibility, she’s right up there with Tim Ball.

This Monckton guy has some staying power and continues to get media exposure. I thought he was going to just fade out but maybe not. Doing Beck is pretty big in terms of exposure.

Beck’s high numbers show (surprisingly) that he gets viewers from across the political spectrum and pretty evenly dispersed too and now they’ve had the Monckton treatment.

How about a Beck show with Hoggan and Littlemore on this Climate Coverup thing? C’mon guys, make some calls, appeal to Beck’s desire to appear at least slightly even handed.

“attacking the science behind his claims”. There is NO science to attack in Moncktons output. He spews out an unvalidated bunch of facts, math, etc. To turn it into science it would have to relate to previous work, be submitted to a journal for publication, undergo the peer review of 3 anonymous reviewers, and be printed so it is available for the general science community to review.

Nobody can wade through every piece of vomit an unserious person tosses up. It takes time to pick out the errors in arithmetic, in concepts, in interpretation – and a willingness to tolerate the frustration of reading junk. Much more rewarding to read real science.

{Aside: speaking of frustrating: what is the matter with your apostrophe, Kevin and Richard?}

I would remind you that Lord Monckton shared the nobel peace prize with Al Gore for finding a mistake in the IPCC report. I would also say that scientific literature like Nature and Science are totally against publishing skeptical views of global warming. But if Monckton is such a hack, why won’t anybody debate him?

Monckton ‘shared’ the Nobel prize because he got himself a free ride as a supposed “expert reviewer”, meaning (in Monckton’s case) coming up with long discredited talking points.

And ever heard of “never argue with a fool”? Add to that that a debate isn’t about the facts alone, but very much a popularity contest. However much wrong Monckton may be, he does have a flair of presentation.

But I guess people like you also believe in creationism, because most evolutionists decline to debate creationists. And islam is the absolute truth, since the pope declined to debate Zakir Naik. Right?


Debate about science occurs in scientific journals, The ‘debate’ you and other denialists have in mind is a public spectacle which is intended to score points and sow confusion in the minds of the public.

Lord Bunkum and Glenn Beck lack any credible qualifications in climate science.
Al Gore is a former politician.

If Lord Bunkum and Glenn Beck are serious about promoting their ‘climate theories’ there can be no better way than to submit them to a peer-reviewed web of science journal like ‘Nature’ and get them published.

That would be the first hurdle. After that comes the response of the scientific community.

The fact that Lord Bunkum hasn’t tried, is because his ‘stuff’ is complete twaddle. But it’s good enough to fool people like you.

Try reading genuine science, not watching Glenn Beck or listening to Lord Bunkum.

Sorry to say, but knowing how the average “protestor” behaves, I think the proposed actions are actually too weak. Protest, fine. Peaceful protest, the right thing. But when was the last time we have seen a peaceful protest from self-proclaimed socialists? These protests *always* have led to deliberate violence by the loony extreme left wing that big meetings by governments attracts. Weed out those people first, then you can start complaining.

And I’m saying that as someone who really hopes something good comes out of Copenhagen, something beyond the ridiculous cap-and-trade with little actual reduction in CO2 emissions.

You mean like those undercover policemen who tried to incite peaceful protestors to commit violence at Montebello? http://www.cep.ca/press/cepnews_e.php?id=675

What happened at Montebello has been happening since the ’60s. Agent provocteurs inflitrate a group then committ violence, thus giving protestors a bad image. Works like a charm, as the media never question authority. It was just too obvious in Montebello to ignore.

The thing is, unless there is some violence the media mostly ignores protests (except right-wing protests about taxes, crime or gun control, or health care reform, etc.).

Yes indeed; such as the recent protest in Parliament. http://creekside1.blogspot.com/2009/10/yes-cbc-how-about-that-blood.html

Don’t confuse paul with facts VJ, he won’t read the links either. He’ll just stick his thumbs in his ears and go ‘la la la’. paul thinks the civil rights marches in the US south were violent because the left made them so. It was actually those damn Negros that beat themselves up, you know, just as it was the youth who clubbed themselves with batons at the DNC in ‘68, and probably a leftist who shot MLK, and no doubt it was students who shot themselves at Kent State. Obviously it was another native who shot Dudley George at Ipperwash, and leftist punks who fired tear gas and rubber bullett at other protesters in Seattle. All these people then blamed it on others!!!! Who knew that so much self-inflicted violence could promote the leftist cause so well!

Oh don’t try an equate the petty thuggery often on display by today’s cretinous left when they protest and the great civil rights movement of the past. Today’s left is not in the same league.

People who were involved with the civil rights movement were also called ‘petty thugs’ back in the day. Some things never change.

How DARE you refer to the civil rights movement? It (mostly) had non-violence, including against inanimate objects, as a principle.

What’s been happening since the ’60s is leftish groups always blaming their own violent tactics on others. Throwing those young thugs out of Parliament was the correct thing to do.

…self-styled anti-fascists and anarchists, who have violence as their trademark. You know who they are, and merely want to divert the subject.

Marco, it isn’t VJ who’s trying to divert the subject, it’s you. VJ was simply responding to your innuendos. If you can’t back up your wild accusations of what you deem “deliberate violence” and “violence as their trademark” with any real world specific examples then don’t expect to be taken seriously. Saying, “You know who they are…” is just a cop out.

…and experienced first-hand how ‘autonomous’ groups invariably caused violence, and were subsequently hailed on their websites for doing so. It’s the main reason I now very carefully pick in which demonstrations I participate: as soon as there is even a hint of anti-globalisation, I don’t even bother, because there WILL be ‘autonomous’ groups causing violence. I also invariably, and very sadly, see that counter-protests against extreme right organisations result in violence…by the counter protestors. And then these counter-protestors claim the extreme right is violent. They’re peas in the same pot, and we should start calling them out on that.

How do you know those ‘autonomous’ groups weren’t seeded with undercover cops? And what ‘violence’ are you talking about? Breaking windows isn’t violence. I’ve never seen an autonomous group website where someone was hailed for injuring, maiming or killing someone. Sometimes AntiFa groups will brag about a scuffle with neo-nazis, but that’s about it. As for anti-globalization, I was in Seattle, and I can assure you all the actual physical violence was at the hands of cop thugs.

Somehow I seriously doubt you have a problem with violence anyway. Police violence is just fine isn’t it? But if a protestor breaks an inanimate object, you denounce and shun them.

Protests that descend into anarchy are just stupid anyway. Police violence is usually just an over reaction to a very difficult situation where protesters show no respect for anything. People who think they are bigger and better than the police and the system of laws and authorities are always total and complete losers that are a cancer on organized society.

The problem is precisely that protests don’t turn into anarchy, for if they did, there is a chance that freedom could spread and emancipate larger portions of society still trapped in authority. People who think they have the right to force laws upon the rest of society through institutionalized systems of violence and terror are always total and complete losers that are a cancer on health and freedom.

Another assinine comment. Thanks Rick. There are a lot of crazy guys with knives out there. Probably none of them are anarchists. But whatever you have to tell yourself to make it through the day. I know how difficult it must be to fence sit and not believe in anything (your words). Going green is “just too hard”, nothing can be done about AGW anyway, heck, might as well not even get out of bed. I’m actually surprised you made it to your computer.

you need to lower your expectations if you think a bunch of semi organized anti law zealots are going to bring about anything good. The trouble with weakening or removing the authority of the police and the government is that all the bad guys will take advantage. The Al Capones of the world will take over with machine guns. It’s a ridiculous notion that you can bring about peace and security and ecological harmony without law and authority.

It’s against all history that you can bring it about at all, but the idea of doing it by anarchy is just astounding.

The banks have security guards for a reason. There are a lot of potential bad guys out there.

It appears Peter Moss DOES agree with using violence and terror to get the will of the anarchists done, even though anarchism is a fringe-ideology. Start realising that most people are NOT anarchist, and become a REAL anarchist: those who wish to live under government rule should be allowed to, without having to constantly defend their possessions against yet another group of anarchists that considers breaking stuff “appropriate” to get their ideas across.

For most people there is hardly another interpretation of that ideology as “violent” and “autocratic” (My way or no way).

Marco’s drive-by smear tactics are getiing pretty desperate. He erects the anarchist-as-violent-bomb-thrower cartoon, hoping people won’t notice he has nothing behind his accusations. And now I am supposed to be some kind of hypocrite? What is really delusional is believing that anyone who doesn’t wish to live under government rule currently has a choice. There’s your ‘my way or the highway’, not the strawman Marco sets up. I hear Marco crying over the loss of bank windows, truly heartbreaking. But then, if Marco is for government he must be for violence, so he of all people should understand.

Make that personal experience. You are now trying to divert the discussion, but the fact remains that I have first-handed experienced how supposed protesters turned into a violent mob, and in most cases those that started the violence were self-proclaimed anarchists. And I got myself identified with that same mob, just because I decided I needed to protest actions of my government but wanted to do so NON-violently.

And yes, I cry over the loss of bank and shop windows, when there is a protest against neo-nazis or globalisation. Why do you defend the destruction of private property that has nothing to do with the focus point of the demonstration?

And let me add that I don’t like destroying public property either. As a working citizen I have paid taxes that have been used to construct that public property. You guys could learn a lot from Mohandas Gandhi and the art of protesting.

Suppose you are at a student protest, see several of your fellow protestors throw bricks at policemen, and then see those same fellow protestors in your university.

Suppose you are at a silent protest against a radical right party, and see a few young guys you know as squatters come in and start a fight with the radical right party members.

Do you then just dismiss it as “seeded”? Sorry, I don’t.

There’s a few other examples, too, but here I was not present myself:
Many a year ago, several protestors threw a smoke bomb into a building where a far-right party had a meeting. A fire resulted in big trouble, and one seriously injured member of the party. To this day, those responsible (although no one explicitely says who threw the smoke bombs) say that it wasn’t intended, but that it was “all in the game”.

Several members of protest groups have, years later, told about how they rioted themselves, throwing stones at people, breaking windows of banks and shops, etc.

I abhor ANY violence, and I sure do not approve of police violence. But I also do indeed denounce protestors who consider breaking inanimate objects, often other people’s lifelihoods, “normal”. I guess you don’t mind if a protest rally goes through your street, and someone decides to throw a brick through your window…(somehow I actually doubt that).

When Exxon “donates” money to an organization that is active in denying global warming, the connection between higher levels of carbon dioxide and higher temperatures, the fact that what is raising carbon dioxide levels are our emissions, the seriousness of climate change, etc., you can be pretty sure that the reason for their donations lies in the denial. This isn’t true of the Scaifes, Kochs or Coors as they used some of the very same organizations (as well as plenty of other organizations which have little or nothing to do with fossil fuel) to push the religious right in US politics. (The Bradleys are much more invested in libertarianism, and from what I can see have little to do with the religious right – except when it is convenient.) Nevertheless I believe it is instructive to look at what their foundations have donated to organizations in the Exxon Secrets database…

I took the list of organizations that the Scaife Foundations have donated money to between 1985 and 2006 (according to Media Transparency – their website is down, but it is still in www.archive.org )and checked it against the list of organizations in the Exxon Secrets database.

The following is what I found:

Aggregated Grants of Scaife Foundations
Includes: Scaife Family Foundation, Carthage Foundation, Allegheny Foundation and Sara Scaife Foundation

For the period from 1985 to 2006…

1. A Total of 41 organizations found in the Exxon Secrets database where each organization received at least $100,000.

2. Number of individuals belonging to multiple organizations according to the database? 148.

3. The total grants for all causes by Scaife Foundations for this period was $471,475,733 according to Media Transparency. Looking only at organizations that received $100,000 or more over this period that were in the Exxon Secrets database I have $121,418,540. As such, while only 41 of the 434 organizations that received total grant amounts of at least $100,000 were in the Exxon Secrets database, thus constituting only 9.45% of the 434 organizations, 27.75% of the grant money went to organizations that are in the Exxon Secrets database.


The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

27 organizations on the Exxon list have received $100,000 or more from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation from 1985-2005, with 95 individuals belonging to 2 or more of those organizations. The grand total given by the foundation to these 27 organizations for this period is $64,707,196.


Aggregated Grants from the Charles G. Koch, David H. Koch, and Claude R. Lambe Foundations

20 organizations on the Exxon list for have received $100,000 or more from the Koch/Lambe foundations from 1986-2004. Total number of individuals belonging to 2 or more of these organizations in the Exxon Secrets DB is 77. Total given: $36,815,538.


Coors Castle Rock Foundation

18 organizations on the Exxon list for having received $100,000 or more from the Castle Rock foundation from 1995-2006. A total of 69 individuals on the Exxon list that belong to 2 or more of these organizations. Total given $7,068,760.

The total from these sets of foundations: $230,010,034

You really should get a hobby. Wasting time tracking down the pennies Exxon has given to organizations seems like a waste of time when Big Green has spent far more pushing environmental alarmism. In one year alone, Greenpeace, a single organization, spends more on AGW advocacy then Exxon has spent on (supposedly) its opposite in 10 years! Following the money leads to Big Green.

Tim has listed donations, not money spent related to AGW. And on that count, Big Green vastly outspends any corporate entities. Greenpeace alone vastly outspends any corporation concerning AGW every single year.

Looking at things that way, paul, those who make charitable contributions to Greenpeace presumably aren’t spending any money, either. Greenpeace is – as are the foundations to which Exxon is making its “charitable contributions.” And on that count a great deal more gets spent on denialist propaganda than the science or the literature promoting the science. Besides, do you have any numbers on what Greenpeace spends – specifically on global warming? I gave you a few big numbers – and I added those up from a great many smaller numbers – personally.

And incidentally, the comment of mine that you were initially responding to wasn’t about Exxon’s “charitable donations.” It was about the “charitable donations” of a few billionaires – the Scaifes, Kochs, Bradleys and Coors – made through their “charitable foundations” to other “charitable foundations.” It is a shell game meant to whitewash dirty money – just like the mob.

Please see for example: “According to Ernest Hearst, Chip Berlet, and Jack Porter, two writers who helped uncover Scaife’s funding techniques were scholar Karen Rothmeyer and journalist David Warner, who were the first to note that Scaife funded conservative projects in a very strategic manner to maximize the propaganda value of his dollars. Scaife accomplishes this by simultaneously funding several different projects at different groups on the same topic. According to Rothmeyer, the result is that in matters of defense and economic policy Scaife has helped to foster the illusion that there is a far greater diversity of views than actually exists.”

RightWeb: Richard Mellon Scaife

And all but the Bradleys were largely responsible for funding the religious right in the US – getting it started and keeping it going. Scaife in particular. But there at least they had some help from Ahmanson and the DeVos family. They have a lot of money, paul, and they are willing to spend it if it means that they can decide which way the United States turns and thereby serve their interests and direct the course of world events.

Money which is getting spent is getting spent. Just looking at the four families I was looking at over $230,000,000 – nearly a quarter of a billion dollars worth. And thanks to a lot of detective work on the part of a great many individuals we know where much of it is coming from.

You took a lump of money and did nothing with it. Greenpeace alone spends over $100 million A YEAR of environmental matters, and $25 million A YEAR alone on AGW advocacy. Nobody can touch those sums and we haven’t even gone into the spending by hundreds of other environmental groups. Big Green rules.

That would mean that backers of the United States Climate Action Partnership are just as opposed to binding climate legislation as the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, or the American Petroleum Institute.

Indeed, many companies are members of both the ACCCE, which works to kill climate legislation via dishonest tactics like those of Bonner & Associate, and USCAP, which attempts to control the actual climate legislation that is being written - and in so doing so, they’ve watered the legislation down to the point that it doesn’t even meet Kyoto Protocol requirements, which were weak to begin with.

Some may be startled - isn’t USCAP for climate legislation? However, this is a standard tactic in California’s energy wars. We’ve seen many bill that were portrayed as promoting renewable energy, when in fact, the bills had little technical details that actually undermined renewable energy - for example, the “Million Solar Roofs” bill in California actually undercut new solar installations, because it took away rebates and net metering. Likewise, the latest solar-feed-in tariff program has rates so low that it won’t work as advertised.

These dishonest tactics are used because every single poll shows that Americans favor the rapid development of renewable energy by a 75% margin. The only sector that disagrees is the fossil fuel sector, its advertisers, PR experts and lobbyists, and their financial backers and beneficiaries.

Development of renewable energy is needed to replace fossil fuels, entirely - and there’s no doubt that this can be done, from a technical perspective. However, government agencies are not starting a new renewable energy research program - the many calls for “clean energy” made by DOE officials seems to really be calls for “clean coal” - and if you follow the money, you see that coal & oil subsidies in the Obama Administration outweigh solar & wind subsidies by a factor of ten or so - which is better than the Bush Administration, where the subsidy ratio was about a thousand to one in favor of fossil fuels, but it still a gross distortion of energy markets.

If solar and wind were allowed to compete on an even playing field, they’d beat coal and oil hands down. Most of the fossil fuel money spent on various PR tactics is really aimed at perpetuating this situation - “grassroots organizing” financed by billionaires, recruitment of “expert scientists to speak on our behalf”, recruitment of sympathetic reporters at leading newspapers to spin climate stories in our favor, etc. etc.

One of their main tactics, one that climate activists have fallen for, is to focus on the end-of-the-pipeline, i.e., carbon emissions, rather than the front of the pipeline, i.e. fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.

Without an active program to eliminate both fossil fuel combustion and deforestation and replace those energy and material sources with renewable and recyclable ones, all efforts to slow CO2, CH4 and N2O growth in the atmosphere are doomed to failure.

Thus, let’s drop the misleading term “carbon emissions” - every time you breathe, for example, you are emitting CO2 that your body produced as it metabolized sugar - but since that sugar was photosynthesized from atmospheric CO2 by a plant, there is no net change - in goes from the air to the plant to the animal and back to the air, zero sum, renewable and recyclable.

That’s not how fossil carbon emissions work - the carbon goes from stable geological deposits to the engine to the air - and thus, atmospheric CO2 increases.

It’s a critically important point that the media refuses to discuss - they just stick to “carbon emissions” and “clean energy” as the be-all and end-all. Seriously, when was the last time any media figure talked about eliminating all fossil fuel combustion and replacing that with renewable energy? Most scientists working on climate will tell you that this is what needs to be done - but the media can’t accept it.

This is because the same financial interests that control the fossil fuel corporations also exert significant control over the media corporations. Recall how CNN’s entire science team was fired after they started doing accurate coverage of global warming science?

We’ll probably have to have an antitrust movement directed at the media in order to break up the conglomerates - and then we might see scientifically accurate reporting again from U.S. media again, instead of the endless parade of industry-financed skeptics that is the current norm.

It’s people like you that are the reason Copenhagen is going to fail. Not only are you anti-corporate, you are anti-Western.

As the recently released Suzuki/Pembina report shows, reducing CO2 emissions will result in massive dislocation to Canada’s economy. As Canadians, we are not yet prepared to go that down that path.

paul s. writes, “It’s people like you that are the reason Copenhagen is going to fail. Not only are you anti-corporate, you are anti-Western.”

Perhaps. But do you have anything with which to back up these charges? All I see above is someone who is dissatisfied with the fossil fuel industry and the corporate media – and who believes that anti-trust may be the only way to get some good reporting from the latter. People on both the left and the right have considered bringing anti-trust against corporate media before – suggested that it was no longer keeping the public informed, but had turned news into entertainment – or reflected the interests of shareholders. There is nothing particularly broad or sweeping against corporations per se in any of this, let alone anti-Western.

Do you see something else, or were you simply arguing ad hominem?
paul s states, “As the recently released Suzuki/Pembina report shows, reducing CO2 emissions will result in massive dislocation to Canada’s economy.”

Fortunately I managed to find a copy:

Climate Leadership, Economic Prosperity
Final Report on an Economic Study of Greenhouse Gas Targets and Policies for Canada

I believe you meant page 3, where it states, “The analysis by M.K. Jaccard and Associates shows that with strong federal and provincial government policies, Canada can meet the 2°C emissions target in 2020 and still have a strong growing economy, a quality of life higher than Canadians enjoy today, and continued steady job creation across the country.”

No, that doesn’t seem quite right.

Perhaps you meant page 4, where it states, “The analysis shows that Canada’s economy is projected to continue growing steadily under the policies needed to meet the 2°C target. With the implementation of our policy package, Canada’s GDP is projected to grow 23 per cent between 2010 and 2020, or an average of 2.1 per cent annually, while meeting the 2°C emisssions target. By comparison, under business as usual conditions, Canada’s GDP is projected to grow 27 per cent between 2010 and 2020, or an average of 2.4 per cent annually, with GHG emissions in 2020 rising to 47 per cent above the 1990 level. This means that when meeting the 2°C target, Canada’s economy in 2020 is 3.2 per cent smaller than under business as usual.”

Probably not. Do you have some other passage in mind?
paul s writes, “As Canadians, we are not yet prepared to go that down that path.”

Well, it certainly seems that you are not yet prepared to do so. Then again it appears honesty is somewhat beyond your current purview.

Somehow you missed the part of the Suzuki/Pembina report that shows western Canada suffering disproportionately from the policies, or the billions of dollars annually that would be sent overseas. You may have missed it but Canadians haven’t, which is why we will be pressing the Pause button at Copenhagen.

Lastly, when did Suzuki and Pembina become economists? Shouldn’t we talk to qualified experts about this? Why wasn’t their work peer-reviewed?