Fortunately for humanity and the civilization that sustains it, Barack Obama stayed true to his record of incompetence and failure, messing up the talks at Copenhagen. The talks have ended with nothing more than yet another agreement to meet again in a few years’ time. His last ditch instructions to Hillary Clinton, which led to her offering $100,000,000,000 of taxpayer dollars each year to nations hard hit by climate change could not band-aid the gaping gash that is the rift between developing and developed nations.

The benefit is a delay in the implementation of draconian laws that will impose additional taxes and controls under the guise of limiting carbon dioxide emissions.  This unprecedented control of the means of production will literally cripple small businesses and destroy the productivity of the world.  Socialism, ala Castro and Chavez, are glorified by global warming radicals in the most bizarre manner and even suggest that totalitarianism and loss of liberty are a desirable state for mankind.

Why does the global warming agenda appeal to Marxists and Communists?  Why was Hugo Chavez revered at Copenhagen with calls to end capitalism?  

At this point there is very little doubt that the climate change agenda is about subsidizing socialism and motivating communism.

It has marked the beginning of the landslide that is collapsing the whole AGW imposture. The pseudo-science of global warming is a global laughing stock and Copenhagen is a farce. In the warmist camp the Main Man is a railway engineer with huge investments in the carbon industry. That says it all. The world’s boiler being heroically damped down by the Fat Controller. Al Gore, occupant of the only private house that can be seen from space, so huge is its energy consumption, wanted to charge punters $1,200 to be photographed with him at Copenhagen. There is a man who is really worried about the planet’s future.

Truly.

Obama's statements are certain spin, hollow and empty.  However, there is a great deal of rationality in not committing to destroy the US economy for the sake of a crisis that is based upon conjecture:

When your attempt at recreating the Congress of Vienna with a third-rate cast of extras turns into a shambles, when the data with which you have tried to terrify the world is daily exposed as ever more phoney, when the blatant greed and self-interest of the participants has become obvious to all beholders, when those pesky polar bears just keep increasing and multiplying – what do you do?

You stop and do nothing… you commit no resources.  The climate change radicals will decry such action but it is hard to take such blatant hypocrisy seriously:

Not many people understand climate change. But they can recognise hypocrisy when they see it, and are also likely to count their spoons whenever wild-eyed politicians invoke the impending end of the world.

On Tuesday, Prince Charles flew to Copenhagen to attend the climate change summit, where he delivered a keynote speech.

He informed his audience that 'the world has only seven years before we lose the levers of control'. Not at all long, then.

Of course the Prince, who last year said we have only 50-days to save the world, flew a private get that generated an estimated 6.4 tons of carbon dioxide (5.2 tons more than if he had used a commercial flight).  Stephen Glover describes the fear mongers:

Show me a climate control zealot and I can often show you a hypocrite, and a hypocrite, moreover, who speaks in apocalyptic terms about the world coming to an end – at a time not long hence and usually implausibly specific – if the rest of us do not immediately curb our lifestyles so as to produce fewer greenhouse gases.

The double standards and the grotesque exaggeration go hand in hand.

Updated:  here's the spin:

To the gasps of the audience, former VP Al Gore gave alarming statistics whie quoting scientists at the climate change summit:

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

There was only on problem, Gore's statements were false:

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

You might remember that Gore also dismissed the Climategate emails, 

Al Gore says the Climate-gate e-mails, which some say impugn global warming science, are silly and dated: "I haven't read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old." About the e-mails, Gore used the "10 years old" line three times in recent interviews.

Unfortunately (for Gore), this statement was also false:

Reports indicate the earliest e-mail in Climate-gate was sent March of 1996, but the most recent was less than one month old. E-mails discussing the "recent lack of warming" were sent in October of this year. And the note sent by climate research unit director Phil Jones asking colleagues to delete e-mails was sent in May of last year.

I have to wonder how Al Gore expected to get away with these erroneous statements?  Perhaps he was use to acting upon the reputations of a small group of conspirators, the ClimateGate scientists, who enjoyed immense respect, admiration, prestige and money.  Gore trumpeted their wares and governments funded their research.  Millions and millions were spent. Now, however, the illusion has been shattered and gross exaggerations are no longer par for the course.

What's terribly inconvenient (for taxpayers) is Al Gore's inconvenient loot.

Washington DC: The United Nations announced today it is permanently banning thousands of accredited non-governmental organizations* from the COP-15 climate conference in Copenhagen.



The restriction was announced today outside the Copenhagen conference center after several thousand accredited NGO conference delegates, including three from the National Center for Public Policy Research, waited outside for eight hours or longer in 32-degree F temperatures for admission.



NGOs apparently are being banned because the United Nations accredited 45,000 people for a building with a capacity of 15,000, although the stated reason was "security concerns." The "security concerns" may be related to the fact that, after waiting several hours in the cold, delegations began to chant, "Let us in! Let us in!"



"To be an "accredited" or "admitted" NGO to a COP conference, NGOs must apply months in advance, and typically only make travel plans to attend after receiving complete credentials from the United Nations," said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, an accredited COP-15 NGO organization that is as of now banned from the conference. "To give credentials to 45,000 people while choosing a building that holds 15,000 people is insane, though the United Nations, to be fair, has never been known for competence."



"What makes this an even greater travesty," said Ridenour, " is the COP-15 conference ostensibly is trying to find ways to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. If 30,000 people fly to Copenhagen for no reason, doesn't that put unnecessary greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?"



Ridenour has formally asked the U.N., which is permitting some NGOs to have many delegates inside while others are permitted none, to limit each NGO to one representative as long as space limitations remain a concern.



"Some of these NGO delegations are from rich countries like our own," said Ridenour, "but for some NGOs, raising the funds to attend a conference in Copenhagen is a real financial hardship. The least the U.N. can do is let in at least one member of these delegations so all of their money won't be wasted."



For more information, visithttp://www.nationalcenter.org

Let me restate the reason for this negotiation, since in recent weeks there has been a concerted fight back against the notion that such a negotiation is even necessary. It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege.

It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity. Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act.

Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible. Also the same science is telling us that time is running out. So action has to be now.

The two statements above are contradictory with one suggesting the science doesn’t need to be “as certain as proponents allege” and the other asserting the science supports and motivates what proponents allege.  I also found revealing Blair’s assertion that as a “matter of precaution” it is time to act.

The speech uses the potential for crisis to motivate action rather than crisis itself.  Just the potential for climate change should be enough to empower government to seize control of the means for production, economic output, reproduction decisions, and social conduct of its citizens.  Given the incredible impact draconian legislation will have on the economy and the freedom of individuals around the world I would suggest we err on the side of liberty rather than fear.

Climate Justice apparently means international law restricting freedom, controlling the number of kids you have and what you eat, and decreasing productivity.  ClimateGate has eroded our confidence in so-called Climate Scientists and should be enough to stop these misguided global warming fanatics from demanding a global tyranny.  Never-the-less, nearly 1,000 were detained Saturday in a mass rally.  It should be obvious that these people are not acting rationally:

Hundreds of youths dressed in black threw bricks and smashed windows as at least 30,000 people demonstrated in the centre of the city as world leaders debate global warming.
The rioters, whose faces were covered, went on the rampage in the heart of the city, prompting swift arrests as some 50 policemen in riot gear intervened.

Demonstrators were forced to the ground and then bundled into vans.

Police said those arrested were members of militant groups from northern Europe known as Black Blocs, who were accused of provoking street violence during a Nato summit in the French city of Strasbourg last April.

Great, the violent protesters are looking out for our best interest by smashing windows and rampaging.  Frankly, according to Lord Monckton, this was much more like a Hilter youth rally than a peaceful demonstration – shout down the opposition and intimidate: