you Church of Global Warming advocates are wanting men to die. if some scientists come out with something that will prove your Holy Programs are faulty, you’ll decry them as heretics skeptics, and ignore what they say.

if i had a vision of mans demise, i would welcome anybody who wants to prove me wrong.  but that not like you AGW people.  you turned into a religion….

i like comparing you’re scientists to Nostradamus.  they both are predicting the future by looking at something that they believe will tell them the future.

and you, as members of the Church of Global Warming will offer all kinds of excuses why things don’t go your way. 

i think its funny!!!  LOL

Galbraith also wrote about the emergence of countervailing, or compensating, power in his 1983 book The Anatomy of Power. We increase the risk of a Margaret Atwood-esque future by not dealing with climate disruption straight on; there are plenty of misanthropes unlikely to remain sanguine about persistent ecological degradation or increased migration.

“Save the Planet” serves as (yet another) excuse to shift costs to the public; “We are all going to have to pay for this,” they have said and will say, and their prescription for the rest of us, the majority (you and me) is always the same: “The public must reduce its living standard, it must make due with less,”  all while the corporate/US government, scared as ever of democracy (wherein, no matter how much ill-gotten money you’ve stolen, you still just get one vote, same as the exploited, rented wage-slave, living hand-to-mouth) will produce the usual “we’re all in this together” American fairy-tale, and the solution will be the same solution as it is for every other “problem” they’ve decided upon: the furtherance in law and practice of the further consolidation of industry and private finance into government-protected private monopolies and trusts, corporate-government monstrosities like the CIA, the Fed, and the Lockheed-Martin-Mariettas and the Boeings and GEs which all live off the National Socialist public dole, where costs are socialized, but profits are privatized, all with the full force of law. There will be a way for large corporations to profit from lower- and middle-class tax revenue, or the real rulers won’t allow it to happen.  The recent government initiative of destruction of petroleum-burning automobiles in favor of other petroleum-burning automobiles was one of many examples of the shifting of costs to the public, in addition to being a “Peter robs Paul to pay Mary to pay Paul” bit of flim-flam.  What we had that was good yesterday, was bad today, and must be replaced with nmore consumer debt, a new (though artificial) purchase to keep the public dole to the auto finance corporations and their union-busted factories humming, all swirled about in the magic fairy-dust of finance.  What to do with an unemployed public but invite them to become futher indebted to the usury interest rates of the Company Store.  The public must continue to buy what it does not need with money it does not have so that we can continue to spend instead on killing our fellow (brown, poor) human beings over money and the means to make it (for the few), and contine the billions spent each year on corporate welfare programs, bail-outs, and tax write-offs.  “Social programs will have to be cut, budgets reduced and austerity measures imposed,” they will say.  Millions and billions will be diverted under the guise of the “balanced budget” shell game, fear will be whipped up so that those same billions will be used instead to pour into the bottomless pit of military and police spending, based as they are on Hollywood worst-case, chicken-little ‘chaos in the streets’ scenarios, and pudit pronounements of how we NEED government to “keep us safe,” from all of those bad (poor, brown) madmen out there, scared little bunnies that Americans are, so in need of protection. 

Samson, you are absolutely correct.  The planet will get along just find without people, no matter what nationality they called themselves, no matter what fights they had.  The planet will continue along just fine without us for a very long time.  What underlies this clamour among the talking monkeys is an attempt to distract from the salient fact:  mankind is a clear and present danger to itself because we still, throughout our whole history, have not learned how to behave properly to one another.

Primarily, one thing stands in the way:

“People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage.”
(John Kenneth Galbraith)

Has anyone figured out yet that the Democrats just have a different way of opposing Kyoto and climate change treaties?

With Bush and the Republicans, they of course give a full-blown, neo-luddite attack on anything that dares to challenge Exxon’s profits. There’s no doubt where the Republicans stand.  “Drill, baby, drill” leads to “Burn, baby, Burn” for the planet.

Since the mistaken assumption of American politics is that the Democrats oppose the Republicans, the natural belief is that the Democrats are on the other side.  But, when one looks closely, all one sees is different tactics when trying to oppose any international efforts to control climate change.

What we are seeing now is a replay of the Clinton administration during the Kyoto negotiations.  We can see that its the Americans who are opposing the calls for stronger action from Europe and the rest of the world.

We see the same pattern. The scientists who study the issue call for large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.  The leaders of Europe scale those back, and call for smaller cuts in emissions.  The US is then the group in the negotiation room that opposes those increases. 

Then of course, what we saw during Kyoto was that it was also the US that was pushing the loopholes that cripple any efforts.  All the carbon-trading and cap-and-trade schemes, you know, the ones that put our climate into the same hands of the trustworthy guardians of the marketplace that have done so well in protecting out economy.

Note that this article says nothing about the real issues under negotiations. Its all just PR about Obama being there at the end of the session.  The bad news for the planet is, it would be better off if the US wasn’t there at all.  Since no matter who the President is, the US takes the position of what’s good for Exxon is good for the world.

With the Clintons, Obama and the Democrats, its just a softer quieter way of trying to cripple and restrain any effort to save the humans on the planet.

Remember, its not about saving the planet.  The planet will be fine on the time scales it lives on.  What’s at stake is human life on the planet.