First, he's never been a leader. Not on the stimulus, not on health care, not on any substantial works. Never. He leaves the heavy lifting to others. That has been his political MO in The Illinois Senate, The US Senate and now as President. Secondly, it's not just the US engaged in a hopeless and utopian notion that the global community can act on climate change or any other undertaking. Countries go their own way in their best interests, to wit, those countries that cheated on the UN food-for-oil plan.

    Now you are talking about taxes and money,seams more down to a point then just saying,,;
The steps they're taking in Copenhagen can't/won't be undone.
That to me Sir, is pure propaganda BS !
And futher more,the texts had clauses that made it possible to reduce figures if need was reduced.
But no need to worry,its all down the drain anyway,thanks to China man and some oil producing countries + Mr Obamas unwillingness to step up and be the Super Hero,some of you guys voted for !
As for corruption,its well spread any where there's cash,that is why I never have or never will give any,if not for animals.People that care for animals tends to be more decent than others,is my understanding and if 10 cents out of the dollar makes it into the kitteh bowl I'm happy !  Merry Christmas and may the oceans never rise !
(but just to be on the safer side I have put my summer house up for sale )

Please feel free to post any money (or tax) that they have returned or reversed. They're criminals. Here's one many, many examples.

   As I am one that has been following the talks,I can assure you ,,,that statement is nothing but
   pure,,  BS ! regards !  

   Now I know,,just saw his speech,,he came to to the public !

isle, efficiency is great, we all should do it.

The problem is that they're not looking at all of the evidence.

The steps they're taking in Copenhagen can't/won't be undone.

Regards

I agreed with your base point that people have agendas. But established science from many different fronts is all lined up on this one. Bring some new evidence or let's move along on the solution.

Note that I think the cap & trade is a crap solution.

Also note that I think guys like T. Boone Pickens really get it. He sees the change coming. He's an oilman who has a vested interest in keeping us on oil. But he's making the shift. Why? Because he thinks he can make money in the new paradigm. He's working out the kinks and will have a functioning system in time to make money while his competitors will still be figuring out what to copy.

I'm pretty sure I want to be on the leading edge of this one. So much so that I'm reworking my career to put me in a position to do things with energy efficiency and innovation. I work in a HUGELY energy intensive field, and I know we are going to have to change. I don't want to be one of those CEOs lined up in front of congress someday answering the question "You had all the evidence on your desk, WTF did yo uthink was going to happen? "

I'd rather be leading the charge for industry 2.0. And if I happen to save the planet along the way then yippee for me. If not, at least I'm not one of the guys upstream on the river bank pissing away.

I agreed with your base point that people have agendas. But established science from many different fronts is all lined up on this one. Bring some new evidence or let's move along on the solution.

Note that I think the cap & trade is a crap solution.

Also note that I think guys like T. Boone Pickens really get it. He sees the change coming. He's an oilman who has a vested interest in keeping us on oil. But he's making the shift. Why? Because he thinks he can make money in the new paradigm. He's working out the kinks and will have a functioning system in time to make money while his competitors will still be figuring out what to copy.

I'm pretty sure I want to be on the leading edge of this one. So much so that I'm reworking my career to put me in a position to do things with energy efficiency and innovation. I work in a HUGELY energy intensive field, and I know we are going to have to change. I don't want to be one of those CEOs lined up in front of congress someday answering the question "You had all the evidence on your desk, WTF did yo uthink was going to happen? "

I'd rather be leading the charge for industry 2.0. And if I happen to save the planet along the way then yippee for me. If not, at least I'm not one of the guys upstream on the river bank pissing away.

Modern science is open to contradictory evidence.  I'd like to see some scientifically prepared contradictory evidence for climate change though....there has been a lot that I can pick holes in and I don't even have a degree, or study the right discipline.

 
Science does not work on argument by authority, it works on argument by evidence. John Stossel saying outrageous things doesn't make him wrong any more than Michael Mann faking tree ring data makes him wrong.

He makes one good point in particular (and if you're concerned that John Stossel isn't a climate scientist and isn't qualified to make such an observation, unwind your knickers—it isn't his observation, he's just reporting it): historical CO2 levels in the atmosphere really do lag temperature rises. This isn't even controversial among climate scientists who support the anthropogenic climate change model.

Anyone who works with physical laws can tell you that correlation is not causation. Yes, CO2 levels correlate with temperature fluctuations...but the temperature changes first. That means that the temperature changes caused the CO2 changes (by, for instance, warming the oceans, reducing their ability to hold dissolved gasses) rather than the other way around. So when Al Gore points to CO2 levels and says they are high in comparison to recent geological history (which is true) and says the earth's average temperature is rising (which is also true) and concludes that the CO2 caused the temperature rise he might well be wrong. Thousands of years of climate data would say he is. And if that historical trend has reversed (ie CO2 levels now lead temperature changes) he may still be wrong, at least in part.

CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere have been rising for the last 20,000 years (along with the temperature, lagging dutifully behind by 500 years or so) without our help.The CO2 level has spiked lately due to humans burning fossil fuels on top of an underlying natural rising trend in temperature. If the humans were gone and that carbon stayed in the ground the temperature and greenhouse gas levels would probably still be rising, but the historical connection between CO2 levels and global mean temperatures has been broken—the greenhouse gasses are rising faster than temperatures now, and we can't use greenhouse gas levels to estimate or predict temperatures. The historical data is fascinating, but we're not on that curve anymore.

None of this means that additional CO2 provided by jets flying to Copenhagen isn't contributing to the earth warming up. It probably is, but we can't (honestly) say we know how much. What we can say is that the earth's climate history isn't evidence for it. Pointing this out is not evil, it gets us closer to the truth.

Obama just arrived in Copenhagen,,,I have no idea, why he bothered to come !

True story, but "science" is not always open to contradictory evidence.  Funny things have happened to a whole group of microbiologists who are now dead, some of not so natural causes.  And what about the sponsors of science ?  How many experiments and studies have results that been found slanted to the sponsor's goals ?  Science is not trustworthy enough to base a course of action that affects the whole world.  Now we find out that no global climate data included Russian territory and I'm sure China wasn't a participant.  We have a hole as big as Asia in the "global" climate data we are considering taking action on.  Yet everyone who is willing to spend other peoples money on the bet considers it a sure thing.  The nay sayers have been excluded and are being vilified as murderers of civilization.  So much for open mindeness on the scientific method and disagreement over data and results.  To the supporters of cap and trade its a done deal, no further discussion needed or wanted.  Now that's a consensus we can all live with.

I'm pretty sure I want to be on the leading edge of this one. So much so that I'm reworking my career to put me in a position to do things with energy efficiency and innovation. I work in a HUGELY energy intensive field, and I know we are going to have to change. I don't want to be one of those CEOs lined up in front of congress someday answering the question "You had all the evidence on your desk, WTF did yo uthink was going to happen? "

I'd rather be leading the charge for industry 2.0. And if I happen to save the planet along the way then yippee for me. If not, at least I'm not one of the guys upstream on the river bank pissing away.

True story, but "science" is not always open to contradictory evidence.  Funny things have happened to a whole group of microbiologists who are now dead, some of not so natural causes.  And what about the sponsors of science ?  How many experiments and studies have results that been found slanted to the sponsor's goals ?  Science is not trustworthy enough to base a course of action that affects the whole world.  Now we find out that no global climate data included Russian territory and I'm sure China wasn't a participant.  We have a hole as big as Asia in the "global" climate data we are considering taking action on.  Yet everyone who is willing to spend other peoples money on the bet considers it a sure thing.  The nay sayers have been excluded and are being vilified as murderers of civilization.  So much for open mindeness on the scientific method and disagreement over data and results.  To the supporters of cap and trade its a done deal, no further discussion needed or wanted.  Now that's a consensus we can all live with.

Science is very much about consensus. We come up with theories, we test them, and we have lots of people interpret the results. There is a very rigorous process that involves the writing, reviewing and publication of papers regarding the interpretation of those results and the meaning of the outcome of those tests.  There will always be dissent and different interpretations of the same data. But the scientific community will generally accept an idea when a large consensus of opinion supports it. Science is also ALWAYS up for review, and open to any new data that contradicts previous conclusions. This does not mean that they are uncertain, it only means that they are open to further input. This often leads people not in the sciences to believe that scientists "don't know" or "are uncertain" about their conclusions, but they are not.

When those conclusions are reached, we go forward and make plans, write books, create policy and take action based on those conclusions.  Newton's laws break down at certain points, but that didn't stop the flow of research while we looked for better models and kept trying new theories.

Science never claims truth (although some scientists may). It only claims that it's the best we know at this time. And at this time, on this subject it is pretty damn clear.

What we should do about it is still pretty muddy, but I'd rather be in the take action set rather than the "let's study more" section. Oddly, many of those who often accuse the .gov of "studying problems to death" are now wanting to stop any action in favor of more study.