Rob

Quotes from some attendees:

“The principal obstacle to combating climate change is capitalism. Until we put an end to capitalism, it will continue to be a big obstacle for life and humanity.” -Evo Morales, Bolivian President

“When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it’s we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere, who gasp and sink and eventually die.” -Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's Tyrant

“Capitalism is a destructive model that is eradicating life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species.” -Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan village idiot

Are there any similar quotes in praise of capitalism or condemning socialism at the conference?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...

Boy, those oil companies are rich!

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=...

RE: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/obama...

Could one of you alarmist scientists please explain the science behind declaring that one would rather destroy scientific data rather than see someone who would dispute your findings get it, or gloating that a reporter who has been critical of you has died? Please don't be afraid to show the math.

I'm suddenly seeing a lot of alarmists cite the solar minimum as a reason for the flat temperatures of the past decade. But I thought the official word was that anyone who thought sunspots could have any effect on global temperatures was to be ridiculed as being totally ignorant of basic scientific principles.

What happened?

but nobody in the CRU emails does so. They blame la nina or say it isn't statistically significant, but nobody denies it is true. They don't claim 2006 is warmer or claim 2009 will be, or start averaging temperatures over multiple years, or any of the other tricks that the apologists use to hide the decline.

Could it be that they are being more honest among those who are like minded?

Will Barbie Boxer label it house-that-got-broken-into-gate and demand a Congressional investigation?

Or does it have to embarrass Democrats first?

Is this the real reason Jones et al. "lost" the raw data?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-... (especially figures 7 and 8)

If you think it is legitimate, can you show an example where it was adjusted the opposite direction?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climat...

Or do limos and private jets not emit any carbon dioxide?

designed to cook the books as the CRU climate software?

http://www.di2.nu/200911/23a.htm

against confirmation bias? It looks to me like they actively encourage it.

The Fed announced this week that it will be printing $1.2 trillion in order to buy some of the government's debt and and some of the "toxic waste" mortgage backed securities. I would think this would be really big news. The Fed hasn't bought bonds since the Korean War. It seems like a really desparate measurebut it's hard to even find news stories on it. Why the silence?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/19/business/e...

Whenever the card check legislation is criticized, Obama or other supporters of it say that secret ballots are still a choice. So, if I'm working somewhere and someone is running around trying to intimidate people into signing the card to go union, how do I get it changed to a secret ballot instead?

If I can't then whose choice is it?

Will he be trying to remove all references to race from federal laws?

It seems that all the talk of Rush being the head of the party has nearly disappeared since Rush challenged Obama to a debate yesterday.

Was it orchestrated to cause the administration to tout Rush as the real leader of the Republican party, and thus look more foolish in refusing to debate him?

Obama gets into office and immediately starts campaigning against a talk show host. He starts giving his talking points/marching orders to the sycophant media badmouthing Rush. He promotes Rush as the face of Republicanism.

Rush responds with the provocative sounding statement that he hopes Obama fails, which set the dogs baying. A real media frenzy. Nearly the only thing they're talking about.

The effect of all this is to drive Rush's audience numbers through the roof and to make it appear that the Obama administration considers Rush to be the most significant member of the opposition party.

Then Rush challenges Obama to a debate in front of his inflated audience. The terms of the debate both preempt objections and highlight Rush's criticisms of Obama. Obama cannot accept the debate, especially under those terms, but any objection either has already been addressed or can be easily conceded to.

Obama's only recourse is to reverse what he has been saying for the last couple weeks about Rush running the party and return to Clinton's tactic of "Rush is just an entertainer"

Should we adopt universal suffrage for children since they are the ones who will pay for Obama's spending orgy?