From today's Wall Street Journal, via wsj.com:
An "endangerment" finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions -- even if Congress doesn't pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected.
The Copenhagen climate nazis can't do jack, so we'll stifle our own economy even further in the midst of a crippling recession that is in all actuality bordering on a full-on depression. Genius, I tell you... Genius!
An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment Sunday on when the agency might finalize its proposed endangerment finding.
How about never, you clueless twit?
The spokeswoman said that the EPA is confident the basis for its decision will be "very strong," and that when it is published, "we invite the public to review the extensive scientific analysis informing" the decision.
Oh, I see. Like the science taking place at the University of East Anglia. Thank you, Anyonymous EPA Spokeswoman, for putting my mind at ease.
Also from the wsj.com article:
The vast majority of increased greenhouse-gas emissions is expected to come from developing countries such as China and India, not from rich countries like the U.S. But developing countries have made it clear that their willingness to reduce growth in emissions will depend on what rich countries do first. That puts a geopolitical spotlight on the U.S.
At the heart of the fight over whether U.S. emission constraints should come from the EPA or Congress is a high-stakes issue: which industries will have to foot the bill for a climate cleanup. A similar theme will play out in Copenhagen as rich countries wrangle over how much they should have to pay to help the developing world shift to cleaner technologies.
"There is no agreement without money," says Rosário Bento Pais, a top climate negotiator for the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm. "That is clear."
So the worst "polluters" aren't even going to be expected to cripple their own economies first!
In the end, virtually all of the people peddling this so-called "science" have a vested monetary interest in keeping it going. Phill Jones was awarded 13 million British pounds in research grants as recently as December 3 of this year. I haven't been able to find anything recent on the Goracle's shenanigans, but maybe that's because the media has virtually blacked-out Al Gore's ties to blatantly fraudlent cap-and-trade schemes at least as far back as 2007. For the uninitiated, Gore buys his "carbon offsets" from a company he has a vested financial interest in. Put another way, he buys his offsets from himself. Money talks, and I can't discuss what walks in a family blog.
This whole sick sad deception exists to make money for the insiders like Jones and Gore who ought to know better. While they live it up, they have every intention of bleeding the rest of us dry.
Copenhagen is a joke! I have every intention to keep right on enjoying my life. I also intend to keep on exhaling CO2, but that's sort of a biological imperative.