How do I know it is a good result? Simply by look at the reactions. Here are some that I found amusing.
James Dilingpole at the London Telegraph is ecstatic at the sweet sound of exploding watermelons (people who are green on the outside and red on the inside):
I take it all back. Copenhagen was worth it, after all – if only forCBC News has an article that made me laugh out loud:
the sphincter-bursting rage its supposed failure has caused among our
libtard watermelon chums.
As it turns out, the UN summit on climate change ended not with a
bang, nor with a whimper. And certainly not with a binding
international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The two-week long, lumbering behemoth of a conference here staggered
to a close on the weekend with delegates agreeing to "take notice" of
what, on the surface, appears to be a weak, vague document now being
called the Copenhagen Accord.
What is "take notice," you ask? Here's the pained explanation of UN climate chief Yvo de Boer.
Take notice, he said "is a way of recognizing that something isHow's that for a ringing endorsement?
there but not going so far as to directly associate yourself with it."
It's hard to overstate the disappointment and discouragement that most environmentalists felt at the conclusion of this summit.
These NGOs (non-governmental organizations) spent years lobbying,
writing reports, compiling research and building the case for a strong
international agreement to pick up where the Kyoto treaty left off and
tackle global warming.
Copenhagen was supposed to be a turning point.
It turned into a bloated gabfest, one that produced a final document
less than three pages long with none of the enforceable targets to cut
greenhouse gas emissions that green activists were looking for.
We should also note that carbon prices in Europe have fallen to a 6-month low. Oh dear. Hopefully this means a drop in the price of pencils just in time for school to go back.The London Mail asks for the heat to be turned down on global warming:
So, if governments believe carbon emissions do endanger the planet, how
about more quiet diplomacy and less posturing? Let's turn down the
rhetorical heat, the 'days left to save mankind' bluster. More
persuasion and less proselytising. Fewer bogus timetables. No circuses
Third, China said it would happily cut CO2 emissions but didn't want anyone checking whether it actually had. China, by the way, can't even cope with an uncensored Internet, so the idea of Al Gore roaming around China in his private jet sniffing the gases was beyond the pale.
Still China gets the blame.
Fourth, some lunatic from Sudan claimed that the deal in the offing "asked Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries". The Jews at least were presumably upset at this.
Fifth, surely a mention to all the environmentalists, anti-capitalism activists and assorted lunatics that plagued the conference, making it much more difficult to get anything done. Of these, the Greenpeace nut will be the one I remember, who twitted on Friday:
The city of Copenhagen is a climate crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport in shame.We should stuff this guy and display him in a museum for future generations to marvel at his nuttiness.
It is sad to note that we have these five assorted nitwits to thank for the 'failure' of the Copenhagen Conference. Not one person in the photo below questioned the global warming edifice, despite climategate, Rajendra Pachauri's dodgy business setup (on p4 of the London Telegraph on Sunday) and the freezing cold in Copenhagen itself [God has a sense of of humour, surely you know that - see here if not]
How galling that the democracies failed us while the despots saved our bacon.