the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion


Posted by Jeff Id on December 16, 2009

Police Beat Back Massed Climate Protesters

Protests at Commuhagen are continuing, it’s a bit confusing who’s protesting and why but this article clears it all up.

COPENHAGEN — Police officers fired tear gas and wielded batons on Wednesday to beat back hundreds of demonstrators outside the global climate meeting here, as a police spokesman said 250 people had been arrested.

A hundred thousand conservatives march on Washington and get no press but this is headline news across the world with more coverage than climategate.

In Wednesday’s demonstrations, the largest so far of the conference, the protesters began massing north of the center shortly before noon and pressed into a tight line of riot police blocking access to the hall. Some of the officers wielded truncheons against the chanting, shoving protesters in a close-order scrum. News agencies reported that tear gas was fired at the crowd. After forcibly removing protesters from a truck parked in an intersection outside the Bella Center, police in blue vans kept moving the protesters backwards, nearly pushing some into a watery marsh.

Here’s the ungodly stupid plan and the problem.

Much of the focus on Wednesday was expected to be on the financing arrangements of the deal, under which industrialized nations would transfer billions of dollars annually to poor nations to help them cope with a changing climate.

How much money they want.

Norway and Mexico have also offered a financing plan, which envisions annual payments to developing countries substantially higher than the $10 billion annual figure that Mr. Obama said the United States would support in the near term.

Developing countries have said that they will need $100 billion to $200 billion a year by 2020 to pay for low-carbon energy development and adaptation to global warming changes.

And those involved.

Outside the hall, police searched the bags of potential protesters and watched warily as crowds began to gather at rail stops within walking distance of the Bella Center.

Mette Hermansen, 27, studying to train teachers, and a member of the International Socialists of Denmark, said, “In the Bella Center they are not discussing solutions to climate change. They are discussing how rich countries can continue emitting and how to sell that to the public. We are not preventing leaders from making solutions but encouraging them to make solutions.”

So America, your president offered 10 billion US dollars – per year.  Consider that Nasa has like a 17 billion dollar budget.  But that was not enough, they want 200 billion by 2020 – that’s per year.  To prop up communist countries in the third world and help them go green.

So 10 billion divided by 350 million – Is only 28 dollars per man woman and child in america per year.  A family of four would pay $112  USD to developing nations each year under obama’s plan by 2020, in addition to economy crushing CO2 emission promises, you will have paid $1120 to developing nations!!  Of course developing nations is a pretty word for religious dictatorships and communist countries which cannot develop due to corrupt repressive government.  But that’s not enough- no sir not enough! They would like to receive a figure 20 times higher than that or they will pull out of the deal.

And some young media brainwashed adults, who are under the mind-numbingly ignorant impression that socialism must work somewhere, are protesting.

19 Responses to “Commuhagen”

  1. Atomic Hairdryer said

    Shame they didn’t use the water cannons. They’d be more effective in warm, sunny, Copenhagen.

  2. Stirner said

    Don’t sell the Copenhagen cops short. They did quite the number on the “Black Bloc” semi-violent protesters:

  3. crosspatch said

    When I read stories of these people demanding that “the US” fork over billions for this or billions for that, I take it personally. These people are demanding more of my paycheck. It burns me up that these people think they have the “right” to demand more of my hard earned. What are they giving me in return? I am sorry but I have a family to feed, my paycheck isn’t there to be picked over by a pack of hyenas until there is nothing left. My paycheck does not belong to them. It is not theirs to distribute.

    Forking over my cash to “fight climate change” is no more useful than forking over cash to increase winter sunlight in Antarctica. Again, what are these people going to do for ME?

  4. Uncle Al said

    I find it ironic that the same people (e.g. “Black Bloc”) that were in Seattle, Geneva and elsewhere demonstrating against the globalisierung of world trade are now demonstrating for …. the globalisierung of world trade …. in carbon

  5. Espen said

    Hey, don’t blame the poor countries, they’re just following the money. Blame those who want to put whole nations on welfare so they can sell snake oil to them. I’d like to know who will profit from a deal to give poor countries money to buy “green technology”. Who is the “halliburton of global warming”?

  6. Dinssdale said


    I suggest you try:

  7. Motorhead said

    There are some very alarming posts that speculate that Obama, being the multinationalist that he is, may actually come back with his signature on something. And, that he doesn’t really need the Senate’s approval.

  8. Garry said

    These “eco-activist” robots must be delighted that their trendy AGW protests are fueling the $30 billion carbon credits trading markets (aka “monetizing the air”), which might rise to $1 trillion in another 10 years.

    Good going you stupid eco-anarchists!

    The Western world now gets to pay for breathing! Power to the people!

  9. Mark T said

    Motorhead said
    December 16, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    And, that he doesn’t really need the Senate’s approval.

    The POTUS does need 2/3 majority (67 votes) to approve any treaty, and I’m quite certain anyone that thinks otherwise does not understand the United States Constitution.


  10. crosspatch said

    “And, that he doesn’t really need the Senate’s approval.”

    Yup. He can use EPA to dictate policy without Senate approval of anything.

  11. crosspatch said

    “The POTUS does need 2/3 majority (67 votes) to approve any treaty

    Correct. But he doesn’t need to ratify a treaty to execute policy according to the treaty, it would simply be “non-binding”.

  12. Kev of Oz said

    If you think the radicals freezing their arses off outside the conference are a problem, you perhaps have not seen reportage on this yet:

    President Chavez brought the house down.

    When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic,…… he got a rousing round of applause.

    When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.

    But then he wound up to his grand conclusion ….. …socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

    In whatever passes for the Marxist afterlife – there is a guy named Gramsci drumming his fingers as the beat of the Long March. He must be very pleased with progress to date.

  13. G Howe said

    CPatch and MotorH-
    I think you guys are dead on. Now what happens after POTUS signs? The way I see it, EPA has 11 months before Repubs take back Congress. Can Congress stop EPA? Can EPA do much (more) damage in the next 11 months?
    I think at least 10% of job loss so far is due to the uncertainties of health care/carbon legislation.

  14. Frank K. said


    “Forking over my cash to “fight climate change” is no more useful than forking over cash to increase winter sunlight in Antarctica. Again, what are these people going to do for ME?”

    It’s called extortion:

    extortion [ɪkˈstɔːʃən]
    n: the act of securing money, favors, etc. by intimidation or violence; blackmail

    Another question – how much of that $10 billion do you think will actually wind up in the pockets of corrupt UN officials and third world dictators? Remember how well the “Oil for Food” program worked?

  15. Mark T said

    crosspatch said
    December 16, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    Correct. But he doesn’t need to ratify a treaty to execute policy according to the treaty, it would simply be “non-binding”.

    The point is he cannot sign a treaty until after Senate approval. So there won’t be any signatures this week.

    I am actually beginning to see a turning worm and I’m almost willing to bet any EPA regulation will cause even further losses among Democrat ranks in the vote next year. They are dooming themselves, fortunately. Of course, on the unfortunate side of things, there’s nobody really willing to do what is necessary, just different shades of the same gray.


  16. G Howe said

    Mark T #15-
    I agree about the grays. But the CO2 issue, at this point, is gray too. That’s what’s so great about Steve, Jeff, Anthony and all the other hardworking science/stat bloggers that have shined a (white?) light on the (black) box of CO2 climate change! Steve should of been on Time’s cover, imo. Maybe next year.

    Also, I think the Goracle signed Kyoto, so it may be time for the next step, ie POTUS ink.

  17. crosspatch said

    Ok, now my blood pressure is going up:

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters in Copenhagen Thursday the United States is willing to commit up to $10 billion a year by 2012.

    These people are committing our paychecks to this. We are already spending well beyond our means. Our paychecks are Monopoly money to these people. I don’t mind if they want to create some fund that people can send donations to but I resent my paycheck being pinched for a “problem” that hasn’t even been shown to exist. Who do these people think they are that they can simply decide to spend my paycheck on stuff like this? It isn’t their money to spend. They don’t HAVE any money. Exacty where do they plan to get the $10 billion from?

  18. Anarcissie said

    My take on the Copenhagen business is that it is a theatrical enterprise with a previously agreed-upon script. This accounts for the behavior of the representatives of states. For example, the representatives of a small, weak, poor state can go home and say that they demanded a lot of money from the blue-eyed devils, and the representatives of a rich state can go home and say that they didn’t give it to them. (Among states, $10B is chicken feed.) Any agreements (or disagreements) will have been carefully arranged in advance.

    However, I am mystified by the demonstrators. For instance, anarchists are said to be demonstrating for more government control and bigger government expenditures. This not only doesn’t sound like anarchism to me, it is also passing strange that they don’t recognize the conference for what it is — a clown show. I think further investigation is warranted.

  19. BillT said

    Another question – how much of that $10 billion do you think will actually wind up in the pockets of corrupt UN officials and third world dictators?

    Based on observations of past performance, I’d say all of it except for the few hundred dollars it will take to keep the bank accounts in the target countries open.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: