What a puffy piece of spin and advertising for the author's organisation (how perceptive they were in hindsight) aren't these usually called infomercials?

More snake oil salesmen selling to the gullible eco types.

BTW - the statement, "119 world leaders seriously discussing a truly global response" a bit strong, when in fact there was a cartel of 77 countries there with their hands out for a cash handout, and nothing more. That Tuvalu has hired an eco front man to do their begging for them. Do they care at all beyond getting some moolah?

I'm encouraged to see it all ended the way it did, gives more people time to wake up to the facts of this massive money redistribution attempt.

I loved the standing ovation Chauvez got, that really opened a lot of eyes int he West didn't it - you don't mention it all all, but that made it pretty clear that the people there all were in on the big redistribution under a world government, UN led of course.

I would suggest that will make it much harder to get people on side now and in fact will give rise to more skepticism, in the so called "science" of climatology, with all its very special tweaks and unique peer review system, as well as skepticism in the goals of the whole UN led effort - is it to mitigate supposed man contributed global warming or is it in fact world socialism?

"Futureye" is, apparently, blind to the implications of fossil fuel limitations on the IPCC's climate change scenarios. The entire Copenhagen process is irrelevant since it seeks to maintain growth (by carbon emission-free means) in the finite world system that is already beyond its ecological limits. Even in the almost impossibly unlikely scenario that the Copenhagen meeting (or future meetings) could come up with radical, enforceable emissions reductions it would ultimately be meaningless. Read this to see why:

"Economics and Limits to Growth: What's Sustainable?"
by Dennis Meadows
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51127

(Cheryl - have you read the Meadows article? What did you think?)

So environmentalists are disappointed.. too bad, get used to disappointment.

The Environmental movement was infiltrated and infected by the politics of left wing years ago and has been quietly directed by them ever since.

Just because someone feels “passionately” about something does not make them right or good. It merely feeds their obsessive compulsion –

as we see with extremist loonies who try and attack Japanese whaling fleets and get hurt in the process and
with political activists, who destroy other peoples property by exercising their “expectation” for anarchistic behaviour at international summits.

The failure of Copenhagen, to inflict legally binding constraints upon previously sovereign nations, is a victory for those who believe in the sovereignty and relevance of individuals over the rabid demands of those who feel a stupid desire for strong government, everywhere.

The failure of Copenhagen is a failure for the (dead hand) forces of "collectivism" (by any name) and a success for sanity.

No good has ever come from the grand aspirations of collectivists and no good will ever come.

No, I don’t accept the spin put on the value and outcomes of Copenhagen. Sure, it resulted in “engagement” of the major emitters – China, USA, India, Japan and Russia – who committed themselves irrevocably to precisely nothing. True, China, the USA and a few other countries agreed that they would take action to limit global warming to no more than 2C increase over pre-industrial temps by 2100 but what does that mean?

Wouldn’t you think, at the very least, that it must involve a commitment by those countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions? Not a bit of it. Indeed China and India worked together to undermine any such outcome. China, the worlds leading polluter went further by announcing its intention of continuing to increase its emissions – though more slowly than in recent years. And the USA? A grudging decision to do about the same as Australia with its unrealistic, miserable offer to reduce emissions by about 5%.

Just how does Stephen McGrail reconcile these failures with achieving the limit of 2C on global warming? How can his company (Futureye) or Flannery or de Boer bridge the gap between what climate scientists tell us needs to be done to limit global temperature increase – ensuring that emissions peak by 2015 – and the absence of any expressed intention by any of the major emitters to achieve this?

Copenhagen was not a failure but sure as hell, it aint no success. No one seriously expected the 20 major emitters who are responsible for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions to put up their hands and commit to a reduction target. But they did expect a solid framework to be agreed on for the negotiation of those reductions at a specified future date. Has Copenhagen given us that? A lot of good work has been done leading up to and during that meeting and it is the task of Ivo de Boer and others to build on that.

Two steps forward and two steps back maybe. In other words, we haven’t got far but we have made a start.

Perhaps half a step forward.

There was never a chance of a binding legal agreement between the 143 nations present being negotiated this time around. The required result was to achieve a sense of accord at the end of the process, with some goodwill to carry the process further. Copenhagen almost got there.
In the end, the result was not quite enough to build the required momentum for anything to come out of even the next round of negotiations. I guess Mr Flannery's view is that the whole process could have been completely shut down. At least the door is still open, and there is a process ongoing. The rate of progress is not ideal, but there was a real chance of regression, and some progress is better than none at all.

Coldest winters in the Northern hemisphere in 30 yrs and it's far from over. "You have to hide the decline." "We cannot account for the fall in temps and it is a travesty."