Doha climate conference diary: Monckton v camel | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Climate panto villain Lord Monckton has arrived at the talks even as folk here were fearing that the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and other regular denialists and sceptics had given up. But instead of dropping in by parachute, as he appeared to do at Durban last year, he came as "Monckton of Arabia" in full regalia but without the camel. Qatari security and onlookers at the convention centre said they did not know whether to laugh or cry but allowed him to regale Canadian youth and anyone who could not avoid him.
...
It seems that Aziz was a very intelligent camel. He listened to Monckton and promptly chucked him headfirst into a sand dune.

The climate camel – going nowhere, uncomfortably

[Monckton] The fools: In this category, Australia stands alone. Its absurd carbon dioxide tax is almost 50 times more expensive than letting global warming happen and adapting in a focused way to its consequences.

The United States: Also in a category of its own, Obama’s U.S. is a house deeply divided. The “Democrats” – more like Communists these days – will do whatever it takes to destroy all (such as fossil-fuel corporations) who fund their Republican opponents. Also, they will sign any treaty calculated to wreck the economy of the West. The Republicans, however, will not. No climate treaty will be agreed to by the U.S. Senate, where Senators Inhofe, Hatch, Vitter, and others have spoken out clearly and consistently against climate-extremism.

Will Philippines negotiator's tears change our course on climate change? | John Vidal | Global development | guardian.co.uk

more and more people die every year

Carol Browner: 'Stunning' Climate Denial In The House Prevents Any Action On Climate In Washington | ThinkProgress

[Luke Morgan] “I think unfortunately, right now a majority in our House of Representatives appears to not even think the problem is real,” Browner said. “It’s sort of stunning to me because I’ve never seen the breadth of scientific consensus on an environmental issue like there is on this.”
...
[Texas GOP Representative Joe Barton] claimed that carbon dioxide is not only irrelevant to the Clean Air Act, but that it’s not dangerous at all because it’s “a necessity for life.” To illustrate his example, he noted that he was exhaling carbon dioxide as he spoke, and actually argued that people should build greenhouses because they create life, so greenhouse gases are good.

“There’s a reason that you build things called greenhouses, and that’s to help things grow,” he said.

Barton also claimed that the atmosphere had, in the past, contained carbon dioxide levels greater than 5,000 parts per million (ppm), implying that we could do so again today. The current scientific consensus, however, is that 350 ppm is the safe upper limit.  [How, specifically, do we know that there is a consensus on this claim?]