Climate change ain’t for bullshitters.

And no crap talk — President Obama’s video visit to the UN climate talks  in Durban, South Africa, citing the late Nobel peace prize winner and Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai: “Here in Durban, we can carry on her work, to … grow our economies in a way that’s sustainable and that addresses climate change. In this you have the partnership of the United States. Delegates must remember her call in which she said: ‘We must not tire. We must not give up.'”

One hundred percent, pure, prime-cut US bullshit.

Deceitful words like from this dangerous asshole: “We don’t kill our people… no government in the world kills its people, unless it’s led by a crazy person,” Assad said…”There was no command to kill or be brutal.”

Whom to believe — our lying eyes or a couple of bullshitters?

(Illustration found here).

One can twist eyebrows at a comparison between Obama and Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, “a crazy person,” who’s trying to hold power by killing and torturing his fellow citizens, and in a literal sense there is no resemblance, but Obama’s bullshit will affect/effect way-way-more people and cause way-way-more harm.
Assad is just pushing back his own judgment day, he’ll eventually be dragged out of a drainage ditch somewhere in Syria and his long neck stretched even further.

Playing funny with climate change just ain’t that funny.
From Scientific American on how these meetings have failed to keep up with the real science of what’s happening to this planet:

Most climate scientists, however, would beg to differ.
The latest science suggests that international negotiations are proceeding far too slowly to have any significant impact on global warming and may well dawdle too long to prevent catastrophic climate change.
To meet the international target of restraining the warming of global average temperatures to just 2 degrees Celsius will require greenhouse gas emissions of just 44 billion metric tons in 2020.
And even that amount might not be enough: James Hansen of NASA said this week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco that the 2 degrees C target “is a prescription for disaster.”
What’s happening is that research keeps finding new trouble signs.
Thanks to a rebound in global economic activity, 2010 saw the biggest single year increase in emissions ever—5.9 percent higher to be exact, according to the World Meteorological Organization.
Another analysis, published December 4 in Nature Geoscience, found that nearly all of the nearly 1 degree C warming observed over the last century or so could be attributed to human emissions of greenhouse gases.
The U.K. Met Office stated in a December 5 report that as many as 49 million people could be at risk from increased coastal flooding because of climate change and many others from a drop in the production of staple food crops.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argues that emissions must be halved by mid-century to have any hope of restraining warming to 2 degrees C.
“After four rounds of IPCC reports, is the science not clear enough?” asked Jato Sillah, Gambia’s minister of forestry and environment during a speech on December 6.

Apparently, it’s not clear enough for American interests — the US wants to kick the horrible can of worms far, far on down the road.
Jamie Henn at Grist:

Instead, the pace of negotiations has been set by the one country the rest of the world should be turning their back on: the United States.
The U.S. never signed the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding international agreement designed to reduce emissions, but it is allowed to take part in the negotiations in a separate track dedicated to securing a long-term climate agreement.
After President Obama’s election, the international community had high hopes the new administration would bring a new sense of ambition and commitment to talks.
Instead, the only thing the U.S. brought to the table was a wrecking ball.
Rather than standing out of the way and letting the rest of the world get on with setting up an international architecture to facilitate cutting emissions, stopping deforestation, and investing in renewable energy, the U.S. has spent the years since Copenhagen attempting to systemically dismantle the U.N. process.
Highest on the U.S. hit list is the Kyoto Protocol, an imperfect treaty (thanks in large part to U.S. recalcitrance), but currently the best instrument in the global climate toolbox.
Next on the list is the very idea of legally binding commitments — the U.S. would prefer a “pledge and review” world where countries make their own voluntary commitments and then report out on what they’ve decided.
Here in Durban, however, the U.S. has taken on an even more insidious role by pushing a proposal that the international community adopt a “mandate” to negotiate a new climate treaty that will take effect in — wait for it — 2020.
This isn’t just a delay, it’s a death sentence.
Scientists have stated over and over that in order to avoid catastrophic climate change, emissions must peak by 2015 or 2020 at the absolute latest.

I don’t like bad weather — abnormal bad weather scares the shit out of me.
And climate change ain’t just about the weather — food, water, sea-level rise, drought, extinction — nothing heavy.
And one must not forget that tomorrow is just today yesterday.