This may also be a contributing factor to why it took some news media types, who had been approved to cover the conference, over 8 hours to be registered and checked in.

This would simply be a funny fiasco if not for what is at stake: potentially trillions of dollars in regulatory actions and billions of dollars in aid to developing nations.

If by some miracle there were to be some kind of signed and binding agreement reached by the attending nations (there won't be, but Team Obama will be making noises about what a "breakthrough" deal The One brokered while there in just the last couple of days of a two-week conference -- "news" -- and spin -- at eleven), who would be in charge of monitoring all these agreed-to carbon reductions and oversight of all that development aid? Well, that would be the same entity that can't even figure out that 45,000 people won't fit into a 15,000-person building, the United Nations.

We've long known by how little they actually get done about world problems, and how long it takes them when and if they finally do, that the UN is more bureaucratic than effective.

And we know, at least from the "Oil for Food Program" scandal of a few years ago, if not many other indicators, that they are corrupt.

Now, we know they are also just plain inept.

So, ineffective, corrupt and inept? Uh, tell me again why do we give them a big, fancy, recently renovated, multi-million dollar building in New York to meet in, put up with their parking wherever they want and not paying their parking tickets, claiming diplomatic this and that all over the place, while we, as a single nation, also pay about 20 to 25 percent of the UN's operating costs?

I think we should remain a member (so we can retain some influence and keep tabs on what they're up to) but tell them that all member nations should pay the same amount for operating costs -- you know, make everybody "buy in" and make the UN operate on a budget -- and also that they should relocate to a new UN complex on some island somewhere.

I hear there are some in the South Pacific which the global warmers and some Copenhagen attendees are saying will be underwater in just a few years. Sounds good to me.

"Have you ever shaken hands with an American vice president? If not, now is your chance. Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen during the UN Climate Change Conference," advertises the Danish tourism commission, which is helping the Goracle promote "Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis," his newest book about global warming in all of its alarming modalities (no doubt, whether based on any real data or not).

"Tickets are available in different price ranges for the event. If you want it all, you can purchase a VIP ticket, where you get a chance to shake hands with Al Gore, get a copy of 'Our Choice' and have your picture taken with him. The VIP event costs DKK 5,999 and includes drinks and a light snack." Ohhh my, drinks AND a light snack, too! How wonderful!

How much is that in American dollars? The currency conversion equates 5,999 Danish kroners to $1,209 USD.

"If you do not want to spend that much money, but still want to hear Al Gore speak about his latest book about climate challenges, you can purchase general tickets, ranging in price from DKK 199 - 1,499 depending on where in the room you want to sit." "There will be large screens, so that everyone will get a good view." Thus, the Danes advise about the December 16 event. The Danes are so practical about these things.

But wait, there's still MORE.

The White House press office announced last week, "For the first time, the U.S. delegation will have a U.S. Center at the conference, providing a unique and interactive forum to share our story with the world."

Well, I think "our story" is already pretty well known to "the world." Some of "the world" may not like it, but they all know it. We are, currently at least, the only remaining world super power and in our 200-plus years, we've whipped the butts of about half of "the world," freed the other half and also along the way lent a helping hand wherever and whenever needed to friend and foe alike. We are the reason that the French speak French and not German, that the Germans were helped to rebuild, and the reason that the Japanese are now one of our strongest allies, instead of having been nuked into extinction in the mid-1940s. We are also the reason most of the Muslims in the world who are free, are free. We are the most powerful, most generous, most tolerant, most free and freedom-loving nation on the face of the Earth, and if we can get Obama and his left-wing henchmen out of the White House and the Congress soon enough, we may remain that way.

So, zippy-dee-do-dah, that's just peachy having a "unique and interactive" U.S. Center at the conference, but forgive cynical little ole me, I'm just wondering how much money Fat Al and the Danish tourist bureau hopes to make off of "greenies" affluent enough and stupid enough to spend their money to buy into all that hype, and, even more importantly, how much taxpayer money that "marvey" U.S. "unique and interactive" Center and all those traveling government bureaucrats are going to cost the American taxpayer while they're over there for a week, yakking and yukking it up, talking and trading, placating and promising, eating and effusing, drinking and discussing, posturing and posing, handshaking and hobnobbing.

And we (I mean Obama et al.) just might have, however obliquely, also "promised" to "trade away" our sovereignty while at the global climate conference as well. (But God help Obama if he does anything even close to that, and I sure hope he knows it, too. The American people will put up with a lot, but not everything all the time and not some things at all. Talk about some "lone wolf" crazy maybe really going "crazy" -- that kind of "betrayal" by Obama would be about all it would take. For most of us, it would be grounds to pursue impeachment, but for some, it would be that feared, long-range rifle shot that would set us all back decades in just all being Americans together, whether hyphenated ones or not. I don't like Obama or his policies, but I don't wish him dead -- just out of office.)

But the Copenhagen climate change conference is all just such a sham and a show, based on as much addle-brained alarmism as any accurate analyses. Ironically, maybe it's appropriate that the Goracle should show up with all his "greenie" gadflies, to add to the side-show, climatological carney atmosphere of it all (puns intended where appropriate). The so-called "settled science" of man-made climate change is NOT settled and becomes more shaky with each revelation of more and more scientists questioning its basic premises, coupled with increasing evidence of the climate change scientists themselves "cooking the books" to reinforce their theories and negate, or just plain ignore, any contradictory data. It's just too ironic for words that they, who denigrated all "non-believers" as deniers, turn out to be themselves the real "deniers" now.

So, to me at least, it's just another gross waste of taxpayer money by politicians and bureaucrats acting like elitist, globe-trotting gliterrati at a time when our country and its working people are still in pretty dire economic straits and that's where our pols and 'crats should be putting their focus, their effort and their energy. It's Obama's stupid upside-down economic plans, stupid! Stay home and in your jobs and working hard to fix that, you stupid political and bureaucratic snobs. Then, you can party, to celebrate actually having done something to help the American people, instead of just helping yourselves to more and more of their tax money.

To put it not too nicely, it all reminds me of something we sometimes used to say in the Army to illustrate when something struck you as disgusting or really made you sick: It's enough to gag a maggot.

As reported by ArcaMax.com, according to the word-watchers at Global Language Monitor, the media tracking and analysis firm of Austin, TX, the top 10 most used words/phrases since President Obama's inauguration are:

Gee, I'm a little surprised. I mean, some of those make sense to me, based on what I've been seeing and hearing since January 20th, just 231 days ago (can you believe it?), but others surprise me so far as a "top 10" list goes. And I guess one thing that surprises me the most is some of the words left out, rather than some of those included.

I would've thought any "top 10" list of most-used words/phrases since Obama's inauguration would include (in no particular order -- well, except for the first three, of course):

Global temperature is measured through thousands of temperature reading stations located around - well, the globe. The United States alone has more than 1,000, which are supposedly among the most reliable world-wide. But Anthony Watts, of the Watts Up With That blog, and a group of about 650 volunteers, found out very differently when they actually visited and examined 70% of the U.S. stations:

"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

"In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 - fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

"It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher."

The conclusion is obvious: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since it is based on what are supposed to be among the more reliable temperature readings from around the world, what does that potentially say about many other nations' readings?

So, with ground temperature data revealed as unreliable, what is it that we know that we know?  Well, satellite data indicate the earth warmed from the period 1979 to around 1998, and that it has cooled since 2002. That's 19 years of warming and at least the 7 most recent years of cooling. Yet, countries around the world are instituting disastrously business-damaging programs, like carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs. 

The U.S. Congress is considering the Waxman-Markey bill, which would enact a cap-and-trade program: (a) that would impose draconian operating conditions and carbon emission taxes on businesses, (b) that would cause energy costs to skyrocket for everyone who turns on a light switch or drives a car, and (c) that even global warming alarmist James Hansen of NASA and consumer advocate Ralph Nader say won't work. Oh, and (d) that would also raise lots and lots of money in taxes for the government to spend.

Global warming proponents tell us "the science is settled" and that any who disagree with them are merely "deniers," the same type of ignorant or unsophisticated people who deny the Holocaust or that the Earth is round. Of course one of the most prominent of these proponents, former vice president Al "The Goracle" Gore (who can sometimes say the most preposterous things with a perfectly straight face - guess it sometimes actually helps to be a little "wooden"), is ironically, hypocritically and personally responsible for a huge "carbon footprint" himself. With a monster house in Tennessee which uses more energy in a month than those of his neighbors use in a year and with all of his jetting around in a private jet for speaking engagements, fund raising and global warming alarming, Gore, like many other liberal elites who preach to the rest of us about how we should live, creates more carbon emissions in a month than you or I do in a year. But, of course, I guess he, like some other rich people salving their own consciences for their extravagant and wasteful lifestyles, makes it all right by buying what are called "carbon credits" to offset his excessive carbon emissions.

You know, I've heard the carbon credits thing talked about a lot, normally just as if in passing, like, well, everybody understands about that, but I'll admit to having never understood exactly how that works. For example, how much does, say, one carbon credit cost? Who determines what that cost is? Is it market driven or determined and regulated by government bureaucrats? If I wanted to buy some carbon credits, to whom would I make out my check? Do they give me a piece of paper, perhaps a certificate of some kind, to prove that I paid for some carbon credits? Can I deduct buying some carbon credits from my taxes?

(If anyone reading this understands how it all works (if, in fact, it actually does at all), please 'splain it to me.)

But, enough philosophy. Back to science. If the science is "settled," then why do over 30,000 scientists, many of them world-renowned, disagree with the man-made global warming alarmism? First, that doesn't sound all that "settled" to me. And, second, it now turns out that the so-called "settled science" is based on flawed data. If temperature readings are inputted to computer models which then make global warming "predictions" and 8 or 9 out of 10 of those temperature readings are wrong, then aren't the computer model predictions necessarily also wrong? Or did a basic computer principle - garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) - change all of a sudden?
 
Besides, Richard Henry Lee at the American Thinker Blog probably asks a more important question:

"...the real question is why it took a dedicated group of volunteers to find the numerous faults in our temperature record rather than the heavily funded governmental and educational institutions which are continually warning us about global warming."

Well, I think part of the answer to Mr. Lee's question lies in his wording "heavily funded governmental and educational institutions." They don't get funded anymore if there is no man-made global warming or they "solve" the problem, do they?

Perhaps it's less "environmental science" and more "economic science" which has been the point all along - and still is really in play here.