Hannity pushes black-helicopter fear that Obama will "sign away America's sovereignty" at Copenhagen

More and more, Hannity's show and guests are so unintentionally comical it's like watching SNL. It's like watching a lampoon of the stupidity of FOX News. Do these people lack an embarrassment gene?

Really? In my opinion their claims are mostly true. Let's parse shall we (and I'll only try to write a short novel)?

HANNITY: "Even though their health care bill is far from becoming law (check) some liberals are moving forward with the next item on their left wing agenda (check) and that's climate change (check). Now just last week California Democrat Barbara Boxer successfully pushed her energy reform legislation out of committee (check), and some analysts see her efforts as a precursor to the drastic measures (check) that the Obama administration could agree to (check) at the UN conference on climate change next month in Copenhagen (check). So will the President sign away America's sovereignty over its own carbon emissions (if he signs the treaty in a form resembling the negotiating text, check), and how would such an agreement affect you and your family (not applicable)? Here to sort through all of this is Stuart Varney from the Fox Business News (check) and former White House Press Secretary Fox News contributor Dana Perino (check). Are we going to lose our sovereignty with this (not applicable)?"

PERINO: "Let's be clear of one thing, she successfully passed it out of committee but it might have been the most expensive bill ever passed (check) because she hit the gavel at 9 o'clock (could not verify time). She passed it at 9:20 (could not verify time) and it was because she did it through a completely party line vote (check).

HANNITY: "Right (check)."

PERINO: "So its trillions of dollars of money that was spent (check) in twenty minutes (could not verify time). This bill has less of a chance passing under Barack Obama than it did under President Bush (incorrect, though I'm pretty sure she meant this the other way around; if that assumption is correct, check)."

VARNEY: "They want their money (check), don't they? These are true believers (check). They really believe in global warming (check). They want the money that cap and trade will bring in (check) but there's a couple of problems here (check). Number one, public opinion is beginning to run rapidly against the whole concept of global warming (check) and certainly paying for climate control (check). But number two, up comes Copenhagen (check). Here it comes boys (incorrect, unless there's something we don't know about Dana Perino), and developing countries want us to pay them hundreds of billions of dollars a year (check). We're not gonna do that (not yet determined), but we have offered tens of billions (check). Can you imagine if we give tens of billions for this (not applicable)?"

HANNITY: "Here's what I don't understand, this is one of the coldest years on record ladies and gentlemen (not yet determined, though if the year-to-date trend continues, check). There is, I don't believe climate change is real (check, that is what he believes though his belief is incorrect; the climate is always in flux and therefore climate change is, and will likely always be, present). I think this is global warming hysteria and alarmism (check). But yet we're gonna lose millions of jobs (check). We're gonna outsource to foreign countries manufacturing jobs (check, though that has already been happening for a long time now but will speed up as the business climate in the U.S. turns further sour). China and India will never abide by this (incorrect, if they remain on the list of developing countries they will absolutely abide by this; if they are coerced into acting as Annex II countries--not likely to happen--check)."

PERINO: "We're going to pay them for the privilege of doing so (check), which is the point that Stuart made (check). Now I think that a lot of things, a lot of the goals that are in the 2050 (not applicable)..."

There. That wasn't so hard. Looks like they were mostly right after all.

Agreed. Obama would be a socialist nut to sign a treaty that includes stuff like this:

Pages 18-19: 38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
(b) The Convention's financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
(c) The Convention's facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.

Here is what NOAA had to say about your scientific facts until just recently (check out those blaphemous discussion points):

It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.

In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature.

The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.

The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.

Speaking of evolution, that experiment has now evolved into this. Presto-chango just like that all your problems disappear (or reappear perhaps in the case of AGW).

Right-wing nut jobs make money off Muslim.and Russian oil.

I agree 100 percent with your first sentence. The rest, not so much.

You guys should try this experiment next and then read the discussion points aloud (just don't do it within earshot of the environmental studies professor--he/she will come at you like a tornado of fingernails and teeth).