Catastrophe mongers’ lucrative game

Although you’d never know it by reading most of the mainstream media reports, Climategate has opened some otherwise closed doors for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) dissenting scientists.

Declan McCullagh’s “Taking Liberties” blog on cbs.com has several Climategate-related posts including one today in which he notes:

Physicists Stick to Warming Claim Post-ClimateGate

The professional association for physicists is facing internal pressure from some of its most distinguished members, who say the burgeoning ClimateGate scandal means the group should rescind its 2007 statement declaring that global warming represents a dire international emergency.

When CBSNews.com asked on Monday whether it will rethink the statement calling for immediate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, the American Physical Society said it would not. APS spokeswoman Tawanda Johnson replied with a pre-ClimateGate announcement from November 10 reiterating support for the 2007 statement; neither APS president-elect Curtis Callan nor Johnson would answer other questions on the topic.

McCullagh notes that some APS dissenting physicists have circulated a petition regarding rescinding the statement. And he cites emails from some of the dissenters, including the following:

Hal Lewis of the University of California, Santa Barbara:

I think it behooves us to be careful about how we state the science. I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help (and specifically since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago), and is most likely to continue to do so in its own sweet time. The important question is how much warming does the future hold, is it good or bad, and if bad is it too much for normal adaptation to handle. The real answer to the first is that no one knows, the real answer to the second is more likely good than bad (people and plants die from cold, not warmth), and the answer to the third is almost certainly not. And nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century, but the disobedient temperature seems not to care very much. And nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with other gases like water vapor, but despite the claims of those who are profiting by this craze, no one knows whether the temperature affects the CO2 or vice versa. The weight of the evidence is the former.

So the tragedy is that the serious questions are quantitative, and it’s easy to fool people with slogans. If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels you are on thin ice. If you say that the Earth is warming and therefore catastrophe lies ahead, you are pulling an ordinary bait and switch scam. If you are a demagogue, of course, these distinctions don’t bother you — you have little interest in that quaint concept called truth.

So it isn’t simple, and the catastrophe mongers are playing a very lucrative game. [emphasis added -hro]

And in other news …

Canada’s National Post which (unlike most MSM) has been on the ball both BC and AC [Before Climategate and After Climategate], has a lead editorial in today’s edition:

Honk if you hate global warming

The spectacle at the world climate summit in Copenhagen leaves us wondering if there will be any consideration of the actual environment at the meeting. The lavish living by delegates and hangers-on, the over-the-top protests by enviro-crusaders, the threats by developing countries to pull out and the hollow promises from developed-world leaders — all occurring under the cloud of Climategate — make any practical, binding solutions on climate change unlikely, to say the least.

The first impression one receives of the summit is the sheer hypocrisy of it. Here are green campaigners who damn the rest of us for the size of our “carbon footprints” and challenge us each to reduce our carbon output by one tonne per year. Yet they themselves are flying in using a squadron of private jets, hiring a fleet of limousines and gorging themselves on expensive food flown in from around the world.

[…]

But wait …. there’s more …

As if Climategate wasn’t bad enough for the AGW cause, the U.K. Guardian reports that there’s now been a “leak” [h/t to Rob on WUWT]:

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

[…]

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks”.

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text.
[…]

“Circle of commitment”?! Oh, well … bottom line of Copenhagengate: the so-called “developing nations” are very unhappy campers. Which is really too bad, because the leaked document content keeps the focus far, far away from the underlying unkosher “meat” .

This “political agreement (hereinafter ‘the Copenhagen Agreement’), which will become effective immediately”, whose signing “parties” will agree to inter alia:

The Copenhagen Agreement

1. The Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter “the Parties”) seek to further the implementation of the Convention in a manner that pursues its ultimate objective as stated in its Article 2, that recalls its provisions, and that is guided by the principles in Article 3.

I. A Shared Vision for Long-Term Cooperative Action

2. The Parties underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time and commit to a vigorous response through immediate ambitious national action and strengthened international cooperation with a view to limit global average temperature rise to a maximum of 2 degrees above pre-industrial  levels. The Parties are convinced of the need to address climate change bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities in developing countries. The Parties note that the largest share of historical global emissions of greenhouse gases originates in developed countries, and that per capita emissions in many developing countries are still relatively low. The Parties recognize the urgency of addressing the need for enhanced action on adaptation to climate change. They are equally convinced that moving to a low-emission economy is an opportunity to promote continued economic growth and sustainable development in all countries recognizing that gender equality is essential in achieving sustainable development. [emphasis mine -hro]

Notice the critical “2 degrees”, folks. This only appears twice more in the Agreement. CO2 (i.e. Carbon Dioxide, which the “science-is-settled” crowd tells us is the “primary” culprit of the dreaded Greenhouse Gases) is not even mentioned until one reaches the “Emissions outcomes expected, including baseline and timeframe” – contained in “Attachment B: National Mitigation Contributions”. Yet we find:

6 Carbon market(s)
2 Carbon stocks
1 Carbon offset (Attachment A, so perhaps it doesn’t count)

Sorry, no partridge in a pear tree.

On a page per document basis, this one has 13 (a rather unlucky number which will probably be longer – or shorter – when they’ve filled in the blanks). So, it’s kinda half-way between the 2 page “short, punchy statement” contained in the Communiqué and the 22 page Summary for Policymakers.

But the message of this “lucrative game” is very much still the same. And the foggy solution to the climate question steamroller just keeps rollin’ along.

Although I suppose that if this steamroller ever does come to a grinding halt, there will be some “revisionist scholars” (or even UN members/officials) who will, no doubt, find some way to blame the Jews and/or the State of Israel!

Stop the presses! CBC (constant purveyor of Al Gore’s myths, not to mention Suzuki’s contributions thereto) site has posted the following from producer Richard Handler (program is Ideas, which will evidently be broadcasting the recent Munk debate on this very issue, tomorrow night):

The four myths behind the climate change debate

This week much will be said about our warming planet, what with the gathering of heads of state and legions of scientists at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

But I bet you won’t hear much of what Mike Hulme said recently: “If climate change didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it.”

Wait a minute … unless there’s more than one Mike Hulme in the field of “climate science”, it seems to me that he did give us the “fog of uncertainty” notwithstanding his 1997 contribution towards drumming up “support” for the pre-Kyoto EU Statement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s