Embassy dispatches show America used spying, threats, and promises of aid to get support for a Copenhagen accord.
Skip to comments.Wikileaks sordid details reveals climate science is irrelevant
Posted on 12/04/2010 8:22:21 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Its all a grand charade the matinee show put on by the Theater of Science was merely being used for the Grand Extravaganza called the Theater of Politics.
Wikileaks, not surprisingly, turned up some not-so-diplomatic and not-so-scientific goings-on in the political race to steer power and dollars.
From The Guardian
The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming; how financial and other aid is used by countries to gain political backing; how distrust, broken promises and creative accounting dog negotiations; and how the US mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial Copenhagen accord, the unofficial document that emerged from the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.
Negotiating a climate treaty is a high-stakes game, not just because of the danger warming poses to civilisation but also because re-engineering the global economy to a low-carbon model will see the flow of billions of dollars redirected.
The wrangling behind the scenes involve the usual offerings of pork-barreling type funding for piddling little projects like $50 million dollar projects in the Maldives, or $30 million in aid for Bolivia to win support for the weak non-binding Copenhagen Accord, which suited the US. Thus the $2 trillion market was being made and unmade by votes bought with the spare change from carbon trades during morning tea.
Even the Saudis were asking for a handout:
Perhaps the most audacious appeal for funds revealed in the cables is from Saudi Arabia, the worlds second biggest oil producer and one of the 25 richest countries in the world. A secret cable sent on 12 February records a meeting between US embassy officials and lead climate change negotiator Mohammad al-Sabban. The kingdom will need time to diversify its economy away from petroleum, [Sabban] said, noting a US commitment to help Saudi Arabia with its economic diversification efforts would take the pressure off climate change negotiations.
The Saudis were worried they might have missed the gravy train:
The assistant petroleum minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman told US officials that he had told his minister Ali al-Naimi that Saudi Arabia had missed a real opportunity to submit something clever, like India or China, that was not legally binding but indicated some goodwill towards the process without compromising key economic interests.
In the end, its mostly what we all suspected anyway. Call me a cynic, but did anyone believe that atmospheric research really affected the political decisions?
The political wheeling and dealing behind the scenes is where the big moves occur:
The cables obtained by WikiLeaks finish at the end of February 2010. Today, 116 countries have associated themselves with the accord. Another 26 say they intend to associate. That total, of 140, is at the upper end of a 100-150 country target revealed by Pershing in his meeting with Hedegaard on 11 February.
The wikileaks material shows again that voting at these COP meetings is nothing to do with the science put forward in the IPCC reports (which in turn are not based on the scientific method, or what wide body of the worlds scientists actually said anyway).
It all merely proves that the best protection for the people of Planet Earth is to have many competing democratic governments, none of which can gain too much power over many of the others. The UN process of mock democracy plays a dangerous game, where buying off single officials in tin-pot countries is a cheaper form of pork barrelling than the domestic politics of large Western election campaigns.
More sordid details are exposed in The Guardian:
Embassy dispatches show America used spying, threats, and promises of aid to get support for a Copenhagen accord.
WikiLeaks cables show US admiration for how emerging economies work together to achieve common short-term goals.
Herman van Rompuy dismisses the Copenhagen climate summit as incredible disaster and expects Cancún to be no better.
The third article implies this all could be just another incarnation of the long silent trading war going on for power between the EU and the USA.
Thanks to Ecotretas and Oliver S.
Global Warming is a large scale Scam by Government and people associated with Government,wanting to get rich off the backs of the public.
It would have raised trillions in taxes and fees and sold Carbon credit use when a real product does not exist.
Now they will either keep shoving this until it goes through or have to come up with a new scam.
Good post. Right on the mark.
That's what it's all about — and as the western world is bankrupted, the architects of the climate scam will become rich off the skim.
Climategate grows and expands.
Here is some "tangible assistance" for them:
Where are the RICO charges?
The government charging the government with fraud and racketeering is sadly...not going to happen.
Now we get some truth.
Ya had me there for a sec... ;-)
Interesting comment from poster on another site....
The Earth environment as we know it exists because of the energy it receives from the Sun. Radiant energy from the Sun powers the atmospheric and oceanic circulations that profoundly influence the state of the biosphere. Without solar radiation, photosynthesis would cease. Solar radiation and high energy particles impinge continually on the envelope of gases and plasma that surrounds and protects the narrow habitable layer of the Earth’s surface. Changes in the amount of solar energy input to the total Earth system are caused by three main mechanisms: i) geometric factors related to the Earth’s inclination and orbit around the Sun (which alter the distribution of radiation incident on the Earth), ii) processes in the Earth system itself (which regulate the amount of energy received by the Earth), and iii) variations in the activity of the Sun (which modulate the energy emitted by the Sun).
Based on this, there is nothing that can be done to a natural effect of the sun and the earth’s rotation that has been going on for eternity. I think the most serious potential problem facing humanity is the one looming due to the combined effect of the radical environmentalist movement and the global governance conspiracy.
An unholy trinity of radicals, media, and politicians has been successful in disseminating the deception of anthropogenic global warming on a worldwide scale. This myth declares that manmade carbon dioxide is the principle greenhouse gas and primary culprit in the current manifestation of global warming.
Water vapor, however, is the major component at 95 % of the greenhouse gases that, thank God, keep us from freezing to death when the sun goes down. Carbon dioxide comprises 3.6 % of the remaining 5 % of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide resulting from human activity is only 3.2 % of that or 0.12 % of all greenhouse gases in total.
Considerable evidence now suggests that higher carbon dioxide levels are generated by global warming rather than being its cause. The oceans that cover 75% of the planet remind one of a crock of fermenting beer. Put a lighted match into the space above the beer and the carbon dioxide extinguishes the flame. The beer needs to be warm enough for the yeast enzymes to work. If too cold, they become dormant and the fermentation ceases. Therefore, the carbon dioxide comes after the warming, is dependent on it, and the oceans are the principle source of carbon dioxide.
I do believe that the world has been warming but that it is almost entirely natural and much politicized. The world is not as warm as it was during the Roman or Medieval Warming periods when grapes from Italy thrived in Britain and when the Norse established farms in Greenland.
The Roman and Medieval Warming periods were times when the living was easy. Food production increased, population increased, productivity increased, trade flourished, empire expanded, cities were founded, cathedrals were built and universities were established.
The cold periods that followed the Roman and Medieval Warming were, on the other hand, catastrophic. Snow fell during the summer in southern Europe. During the winter of 800 801 A.D., the Black Sea froze over. The year 829 A.D. saw the River Nile edged in ice. Throughout the cold Dark Ages, chaos, desperation, and continual warfare destroyed all but the remnant and recollection of Classical Civilization sequestered and nurtured in the monasteries of the Church. Growing seasons shortened, crops failed, people starved and disease decimated populations.
The current warm period began about 1850 and who can argue but that the human race has prospered and increased and multiplied as never before? Modern times are warm, comfortable and blessed with health and longevity to an unprecedented degree. We are on the verge of seeing this prosperity spreading even to the struggling populations of the less developed portions of the world. Optimism should be our byword.
Yet, on the left, the nattering nabobs of negativism are pessimistic. They see the prosperity and seek to sap it. They see the human population increase, multiply and strive for a share of the good life and seek to suppress it. This is exactly what the carbon footprint nonsense means. Call it Cap and Trade or whatever you wish but it will ultimately become a global tax on carbon, the physical basis of all living organisms, and the very stuff of life.
If we could eliminate all human by-production of carbon dioxide, we would reduce the population of the world to a miniscule remnant left to eke out a bare survival in the tropical regions of the planet. Their only carbon footprint would be a faint one made by the occasional roasting of a fish or other small creature over a campfire. Their only satisfaction would be the dubious notion that the world might be less warm by one twelfth of a degree Celsius. Untold millions would starve.
Behold a black horse, and he who was sitting on it had a balance in his hand. And I heard as it were a voice in the midst of the four living creatures, saying, A measure of wheat for a denarius, and three measures of barley for a denarius and do not harm the wine and the oil. ~The Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle.
The new Congress should investigate global warming hoaxers like Prof. Mann and certainly cut off all funding for this BS.
And there is Hansen at NASA Goddard Climate Center or whatever his group is called.
Excellent post! Thanks.
Thank you, and the money quote in all that:
“The oceans that cover 75% of the planet remind one of a crock of fermenting beer. Put a lighted match into the space above the beer and the carbon dioxide extinguishes the flame. The beer needs to be warm enough for the yeast enzymes to work. If too cold, they become dormant and the fermentation ceases. Therefore, the carbon dioxide comes after the warming, is dependent on it, and the oceans are the principle source of carbon dioxide.”
Now, hang it around them in 2012.
Thanks for posting this.
These leaks are past the control of 0b0z0 and his Chicago thugs. They control the America media except for Fox and don’t control the foriegn media.
This will get very interesting before this is over.
If it has been in the Telegraph it wouldn't be such a big deal but this sort of says "we're done here". I suspect the left must be looking for a new scam right about now to use to destroy the Western economies on a global scale.
Yes,...very interesting since they were pretty gung-ho on the Global Warming Hype.
One can only imagine the damage that has been done by the unvetted POTUS and his Chicago Thugs.
Thanks for posting that caww.
That definitely is one of the most interesting CO2 generation analogies I have heard. But manmade CO2, including beer emissions, is about twice the observed atmospheric rise.
Remove man from the equation and there would still be a rise in CO2 from natural warming. But the rise would be much less.
Whoever the author was that is an excellent piece of work. Thanks for posting it.
The CO2 concentration is 4/100ths of one percent.
If the atmosphere was $100 dollars, CO2 would be 4 cents.
It the atmosphere were 10,000 pennies ($100) on a table, four of them would be CO2.
Now take those four pennies and form a layer among the others to prevent the passage of heat. (and that was just two dimensional)
That’s not even a “drop in the bucket.”
I was on line the night this whole Global Warming fiasco went down. “Hide the Decline” etc. as they unloaded the information. One of the most exciting times on line as they sought to confirm the e-mails and reports, Back and forth between sites and communication lines...at breathtaking speed. Was important to them that the “facts” were confirmed. Just a thrilling experience seeing these guys work. All before it hit the news too!
So following this from the get go made me look closer at what Global Warming really was about and who was involved in these trumped up reports...who funded and such. Well we know now what this is about and why.
When I saw this posters comments this week I was impressed as he made it all understandable to those unfamiliar with the technical verbage so many of them use. Peppered with enough history...well it was just a very good piece. Worthy of FR IMO. So am glad you enjoyed and appreciated this work.
I am going to try and find the site where these comments were made...but I honestly cannot recall as I was flipping thru so many. If I find it I will post the site.
The dam is forming to many holes to put one’s fingers in.
If you can find it great. Will be happy to see the site, but understand the needle in a haystack analogy in such a task. Good luck.
It could be relatively easily tested by measuring the ratio of C14O2 to C12O2 in the atmosphere, vs. the same ratio in, say, wood of an exactly known age from, say, the 18th century. By reversing the known decay rate of C14, the ratio in the pre-industrial 18th century could be calculated.
Since all the fossil fuel that has been burned since the 19th century has had 0.000% C14, the current ratio of C14O2 to C12O2, all things being equal, should be "much" lower, if your hypothesis is correct.
My best guess is that some of each ratio change (13/12 and 14/12) is natural and some is from fossil fuel burning. In the case of 14/12, one natural factor is high solar activity in the late 20th century. But most of the rise is fossil fuels. For 13/12, some of the ratio change is natural because some natural sources mimic the fossil fuel ratio (e.g. deep ocean). Dr Spencer also has some thoughts on 13/12 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/ answered by Englebeen who says that vegetation and fossil fuels show a similar ratio (due to growing plants preference for C12).
Thanks for the info. I knew that the C14/C12 ratio had dropped. The change in C13/C12 ratio I find a bit difficult to swallow as anthropogenic. But I do think that the ratios are far more accessible than some of the other climate data that is presented as fact.