Wikileaks sordid details reveals climate science is irrelevant

Posted: December 5th, 2010 by Militant Libertarian

by Joanne Nova

It’s 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 world’s 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 Saudi’s 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, it’s 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:

WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord

Embassy dispatches show America used spying, threats, and promises of aid to get support for a Copenhagen accord.

US goes to Basics over Copenhagen accord tactics

WikiLeaks cables show US admiration for how emerging economies work together to achieve common short-term goals.

WikiLeaks cables: Cancún climate talks doomed to fail, says EU president

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.


Comments (8)


  1. Zachary says:

    I just googled the author of this piece, and found that Ms. Nova is a dyed-in-the-wool Denier.

    Previously I’d made a check on Mr. Aaron Turpen. He turns out to be a self-described “anarcho-libertarian”.

    Would it be asking too much to invite some posts from the other side?

    Or at the very least to make periodic links to RealClimate and similar sites?

    It would be refreshing to discover a few libertarians who aren’t totally lockstep on the subject of denying climate change.

    • Militant Libertarian says:

      Since you use the word “denier,” you obviously don’t ascribe to science, only to name-calling. Show me some empirical evidence showing that AGW exists and I’ll publish it. So far, all you global warming proponents can come up with is bullshit from Al Gore and hazy computer models that couldn’t predict the weather next week, let alone twenty years from now.

  2. Zachary says:

    “Show me”…

    My previous post addressed the site owners.

    Was the “me” who followed my post one of them?

    Or the Denier Nova?

    • Militant Libertarian says:

      The “me” was clearly labeled as the Denier Militant Libertarian (Aaron). I’m sure that if you could give Ms. Nova some empirical proof, she’d be more than happy to join your Warmist camp. I know I would.

      However, since basic physics and provable science don’t agree with your Warmist AGW ideas, I highly doubt any of you will have an Einstein moment and come up with anything better than the false IPCC “consensus” you claim.

  3. Zachary says:

    …..The “me” was clearly labeled as the Denier Militant Libertarian (Aaron). I’m sure that if you could give Ms. Nova some empirical proof, she’d be more than happy to join your Warmist camp. I know I would.

    However, since basic physics and provable science don’t agree with your Warmist AGW ideas, I highly doubt any of you will have an Einstein moment and come up with anything better than the false IPCC “consensus” you claim. …..

    Well, I clearly saw the Militant Libertarian tag all right, but misunderstood it. After reading the About MiliLib info I now understand this site is more or less a “one-holer” instead of some kind of wide-ranging Libertarian organization as the .org tag suggested.

    So I goofed.

    But so did you. I made no mention whatever of the IPCC, nor any “consensus”.

    But back to that About info:

    …… There are a lot of things to cover here on the About MiliLib page, so no point in wasting a lot of time with a bunch of b.s. ……

    May I inquire about how many “pro” climate change posts you’ve made? Surely the evidence isn’t so open/shut that the number is zero.

    If it IS zero, I can see no point in doing the equivalent of trying to convince a devout Fundie Creationist that Darwin had it right.

    • Militant Libertarian says:

      1) I haven’t posted any “Warmist” articles because you can find those everywhere, easily. They proliferate and own the media. Even a perfunctory look at this website shows that I don’t generally publish things that you can find on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc.

      2) You haven’t offered any actual evidence either, so I assume all you do have are the usual computer-generated (inaccurate) “predictions” and the claim that a “consensus” exists thanks to the IPCC. Do you have any evidence? At all? Anything other than pictures of polar bears Photoshopped to look all unhappy? Also note my use of the term “any of you” meaning people with your AGW belief system. I see no “goof” on my part.

      As for your tying me in with creationists to make your little jab that “Deniers” are somehow flat-earth, 6,500-year-old planet types, you merely solidify my earlier assessment that you are nothing more than a name-caller with no actual evidence.

      The fact that you’ve offered no evidence – not even a link to Michael Mann or any of the other AGW profiteers – tells me that you don’t have any. You just want to waste time attempting to make character assassinations instead. Must make you feel intelligent.

      Sorry, but science requires evidence and clear hypothesis. Something you apparently can’t conjure up.

  4. Zachary says:

    You haven’t posted ANY “warmist” articles! That’s a bad sign for a site claiming “This website is a hub of information”. But only negative information for Al Gore’s evil screed is just right, huh?

    As for the “evidence” you keep demanding, it would be most helpful for you to clarify the parts of climate change which you find objectionable. If the internet tubes are to be believed, you have some University training. Was it something you learned in your science classes there which caused you to have such grave doubts?

    So to cut to the chase, what ARE the specifics which cause you to deny climate change? Detail would help here, for deniers (as a class) tend to have quite a wide range

    That link may or may not work because it’s so long, but it can be reached from this page.

    While waiting for your specific problems with climate change, I’ll link a couple other sites.

    • Militant Libertarian says:

      Since I have an actual job, I don’t have time to waste with this anymore. It’s taken you all of this time just to get around to showing evidence. I’ll refer you to the original author of this article Joanne Nova, who is much more of an expert than I. You may also be interested in reading the things on the Bishop Hill blog and Anthony Watts’ WattsUpWithThat blog. Both of which refute everything you’ve posted here.

      My main problem with “climate change” (meaning anthropogenic global warming or AGW) is that CO2 is such a tiny fraction of the whole GHG issue which in itself is a tiny fraction of the whole of climate drivers. Anyone who understands basics physics and how the atmosphere and greenhouse idea works can see this.

      The sun is a much larger driver of climate change than CO2 will ever be and most of the evidence shows that CO2 is a reaction, not a cause for warming. You know, Gore’s unstated 800 year gap. The gap which, though refuted by climate pundits, exists anyway and is found in all recent ice core analysis.

Leave a Reply