Mother Jones CopenPrimer

Anyone looking to understand the intricacies and implications of the Copenhagen climate summit would be well advised to start with David Corn’s introduction on

These meetings are generally filled with two kinds of people:

1. professional bureaucrats and NGO hangers-on who are so steeped in the process that they seem to speak a foreign and completely unintelligible language; and

2. Climate dilettantes who drop in to these events infrequently and struggle to understand even the most elemental aspects of the complicated architecture of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Corn, the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones, seems to have spent enough time paying attention that he understands many of the finer points, and yet he has not forgotten how to speak a version of English that the uninitiated can still understand.

I’m inclined to make one observation on his analysis, though. He sets out many of the challenges facing the assembled countries with accuracy and clarity, but he concludes that the principal roadblock to a deal is a lack of trust among countries. That’s true as far as it goes. But I think he might also have noted the unbridled self interest that badly colors the positions of so many of the countries. Canada doesn’t want to bind itself to a climate deal because it wants to continue exploiting its oil resources without restriction. The U.S. doesn’t want to sacrifice its wealth and privilege or compromise its absolute sovereignty. And China and India want to continue their explosive growth - to lift their people out of poverty.

Of course, the island states are self-interested, as well. They don’t want to  drown in a sea that is rising on a tide of global greed and self-delusion.

Theirs seems to be the interest that we should most respect. They are not trying to squeeze the last drop of profit out of a poisonous fuel source. They are trying to survive. Why on earth should they trust people who would put oil profits ahead of their interest?


Climate change emails row deepens as Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server

Read more:–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html#ixzz0ZaL9SmGk

Excellent summary of the climategate issue. So much for Desmogblog’s twists on the subject.

Wow, what a badly written article. And we’ve known for weeks that the emails were on a Russian server - so what?

Because the accusation here is that the Russians did it, or that someone hacked into the Russian site to post the files. Both of which are wrong according to the Russians.

Still, this does not preclude that it was a whistleblower from inside CRU.

How is the article “badly written” because you did not like their conclusions?

“According to the Russians.” It is not all that long ago that these words would have been greeted with laughter, or at least an ironical smile. In fact I think that in this casse this would still be the appropriate reaction.

The users of stolen goods keep clinging to the whistleblower theory as one way of justifying their behavior. There was an honest thief here folks …

So nothing the Russians say is the truth still? Boy, I guess some people cannot get over that the Cold War ended when the USSR collapsed.

“So nothing the Russians say is the truth still?” I said “in this case”! Russia has as much interest in these emails causing havoc to climate change negotiations as Saudi Arabia has. It is their fossil fuel riches that might lift them out of poverty and give them a strategic lever in foreign policy. Being more trained in Secret Service hanky panky they might have gone one step further than the Saudis …

Mind you I am equally open to the thesis that this is the handiwork of the original Swiftboat builders, with the happy assistance of Rush Limbaugh, Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre.

The Daily Mail article is, by the way, just a rehash of all the denialist campaign stuff about the swifthack, in which Lindzen, Pielke and Steve McIntyre figure as crown witnesses. The paper also makes use of McIntyre’s ‘thus far unreported’ recent (mis)reperesentation of the emails. That is rather funny because DeepClimate wanted us to vote on the likelihood of what paper would first pick up this bit of disinformation. The choice was between the National Post, the Wallstreet Journal and the Daily Telegraph. Most votes went to the National Post but now it appears that the race has been won by an outsider.

The article was sold under false pretences. As if there was basic new information about the “Russian connection”. That the server was located in Tomsk was known right from the start. The real purpose of the whole thing was PR for the denialist campaign.

So much for freedom of speech. Pathetic and dangerous.

“Journalist Phelim McAleer (‘Mine Your Own Business’, ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’) asks Prof Stephen Schneider from Stanford University an Inconvenient Question about ‘Climategate’ emails. McAleer is interrupted twice by Prof Schneider’s assistant and UN staff and then told to stop filming by an armed UN security guard.”

I couldn’t remember why I knew McAleer’s name. He’s the sweetheart who did the mining movie on behalf of the mine owner without posting his conflict of interest. ( And now he’s bringing the same level of integrity to his treatment of climate change. It’s no wonder Schneider walked on the guy. He must have known that whatever he said, McAleer would have cut and chopped into something unrecognizable as the truth.

Mr. Wakefield: You will notice the next comment is, well, missing. “Lie” is a specific libel and your proof was not up to snuff. I didn’t hear the interview, but I can’t imagine that the purported perpetrator put a date on the period in which a nine-meter sea level rise could occur. A review of the DeSmogBlog’s ridiculously tolerant comment policy: No libels. No profanity. No bitter, personal swipes unrelated to actual content.

the word “Lie” is thrown around quite a bit in the comment section here. It’s used freely and I’m not going to point out which side does it more. I think that is pretty clear. I will applaud any effort to bilaterally elevate the discussion.

If you think the word “lie” is being used in a context we can’t prove, by all means call for a ruling - or more evidence. We use the word - rarely, carefully and in cases where our libel lawyer reckons that someone like, oh, say, Fred Singer, has been caught dead to rights and won’t sue. Not otherwise.

Ok, I will do just that then. They next time one of you people post that word, which has happened many times, I’ll be sure you know about it. I’ll expect action.

I have used the word in relation to a specific individual here - a person who, ironically, has been pleading for Moncton’s ‘right’ to call ‘a spade a spade’. It is clear that in the potty peer’s case that right was abused. But I thought it appropriate to use it for his advocate as a matter of intellectual hygiene.

‘I will applaud any effort to bilaterally elevate the discussion.’ Well James, you might start by calling that person on his continuous and deliberate disinformation, even though that would mean giving up your faux-naif role of ironical observer who is above the fray (and occasionally likes to lecture us on our manners).

NEED TO KNOW HAVE TO GOO. cosmetic dentistrygroup