Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Post Carbon

Copenhagen's morning reads

By Juliet Eilperin
COPENHAGEN--The climate talks getting underway here have already generated a huge amount of virtual ink. What follows is a smattering of items that are helping drive the conversation:

The leaked Danish negotiating text continues to reverberate. Check out Le Monde's take, along with the requisite, anonymous U.S.-bashing quote: "This text seems more American than if the Americans had written themselves."

One of the interesting aspects about the controversy over the stolen e-mails from the University of East Anglia is how it's stoking climate skepticism at the very time that physical manifestations of global warming are increasingly evident. For a couple of different American op-eds on climate change, look at Sarah Palin's call for a U.S. presidential boycott of Copenhagen in the Post, and an International Herald Tribune commentary by Tom Lovejoy, who holds the Biodiversity Chair in the Washington-based Heinz Center.

Just note that Palin's piece makes conclusions about the researchers' actions that have yet to be proved, like that they "deliberately destroyed records." The head of the Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, made that request--but several of the researchers interviewed since the e-mails' release said they did not comply.

For a visual take on the conference, check out The Guardian's online photo gallery.

Politico has a piece outlining global expectations for the U.S. here in Copenhagen.

And if you want to monitor what certain governments are doing here, the U.S. has a special site that will webcast their events live, including their press briefings at the consistent timeslot of 2:30 p.m. local time, 8:30 a.m. Eastern.

And Brazil has both a Web site that can be translated from Portuguese, and a Twitter feed.

By

Juliet Eilperin

 |  December 9, 2009; 6:15 AM ET  |  Category:  Copenhagen morning reads Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg     Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Searching for certainty | Next: EPA chief: U.S. making up for lost time

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



It seems growing numbers of physicists, members of American Physical Society, want their organization to rescind the 2007 statement the APS made on global warming. The bureaucracy seem to be dragging its feet, offering only a public statement dated prior to Climategate. The APS will not make any statement on Climategate directly.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/08/taking_liberties/entry5933353.shtml

Posted by: RonInIrvine | December 9, 2009 12:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I just read an open letter, dated December 8, 2009, to the Secretary General of the UN from 140 scientists from climate-related disciplines. They say, in part:

"Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled."

See http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Posted by: RonInIrvine | December 9, 2009 11:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

If you want to see more evidence of CRU wrongdoing, go to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Willis Eschenbach compares the unadjusted raw data with the CRU adjusted data. It's a real eye-opener to how these pseudoscientists worked.

Steve McIntyre did some similar work on GISS surface temp record. GISS is almost as secretive as CRU. They are currently being sued for not responding to FOIA requests. See http://climateaudit.org/2007/02/15/ushcn-versions/

http://climateaudit.org/2007/02/16/adjusting-ushcn-history/

You can see they not only make the recent years warmer, they also make the 1930s and 1940s colder. Do you really believe the 1990s and 2000s were warmer than the dust bowl years of the 1930s and 40s? All the ecological indicators say the 1930s andd 40s were warmer.

Posted by: RonInIrvine | December 9, 2009 10:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Sarah Palin is absolutely correct. We should not be committing ourselves until we understand what the science says. The CRU cabal were activists and pseudoscientists, not real scientists. They did not uphold the standards of science of openness and transparency.

What papers are unaffected by the CRU scandal? Papers based on satellite temp records and papers based on Argo ocean data. Both of those data sets are open for everyone to see and neither of them show exceptional warming. In fact, ocean heat content has not increased since 2004. This is contrary to the claim CO2 has caused an energy imbalance on earth. If we had a real energy imbalance, ocean heat content would go up year over year unabated.

You say you just can't believe scientists would be deceptive?

Regarding Phil Jones email about using "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline." Phil is talking about splicing the surface temp record on the end of a proxy reconstruction to hide the fact the proxies did not track temperature well over the last few decades, something Michael Mann said no one did. On the disinformation website known as RealClimate, Mann wrote:

"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum. Most proxy reconstructions end somewhere around 1980."
See Comment #4 at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/#comments

Here Mann is denying the trick Phil Jones says he learned from Mann and that Jones now says is not a deception at all. The trick was used by Mann in 1998 and 1999, by Jones in 1999 (according to the email) and by Crowley in 2000. It may have been used many more times than that.

If CRU is willing to deceive people about the Divergence Problem and conspire to hide the deception with climate scientists (or pseudoscientists) on both sides of the Atlantic, what exactly would be below them?

All the data, metadata, methods and code must be made public. Then we need a completely new assessment of the science. After that, we can decide if we need Copenhagen or not.

Posted by: RonInIrvine | December 9, 2009 10:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company