Cablegate: governments aware of COP15 failure before talks

Hat tip to Th! who’ve dug up Copenhagen related cables: 

Benno Hansen and myself, as bloggers about Cancun for Th!nk4: Climate Change,  are working together on climate change revelations in Wikileaks’ Cablegate. Benno also has an introductory blog in Danish: Hvad Wikileaks lægger til COP15-skandalen

We are now getting a clear picture of US climate change policy over the last decade.  

COP15 was bound to fail based on these cables:

2009-11-05 16:04


11. (C) As the Chancellor’s remarks underline, German officials want strong U.S. leadership going into the Copenhagen Summit. They are advocating for a unified US/EU position towards the major emerging economies, particularly China and India, to urge them to commit to ambitious national actions at Copenhagen. They are looking for signals of our commitment to domestic and international actions that will allow us to collectively meet science-based targets. German leaders recognize the challenge of passing climate change legislation in the U.S. and have lowered their expectations for the possibility of reaching a legally binding agreement next month at Copenhagen. They have begun to describe the Summit as one step in a larger process — a politically binding framework — and may be preparing the German public for a less ambitious outcome.

The Germans were looking for US leadership… and where was it?

While the world mobilised to support efforts at COP15 – just think of the work of activists and groups such as – the world’s governments were already planning for its failure.

And what does that say about talks in Cancun (COP16)?

Time for the sceptics to wake up! Climategate was a storm in a tea-cup, Cablegate is the real story.

The scientists have told us what to expect but the world’s politicians are dragging their feet. Their complacency is in stark contrast to the urgency of mitigating and adapting to climate change.

The climate sceptics are intellectual cowards, preferring to hide themselves in a bubble of denial:

“No, no! I won’t believe it! It’s all too much for me, I’m scared!”

They don’t have the courage or energy to accept the challenge climate change presents our civilisation.

Climate sceptics?

More like climate cowards. [1] 

They hide behind the disinformation of right-wing think tanks, con-men like “Lord” Monckton and bloggers like Anthony Watts and Jo Nova.

We need people brave enough to challenge the complacency of politicians.

Time to act; time to make our voices heard.

[1] Yes, I’m calling climate sceptics cowards and for good reason! Don’t like the name? Too bad! Cablegate reveals the acceptance of the science and the failure of governments such as the US, Saudi Arabia and Australia to act.

24 thoughts on “Cablegate: governments aware of COP15 failure before talks

  1. Ray says:

    “The global-warming caravan has moved on, bound for a destination in oblivion. The United Nations is hanging the usual lamb chop in the window this week in Mexico for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, but the Washington guests are staying home. Nobody wants to get the smell of the corpse on their clothes.” Wesley Pruden

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Yes, because a quote refutes science…

      • Ray says:

        That quote elegantly sums up the sorry state of your science in the eyes of the vast majority.

        The sucking sound you hear is the fat lady taking a big breath.

    • That’s pathetic Ray,
      “your science..”
      What are you typing on? Some magical device given to you by some fairy?
      What the hell delivered you in birth? A stork?
      Just take, oh, roughly 2 seconds to think clearly what this stupid line means. Science is not a doctrine or some mythical fantasy and devotion of abstract ancient scripture, it’s rigorous, self-testing and accountable. You’re life as you know and enjoy it is completely the result of modern science, so before you carry on with tripe like this, be a little wiser and self-reflective.
      You are clearly, a climate coward because you’ll do anything to refute when science tells you something you just don’t want to hear and to spit on the ever improving devices of the post-enlightenment demonstrates little but moral-bankruptcy.

      • Ray says:

        Um, you’re sounding a little shrill there Moth. Take a breather, read some science.

        From the conclusion….

        “It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.”

      • You’re point being?
        You have one paper that says that predictions don’t match observations, it’s not difficult to pull out a stack of papers that show a fair amount of correlation between certain predictions and observation, but how cares?
        It’s needless to say that we know climate is changing and we’ve experienced a record braking year for all the wrong reasons.
        Devaluing science generically as you have just done is simply pathetic and the result of a dedicated and unmerited attack of reason. Doing so and pulling one paper that supports your held assumptions is often referred to as “cherry picking” and is laughably hypocritical.

      • Watching the Deniers says:

        LOl Ray, I have to laugh when ever I see a paper from that Journal.

        The author is also the editor of the journal

        A great deal of his own work makes it into the journal.

        “Hydrological Science Journal: edited by the papers authors…

        When you dig, you find that these scientists are outside the mainstream, and in fact are part of the small clique of contrarian scientists like Ian Plimer.

        Actually, it gets worse as an alert reader has pointed out: Koutsoyiannis is one of the journals editors. He is self publishing his own work! [hat tip JG for excellent reserch]

        Real Climate, the blog maintained by actual climate scientist offers a very good overview of the value of their work. Discussing another simular piece of work, Real Climate notes:

        “…With that in mind, I now turn to the latest paper that is getting the inactivists excited by Demetris Koutsoyiannis and colleagues. There are very clearly two parts to this paper – the first is a poor summary of the practice of climate modelling – touching all the recent contrarian talking points (global cooling, Douglass et al, Karl Popper etc.) but is not worth dealing with in detail (the reviewers of the paper include Willie Soon, Pat Frank and Larry Gould (of Monckton/APS fame) – so no guessing needed for where they get their misconceptions). This is however just a distraction (though I’d recommend to the authors to leave out this kind of nonsense in future if they want to be taken seriously in the wider field).

        Koutsoyiannis are not taken seriously.

        Not because their work is “heretical”, but because it is sloppy and poor.

        This is why it is not published by serious climate journals, and why the authors shop it around.

        The want the credibility of being peer reviewed. It also gives denialists such as Andrew Bolt something to wave around in the air shouting “See, this is just like real science!”

        Just think for a moment how much work it took me to dig all that out.”

        These guys have been pushing the same discredited junk for years. You either picked this up from WUWT or Andrew Bolt, they’re the same blog really.

        So he edits the paper and publishes his own work and waves it around as “peer reviewed”!

        LOL! Too funny for words!

  2. John R T says:

    From the cited cable, one word says it all: science.

    What is missing in CABW: science.

    ¨… actions that will allow us to collectively meet SCIENCE-based targets.¨

    re ´cowards:´ = Mike, a 40 year old living in Melbourne, please stay there, yelling at your mirror.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Interesting how you protect yourself by filtering out information. Keep doing it, the rest of us are rolling up ourselves and getting to work.

      In the end it’s your choice, and you have the freedom to ignore useful information. That you’d rather believe a comforting lie is not really your fault.

      Have a nice day!

  3. Sou says:

    Thanks again for these posts.

    The climates around the world are already changing and the weather extremes getting more frequent, even with the small amount of warming we’ve had to date. We will run out of time soon to avoid really bad changes, if we haven’t already.

    Cancun is not looking good. Too much number trading and fudging going on at the expense of any real action. Going by ClimateSpectator, we may even end up with agreements for more emissions not less.

    I don’t think we will get anywhere by leaving it up to governments. Something will have to change.

  4. Ben Lawson says:

    Climate cowards is a good way to describe them.

  5. Nescio says:

    Not sure I agree. To me politicians are bound to huge financial corporate interests. Iow, to implemet necessary measures countering AGW is a costly affair that the industry opposes and therefore they lobby politicians to prevent such policy change. No denial, merely protecting their incomes.

  6. Sailrick says:

    “That quote elegantly sums up the sorry state of your science in the eyes of the vast majority.”

    So now we are going to do science by popular opinion? Get real.
    This is a particularly absurd comment, since public opinion is being swayed by one of the biggest dis-information campaigns in history, and one of the best funded. -something scientist could only dream of matching in terms of the power of big
    money and political clout.

    And you are most likely the product of their disinformation campaign – not only the product, but proof of it’s success.

    • Ray says:

      Sailrick, care to elaborate on this “consensus” we keep hearing about? Was that ever science? The vast majority of people saw what you tried to pass off as science, shoveled snow off the sidewalk and voted cagw out of office.

      • DaveMcRae says:



        My aunt has retired as a history teacher. She had film from the British army’s liberation of Belsen as one of her teaching aids. Many were physically sick, but still a few just denied.

        And I still can’t get a denier to stump up and stand in front of a CO2 laser.

      • I don’t think there’s much point Dave,
        people like Ray employ a black hole of ignorance that forces everything to loop.
        “Show me the scientific consensus”-> Here you go (eg. the piece you provided) -> “That only shows that 98% of the climate scientists are corrupt. You can’t show that CO2 is a climate driver.” -> Here you go -> “That doesn’t prove the climate is changing.” -> Look here and here for examples. -> “So what? That’s tiny, it doesn’t mean there will impacts” -> No? See here, here and here. -> “There’s too much uncertainty..” etc..
        Thus we have what we have – a bunch of wannabe scientists who demand answers, side-step the analysis and moan that we’re all hood-winked… An endless non-debate.

  7. Ray says:

    Watching the Deniers (05:35:45) :

    Classic, attempt to discredit and demonize all those who do not agree with agw. That worked so well for you in the past.

    • Tim says:

      Laughable… hence why we call people, such as yourself, climate deniers; because you live in denial.
      I can’t believe the bulk of science, under peer-review / critical analysis produced by thousands of educated individuals who submit their ideas for evaluation, is met with such conspiracy nonsense, as you have illustrated yourself, yet your willing to blindly believe a self-publisher!

      “…demonize all those who do not agree with agw.”
      I wish I had a dollar for every time I hear that. We don’t need to demonize them. They just don’t deserve to be taken seriously except if you wish to adhere to some delusion of being unaccountable for environmental degradation. THAT is denial.

      • Ray says:

        Ok Moth, global warming, climate change, climate disruption, the massive falling of the heavans has tanked as an issue on a global scale. Do tell, what happened? Why have people rejected those claims?

        Calmly please.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      I’ve stated many times this is a “robust” debate. Note I don’t use foul language, threaten people or attack their age, sex, nationality etc.

      I’ve received some pretty foul email from sceptics, calling me the most vile names and wishing horrible things upon myself and loved ones.

      I question the credibility of professional deniers, as they lack it.

      But I feel for the ordinary individuals taken in by these hucksters. It’s a con, and they’re misleading and lying.

      However, the most important thing as far as I’m concerned is to document the campaign of deceit by the denial industry in the (small) hope future generations will learn from this and not repeat the same mistakes they did.

      Like with AIDs denial, evolution denial, vaccine denial, ozone depletion denial…

      • Ray says:

        The world looked to the IPCC and got the Himalaya glacier fraud, we looked to the “the team” for guidance and were rewarded with climategate. The Met office seemingly teamed up with Monty Python when forcasting the past several European winters. Climate models track into hellish heat while temperatures have remained flat over the past 15 years.

        I didn’t mean to point the finger at you Mike but damn, proponents of agw with their rude responce to honest dissent seemingly don’t realize the fatal damage they do to their own argument by trashing the opposition.

        Lacking compelling science people prudently judged accordingly.

      • You’re full of it, aren’t you Ray?

        “Himalaya glacier fraud”
        What? One of a few typos in a massive document that wasn’t picked up by one of your strange denial blogs, but rather by the scientific community and was thus corrected before it even made much news.

        “rewarded with climategate”
        You mean that non-event that no matter how many investigations clear the people involved, people like you simply cannot get over it?? Mike’s covered a number of cable leaks that demonstrate a real climate agenda, but your deluded mind just cannot get over a few quotes that were taken out of context.

        “temperatures have remained flat over the past 15 years”
        Wrong. What happened to 1998? People like you try to pretend that it’s been cooling since then, but you, oddly, take an even larger leap into the inaccurate and state that since 1995, the global temperature anomaly has been flat? Do your homework before shooting your mouth off.

        If I come across somewhat rude, it’s just frustration over every last individual on the street thinks that they are qualified to write-off the available evidence on notions as flawed as you have just demonstrated. One simply cannot talk science with people who just don’t understand science and scientific methodology, yet many such people walk away with a smug smile on their face because as far as they’re concerned they’ve won the argument, when in fact all they’ve done is demonstrated their ignorance.

        eg. “the sorry state of your science in the eyes of the vast majority”

        eg. when you write “cagw” I guess you mean catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
        If so, again this demonstrates ignorance.
        “Catastrophic” is an ambiguous word and a value judgement.
        “global warming” too is ambiguous and misleading. Warming itself isn’t too concerning, nor, if the truth be known, is climate change (yet, this is a far more accurate title, over “global warming”). It’s the “anthropogenic” factor that changes things.
        Warming doesn’t mean a great deal, yet climate change explains what we’re seeing.
        Even the arbor day foundation have recognised a poleward shift of climate
        Given time enough to adapt or room enough to move, species cope fairly well to climate change events – healthier ecosystems means greater resilience. However, from climate, to landscape use change, human impact is greatly decreasing resilience and increasing extinction rates.
        As climate zones shift, the hydrological cycle is also impacted. As the global temperature anomaly increases, as it is, air is able to hold more water, which is expressed through weather events. This means reliable water availability – known and exploited in some cases by people for thousands of years – is no longer so reliable and other areas have increased flows.

        No-one can can say with full confidence that anything will be “catastrophic”, but this doesn’t mean you’ve won the argument, but it’s simply nonsense.

        No-one can make an argument about “global warming”, but that too doesn’t mean you’ve won the argument, because it also doesn’t mean much.

        You’re a fool if you think human activity has no impact on the environment as much as you are if you do not think increasing the atmospheric concentrations of a greenhouse gas will amplify the greenhouse effect. Likewise, if you think the same gas is not responsible for reducing oceanic pH.

  8. drewski says:

    SCEPTICS (with a silent “C”) = So Called Experts Perpetually Talking In Circles

    Not to be confused with SKEPTICS = Part of the scientific process where individuals with experience or training in relevant fields offer counter points to specific issues.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: