Home > AGW, Climate Change, Global Warming, IPCC, Omniclimate, Policy, Science > Were AGW Scientists Completely Sidestepped In Copenhagen?

Were AGW Scientists Completely Sidestepped In Copenhagen?

Have to admit, having read an AGW blog about COP-15 I could not avoid committing the sin of wasting time reading the Copenhagen Accord. And yes, there is an interesting and quite telling concept after all. It shows that no scientist, AGW believer or otherwise, has likely participated to the writing of the Accord, or has even been involved in reviewing any of it.

I am referring to a concept that is repeated twice:

(point 1) “recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius

(point 2) “reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius

In there, “the increase in global temperature” is referred in absolute terms. A much more scientific, logical and legal thing to write would have been

the increase in global temperature due to anthropogenic interference

To understand the absurdity of the Accord as it stands, imagine the world of 2050, with giant emission reductions already achieved, and powerful models showing that “anthropogenic interference” amounts to +1.7C. Still, if by pure misfortune natural variability sums up to +0.4C, the Copenhagen Accord says we have failed (despite having achieved the wildest dreams of the average 2009 greenie).

Imagine now another world of 2050, with no emission reduction at all and “anthropogenic interference” running at +3C. Still, if by pure stroke of luck natural variability sums up to -0.9C (eg a series of giant volcanic eruptions from 2045 onwards), the Copenhagen Accord says we have succeeded (despite having done nothing at all).

Sadly, all of that shows how silly is the idea that there is something good in the Accord because it has followed the lead of scientists. In truth, the Accord has made the IPCC irrelevant apart than as a confirming body for whatever the USA and China would like to see agreed upon regarding “climate change”.

  1. Annette
    2010/01/02 at 20:30

    Good points, I think I will definitely subscribe! :). I’ll go and read some more!

  2. 2009/12/23 at 12:10

    You are right to note that the COP-15 accord is not based upon any scientific understanding of the causes or consequences of climate change. One other interesting aspect of the accord is that there is no specific mention of lowering the emission of greenhouse gases from industry and transportation. Rather, the industrial nations are provided with the option of purchasing “carbon offsets.” This could mean preserving natural rainforests but could also mean tree plantations which displace native peoples and reduce biodiversity.

  3. Luke Warmer
    2009/12/22 at 12:14

    Yes it’s a surreal situation this blurring of the definitions and the vague targets which should be +/- ENSO, not allowing for volcanoes etc.

    But ff you want another surrealist shocker I just realised that at least five of the countries at the conference are smaller than the UN itself.

    UN secretariat workforce = 40,000 (source: http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml

    Cook Islands – 20,000
    Monacco – 33,000
    Nauru – 10,000
    Niue – 1,500
    Palau – 20,000
    Tuvalu – 10,000

    Source for pops – Wiki.

  1. 2010/01/12 at 12:48
  2. 2009/12/23 at 01:18

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: