As an oil-producing state, Saudi Arabia certainly has an interest in the debate about global warming. Moves to get away from the use of fossil fuels directly affects its economy. Acceleration of those moves for political purposes, rather than market forces, is seen as a serious threat to that economy. Thus, it’s not surprising that the country pays a lot of attention—more than much of the Western media, in fact—to challenges directed at the conventional wisdom about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
A major challenge to that ‘wisdom’ came out a couple of weeks ago. Documents, programming, data, and e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in the UK, obtained through either a hack or a whistle-blower, suggested that the ‘science’ on AGW is less grounded in fact that one might have supposed. It also suggested that there may have been criminal actions taken by the CRU to hide inconvenient facts. The head of that unit has ‘temporarily stepped down’ while the issue is being investigated. The UN, sponsor of the IPCC reports on global warming—for which, incidentally, the Climate Research Unit has been one of the primary resources—has ordered its own investigation. The US Congress, too, is looking into the matter and how it may have compromised the science used by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the US Environmental Protection Agency.
As world leaders descend on Copenhagen for the newest round of talks on global climate, Saudi Arabia is concerned that politically-driven agendas will swamp the actual science, at Saudi expense.
The ‘solutions’ to global warming, with a price tag in the trillions of dollars, make sense only if they will actually address the issue. If global warming is the result of factors other than human activity, then a different set of solutions might be required. Throwing money at the wrong cause only wastes money without solving the problems.
‘E-mail leak will impact UN climate summit’
K.S. Ramkumar | Arab NewsJEDDAH: Saudi Arabia’s Chief Climate Negotiator Mohammad Al-Sabban has said that an e-mail leak from the Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, UK, will have a “huge impact” on this week’s UN climate summit in Copenhagen.
He made it clear that he expects it to derail the main objective of the summit — to agree limitations in greenhouse gas emissions.
“It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change,” he told BBC News. “Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not human-induced reasons.”
The Kingdom has seized on a series of stolen British university e-mails to become the first country to officially cast doubt on the consensus about man-made climate change ahead of the summit.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
December:06:2009 - 12:46
i’ve always wondered why this sabban guy is the delegate. i think he’s just a sacrificial so he takes the heat instead of ali alnaimi.
in any case, asking for ‘compensation’ from ‘losses’ in fossil fuel sales is ridiculous on many levels.
December:06:2009 - 14:59
If oil prices were to go down due to market forces, I’d agree with you. If they go down due to the political actions of other countries, though, then there’s an argument for compensation, IMO.
December:06:2009 - 23:58
The New York Times has a good article on the topic and mentions Saudi:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/science/earth/07climate.html
Our Prime Minister who is from Canada’s major oil producing province, Alberta, should be happy about the idea that the human impact on global warming may be false, as he too would prefer to see fossil fuels dominate and the “tar sands” fully exploited.
I am wondering after reading a few articles whether the problem is naivete to the narcissisms and rivalries of scientists, as opposed to disbelieving the data from the other centres which also have peer-reviewed evidence of AGW.
I certainly agree that an error about this in either direction would be “costly”.
December:07:2009 - 08:08
Different Times, another interesting article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6947199.ece
Of course, I am planning to retire to a psychotherapy stand under the palm trees on the Canadian Arctic Circumpolar Naval Route–unless there are too many mosquitoes of course–so I am biased.
December:07:2009 - 08:20
One of the things I found surprising in N. Ireland was palm trees along the norther coasts. Perhaps you don’t need to wait?
December:07:2009 - 10:02
One of the things I found surprising in N. Ireland was palm trees along the norther coasts.
Cute, isn’t it? Yes, a wee little finger of the Gulf Stream reaches out and touches The Emerald Isle in one or two places, moderating local climate enough so that coconut palms can grow without being killed by frost.
However, if global warming changes the deep-water current, the shifting Stream may abandon the Irish palms which will then die of the winter cold.
December:07:2009 - 12:05
What is the reason ? the saudi’s fear the if mankind create Global Warming, then we act as God
December:07:2009 - 14:01
I don’t think we need to go get all theological about it!
That way, there be dragons…
December:07:2009 - 14:17
Yeah, you are right. I’m also a little bit (!) sceptical, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have to help those people and countries who are hit hard by the climate changes. But among them are not Saudi Arabia. And the compensation discussion is simply hypocritical. If the oil consumption should fall
(and I doubt it) then the period where the arab countries have oil will be prolonged.
Some would argue, that a little less oil money wouldn’t hurt. It could foster creativity.
December:07:2009 - 14:34
Dragons…
One of the magical powers that would be supercool
Many of times have I thought of breathing fire…well actually when I saw the gypsies doing it I thought it was fabulous.
There is free energy and people can try to debunk it, but I know its out there. It is just not self serving…other than that…it’s out there. Want some? I got some in my pocket.
December:07:2009 - 15:49
I think for the immediate future, if I were planning to pitch my psychotherapy stand under a palm it would be somewhere on the Mediterranean (preferrably a no bombing zone, though that would be good for business, all those PTSDs), or the Caribbean, and then head north as the waters rise.
I certainly agree that helping those facing natural disasters or inevitable changes would be or primary importance and better done before resolving all questions of teleology.
December:07:2009 - 20:58
“Climate change,” now there is an oxymoron you can take to the bank. I guess “Global warming” was a hard sell when it is obvious that it ain’t warming – so about two years ago poor little old “Global Warming” was abducted by little green men from Mars, who left something called “Climate Change” in its place.
It never fails to impress me that people can be worried about Climate Change. Hum, it seems that climate is basically a macro version of temperature. Climate changes every day. It may be cold in the morning and nice in the afternoon. Climate in July is different from that in January. Climate changes from place to place. The climate in Taif is different from that in Riyadh. Climate changes from year to year to era and era. Any early 20th century textbook will talk about the Ice ages and climate change.
What we have here is a grab for power and money by a bunch of people – governments, big business and non-profits. It is a moral protection racket for the gullible. If you hadn’t noticed it before the Climategate emails should have made it very clear by now that the Global warming folks will do anything – cheat, threaten, falsify data, hide information, slander, etc – to achieve their goals. They will eat the middle class alive and then use the bones for soup.
Worry about pollution, worry about resources, worry about a bunch of things, but fighting big, bad Climate Change is like fighting the tooth fairy. Not only is the data limited and manipulated, it is obvious that climate, in a long term model, must consider tens of thousand of variables over a very long period of time. The AGW model is a bad joke. It is Chicken Little all over again.
Oh yes, one last thing… How many private planes in Copenhagen? how many limos? How much carbon being generated? Yeah, these are really serious people. What is really weird is that it is the Saudis that are showing common sense.
At least we known who (or what) destroyed all logic and common sense. It was YADO61. Yep. Old YAD061 is the worst living creature on earth, by far. It causes panic and tears. It keeps Al Gore up at night. YAD061 makes Satan look like a kittycat. Yad061 is humanity’s worst nightmare. I have better stop before I get carried away. Behold the beast:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html
K.
December:07:2009 - 22:05
So, ‘hockey sticks’ are made of YADO61 wood… that’s good to know. I wonder if the NHL is aware of this? Or the Olympic committees?
December:07:2009 - 22:54
Well there is scientic evidence that there is a hole in the ozone layer and that increases ultraviolet ray exposure. Certain chemicals reactions interfere with the molecular structures in the upper atmospheres. That is a fact and based on science.
Whether it is getting warmer is not as much a concern to me as how human interference is upsetting the balance of nature and that is a serious concern with rising sea levels. The artic cap is melting and satellite pictures can prove this. There is concern here.
December:08:2009 - 00:15
You’re right about ozone and flurocarbons. The funny thing is, they’re now finding that by ‘closing the ozone hole’, they’re driving global warming!
I’m sure you know the saying about ‘good intentions’ or, perhaps, ‘unforeseen consequences’…
December:08:2009 - 00:25
If they go down due to the political actions of other countries, though, then there’s an argument for compensation, IMO.
John: so when the OPEC cartel gets together and manipulates supply artificially to jack up the price, would you say they should be compensating consumers for their political shenanigans?
We are no obligation to buy petroleum (or any product) for political, marketplace, or whatever reasons suits our fancy. As a consumer, I am damned if I am going to surrender my right to arbitrarily change my pattern of consumption because it affects the supplier’s or producer’s bottom line. That KSA has nothing else to sell and support its economy is not my problem.
December:08:2009 - 07:15
I don’t think you’re really addressing the argument.
First, Saudi Arabia has been a ‘dove’ within OPEC, constantly arguing against raising prices the way Iran, Libya, and Venezuela have wanted. Had it gone along, we would have been at $400/bbl a long time ago. Check any history of OPEC on Saudi behavior. The Saudis do realize that too high a price will kill the oil market.
Here, the KSA is arguing that political actions by others will push the price of oil into that dead market zone. They aren’t arguing that you can’t change your pattern of consumption, but that nations should not change your pattern by making oil-powered conveniences too expensive, even if that’s your personal choice. If oil becomes too expensive due to market forces, e.g. scarcity, then people will make whatever choices they wish, and God bless them. But if you can’t buy it because political actions put it out of reach, then they believe they’re due compensation. They’ll let you make your argument about limited choice to those who actually did limit it.
December:08:2009 - 10:00
More than fluorcarbins contribute.
Smog from burning fossil fuels seems to worsen the chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
I wasn’t aware of any fixing or closing of the hole with the exception of CFC free products.
December:08:2009 - 11:16
You might be interested in this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080612141015.htm
December:08:2009 - 12:28
Yes, that was interesting. Although the research or predictions aren’t necessarily “bad”; only that changes will occur. Well at least the good news is that is will close. The bad news, “Are we able to refreeze melted glaciers in time for the coming changes or will we need to? The article says much more research is needed. Sometimes doing something too late is too bad also or the unforseen consequences.
YOu might be interested in this:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ae/s_642232.html
and for Smog this:
http://www.pscleanair.org/airq/basics/weather/smog.aspx
December:08:2009 - 12:41
AND PLEASE PEOPLE LIKE WE are supposed to rely on stolen data and research that was made public. PAH Yeah RIght Whatever! Try again!!!
You know I wasn’t even gonna comment on this until someone said DRAGON. LOL
And I am really pissed off now at these cheap attempts (someone was paid I am sure) to shape or influence an attempt to attack people tackling a serious issue. UGHHH
December:08:2009 - 13:14
evil chuckles…
Night
December:08:2009 - 14:49
Hockey sticks? Did I read hockey sticks and NHL? Normally that would have sent me flying to any recent post on Jeddah, but now that I am a hockey aunt (10 year old goalie, house league, because his mother won’t let him play rep, even though his coaches want him to) I had to read with rapt attention.
Hmmm hockey stick grafts…well good thing the Canadians came in to rectify these falsified grafts. Shan’t be using our icons for mischief!
Right now my view is that climate change is always happening though usually imperceptibly to most of us; what is happening exactly where and why is up for scientific debate, except for those who have found themselves on an ice flow where once the ice was reliable:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/723523–teen-hunter-trapped-alone-on-ice-floe-with-polar-bears
The causes for the current changes are important so that we slow it enough to prepare for the inevitable.
John, thanks for the information about Saudi’s role in OPEC, as I wasn’t aware of that so much as just an OPEC blur, with the occasional rant from Iran or Chavez.
Some of the measures taken to protect the ozone layer were just better for one’s immediate environment at least, eg. aerosol sprays no longer ubiquitous.
December:08:2009 - 14:51
“First, Saudi Arabia has been a ‘dove’ within OPEC, constantly arguing against raising prices the way Iran, Libya, and Venezuela have wanted. Had it gone along, we would have been at $400/bbl a long time ago. Check any history of OPEC on Saudi behavior. The Saudis do realize that too high a price will kill the oil market.”
Thank you for pointing that out John. In fact, when the price of oil goes too high, our cost of living skyrockets here. It’s better for us with oil at a more moderate price.