by Michel Chossudovsky
November 30, 2009
More than 15,000 people will be
gathering in Copenhagen for COP 15: the 15th Conference of
the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Official delegations from 192 nations will mingle with the
representatives of major multinational corporations,
including Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, The
representatives of environmental and civil society
organizations will also be in attendance.
Parties & Observers
Heads of state and heads of government are slated to be in
appearance in the later part of the Summit event.
The essentials in Copenhagen - COP15
United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009)
It is worth noting that key decisions
and orientations on COP15 had already been wrapped up at the
World Business Summit on Climate Change (WBSCC) held in May in
Copenhagen, six months ahead of COP15.
The WBSCC brought together some of the World's most prominent
business executives and World leaders including
Al Gore and
United Nations Secretary General
Ban Ki Moon. (The
World Business Summit on Climate Change)
The results of these high level consultations were forwarded to the
Danish government as well as to the governments of participating
member states. A so-called summary report for policymakers was
drafted by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, on behalf the corporate
executives participating in the event.
This report has very little to do with
environmental protection. It largely consists in a profit driven
agenda, which uses the global warming consensus as a justification.
Council: The World Business Summit on Climate Change)
"The underlying ambition of the
Summit was to address the twin challenges of climate change and
the economic crisis. Participants at the Summit considered how
these risks can be turned into opportunity if business and
governments work together, and what policies, incentives, and
investments will most effectively stimulate low-carbon growth."
The agenda of the Copenhagen Climate
Summit (7-18 December 2009), is upheld both by the governments,
the business executives and the NGO community as,
"one of the most significant
gatherings in history. It is being called the most complex
and vital agreement the world has ever seen."
CO2 emissions are heralded as
the single and most important threat to the future of humanity.
The focus of the Summit is on strictly environmental issues.
No mention of the word "war" -
i.e. the US-NATO led war and its devastating
No mention of the pre-emptive
use of nuclear weapons as an instrument of "peacemaking".
No mention, as part of an
environmental debate, of the radioactive fallout resulting
from the Pentagon's humanitarian nuclear bombs. Tactical
nuclear weapons, according to scientific opinion
commissioned by the Pentagon are "safe for the surrounding
No mention of "weather warfare"
or "environmental modification techniques" (ENMOD) and
No mention in the debate on
climate change of the US Air Force 2025 project entitled
"Owning the Weather" for military use.
as A Force Multiplier - Owning The Weather in 2025
(Ch 1) - see also
U.S. Military Wants to Own the Weather)
Despite a vast body of scientific
knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for
military use is no longer part of the UN agenda on climate change.
It was, however, part of the agenda of
the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. (Environmental
Warfare and Climate Change -
Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s
experiments with climatic warfare)
CO2 is the logo, which describes the Worldwide crisis. No
other variable is contemplated.
Moreover, no meaningful anti-pollution clean air policy directed
against CO2 emissions can be formulated as an objective
in its own right, because the reduction of CO2
emissions is subordinate to the Global Warming consensus.
The words "poverty", "unemployment" and "disease" resulting from a
global economic depression are not a matter of emphasis because
authoritative financial sources state unequivocally:
"the economic recession is over".
And the war in the Middle East and
Central Asia is not a war but,
"a humanitarian operation
directed against terrorists and rogue states."
The Real Crisis
The Copenhagen Summit not only serves powerful corporate
interests, which have a stake in the global multibillion dollar
carbon trading scheme, it also serves to divert public attention
from the devastation resulting from the "real crisis" underlying the
process of economic globalization and a profit driven war without
borders, which the Pentagon calls "the long war".
We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern
economic depression constitute the
real crisis, yet both the governments and
the media have focused their
attention on the environmental devastation resulting from CO2
emissions, which is upheld as the greatest threat to humanity.
Multibillion Dollar Carbon Trading System
The carbon trading system is a multibillion money-making
bonanza for the financial establishment. The stakes are extremely
high and the various lobby groups on behalf of Wall Street have
already positioned themselves.
According to a recent report,
"the carbon market could become
double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new
breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through
the EU's emissions trading scheme...
The speed of that growth will depend
on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a
low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such
as the ETS will expand around the globe."
Carbon trading could be worth twice that
of oil in next decade, The Guardian, 28 November
The large financial conglomerates,
involved in derivative trade, including,
...are actively involved in carbon
Investment banks in carbon trading - Reuters, 14
The legitimacy of the carbon trading system rests on the legitimacy
of the Global Warming Consensus, which views CO2
emissions as the single threat to the environment.
And for Wall Street the carbon trading
system is a convenient and secure money-making safety-net, allowing
for the transfer of billions of dollars into the pockets of a
handful of conglomerates.
"Every major financial house in New
York and London has set up carbon trading operations. Very big
numbers are dancing in their heads, and they need them to
replace the 'wealth' that evaporated in the housing bust.
Louis Redshaw, head of environmental
markets at Barclays Capital, told the New York Times,
'Carbon will be the world's
biggest market over all.'
Barclays thinks the current $60
billion carbon market could grow to $1 trillion within a decade.
Four years ago Redshaw, a former electricity trader, couldn't
get anyone to talk to him about carbon."
The Multibillion Dollar Carbon Trading,
RenewableEnergyWorld.com, 5 March 2008)
The Global Warming
Is the Global Warming Consensus based on reliable data?
There are indications that both the concepts and the data on
temperature and greenhouse gas emissions including CO2
have been adjusted and shaped to fit the agenda of the UN Panel on
For several years, the claims of the UN Panel on Climate Change
(UNPCC) including the data base have been questioned.
Research's Climate Change Dossier)
Critical analysis of the climate change consensus has been conveyed
in reports by several prominent scientists.
There has been, in this regard, a persistent attempt to silence the
critics as conveyed in the writings of MIT meteorologist Richard
Scientists who dissent from the
alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work
derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific
hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain
credence even when they fly in the face of the science that
supposedly is their basis.
of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting
scientists into silence)
ClimateGate and the
In November 2009, barely a few weeks before the inauguration of the
Copenhagen Summit, a
vast data bank of over 3000 email exchanges
between key Climate Change scientists and researchers was revealed.
While the emails do not prove that the entire data base was
falsified, they nonetheless point to scientific dishonesty and
deceit on the part of several prominent scientists who are directly
linked to the UNPCC.
The emails suggest that the data was shaped, with a view to
supporting a predetermined policy agenda. "Fixing the climate data
to fit the policy" is the modus operandi as revealed in the email
messages of top scientists, directly linked to the work of the UN
Panel on Climate Change?
The British media has acknowledged that the scientists were intent
upon manipulating the data on Climate Change as well as excluding
From: Phil Jones
Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick
of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years
(ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the
Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask
the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims
the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted
From Phil Jones
To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State
July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC
report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have
to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change.
The scientists did not want it to consider studies that
challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National
Center for Atmospheric Research)
To: Michael Mann
Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at
the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing
system is inadequate"
Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global
warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have
increased over the past 10 years.
From: Phil Jones.
March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing
more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the
editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published
papers downplaying climate change.
From Phil Jones.
To: Michael Mann.
Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise."
Climate change skeptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws
to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as
AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the
data to be made public.
From: Michael Mann.
To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl
(University of Edinburgh).
Date: Aug 10, 2004
"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap
criticisms from the idiots in the near future."
The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate
change skeptics who request more information about their work
of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes -
Telegraph, 23 November 2009).
The complete list of contentious emails
can be consulted at
Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable
published by eastangliaemails.com.
What is significant is that the authors
of the emails are directly involved in the UN Panel on Climate
"[They are] the small group of
scientists who have for years been more influential in driving
the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not
least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge
of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its
reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK
Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific
contributors, his global temperature record is the most
important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC
and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the
world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of
dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of
American and British scientists responsible for promoting that
picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey
stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate
history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of
decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their
highest level in recorded history.
(Prof. Christopher Booker,
Climate Change: This is the Worst
Scientific Scandal of our Generation, The Telegraph,
28 November 2009)
One of the contentious emails by Dr
Jones (published by eastangliaemails.com) points to the deliberate
manipulation of the data:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards)
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept
for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the
estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email email@example.com
Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable
published by eastangliaemails.com
Barely two weeks before the inauguration of the Copenhagen Summit,
the US Congress is now probing into "the
Global Warming Emails":
"U.S. congress has begun
investigating climate scientists whose emails and documents were
hacked into to see if their global warming theories have
misrepresented the truth behind the cause of climate change.
Investigators have begun "studying" the 1,079 e-mails and over
3,800 documents that hackers stole last week from the Climate
Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in the U.K, Rep.
Darrel Issa from California told the Wall Street Journal.
Some of the leaked e-mails and files - which were posted on
www.EastAngliaEmails.com - show
growing tensions between scientists and skeptics. Others are
mundane announcements of upcoming conferences or research trips.
According to his website, Rep. James Inhofe from Oklahoma
said on Monday the leaked correspondence suggested researchers,
"cooked the science to make this
thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time
of course we knew it was not."
The White House Science Adviser John
Holdren has also come under investigation, after one of his
emails written in 2003 to Michael Mann of Pennsylvania
State University, was hacked.
"I'm happy to stand by my
contribution to this exchange. I think anybody who reads
what I wrote in its entirety will find it a serious and
balanced treatment of the question of 'burden of proof' in
situations where science germane to public policy is in
dispute," Holdren said.
Meanwhile, The University of East
Anglia said it will cooperate with police and proceed with
its own internal investigation. The University posted a
statement calling the disclosure "mischievous" and saying it is
aiding the police in an investigation.
The statement also quotes Jones, CRU's director, explaining his
November 1999 e-mail, which said:
"I've just completed Mike's
Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for
the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for
Keith's to hide the decline."
Jones said that the word trick was
"colloquially as in a clever
thing to do" and that it "is ludicrous to suggest that it
refers to anything untoward."
The leaked data comes just two weeks
before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen will begin on
Dec. 7-18, when 192 nations will meet to discuss a solution on
how to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other
heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide.
Business Times, November 24, 2009)
Meanwhile, the "international community"
(supported by the
mainstream media) has launched a
counteroffensive, accusing the critics of waging a smear campaign:
The chairman of the IPCC,
Rajendra Pachauri, stood by his panel’s 2007 findings last
week. That study is the foundation for a global climate
response, including carbon emission targets proposed this week
by both the US and China.
So far, climate scientists say nothing in the leaked emails
[that] takes away from the fact that the climate change evidence
is solid. In fact, a new study in the journal Science shows the
polar ice cap melting is happening at a faster rate than
predicted just a few years ago.
In a teleconference call with reporters this week, one of the
scientists whose emails were leaked, Pennsylvania State
University paleoclimatologist Michael Mann, said that,
“regardless of how
cherry-picked” the emails are, there is “absolutely nothing
in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep
level of consensus of climate change.”
This is a “smear campaign to
distract the public,” added Mann, a coauthor of the Copenhagen
Diagnosis, the report on climate change released this week ahead
of the Copenhagen.
“Those opposed to climate
action, simply don’t have the science on their side,” he
Professor Trevor Davies of
the East Anglia CRU called the stolen data the latest
example of a campaign intended “to distract from reasoned
debate” about global climate change ahead of the Copenhagen
Copenhagen summit nears, ‘Climategate’ dogs global warming
debate - 28 November 2009)
But what is significant in this
counteroffensive, is that the authenticity of the emails has not
been challenged by the IPCC scientists.
The scientists are not saying "we did not do it".
What they are saying is that the
Global Warming Consensus holds irrespective of their actions to
selectively manipulate the data as well as exclude the critics from
the scientific debate on climate change.
What is the
Stance of the Civil Society and Environmentalist Organizations
Civil society organizations are currently mobilizing with a view to
pressuring the official governmental delegations:
"Two years ago, at a previous UN
climate conference in Bali, all UN governments agreed on a
timetable that would ensure a strong climate deal by the time of
the Copenhagen conference. The implications of not achieving
this goal are massive, and nearly unthinkable. Turn to our great
partners film - the Age of Stupid - if you need to be convinced
The meeting - which should include major heads of state for the
last three days - will attempt to reach a massively complex
agreement on cutting carbon, providing finance for mitigation
and adaptation, and supporting technology transfer from the
North to the South.
This is a major milestone in history, and one where civil
society must speak with one voice in calling for a fair,
ambitious and binding deal. We are ready, but we need to let the
leaders know the world is ready too. Are you?
Copenhagen Climate Conference)
Where do civil society activists stand
in relation to the climate change email scandal?
Will these civil society organizations, many of which are funded by
major foundations and governments, continue to unreservedly endorse
the Global Warming consensus?
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace are among
several key civil society organizations which are pushing the
Copenhagen agenda. Their position is unchanged.
Environmentalist organizations are demanding a reduction in CO2
emissions, not as a means to tackling polution, but as an instrument
to reverse the process of global warming. For many of these
the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
is the "bible". It cannot be challenged even if the climate data
base which supports the Global Warming Consensus turns out to
be questionable or contentious.
While the mainstream NGO lobby groups including Greenpeace and WWF
continue to support the consensus, there is a small and growing
movement which challenges the legitimacy of the Copenhagen CO15
Summit agenda, while also accusing the UNPCC of manipulating the
This manipulation of the data also
serves the profit driven carbon trading scheme.
Alternative Summit - KlimaForum09
The NGOs will be meeting in a parallel alternative summit,
KlimaForum09. More than 10,000 people a day are expected to
attend the sessions of KlimatForum09
Major international NGOs and environmentalist groups will be in
attendance including Friends of the Earth, Campaign
against Climate Change among others.
Klimaforum09 is to finalize a draft declaration which,
"will put forth a vision of a more
socially just world society, [while] emphasizing the need to
create substantial changes in the social and economic structures
of society in order to meet the challenges of global warming and
Declaration · Klimaforum09)
While there is fierce opposition to the
multibillion carbon trading system within the NGO community, the
Alternative Summit will not challenge the Global Warming consensus
and its underlying data base.
events · Klimaforum09).
While critical and active voices will emerge from within the various
sessions of the Alternative Forum, the organizational envelope of
KlimaForum09 remains compliant to the official agenda.
In many regards, the rhetoric of the
KlimaForum09's Danish organizers ties in with that of the host
government of the official Summit, which coincidentally also funds
the Alternative Summit.
Platform · Klimaforum09).
What this means is that the boundaries
of dissent within the Alternative Summit have been
There can be no real activism unless the falsehoods and
manipulations underlying the activities of the UNPCC, including the
data base and the multibillion profit driven carbon trading scheme,
are fully revealed, debated and understood.