Climate deniers side with Saudi Arabia
The climate change doubters may want to reconsider their position since it attracts some dubious allies. You know who is up-in-arms about the e-mails hacked from climate scientists at University of East Anglia University? Saudi Arabia, that’s who.
Sounding like U.S. conservatives who oppose action on climate change, the princes of the world’s biggest oil theocracy are demanding an investigation into the affair.
Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia’s lead climate change negotiator, Mohammad Al-Sabban, reportedly said the e-mails would have a “huge impact” on the Copenhagen talks on a new global emissions reduction pact scheduled to begin Monday.
“It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change,” Al-Sabban was quoted as saying by the BBC Friday.
Now, why do you suppose the Saudis would want to deny the link between human activity and climate change?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
112 comments Add your comment
Turd Feguson
December 8th, 2009
1:21 pm
Well then I hereby retract all former positions on climate change. If the Saudis are opposed then climate change must have been occurring for millions of years. Cynthia, thanks for the eye opener.
PS…Also since the EU is also in agreement with global climate change then CERTAINLY, with no question, it is occuring. You know how intelligent those Euros are.
pat
December 8th, 2009
1:24 pm
That was the worst attempt at logic I think I have ever seen. So let me get this argument strait.
P – Saudi Arabia is doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.
P – Saudi Arabia is a bunch of backward thinking wahabi nut cases.
– therefore —
C – Mad-made global warming is a fact.
I think the is the biggest non-sequitur known to man. What the hell? Are you sure you don’t want to rescind this?
I am embarrassed for you.
Next time, present that non-existant irrefutable evidence, rather than try to spook people into agreeing with you. I doubt anybody who does not believe in this junk science is going to start beating their women just because Saudi Arabia has a similar opinion.
pat
December 8th, 2009
1:30 pm
Ask the Europeans what they burn for heat…I’ll save you the trouble, brown coal. The dirtiest, most poluting versions of coal there is.
The stench of it hangs in the air all winter, if your wonder what that smell is.
Chad
December 8th, 2009
1:35 pm
That’s funny. And you really think that “climate claimers” have no monetary stake in seeing that man made climate change is accepted.
Actually come to think of it, the very movement itself causes one to rethink the position. What used to be global warming is now called climate change. Is this to cover themselves over the recent evidence that the earth has cooled over the last 7 (?) years?
Now, who would benefit monetarily from cap and trade?
Luboš Motl
December 8th, 2009
1:36 pm
I suppose the text above is a joke. I am a pro-free-market, largely anti-Muslim denier but I don’t hesitate for a second to support Saudi Arabia in its fair goal to investigate the global warming scandal and deduce the corresponding consequences.
In fact, I think that the representatives from Saudi Arabia are much more decent people and allies than the alarmist socialist hordes of immoral, selfish, and dishonest human material that have contaminated a large portion of the Western political scenes and most of their mainstream media.
Dave R.
December 8th, 2009
1:40 pm
Cynthia Tucker: Must . . .get . . . squirrels . . out . . . of . . . my . . . head . . .!
Independent
December 8th, 2009
1:49 pm
1. Saudia Arabia is a desert. Hot is hot, whether it’s 108 degrees or 112 degrees it’s still hot. It’s a dry heat though.
2. Many in Europe never found Hitler to be too much of a threat. That didn’t work out too well for them. Maybe now they’re manning up but without a real enemy, the weather could be the scapegoat. Measuring a victory over climate change is like measuring “jobs saved or created”. It’s not mathematical or scientific, it’s just made up.
3. The human population in Saudia Arabia is small; most of the inhabitants moved to Paris, London and Amsterdam where the climate always changes.
4. The ultimate man-made global warming may be coming courtesy of Iran. They may be holding out for that event before passing judgement.
5. You would think that if global warming was a huge threat, the Saudis would be very concerned. Rising ocean levels would wash all of the sand away quickly; their nation would be at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. Guess they don’t buy the rising ocean level tripe.
Jess
December 8th, 2009
2:24 pm
Now why do you suppose climate change scientists, who recieve billions in research funds, and who stand to lose these funds if they find otherwise, keep coming to the same conclusion. Thats why perfectly well intentioned scientists are reduced to data tampering, and outright lying.
Road Scholar
December 8th, 2009
2:28 pm
Are the anti-climate warmers holding hands with the Saudis?
I repeat a previous post for the anti’s: What if you are wrong? Are you willing to pay even more in the future?
And boy am I surprised that the ones with the oil are skeptical on climate warming and pollution! Wait until all the Chinese and Indians get cars; didn’t you see Bejing with polution? Only 5% of Chinese have a car. What happens when they all do? What happens to the price of oil? Think and plan for the future!
Swami Dave
December 8th, 2009
2:29 pm
Rational, thought-based individuals do not base their conclusions on whether or not another group (with whom they may or may not agree on unrelated topics) thinks. The opposing process of groupthink that accepts or rejects conclusions without question / analysis is a foundational core reason why so many (like Cynthia) have accepted this scam.
Specifically to Cynthia’s point, the Saudis -might- deny the link for exactly the same reason that so many liberals -might- hype and shill for it. -That- is the impetus and requirement for published results and models available for reproduction, critique, and review. Implying some financial motivation for those who question or deny without admitting the equally-plausible financial motivation for those whose livelihood is dependent upon perpetuating and evangelizing it is intellectually dishonest and patent hypocrisy.
Nope!
-SD
Road Scholar
December 8th, 2009
2:30 pm
Jess, true research is done to determine if a hypothesis is right or wrong. I agree that some have slanted the outcome, but those will be called out.
StJ
December 8th, 2009
2:31 pm
Want a real answer to Climategate? It’s easy. Follow the money.
john
December 8th, 2009
2:43 pm
hahaha…if your for big gov’t your for Stalin!! keep the jokes coming, i look forward to tomorrow’s op-ed! cheers!
Independent
December 8th, 2009
2:50 pm
Road Scholar, a hypothesis is not proven right or wrong; it is either valid (fact) or invalid (fallicy). Right or wrong can be applied to politics but not to science. A hypothesis is a educated guess of an expected outcome, the experiment and/or the data either proves or disproves the hypothesis. There is no right or wrong to it.
GOP
December 8th, 2009
2:54 pm
The Saudis have a right to petition the global conscience. Oil revenue is at stake.
Is driving a car considered “human activity”, as Cynthia Tucker suggests? Cynthia seems to play fast and loose with words, and that’s inhuman.
TGT
December 8th, 2009
3:00 pm
Sooooo, a scandal involving one of the most influential climate organizations in the world–which involved suppressing information that didn’t fit their template, manipulating data, deleting data, etc.–is NOT evidence that their is anything wrong with current AGW theory. However, the Saudi’s questioning AGW IS evidence that something is wrong with the “deniers” position?! Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Also, is takes a lot of hubris for an Obama supporter to speak of “dubious allies.” (Think Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Castro, Chavez, the abortion industry, etc., etc., etc.)
Michael
December 8th, 2009
3:01 pm
Indeed, Republicans (Big Oil) and the Saudis have been going hand in hand for more than 30 years.
The most significant export of Saudi Arabia is oil; if the demand for oil gets smaller, the price for oil diminishes as well.
Oh, Saudi Arabia is not a democratic country either.
Independent
December 8th, 2009
3:11 pm
GOP, eating a burger is considered “human activity” in the eyes of the global warmistas. Funny how Cynthia doesn’t address cars driving around dropping newspapers on driveways and trees being fallen to make newsprint. I think I figured it out, human activity of others, not of myself. Like Algore and his jets and estate.
john
December 8th, 2009
3:15 pm
Road, i think you are trying to say Rhode Scholar??
Carter is a Fool
December 8th, 2009
3:16 pm
Global Warming Alarmists might want to reconsider since it attracts some dubious supporters — Owl Gore, Barrack Obama, Cynthia Tucker, Cynthia McKinney. What a stupid waste of cyberspace.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 8th, 2009
3:16 pm
Dear Cynthia, unlike leftists we conservatives do not recognize the speaker as a significant element of the truth of the speech. I understand that if Al Gore said the sky is purple you would so-editorialize. And that if Dick Cheney said the world is dangerous, you would write how all is peaches and cream in Obamaland. Leftism is a rigidly hierarchical ideology, where the identity of the speaker defines the magnitude of the truth.
We conservatives believe we can learn from even the least of our brothers. While the Saudis undoubtedly have a vested interest in discrediting the global warming moonbats, it does not logically follow that they are wrong, nor that their speech should be shunned merely because it is spoken by Muslims.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 8th, 2009
3:18 pm
Swami Dave @ 2:29, you are exactly right. I apologize for attempting to write, badly, the same argument you made so well. Did not read before I wrote.
Independent
December 8th, 2009
3:19 pm
Road Scholar or Rhode Scholar. If he can’t spell it then it must mean he’s either a wannabe, ashouldabeen, or a community organizer.
Joey
December 8th, 2009
3:30 pm
Road Scholar says: “What if you are wrong?”
I had that argument offered to me by an employer who claimed to be worried about my soul. This was back 20 years when I was a militant non-Christian. Now I am non-militant and comfortable in my non-religion.
Anyway the guy basically said to me that he went to church and practiced Christianity just in case Christ really was the Son of God. If he was right he was saved and would go to heaven. If he was wrong no harm was done. I am pretty sure he was wrong, but I am certain if he was right that God would know he had been faking it for 40 years.
My position is (Scholar this is not pointed at you, but at the UN, Al Gore, Prince Charles, etc.): Let him who wants to regulate me first regulate himself. Demonstrate what you want me to do by actually doing it yourself. You show some sacrifice. You inconvenience yourself before you come after me.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 8th, 2009
3:32 pm
Apologies, posted @ 3:32 on the wrong blog
Ben
December 8th, 2009
3:33 pm
By that same logic you should be against ObamaCare. After all, Stalin also promoted government run solutions to everything.
Linda
December 8th, 2009
3:34 pm
How do you propose convincing any of the countries whose economies depend on oil exports to leave it in the ground?
How do you propose convincing any of the developing countries to halt development?
It’s ludicrous to even think that there will ever be a GLOBAL agreement on the theory of global warming.
Ben
December 8th, 2009
3:37 pm
TGT said it right. The emails showing data manipulation, models that give you the same answers no matter what data you feed them, and corrupting the peer review process don’t bother Cynthia at all. But the very idea of agreeing with the Saudis about something, now that is a big deal!!
It;s also interesting that ONE Saudi scientist made a statement which Cynthis has attributed to ALL Saudis. Do you not think they have disagreements? Don’t you think painting an entire country as being in agreement is a bit presumptuous? Some might even call that sort of generalizing racist! Not me, but if you saw someone else doing it, you probably would.
Joey
December 8th, 2009
3:47 pm
Another point. Have any of the AGW scientist determined how much carbon dioxide is exhausted by the human annimal? Is there a computer program that calculates:
Pounds of carbon dioxide houly from a human at rest;
Pounds of carbon dioxide hourly from a human running;
From a human biking;
From a human watching the Rose Bowl;
From a human playing in the Rose Bowl
From a human playing pickup basketball, or doing thirty other things?
We should do this and compare human carbon dioxide production performing various activities to that of an automobile or private jet. We may discover that elimination of a mere 7.2 million or 8.7 million people from earth will that end the threat of Global Climate Change.
My guess this would be the Saudi choice and the choice of a lot more people than you want to believe.
john
December 8th, 2009
3:52 pm
Independent- haha..i was thinking ACRON.
TGT
December 8th, 2009
3:56 pm
Speaking of “dubious allies” again: Check out some of the whackos (courtesy of FOX) in Copenhagen:
• The delegation from Bolivia will be pushing for a Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights, which the country’s President Evo Morales says “supersede the rights of human beings.”
• The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is putting on an exhibit to “explore how thoughts affect matter and how a shift in consciousness can transform current deteriorating conditions” for the environment.
• International Planned Parenthood is putting on a show about how to increase contraception in the third world to stop babies — who later become adults — from ruining the environment.
sam
December 8th, 2009
3:58 pm
funny thing about ‘climategate’ is that its much ado about nothing..the guy the word trick in an e-mail, big deal. the explanation sounded reasonable. some data was destroyed to save on storage costs, seems reasonable. it does give people somethingh to bitch about though doesnt it? those evil, lying scientists..man they’d do anything for money. i especially like the part where these e-mails (or 2 lines taken from them) disprove the entire global warming theory…you guys are funny.
Common Sense
December 8th, 2009
4:03 pm
What a bunch of hooey !
Common Sense
December 8th, 2009
4:04 pm
P.S. I’m beginning to think that most of these “Al Gorian” climate change/global warming freaks have been to the “mother ship” ………………
sam
December 8th, 2009
4:05 pm
joey,
co2 from people and co2 from fossil fuels two different things altogether…
Scott
December 8th, 2009
4:13 pm
Why make issue out of the Saudis wanting an investigation? There are many countries angry about this fiasco. If the scientists have nothing to worry about, then they should welcome an investigation to clear the air. The actions we have seen have thrown up red flags to MANY people! According to the WSJ, a newspaper that can be trusted: “Oil refiners would be hit, because they would likely be among the largest buyers of emissions allowances. In addition to covering their own emissions, the refineries that turn crude oil into gasoline, diesel and other fuels will be responsible for the carbon emissions from transportation.
That puts the industry on the hook for some 44% of U.S. carbon emissions, according to the American Petroleum Institute, but it would receive just 2% of the emissions allowances available under the bill. Refiners would have to buy the rest at auction or on the open market. Refiners, already under pressure as the recession cuts U.S. demand for gasoline, say the bill will raise prices for consumers, force some refineries to close and increase foreign imports from countries that don’t have to abide similar rules.
The added cost of buying allowances would likely be passed on to consumers in the form of higher gasoline prices, which could rise 28 cents to 54 cents a gallon by 2030, according to analysts at the National Commission on Energy Policy, a Washington-based bipartisan group.”
rdh
December 8th, 2009
4:19 pm
Cynthia, that was lame. If the Saudis side with something then it must be wrong? Or if I side with the Saudis on something, I must be wrong?
The Palestinians side with the Saudis against Israel… are the Palestinians wrong?
The Saudis drink water… maybe I should stop?
It is not sufficient to identify someone as evil in some context, and then identify someone else who agrees with evil doer in another context and declare that someone else evil by association.
As humans (and whether we like to admit it), we all have more in common than we have in difference. Cynthia: find ANY truly evil person in this world, and I’ll find something that you have in common with that person, and (using your own logic) determine you to be evil by association.
boballab
December 8th, 2009
4:19 pm
Sam CO2 from humans is no different from CO2 from anywhere else. I advise you to take a chemistry class and learn that. Also earlier you “reasonable excuse” for throwing away data shows you no absolutley nothing about science and the scientific method. To test a Hypothesis which AGW is a scientist must test it. He then publishes his results, but besides that he must also disclose all Data and methods so that the test can be replicated. So throwing away the data means that what CRU puts out can not be replicates and has the scientific wait of calling Miss Cleo and the psychic friend network to find out what tempatures are.
sam
December 8th, 2009
4:23 pm
as kramer would say..”its all about levels” no comparison.
not sure who used it but i love the word ‘hooey’…thanks.
sam
December 8th, 2009
4:24 pm
as kramer would say “its all about levels”…theres no comparison
and thank you to whoever used the word ‘hooey’..i love that word
sam
December 8th, 2009
4:24 pm
oops
sam
December 8th, 2009
4:27 pm
bob,
did it say he threw away this data on purpose? the temp data used is readily available at hundreds of other labs around the world..it can easily be replicated
Road Scholar
December 8th, 2009
4:29 pm
Independant: “Road Scholar, a hypothesis is not proven right or wrong; it is either valid (fact) or invalid (fallicy). Right or wrong can be applied to politics but not to science. A hypothesis is a educated guess of an expected outcome, the experiment and/or the data either proves or disproves the hypothesis. There is no right or wrong to it.”
You made my point…it has to be proven or disproved for it to be valid/invalid. Such as the bloggers on this sight are intelligent…some are…some aren’t!
John: No it’s Road Scholar on purpose; I like to think that 35 years of planning, managing, designing, and building transportation projects gives me a better prospective on problem identification and solving them!
Joey: Your religion is your business. Pollution and any global warming is all OUR business. We breathe the same air, have the same weather (and it sucks today with this rain!), suffer from the same floods,huricanes, tornadoes etc. Reversing pollution’s effects is not instantaneous like some think.
sam
December 8th, 2009
4:32 pm
by the way Scott…thank you for a reasonable argument on the whole thing. you make a very good point for the people who are denying there’s a problem…it’ll cost money. this is much different than saying there is no problem….
sam
December 8th, 2009
4:34 pm
road scholar..dont you have better things to do, our roads suck! get back to business my man. by the way, i knew somebody was going to try and correct your spelling..it was too obvious to be a mistake
jconservative
December 8th, 2009
4:38 pm
They sell oil to backward countries who can’t control their petroleum appetites.
Linda
December 8th, 2009
4:49 pm
If global warming is occurring, if it is caused by CO2, if it’s caused by man-made CO2, if it is harmful, if politicians can reduce it, if politicians can reduce it to “optimum” levels, what are we willing to sacrifice:
* financially, individually per year
* in our way of life
* in national debt
* in unemployment
* in GDP
* in individual rights & freedoms
* in the sovereignty of our country?
Scott
December 8th, 2009
5:04 pm
Sam, I think it has already been said that the issue of whether we have a problem hasn’t been sufficiently proven. In fact, their is also evidence that the opposite of global warming is occurring. The point I was trying to make was that while the evidence is flawed, or even “accidentally” deleted by the scientists, why enact a bill that would cause even more financial hardship to our companies, and to the consumers? You were correct, however about this being about money. Al Gore and his believers are bound to make billions off this if it is passed. Follow the money my friend. That’s usually how it goes with anything in politics.
Joan
December 8th, 2009
5:10 pm
Follow the money. Scientists can sell out just like politicians–their livelihoods depend on it. About pollution–the United States is one of the most highly industrialized countries, but we don’t pollute nearly as much as India, China and many other countries not so industrialized. The US could go to wind and solar and it likely wouldn’t make the slightest difference. And yes, the change from “global warming” to “climate change” means now even the idiots are beginning to see that this is a horse that has been beat to death.
saywhat?
December 8th, 2009
5:14 pm
For all of you who obviously don’t get it, this column is strictly tongue-in-cheek. Cynthia is just teasing the deniers, who in the US, demographically tend to be white conservatives. This same demographic has been well known over the years to play the guilt by association game against their political opponents. It is typically the kind of nonsense heard on limbaugh, hannity, fox, and the rest of those kind of drivel producers. Cynthia is merely performing a little satirical poke in the eye. Its funny that the literal minded libertardians and archconservatives among us so missed the point, and then made her arguments for her, unaware they were criticizing their own tactics.