John on December 17, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Okay, I’m a skeptic on AGW. That said, I’ve noticed something about this that has me questioning the timing, shall we say.
First off, it hasn’t been resolved whether the CRU e-mails were leaked or hacked. The Daily Mail says they were leaked by a group with ties to the “Russian security service.”
Hmmm. One data point is not a trend. But what if we had two…?
Yesterday the Telegraph reported:
On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
Gateway Pundit links to the English language version of Pravda (!) for more on the story.
Again, I’m a skeptic so I’m open to the possibility that the data was tampered with. Maybe this is all a big coincidence. But maybe there’s another way to connect some of these dots that we’re missing:
- Russian security service
- Moscow based IEA
What do all these things institutions have in common?
Is it really that hard to believe that the man who controls all of Russia including its energy sector is interested in scuttling Copenhagen or any similar agreement?
I know you can’t always trust Wikipedia, but according to this page on Russian energy policy:
It has the largest known natural gas reserves of any state on earth, along with the second largest coal reserves, and the eighth largest oil reserves. Russia is the world’s fourth largest electricity producer after the USA, China, and Japan. Russia is the world’s leading net energy exporter and a major supplier to the European Union…
Russia is the largest oil producer in the non-OPEC countries, and second biggest in the world after Saudi Arabia, which it overtakes as the world’s number one from time to time.
I don’t think they’re really all that interested in phasing out fossil fuels or paying poor countries some kind of global warming offset tax. Do you? Frankly, I’m not at all convinced they should be interested. In fact, maybe Putin is doing American taxpayers a big favor here. Are we really interested in sending $100 billion a year to kleptocracies around the world?
How crazy is this idea? Well, here’s a presentation at Cato making the case (back in 2006) that “the treatment of private energy companies in Russia is part of a broader pattern of political centralization and will describe what he believes are the global goals of Russia’s more aggressive, energy-driven foreign policy.” Admittedly many of the issues they discuss in this presentation are regional, but the overall idea that Russia sees energy as an extension of its power…that seems to apply globally as well.
Again, I’m not saying this vindicates the CRU scientists. I’m not saying data hasn’t been manipulated. I could easily believe the individuals revealed in those e-mails might fudge data rather than concede error to the “deniers.”
That said, there may well be another level of manipulation going on here that’s a whole step above the one being discussed. Global warming isn’t just a science issue. It’s a political and economic issue as well. I’m pretty sure Putin knows that.