OPEC says British climate change report "unfounded"

[Barrett808]

OPEC says British climate change report "unfounded"
By Tanya Mosolova
Tue Oct 31, 5:14 AM ET

MOSCOW (Reuters) - A hard-hitting report on climate change published by the British government on Monday has no basis in science or economics, OPEC's Secretary-General Mohammed Barkindo said on Tuesday.

The report written by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern said that failure to tackle climate change could push world temperatures up by 5 degrees Celsius (9 Fahrenheit) over the next century, causing severe floods and harsh droughts and uprooting many as 200 million people.

The study recommended taking action now to offset the far greater cost of dealing with climate change later.

But Barkindo told an energy conference in Moscow that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) -- which holds around two thirds of the world's oil reserves -- opposed such research efforts.

"We find some of the so-called initiatives of the rich industrialized countries who are supposed to take the lead in combating climate change rather alarming," he said.

...

"The mitigation and adaptation to climate change can only be accomplished on the principles of common responsibility and respected capabilities and not by scenarios that have no foundations in either science or economics as we had yesterday from London," he said.

(more)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061031/wl_nm/environment_stern_opec_dc_2

Sceptics scorn climate report prediction of global chaos
· Study warns of economic crash over CO2 emissions
· Doubters rubbish findings even before publication

James Randerson, science correspondent
Monday October 30, 2006
The Guardian

Even before the government's comprehensive report on the global economic impact of climate change is published later today, rightwing commentators and bloggers on both sides of the Atlantic have already begun rubbishing its contents.
The Stern review, which was commissioned by the Treasury and carried out by the former World Bank chief economist Sir Nicholas Stern, is expected to say that the world economy faces an economic downturn comparable to the great depression of the 1930s if it fails to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

But it is already easy to find a foretaste of the debate that is sure to accompany Sir Nicholas's US tour to present his report to political and business leaders there.
Under the headline Bad Climate Science Yields Worse Economics, Stephen Milloy, who is a scholar with the rightwing thinktank the Cato Institute, wrote on his "junkscience" blog: "The British government is preparing to fire a new round of global warming alarmism at the US next week." The piece, which also appears on the Fox News website, dismisses the study as " Gore's junk science shaping Stern's junk economics".

...

But Neil Adger, an economist at the Tyndall Centre for climate change research, said: "The sceptics have been trying to rubbish the Stern report from the start because they know that it is so important who is actually saying these things. Stern is the chief economist, he is the man who designs our tax system, he is Gordon Brown's right-hand man ... is going to hold a lot of sway both in the Treasury and the prime minister's office."

Despite the apocalyptic nature of Stern's conclusions, Prof Adger said the real cost may be even higher because the impact of some consequences of climate change, such as extinctions of species and cultures, cannot be quantified. "Those additional risks make even Stern's figures look conservative," he said.

(more)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1934989,00.html

[goforit]

1. Mohammod Barkindo......Global warming threatenning your stash of gold?

[LoZoccolo]

2. Would this be the same OPEC that Hugo Chavez is a part of?

Progressive hero?

[rinsd]

4. oooooooooooooooooo

:popcorn:

[denverbill]

8. That's kind of a dumb statement.

#1, nowhere in the article does it state Chavez agrees with OPEC on this particular subject
#2, if he does agree, being 'wrong' on global warning hardly makes him wrong on those areas in which progressives support him most strongly - being for using his countries oil wealth to raise living standards for the poor people in his country, and being opposed to NAFTA and privatization. Is FDR any less of a 'progressive hero' because he had Japanese-Americans imprisoned during WWII?

As usual, the Bush administration and their kissing-cousins in OPEC, CATO, the Bible-thumpers, and the right-wing talking-shitheads agree - science is junk science if it hurts your profits or causes people to re-think their dogmatic beliefs.

[mom cat]

11. Great rant! mom cat gives it four paws and a tail!

[LoZoccolo]

12. #1 Why doesn't he take a stand/leave.

#2 No one ever said he doesn't get some things right, just that in addition to those things he censors the media, ruled by decree, messes with the democratic process in his country and other human rights violations.

[denverbill]

14. Well, with the exception of everything you said, everything you said is right.

#1) he doesn't censor the media. In fact, virtually every mainstream media outlet opposes Chavez OPENLY, and CONSTANTLY, because all are owned by wealthy right-wingers.
#2) he doesn't rule by decree. Everything he has done, afaik, has been authorized by their Congress.
#3) He's never 'messed with' the democratic process in his country. He was voted in, he allowed a vote on recall, and he was overwhelmingly reelected. The ones who have 'messed with' the democratic process are the ones who attempted to overthrow his government in a military coup, which failed miserably against a huge popular uprising.
#4) Other human rights violations? I have no clue where you pulled that one out of. While other right-wing dictators in Latin and South America routinely jail people without trail and/or murder their opponents, the only people I see whining about human rights violations in Venezuala are the right-wing traitors who hatched the coup plot. They whine about being 'political prisoners'. If Chavez WAS a true dictator, as you seem to imply, those bastards would have been dead 1 day after Chavez was restored to power. They wouldn't be sitting in jail cells (those who have not been allowed to escape anyway).

[LoZoccolo]

15. Well...

#1: He passed a law allowing them to do this. And we don't torture, etc.
#2: He passed the Enabling Act which allowed him to do this.
#3: He threatened to extend his term to 25 years.
#4: Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, etcetera. And to pre-empt your next argument, just because we have some things listed by them doesn't mean it's alright for them to have human rights violations too.

[denverbill]

16. Your going to have to give more documentation than that.

#1) That doesn't make any sense. You said he censors the media, I said he doesn't, and then you say he passed a law allowing them to criticize him? How is that censoring the media?

#2) The Enabling Act was passed in 1933 in Nazi Germany. If something similar was passed in Venezuala, I can't find anything about it. The closest I could find was this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carmona_Decree
However, that was passed by the coup planners in 2002, not by Chavez.

#3) Saying isn't doing. If he declares himself President for 25 years, I'd denounce that. If he declares himself eligible for reelection despite constitutional limits, I'd denounce that.

#4) Near as I can tell, the biggest Human Rights Watch case is this:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/08/venezu11299.htm

That's the trial for treason of 4 Venezualans who accepted foreign money to help fund the recall drive against Chavez. Considering the penalty is 'up to 16 years', I have a feeling 'treason' isn't a particularly appropriate description of the charges. But if you took $30,000 from Venezuala and used it to fund a recall election against Jeb Bush in Florida, you'd be looking at jail time in the US as well. Latin American countries have very good reasons for passing strict laws against foreign funding influencing their elections. We have a long history of interfering there. I disagree with Amnesty on this one.

[Double T]

3. No one should be responsible and take measures to conserve......

our energy resources and thereby lower the emissions. Barkindo sounds like bushco; ALL science is fiction, specially when making the ALL MIGHTY dollar is involved. Energy suppliers and producers are ALL a bunch of criminals.

[SpiralHawk]

5. Why do republicons hate science?

What is their problem?

[Double T]

6. Obscene greed.

[goforit]

9. They like science...the sciene of DESTRUCTION that is.

[Up2Late]

7. FLASH: Lawyers for the tobacco companies argue people can give up smoking if they choose to do so

Of course they are going to say that the study is wrong, that's one of the FIVE Rules!

The Five Rule for staying out of Prison:

1) Admit Nothing

2) Deny everything emphatically

3) Make Counter Accusations

4) Demand Proof

5) Assault the other person's character.

[mom cat]

10. Damn him to hell. I just turned my thermostat down another 5 degrees!

[krispos42]

13. To OPEC and Big Oil, it will never be valid ever

Their job is not to determine the validity of a report. There are not a scientific research foundation, and they are most definately not unbiased or uninterested. Therefore, their statements regarding the validity should only be discussed in a courtroom, where a phalanx of high-paid legal sharks for both sides can battle it out.