Thoughts on Climategate Dominate Opinions on Copenhagen

The Copenhagen climate summit prompted cautious optimism and ridicule in leading media today, with several reports focusing more on Climategate than on happenings at the summit itself. In an editorial, the Wall Street Journal wrote that the first two days of the summit "have been rife with denials and--dare we say it?--deniers. American delegate Jonathan Pershing said the emails and files leaked from East Anglia have helped make clear the robustness of the science. Talk about brazening it out. And Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and ex-officio guardian of the integrity of the science, said the leak proved only that his opponents would stop at nothing to avoid facing the truth of climate change. Uh-huh."

In an op-ed published by the Journal, Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp wrote that "as much as it displeases many other countries, the road to a serious global agreement goes through the U.S. Congress. So until the U.S. Senate acts this spring, it will be neither wise nor possible to strike a durable and effective agreement on reducing carbon by large, fast-growing emitters like China. It also won't be possible to work out an agreement on how countries would comply with requirements under a carbon deal. The task, then, for U.S. negotiators and their counterparts, is to focus on establishing the fundamental building blocks for an effective treaty that can be finalized in 2010." Among the blocks, Krupp suggested inclusiveness, financing, and "verifiability and compliance."

In the Washington Post, former Alaska governor and GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin wrote that the Climategate fiasco "exposes a highly politicized scientific circle--the same circle whose work underlies efforts" at Copenhagen. Wrote Palin: "The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse."

Syndicated columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times: "If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull's-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent."

Related stories also appeared in the ABC Online and Xinhua.