Did you read my post?

Thanks for your comment.

I don’t think the statement is imprecise. I think it’s just completely false. And I don’t think its falseness always or even often implies dishonesty, just plain wrongness.

I think much of the time, these statements, including the (somewhat) related one you mentioned, are used quite casually, by people with no sinister motives whatsoever. Perhaps this is why my analysis seems overdone?

But the *intent* behind the statement I object to (the second statement I quoted above) is to (seek to) justify allowing wealthy nations to meet their emissions reductions commitments with cheap offsets (of questionable integrity, although that’s a separate issue) in poor nations. (The statement is a direct quote (see below), and the intent of the context is quite clear.)

While the *intent* (the seeking to justify) in this case is highly questionable, this doesn’t mean that false claims are used on purpose to support it, ie used dishonestly. I don’t know if the Swedish Minister for the Environment, Carlgren, whom I’m quoting, is dishonest in this context. (It doesn’t matter to the issue.) But I do know that he’s wrong.

(The related truisms about the emotions of the climate or of the atmosphere are probably also rarely, if ever, offered purposefully to guarantee acceptance of the second claim, the false claim about climate effects, although they certainly play that rhetorical role quite well.)

Given the use Carlgren makes of his false claim, it’s important to see that it’s false. I’m guessing that there’s a ton or two of rhetoric like it in or around the international negotiations that we could gain a lot from losing. What I wouldn’t give for a little buzzer to go off whenever one of the either meaningless or outright false clichés is used.

The claims about the atmosphere not caring offer a tray of common-sensical obviousness so lush that we should all, perhaps, be forgiven for not stopping to examine their sneaky cousin, rotting at the bottom of the tray.

But the sneaky cousin (ie, the second statement I quoted) can for instance be found, in flagrante, as the last sentence in the fifth full paragraph in:
http://www.riksdagen.se/ webbnav/ index.aspx?nid=71&dtyp=frs&rm=2008/ 09&dok_id=GW12193&nr=193
“För klimatet spelar det ingen roll var utsläppsminskningarna sker.”

Given your definition of ‘minorities’ that might be a tad difficult!

“Minority Rights Group International (MRG) focuses its work on non-dominant ethnic, religious and linguistic communities, who may not necessarily be numerical minorities. MRG’s work includes initiatives with indigenous and tribal peoples, migrant communities and refugees. These communities may not wish to be classified as minorities for various reasons. We also recognize that these groups are not homogenous – some members face further marginalization due to age, class, disability, gender or other factors.”

The UN process is the only hope for the future so it better work. I would say it is becalmed rather than dead. With the US back on board this is the first chance for many years of becoming effective.

At least the negotiators should now understand that emissions cannot be reduced by half hearted committments and empty words. Time to get real or give up.

Modesty, you’re being overly picky. For a precise formulation that I think encapsulates the intent behind the statement you object to, try “The climatic effects of increasing levels of atmospheric GHGs have no relation to the source of the emissions.” While I completely agree that dishonesty is often hidden by imprecise statements in the context of political negotiations, I just don’t think the example you identified fills the bill.

States are locked in negotiations to get a climate change deal through in Copenhagen by December 2009 which will set new targets for carbon emissions. Indigenous and minority communites have been left out of these – and other crucial negotiaions – as governments grapple with how to respond to the threat of global warming.
Their voices must be heard.

Please sign up to our letter

to show support to communities worst affected by climate change
to call on the UN member states to allow minority and indigenous communities to effectively participate in the current climate change negotiations.
http://www.minorityrights.org/ 7117/ a-show-of-hands/ take-action-now.html