Thou shalt not question UN “experts”

 

Inconvenient questions will not be tolerated in Durban or other climate crisis conferences

Guest post by Kelvin Kemm

British Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley parachuted with me into Durban, South Africa, to challenge UN climate crisis claims, attracting numerous journalists and onlookers. A 20-foot banner across our press conference table gave the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow further opportunities to present realistic perspectives on the science and economics of climate change.

CFACT played by the rules, obtained the necessary permits beforehand, and ensured that its message was heard throughout the seventeenth annual climate conference (COP-17). Greenpeace, on the other hand, got no permits before staging an Occupy Durban protest in the hallway outside the plenary session – and got kicked out of the conference.

Shortly thereafter, however, Lord Monckton and another CFACT representative were summarily (though temporarily) ejected from the Durban conference, for preposterous reasons that dramatize how thin-skinned and arrogant the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has become.

As a South African and delegate at the COP-17 conference, I witnessed more amazing and absurd exhibitions than one would find at a Believe It Or Not circus sideshow. Along with thousands of government delegates, scientists and journalists, we witnessed music and dance groups, Women for Climate Justice, the Alliance for Climate Protection, APEs (Artists Protect the Earth) and others pleading for “planetary salvation.”

It took a truly nimble mind, and abiding sense of humor, to appreciate their often competing messages. One large official poster proclaimed “More climate change means less water,” while the one next to it said “More climate change means more floods.”

A socialist group sloganeered “One planet living is the new aspiration.” I could only conclude that they were neo-Malthusians worried sick about speculative climate chaos and resource depletion – and promoting a roll-back of energy use and living standards, so that people can share “more equitably” in sustained poverty and misery, enforced by UN edicts.

Yet another group insisted that the world should “Stop talking and start planting.” However, this group and countless others oppose profits and private enterprises. They apparently haven’t yet realized that large paper and timber companies plant the most trees and create the largest new-growth forests, which breathe in the most carbon dioxide and breathe out the most oxygen.

These and similar organizations also demanded that profit-making companies give more money to environmentalist NGOs – which might temporarily make the companies less reprehensible and more eco-friendly. Of course, if the activists succeed in further obstructing the companies, they will plant fewer trees, remove less CO2, create fewer jobs and have less money to give to NGOs.

This parallel universe aspect of the Durban extravaganza was troublesome enough. Another aspect of the conference was much more sinister and worrisome. Which brings us back to Lord Monckton, a renowned debater and expert in IPCC and climate science, economics and politics.

One day he and I were meandering through the halls, as advisors to CFACT and its official delegation to the conference. We were accompanied by CFACT project organiser Josh Nadal, who was using his video camera to film anything he liked, to make a video of “what we did at COP-17.”

As we rounded a corner, we saw someone we didn’t know being interviewed for the in-house television information system that transmitted programs throughout the official venue. We were astounded by how biased and inaccurate his comments were. When atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose, temperature also rose, he insisted – very simple. Of course, that is simply not true.

His interview over, he stepped off the dais and headed our way. I asked him whether he would agree that global temperatures had actually gone down during the early 1970s, even as CO2 levels continued to rise. He refused to acknowledge this universally accepted fact. I then mentioned the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago. In response, he asserted that the MWP was merely a localized event of no consequence. Also simply not true.

At that point Monckton asked him to acknowledge that the science was nowhere nearly as clear cut as he had proclaimed. The official refused to do so, asserted “I have work to do,” and walked off.

Josh had been filming the entire exchange, but now an aide put a hand over the camera lens. When I remarked that just walking off was bad manners, the aide said “You are not worth debating.” I replied, “All he had to do was answer two simple questions.” I was amazed when the aide responded, “He is the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organisation. He does not have to answer your questions.” The aide then walked off just as rudely as his boss had.

These unelected technocrats and bureaucrats want to decide the science and ordain the energy and economic policies that will determine our future livelihoods and living standards. And yet they are of the opinion that they can talk scientific nonsense and ignore anyone’s inconvenient questions. We had not known that he was Michel Jarraud, Secretary General of the WMO. But that is irrelevant. We were polite, and he should have been, as well. But it gets worse.

Two hours later, Lord Monckton and Josh were informed that they had violated ad hoc rules and were banned from further participation in the conference: Josh for filming without permission, Monckton for “unprofessional” conduct. Somehow I was spared. The next day, following negotiations between CFACT and UN officials, the two were reinstated.

A couple of days later, a TV interviewer asked IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele whether there was now enough information to decide the next steps COP-17 should take. van Ypersele answered, “The body of knowledge was there already in the first [IPCC] report twenty years ago and was actually good enough to start the action which inspired the convention on climate change.”

The interviewer then asked if the science was well enough understood. “Not only is there enough science” the Vice Chair replied, “but that science has been there, available and explained by the IPCC, already from the first report.”

In other words, in the view of the IPCC, climate change science was settled even before the term “climate change” was coined – and all “research” and “findings,” reports and conferences since then have been window dressing – inconsequential. Even new evidence about cosmic ray effects on cloud cover, and thus on the amount of the sun’s heat reaching the earth, is irrelevant in the view of the IPCC and other UN agencies, and thus may be intentionally ignored.

The imperious attitudes and intolerance of dissenting opinions displayed by these officials further underscores the wholly unscientific and politicized nature of the IPCC process. Even in the face of Climategate 2009 and 2010, The Delinquent Teenager, Marc Morano’s A-Z Climate Reality Check and other revelations, the UN and IPCC fully intend to impose their views and agendas.

At this point, in the view of the IPCC, the only thing left is for first world countries to pay up and shut up – and poor countries to develop in the way and to the extent allowed by the United Nations.

Dr. Kelvin Kemm holds a PhD in nuclear physics, is currently CEO of Stratek and lives in Pretoria, South Africa. He also serves as a scientific advisor to the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)

Advertisements

101 thoughts on “Thou shalt not question UN “experts”

  1. Isn’t the WMO/IPCC behaviour exactly the same as lambasted as General Bulmoose (i.e. General Motors) in the L’ll Abner cartoon: “What’s good for General Bulmoose is good for the U.S.A.!”

  2. Anthony, you need to post a couple of blogs on the Chiquita Banana boycott in Canada. We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore!

    Big Green has taken it one step too far when it supports a human rights abuser like Chiquita – the source of the term, Banana Republic.

  3. gerbil,

    Thanx for posting that 1993 link to the John Birch society. I never knew much about them, except that they were named for the first U.S. soldier killed in the Korean war, IIRC.

    But I have a hard time disputing anything in this quote:

    “Our contention has been for years that the greatest threat to America wasn’t Moscow, it was Washington, D. C.,” said John (Jack) McManus, president of the society nationwide. “The growth of government power leading to total government power is what Americans should be concerned about.”

    The ones who are putting down the JBS are all “academics”. Maybe we should listen to the pointy headed academics instead, huh?

  4. Speaking as a non-us citizen who wants to see and end to such nonsense. I say this.

    The only language that sort of “expert” will ever understand is for the IPCC to be sacked i.e. defunded. Probably the last hope for that, is by way of United States politicians sending that blunt message with the thankful backing of American voters.

    Let the rest of the world posture, make speeches and pass wind, as that is all they will do without American taxpayers money lining their pockets.

    After 12 months of defunding the UN should be that far in debt financing their own slop trough and then reality might set in that the eternal party on someone else’s funds is over…full stop!!

    Time to stand up to these petty undemocratic would be dictators.

  5. I came across a fascinating early weather tome of some 802 pages here-
    http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf
    It is a pdf file of some 12Mb and has gathered together a very comprehensive chronology of early global weather events from 0AD to 1900AD and that is no mean feat, albeit it relies on only documented reports and that will naturally restrict their domain.

    With Hurricane Katrina fresh in the annals of every comfy climate catastrophist, I found the special report of Dr Isaac M Cline (page 790and subsequent) of the 1900 Galveston Hurricane to be a poignant reminder of the stoicism and matter of factness of so many of our forebears to nature’s trials and tribulations. Very much a bread and butter scientific report under terrible circumstances Mr Cline and perhaps worthy of a separate posting here at WUWT to remind us all of more stoic and less hysterical times.

  6. . . . The interviewer then asked if the science was well enough understood. “Not only is there enough science” the Vice Chair replied, “but that science has been there, available and explained by the IPCC, already from the first report.”

    Exactly. The IPCC was never an organization for scientific research. The science was just window dressing and ex post facto rationale for what has become known as the Watermelon political agenda—but which at the time was just plain old Eastern-Bloc socialism, dressing up in new clothes.

    It’s time for real scientists to realize that to participate in the activities of this faux-science organization is to lend support to an enterprise that is, at bottom, anti-science, and anti-democratic.

    /Mr Lynn

  7. Anthony, I don’t know what footage/audio exactly they have here, but it sounds like it could really crystallize the Warmist stance in a really bad way. A documentary with this as its backbone, with interview with Ms. Framboise etc, might well be effective — and advance the ball……………

  8. Well that confirms officially it! There have been no improvements made in the models in the last 20 years.

    Is there any other field of science that has gone that long without new discoveries or theories proposed or discarded?

  9. Ypersele should know that the first IPCC report stated, page xxix: “We do not know what the detailed signal (of human influence) looks like because we have limited confidence in our predictions of climate change patterns”.
    Indeed my dear Jean-Claude, you do and we’ll agree with you!
    Next time, at least read your own reports!

  10. Thanks, Kelvin, for sharing your insights and experiences from inside the “lion’s den”. I really admire the way you guys manage to keep your cool surrounded by such [self snip]. I doubt I could do it.

    Possible edit: “Climategate 2009 and 2010”, shouldn’t that be 2009 and 2011?

  11. As to the Banana thingy, here are a couple of news items links:

    Oil sands embroiled in banana wars
    http://www.financialpost.com/news/sands+embroiled+banana+wars/5871585/story.html

    Oil sands lobby fires back at Chiquita
    http://www.financialpost.com/news/sands+lobby+fires+back+Chiquita/5875844/story.html

    However, it is my opinion, that since it is currently impossible to separate out fuel from non oilsands fuel, and if it ever becomes possible, it will take years, and by then this Global Warming Scam will be over for the most part because the earths temperature will not co-operate with the AGW theory.

  12. Under the concept of “Sustainable Development” the onus would now be upon local governments to PROVE that CO2 emissions CAN NOT cause climate change if they want to make policy decisions that do not abide by the UNFCCC policy guidelines.

    We are signed up to that treaty. We agreed to abide by it. The “Uncertainly Principle” says in that treaty that to make a decision not to implement CO2 mitigation regulations requires us to PROVE that CO2 can’t harm the environment.

    Well, it is impossible to prove a negative. But we signed up to a treaty that requires us to do just that. You can only prove what HAS happened or what IS happening, you can not prove that something ISN’T happening. You can only show you have found no evidence of it. Finding no evidence does not mean the evidence doesn’t exist.

    an expression of a need by decision-makers to anticipate harm before it occurs. Within this element lies an implicit reversal of the onus of proof: under the precautionary principle it is the responsibility of an activity proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not (or is very unlikely to) result in significant harm.

    But this “reversal of the onus of proof” is impossible. It is absolutely, positively, physically impossible to PROVE that something is harmless.

    We first need to remove ourselves from the Sustainable Development treaty before we can do anything at all.

  13. AskGerbil: “Birchers also preach that the United Nations wants socialism to rule the world and that global warming caused by pollution is a hoax foisted on gullible Americans to gain control over their land and businesses.”

    That’s a new one, and I agree with both of those two points. Good points.
    So GirbilNow, to you, does that now make me a John Birch sympathizer?

  14. At 8:44 PM on 19 December, Mr Lynn had observed:

    The IPCC was never an organization for scientific research. The science was just window dressing and ex post facto rationale for what has become known as the Watermelon political agenda — but which at the time was just plain old Eastern-Bloc socialism, dressing up in new clothes.

    Well, certainly the “science” (hold yer gorge, now!) has never been more than a seeming to sucker the yokels. Why d’you think it was in the utterly garbage Peace Prize category that los warmistas got their Nobel in 2007?

  15. Cutting the UN’s funding isn’t enough: we tried that in the ’70s.

    The US needs to pull out of the UN, and kick the UN out of the US.

    Most of the other good reasons to do this are off-topic in this forum (such as the war on drugs and gun bans, for starters).

    Remember that the UN is not at all democratic, not even to the extent the EU is. It is a club run by and for nasty dictators. Naturally they are out to ruin the rich countries, and all the actions of the General Assembly reflect this.

  16. Look at the source of this banana link

    http://planetsave.com/2011/12/18/chiquita-dropping-tar-sands/

    The very first comment re the artice, “I will no longer purchase their bananas” says it all.

    How an earth can an expert corporation make such a claim that they will not purchase fuels sourced from oil sands. Its impossible to verify. Buy petrol from Shell, you think. But who made it, where did it come from, No way to know.

    The double whammy for me is that this is simple cynicism from the Company. They know that the statement/pledge is impossible to verifybut its a free statement, no real cost to them but it boosts their image.

    Plus it begs the question, that if they are so “ethical” why do they use oil from less pleasant places or money from bankers that have defrauded the court on record and so on.

    Rank bad science, rank bad business and rank bad ethics.

  17. “He is the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organisation. He does not have to answer your questions.”
    Nice line. I expect it will see a lot more use when FOIA releases the code for the further 200,000 emails.

  18. Actually ‘hoax’ is a humerous deception, like Piltdown Man,
    whereas CAGW falls squarely in the category of ‘fraud’,
    particularly by such as those UN flaks mentioned above.

    Because the Scam is already a generation old,
    there will never be an admission it is over,
    never any letup on the statist power-grabs, the tax-hunger,
    or the obsessive compulsion to impose nanny-state restrictions.

    Not even if every glacier in the world grows and sea-level drops 2 feet.
    No matter if thosands freeze to death every winter.

    The Lie is Forever.

  19. Actually, a ‘hoax’ is a deceptive prank not meant to endure.
    CAGW falls in the category of ‘fraud’,
    at least when we’re looking at such as those UN flaks,
    and a decidedly malicious fraud at that.

    Because it has been on-going for over a generation,
    there is no way the Scam will ever be given up,
    no matter if thousands freeze to death every winter,
    every glacier in the world grows long,
    and sea level drops two feet.

    The Lie is Forever.

  20. From the South Pacific. Some of the answers to the conundrum posed by the IPCC attitude are contained in Bob Tisdale’s latest post. By the way could one your correspondents guide me to Bob’s CV? Happy Xmas from Downunder where instead of skiing at Xmas we go surfing; its OK we’re used to it. Thommo

  21. gerbil guys says, “Ideologies are resistant to change.” Some are. Some advocate change. Change in a most disagreeable manner.

    Personally, I had faith that this world had seen enough of the global totalitarian socialist ideology. I’m sadden to see some still cling to a thought with such a short and murderous history.

  22. Didn’t Lord Monckton get punched at one of these IPCC medicine shows a couple of years ago?

    And can Lord Monckton arrange for his friend to receive a lordship? “Lord Kelvin” going after temperature loonies seems deliciously condign :)

  23. We were accompanied by CFACT project organiser Josh Nadal, who was using his video camera to film anything he liked, to make a video of “what we did at COP-17.”
    —————————————————
    Please post the videos to WUWT!

  24. “… in the view of the IPCC, climate change science was settled even before the term “climate change” was coined”

    Good point. If the science is settled, why do they keep changing the name? First, they called it “global warming” when they thought the planet would rapidly warm as CO2 increased. Then they called it “climate change” because the warming stopped and they wanted a less falsifiable term that could be applied to any change in the climate.

    Now, many have argued for the term “global climate disruption”. The use of other terms makes it sound less dangerous than they would like it to sound. It is also less falsifiable because every year they can point to a disruptive weather event somewhere on the planet. (Never mind that similar weather events have happened regularly in the past.)

    “Settled science” is becoming more and more malleable. But what never changes is the fact that “the cause” is more important than the science to those who have a vested interest in it.

  25. Wayne,

    There is nothing new in the views of the John Birch Society in 1993 or in today’s post in 2011.

    This debate has nothing to do with science or influence of atmospheric composition on climate.

    The John Birch Society expressed its views on the United Nations and climate science in 1993. Eighteen years later Kelvin Kemm’s guest post today accurately repeats those same views:

    “A socialist group sloganeered ‘One planet living is the new aspiration.’ I could only conclude that they were neo-Malthusians worried sick about speculative climate chaos and resource depletion – and promoting a roll-back of energy use and living standards, so that people can share ‘more equitably’ in sustained poverty and misery, enforced by UN edicts.
    ..
    Another aspect of the conference was much more sinister and worrisome.

    These unelected technocrats and bureaucrats want to decide the science and ordain the energy and economic policies that will determine our future livelihoods and living standards.

    A couple of days later, a TV interviewer asked IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele whether there was now enough information to decide the next steps COP-17 should take. van Ypersele answered, “The body of knowledge was there already in the first [IPCC] report twenty years ago [1991] and was actually good enough to start the action which inspired the convention on climate change.”

    The imperious attitudes and intolerance of dissenting opinions displayed by these officials further underscores the wholly unscientific and politicized nature of the IPCC process.”

  26. “. . . The interviewer then asked if the science was well enough understood. “Not only are there enough [lies]” the Vice Chair replied, “but [those lies] have been there, made up and disseminated by the IPCC, already from the first report.””

    When are the MSM going to publicize those lies? Or could it be that the MSM are part of the problem?

  27. “Pride comes before a fall”.
    “Bad manners and ignorance usually go hand in hand”.

    The former is a well known quotation, the latter is mine, but with regard to the IPCC both are true.

  28. “Doug Proctor says:
    December 19, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    Isn’t the WMO/IPCC behaviour exactly the same as lambasted as General Bulmoose (i.e. General Motors) in the L’ll Abner cartoon: “What’s good for General Bulmoose is good for the U.S.A.!”
    Charles Erwin Wilson actually said “because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa.” This statement has been misquoted endlessly in the inverted form of “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country” as an example of the self-centered business attitude.”

  29. Askgerbil Now: Well they had the foresight I lacked long ago. I guess I am. (btw: was joking, forgot happy face)

  30. IPCC vice-chair van Ypersele had a debate with his colleague of the UCL (Universitè Catholique de Louvain), professor István Markó (chemistry) on January 27 early this year in Brussels. Before the debate started, the audience was asked to answer two questions: “is climate warming really happening?” And “If so, are mainly humans the cause?”. Both questions were answered affirmative by a large majority. After the debate, the same questions were asked: the majority changed completely to the opposite side. Since then, van Ypersele doesn’t debate with anyone remotely skeptic, even uses his power to prevent any open debate from skeptics as was the case for Fred Singer and Claes Johnson a few moths ago in Brussels. See:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/28/weekley-climate-and-energy-news-roundup/

  31. The movie Doubt had a great scene where the priest at the confessional told a woman who had borne false witness (lied) was told to go home, take a down pillow on the roof and let the feather down out in the wind, then come back to the confessional the following week for her next task. The following week’s task? Go and gather up all of the feather down. It’s impossible! She exclaimed. The priest then sadly said: “Lies are like that down. Once they are released, you can never really get the lies back.
    On the bright side, I think alot of good people have been releasing their own fluffy down: called the truth. Let the truth waft in the breeze and touch people with a light brush on the skin and a sense of joy. Let’s help set the next generation free from fear of the natural world.

  32. It does get wearying to keep on repeating: “it was never about the science; it was always about the politics”, but I have this faint hope that if I keep on saying it often enough and loud enough I’ll get some folks who might make a difference to listen.
    Climate change is a fact (always was, always will be); the extent of any anthropogenic input is a matter for debate, and likewise probably always will be; the catastrophic bit is a power grab by the green loonies — who unfortunately for the rest of us are neither as green as they make out or quite as loonie as we believe.

  33. Even new evidence about cosmic ray effects on cloud cover, and thus on the amount of the sun’s heat reaching the earth,
    ———-
    Kelvin, Assuming you are referring to the CLOUD experiment you are overstating it’s conclusions.

  34. Precisely why Mr FOIA (if youre reading any of our pleas) needs to release the passphrase and let the truth be set forth, regardless of the consequences.
    The whole socialist/warmist/greenist agenda (i cant tell which is which any longer) has gained such a head of steam that the only way to stop the train is to remove the tracks.
    In my opinion we’ve been playing far too nicely for far too long with the results we see today.

    Unlike the warmists, if their contention of AGW could be shown to be true then sceptical scientists ( the way science is supposed to be approached) would be able to confirm the agw supporters hypotheses and we’d all live happily ever after.
    Thats not happened because its a fraudulent claim.
    You dont refuse to give out your data for scrutiny.
    You dont try and get counter views supressed.
    You dont push for editors or other scientists to be excluded.
    You dont politicise science.
    You dont accept invitations from lobby groups holding and confirming your biases.
    You dont lie to the public.
    You dont make things up and hide declines, redefine what peer review literature is, conspire to subvert foia requests and work with a compliant media, admit to each other that the lack of warming is a travesty but fail to say it in public and you dont play hockey with falsified graphs using gigo models that dont take into consideration the effects of the entire ecosystem its supposed to be modelling……If you act in the manner alluded to above then you forfeit the title of “scientist”, you become a quack. A charlatan.
    A tool of the politcal system, a stooge for the likes of greenpiece and all your good works of the past become tainted, and of highly questionable value.

    Once again, Mr FOIA- press the big red button.

  35. Next time, stick a large notice on the camera saying “£&%!?& Broadcasting Company” and “interview” him. Presumably he answered the questions when you watched him being interviewed so you can just be the next TV company in line.

    And, Mark and two cats, there already is a Lord Kelvin, I’m afraid, so no chance there.
    And he’s a nice guy.

  36. These characters seem deserving of being nominated as stand-ins for the haughty naked emperor portrayed here in a cartoon I haven’t been able to locate since. It showed him from behind at an angle, with his head turned so one could see his sneering, full-of-himself face, walking in a very elaborate formal cakewalk manner, with four flunkies holding a rectangular sunshade over him, with IPCC embroidered on the side-panel of it. If anyone has it, please post it.

  37. Astrology, clairvoyance, new age crystal gazing and now AGW. Isn’t it funny how all this stuff attracts the theatrically inclined who love to act out on the public stage. These “demonstrations”, sets, stands, songs etc. are reminiscent of kids playing while searching for the meaning of life, the universe and everything.

    As the Eagles said “they wind up following the wrong gods home”.

  38. Keith Battye says:
    December 20, 2011 at 2:21 am
    As the Eagles said “they wind up following the wrong gods home”.

    How true.

  39. I wonder, is there a connection between WMO’s socialist behavior and propaganda and the fact that they still haven’t updated their statistical base line?

  40. North Korea is in the news right now due to the Great Loss of the Greatest and Most Beloved Leader Kim Yong IL(L) Now Dead.
    This Great Leader and His Immortal, Also Dead, Father Kim Il Sung managed to create the Greenest Country in the World, aka the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea . The North Koreans’ carbon footprint is the lowest in the world. Their GDP is the lowest in the world.
    Correlation = Causation. QED.

  41. I don’t know whether to worry or not. See all the “potholes” in the yellow plot here http://climate-change-theory.com/spectral-content.gif – they represent infra-red energy that’s been absorbed by these brilliantly named “greenhouse gases” we’ve been reading a bit about – including carbon dioxide. All that energy has been absorbed on its way from the Sun, so poor planet Earth never got to have quite as nice warm days as we could have if we had not “polluted” the atmosphere with all that “carbon” (black sooty) stuff.

    Oh well, if it gets too cold one of these years I guess they can invest another 100 billion a year rebuilding the coal-fired electricity stations (which were demolished while carbon dioxide was warming the planet) so they can warm the world back up again to late 20th century temperatures because some upside-down hockey stick said it would work. Who said there weren’t cycles? Carbon dioxide warms for a while, then cools! Of course, we should have spotted such an obvious fact that has truly settled the science.

  42. Kelvin Kemm, really well done, sir! Great read too. Any chance you can post back here with a link to the video when it becomes available? That should go viral. “UN bureaucrats acting like kings, try to block video camera!”. This, along with Monckton’s and your parachute drop are great ideas.

    Askgerbil Now (@Askgerbil) [December 19, 2011 at 11:12 pm] says:

    “The John Birch Society [you-know-what-group] expressed its views on the United Nations and climate science in 1993. Eighteen years later Kelvin Kemm’s guest post today accurately repeats those same views:”

    Oh my, how clever this troll is. ‘Quick, divert the discussion to [you-know-what-group], hehehe. Let’s associate the anti-UN people with some group that no-one likes, hehehe’. Stupid child.

    This is why I would have snipped and banned him before his 2nd post. Gerbil boy pushed it right to the line of accusing WUWT of having a [you-know-what-group] guest poster. Which of course is preposterous. Alinsky-esque Goebbels-esque tactics. Smear thine enemy. You are a lowlife, gerbil boy, but you already know that since you hear it all the time.

    Ironically, if only the [you-know-what-group] hated the United Nations, then the remaining 99.9% must love the UN. The reality of course is that a majority of the people cannot stand the UN. They despise the blue helmets, the arrogant bureaucrats, the criminals that enjoy diplomatic immunity, the dramatic waste of money, their stoooopid ideas, and the extravagant getaways that they indulge in every year. From traffic scofflaws in NYC to rape in far off lands, the UN is the worse possible implementation of diplomacy ever conceived. Only the politicians and career bureaucrats adore the UN. Everyone else, despises them.

    Now since gerbil troll boy went and disparaged WUWT and the great guest poster, perhaps we need to suspend Godwin’s law now and associate the green movement and their liberal socialist sycophants with Hitler. After all he was just as creepy, culty, socialist and almost as green as these nitwits. Likewise with Bin Laden. Perhaps we should associate the (D) party (rightly) with the KKK. On second thought, I won’t lower myself to their impossibly low levels ;-)

    Can you imagine when trolls go to their psychiatrist? You know they do because it is a rite of passage for those of low self-esteem, and they need Lithium anyway. I feel sorry for their shrinks. Exploring the deep, dark, crevices of these minds has to be similar to the Roto-Rooter guy facing a turd filled toilet.

  43. ‘observa says:
    December 19, 2011 at 8:35 pm
    I came across a fascinating early weather tome of some 802 pages here-
    http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf
    It is a pdf file of some 12Mb and has gathered together a very comprehensive chronology of early global weather events from 0AD ‘

    Thanks for the link – a fascinating piece of work. It was having knowledge of history and how climate has changed over the millennia that convinced me from the beginning of the agw con that it was a hoax. Pedantically, though, I point out that there was never a 0AD (as the author suggests) – the year-count goes straight from 1BC to 1AD.

  44. Dr. Klemm looks like he ran into a cerebral narcissist … not suprising since the whole meeting was filled with psychopaths of various sorts, cerebral narcissists are only interested whatever narcissist supply one can provide, lacking that, they are immediately discarded. I’m coming to understand that various forms of psychopathy, not science or logic, is what actually what drives the warmist.

    11:57 of vid

  45. Askgerbil Now (@Askgerbil) says:
    December 19, 2011 at 8:13 pm
    “Birchers also preach that the United Nations wants socialism to rule the world and that global warming caused by pollution is a hoax …”

    Do the words “Pot, Pol” mean anything to you?
    (h/t ChE )

  46. Mark and two Cats says:
    December 19, 2011 at 11:09 pm
    We were accompanied by CFACT project organiser Josh Nadal, who was using his video camera to film anything he liked, to make a video of “what we did at COP-17.”
    —————————————————
    Please post the videos to WUWT!

    I fully agree – the exchange filmed by Josh of:

    His interview over, he stepped off the dais and headed our way. I asked him whether he would agree that global temperatures had actually gone down during the early 1970s, even as CO2 levels continued to rise. He refused to acknowledge this universally accepted fact. I then mentioned the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago. In response, he asserted that the MWP was merely a localized event of no consequence. Also simply not true.

    At that point Monckton asked him to acknowledge that the science was nowhere nearly as clear cut as he had proclaimed. The official refused to do so, asserted “I have work to do,” and walked off.

    Josh had been filming the entire exchange, but now an aide put a hand over the camera lens. When I remarked that just walking off was bad manners, the aide said “You are not worth debating.” I replied, “All he had to do was answer two simple questions.” I was amazed when the aide responded, “He is the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organisation. He does not have to answer your questions.”

    A split screen with the sub-title below the interview showing ” Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organisation” and graphs showing CO2 rise and temperatures from say the WMO? showing the drop in 1970s sub-titled and the actual figures.

    That should make a good YouTube viral video

  47. If Jarraud wants to be re-elected time after time (as he does) then he knows he has to keep parroting the UN meme. People ‘sell their soul’ to get on, and even come to believe the propaganda themselves. It’s practically impossible to climb to high office unless one parrots the conventional mantras.

  48. Dr. Kemm, really enjoyed your post. I’m so glad others are starting to get an idea of who these people and organizations driving this agw fiasco really are, and articles like yours really drives it home in simple terms.

  49. “He is the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organisation. He does not have to answer your questions.”
    Sounds like a Wesley Mouch to me. (Mouch is a character from Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged.)

  50. @RichieP- “It was having knowledge of history and how climate has changed over the millennia that convinced me from the beginning of the agw con that it was a hoax.”

    These people have no sense of history and as such it’s all about them and now and they perpetually fall for their own hubris. Thought it would tickle the fancy of an old weather man like Anthony, particularly that Director of the Weather Station, Dr Isaac Cline and his report on the 1900 Galveston hurricane. I don’t know Galveston, but living in a seaside suburb of Adelaide South Australia, post Fukushima, I have a fair idea what 15 feet of water would do around here and that height in Galveston in 1900 wasn’t created by any tsunami, just wind and tide.

  51. scott says:
    December 20, 2011 at 4:23 am

    I watched the video on psychopaths.It was good and informative. However, when I came to the end it said “chinastrategies.com”, and the first thing that came to my mind is: This video had the faces of all the western tyrants, Hitler, Stalin, thrown in together with democratic politicians such as Bush, Obama, palin, Blair, Brown, Sarkozy, BUT no Chinese politicians were mentioned, shown or referred to in the whole 37 minute video. Is this some subtle psychological propogandistic video produced by a Communist Chinese front organisation? Is this some psychopath hiding behind a myriad of sychopaths?

  52. Typical UN , an organization known for its corruption, its incompetence and its arrogance. Many of the problems of the IPCC are reflections of the fact its part of the UN .

  53. Hi biff33

    Yes and if only, as he repeatedly says in the novel as the world collpases around him, Wesley Mouch had more powers then everything would be ok. Mouch in the novel has a desperate, whiney and sulky air about him and so it is with these people in the UN and elsewhere. Raynd really did see this clearly – pathetic incompetence cloaked by titles and dogma to the detriment of us all.

  54. Kelvin Kemm: You wrote in the post, “In other words, in the view of the IPCC, climate change science was settled even before the term ‘climate change’ was coined…”

    That sentence needs a little work since the last two letters in the acronym IPCC stand for “Climate Change”.

  55. I was amazed when the aide responded, “He is the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organisation. He does not have to answer your questions.”

    To this I quote a great modern philosopher…

    “Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss”
    Pete Townsend, The Who

    • To say nothing of being the best rock, no the best guitarist in history.

      Pete is simply a fine fellow and his insight is second to none. “They decide and the shotgun sings the song”.

  56. If In other words, in the view of the IPCC, climate change science was settled even before the term “climate change” was coined..
    The problem is that those who support such a scam are salaried and will defend their paychecks, so we should apply Jerome Ravetz´s “precautionary principle” on them :-)

  57. So let bozos like this “Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organisation” display his stupidity for all the world to see–it simply provides more rope to hang him with in the court of public opinion, which will swing back just as certain as the sunrise and this charade will be exposed and reviled.

  58. LazyTeenager says:
    December 20, 2011 at 1:53 am

    Even new evidence about cosmic ray effects on cloud cover, and thus on the amount of the sun’s heat reaching the earth,
    ———-
    Kelvin, Assuming you are referring to the CLOUD experiment you are overstating it’s conclusions.

    That’s not nearly as serious as the IPCC and other UN organizations grossly understating the conclusions by intentionally ignoring it and leaving it out completely, obviously. The fact they cherry-pick what they want to include and then bend what they do have to achieve their nefarious political ends speaks volumes.

  59. Simple Logic:

    If the statement, “When CO2 goes up, temperatures go up”, can be made with such scientific certainty, one can also say, “When a series of La Nina conditions are present, the temperatures go down”. The latter statement is abundantly backed with observational data and a straightforward mechanism.

    Logically, then, one would have to say that both are drivers of trend.

    The next step in a logical debate is a rock, paper, scissors technique. Which overwhelmes the other? The data tells us. It would have to be a series of La Nina conditions. Therefore oceanic/atmospheric conditions are a stronger driver of temperature trend than CO2 is.

    Is this not the 4 marks end of the debate?

  60. @RichieP- “It was having knowledge of history and how climate has changed over the millennia that convinced me from the beginning of the agw con that it was a hoax.”

    To paraphrase an old saying: Those who forget extreme weather in the past are doomed to say all current extreme weather is unprecidented.

  61. @scott says:
    Thanks Scott. Though it may seem we are done!. Fortunately, instead, psychopaths do not succeed as they hope, like Hitler and his “One thousand years III Reich” which, as we all know, only lasted four years. Usually second order psychopaths are “useful fools” manipulated by conscious spirits of evil who remain hidden, as in this case the financiers of the climate scam.

  62. Smokey, gerbil, et al.

    Regarding the John Birch Society and statements regarding Washington, I presume you are aware of a new Gallup poll showing that 64% of respondents fear excessive government, while a much smaller percentage (20%) or so fear big business big labor. Apparently we are mostly Birchers now!

  63. When seeking dictatorial power you have to be able to lie with arrogance and a straight face.

    Obviously the global warming reps at Durbin do it very well but look more like the occupy Wall Street crowd with their minions supporting self- importance rather than science. And obviously they want only their record of the conference to be shown.

    To clarify:
    Dictatorial: imposing will on others: fond of telling others what to do or of using power or authority to make them do it
    A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others.
    ARROGANCE: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions.
    Minion: assistant: a servile or slavish follower of somebody generally regarded as important.
    Record: to set down in writing or the like, as for the purpose of preserving evidence.

    I know it is trite to define words people know.
    trit: lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition.

    Wait, repeating that the science is settled trite.

  64. Ah, what WOULD we do without the noble guidance of the arrogant, elitist, leftist, “educated class?”

    Be prosperous or something?

  65. Pamela: You are correct, or course, but logic does not apply to People Who Have All the Answers, like the IPCC and associates. Facts and reason are irrelevant. They know what is happening and what we must do about it. Mostly by giving them more power over us. And a lot of money.

    Some things will never change.

  66. davidmhoffer says:
    December 13, 2011 at 2:23 pm:

    I also watched the entire “Defense Against the Psycopath” video because I have at least one such colleague at work. Some of the imagery is very troubling – Stephen Harper’s images appeared amongst other world leaders, and he definitely is no psychopath if one uses the identifiers in the video. Nor is Pope Benedict XVI – he is a profound scholar as was Pope John Paul II (whom the makers of this video did not dare include among the wide montage of Western leaders right and left included as psychopathic traits are identified). Other than Moon who founded the Moony Cult, only the Catholic Church and Christian televangelists are portrayed as being led by psychopaths. This certainly reflects prejudices of Chinese communist dictators.

    Although it is a video that is easy to watch, I learned nothing new, and the measures of ‘defense’ advised offer me no clue as to how to deal with my colleague. This video is propaganda. A web-search of thechinastrategy.com reveals very little, but at two different websites one can find this information:

    Video: A Conversation with Edward Tse
    In THE CHINA STRATEGY, Edward Tse, Booz & Company’s Chairman for Greater China, shows executives how to prepare for the new China that is rapidly recovering from the global financial crisis and evolving in unexpected directions. The engine driving the world out of the global financial crisis and back to growth is China. But only those multinational companies that develop a genuine China strategy will come along for the ride.

    Popular Keywords:
    china strategy,harvard business review chinese edition in china,become an expert on the chinese economy,edward tse china speaker,changhua wu climate group,harvard business review chinese edition,future magazine’s strategie in china (sic), future magazine’s strategy in china,strategy china

  67. Alex the skeptic says: December 20, 2011 at 5:48 am

    I watched the video on psychopaths.It was good and informative. However, when I came to the end it said “chinastrategies.com”, … This video had the faces of all the western tyrants, Hitler, Stalin, thrown in together with democratic politicians such as Bush, Obama, palin, Blair, Brown, Sarkozy, BUT no Chinese politicians were mentioned, shown or referred to in the whole 37 minute video….

    I also watched this video and thought it well done and thought provoking. In the interest of completeness, I must disagree with your assertion that ONLY “western tyrants” and “democratic politicians” were shown. I distinctly remember seeing Pol Pot and Chairman Mao Zedong’s image at least once each. However, images of these eastern tyrants were clearly in the minority compared to those of the western tyrants.

  68. Mr. Kemm, ” I asked him whether he would agree that global temperatures had actually gone down during the early 1970s, even as CO2 levels continued to rise. He refused to acknowledge this universally accepted fact.”

    Which data set do you believe shows this? Your universally accepted fact may not be fact.

    Mr. Kemm, ” Even new evidence about cosmic ray effects on cloud cover, and thus on the amount of the sun’s heat reaching the earth, is irrelevant in the view of the IPCC and other UN agencies, and thus may be intentionally ignored.”

    Cosmic rays are discussed by the IPCC in the AR4. What new evidence shows what you claim? As lazy teenager pointed out, if you are relying on the CERN results, you are over stating the results. What did the IPCC get wrong about cosmic rays in AR4 which new evidence shows? Seems what the IPCC said in AR4 about cosmic rays is reinforced by the CERN results.

  69. Sceptical, thanks for pointing this out…

    This chart from AR4, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html, indicates that AR4 did, indeed, talk about cosmic rays. The chart also shows that 13 of 16 forcings have low to very low consensus among scientists and low to very low level of scientific understanding.

    Yet, the “warm”ongers want us to spend inordinate amounts of money to “fix” a problem for which there is, according to the IPCC’s own chart, little consensus. It would seem to me that if there was an area of low consensus and understanding, that you would want to study it further, rather than try to brush it under the rug, as you are doing.

  70. Hey Chiquita:
    Canada Saudi Arabia Item
    ————————————-
    Yes No Women’s rights
    Yes No Democratic Republic
    No Yes Dismemberment as punishment

    So why not boycott SA oil? You would rather spill American’s blood that use our sweat in exchange for your oil? WTF? Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here.

  71. Smokey says:
    December 19, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    gerbil,

    Thanx for posting that 1993 link to the John Birch society….The ones who are putting down the JBS are all “academics”. Maybe we should listen to the pointy heads instead, huh?
    _____________________________________

    I am beginning to think the ones to pay attention to are the ones the Mass Media lambaste especially since the Bankers control most of the media. Think Occupy Wall Street vs the Tea Party.

  72. http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2011/mar/DENIN-Dialogue-Pachauri030311.html

    The real goal of the IPCC is the advancement of the UN “Sustainable Development” agenda. (That would be Agenda 21 of the Rio treaty).

    Pachauri’s talk, entitled “Knowledge Institutions and the Imperatives of Sustainable Development,” will focus on how the cumulative effects of industrialization have affected the health of our natural resources and ecosystems. Unsustainable growth is creating problems that not only affect the environment, but also, in some heavily industrialized areas, pose a serious threat to human health.

    It is not at all about the science in that it doesn’t matter if the science is shown to be wrong. The onus is now on signers of the Rio treaty to show that CO2 CAN’T cause environmental damage, not on the IPCC to show that it HAS or WILL.

    The 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle summarizes the principle this way: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” (The Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle was convened by the Science and Environmental Health Network [3]).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

    You could show right now that there has been absolutely NO climate impact from CO2 and it will not matter. You have to show that CO2 CAN’T impact climate.

    An important element of the precautionary principle is that its most meaningful applications pertain to those that are potentially irreversible, for example where biodiversity may be reduced. With respect to bans on substances like mercury in thermometers, freon in refrigeration, or even carbon dioxide exhaust from automobile engines and power plants, it implies:

    … a willingness to take action in advance of scientific proof [or] evidence of the need for the proposed action on the grounds that further delay will prove ultimately most costly to society and nature, and, in the longer term, selfish and unfair to future generations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

    They do not need proof of anything nor do they have to worry about scientific “uncertainty”. They can just do it if the IPCC assessment says that CO2 COULD cause climate change and that climate change COULD be harmful.

    The facts don’t matter. This isn’t about facts.

  73. I can’t help but make this remark because I find this simply incredulous.

    “… in the view of the IPCC, climate change science was settled even before the term “climate change” was coined”

    If they believe this themselves, which they obviously do (because if they don’t believe this they are willign and knowingly defrauding the world!!) – why did they have produce more reports and have more conferences after the first one ?

    Or am I overlooking something besides the masive egg-on-IPCC-face ?

  74. We know with absolute certainty that a 2 degree C rise in global temperatures will not cause an environmental catastrophe because:

    7000 years ago temperatures were 2 degrees higher than today.

    Every species alive today was alive 7000 years ago and survived.

    Virtually every species was alive over previous interglacials. This interglacial is the coldest one in 400,000 years. All of those species survived those events.

    Every species survived the tremendous and very fast “global warming” at the end of the last glacial, out of the Younger Dryas, and out of the 8.2ky event.

    The worst case scenario is for a very gradual warming.

    We know WITH CERTAINTY that this can not be a problem because it has happened before.

  75. If they believe this themselves, which they obviously do (because if they don’t believe this they are willign and knowingly defrauding the world!!) – why did they have produce more reports and have more conferences after the first one ?

    Because “the process” says that they had to. Some country or countries put language into the documents that said they needed to have the IPCC do assessments. It is like giving the “guilty” man a trial where everyone has already determined the guilt and the trial is simply a required formality.

    All the IPCC needs to show is that CO2 increases COULD cause warming. Then the rest of the report is on what environmental impacts COULD be expected from such warming. They do not need to prove that the climate HAS warmed or that these environmental impacts HAVE come to pass.

    It is what I call the “It Could Happen” principle. All they have to do is reach consensus that “it could happen” not that it is happening or will happen.

  76. My2Cents says:
    December 19, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    Well that confirms officially it! There have been no improvements made in the models in the last 20 years.

    Is there any other field of science that has gone that long without new discoveries or theories proposed or discarded?
    ________________________________

    What this proves is that it is NOT science it s prettily dress propaganda.

  77. Well, in following the American climate follies coming out of the current administration and the UN it’s good to see that race is still not an independent variable for explaining human behavior and has absolutely nothing to do with IQ. Must be the elevated carbon levels?

  78. Re Crosspatch above,

    The Precautionary Principle is an absurdity. Or, more to the point it is a double-edged sword. for example, the Precautionary Principle supports the statement: “The governments of the world should refrain from restricting the use of fossil fuels until they can prove that such restrictions would not result in the the impoverishment of masses of humans.”

    Another use of the Precautionary Principle: “The promotion of biofuels should be stopped until it can be proven that conversion of food to fuel will not result in the starvation of millions of poor children around the world.

    Another us of the precautionary principle: “Listening to Algore should be stopped until it is proven that listening to Algore will cause otherwise intelligent people to behave like fools.”

    The Precautionary Principle is asinine. The use of it should be proscribed until it can be proven that using this principle will not harm the progress and well-being of the human race.

  79. John David Galt says:
    December 19, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    Cutting the UN’s funding isn’t enough: we tried that in the ’70s.

    The US needs to pull out of the UN, and kick the UN out of the US…..
    ______________________
    AMEN
    That is the present I want for Christmas. That and to get the heck out of the World Trade Organization.

    Speaking of treaties. I do not know if this is true but it may be worth having a lawyer look into it.

    Treaties Do Not Supersede the Constitution

    The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution”.

    The Second follow-up lie is this one: “A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside”

    HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

    1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.

    2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

    3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others.….. [This seems to indicate a state like Texas can nulify a treaty! gc]

    “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

    “It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

    “In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

    Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

    A further look:

    …Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as “the supreme law of the land.”…. However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers,……
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

    From all this it looks like a state can not nullify a treaty BUT a state can CHALLENGE a treaty in Federal Court on the basis of whether or not the treaty is Constitutional. Therefore a UN treaty forcing the banning of all guns in the USA for example could get challenged.

    What is rather interesting is the “Nullification Movement” among the individual states

    In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.

    …Two dozen American states nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005. More than a dozen states have successfully defied the federal government over medical marijuana. Nullification initiatives of all kinds, involving the recent health care legislation, cap and trade, and the Second Amendment are popping up everywhere…..

    Thomas Jefferson knew about the Supremacy Clause, it’s safe to assume. The Supremacy Clause applies to constitutional laws, not unconstitutional ones…. http://www.tomwoods.com/learn-about-state-nullification/

    10th Amendment Resolutions
    These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement of the legislature of the state. They play an important role, however…. – as serving “notice and demand” to the Federal Government to “cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers.” http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/

    I bring this up because the individual states are starting to get very fed up with the Federal Big Boot and are working to put the Feds Back in their place. ~ OUT of the business delegated to the STATES.

  80. Kelvin Kemm

    …a TV interviewer asked IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele whether there was now enough information to decide the next steps COP-17 should take. van Ypersele answered, “The body of knowledge was there already in the first [IPCC] report twenty years ago and was actually good enough to start the action which inspired the convention on climate change.”

    The interviewer then asked if the science was well enough understood. “Not only is there enough science” the Vice Chair replied, “but that science has been there, available and explained by the IPCC, already from the first report.”

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says: December 20, 2011 at 12:42 am

    IPCC vice-chair van Ypersele had a debate with his colleague of the UCL (Universitè Catholique de Louvain), professor István Markó (chemistry) on January 27 early this year in Brussels. Before the debate started, the audience was asked to answer two questions: “is climate warming really happening?” And “If so, are mainly humans the cause?”. Both questions were answered affirmative by a large majority. After the debate, the same questions were asked: the majority changed completely to the opposite side. Since then, van Ypersele doesn’t debate with anyone remotely skeptic, even uses his power to prevent any open debate from skeptics as was the case for Fred Singer and Claes Johnson a few moths ago in Brussels. See:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/28/weekley-climate-and-energy-news-roundup/

    F.E.’s URL has SEPP Quote of the Week:

    “That letter is a criminal act against science, against open inquiry. Not only is the world in the hands of intellectual children, they are warring against real science, whose main pillar is open inquiry”

    SEPP has slight inaccuracies of attribution, which makes the truth even more interesting. Johnson and Singer had actually been invited to run an event:

    SEII (Société Européenne des Ingénieurs et Industriels, Prof Henri Masson) organizes a conference for Fred Singer and Claes Johnson at the Fondation Universitaire in Brussels on September 1, at 18 h00. Official invitation from SEII follows by E-mail.
    The next day 2 September there will be a workshop with some of our Think Tank . Our preliminary programme looks as follows:
    18h15 S. Fred Singer : What is new in climate change?
    19 h 00 Claes Johnson : Blackbody radiation and Climate Thermodynamics
    19 h45 to 20 H30 : Questions and Answers

    and in the thread following Claes Johnson’s post on van Ypersele’s interference to get the programme cancelled, it was Harry Dale Huffman who left the memorable quote. Van Ypersele had written SEII:

    You should know that Mr. Fred Singer is a person whose scientific integrity leaves much to be desired. Its activities are financed disinformation by the lobbies of fossil fuels… and it is scandalous that such a person may be associated, directly or indirectly, to SEII and the University Foundation. Eminent colleagues have written that Mr. Johnson was no better…

    I think this Ypersele storyline deserves its own thread.

  81. jorgekafkazar says:
    December 19, 2011 at 11:30 pm
    …..When are the MSM going to publicize those lies? Or could it be that the MSM are part of the problem?
    ___________________________
    The MSM have been part of the problem since 1917.

    Congressman Oscar Callaway reported to Congress in 1917 (Congressional Record below), how J.P. Morgan hired twelve high racking news managers. The twelve were asked to “… determine the most influential newspapers in America.” They were to figure out how many news organization it would take … to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States.” The twelve found that it was only necessary to “… purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.” “An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, and an editor was placed at each paper to insure that all published information was in keeping with the new policy.” Soon that policy would be defined by a front group formed by JP Morgan and his colleagues (Warburg and Rockefeller). Morgan’s personal attorney was the founding President of the organization. The organization was known as the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR).
    http://www.abodia.com/t/Articles/War-of-Words.htm

    Alternate Source: http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/congressional-record-jp-morgan-co-purchased-all-major-media-for-propaganda-1917-and-now

    Currently:
    http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/forum/topics/jp-morganour-next-big-media
    http://www.newsandtech.com/dougs_page/article_f3a45be0-4717-11df-aace-001cc4c03286.html

    Most recently:
    JP Morgan Chase & Co. is raising a $500 million to $750 million fund to invest in ventures being spun out of social media….

    Das reports:
    It isn’t clear whether JPMorgan plans to invest directly in target companies or buy and sell shares on behalf of clients. But the investment fund will target “late-stage” private companies, or those with an up-and-running business model, steady revenue, and cash flow, according to people familiar with the situation.
    http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/pressed/2011/02/14/jpmorgan-new-media-fund-targets-convergence/

    The only change is the Rockefellers took over Public broadcasting: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/25/judith-i-love-ya-but-youre-way-wrong/

    The Money and Connections
    CRU founded by Big Oil: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/seriously_inconvenient_truth.pdf

    I wish the various Collectivists (Progressives, Marxists, Socialists) would wise up to the fact that the Bankers have been manipulating them for the last hundred years.

    Bankrolling the Bolshevik Revolutionhttp://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=NoneDare&C=4#Bolshevik “The Bolshevik Revolution took place in November of 1917, few know that the Czar had abdicated seven months earlier in March.” [Note the date!]

    The “other” Banker/ Socialist Experiment – the EU:
    http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/56/
    http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/fabian-society-literally-control-the-european-union-plus-the-british-government/
    http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fabian_Society
    http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2010/12/24/the-fabian-model_british-fabian-society-dynastic-banking-families-_-fabian-ministers-our/
    JP Morgan, pays Mr Blair £2  million a year as a senior adviser while Blair is UN Middle East peace envoy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8787074/Tony-Blairs-six-secret-visits-to-Col-Gaddafi.html

    Thoughts of a Fabian Society Founding Member: http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=7948

  82. Gail Combs says on December 20, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Unreadable post; no clear point expressed; regurgitated ‘talking points’; ‘all over the place’; riding a hobby horse again …

    Not impressed.
    .

  83. jaymam says:
    December 20, 2011 at 2:19 am

    Would it be useful to have a world-wide boycott of Chiquita bananas,…..
    ______________________
    You got it from me.

    Also you have to go to the store manager and ASK “Do you have bananas from another company besides Chiquita? I am boycotting Chiquita. Then you can explain why.

  84. Alex the skeptic says:
    December 20, 2011 at 2:59 am

    North Korea is in the news right now due to the Great Loss of the Greatest and Most Beloved Leader Kim Yong IL(L) Now Dead.
    This Great Leader and His Immortal, Also Dead, Father Kim Il Sung managed to create the Greenest Country in the World, aka the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea . The North Koreans’ carbon footprint is the lowest in the world. Their GDP is the lowest in the world.
    Correlation = Causation. QED.
    _____________________________________________
    Can we send all the members of Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra Club… to attend his funeral in N. Korea and then slam the door shut and not let them back out??? You know cut off their CO2 emitting jet fuel (snicker)

  85. _Jim says: December 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    Gail Combs says on December 20, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    …no clear point expressed; regurgitated ‘talking points’; ‘all over the place’; riding a hobby horse again …

    Gail I have to agree with _Jim. But you raise some important issues.

    Please use your references more sparingly and more in spelled-out connection to the subject matter of the post. Your case is important, but it is not the whole of reality, so beware overstating it. IMHO!

  86. @Gail Combs says December 20, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    I dare say that as recently as 15 years ago, 25 would have been an excessive number (I would have placed it at less than 10 – with Video sources). Outside of the Boston, LA, DC and NY, there are precious few that do not get their stories from those 4 media centers. However, something happened on the way to the forum. Al Gore created the internet and the number has gone through the roof. While you can control most of the print with the acquisition of those majors, you can no longer control the news. As Edwards (National Enquirer), Clinton (Drudge Report) and Rather (Little Green Footballs) have found, the alternate media will get the news out even when the majors feel it does not fit their agenda.

Comments are closed.