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)
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.
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
Alex the skeptic says: December 20, 2011 at 5:48 am
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.
looks like coldest summer ever in Australia. Last year was not very warm either
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.
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.
I would love a world where all knowledge is known and there are no questions. But I live in the real world. Something apparently many warmists do not do.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
A further look:
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.
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.
Kelvin Kemm
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: December 20, 2011 at 12:42 am
F.E.’s URL has SEPP Quote of the Week:
SEPP has slight inaccuracies of attribution, which makes the truth even more interesting. Johnson and Singer had actually been invited to run an event:
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:
I think this Ypersele storyline deserves its own thread.
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.
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: http://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 Revolution – http://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
Unreadable post; no clear point expressed; regurgitated ‘talking points’; ‘all over the place’; riding a hobby horse again …
Not impressed.
.
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.
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)
_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!
@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.