Published in the Financial Post today:
OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125 scientists.
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
First Avenue and East 44th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A.
November 29, 2012
Mr. Secretary-General:
On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”
On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”
The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”
We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.
Read the full letter and signatories here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Though this letter strikes a good cord, it will fall on deaf ears. The UN has an agenda to make national sovereignty a thing of the past. Empowered by a friendly media they can put their fingers in their ears and go la-la-la……la while they continue to use AGW as a sledgehammer toward their ends. The majority of Americans seem to be skeptics so it isn’t likely that legislative action is where the AGW agenda is advanced. It will come from the executive branch in new regs issued by various departments as well as executive orders straight from the president, which by the way, will make the UN very happy.
Gunga Din says: “But there’s no question that The UN wants their leader, whoever that may be at the time, to have political power.”
==========================================================
He is not a leader of the UN. There is no leader there.
Dennis Nikols says:
November 29, 2012 at 7:16 pm
“The 125 are correct but they are still thinking the issue is one of science. ”
Have you even read Dr. Ball’s articles? I doubt it, because you would know he has been fighting on both fronts for a long, long, time.
” Why on Earth did those 125 persons choose to write to the Secretary-General of the United Nations?”
The IPCC is essentially part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Chartered and supported by same. http://unfccc.int/2860.php.
——————–
The nice thing to see with all of the “climate scientists” on the list is signing this letter is not seen as a career limiting move.
Judith is not on the list. She would’ve been right below Walter Cunningham.
Greg House says:
November 29, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Gunga Din says: “No political power? Debatable. But there’s no question that The UN wants their leader, whoever that may be at the time, to have political power….
==========================================================
He is not a leader of the UN. There is no leader there.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But they want a Fuehrer.
CAGW is the current excuse to empower one.
Whether any exists or not, I’m sure evidence can be found to indict the signatories of this letter as shills for Big Oil.
“is Revkin going ‘soft’ on deniers??”
My conclusion is no.
His post concludes with: “Give a read and test your cultural filters by seeing how that conclusion makes you feel.” and a link to The Cultural Cognition Project. http://www.culturalcognition.net/
The cultural filters demonstrated by the project’s selection and description of cultural filters is a bit of a hoot.
While citing the most excellent analysis of the uncertainty of cloud models discussed here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/28/clouds-and-magic/. He falls back to the tried and true precautionary principle: “Uncertainty is the reason for acting in the near term, and that uncertainty cannot be used as a justification for doing nothing.” This even with flat temperatures.
Revkin recommends that we read a paper with this as its conclusion:
“Uncertainty is the reason for acting in the near term, and that uncertainty cannot be used as a justification for doing nothing.”
Is this what passes for wisdom? I am sure the same argument was used by ancient high priests to continue human sacrifices. I cannot believe that any intelligent or sane person would argue that ignorance (uncertainty) justifies action! The only things that ignorance justifies is education and insurance. Carbon mitigation, with its zero return on investment, is not insurance.
Jim Clarke says: “I cannot believe that any intelligent or sane person would argue that ignorance (uncertainty) justifies action!”
======================================================
An evil intelligent person would. There are quite a few around.
Gunga Din says: “But they want a Fuehrer. CAGW is the current excuse to empower one.”
====================================================
And this should be a reason to write to an irrelevant person?
RobertInAz says:
November 29, 2012 at 8:26 pm
” Why on Earth did those 125 persons choose to write to the Secretary-General of the United Nations?”
The IPCC is essentially part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Chartered and supported by same. http://unfccc.int/2860.php.
——————–
The nice thing to see with all of the “climate scientists” on the list is signing this letter is not seen as a career limiting move.
==================================================================
If I misread your intent, sorry in advance.
Fear and intimidation are tools used by those not as nice as the rest of us. We read stories of a mother or a father killing their own children. We can’t imagine any parent doing such a thing. Yet a few do. There are Green Goons out there that would take pleasure or at least think it was “for the greater good” if they could get anyone who doesn’t tow the green line fired from their job or harmed in some way. I comment as “Gunga Din” for a reason. Where I work we had an envirionmental audit. I could be in less trouble if I showed up drunk than if I didn’t know where the recycle bin was. The people doing the audit were nice. But they report to someone higher up. Fortunately, such audits don’t happen often. It used to be they never happened. I do have EPA licenses for what I do and used to do. But they go back to before the EPA went “green”. The EPA then just wanted to protect the environment so it could be used by people then and for years to come. What I do is a job that, over time, became a “career”.
My name on such a list wouldn’t mean much. Wouldn’t mean anything really.
If people think that these guys are all retired and aren’t risking anything (other than the ire of Mann), there’s an “H” of alot of knowlege and experience in that list list that shouldn’t be dismissed lightly.
RobertInAz says:
November 29, 2012 at 8:26 pm
==========================================================
I looked at a few of your previous comments and realized that, yes, I did misread your intend. Sorry again. Cranial density does not improve with age.
Gunga Din says:
November 29, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Greg House says:
November 29, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Gunga Din says: “No political power? Debatable. But there’s no question that The UN wants their leader, whoever that may be at the time, to have political power….
==========================================================
He is not a leader of the UN. There is no leader there.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But they want a Fuehrer.
CAGW is the current excuse to empower one.
————————————————————————–
Oh no. That’s why he refuses to disappear into the sunset. No no, please not Gorebbels ….
…. please say it ain’t so.
November 29, 2012 at 6:21 pm | trafamadore says:
—————————————————————-
Tralfamadore, if you’re trolling here for sympathy for your ” precautionary principal ” you’d be better off at the SS site. There’s nothing that mankind can do to prevent any changes in climate whether cooling or warming … Mankind is nothing more more than the proverbial ant on an elephants rump.
The letter has:
As a CAGW skeptic I wanted to have the exact quote from the report to use, and accessed the PDF document @NOAA.gov. For anyone else who wants it, the exact quote from pg 123 is:
This is under the pg 122 heading:
Actually there are no page numbers on those two pages, and they are highlighted with a blue background rather than the normal white.
I can hardly wait to see this reported by the BBC. They love to report everything about the UN.
Greg House says:
November 29, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Gunga Din says: “But they want a Fuehrer. CAGW is the current excuse to empower one.”
====================================================
And this should be a reason to write to an irrelevant person?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
The “irrelevant” person made a public statement to try and become relevant, and some other people made a public statement to try and ensure that he doesn’t become relevant. Don’t know how much easier it could be to understand….
Congratulations to all involved: thousands of us amateurs agree, despite our lack of official “intellectual weight”. Whether shouting at the self-defined deaf has any effect is another matter, of course, given that their rationale has nothing to do with science. We might hope, too, that the FP will draw this letter to the attention of their peers and maximise its exposure.
@Tom in Texas says:
November 29, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Judith is not on the list. She would’ve been right below Walter Cunningham.
I just left a word on her open thread to that effect.
Pity they didn’t get 25 more signatures which would double number of scientists (out of 77) who are responsible for the “concensus” 🙂
Excellent letter. Well done to those who put their names to it. It’s brave to express your views about climate change openly as the NASA astronauts, scientists and engineers did recently. It demonstrates the lie about a consensus.
It shows that the vile holocaust comparison of using the term den**r is simply abuse due to a paucity of intellectual maturity on the part of CAGW activists including Mann (who should be ashamed considering his background).
As the letter relates to the UNFCCC bunfight at Doha it seems appropriate to send it to the UN Secretary General. But it is an open letter so it is naturally for everyone to see and sending it to Ban Ki-moon is more likely to get attention from the press for its main theme:
“There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.”
Ban Ki-moon will do nothing and no one expects him to. He is a pawn in the New Great Game which encompasses power structures and the CAGW scare. His ability to deal with corruption at the UN is suspect as Inga-Britt Ahlenius expressed to him in a letter in 2010.
Inga-Britt Ahlenius was a Swedish auditor and undersecretary general of the Office of Internal Oversight Services charged with combating corruption at the United Nations. She wrote to Ban-Ki Moon:
“There is no transparency, there is lack of accountability. Rather than supporting the internal oversight which is the sign of strong leadership and good governance, you have strived to control it which is to undermine its position. I do not see any signs of reform in the organisation.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/nations2.pdf
Sticky post?
trafamadore says:
November 29, 2012 at 6:21 pm
I think I saw somewhere, I dont remember the exact numbers at all but, that of some 30,000 articles on climate only some 25 make an argument against AGW. So with 5 people per paper, think those 125 are the ones?….
________________________________________
If you want that PhD, if you want Tenure, you do not rock the CAGW boat. There are lots and lots of paper around, I have read several, that have the “Get out of Peer-Review Free Card” “Although our research shows CAGW is a bunch of bunk, our research should not be used to trash CAGW because we do not want to look like we are ‘deniers’.”
So here is a list of papers that do not support CAGW although they may have that “Get out of Peer-Review Free Card” 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
The fact that the “Get out of Peer-Review Free Card” is so common should make it clear to anyone who doesn’t have their mind cemented shut that CAGW is POLITICAL and not scientific. All it takes is ONE paper to disprove a theory and yet CAGW keeps coming back like a zombie from the “Night of the Living Dead ”
“Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.” ~ Thomas Huxley
16 years of no warming in the face of continued rise in CO2 is that ugly fact. There are plenty more but all have been ignored in the pursuit of $$$$.
Gunga Din says:
November 29, 2012 at 8:39 pm
…..But they want a Fuehrer.
CAGW is the current excuse to empower one.
_______________________________________
The globalists even say that. Pascal Lamy is the Director General for the World Trade Organization. Twenty years ago he was Chief of Staff to the President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors.
CAGW and the economic crash were ENGINEERED to provide legitimacy for ‘global governance.’
Just in case you do not think that national sovereignty is the target. Lamy is quite blunt in stating he thinks national sovereignty is passé. He holds the EU up as the direction the world should go. … on the question of efficiency, Europe scores in my view rather highly. Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law…
And he restates it here:
And again here: