News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

UN prevents free speech even that of Americans who pay most of UN IPCC's jet setting bills. This week US presenters in Lima promised 30 min. were cut off after only 18. In 2012 Lord Monckton was allowed less than 1 minute to speak at UN Climate Summit in Doha. Why must Americans hand our wages every year to an unelected, unaccountable, anti-free speech group? Why do temporary US politicians want to sign us to a "UN climate treaty" in 2015 requiring us to pay even more for excess CO2 that only exists in China?

12/11/14, "Skeptics cleared off stage: Apollo 7 Astronaut rushed off stage at UN Climate Summit to make way for Kerry photo-op," Climate Depot, Marc Morano

"Despite being given a slot of 30 minutes for their talk, they were told they had to “wrap up” after 18 minutes into their presentation." 

12/5/2012, Lord Monckton removed from Doha climate summit, Zeeburg Niesws, Netherlands


Monckton wrote recently discussed below and criticized article "Oops! Sixteen years no global warming!"
Monckton is incidentally also popular in Dutch climate skeptic circles, though not exactly clear who does or does not run away with the pseudo-aristocratic charlatan.
Monckton is accused not tell whole story, but certain outcomes of using the climate science for his conservative political purposes.
In the Netherlands, repeat the Daily Standard writing VVD economist and climate skeptic Hans Labohm regularly the mantra that it is no longer warmer since 1998 and also the 'young guild' Climategate shows fan of Moncton as reflected in the article below.
Whether this then the skeptics are we, as we hear lately along in dialogue should be, is surely a serious question."
; Bold Lord Christopher Monckton blows Doha on Myanmar-gate!
; Fmr. Thatcher advisor Lord Monckton evicted from UN climate summit", google translation

Netherlands publication

Image above of Lord Monckton at Doha Climate Summit in 2012 in Arab attire from Zeeburg News.

Lord Monckton was dressed in normal business attire when he addressed the UN group. 

12/7/2012, "Monckton on his smashing the U.N. wall of silence on lack of warming, and censure," Watts Up with That, Guest Blogger

"UPDATE: The Russian TV channel “RT” aka “TV-Novosti” blames Monckton for the failure of COP18 to fail to reach an agreement:

"The 18th Climate Change Summit in Doha is drawing to an end after once again failing to find common consensus on what it calls a major threat to human existence. Failure seemed inevitable after climate skeptic Lord Monckton crashed the event."
LOL! Source here

From Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in Doha, Qatar

"I have been a bad boy. At the U.N. climate conference in Doha, I addressed a plenary session of national negotiating delegates though only accredited as an observer.

Lord Monckton at Doha
One just couldn’t resist. There they all were, earnestly outbidding each other to demand that the West should keep them in pampered luxury for the rest of their indolent lives, and all on the pretext of preventing global warming that has now become embarrassingly notorious for its long absence. 

No one was allowed to give the alternative – and scientifically correct – viewpoint. The U.N.’s wall of silence was rigidly in place. The microphone was just in front of me. All I had to do was press the button. I pressed it. The Chair recognized Myanmar (Burmese for Burma). I was on.

On behalf of the Asian Coastal Co-operation Initiative, an outfit I had thought up on the spur of the moment (it sounded just like one of the many dubious taxpayer-funded propaganda groups at the conference), I spoke for less than a minute.

Quietly, politely, authoritatively, I told the delegates three inconvenient truths they would not hear from anyone else:

There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons.

• It is at least ten times more cost-effective to see how much global warming happens and then adapt in a focused way to what little harm it may cause than to spend a single red cent futilely attempting to mitigate it today.

An independent scientific enquiry should establish whether the U.N.’s climate conferences are still heading in the right direction.

As I delivered the last of my three points, there were keening shrieks of rage from the delegates. They had not heard any of this before. They could not believe it. Outrage! Silence him! Free speech? No! 

This is the U.N.! Gettimoff! Eeeeeeeeeagh!

One of the hundreds of beefy, truncheon-toting U.N. police at the conference approached me as I left the hall and I was soon surrounded by him and a colleague. They took my conference pass, peered at it and murmured into cellphones.

Trouble was, they were having great difficulty keeping a straight face.

Put yourself in their sensible shoes. They have to stand around listening to the tedious, flatulent mendacities of pompous, overpaid, under-educated diplomats day after week after year. Suddenly, at last, someone says “Boo!” and tells the truth.

Frankly, they loved it. They didn’t say so, of course, or they’d have burst out laughing and their stony-faced U.N. superiors would not have been pleased.

I was amiably accompanied out into the balmy night, where an impressive indaba of stony-faced U.N. officials were alternately murmuring into cellphones and murmuring into cellphones. Murmuring into cellphones is what they do best.

After a few minutes the head of security – upper lip trembling and chest pulsating as he did his best to keep his laughter to himself – briefly stopped murmuring into his cellphone and bade me a cheerful and courteous goodnight.

The national delegation from Burma, whose microphone I had borrowed while they were out partying somewhere in the souk, snorted an official protest into its cellphone.

An eco-freako journalist, quivering with unrighteous indignation, wrote that I had been “evicted”. 

Well, not really. All they did was to say a cheery toodle-pip at the end of that day’s session. They couldn’t have been nicer about it.

The journalist mentioned my statement to my fellow-delegates that there had been no global warming for 16 years. What she was careful not to mention was that she had interviewed me at some length earlier in the day. She had sneered that 97% of climate scientists thought I was wrong.

I had explained to her that 100% of climate scientists would agree with me that there had been no global warming for 16 years if they were to check the facts, which is how science (as opposed to U.N. politics) is done.

I had also told her how to check the facts (but she had not checked them):

Step 1. Get the monthly mean global surface temperature anomalies since January 1997 from the Hadley Centre/CRU. The data, freely available online, are the U.N.’s preferred way to measure how much global warming has happened. Or you could use the more reliable satellite data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville or from Remote Sensing Systems Inc.

Step 2. Put the data into Microsoft Excel and use its routine that calculates the least-squares linear-regression trend on the data. Linear regression determines the underlying trend in a dataset over a given period as the slope of the unique straight line through the data that minimizes the sum of the squares of the absolute differences or “residuals” between the points corresponding to each time interval in the data and on the trend-line. Phew! If that is too much like doing real work (though Excel will do it for you at the touch of a button), find a friendly, honest statistician.

Step 3. Look up the measurement uncertainty in the dataset. Since measuring global temperature reliably is quite difficult, properly-collated temperature data are presented as central estimates flanked by upper and lower estimates known as the “error bars”.

Step 4. Check whether the warming (which is the difference between the first and last value on the trend-line) is greater or smaller than the measurement uncertainty. If it is smaller, falling within the error-bars, the trend is statistically indistinguishable from zero. There has been no warming – or, to be mathematically nerdy, there has been no statistically-significant warming.

The main point that the shrieking delegates here in Doha don’t get is this. It doesn’t matter how many profiteering mad scientists say global warming is dangerously accelerating. It isn’t. Period. Get over it.

The fact that there has been no global warming for 16 years is just that – a fact. It does not mean there is no such thing as global warming, or there has not been any global warming in the past, or there will be none in future.

In the global instrumental temperature record, which began in 1860, there have been several periods of ten years or more without global warming. However, precisely because these periods occur frequently, they tend to constrain the overall rate of warming.

Ideally, one should study periods of warming that are either multiples of 60 years or centered on a transition year between the warming and cooling (or cooling and warming) phases of the great ocean oscillations. That way, the distortions caused by the naturally-occurring 30-year cooling and 30-year warming phases are minimized.

Let’s do it. I have had the pleasure of being on the planet for 60 years. I arrived when it first became theoretically possible for our CO2 emissions to have a detectable effect on global temperature. From 1952 to the present, the planet has warmed at a rate equivalent to 1.2 Celsius degrees per century.
Or we could go back to 1990, the year of the first of the four quinquennial Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC). It predicted that from 1990-2025 the world would warm at 3.0 Cº/century, giving 1 Cº warming by 2025.

Late in 2001 there was a phase-transition from the warming to the cooling phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the most influential of the ocean oscillations. From 1990-2001 is 11 years; from 2001-2012 is 11 years. So 1990-2012 is a period centered on a phase-transition: with minimal natural distortion, it will indicate the recent temperature trend.

Since 1990 the world has warmed at 1.4 Cº, century, or a little under 0.3 Cº in all. Note that 1.4 Cº/century is a little greater than the 1.2 Cº/century observed since 1952. However, the period since 1990 is little more than a third of the period since 1952, and shorter periods are liable to exhibit somewhat steeper trends than longer periods.

So the slightly higher warming rate of the more recent period does not necessarily indicate that the warming rate is rising, and it is certainly not rising dangerously.

For the 21st century as a whole, IPeCaC is predicting not 1.2 or 1.4 Cº warming but close to 3 Cº, more than doubling the observed post-1990 warming rate. Or, if you believe the latest scare paper from our old fiends the University of East Anglia, up to 6 Cº, quadrupling it.

That is not at all likely. The maximum warming rate that persisted for at least ten years in the global instrumental record since 1850 has been 0.17 Cº. This rate occurred from 1860-1880; 1910-1940; and 1976-2001.

It is only in the last of these three periods that we could have had any warming influence: 

yet the rate of warming over that period is the same as in the two previous periods.

All three of these periods of rapidish warming coincided with warming phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The climate scare got underway about halfway through the 1976-2001 warming phase.

In 1976 there had been an unusually sharp phase-transition from the cooling to the warming phase. 

By 1988 James Hansen was making his lurid (and now disproven) temperature predictions before the U.S. Congress, after Al Gore and Sen. Tim Wirth had chosen a very hot June day for the hearing and had deliberately turned off the air-conditioning.

Here is a summary of the measured and predicted warming rates:
Measured warming rate, 1997-2012 0.0 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1952-2012 1.2 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1990-2012 1.4 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1860-1880 1.7 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1910-1940 1.7 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1976-2001 1.7 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate in IPCC (1990), 1990-2025 3.0 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate in IPCC (2007), 2000-2100 3.0 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate by UEA (2012), 2000-2100 4.0-6.0 Cº/century

But it is virtually impossible to tell the negotiating delegates any of what I have set out here. They would simply not understand it. Even if they did understand it, they would not care. Objective scientific truth no longer has anything to do with these negotiations. Emotion is all.

A particularly sad example of the mawkish emotionalism that may yet destroy the economies of the West was the impassioned statement by the negotiating delegate from the Philippines to the effect that, after the typhoon that has just killed hundreds of his countrymen, the climate negotiations have taken on a new, life-or-death urgency.

As he left the plenary session, the delegates stood either side of the central aisle and showed their sympathy by applauding him. Sympathy for his country was appropriate; sympathy for his argument was not.

After 16 years with no global warming – and, if he reads this posting, he will know how to check that for himself rather than believing the soi-disant “consensus” – global warming that has not happened cannot have caused Typhoon Bhopa, any more than it could have caused extra-tropical storm Sandy.
It is possible that illegal mining and logging played no small part in triggering the landslide that killed many of those who lost their lives.

Perhaps the Philippines should join the Asian Coastal Co-Operation Initiative. Our policy is that the international community should assist all nations to increase their resilience in the face of the natural disasters that have been and will probably always be part of life on Earth.

That is an objective worthier, more realistic, more affordable, and more achievable than attempting, Canute-like, to halt the allegedly rising seas with a vote to establish a second “commitment period” under the Kyoto Protocol.

Will someone please tell the delegates? Just press the button and talk. You may not be heard, though. Those who are not partying somewhere in the souk will be murmuring into their cellphones."
"Footnote by Anthony: Here is the video on Monckton’s address to the Doha COP18 conference."

"No video has yet surfaced of him being “evicted” as the Telegraph journalist claims (inactive link), suggesting that Monckton’s account of leaving the hall might be more accurate. The chair on the dais says “thank you” at the end, and didn’t call for security to evict Monckton.

Note: See also this week’s Friday Funny for Josh’s take on this. – Anthony"


12/6/12, "Monckton gets evicted from Doha COP18 conference," WUWT, Anthony Watts

"UPDATE: Monckton is being deported from Qatar. Such a show of tolerance from the “tolerant left” who do these sorts of stunts all the time (sometimes illegally). Monckton has been ‘de-badged’, meaning he no longer has a visa to stay in Qatar and had 24 hours to leave the country.

UPDATE2: Monckton says “I was very bad” see below. We now have video. There doesn’t seem to be any “booing” after his statement as asserted by the press reports, and his statement was more than a sentence as reported.

UPDATE3: Monckton gives his account here

An excerpt from an E &E Newswire story (inactive link)...

After the news conference, and as diplomats gathered for the climate conference president’s assessment of how close countries are to agreement, Monckton quietly slipped into the seat reserved for the delegation of Myanmar and clicked the button to speak.

“In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,” Monckton said as confused murmurs filled the hall and then turned into a chorus of boos.

The stunt infuriated negotiators and activists here who gather every year to address what they believe is one of the world’s top threats, the steady rise of man-made global warming.

As Monckton was escorted from the hall and security officers stripped him of his U.N. credentials, several people noted that just a few hours earlier a group of young activists had been thrown out of the convention center and deported. Their crime: unfurling an unauthorized banner calling for the Qatari hosts to lead the negotiations to a strong conclusion.

By late today, several activists attending the conference had posted calls to “deport Monckton” on their Twitter feeds

Full story:

Inhofe, Monckton crash U.N. talks with gusto 

Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter

Published: Thursday, December 6, 2012 (inactive link)


12/7/2012, "Dead On Arrival: No consensus at climate summit despite ‘scare stories’,"


Photos from Doha:

12/5/2012, "Doha Climate Change Conference - November 2012,"  

Many photos from 2012 UN Climate Summit in Doha, Qatar, 11/26/12-12/8/12 


2012 IBD Editorial on Monckton's ejection from UN meeting in Doha:

12/7/12, "Monckton Ejected From U.N. Meeting For Telling Truth," IBD Editorial

"Stifling Dissent: A lone voice cried out against the global warming sham at the United Nations climate change conference and it was unceremoniously silenced. What are the alarmists afraid of?

Christopher Monckton, the third viscount of Benchley, adviser to Margaret Thatcher and global warming realist, shook up the U.N.'s talks in Doha, Qatar, when he told the delegates that "in the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming at all."

"If we were to take action," he continued, "the cost of that would be many times greater than the cost of taking adaptive measures later. So our recommendation, therefore, is that we should initiate very quickly a review of the science to make sure we are all on the right track."

His statement was met with boos and heckles — and, of course, an ejection and seizure of his credentials.

The U.N. will justify the ejection on grounds that Monckton deceptively posed as a delegate from Burma when he spoke. But how else could a skeptic speak at such a gathering?

There is no way he would be allowed to address the delegates in an official capacity, because he sees through the global warming alarmists' fraud — and they know it. As he himself said afterward, no one is "allowed to give the alternative — and scientifically correct — viewpoint" on global warming at these conferences.

Sure, Monckton deceived the delegates by speaking as if he were another person. But his deception is a far less serious offense than the global warming flimflam that the alarmists have cooked up. If the world were to accede to the global waring alarmists' demands, the tough economic times we're now living through will be the glory days compared to the the stagnation and reversal that will be caused by a carbon-restriction regime.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for instance, says "remediation" of global warming will cost the world 1.7% of GDP annually. That equates to a $1 trillion economic loss each year.

Meanwhile, our Energy Department admits that "fighting" global warning could cost 5 million U.S. jobs, and the American Council for Capital Formation has estimated that a climate change bill considered in Washington a few years back would cost the average U.S. household $6,752 a year by 2030.

Given these sobering facts, we can clearly see exactly what the alarmists are afraid of."

Comment: Why haven't US politicians stopped this, why are ordinary citizens involved? Because US politicians are what "this" is via their unlimited access to US taxpayer dollars: "Again and again, the American people are forced to confront the fact that its ruling class is not on its side." Angelo Codevilla, "The Lost Decade," 10/20/2011, subhead, "Public Safety," end of 3rd parag.
Again and again, the American people are forced to confront the fact that its ruling class is not on its side. - See more at:

In 2012 alone, $1 billion a day was spent on the notion of "global warming." Pretty impressive for something that doesn't exist. US politicians built it from scratch. They gave themselves plenty of time, about a generation. You can get people to believe anything if you have a generation and the schools. Politicians of both political parties simply said there might be a CO2 crisis and we, being Americans and all, would help the world figure it out. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have been key. For two and three decades they've had daily access to microphones, are frequently asked about the topic, and could easily in a few sentences have told the truth about it. But they've refused to do so. When asked their view on the topic, they either change the subject to jobs or say, "I'm not a scientist."  From my observation, unless these two men decide to do the right thing and tell the truth, nothing will stop massive CO2 fraud against Americans and its endless diversion of precious tax dollars from real problems. Since there's zero chance of this happening, I believe 100% of 'skeptic' community efforts should be focused on these two men.

No comments:


Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.