Another dreary pointless congress of the greedy feeble-minded 11

Another UN conference  on “climate change” with the ulterior motive of setting up a world government to redistribute wealth from prosperous Western countries to the bank accounts of Third World tyrants is running now in Durban, South Africa.

As we hoped and expected, Lord Christopher Monckton is there, speaking out as he constantly does against this conspiracy:

Mainstream science, politics, bureaucracy, academe, banking, business, media – all were of one mind. The West, so the playbook ran, must be shut down at once to Save The Planet from “global warming”, er, “climate change”, um, “climate disruption”, no, “extreme-weather events”, ah, that is, “energy-security challenges”. …

I find myself … in Durban among the creatures of “consensus” for the annual UN climate gabfest. Yet the party line was wrong. … Every dire prediction that the usual suspects had made with such sneering arrogance has failed.

Just look. Professor “Phil” Jones of the “University” of East Anglia had to admit … that there had been no statistically-significant “global warming” for 15 years. …

Arctic sea ice was supposed to be gone by 2013. Then it rebounded. Then it was going to reach a new low on 15 September this year …. [but] Antarctic sea ice has been on the up throughout the satellite era. Global sea ice shows little trend in 30 years.

Polar bears were supposed to be headed for extinction. … Today there are five times as many polar bears as 70 years ago.

Kilimanjaro has been losing ice since 1880. …  “Global warming” could not have caused the recent ice loss … The summit temperature, monitored by satellites, has not changed. Now the glacier is growing again.

Sea level is the big one. James Hansen of NASA, who made more than $1 million out of the climate scare last year alone, had predicted it would rise imminently by 246 feet. Was he right? No. The increase over the past eight years, according to the Envisat satellite, was at a rate equivalent to 2 inches per century. Not meters, not even feet. Inches. Two of them. Per century. …

Malaria was going to spread because of “global warming.” Yet the terrible leap in mortality from 50,000 to 1 million child deaths a year occurred a generation ago, when the Environmental Defense Fund – which, with Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund, spent $1 billion of taxpayers’ and donors’ cash on anti-Western pseudo-enviro propaganda last year alonesuccessfully campaigned for a worldwide ban on DDT, the only effective agent against the mosquitoes that carry malaria.

When the Board of the EDF met to plan the DDT ban, its then legal advisor, Victor John Yannacone Jr., begged it to ban only outdoor use: DDT sprayed inside houses would harm only the mosquitoes and spare the children. The then chairman, furious, fired Yannacone on the spot. As he left the room, someone said: “That’s the last time we employ anyone who knows any science.” That ban has killed 40 million children.

Extreme-weather deaths are down sharply. Global tropical-cyclone and hurricane activity is almost at its least in 30 years. Severe tornadoes have declined. Patterns of drought and flood remain as unpredictable and as devastating as ever. Bangladesh and nearly all of the Pacific atolls are gaining land mass, not losing it.

Net primary productivity of trees and plants worldwide is up. If you want a greener planet, add as much CO2 to the air as you can. Your emissions are also helping to stave off the next Ice Age. It’s already 6000 years overdue.

Yet the dreary, wasteful, pointless congresses of the greedy feeble-minded continue. The Bali Road-Map to Nowhere. The Copenhagen World-Government Treaty that collapsed as soon as it saw the light of day. The Cancun Concordats to establish 1000 – yes, 1000 – new bureaucracies: the structure of the unelected world government that every ex-politician from Gore and Chirac to Attali is demanding.

Everyone says nothing will happen at Durban. That worries me. It suggests the process of building a totalitarian global junta by what one UN official at Cancun called “transparent impenetrability” – publishing documents of such prolix length and complex obscurantism that no one can understand a word and yet no one can later deny the information was available – will invisibly gather pace. …

We like “transparent impenetrability”! Could we suspect that the UN official who invented it had a sense of irony?  No – too unlikely.

The Marxists’ wet dream …  is global totalitarian dictatorship. … But the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and I are in Durban to stop them. So perhaps you’re not going to have it after all.

It’s good to know that a Committee and the noble lord are defending us from world totalitarian dictatorship. But it would be better if the United States, which should be and can be and was always meant to be the truly powerful defender of liberty, had a president and administration that would put an end to the UN and a stop to all its evil schemes forever.

The UN must be destroyed.

  • Harold

    Liz and Andrew M:  If you both think the real story is the response to global warming, rather than whether it is occuring, then why is so much effort put into disputing whether it is happening?  I assume you disagree with Monckton and the Town Hall article then – both of which very firmly focus attention on whether it is happening.

    If you (or Jillian) want a debate on responses to AGW, then please address this point.  It seems you are avoiding this by denying it exists in the first place.

    There are many valid arguments for and against possible actions.  It is impossible to debate these issues if the basic science is rejected.  To reject science and knowledge cannot be a good way forward – even if it seems to suite your short-term aims.  I have explained in quite a lot of detail why the arguments put forward in these two examples (Monckton and the Town Hall article) are rejecting science and knowledge.  I do not believe that I will receive a sensible rebuttal, because I believe there is not one possible.

    • Liz

      If sensible solutions to the problem had been accepted to begin with, there would be no problem to debate about now.  For instance, we could have gone ahead with nuclear power a long time ago, and been way down the road.  But no, that wasn’t good enough.  We had to get ethanol and mercury lightbulbs forced on us, and cap and trade- thats the best!, because that means we can be forced to “redistribute” all our profits. 
       Meanwhile, people who are so obviously smarter than the rest of us because you can count how many CO2 molecules can fit on the head of a pin sit around and debate the science.  It would be a moot point if people with common sense were allowed to do anything.  The “deniers” are not so much rejecting the basic science as they are sick and tired of having their freedom imposed on by a bunch of statist nannys and social engineers. 
      Not to mention the undeniable fact that data HAS been manipulated in order to further this agenda, and if the agenda succeeds, we will all be too preoccupied with basic survival to be worried about global warming.  Yes, we’ll be returned to our primitive, pristine purity.  Life will be short, brutish, and nasty again just like the good old days before science and knowledge got us where we are today. 

      • Harold

        I compleetly agree that nuclear is part of the solution – there is a ridiculous fear of radiation out of proportion to its dangers.  Yes, it has risks, but so does everything.  Given the reality of global warming it amazes me that nuclear is not embraced by the environmentalists.

        This is the sort of thing that should be publicised.  Why waste time denying that it is happening, when we should be pushing for actual solutions.

    • Andrew M

      To add to Liz’s point, a nuclear America should be the true desire of those who are fighting to “save the planet” because it tickles them in all of the right spots: not only is it a much cooler form of energy than burning tons of coal or petroleum every year, but the leftover radioactive material could easily be recycled to produce even more energy – try doing that with the hot, inert ashes from your coal factory, or the inert gas products of petroleum combustion which are beyond your grasp by now. In addition, uranium is an extremely plentiful resource which sees constant renewal below the earth’s crust thanks to a chain of nuclear reactions which will not end for at least millions of years.

      The fact that they don’t embrace this technology exposes the sludge behind their gilded exterior. These Al Gore types merely want to control our lives, and it’s not surprising that the devious UN abets their agenda.

      I offer up two external resources for the enjoyment of TAC’s readers:

      1. This article by the legendary Dr. Duncan Steel, who believes that global warming is occurring but also that it is good. His statement that we should be prepared, not scared, for global warming speaks volumes towards his academic and personal integrity.

      2. A hypothetical Earth after 500 years of global warming, whose landmass is indeed significantly smaller than our current planet thanks to the rising sea levels, but is also a vastly more productive planet than the one we currently live on. With the poles free of ice, Siberia is now warm enough to be the world’s breadbasket, Antarctica becomes a top tourist destination for its ski resorts and massive herds of introduced bison, and the Mediterranean experiences a rush of ecological diversity thanks to a new outlet to the ocean carved northward from the Black Sea.

  • Harold

    I used to think that people held beliefs because there was information backing it. In order to change someones belief, surely more information would be required. I now realise this is not the case, and people hold beliefs for all sorts of reasons – evidence is not one of the major ones. Therefore I am pretty sure I am wasting my time here, but maybe someone will actually look at what is said on each side and maybe, just maybe, put half a thought into assesing them. How does one know who to believe? Do you belive Monckton, or Hansen and Jones etc? I don’t know how you would answer that question, but one way to decide is to look at what they have published. If their points are backed up by evidence, then there is probably something in it. If it is backed up by a few blogs without evidence, then I personally would put less trust in it. Another way is to see if their statements have generally been correct. We can have a look at the passage quoted above to see if this is the case for Monckton. The first point I wish to make is that there are two very distinct things which are sometimes mixed up. First, the reality or otherwise of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). The second point is what to do about it. For now I will only look at the first, since without agreement on this, there is no hope of answering the second. First paragraph. “The west must be shut down to save the planet…” Please find me a quote that says this. This is exageration, straw man, whatever you want to call it. In any case it has zero bearing on whether AGW is correct.Second paragraph. “Every prediction…was wrong. ” This is just wrong. To prove it wrong I need only find ONE that was not wrong, but in fact just about ALL were correct. For example -Hansen 1988. This was along time ago, and things have moved on a long way since then, but his prediction was extremenly close to reality. His only error was to slightly overestimate the forcing – he thought 4°C and now 3°C is thought to be closer (in °C per doubling CO2). The global climate has been within the IPCC predictions ever since. All the major predictions have been correct. Now, if you want to reinforce your belief, rather than to examine the facts, you could find some quote in the non peer-reviewed literature that has proved to be wrong. Hey, you may even find one in the peer reviewed literature. This will certainly not be central to the facts about whether AGW is correct, but what the hell. It appears that Monckton is just plain lying here. Third paragraph. This is getting a bit desparate. Why the scare quotes around “university”? Phil Jones has said that the long term warming trend is not affected by the short term variations, so what has happened during any 15 year period cannot be taken in isolation. This is a meaningless attribution – it seems to be trying to suggest that Jones agrees that warming has stopped, which is not the case.Fourth paragraph. “Sea ice was supposed to have gone by 2013” Source please – supposed by whom? You will not find this prediction in the literature. No scientist predicted this. Yet another straw man. There is also a mixing up of Antarctic and Arctic. The fact is that Arctic sea ice has been in a MAJOR decline. It has not “rebounded”. This year was the second lowest on record, and the trend is unremittingly downward. I think the opening of the North West passage, and the fact that shipping companies are seriously looking to this to reduce costs, should tell anyone the truth of this. At the same time, Antarctic sea ice has slightly increased – which is in keeping with the AGW predictions. All the evidence from sea ice supports AGW. Now who do you want to believe – someone mixes up the information to try to put a particular view across, or someone who is transparent about their data and findings?Fifth paragraph. “Polar bears were supposed to be heading for extinction – yet there are 5 times as many as 70 years ago.” A combination of straw man (supposed by whom, when?) and logical fallacy. This is stated as thought the second part contradicts the former -which is a logical failure. There was much more hunting and the survey methods were entirely inaccurate – we do not really know how many there were 70 years ago. Do you really want to know about the status of polar bears? Or would you rather take a piece of suspect data and twist it to say what you want? If you want to really know, then how about a look at the research data. There are 19 populations of polar bear. In 2005, 5 were declining, 5 were stable and 2 were increasing. By 2009, 8 were declining, 3 were stable and only 1 was growing. The current data says that polar bears are decreasing in number. It doesn’t matter what was happening 70 years ago – that does not affect the current situation. Estimates vary from a 30% to 75% reduction in the next 50 years. Who would you trust? Someone who takes suspect data and uses it to falsely support an argument, or the people who spend their lives doing the research and reporting it?6.Kilimanjaro “Global warming could not have caused the recent ice loss”. In fact, global warming could not have caused the early ice loss (from 1880). It could very well have caused the recent ice loss, so this statement is wrong. On the specific example of Kilimanjaro – the picture is quite complicated, and has been shamelessly mis-used by those who would have us believe that AGW is a myth. If you are interested, the story is here: I agree that Kilimanjaro has also shamelessly been used to promote AGW – a poor choice of example, definitely. Kilimanjaro glacier retreat is not thought to be caused only by global warming. However, if you want to know about what glaciers in general tell us about climate change, why not have a look at the research rather than pick one example? The global temperature has been reconstructed since 1600 by worldwide glacier data- and it looks very much like the “hockey stick” . This is completely independent of Mann and others. Do you think that tropical glaciers in general are not retreating? If so, ask yourself why you think this. Do you think that Kilimanjaro is in any way evidence that AGW is not occuring? 7. This is, indeed, the big one. Where do we start. Please, please find the report from Hansen where he said the sea level would rise imminently by 286 feet. This is again a straw man – this claim has never been made in the literature, and I doubt it has been made at all by anyone with credibility. The IPCC mid range predictions are 20-43cm this century. Observed sea level rise from 1972 to 2008 was 2.1mm/yr. This fits very well with the models of gains from thermal expansion and ice-melt: At current rates, this would be 21cm, or 8.3″ per century, so the IPCC predicts modest increases in the current rate. Is there any reason why Monckton chose the last 8 years only? Ask yourself if this could be cherry picking. Could the 286 ft claim be that predicted for total collapse of the Greenland and/or Antarctic ice-sheet? This is not included in any claim of “imminent” change. Is it possible that Monckton is using this figure for the worst possible outcome centuries from now, and stating that it is predicted to occur “imminently”? Why would he do this, if not to try to deceive?The use of DDT has nothing to do with global warming.  He says nothing about whether the range of malaria has changed in response to global warming. It is likely that malaria rates will fall over coming decades in real terms, but this also says nothing about global warming. Anyway edarrel seems to have dealt with many errors in this one. Frequency of global tropical cyclones may not have inreased over recent years, but the intensity may well have. There is disagreement over the effects of global warming on tropical cyclones, so the lack of an increase in number is not evidence against AGW, although increased intensity is in keeping with AGW. As evidence for or against AGW, cyclones are rather weak in either case. Tornados in the USA look pretty flat in number although there was a major peak in 1974, but the proportion of the more intense ones have increased. In any case, the USA is not the world, and rates in the USA do not necessarily have much to say about global warming. Patterns of drought and flood are unpredictable, as GW predicts, but it is possible to attribute some events to global warming. For example, statistical treatment shows that there was an 80% probability that the 2010 heatwave in Moscow would not have happened without GW.  Bangladesh is gaining land through sediment deposition from rivers, but this is not evidence against AGW, so what is the point of mentioning it? Pacific atolls can grow by reef debris getting washed up – this may be good news for the folk of these islands if it can keep pace, but again does not affect in any way the predictions of AGW. All in all there is absolutely nothing in the above that supports the contention that there is no AGW. There is a lot of mis-information, logical errors and deception. If I had to pick who to believe, it would not be Monckton.  

    • Jillian Becker

      Harold, go here:

      You’ll find, if you can bear to acknowledge it, that you are wrong. 

      • Harold

        My text lost all its spaces when I submitted – it makes it a bit difficult to read perhaps.  This may explain your reply.  I pointed out significant errors in every paragraph of the Monckton piece.  You have addressed none of them except to point me to a Town Hall article.   The disapointing thing is that you,  and many others apparently, find this sort of thing convincing.  Does this article address any point I made? Lets see.

         From the linked article:

        “Recently, the media Knights Templar of the religious orthodoxy of man-caused global warming made a contrived pass at reviving flagging public respect for their fading catechism. The occasion was massively overhyped and misrepresented reporting of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST)”.

        If the sceptics have to resort to criticising things not because of their content but because they are “overhyped and misrepresented”, then things are looking bad for them.  But in what way is BEST misrepresented?
        The BEST project was cheered by Anthony Watts – he said he would agree with its findings.  It was a new study examining ALL the available data with new methods.  Muller had been a critic of previous studies, and BEST was in part funded by the Koch brothers – no supporters of AGW.   It in fact found exactly the same temperature trends as all the other studies, and now Watts is not too happy with it.  The Town Hall article suggests that this is not big news, and it is not really – just confirmation that the scientists criticised by Watts for so long were right all the time.  The Town Hall article can only find support in it by saying it “involves no independent assessment of the question of “how much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects””.  Of course it doesn’t – it was not intended to do that.   It was intended only to measure the temperature trends, not determine their cause.

        So the “misrepresentation” is because the reports did not emphasise something that the study did not set out to measure. 

        He goes on to throw in a few distractions about poor measurement stations, urban heat island etc.  These are exactly the issues BEST was set up to examine, and it found that the previous studies were right.

        What next?  Oh- satellite data.  He makes an unsupported claim that satellite data show no atmospheric warming since 1979.  Is he right?  No.  In fact, he is completely wrong.  I don’t know where he gets this stuff from – probably old blogs.  There were papers in the early 1990’s that showed no tropospheric warming.  This analysis was found to be faulty, and for the last 8 years or so the satellite data has been acknowledged to show tropospheric warming – in line with AGW theory and weather balloon data. (

        Next – “the scientifically recognized temperature proxy data from tree rings, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, and stalagmites also show no warming since 1940”.  Is he right here?  No.  Wahl (2007) reconstructed Manns original “hockey stick” using different statistical methods, and found essentially the same thing.   “which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusions of Mann et al” are their words.

        Borehole data: “20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years.”  Huang (2000).  Stalagmites: the temperature in the latter 20th Century exceeds the maximum estimate over the past 500 years. (Smith 2006).

        Oh – it seems the statements are just plain wrong again: the scientifically recognised evidence supports strong warming in the later 20th century.
        This article – which you say will convince me I am wrong – turns out to be full of unsupported and wrong statements.  I fail to see why anyone would find this convincing. Less how they think it will convince others.  This returns to my earlier point – people believe things for all sorts of reasons, clearly evidence is not one of them.

        • Liz

          The real issue is not whether global warming is happening or not, or really even whether humans are causing it. The real issue is that the whole thing is being used to orchestrate a huge power grab by leftists for whom “saving the planet” is simply the latest excuse to push their agenda.  They never propose anything that works, because thats not  even the goal. The goal is that they achieve control over us and our money. That is what is obviously going on, which you apparently are oblivious to.

        • Andrew M

          Liz, you stole the words right out of my mouth.

          I ceased my concern about global warming the moment I noticed its primary use is as a scare tactic to manipulate the behavior of our citizenry. Reusing valuable goods has obvious economic merit, but recycling tons of plastic bottles on the taxpayer’s dime isn’t worth its weight in the seagulls that plastic won’t be strangling.

          Global warming might very well be occurring at a snail’s pace, since this is the only significant case that can be made for it in light of the glacial expansions at both poles. If it is, humanity will solve its way out of global warming by technologically adapting to a new and shifting ecological niche, as it has been doing since Day One – NOT by the socialistic centrally planned “solution” which will ultimately rob our inventors the freedom of their labors.

  • Liz

    In reply to edarrell below – it just boils down to who you listen to.  You obviously have swallowed the environmentalist propaganda whole.  Have fun crapping in the woods and using leaves for toilet paper when your earth friendly marxist utopia comes true. 

  • Anonymous

    Monckton is either a Munchausen-quality liar, or very ill.

    He wrote: 

    Malaria was going to spread because of “global warming.” Yet the
    terrible leap in mortality from 50,000 to 1 million child deaths a year
    occurred a generation ago . . .

    Malaria deaths were never so low as 50,000 —in fact, malaria deaths, worldwide, are today the lowest they’ve been in human history, at under 900,000 a year.  That compares to 4 million deaths per year at the height of DDT use in 1959 and 1960 — we have reduced malaria deaths by 75%.  Monckton’s figures are completely off the wall, and unconfirmed anywhere.

    . . . when the Environmental Defense Fund –
    which, with Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund, spent $1 billion of
    taxpayers’ and donors’ cash on anti-Western pseudo-enviro propaganda
    last year alone – successfully campaigned for a worldwide ban on DDT, the only effective agent against the mosquitoes that carry malaria.

    EDF has been a constant supporter of the use of DDT against malaria in Africa.  Monckton slanders a good group of malaria fighters.  What’s wrong with him?

    Second, DDT has never been banned in Africa, nor in Asia.

    When the Board of the EDF met to plan the DDT ban, its then legal advisor, Victor John Yannacone Jr., begged it to ban only outdoor use

    EDF did not ask for a ban on Indoor Residual Spraying, nor has such a ban ever been passed, even in the U.S.  In the U.S., DDT use on agricultural crops was banned. Indoor spraying is still allowed, though we have no need for it. Monckton is making up slanders whole cloth.

    Monckton is imagining this meeting, and he is making up Yannacone’s position.  Yannacone and EDF parted ways, but not on this issue, and not as Monckton describes it.

    DDT sprayed inside houses would harm only the mosquitoes and spare the children.

    Not entirely true — recent research indicates the long-term chronic effects of DDT will cause cancers and organ dysfunction in the adults the children become — but at least that’s not a completely whole cloth lie. 

    The then chairman, furious, fired Yannacone on the spot. As he
    left the room, someone said: “That’s the last time we employ anyone who knows any science.”

    Yannacone was a lawyer, not a scientist.  Monckton is making stuff up.  EDF has employed scientists from the start.  It was founded by scientists, experts in pesticides, among others.

    Yannacone left EDF under circumstances much, much different from what Monckton makes up here.

    That ban has killed 40 million children.

    Malaria deaths are decreasing, not increasing.  Monckton has this exactly backwards.

    Did you check this guy out before reposting his stuff?