I was a delegate at the United Nations Framework Conven- tion on Climate Change seventeeth Conference of the Parties (COP 17), in Durban. It was quite an experience – there were thousands of people from all sorts of organisations and a wide variety of countries.
Those present ranged from members of government delegations to scientists and way-out New Age groups passionately pleading for salvation for the planet, complete with music and dance groups. The groups present had names such as Women for Climate Justice, the Alliance for Climate Protection, the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, Artists Protect the Earth, the California College of the Arts and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature – and all had their own messages, such as: “Stop talking, start planting”, and so on.
It was quite an intellectual exercise to ponder all this. Good mind games. As far as ‘stop talking, start planting’ goes, the people who plant the most are the large paper and timber companies, which plant vast forests. There were many messages to prevent profit and to curb private companies. There were also meetings on how to get private companies to pay for all these nongovernmental organisations. Well, if you stop the profit-orientated paper and timber companies, you will stop the planting of the trees.
There were also large official posters, including two large ones, placed side by side, with the one bearing the message: ‘More climate change means less water’ and the other: ‘More climate change means more floods’. Good for intellectual pondering. One socialist group had this slogan: ‘One planet living is the new aspi- ration’. The thrust was that, in essence, communism had it right, and we should all live in equality, sharing the planet, with nobody having a greater share than any- one else.
But then there was the more sinister side, which was worrying. On one day, I was wandering among the many stalls with Lord Monckton, of the UK. He and I were both advisers to a US delegation from the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). As we wandered along, young American project organiser Josh Nadal, of the CFACT, was walking near us with a video camera, filming anything he liked. His boss had told him to make a video of ‘We were at COP 17’.
We rounded a corner and found a small group of people watching someone being interviewed for the in-house TV information system. It relayed the interviews to screens all over the venue. We did not know the person being interviewed. We watched and I was surprised to hear just how much biased distortion was being projected by him. He said that when carbon dioxide (CO2) levels rose, temperatures rose – very simple. Well, that is just not true.
When the interview was over, he stepped off the dais and walked into the watching group. I then went up to him and asked if he would agree that global tempera- tures actually went down in the first part of the 1970s, even though CO2 levels continued to rise. He refused to acknowledge this, yet it is universally accepted. I then said that there had been a Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP) about 1 000 years ago. He said the MWP was merely a localised event of no consequence. That is totally untrue. At that point, Monckton climbed in and, with some intensity, asked him to acknowledge that the science was nowhere nearly as clear cut as he was making out. He refused.
At that point, he said: “I have work to do”, and rudely turned around and walked off. Josh was filming this and an aide put his hand over the video camera lens. When I remarked that just walking off was bad manners, the aide said: “You are not worth debating.” I then said: “All he had to do was answer two simple questions.” I was amazed when the aide said: “He is the secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organisa- tion (WMO) – he does not have to answer your questions.” He then walked off.
So, what it boils down to is that the secretary-general of the WMO, a very senior United Nations (UN) official, can talk scientific nonsense and then is far too important to answer my questions. When I was trying to debate with him, I did not know that he was Michel Jarraud, the secretary-general of the WMO. That shows the closed mind of the UN. Two hours later, Monckton and Josh received emails informing them that they had been banned from further participation in the conference, Josh for filming without permission and Monckton for unprofessional conduct. So that is how the UN views dissenting opinions. Somehow, I was spared. The next day, some negotiating took place between the head of the CFACT delegation and UN officials and the two were reinstated.
A couple of days later, I saw a TV interview with the vice-chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Jean-Pascal van Ypersele. When the interviewer asked if there was enough information for a decision to be made on the next step that COP 17 should take, he answered: “But the body of knowledge was there already in the first [IPCC] report 20 years ago and was actu- ally good enough to start the action, which inspired the very existence of the convention on climate change.”
The interviewer then asked if the science was fully understood. Then Van Ypersele answered: “Not only is there enough science to justify that, but that science has also been available, explained by the IPCC report, already from the first report.”
So it is the view of the IPCC that climate change science was settled even before the term ‘climate change’ was coined and all findings since then have been inconsequential. Certainly, the evidence that variations in cosmic ray intensity cause alterations in cloud cover, which, in turn, alter the amount of the sun’s heat that reaches the earth, is being intentionally ignored by the IPCC and other UN agencies.
Thinking people should realise that the many IPCC reports and COPs are about the politics of getting First World countries to pay up and shut up, and for developing countries to develop in the way instructed by the UN. Freedom to choose a destiny is not an allowable choice.