Chris Horner made a great presentation at the European Institute For Climate and Energy’s (EIKE) 4th Climate Conference, Munich, in November, 2011. A must-watch, recently posted video!
Hat-tip: Reader DirkH
Horner starts by focusing on the real aim of the green movement, which is to make energy expensive, and so we have to expect fuel poverty in the future to go up. Horner says, “Green jobs will mean pink slips, red ink, and dark times.”
At the 6:40 mark, Horner zooms in on the IPCC, transparency, and the FOIA.
Horner reminds us that the FOIA is an act designed to allow the taxpayer “to know what the government is up to”. But for the IPCC and climate scientists, it represents a real problem that obstructs “the cause”. So the IPCC proceeded to exempt itself from FOIA law and even acted criminally to skirt it, “organising a campaign to obstruct and to delete records” and “creating safehouses to evade FOIA laws,” Horner says.
First (10:10 mark) they used excuses for not disclosing the records, claiming they were “personal, lost, deleted“. In the UK, the excuses were even “getting absurd”. They “organised an effort to delete e-mails”, in a “very deliberate, very thoughtful” way. It “wasn’t rash”. “They really didn’t want these things out.”
At the 21:00 minute mark, Horner sums up the scientists reluctance to release documents, and their scheme to destroy records.
There was an admitted, agreed, written campaign to delete e-mails, to get around, to circumvent FOIA. So that is legally, deliberately and lawyerly drafted.”
Horner said, “The e-mails exposed the Team for the reasons pointed out. They were politicising, they were perverting peer-review. They were perverting the IPCC process. And they were creating falsely tidy stories.” For what? “For the Kyoto cause.”
The inquiries conducted to exonerate the Climategate scientists were whitewashes. They were designed not to find any wrongdoing.
At the 24-minute mark, Horner tells how the IPCC records are public records and how the IPCC was actively dodging FOIA obligations.
FOIA has always been a thorn for the IPCC scientists, who, as Horner shows, had plenty to hide. Much effort was expended to circumvent FOIA requirements.
Horner explains the more recent tactics at the 33.50 mark. For example senior officials were given “handles” to conceal their identities. They ran third party activist websites to make it appear they had support. They set up safehouses at non-governmental websites to circumvent FOIA laws and to keep taxpayers from gaining access to documents.
John Holdren took control of the IPCC process after the president had been innaugurated. Horner shows an IPCC letter from IPCC official Thomas Stocker, who wrote that FOIA problems “require urgent attention in order to meet the challenges of modern methods of working and communication and given the experiences during and since AR4.” He then suggests establishing a “closed electronic discussion fora”.
By October 8, 2010, Horner shows in a slide that “IPCC’s Stocker had in fact already established a ‘closed electronic fora’ for WG1 evading e-mails and national FOI”.
Horner then says the IPCC enlisted to Obama Administration to create offline, non-governmental electronic fora, while stonewalling requests for records. He says:
So the White House Office of Science and Technology policy led a government-wide effort to enable the UN to pull this off, expressly to frustrate national FOIA laws.”
Horner concludes that “there will be fallout, there will be a price to pay. It is the institutions of science that are going to suffer the most.”
By now the readers will ask: “For what?” The answer is: “the cause”.
What is “the cause”?
Recall what Horner said at the beginning of his presentation. As societies get richer, they become more focused on keeping things clean and orderly.
I’ll expand on Horner’s assertion, and add that once a certain level of affluence is reached, the advanced society begins to get individuals who turn radical and intolerant, and eventually view the poor masses as excess population and as a threat to the planet. Think of Holdren, Ehrlich and Schellnhuber who have in one way or another expressed that the ideal human population on the planet is around a mere billion, or less.
Is this “the cause” that these individuals are really alluding to? Indeed some do view the green movement as the latest final solution.