#
“The judge identified nine aspects of An Inconvenient Truth, nine core errors, where Al Gore either misstated the IPCC or prejudicially exaggerated what they found.” John Day is the lawyer for a British parent who sued the British Department
of Education when they tried to distribute An Inconvenient Truth to schools.
UN bans skeptical journalist from Cancun Climate Change Conference
Written by admin   
Monday, 29 November 2010 12:56
Phelim McAleerThe UN has refused access to the Cancun Climate Change Conference to Phelim McAleer, who is well known for asking scientists and politicians difficult questions about Global Warming orthodoxy.

McAleer was notified of the UN's refusal to accredit him just days before the international conference opening today.


McAleer produced and directed Not Evil Just Wrong, a documentary on Global Warming, and his reports from Copenhagen Climate Change Conference went viral on Youtube.

During one encounter an armed UN security guard prevented McAleer from asking a scientist difficult questions about the climategate e-mails and warned that if he did not stop filming he would confiscate his equipment and expel him from the conference.
McAleer was also assaulted by environmentalists during a live TV  interview.

McAleer says the refusal to allow him access to the Cancun Climate Change Conference is censorship.

"I sent them exactly the same documentation that was acceptable for Copenhagen last year, but it seems they did not like my coverage of Copenhagen and are now trying to silence me and the people who have questions about this process," said McAleer.

"The message is clear—ask UN scientists and politicians difficult questions and you will be banned from any UN sponsored events. No difficult questions allowed," he added.

McAleer is a 20 year veteran journalist who covered the Northern Ireland troubles. He has also worked for the UK Sunday Times and as a foreign correspondent for the Financial Times and The Economist. He has worked as a journalist and film maker in countries as diverse as Ireland, Romania,
Uzbekistan , Indonesia, Madagascar, Chile, Indonesia, Vietnam, and many other countries.

Share this page on your favorite Social Websites...

Comments (8)add comment

Mark Anders said:

Global Warming
This is disturbing to say the least, but certainly not surprising. At the same time, given the blind, militant attitude of the UN toward Mr. McAleer, I feel better for his safety that he was denied access. At the same time, you figure for his sake, why cast your pearls before swine? The proof is in the pudding folks. Truth need fear no evidence. If Global Warming and all the associated BS being propagated along with it truly represents a genuine scientific threat to our world, what that anyone might say could possibly change that?

If Mr McAleer is such crackpot, why would any opposing viewpoint he offered give reason for fear? Couldn't the rest of the assembly on that basis alone simply dismiss anything he had to say? And yet, what do we see from the world's foremost authorities on the environment? We see a movement that is showing greater and greater signs of its own insecurity. In particular, it seems undeniable to me that Mr. McAleer must pose some sort of serious threat to their agenda because anytime I hear news stories depicting the type of vitriol currently being shown him, I know it's not a crackpot they are going after. That level of hostility can only be brought about by one thing; the fear that you might be being confronted with the truth!!
 
November 29, 2010
Votes: +31

JeffM said:

Global Warming Censorship
Does the use of censorship to avoid any debate strengthen either the scientific or the alarmist message? Apparently they think so. Why not? The mainstream media could care less. If the MSM criticized this censorship, perhaps things would be different... a dissenting word by McAleer would pale in comparison. But MSM could care less. This censorship only matters within a larger context, which is protected by an unwritten code of political correctness. If the science is solid, why must the politicians protect their position with censorship? The UN knows that forging an international consensus on global warming action will be difficult enough to do without allowing debate to get in the way. They also know that censorship is part of the global warming play book. We saw clear evidence of that in the Climategate emails.

I wonder if the UN is satisfied that, in the meantime, industrialized countries will expand part time energy from windmills, solar panels, and biofuels with the expectation of somehow reducing reliance on cheap, full time carbon energy. To me it's also strange that government hasn't told us what the potential CO2 reduction from wind, solar, and biofuels (as well as Cap and Trade) we can expect to see in the years to come... as well as the resulting effect for reducing potential global warming temperatures. The purpose for building windmills and solar panels is to reduce CO2 emissions, so why is it that we don't know how (or if) these technologies will save humanity from the threat of global warming? Where government is taking us with all of this?

Government should enlist the aid of climate scientists to construct a CO2 reduction timeline (call it a plan) that shows how and when we can reduce CO2 emissions to a safe level (as yet to be proclaimed) that will eliminate the threat of harmful global warming. Having done this (create a plan), it would become a national goal, a goal that all of us could rally behind and support. I personally don’t believe that manmade CO2 is causing much of a problem. But because the UN and world governments believe it is a problem, the burden is on them to formulate a rational solution to the problem.

But government isn't doing this. Why? If carbon fuels are the threat to humanity that government tells us it is, why isn't government seriously funding R&D to find a new energy source that can actually replace carbon fuels? I wonder what government’s real agenda is.
 
November 29, 2010
Votes: +13

ChrisP said:

Engineer
The answer is in the agenda, which is not so hidden. The UN is made up primarily of third world countries which would benefit from the climate change movement. Its a Robin Hood sceme to take from the rich (successful) and give to the poor, and analagous to the desire to perpetuation of the welfare state in developed countries. Those who receive benefits want them to continue or increase. Fortunately, the European nations are seeing the light regarding the unsustainibility of the welfare state and the US is wising up. The enviro movement is at the core of trying to perpetuate world socialism. Thier actions are right out of George Orwell's Animal Farm.
 
November 30, 2010
Votes: +20

Jeff Pacey said:

...
Give me a shout next time. Have a passport and can travel on a moments notice. I'm diplomatic but able to ask tough questions and display your kind of attitude when brushed off by the elite . I know they have the same bodily functions as you and I. I'll pay my own way just for the fun of it. Better luck next time, whether you take me up on this or not.
 
November 30, 2010
Votes: +11
..., Low-rated comment [Show]

Steve Case said:

...
You know what? I'd probably ask him to leave as well.

The few video clips I've seen of his style leads me to believe
he's very abrasive and uses his press credentials as a soap box for his views.

Here's the question though, Are there any objective journalists there?

Are there any other skeptical journalists there to balance the bought
and paid for the by the climate change lobby models?
 
December 01, 2010
Votes: -4

JeffM said:

Good Propaganda v. Bad Propaganda
In war, both sides kill each other. They do as much harm to the enemy as possible. When a new weapon appears, its victims develop “anti-weapons” to counter it (e.g., aircraft and antiaircraft, tank and antitank). Propaganda flies from friend and foe, alike.

Global Warming is a political war. It’s full of propaganda and “anti-propaganda”. To me, McAleer is being called out for doing the same thing that his opponents have been doing all along. Who hasn’t heard about the way GW alarmists target children with propaganda showing poor little animals harmed by GW… polar bears, penguins, etc?

Last year, at COP15, a propaganda video was shown that did just that. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzSuP_TMFtk . The video shows how a little girl became worried about the GW she heard about on television. She had a terrifying nightmare whereby she saw death and destruction all around her… due to GW. More recently, a propaganda video was produced (called “No Pressure”) that shows a series of vignettes where, in each case, the few GW “deniers” were blown up, showering the true believers with blood and guts. The opening scene occurred in an elementary school classroom. It was truly bizarre. If you want to watch it for yourself, find it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...r_embedded .

As the battle for the hearts and minds of people on the GW issue heats up, both sides have heated up their propaganda as well. To me, it is wrong to single out McAleer on this issue. There’s a war going on. Each of us, by posting our comments on this forum (and many other forums as well, I suspect) is firing our own shots in this war, right?

In this regard, I wish to fire my own parting shot: The World’s political shakers and movers need us to continue arguing the pros and cons of the GW issue, because it gives them ample cover to push through their global governance agenda. To them, GW is a shill for gaining a foothold in their push for a “New World Order”. The meeting in Cancun is an attempt to reverse last year’s failure in Copenhagen. Rest assured that the NWO has nothing to do with global warming, which explains why no government is funding the R&D to find a replacement for carbon fuels, despite government claims that carbon fuels are a threat to humanity.

While we’re openly preoccupied with the GW debate, these politicians are diligently working in the background to create their NWO. The World’s politicians are scrambling to get the best deal they can once it happens. This is what Cancun is all about. While this is happening, you and I are arguing over the effects, if any, of cheap carbon fuels on mankind. Will we wake up in time to stop them?
 
December 02, 2010
Votes: +8

christopher jones said:

Congrats to Phelim McAleer who has balls
The Environmental Idiots and compliant media behavior is incredible! Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjxmGOoxsWs. How can a global organization like the UN that we all support be so wilful in censoring any debate on this topic that they themselves claim is so important.
 
December 14, 2010
Votes: +1

Write comment

busy