sE searched 

UN climate chief treason

i n t e l l e c t u a l                         I N T E R P O L L U T I O N        

         world stability affairs

How my fellow county resident Yvo de Boer proved to be another coward:                         

 GLOBAL ENERGY INDUSTRY   ed. stephan Tychon 

Giving a lecture at Maastricht University on 25-01-2010 close to his hometown of Eijsden in the Netherlands on recent climate-change developments, Mr. de Boer pretended he 'didn't understand my question' about the Royal Dutch Disease >notwithstanding my explanation during the coffee-break<  the rootcause of easy money, parliamentary deficit and vested industrial dominance of big oil & gas dictating global opaque policy-making: once again, think climate, interpollution, credit crime excess, Irak, world crisis, budget & bonus crime, IP bubble and bond wars! Under de Boers's watch, OBAMA seized whatever global responsible development with the words

"We've got them! The deal is done!"

You were all lucky I happened to be at the meeting in Maastricht, the oldest Dutch city where the European Treaty for monetary stability was signed, to confront this guy with the right questions. After he insisted he didn't understand what I clarified with him before, I left the auditorium. A few days later, I heard from officials that he "answered all my questions", once I was gone! We shape people out of assholes! This is a big step forward to World Stability, because very rarely addicts or idiots speak up. There's a lot more going wrong here. Why didn't you know what is out there? No worry, we'll tell you! By the way, Maastricht is the capital of the birthplace of the Dutch Disease where the most modern coalmines were closed and distroyed without opposition after the world's second biggest well of natural gas was found in 1959... the future easy life and dream better than any American banker could imagine, misleadingly seized by the 'Esso Four' based on post-war US technology-advantage: the consolidation of industrial dominance and implicit reason why people give their children garbage and don't know anymore that only language not subject to interpretation is exact science. Please compare with former Shell America president John Hofmeister's answer about the position of Exxon within the Dutch Gasunie on the energy blog of Loren Steffy of the Houston Chronicle

At 6:38pm on September 6, 2009, John Hofmeister said…


Regarding your question on Gasunie, the terms of the relationship between Shell and Exxon are well defined as to who is responsible for what and how the financial relationship and governing relationships should be executed. It is set up in order to facilitate the transactions that pertain directly to the business unit which both companies govern. The relationship is thus limited by contract as between any two business partners on a specific transaction. Therefore the broader philosophical, operational and cultural differences between the Parent Companies are not part of the business dealings and do not get in the way of the partnership.


At 12:52pm on September 25, 2008, Stephan Tychon said…
Quotes on future sustainable energy options:

Lee Raymond: "That's not the way we do business!"
John Hofmeister in a press conference in Houston, 2007: "That's the way we do business."

The key question of global energy-fundamentals importance is: "Is Exxon & Shell the perfect 'Team of Rivals' -within the P3 NV Nederlandse Gasunie- or a threat to global business, financials and the overall economy as we see it develop before our eyes today, every day from hour to hour.

The Exxon-Shell Game is over... soon.
Get educated on historic failures and visit

Comments invited!
Also on my standpoint about the Enwrong trial!
Stephan Tychon
Chief officer of change, WSC

Zusammenhängende Neubauten stürtzen ein!

     Stephan Tychon, duality room WSC -investigative reporting       WE EXPLAIN, 'CAUSE WE KNOW HOW










P U B L I C   >>   P R I V A T E

UN-KPMG                    P3-CRIME



Think Again: A Hard Week on the Planet


SOURCE: AP/Gurinder Osan

United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer addresses a press conference in New Delhi, India, on February 4, 2010. Today de Boer announced his resignation in the wake of the organization’s failure to achieve much of anything in terms of concrete commitments at Copenhagen.

The climate is not cooling, but environmentalists are when it comes to their hopes for an environmental presidency. United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer announced his resignation in the wake of the organization’s failure to achieve much of anything in terms of concrete commitments at Copenhagen. And as Gautam Naik and Keith Johnson reported in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, “The spate of recent controversies about climate research has given fresh voice to a group of scientists who question the mainstream view that human activity is warming the planet to dangerous levels.” Naik and Johnson go on to do just that by offering an inventory of the well-trodden views of several well-known climate “skeptics” (pretty much without skepticism, one might add). Adding insult to injury, Tom Friedman has come up with his silliest cutesy-but-deeply-annoying headline in ages: “Global Weirding.”

This skepticism, which has always received far more play in the U.S. media than it did in scientific circles, has two significant effects. On the one hand, it appears to legitimize editorials like this one, in which the noted climatologists of Journal editorial page feel emboldened in their frequently stated belief that “the science [of global warming] is still disputable.” On the other hand, it adds significance to the decisions of corporations like oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy equipment maker Caterpillar to withdraw their cooperation from business-environmental efforts—in this case the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership—designed to encourage industry to engage constructively in policy discussions to meet the perceived threat.

To be fair, the critics have a point. Their storyline is driven by more than just a bunch of purloined emails from East Anglia scientists making embarrassing admissions and giving voice to their own uncertainties. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the alleged “gold standard,” as the Journal editors point out—has been caught offering some questionable or flat-out wrong arguments regarding the pace of melting of Himalayan glaciers and threats to Amazon rainforests—though much of the complaint about the latter seems to stem from its publication by the World Wildlife Federation, an NGO that does research and advocacy on environmental issues. (Many capable scientists do research with WWF and other NGOs, just as many skeptics in both science and media are underwritten by energy resource companies. The source of funding is not a priori cause for dismissal of the research, though it is important background information.)

Suffice to say that the skeptics do not exactly have a hard sell in the rest of the media. The number of reporters, pundits, and television pontificators who actually understand the science of global warming is infinitesimal, but the number of those who enjoy staking out an “edgy” or contrarian position for the hell of it is undoubtedly infinite. Thus we get repeated arguments from the right by Washington Post pundit George Will here and here and from the extreme left from Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn, both of which have been repeatedly and specifically debunked in the publications that pay them and by Gawker’s Nick Denton, who admits to simply having a fondness for “doubters over firm believers.”

And of course the Fox News/Tea Party wing of the Republican Party concludes with shamelessness and stupidity to a degree that may be unparalleled in history that the mere fact of a lot of snow on any given day is proof positive that decades of science have been disproved. In part because Fox is leading in the cable ratings and in part because many people who work in cable television believe their jobs are to mimic, Lemming-like, whatever silly slogan will fill the endless airtime with pretty pictures, these climate inanities are repeated over and over until what was once true becomes false, at least for political and commercial purposes, to the point where we barely even need “The Daily Show” for satire purposes anymore. It’s practically straight news.

Atmospheric scientist Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, or NAS, says his “reading of the vast scientific literature on climate change is that our understanding is undiminished by"  the new information, and the ensuing brouhaha reflects, instead, “the fragile nature of trust between science and society, demonstrating that the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole.”

Yes, I believe Mr. Cicerone. After all, what do I know about this complicated science? But I do wonder, like many people, I imagine, what to make of those emails that appeared to call them into question. So I did a little research calling on a scientist friend employed by NAS, and she explained to me that as far as the scientific content of the East Anglia emails goes, they are principally concerned with the data and analysis of changes in temperature over the last thousand years.

As I now understand it, most of the controversy revolves around the scientists’ refusal to make their data and models available to other people. What’s the big deal? Apparently, it is not as simple as it sounds: The data are voluminous and difficult to collect and collate; the models are complicated, sometimes proprietary, and can certainly be seen as the intellectual property of the scientists. Moreover, complying with the requests can be very time consuming.

The data, analyses, and conclusions of the scientists involved in the East Anglia emails are not discredited by the set of emails—although one set of data from Chinese weather stations is under serious review. But they can be fairly accused of having violated the “scientific ethic” of welcoming re-analysis of their data in the pursuit of truth. They succumbed to a siege mentality and became resistant to even reasonable requests.

The more recent disclosures of unrealistic glacial disappearance rates and incorrect Netherlands geography also demonstrate some scientific sloppiness in the editing and review in the IPCC process. The physics, models, and most observations of climate change remain sound, however. A consensus among scientists appears to support a review and strengthening of the IPCC process, but again, it’s not inspiring very many scientists to question the principal conclusions: that the enormous changes we’re making to atmospheric chemistry are having a significant effect on climate, which will in turn have a significant effect on ecosystems. And none to the good.

For further research, the most exhaustive review of what we know and don’t know about the East Anglia email controversy was undertaken byGuardian science reporter Fred Pearce. Another useful examination of all of the big questions involved can be found in the two-part Climate Progress feature “How we know global warming is still happening” by physicist and CAP Senior Fellow Joseph Romm, who I’m guessing also knows what he’s talking about (though not because Tom Friedman says so. That’s actually a minus.).

Interestingly, for all the attention inspired by recent polls demonstrating an actual reduction in the public understanding of the issue since the Obama presidency began, it’s notable that despite the claims that all these revelations have seriously damaged the public’s confidence in “climate science,” 54 percent of voters in Republican pollster Frank Luntz's poll, released on January 21, 2010, believed that climate change is either “definitely” or “probably” occurring, compared with just 18 percent who believed that it is “definitely” or “probably” not occurring. An even larger majority, 63 percent, say they believe climate change is likely caused by humans. So far, at least, the skeptics have lost the larger battle, despite the irresponsible reporting of it in the media.

And yet politically this may not matter. As Luntz’s poll also shows, climate change itself isn't important for most voters. A mere 5 percent pick “ending climate change” as the single most important environmental and economic goal. Alas, it falls far behind ending dependence on foreign fuels, halting air and water pollution, saving the planet from destruction, and creating new energy jobs. American politics today is all about passion and, of course, money. And unfortunately, almost of all both appear to be lining up on the side of doing nothing.

The horrific and likely implications of failing to meet this challenge—particularly for the most vulnerable among us who cannot move to higher or more fertile ground in the event of rising oceans or disrupted ecosystems—make it a threat to the security of the United States and much of the world. The media have failed to accurately translate mainstream science’s concerns when it comes to climate change, but then again, it’s so much more fun to make fun of Al Gore because it snows, and as everybody knows, the purpose of news in our era is entertain, not to inform. If only scientists could be funnier.

Eric Alterman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College. He is also a Nation columnist and a professor of journalism at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. His most recent book is, Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Most Important Ideals. His “Altercation” blog appears sporadically here and he is a regular contributor to The Daily Beast. 

don't look back in anger...



Barometer of progress on climate change

By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent

Published: February 19 2010 23:00 | Last updated: February 19 2010 23:00

The excruciating nature of international negotiations on climate change, so tellingly on display during the chaotic scenes at the Copenhagen summit in December, has for several years been embodied by one man.

Yvo de Boer, the United Nations’ top official on global warming, and the man charged with bringing the 20 years of negotiations to an end with a successful treaty, has been the barometer of the fluctuating state of the talks.

Ebullient and upbeat on the rare occasions – such as the election of Barack Obama to the US presidency – when the outlook for the negotiations has looked positive, Mr de Boer had despair etched on his face when the talks were in trouble. At a crucial conference in Bali in 2007, he appeared to break down in tears on the platform as the meeting was on the verge of closing in failure, and at the end of Copenhagen his exhaustion was apparent in his low voice and downcast eyes.

But on Friday, having resigned the job of crafting a lasting settlement on greenhouse gas emissions, Mr de Boer did his best to pass on an optimistic message for his successor, who is yet to be chosen.

“I’m better at starting things than at finishing things off,” he said, in an interview with the Financial Times. “We are now coming to the implementation stage, so having someone who is good at implementation will be very important.” 

But he dashed hopes on Friday that a legally binding treaty could be signed at the next big meeting in Mexico this December, saying all that could be hoped for there was a “decision” that would eventually lead to a treaty.

Mr de Boer can boast a partial success to crown his career as a public servant: the Copenhagen Accord, which for the first time drew from both rich and poor countries pledges to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, and promised financial assistance from the developed to the developing world to do so.

The accord has been attacked by critics who say the emissions reduction commitments are inadequate, and that the accord has little meaning as it is not a legally binding treaty. Mr de Boer said it provided a good basis for a treaty.

His successor will have a tough task, facing not only the prospect of rallying 193 nations to a draft treaty, but also stiff opposition from a wave of climate change scepticism, which has resurged in the wake of a series of scandals, including flaws in the data used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These include the citation of an untrue claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, though experts think it will take much longer.

Mr de Boer on Friday robustly defended climate scientists. “What is not in doubt is the core science. The big issues in this debate have been the symptoms of climate change,” he said. “This is like the engineer on the Titanic announcing that the sinking was going to happen a few hours later.”

The UN was likely to seek a successor from the developing world, Mr de Boer said, as he and his predecessor were both Dutch.

When he leaves in July, Mr de Boer will take up an advisory post with KPMG, and is in talks with universities including Yale and Utrecht on academic roles. He conceded the key factor in his decision to step down was the unremitting strain he faced in the post. It had taken its “toll” he added, particularly on his family. 


  • 19 Feb 2010: Tove Ryding: Yvo de Boer's successor must be equally as hard-working – and must ensure that the voices of the most vulnerable are not sidelined by the most powerful in the climate debate 24 comments

  • 18 Feb 2010: Former Dutch diplomat left exhausted by impossible job heading UN climate body

  • Climate People: Yvo de Boer  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. UN 18 Feb 2010: UN official who oversaw four years of climate talks claims disappointing Copenhagen outcome was unrelated to decision 59 comments

  • 18 Feb 2010: John Vidal: The former head of the UN's climate body commanded great respect in a near-impossible job, but in the end, he failed. His successor must not 3 comments

  • 18 Feb 2010: Mark Lynas: Despite his steady hands at the helm of climate talks, de Boer was losing his touch and navigated into rancorous territory 205 comments

  • Yvo de Boer UN Climate Summit COP15 at the Bella center in Copenhagen Gallery (7 pictures), 18 Feb 2010:

    Yvo de Boer has resigned from the United Nations to work for accountants KPMG. Here are some images from his turbulent reign as the UN's climate chief

  • 1 Feb 2010:

    Politicians, diplomats, economists, scientists and campaigners scale back ambitions for UN meeting in Mexico later this year


  • 29 Jan 2010:

    Yvo de Boer and Stefan Rahmstorf give their views on the outcome of the COP15 talks and the way forward. From environmentalresearchweb, part of the Guardian Environment Network

  • COP15 US President Barack Obama 18 Dec 2009:

    Read how the final day of the Copenhagen climate summit unfolded as world leaders tried to thrash out a last minute compromise deal


  • 17 Dec 2009:

    World leaders start crucial final negotiations at the troubled climate change summit


  • 16 Dec 2009:

    Follow live updates on the summit in the aftermath of Connie Hedegaard's resignation, while protesters clash with police


  • Climate People: Yvo de Boer  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. UN 10 Dec 2009:

    Day four: As the UN releases its full conference accreditation list, the UK government is vague over its travel plans and Yvo de Boer remains as gloomy as ever


  • 9 Dec 2009:

    Climate talks in disarray barely days into the summit, putting at risk international unity to fight global warming

  • 7 Dec 2009:

    The countdown to Copenhagen is over as thousands of officials, campaigners and activists, join world leaders for the start of two weeks of crucial climate change talks. Follow live updates


  • 11 Nov 2009:

    Editorial: UN bureaucrats are meant to be part of the scenery rather than slap-bang in the foreground. Not so Yvo de Boer, the diplomat in charge of the climate change talks which will reach their climax at Copenhagen next month















    Page mailing to a friend temporary disabled