Climate politics choreography

There’s a woman by the name of Liz Gallagher, who happens to be one of the stable of luminaries associated with John Ashton‘s E3G shop. Ashton, you may recall, is the man who claimed that the U.K. Met Office is a “jewel in the crown, of British science and global science”.

Gallagher’s E3G bio indicates that:

[She] leads E3G’s Climate Diplomacy programme […which] focuses on how to construct high leverage political interventions which can shape an ambitious outcome in 2015 and beyond.


Liz has been working in the field of climate change and development since 2006, specialising in international climate politics. Whilst at [“the official Catholic aid agency for England and Wales”] CAFOD, Liz co-chaired Climate Action Network’s international lobbying and policy group on climate finance at the UNFCCC negotiations, influencing and meeting with delegations from across the world. [hyperlinks added -hro]

To Gallagher’s credit, she makes no pretense of being a “scientist”, climate or otherwise – unlike some advocacy-driven individuals that one could name, but I shall refrain from doing so! However, there can be no question that “the cause” is where her heart is.

Consequently, I was not particularly surprised to see some contributions from Gallagher in recent posts on the blog of the RTCC (Responding to Climate Change), which claims to be a:

news and analysis website focused on providing the latest updates and insight into global low carbon developments.

In one post on the RTCC blog, Gallagher wrote:

Why 2014 is a critical year for the politics of climate change

The formal processes of the UNFCCC (UN climate body) will mosey on to plot the structure and lay out the policy options for the 2015 agreement. But it is the informal processes which have the most potential to shape the national interest debates in many critical countries.

In the past, the political dividends created from the informal processes have remained invisible to the naked UNFCCC negotiator eye until the ‘grand finale’, often resulting in considerable levels of frustration for those of us who track the COPs (annual UN climate summit) and intercessionals (smaller UN meetings).

Whilst it’s the informal processes (underpinned by national actions) that help shape the politics of the international climate regime, these fora receive less attention and management than their more formal counterparts.

The run up to Copenhagen was a prime example where climate was woven into a variety of informal venues only to create confusion about how to capture the momentum.


There will be lots happening in the run up to Paris. Choreographing is required to construct and prioritise the right dialogues, with the right audiences and venues at the right time.

Two critical audiences are Leaders and Real-Economy decision makers. In the run up to 2015, Leaders will deal with many issues and trade-offs relating to climate change.

In order to secure more ambition, there are some critical issues Heads of State and Government must internalise in order to inform the trade-offs and ambition. It is essential that Leaders understand their strategic interest for a successful 2015 agreement, and critically understand the consequences of failure.

What would failure mean for the future of multilateralism, their bilateral relations and for their prosperity? Several informal processes throughout 2014 provide an opportunity to craft this understanding.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report’s (AR5) outcomes will synthesise the climate impacts and drive home the reality of climate change and its impacts upon national interests.[emphases added -hro]

OMG! It is not sufficient that “Leaders understand … the consequences of failure”, they must “critically understand” these unnamed, if not unmentionable, consequences!

While Gallagher’s words are probably more honest than many we have seen, her assessments are, IMHO, somewhat … well … alarming!

YMMV, but I’m not sure how Gallagher might have been privy to the “outcomes” of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report – prior to its publication! Is she depending, one wonders, on an exposition of the “old narrative” or the “new narrative“?

Nonetheless, I give additional credit to Gallagher for her acknowledgement that there is a “Real-Economy” (as opposed to the still undefined “green economy”). Although, considering her bent and bias, it is within the realm of possibility that Gallagher has inadvertently added “Real-Economy” to an ever-growing list of words and phrases that have been redefined in the interest of “the cause”, of course!

But perhaps the most telling part of Gallagher’s essay is her claim that:

Choreographing is required to construct and prioritise the right dialogues, with the right audiences and venues at the right time.

Who are the “choreographers”, one wonders? Well, based on past performances, I could take some guesses: Thomas Stocker Co-Chair of the IPCC’s Working Group I, certainly comes to mind! Can we look forward to more dances of deception from those who choreograph the “construction” of the “dialogues”, the “audiences” and the “right times”?

17 thoughts on “Climate politics choreography

  1. One may postulate and hope that stout poles again will get shoved into the spokes of the decorated wagons in this parade. Bring in the clowns! Etc.

  2. Congratulations, Hilary.

    You are on the right track, with the right background information to decipher the charade of pseudo-science.

    I will post later two examples of reliable science being replaced by unreliable science in 1945-46.

    They were built into the foundations of modern science and most scientists are reluctant to question their validity now.

  3. Gallagher presents the clearest evidence of a conspiracy attempt.
    ‘Real Economy,’ indeed! Rather, in deed, de facto.
    Thank you Hilary, and a Merry Christmas Season.

    “… construct high leverage political interventions …” Do I hear Illuminati? TriLateral?

    “… Leaders and Real-Economy decision makers. …”
    …. ..
    You have uncovered another jewel, Hilary

  4. Hilary,

    The United Nations was formed on 24 Oct 1945 for commendable goals – to reduce nationalism and the possibility of nuclear annihilation.

    However, nuclear and solar sciences were altered in 1945-46 in ways that undercut the validity of post-WWII sciences: Textbooks replaced

    1. Aston’s valid “nuclear packing fraction” with Weizsacker’s invalid “nuclear binding energy.”

    2. Valid models of the iron-rich Sun with invalid models of hydrogen-filled stars.

    Click to access WHY.pdf

    And deprived humans of the greatest benefit of the scientific revolution:

    “Powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction.” [See the last paragraph of Lord Francis William Aston’s Nobel Lecture on 12 Dec1922]:

    Click to access aston-lecture.pdf

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo
    PhD Nuclear Chemistry
    Postdoc Space Physics

    • Thank you, Hilary, for allowing me to post the above information.

      [Hilary:] You’re welcome Oliver. But I’m sorry to say that you are pushing your off-topic luck with this additional post; so I’ve snipped it.

      I’m sure that those who have further interest in your writings and views can access them via your own website!

  5. One potential choreographer would seem to be the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, which Liz links to in her article:

    This was set up in September this year, with the aim of producing a report which will aim to show “how to achieve economic prosperity and development while also combating climate change.” The report will be due in September, in the run-up to COP20 in Lima (which is of course the one before the Big One – Copenhagen Mk II, as it were – in Paris 2015).

    “The Commission brings together expert research institutes from five continents, overseen by an International Council comprising former heads of government and finance ministers and leaders in the fields of economics, business and finance.”

    I’m assuming, then, that the “audiences”, in this case, would be _current_ heads of government, finance ministers, etc.

    Here’s their YouTube channel:

    The UK is involved (quelle surprise!) and one video is of our representative Greg Barker (!) referring back to the Stern Report of 2006, so I suppose this could be seen as a sort of Stern Report Mk II, in preparation for Copenhagen Mk II (Paris).

    As for the “right time”, September 2014 is also when a Climate Summit is due to take place in New York:

    “This Summit will be a different kind of Climate Summit. It is aimed at catalyzing action by governments, business, finance, industry, and civil society in areas for new commitments and substantial, scalable and replicable contributions to the Summit that will help the world shift toward a low-carbon economy.”

    I suspect that this (and COP20 in Lima) will be mostly about “commitments” and “contributions” of a decidedly pecuniary nature!

  6. “Choreographing is required to construct and prioritise the right dialogues, with the right audiences and venues at the right time.”

    This is an incredibly frightening statement. It is one that totalitarian regimes use to design propaganda, not truth programmes. It is one that says the right conclusion must be reached and to do this we must orchestrate the debate; to allow a free discussion will not achieve our end goal.

    One would think that the world experiences of Fascism, Communism, Jonestown and religious conflict (Christian as well as Islamic) would have taught these well-educated people that if the facts themselves are adequate to convince someone, then the cherished conclusion, not the argument, is the problem. But since those in the CAGW have convinced themselves that they are on a (God-inspired?) quest for planetary salvation, any means is justified. If the fools won’t get off of the road and let you pass, tell them their houses are on fire and then they WILL get off of the road and you can continue you on your way.

    Despite the advances in the West of the past 300 years, we are still fighting a rearguard action against the Enlightenment. Reason – based on truth – is still struggling against desire, ego and passion.

    • Doug Proctor
      December 27, 2013 at 12:00 pm
      “One would think that the world experiences of Fascism, Communism, Jonestown and religious conflict (Christian as well as Islamic)”
      “But since those in the CAGW have convinced themselves that they are on a (God-inspired?) quest for planetary salvation,”

      Doug, you know very well that UNEP, IPCC and Climate Science are 100% godless anti-theistic movements, so why the attempt at religion bashing? Are you an atheist who is ashamed of the crimes that fellow atheists commit? Shall I name certain atheist leaders of the 20th century that committed 100 million murders? Don’t make me do it; it’s literally like shooting fish in a barrel; hope you had a great Festivus.

  7. I think it’s important to distinguish the True Believers (who know they’re selling snake oil) from the Mindless Foot Soldiers, who have simply been brainwashed into believing the scare.

    The latter have been taught to believe that objectivity is impossible; the former are convinced that objectivity is undesirable.

    • I think it’s important to distinguish the True Believers (who know they’re selling snake oil) from the Mindless Foot Soldiers, who have simply been brainwashed into believing the scare.

      Rick, I noticed exactly the same phenomenon back in the days when I was fighting in the trenches of “alt.revisionism” – the primary posting ground of the real ( i.e. Holocaust) deniers. Those who generated the material (e.g. Faurisson, Zundel & Irving) were quite aware that they were peddling the equivalent of “snake-oil” – particularly Irving who seems to be the preferred “model” (you should pardon my use of the word!) for Mann’s repertoire of behaviours.

      But their acolytes (and lesser lights) many of whom (in their ignorance) were predisposed to thinking/posting ill of Jews, Judaism and/or the State of Israel, were simply brainwashed (and in some instances one might have concluded brain-dead) into unthinking, uncritical “belief” in that which they so readily parroted with mind-numbing frequency.

    • Thanks, Alex … for another of your awesome transcripts. The “choreography” for COP19 didn’t quite work out for them, did it?! Here’s Gallagher:

      There are hooks in the texts for us to come back and, kind of, fight, you know, another fight.

      Which is good, but it’s, kind of, not enough, and I think the reason why we saw it’s not enough because what we saw was all the big emitters start to play different issues across each other. And that was deeply unhelpful, and it meant that finance suffered, it meant that loss and damage suffered, and it also meant that the 2015 deadline suffered. [emphasis added -hro]

      Truly, madly, deeply unhelpful – no doubt!

  8. Very interesting expose of the hard deluded post – communist mind set.
    I happen to be a practising Catholic and am currently researching an article on the corruption of Charities (Religious and Secular) which have eaten at the altar of Al Gores false God of Climatism.
    It is so deep and frightening that will take a lot longer than anticipated.
    The lady above is a professed Catholic, so you can see what i am up against.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s