Skeptics’ presentation at UN abruptly cut short by “Live Shot” Kerry

  • TimeCheck


LIMA, Peru – During a press conference today by the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Peru, climate change skeptic NASA Apollo astronaut and American hero Col. Walt Cunningham, along with CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker and Director of Communications Marc Morano, were abruptly removed off the stage by UN officials to create a platform for a photo op for the newly arrived Secretary of State John Kerry.

Despite being given a slot of 30B4mgWKJIEAIn8SN minutes for their talk, they were told they had to “wrap up” after 18 minutes into their presentation to make room for Secretary Kerry who is attending the UN talks to promote a new UN climate treaty. Kerry said in October that ”If [skeptics are] wrong: catastrophe…Life as you know it on Earth ends.” Kerry has also declared that climate change “may be, in fact, the most serious challenge we face on the planet.”

CFACT staff learned that Secretary of State John Kerry needed to use the stage for a photo op with the U.S. climate negotiating team during their allotted press conference. Kerry was scheduled to do a talk in a different room, but needed the press room for Kerry’s photo op.  Six minutes later, CFACT politely left as requested and then the room remained empty for at least another 35 minutes. Col Cunningham’s skeptical talk was interrupted without just cause.

“This is an outrage.  We are one of the few skeptical voices of reason here at the conference.  To interrupt our press conference and abruptly end our press conference smacks of a cheap form of censorship,” said Craig Rucker of CFACT.  “This was particularly obnoxious as the room remained vacant for quite a while after we left.”

 You can watch the full conference at the UNFCCC on demand system.


Kerry bumps astronaut cunningham at COP 20

Share on Facebook




About the Author: Christina Norman

Christina serves as CFACT's Development Officer.

  • Logo

    So the facts have to give way to the politics once again. As if Kerry could have had anything useful to say, being merely a mouthpiece for Idiot Obama.

  • dmcinc50

    Did you expect anything other than more lies from these idiots.

  • dmcinc50

    Cover your own ass because the climate kooks are winning right now and there after our hard earned money !!

  • Schlibdiver

    Kerry is a schmuck. We expect nothing less from his toadies at the UN.

  • centefire

    Lucky we have the internet to expose this. Its censorship. Worst than anything in the middle ages. Revolutions were fought to stop this oppression. Why are the organisers not disciplined?

    • madashell

      Terry and NObama are both jerks, tearing our country apart. they will succeed in turning the US into a Socialist country if we don’t get rid of “leaders” like Speaker “Boner”.

  • tom2

    Cut him some slack. Kerry’s still looking for the magic movie. After five deferments, he joined the Navy Reserve. Recall he had one of his minions film him tromping through a Vietnam jungle seeking combat. I’m curious though. In his photo op, I wonder if he wore or bragged about all those medals for which he wrote the after-action reports? Recall, while driving a Patrol Craft Fast, he befriended an Army “awards and decorations” officer and then wrote for and won three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star — in about three months. Unlike most Veterans, he later protested against the U.S. and symbolically* threw them back in our collective face. *Even later still, when running for office, he said they were someone else’s medals. This is the kind of Secretary of State you get when you elect a radical communist. So, show a little compassion.

  • mark

    The UN is in it for the money they can line their pockets! Kerry is there to help make sure global warming truth is not told! So Kerry will help the UN stop the truth!

  • ML Kyte

    Censorship is wrong. Let him present his case, then refute his inaccurate arguments. 97% of scientists agree climate change is real.

    • wally12

      Yes! Censorship is wrong. It was wrong for Kerry and the conference to limit Cunningham’s speech. That was censorship. Cunningham should have been allowed to present his case. He was not. However, your statement that 97% of scientists is inserted for what reason? Do you believe that statement? That 97% is only the consensus of a small number of scientists. It doesn’t include all scientists and it doesn’t include selected scientists who work in some field of science related to climate. There are thousands of scientists who are skeptics and who have good data, calculations and logic that justify their skepticism. Cunningham is one of those scientists. Henrik Svensmark is another and whose study showed that solar and sun activity determine cloud formation and control warming and cooling of earth regardless of the CO2 levels. Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, the former director of the Max Plank Institute for Meteorology, became a skeptic. He stated that the science has been high jacked by politicians. It is no longer science. He further states that any scientific study must use the true scientific method and that any findings or claims be verified by actual average earth temperature observations. If that is not done, he and thousands of other scientists will not support the claims that CO2 is a significant driver of warming the earth.
      It is interesting that Einstein had a similar problem. There were many scientists in the early 1900’s that Einstein’s theory was false. Thus, he was like a lonely voice in the wilderness making a claim and the skeptics would not believe until they could see direct observation to prove the theory. It wasn’t until many years later that Einstein was proven correct. Now, we have some climate scientists who claim that CO2 is a significant driver of warming. Yet, there is no concrete evidence that CO2 is the major cause of warming. Thus, until the climate scientists prove their claims, no treaty or reductions of fossil fuel burning be initiated or taxed to promote alternate energy.

      • Rich Kenyon

        Wally, I find it interesting that you bring up Einstein, who was ultimately proven right by empirical data that was finally able to be procured in later years. What is interesting, is that he was right the whole time, but no one would admit it until the evidence was impossible to ignore. The big difference between that and global warming is that in order to have undeniable proof, you have to wait and do nothing until it is too late to fix the problem. I find it funnier that many people who are “skeptics” of man affecting climate through the change of composition of the atmosphere are the same people who will believe in the existence of a god that there is no evidence of the existence of. There is photographic evidence that the ice caps have shrunk over the past 30 years, the oceans are becoming more acidic due to the chemical interaction of water and CO2 to make a carboxylic acid of sorts, and yet there are people out there saying that CO2 is not a problem? I would love to read a scientific paper that can prove that the laws of thermodynamics somehow do not apply to the earths atmosphere. After all, any scientist worth anything knows that mixtures of different compositions have different heat capacities. The sun, while it is the main driving force of climate, due to being the sole source of heat and energy for the earth, is not the only variable to look at. If it was solely the sun, and composition meant nothing, then why is the surface of Venus hotter than the surface of Mercury? If composition has nothing to do with climate, then all substances should have the same heat capacity and boil/melt at the same temperature. These are the insinuations I get from reading things by the skeptics. No actual science, just skepticism.

        • wally12

          I can say the same thing about the climate scientists. No actual science,just faith that their models prove Man made global warming is responsible for significantly warming the earth and mainly due to CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. You don’t have to believe like a religious person. Look at the results of the models that predict the rise in temperature as CO2 increases. The climate scientists state that the earth’s temperature increases by 1.1 degrees for every doubling of CO2. In fact some skeptics agree with that number and others do not. If the climate scientists stayed with that number there would be less skepticism. However, the climate scientists state that CO2 causes a feed back multiplier of 3 due to positive interaction with the atmosphere etc. The skeptics state that the multiplier is negative or approximately 0.5. Scientists say that the temperature is a logarithmic value and that each subsequent doubling of CO2 will not raise the temperature by 1.1 degrees but instead a lessor value that reaches some end point. Thus, there is a real disagreement. The models used by the climate scientists have not shown that the multiplier is that high. In fact, check the actual average earth temperatures and you will find the models have missed their prediction by about 3. Does that tell you anything? It tells me that the models are flawed. The climate scientists need to go back and reexamine their data and their programs since as I understand none of their models have predicted correctly.
          If you say that all these glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate, then the oceans should also be rising. I have read that the rise of the oceans has averaged 1.7 mm per year for the last 110 years.NOAA has stated that the oceans have averaged 1.1 to 1.3 mm per year for the last 7 years. Sounds like the earth hasn’t been warming as much as predicted by the climate models. It is time to revisit the models for accuracy.
          I find it interesting that you see one side of Einstein’s years of waiting to be proven right. He was right and only one scientist. The skeptics, although not one, resemble Einstein and will be proven right at some point in time.

    • Thomas Faddis

      Lol! You obviously have not studied the debunking of this ridiculous ‘statistic’! John Cook is a non-scientist that has been proven to be a biased ‘researcher’ that fudged his data and whose partner is now under academic misconduct charges because of their b.s. ‘report’.

  • edwin l.beach

    Should have remained the League of nations Period and shoud yet be stationed in Antwerp

  • edwin l.beach

    Alongside the court of criminal justice

  • Irvan

    Kerry showed his true colors in 1971 and was as worthless as tits on a boar hog then and still is now. He is well suited for the crap sessions he is putting out.

  • Charles_Higley

    Cheap, low, dishonest, evil, underhanded, unethical, immoral, conniving, crooked, deceitful. They just love doing what’s wrong, as they truly believe that the ends justify the means.

    If they have to lie to everybody and pull every dirty trick in the book and throw their mothers under the bus, they will do it. These people are simply SOCIOPATHS, having no conscience to guide their actions.

  • Charles_Higley

    Has anybody noticed that Kerry appears acromegalic?

    • Thomas Faddis

      Not according to the definition, since he hasn’t died prematurely! I prefer to think he just looks like Herman Munster without needing makeup!

  • Richard Bagenstose

    the worlds on fire , with violance and there worried about the climate , the way i see it , people will destroy the earth a long time befor mother nature does. and just like alway silance the truth to fill there pockets , hay u.n there still beheading people in iraq , it’s your job to stop it , so what are use doing about it

  • Myles Standish

    Underhanded — Just what I would expect of the U.N. (and John Kerry) and their disinterest in facts that conflict with their agenda! Truly outrageous that CFACT was not allowed their remaining 12 measly minutes — especially in light of the fact that the room remained empty for 35 minutes after their forced departure. Liberal politics at its’ shameless worst.

  • freewayfrank54


    Col. Walt Cunningham
    Col. Walt Cunningham

  • cshorey

    WIth the lack of facts these guys have, I’d say 18 minutes was plenty of time. Probably a bit too long.