Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 14 Dec '09 17:10
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019821/climategate-with-business-interests-like-these-are-we-really-sure-dr-rajendra-pachauri-is-fit-to-head-the-ipcc/

    Climategate: with business interests like these are we really sure Dr Rajendra Pachauri is fit to head the IPCC?

    By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 14th, 2009

    After the Climategate scandal erupted, few were quicker to dismiss the significance of the leaked emails than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    In no way, he insisted, just two days after the story broke, had the integrity of the IPCC been compromised:

    “The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he said.

    “Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.”

    And if any investigation into the affair were necessary, argued Dr Pachauri, it ought purely to be a criminal one into how the emails came to light.

    Pachauri said he doubted that trust in the IPCC would be damaged by the affair. “People who are aware of how the IPCC functions and are appreciative of the credibility that the IPCC has attained will probably not be swayed by an incident of this kind,” he said.

    Quite so. And I’m quite sure that no one will in any wise have their faith in the integrity of the IPCC shaken by these revelations courtesy of the mighty Richard North.

    North’s tribute to Dr Pachauri’s multifarious talents is so startling I think I shall have to quote it in full:

    As reported by Reuters – with a slight correction: The head of the Asian Development Bank (ADP), Haruhiko Kuroda, warned governments that a failure to reach a climate deal in Copenhagen could lead to a collapse of the carbon market, which would hit efforts to deal with climate change make carbon traders very rich.

    It helps of course to know that Mr Kuroda is best known in greenie circles for setting up the ADB Advisory Group on Climate Change – chaired by millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri, part-time chairman of the IPCC.

    An interesting member of that Group is Dr Klaus Toepfer, Founding Director, Institute for Advanced Studies Climate, Earth System and Sustainability Sciences and former executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). And it was UNEP, of course, which set up the IPCC – which now has as its part-time chairman millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

    One other member is professor Hironori Hamanaka, Chair, Board of Directors, Institute of Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). The IGES claims to be “a research institute that conducts pragmatic and innovative strategic policy research to support sustainable development in the Asia-Pacific region.” It will come as no surprise, therefore, to learn that the organisation works very closely with TERI, whose Director-General is millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

    Yet another is Ms Huguette Labelle, also a Board Member of the UN Global Compact organisation, the very same UN to which millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri belongs. Hilariously, Ms Labelle is Chair of Transparency International, the global civil society organisation “leading the fight against corruption.” TI’s mission “is to create change towards a world free of corruption.”

    The Board also includes professor Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director, The Earth Institute at Columbia University. This is the same Earth Institute which set up the Climate-Risk Center, inviting millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri to become its first Board Chairman.

    One other interesting character is Dr. Emil Salim, an adviser to Indonesia’s President on environment and sustainable development issues. But he is also a member of APFED – the Asia-Pacific Forum for Environment and Development. One of its major activities is sponsoring the “Partnership Initiatives for Knowledge Network and Capacity Building” – in conjunction with TERI as a major partner, the Director General of which is millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

    And last but not least is Professor Dadi Zhou, Director General (Emeritus) of the Energy Research Institute, which of course is otherwise known as TERI, the Director General of which is millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

    No longer, it seems, does Rome hold a pre-eminent position. In this brave new world of climate change and sustainable development, all roads lead to Rajendra K. Pachauri.

    Particularly interesting is Dr Pachauri’s connection with the “not-for-profit organisation” TERI. As we learn from its website, this used to stand for Tata Energy Research Institute, but was renamed in The Energy And Resources Institute in 2003. Nothing sinister, I’m sure, in its decision to play down the Tata connection; nor in the fact that Dr Pachauri makes no mention of the fact that he is funded by Tata on his website. And obviously, it is quite normal that TERI makes no disclosure on its website – or in its downloadable annual report (all you get is a pie chart with no figures on it) – about its financial arrangements: the pay scales of its 800 staff members and its esteemed director general are quite rightly hidden from the world’s prying eyes.

    Nevertheless, as Christopher Booker has noted elsewhere, one of the global business interests which will make – and indeed already has made – large sums of money thanks to the climate doom scenarios of the IPCC, is the Indian giant Tata. By fingering CO2 as the primary driver of AGW, the IPCC has been primarily responsible for creating the market in carbon trading. Dr Pachauri was, of course, the lead author on the IPCC’s second report which paved the way to Kyoto – which in turn ushered in the world’s first carbon trading schemes.

    ...
  2. 14 Dec '09 17:10
    mooooo ....
  3. 18 Dec '09 18:03
    no replies .... zeeblebot wins!

    non-professional AGW advocates are but peons of the green fund fat cats!
  4. 18 Dec '09 18:09
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    no replies .... zeeblebot wins!

    non-professional AGW advocates are but peons of the green fund fat cats!
    You're absolutely right, but then again, you have people wanting to make a profit on both sides.
  5. 18 Dec '09 18:17 / 1 edit
    well, on the pro-AGW side we have $79 BILLION. on the anti-, $10M uncovered so far. meaning could be several millions more, but not a billion.
  6. 18 Dec '09 18:17
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    well, on the pro-AGW side we have $79 BILLION. on the anti-, $10M uncovered so far. meaning could be several millions more, but not a billion.
    -----

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

    Massive Climate Funding Exposed

    Climate Money
    The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – Trillions to come

    For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money. Who audits the IPCC?

    The Summary

    * The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
    * Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
    * Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
    * Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
    * The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

    Read the Full Report at the Science and Public Policy Institute.

    There doesn’t necessarily need to be a conspiracy. It doesn’t require any centrally coordinated deceit or covert instructions to operate. Instead it’s the lack of funding for the alternatives that leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction”.

    Billions in the Name of “Climate”

    In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies. These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation. It does not include funding from other governments. The real total can only grow.

    In 1989, the first specific US climate-related agency was created with an annual budget of $134 million. Today in various forms the funding has leapt to over $7,000 million per annum, around 50 fold higher. Tax concessions add to this. (See below for details and sources.)

    ..after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence…

    This tally is climbing precipitously. With enormous tax breaks and rescue funds now in play, it’s difficult to know just how far over the $7 billion mark the final total will stand for fiscal year 2009. For example, additional funding for carbon sequestration experiments alone amounted to $3.4 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (not included in the $7 billion total above).

    The most telling point is that after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the global climate.

    If carbon is a minor player in the global climate as the lack of evidence suggests, the
    “Climate Change Science Program” (CCSP), “Climate Change Technology Program” (CCTP), and some of the green incentives and tax breaks would have less, little, or no reason to exist. While forecasting the weather and climate is critical, and there are other good reasons to develop alternative energy sources—no one can argue that the thousands of players who received these billions of dollars have any real incentive to “announce” the discovery of the insignificance of carbon’s role.


    Click on the graph for a larger image.



    “Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What’s amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.)”

    ...
  7. 18 Dec '09 18:18
    note that $79B is just the figure for US govt funds, not world-wide.
  8. 18 Dec '09 18:23
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    note that $79B is just the figure for US govt funds, not world-wide.
    impressive.
  9. 22 Dec '09 02:35
    Here's the empirical evidence your articles pretend doesn't exist.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

    If it turns out he has vested interests he should not head the IPCC.
    Also, carbon credits may not be the best solution. Since the science is already settled, money should be going towards technologies that reduce and/or absorb emissions, not so much gathering more data.
    Go for character assassination attacks all you like, it doesn't dispute cold hard evidence.
  10. 22 Dec '09 17:25
    Originally posted by mrstabby
    Here's the empirical evidence your articles pretend doesn't exist.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

    If it turns out he has vested interests he should not head the IPCC.
    Also, carbon credits may not be the best solution. Since the science is already settled, money should be going towards technologies that redu ...[text shortened]...
    Go for character assassination attacks all you like, it doesn't dispute cold hard evidence.
    Yeah, the whole world knows that, but so what? We can't regress to a pre-industrial revolution lifestyle, there is something happening but there is no way to avoid it.
  11. 22 Dec '09 17:47
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    “Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What’s amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.)”

    ...
    So hardly anyone has been funding scientists looking to debunk global warming?

    I'm sure the oil companies and anyone else in the business of producing fossil fuels would be EXTREMELY interested in scientific studies that seek to show that global warming is not a major problem or that would prove it's not a man-caused problem. So if almost no one in the fossil fuel industries have been funding such studies, a lot of people have been dropping the ball.
  12. 22 Dec '09 17:55
    Originally posted by mrstabby
    Here's the empirical evidence your articles pretend doesn't exist.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

    If it turns out he has vested interests he should not head the IPCC.
    Also, carbon credits may not be the best solution. Since the science is already settled, money should be going towards technologies that redu ...[text shortened]...
    Go for character assassination attacks all you like, it doesn't dispute cold hard evidence.
    "Go for character assassination attacks all you like, it doesn't dispute cold hard evidence."

    There is no evidence.It is a junk science w/billions and even trillions of dollars as the motivating factor. That is the only thing proven.
  13. 22 Dec '09 18:19
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [b]"Go for character assassination attacks all you like, it doesn't dispute cold hard evidence."

    There is no evidence.It is a junk science w/billions and even trillions of dollars as the motivating factor. That is the only thing proven.[/b]
    I wouldn't call it "junk science", I mean, there might be some debate reagarding the magnitude of global warming, but it is evident that it is real.

    Yes, there are people who will profit from global warming, just like there are people who will profit from denying it.
  14. 22 Dec '09 20:04
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Yeah, the whole world knows that, but so what? We can't regress to a pre-industrial revolution lifestyle, there is something happening but there is no way to avoid it.
    Who said anything about regressing? I'm advocating investing in technologies that make energy cheaper whilst reducing emissions or even absorbing CO2.
    Why give up trying at the first hurdle?
  15. 22 Dec '09 20:19
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [b]"Go for character assassination attacks all you like, it doesn't dispute cold hard evidence."

    There is no evidence.It is a junk science w/billions and even trillions of dollars as the motivating factor. That is the only thing proven.[/b]
    Did you even look at the link I posted? I'd have thought you'd at least comment on the content, but then again why bother looking at something that might dispute your preconceptions... There's a lot of money in pharmaceuticals, is that all junk science too? I'm pretty sure all the doctors out there are in on it as well, I mean how huge is the healthcare industry? These people say you will DIE if you don't get treated for these made up diseases like pneumonia and tuberculosis... Are they even real words? Think how expensive it is to treat cancer when what they're doing is exposing you to "radiation", which we're told causes cancer... And we're supposed to believe it cures it?