If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrarywise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see? —Alice in Wonderland
The climate change fraud that is now unravelling is unprecedented in its deceit, unmatched in scope—and for the liberal elite, akin to 9 on the Richter scale. Never have so few fooled so many for so long, ever.
The entire world was being asked to change the way it lives on the basis of pure hyperbole. Propriety, probity and transparency were routinely sacrificed.
The truth is: the world is not heating up in any significant way. Neither are the Himalayan glaciers going to melt as claimed by 2035. Nor is there any link at all between natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and global warming. All that was pure nonsense, or if you like, ‘no-science’!
The climate change mafia, led by Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), almost pulled off the heist of the century through fraudulent data and suppression of procedure. All the while, they were cornering millions of dollars in research grants that heaped one convenient untruth upon another. And as if the money wasn’t enough, the Nobel Committee decided they should have the coveted Peace Prize.
But let’s begin at the beginning. Mr Pachauri has no training whatsoever in climate science. This was known all the time, yet he heads the pontification panel which proliferates the new gospel of a hotter world. How come? Why did the United Nations not choose someone who was competent? After all, this man is presumably incapable of differentiating between ocean sediments and coral terrestrial deposits, nor can he go about analysing tree ring records and so on. That’s not jargon; these are essential elements of a syllabus in any basic course on climatology.
You cannot blame him. His degree and training is in railroad engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads from point A to point B.
THE GATHERING STORM
There are many casualties in this sad story of greed and hubris. The big victim is the scientific method. This was pointed out in great detail by John P Costella of the Virginia-based Science and Public Policy Institute. Science is based on three fundamental pillars. The first is fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by experimental input, any hypothesis can be—indeed, must be—corrected.
This was systematically stymied as early as 2004 by the scientific in-charge of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit. This university was at the epicentre of the ‘research’ on global warming. It is here that Professor Phil Jones kept inconvenient details that contradicted climate change claims out of reports.
The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the quest. However, in the entire murky non-scientific global warming episode, if anyone was a sceptic he was labelled as one of ‘them’. At the very apex, before his humiliating retraction, Pachauri had dismissed a report by Indian scientists on glaciers as “voodoo science”.
The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in confidence. However, the entire process was set aside by the IPCC while preparing the report. Thus, it has zero scientific value.
The fact that there was dissent within the climate science teams, that some people objected to the very basis of the grand claims of global warming, did not come out through the due process. It came to light when emails at the Climate Research Centre at East Anglia were hacked in November 2009. It is from the hacked conversations that a pattern of conspiracy and deceit emerge. It is a peek into the world of global warming scaremongering—amplify the impact of CO2, stick to dramatic timelines on destruction of forests, and never ask for a referral or raise a contrary point. You were either a believer in a hotter world or not welcome in this ‘scientific fold’.
HOUSE OF CARDS AND COLOUR OF CASH
So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. We have the fact that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350, some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an Indian glacier expert, in an interview to a magazine. It had no scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative.
On the basis of that assertion, The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) that Pachauri heads and where Hasnain works in the glaciology team, got two massive chunks of funding. The first was estimated to be a $300,000 grant from Carnegie Corporation and the second was a part of the $2 million funding from the European Union. So you write a report that is false on glaciers melting and get millions to study the impact of a meltdown which will not be happening in the first place. Now if this is not a neat one, what is?
The same goes for dire predictions on Amazon rain forests. The IPCC maintained that there would be a huge depletion in Amazon rain forests because of lack of precipitation. Needless to add, no Amazon rain forest expert could be trusted to back this claim. They depended on a report by a freelance journalist and activist, instead, and now it has blown up in their faces.
There’s plenty more in this sordid tale. For one thing, there is no scientific consensus at all that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, as claimed by the IPCC. In a recent paper, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who has worked extensively on climate change models, argues: ‘There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps—if any—we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.’
An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC. Thus the very basis of the claim of consensus on global warming is false. And so deeply entrenched is the global warming lobby, the prestigious journal Science did not publish a letter that Dr Peiser wrote pointing out the lack of consensus.
Speaking to Open, says Dr Peiser, “The IPCC process by which it arrives at its conclusions lacks balance, transparency and due diligence. It is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports. Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. It is also losing the trust of more and more governments who are no longer following its advice. Until it agrees to undergo a root and branch reform, it will continue to haemorrhage credibility and trust. The time has come for a complete overhaul of its structure and workings.”
Another fraud is in the very chart central to Pachauri’s speech at the Copenhagen summit. As Lord Monckton has pointed out, ‘The graph is bogus not only because it relies on made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, but also because it is overlain by four separate trendlines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however—neatly obscured by an ingenious rescaling of the graph and the superimposition of the four bogus trend lines on it—is that from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940 the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975 to 1998.’
PACHAURI’S WRONG NUMBERS
This chart, tracking mean global temperature over the past 150 years, was central to the presentation that IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri made at the Copenhagen environment summit. Many scientists believe that the graph is fraudulent. First, there are strong allegations that the data, collected from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, is a tissue of lies. Plus, as British climate change expert Lord Christopher Monckton puts it: “(The main graph, in darker blue) is overlain by four separate lines, each carefully selected to give the entirely false im•pression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however... is that from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940, the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975 to 1998.” In other words, the graph has been drawn with a motive to prove one’s point, and not to show the truth.
Thus the earth has warmed at this rate at least twice in the last 100 years and no major catastrophe has occurred. What is more, the earth has cooled after that warming. Why is the IPCC not willing to explore this startling point?
Another total lie has been that the Sunderbans in Bangladesh are sinking on account of the rise in sea level. The IPCC claimed that one-fifth of Bangladesh will be under water by 2050. Well, it turns out this is an absurd, unscientific and outrageous claim. According to scientists at the Centre for Environmental and Geographical Information Services (Cegis) in Dhaka, its surface area appears to be growing by 20 sq km annually. Cegis has based its results on more than 30 years of satellite imagery. IPCC has not retracted this claim. As far as they are concerned, Bangladesh is a goner by 2050, submerged forever in the Bay of Bengal.
THE COOKIE CRUMBLES
The fallout of Climategate is slowly but surely unfolding right where it hurts a large number of special interests—in the field of business. Yes, the carbon trading business is now in the line of fire. Under a cap-and-trade system, a government authority first sets a limit on emissions, deciding how much pollution will be allowed in all. Next, companies are issued credits, essentially licences to pollute, based on how large they are, and what industries they work in. If a company comes in below its cap, it has extra credits which it may trade with other companies, globally.
Post Climategate, this worldwide trade, estimated at about $30 billion in 2006, is finding few takers. It is under attack following the renewed uncertainty over the role of human-generated CO2 in global warming. In the US, which never adopted any of this to begin with, there is a serious move now to finish off the cap-and-trade regime globally. It’s a revolt of sorts. Six leading Democrats in the US Congress have joined hands with many Republicans to urge the Obama Administration to back off from the regime.
The collapse of the international market for carbon credits, a direct fallout of Climategate, has already sent shudders down many spines in parts of the world that were looking forward to making gains from it. It was big business, after all, and Indian businesses were eyeing it as well. In fact, Indian firms were expected to trade some $1 billion worth of carbon credits this year, and with the market going poof, they stand to lose quite some money (notional or otherwise).
Besides the commercial aspect, there is also the issue of wider public credibility. There have been signs of scepticism all along. In a 2009 Gallup poll, a record number of people—41 per cent—elected to say that global warming was an exaggerated threat. This slackening of public support is in sync with a coordinated political movement that is seeking to re-examine the entire issue of global warming from scratch. The movement is led by increasingly vocal Republicans in the US Senate and packs considerable political power.
Pachauri’s position is also becoming increasingly untenable with demands for his resignation becoming louder by the day. In an interview to Open, Pat Michaels of the Cato Institute, a noted US think-tank, who has followed the debate for years, says, “Dr Pachauri should resign because he has a consistent record of mixing his political views with climate science, because of his intolerance of legitimate scientific views that he does not agree with, because of his disparagement of India’s glacier scientists as practising ‘voodoo science’, and because of his incomprehension of the serious nature of what was in the East Anglia emails.”
Richard North, the professor who brought to light the financial irregularities in a write-up co-authored with Christopher Booker, has also said in a TV interview that, “If Dr Pachauri does not resign voluntarily, he will be forced to do so.”
GLOBAL STORMING AHEAD
The world awaits answers, based not on writings of sundry freelance journalists and non-experts, but on actual verifiable data on whether the globe is warming at all, and if so by how much. Only then can policy options be calibrated. As things stand, there is little doubt that the IPCC will need to be reconstituted with a limited mandate. This mess needs investigation and questions need to be answered as to why absurd claims were taken as gospel truth. The future of everything we know as ‘normal’ depends on this. The real danger is that the general public is now weary of the whole thing, a little tired of the debate, and may not really care for the truth, convenient or otherwise.
OLDER COMMENTS FIRST
90 COMMENTS
Permalink
Ninad - really sad, such a one-sided article, reflecting nothing but one point of view. Did you, for example, research Richard North himself, at the hub of the view which you take?
Permalink
Well said,Ninad. In fact,very well said. It's a pity that your views are rare in the media.
http://libertynewscentral.blogspot.com/
Permalink
This is bollocks.
I'm a fan of Open Magazine, and I'm highly disappointed that its editors choose to publish such pseudo scientific gibberish. That anthropogenic climate is something that's real and will have serious effects on current patterns of human existence is something that's very well established among the scientific community. The only 'debate' today is on the exact specifics of those effects, not its causes.
You've asked Mockton, Global Warming Policy Foundation and Cato Institute for thier opinions, and then claim the world needs opinion that isn't from non-experts? Please.
If anyone reading this wants to know what real climate scientists have to say about this, go here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-in...
And Ninad:
a)The graph you've shown clearly shows global mean temperatures, on average, even with the adjustments for statistical errors, rising.
b)Please go do a basic statistics course.
c)And then go read up on something called positive climate feedbacks.
d) F*** you (Sorry to disfigure your artwork, Nikhil, but please keep the abuses out. Thanks -Ed
Permalink
Nice manners,Nikhil !
And thanks for the link to RealClimate -a bastion of climategate "scientists". To defend a crime you are quoting crooks . RealClimate is an alarmist spin machine. Do you have more credible sources?
Permalink
Disappointing, coming from OPEN! Check out this from a non-partisan fact check organization: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
Though it's not directly related to IPCC stats, clearly indicates global warming is a reality and the impending doom as certain as death. Now, if you want to ignore it as death is inevitable either way, so be it.
Permalink
There are lies of commission and lies of omission. The latter result from being economical with the truth. And the IPCC certainly has been that, especially in its Summary for Policy Makers prepared for the Impacts portion of the IPCC report. You should check out the following blog postings:
1. The IPCC: More Sins of Omission – Telling the Truth but Not the Whole Truth, at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/25/the-ipcc-more-sins-of-omission-%e2....
2. The IPCC: Hiding the Decline in the Future Global Population at Risk of Water Shortage, at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/18/the-ipcc-hiding-the-decline-in-the....
My credentials -- check out this page: http://goklany.org/
Permalink
Brilliant article.
Of course, the deeper you dig, the dirtier it gets.
Now you get to see how a true believer can unhinge his mind to swallow contradictions bigger than his head.
I think I may make a bumper sticker that says:
What part of 'stupid' do you not understand?
Permalink
I apologize for the expletive use; poor, fact distorting journalism does things to the best of us. Especially when it appears in one your favourite publications.
And Gurmeet, if Real Climate is an alarmist 'spin machine', what's libertynewscentral (.blogspot, if I might add) supposed to be?
Have you bothered checking the about us page at RealClimate, btw?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/contributo...
None of these scientists have anything to do with the so called 'Climategate' incident, which as Adhiraj points out, is a non-incident.
I wonder what's next from Open, a defense of Creationsim? Why water fluoridation is a communist conspiracy?
Permalink
It is very disingenuous to imply that just because Dr Pachauri originally trained as a Railway Engineer he was incapable moving forward. After all there is clear evidence that he has developed major skills outside of engineering such as finance (fraud/money laundering) and public relations (consistent on message lying).
If this story has similarities to Alice in Wonderland then surely Pachauri, with his grin is just like the Cheshire Cat.
Permalink
Excellent article. India press and government has been instrumental in exposing this fraudulent global warming hoax. So too has the UK press. Any Indian climate science worth his weight would have found the tampered data and erroneous studies had they been givn a chance to peer review the studies.
The whole idea behind the UN was to stop development in countries like India and China, to deny the rights to humans extended in the west, basic stuff like cheap electricity and food. Instead the UN IPCC has been instrumental in getting one third of the arable land in America converted to making biofuels and doubling the price of food in the past two years. The UN is exercising genocide on the poorer nations of the world through starvation. India has mentioned that it may set up it's own climate panel, we hope they do, every country has to take responsibility on deciding on what climate means too them,.
Permalink
Australia
WAIT TILL 2020 PLEASE
TO SEE IF GLOBAL WARMING DOES REALLY EXIST
I would like RUDD our EMPLOYEE to stop spending our money on Global warming as we are still developing our nation .we wouldn't even see a significant difference for the money we are spending and by the way has any body taken into account that the manufacturing of these extra products mandated for our homes like insulation and solar panels ect (predominantly made in china) create pollution to manufacture and distribute and that most of the world will still burn coal even if we change
SIMPLY GIVE OUR ECONOMY A BREAK AND WAIT AND SEE IF GLOBAL WARMING DOES REALLY EXIST
Permalink
Excellent summary of climate fraud, incompetence, and vested interest as it has been exposed so far - there is a great deal more to come! Readable by any thoughtful layman - not too much jargon...
Permalink
Lord Monckton was previously an AIDS expert, and his "solution" involved quarantining all AIDS patients worldwide on an ilsand somewhere else that was not Great Britain. In addition, he does not like immigrants darker than a particular shade, he does not like all EU countries and people and he most certainly does not like the way the borders of the World were redrawn after WW-2.
His main opposition to climate change is that the cost is going to damage the developed world. In addition, he also makes it clear that global warming may be worse for the countries closer to the Himalayas, so it doesn't relly bother him.
Moncktons ancestors, grandfather, batted for the Nizam of Hyderabad and was the person who took the case to the UN, to the US and to Pakistan. The family have been outright India haters.
Good luck. OPEN is a magazine I read regularly, but Ninad Sheth's latest has to be the product of laziness or bias. He really needs to research what climate change is all about. Soon. Before summer 2010, for sure. Or sit in a non-aircon cabin at work.
Permalink
As an author on the climate issue ('While the Earth Endures' foreword by Prof. David Bellamy OBE) I can vouch that Ninad's article is right on target. Climategate is the epicentre of everything. It is on their 'data' alone that the whole inverted pyramid of the Warming 'industry' rests. The dam of lies is breaking at last, now real science can start to get a look in.
Philip Foster
www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org
Permalink
Nice ad hominem attack there Malo. Why don't you try attacking the science rather than the messenger? Maybe because the science backs the idea that humans are not causing global warming? Maybe because human civilization doesn't have the power to affect the global climate?
I don't think any scientist thinks that global temperature has increased since the 1800's, of course this increase comes after the global temperature decrease that occurred between roughly 1500 until the 1800's, which had been preceded by a global warming from about 800 to 1500, which had been preceded by a global cooling and so on. None of those previous episodes of global warming or cooling can be blamed on humans. CO2 levels weren't elevated during those earlier warming periods and both the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period had higher temperatures than we do today. So what caused the previous global climate changes and why is this change different? Until that question can be answered, limiting CO2 to prevent temperature increases is wrong.
Limiting CO2 and pollutants is a laudable goal and converting to cleaner and renewable energy sources have other benefits, but affecting climate is not one of them.
Permalink
Hit submit too soon.
The first sentence should have been, "I don't think any scientist thinks that global temperature has NOT increased since the 1800's..."
Permalink
The main flaw in the AGW theory is that it focus es on at most the past one thousand years, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years. While the world's attention is on "global warming" we are neglecting the fact we are approaching the time for the next Ice Age. The Milankovitch cycle was verified using ocean cores in 1976 and again in a very recent study. It was the subject of a secret 1974 report by the US CIA too. Of the five interglacial shown in the Vostok ice core only the Eemian interglacial lasted longer than our twelve thousand year-long Holocene period
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution have done research that shows the transition to an Ice age can occur in less than ten years
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046
It seems to me that instead of wasting time and resources' on the dubious idea of AGW, we would be wiser to at least develop some contingency plans for how to respond to the onset of the next Ice Age, an event which is both inevitable and potentially imminent according to the data.
Sea cores confirming Milankovitch theory http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-15-ice-ages-confirmed.html
Press release from Oregon State Univ. Long debate ended over cause, demise of ice ages – solar and earth wobble – CO2 not main driver
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/aug/long-debate-ended-over-c...
1974 CIA report on climate/Ice Age http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
Permalink
This spoof of climate science may be of interest:
http://climaterealists.com/?id=4960
Permalink
NIKHIL, are you serious? The scientists associated with realclimate are at the CENTER of climategate. Obviously you haven't even looked at the emails. They directly implicate Gavin and Mann as those who tried to decieve, lie, manipulate, destroy records, etc. Penn State University here in USA is currently investigating Mann on his involvement with climategate. Realclimate is discussed in the emails specifically as a place for those in the "Team" can attack and discredit the so called skeptics. Please go look somewhere else for your info, and then come back and discuss.
Permalink
Good on you mate for speaking out and helping to expose the truth behind the lies and misdeception that the IPCC and the money hungry parasites have been pushing out.
How is it that there are still people ready to support the IPCC, the scientists and the research centres who are all being exposed as conspiring to lie, manipulate and hide data to fit their agenda.
AGW is not a fact it is the the biggest scam ever pulled on the world.
Permalink
This would be one of the best summaries of the incestuous, corrupt, and narcissistic world of climate change politics to date. The sneering contempt that many good-willed scientists have suffered at the hands of the scientific prostitutes, and outrageous fleecing of world's citizens by opportunistic politicians and assorted con-men, must be repaid with lengthy jail terms by those responsible. Each country must launch their own independent investigations to determine what role their scientists, environmental advocates and politicians played in this massive scam. If national governments won't initiate proceedings, they must be replaced at the next election.
Permalink
This might also help to explain the position of the BBC, the Environment Agency, other Government and some Universities.
http://www.iigcc.org/index.aspx
"The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4trillion. A full list of members is available on the membership page”.
Permalink
An excellent article on the sad "scientific" fraud of global warming.
It would be very instructive to know, although quite difficult to be sure, how much money has been doled out over many years by foundations and governments for a mythical cause that has allowed so many to line their pockets.
Given the recency of the disaster in Haiti, it serves as an example. My own guess is that the amount of money that would be required to rebuild the country and provide earthquake-resistant structures for its residents would be a fraction of that already thrown away on "global warming."
But wait. I forgot. Global warming causes earthquakes!
Carl Haub
Falmouth, Virginia, US
Permalink
I hadn't paid too much attention to the whole climate issue until recently. Your article is a good synopsis as to what has occured. If we are to be asked to make huge personal sacrifices based on the word and credibility of IPCC scientists, the least they can do is to have their work openly examined and scrutinized by those with alternative ideas and theories.
This is not how I was trained in the scientific method, nor should it be an acceptable method of operating by the UN's IPCC. Lets get the facts and evidence on the table prior to spending trillions of dollars and condeming millions of the worlds poor to perpetual destitution.
Permalink
Great article. Thanks so much for having the courage to write the truth. We need more courage in this world.
Permalink
It seems that FactCheck.org doesn't agree with you.
Permalink
As I and others have written elsewhere, this story uncritically buys a line being sold by right-wing American think tanks with close ties to the oil industry. If you actually believed in your reporting, a story of this magnitude would require some sort of evaluation of opposing ideas. But you quote only well-known climate change skeptics and deniers. This is cynical, lazy reporting at it's worst. It's only goal is to sell magazines. Open's editors should be ashamed.
Permalink
Hari Nice bit of investigation there. considering the supporters of AGW have been paid more by the oil industry for research into this non issue than has been paid to any sceptical organisation.
Permalink
It is a pity that so many commenters here as so badly misinformed. There never has been any observable evidence that CO2 forcing is driving the main climate changes we have seen. The only so-called evidence is the output from computer models that have CO2 forcing built into them; well, what a surprise! As far as real data is concerned, the ERBE satellite data alone proves negative feedback in the climate system, and totally refutes the AGW theory. There is also much more similar evidence.
Permalink
Excellent article. The AGW fraud is crumbling more and more every day. It's amazing how so many people still believe in this hoax. The proponents of AGW constantly get caught with their pants down and still say the science is settled.
Permalink
Pachauri is the latest mascot of Climate Skeptics
Every cause needs a mascot to further its end. Al Gore made the image of the drowning polar bear the mascot of climate alarmists. It proved short lived. The public eventually got wise that polar bears can not only swim, but they could marathon swim over 200 kms. Climate skeptics then appropriated the polar bear as their mascot as it became an acute embarrassment for climate alarmists to be reminded repeatedly of their false claims.
Now as evident from James Delingpole's brilliant article in the UK Telegraph, climate skeptics have finally jettisoned the drowning polar bear for Dr. Pauchari, the Chair of the UN Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as our mascot! The global warmist lobby may want Pachauri to resign. But we climate skeptics are now very categorical. No, we do not want Pachauri to say goodbye to the IPCC. We want Pachauri to stay and finish the job which he started - completely destroying IPCC from the inside and the theory of Global Warming in the process.
The IPCC was constituted to research all of climate science, natural or manmade, but over time took on a political agenda of trying to prove just one hypothesis - linking man-made carbon dioxide to rising temperatures. One of the most striking revelations to immediately emerge from the 'Climategate' scandal has been references to efforts by scientists espousing the human-caused warming theory to pro-actively exclude contrary viewpoints from important scientific publications.
This aside, the IPCC was supposed to offer scientific analysis of the most authoritative, peer reviewed scientific research as the basis of its Assessment Reports. The first most obvious doubts that these expectations were being compromised was the publication of the hockey stick graph by the IPCC in its Assessment Report of 2001. The graph was used to frightened world governments to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This graph was later exposed as a fraud and violated the IPCC's own stated technical reservations of using tree rings as a proxy for climate studies, expressed as per its first Assessment Report.
Pachauri then took over in 2003, and under his chairmanship, the IPCC process grew even more subverted to its declared aims. Their fourth Assessment Report that was published in 2007 has now been recently exposed. All their critical claims of glaciers melting, extreme weather events such as droughts and floods, the disappearance of the Amazon forests, rising sea levels not only haven't been peer reviewed, but depended on grey literature, conducted by those who did not have the basic iota of scientific credentials to carry out research - like journalists and arts graduates. ABC News recently reported that the IPCC even cited a claim of ice disappearing from mountains based on a student essay and an article in a mountaineering sports magazine!
This comes to the psychological makeup of Pachauri. He offers a glimpse in his new book release where he comes across as a 70 year, obsessed with sex. According to the UK Telegraph, he’s just released what they describe as a “smutty” romance novel, Return to Almora laced with steamy sex, lots of sex. Oh, and of course, Hollywood actress Shirley MacLaine to provide the glamour.
NGO-Scientist Criminal Links:
The criminal nexus between scientists and NGOs in perpetuating the scientific scam of all times become readily apparent through all these exposures in the media. The modus operandi is for NGOs to cite IPCC as their authoritative scientific source while IPCC reciprocate the gesture by citing their opinion documents as authoritative scientific sources - all along keeping out peer and non-peer reviewed studies of established scientific journals that challenges human-caused global warming theory as espoused by the IPCC.
Even more, these NGOs and environmentalists are permitted to blatantly influence the IPCC report though they are not climatologists by any stretch of imagination. The expert reviewers who had input into just one portion (Working Group III) of the IPCC report included three Greenpeace employees, two Friends of the Earth representatives, two Climate Action Network reps, and a person each from activist organizations WWF International and Environmental Defense. Greenpeace at least in one instance wrongfully declared that one of its publications they quoted was peer reviewed! The full list of Greenpeace and World WildLife Fund (WWF) non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed documents cited in the IPCC Assessment Report 4 could be accessed at http://wattsupwiththat.com
But that's not all. Pachauri's, Al Gore's and NGOs advocacy and business interests tightly overlap viz. they put their mouth to where their money is. Al Gore's business interests are legendary with the New York Times proclaiming him on the way to be the first carbon billionaire, while Pachauri's intricate web of business interest was exposed by India Today. The difference between the two is that Al Gore has his investment mostly within the Green-Industrial Complex while Pachauri is reportedly a partner in a shale oil exploration firm in the US and further was on boards of oil and power utilities, with large carbon footprints, and got "crores-worth" (10 million rupees – about £140,000) of business for TERI from them. Both are linked intrinsically with the voluntary carbon trading market that last year had a turnover of more than $150 billion dollars.
NGOs and environmentalists attract mind-boggling grants for promoting Climate hysteria and for their climate adaptation programmes. But the likes of Greenpeace and WFF also further benefit from this scam through a spew of commercial ventures that include certification for carbon credits, consultancies to reduce carbon, endorsement of 'green' products; climate risk consultancy studies for insurance companies to justify increase of premiums etc.
The Crisis of Credibility
Hypocrisy is another common trait among Al Gore, Pauchari and these alarmist NGOs and environmentalists. They ask the world to adopt a carbon neutral, simple low consumption lifestyle while they themselves do not put this in practice. Al Gore maintains a fuel guzzling multi-million dollar private jet and luxury launch. He travels always in a limousine, in a convey of a whole stream of similar cars. He has two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.). His monthly electricity bill is on an average 200 times the average of a normal US citizen, which is in turn, 200 times that of an average Indian.
Pauchari is no less than Gore. He lives in the most prestigious address in New Delhi - Golf links in a home valued at £140,000 which is only slightly less modest than Al Gore. He wears only suits valued at $1,000 and above and designer ethnic wear. For commuting from his home to office, a one-mile journey from his home to his Delhi office, Dr Pachauri could have walked, cycled, or used the eco-friendly electric car provided for him, known in the UK as G-Wiz. But instead, he had his personal chauffeur drive him to and fro in a 1.8-litre Toyota Corolla. Dr Rajendra Pachauri flew at least 443,243 miles on IPCC business in a 19 month period - a feat which any common global citizen would fail to emulate after ten life times. This business included attending to so mundane things like presiding over honorary degree ceremonies, a book launch and a Brookings Institute dinner, the latter involving a flight of 3500 miles!
NGOs and environmentalists fare no less in comparison. Work with international NGOs like Greenpeace, WWF, Save the Children, Christian Aid etc entails drawing huge international salaries. The most logic question is why do these hypocrites need such salaries if they advocate simple living. They too can be spotted with exclusive designer wear, expensive mobiles, notebooks and frequent up-market restaurants and living in up-market residential areas. Their children study in expensive public schools, some even overseas. The chances are that they too will be owning an expensive fuel guzzler SUV or two. If trying to locate a specific NGO address, it is these SUVs parked on the road or inside their compounds that gives a clue where they are. Like Pachuari, these alarmist NGOs have declared flying the most evil carbon crime. But like Pachauri, all these leaders of NGOs are all hi-flyers. Their flying miles are even the envy of the mid-management of the corporate sector.
The bottom line is that these jokers do not think time is running out as their hysteria seems to suggest
Permalink
Thank you for saying it loud and clear.
I'm so grateful because outspoken honor is so damn rare.
Permalink
Ever notice that Pachuari bears a marked resemblance to SATAN????....A coincident? I think not.
Permalink
"His degree and training is in railroad engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads from point A to point B."
It makes perfect sense that he heads IPCC, as his job is to railroad us.
Permalink
CLIMATE EXAGGERATION -101 /// PRODUCING A GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS
MANUFACTURING THE HOCKEY STICK HANDLE:
Michael Mann et al. straightened the HANDLE on the iconic hockey stick graph so as misrepresent the last 500 year climate history as stable, with no stressfull changes, by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. This deception has been known for some time, see:
NATURE, NOT HUMAN ACTIVITY, RULES THE CLIMATE at:
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf
-----------------------
MANUFACTURING THE HOCKEY STICK BLADE:
A recent report deals with how the temperature increase of the last few decades, that makes the BLADE on the hockey stick graph, was made to look as if it was an unprecedented and catastrophic departure from a history of climate stability, see:
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION? at:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surfac...
Peter Salonius
Permalink
Excellent article. One thing that surprises me is the minimal anger I see expressed by environmentalists and scientists. If I were an environmentalist and by employing incomplete, inaccurate, or false science a group of people damaged the credibility of legitimate environmental concerns, I would be irate. Similarly, when nature proves the AGW premise false, the image of science in the minds of the general populace will suffer. All scientists who didn't receive money from the AGW alarmism (and even some who did) should be up in arms. If a real "scientific issue" threatens mankind, who's going to believe the "wolf, wolf" cries?
Permalink
Ah, the screams of the AGW faithful. And yes, it is merely a religion.
There are FAR more real scientists who doubt AGW than those who form the so-called consensus. Myself included. Geology Phd. No, I don't work for "big oil" -- I'm just an academic. But I've been tasked with teaching a course on AGW by my university.
When I first began researching the subject, I was actually inclined to believe in AGW. But the more I studied (and yes, I've very much looked at both sides, including the very unscientific realclimate.org) the more I realized something was amiss. Even before climategate, it was obvious the main players were trying to hide something.
Why did you AGW True Believers never cry foul when so many articles in your favor used obviously biased sources? The fact that the author of this article talked to sceptics is no surprise -- you believers have shown quite clearly that you will lie and spin and abuse dissenters from your faith.
The SCIENCE does not support you. It never has. But now the sceptics get their day in the sun, because they are debunking your falsehoods. You don't have to like it, but you're not going to stop it, because TRUTH will out.
Permalink
Those of us who make a living in science are not surprised. It has been obvious for a long time that the climate change claims being associated with man's activities did not make sense. It became a political issue that we ignored because we knew the truth would eventually emerge.
Permalink
I have been following this issue for several years and have always maintained that there was nothing yet to convince me that global warming was either real and if so caused by man. Disregard for volcanic activity, sun activity, and other geological events by the "scientific" community convinced me that they were wrong. With all the miscreant activity by IPCC, CRU, and other non scientific people including Al Gore, I was sure they would all be shown to be frauds. It is heartening that these new revelations came just in time to really save our planet and our way of life.
Permalink
Whether called global warming or climate change, this is all about the criminal activities of the environmental activists and the U.N. The U.N. is itself a corrupt criminal activity. The U.N. is a product of the progressives that always know better. These are some of the same thieves that were made wealthy with the "oil for food" scam. Be certain, that the U.N. & U.S. bureaucracies are both involved in these criminal activities related to climate change, just as they were in the oil for food program. The E.P.A. as well as the U.N. bureaucracy profit from these frauds. These frauds are not saving the world, but rather they are destroying the wealth of nations while criminal thugs like Gore profit. The progressive 'do gooders' are the real danger to world prosperity.
Permalink
Excellent, truth for a change! Global Warming is the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on mankind. Anyone who still believes it is a complete moron. One volcano erupting produces more pollution than mankind could ever hope to produce and yet nature cleans itself with winds, ocean currents, weather, and precipitation. Only fools believe that giving politicians and scientists millions will change climate!
Sure, give me a million and I'll lasso the sun, create some water vapor, and change the tides. Liberal radical environmentalism is the new religious cult:,drinking the koolaid, gullible believing anything, reciting the propaganda, and bullying anyone with common sense enough to think for themselves.
Permalink
Alas, there is no convincing the members of the Church of Climatology that they just might be in error... they simply have too much time and money invested in the AGW nonsense to consider any alternatives.
Permalink
There is a 2000 year climate record laying on its side exposed in California. Its a Sequoia Tree. It has been cut in half and according to the Park Service, when the tree was four inches in diameter Chirist was born. Why is none of these IPPC minions pointing to this? Could it be because it is an actually record, not some contrived model that make liars out of them?
Permalink
You do not need a "degree" in engineering to be a railroad engineer. A railroad engineer is nothing more than a glorified bus driver that hold the deadman's switch (years ago, as now it is computerized.) The hardest thing he has to do now is blow the whistle before each crossing. You could easily teach a dog to do it.
Permalink
About time it all fell over!
Labelling thinking people who weren't conned as as bad as Holocaust deniers!
indeed..the hate and threats to any who dared say, we question you, show us proof..
Al Gore also needs investigation along with Pachauri and the Mann Jones et al that for so long have Knowingly! and with intent to defraud for Their Profit abused the worlds peoples with fear and terror.
Children have been brainwashed and scared, for NO valid reason. that alone is disgusting. It will take years to redress the wrongs in education alone.
Now we have to get the idiot politicians who refuse to see -and admit- they were fooled to stop! the completely farcical schemes to "save us " from??? nothing but normal natural changes in our planet.
Australias KRudd ranks high among the devout and deceived, and Ms WRong and a lot of others who call themselves scientists who have been pushing the agenda heavily, need to apologise and retract. We have 30,000farmers unable to farm due to KYOTO also another huge waste of lives money and time! even our Ntional Radio has been corrupted. truly a sad thing for the country I live in, and the world.
Science has been set back in a huge way. recovery will be a very long process.
Permalink
@Sarah, I take it from your compliment that you've seen that I have documented (hyperlinks and all) my assertion that most of this article comes straight from right wing American think tanks with close ties to the oil industry. You've made quite a claim yourself--have you anything to back it up?
@ all, Let me be clear: I am not saying that good journalists must be neutral. Only that they be honest, rigorous and intelligent. That this piece fails on all counts should be obvious to anyone on either side of this question who has actually taken the time to read it. It does a disservice to climate change conspiracy theories by being so poorly written and researched. Here's some free advice to the editors and the author.
First, it is fine to interview right wing think tank employees and well known climate skeptics. But if you ONLY interview the equivalent of movement activists, you are going to have to resign yourself to sacrificing a little something called credibility!
You see when I read the article's criticism of Dr.Pachauri's graph, I had to admit I'm not a competent judge of the mathematics. The data looks pretty grim to me, regardless of how you draw your trend lines, but I could be wrong. What I do know is that right wing activists (including your own Lord Monckton) have made insupportable claims about climate data many times before. And I'm not just asserting it--here are two sources:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/tech/main5423035.shtml
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-delibera...
So my advice is, next time get a respectable, neutral mathematician--or several-- to evaluate your claims. That's what the Associated Press did in the first link I gave above, and their results are interesting. Otherwise, you will find yourself preaching only to the converted, as they say.
Also, many of the arguments in this piece are fundamentally flawed, or so underdeveloped that they don't actually say anything. Take your bit about polar bears. You say their population is growing. In fact, a quick reading of available sources finds that this may--or may not--be true. Talk to anyone who tries to measure tiger populations in our own parks and you know it is not easy to do. But if the polar bear population is growing, one would expect a serious piece to have more to say about it than the equivalent of, "Ha, ha, we told you so!" One would expect any serious article to address questions like... why? Is it because humans are doing less hunting? Is it because polar bear habitat is growing? Is it because bears are adapting, as animals sometimes do? In fact, there is respectable research (linked below) that suggests more polar bears are being seen by humans because they are being forced to move into human-occupied territory due to a reduction in their own natural habitat. (If you haven't figured it out, this supports the idea that global warming is happening, even if it says the results are not always predictable.)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107151657.htm
However, in case you are tempted to say, "don't worry, the animals will be fine," you'd be best advised to do a reconsider. It is pretty clear to rational people that animal and plant populations all over the world are going extinct--and not just due to climate change but also other factors like deforestation. Or are these extinctions also a massive conspiracy?
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2008/10/21/Study-World-is-undergoing-mas...
Those of us who are worried about climate change are, by the way, not tolerant of sloppy or dishonest science either! Check out this link if you doubt this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-...
You can have and express your views. But if you want those expressions to qualify as something more than dogma--if you want it to qualify as journalism, for example--you've got to do better than this.
Permalink
...ahhhh, all the ''chicken lickens'' [the sky is falling, the sky is falling.!] just wont face it the truth.
The climate con, and it can only ever be called this because there was never an open honest debate on the subject, was always going to come under fire once the true adgenda was revealed....tax.
The central deserts of Aust have dry river beds from climate conditions as old as time...go figure!
The ''Chicken Lickins'' of the world are happy to change the world for a few hundred years of iffy data.
Permalink
For a hobby I did an investigation to determine whether or not your carbon footprint, i.e. carbon dioxide (CO2), is really to blame for global warming, as claimed by the UN, IPCC and many media networks. I guess I felt a bit guilty after watching "An inconvenient truth" by Al Gore, so I had to make sure for myself about the science of it all. I determined that, as a chemist, I could not find any convincing evidence from tests proving to me that CO2 is indeed a major cause for global warming. As my investigations continued, I have now come to a point where I doubt that global warming is at all possible.... Namely, common sense tells me that as the sun heats the water of the oceans and the temperatures rise, there must be some sort of a mechanism that switches the water-cooling system of earth on, if it gets too hot. Follow my thinking on these easy steps:
1) the higher the temp. of the oceans, the more water vapor rises to the atmosphere,
2) the more water vapor rises from the oceans, the more difference in air pressure, the more wind starts blowing
3) the more wind & warmth, the more evaporation of water (evaporation increasing by many times due to the wind factor),
4) the more evaporation of water the more humidity in the air (atmosphere)
5) the higher the humidity in the air the more clouds can be formed
6) Svensmark's theory: the more galactic cosmic rays (GCR), the more clouds are formed (if the humidity is available)
7) the more clouds appear, the more rain and snow and cooler weather,
8) the more clouds and overcast conditions, the more radiation from the sun is deflected from the earth,
9) The more radiation is deflected from earth, the cooler it gets.
10) This cooling puts a brake on the amount water vapor being produced. So now it is back to 1) and wait for heat to start same cycle again...
Now when I first considered this, I stood in amazement again. I remember thinking of the words in Isaiah 40:12-26.
I have been in many factories that have big (water) cooling plants, but I realised that earth itsself is a water cooling plant on a scale that you just cannot imagine. I also thought that my idea of seeing earth as a giant (water) cooling plant with a built-in thermostat must be pretty original....
But it was only soon after that I stumbled on a paper from someone who had already been there, done that .... well, God bless him for that!
i.e. to prove a point, you always do need at least two witnesses!
Look here (if you have the time):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
But note my step 6. The Svensmark theory holds that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) initiate cloud formation. I have not seen this, but apparently this has been proven in laboratory conditions. So the only real variability in global temperature could be caused by the amount of GCR reaching earth. In turn, this depends on the activity of the sun, i.e. the extent of the solar magnetic field exerted by the sun on the planetary system. We are now coming out of a period where this field was bigger and more GCR was bent away from earth (this is what we, skeptics, say really caused "global warming", mostly).
But apparently now the solar geomagnetic field is heading for an all time low.
Look here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/07/suns-magnetic-index-reaches-unprec...
Note that in the first graph, if you look at the smoothed monthly values, there was a tipping point in 2003 (light blue line). I cannot ignore the significance of this.
I noted similar tipping points elsewhere round about that same time, e.g an increase in earth's albedo as measured on the moon. So from 2003 the solar magnetic field has been going down. To me it seems for sure that we are now heading for a period of more cloudiness and hence a period of global cooling. If you look at the 3rd graph, it is likely that there wil be no sun spots visible by 2015. This is confirmed by the paper on global cooling by Easterbrook:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-pote...
In the 2nd graph of his presentation, Easterbrook projects global cooling into the future. These are the three lines that follow from the last warm period. If the cooling follows the top line we don't have much to worry about and the weather will be similar to what we had in the previous (warm) period. However, indications are already that we have started following the trend of the 2nd line, i.e. cooling based on the 1880-1915 cooling. In that case it will be the coldest from 2015 to 2020 and the climate will be comparable to what it was in the fifties and sixties. I survived that time, so I guess we all will be fine, if this is the right trendline.
Note that with the third line, the projection stops somewhere after 2020. So if things go that way, we don't know where it will end. Unfortunately, earth does not have a heater with a thermostat that switches on if it gets too cold. Too much ice and snow causes more sunlight to be reflected from earth. Hence, the trap is set. This is known as the ice age trap. This is why the natural state of earth is that of being covered with snow and ice.(again, refer to previous e-mails, see below).
However, man is resourceful and may find ways around this problem if we do start falling into a little ice age again. As long as we are not ignorant and listen to the so-called climate scientists who really have other agenda's. A green agenda is still useless if it has the wrong items on the agenda... Obviously: As Easterbrook notes, global cooling is much more disastrous for humans than global warming.
Permalink
Go through all the IPCC reports to find empirical evidence of CO2 as the causation of global warming, you will come up a cropper.
The closest they got was using a 60% confidence level model but were 90% (Highly Likely) confident of that CO2 was positively co-related with temperature rise. Which statistical textbook does the IPCC follow? Can anyone tell me? Why is it from 1999, this correlation is actually negative 0.12???
Permalink
@ Jairam Ramesh : Go through all the IPCC reports to find empirical evidence of CO2 as the causation of global warming, you will come up a cropper.
The closest they got was using a 60% confidence level model but were 90% (Highly Likely) confident of that CO2 was positively co-related with temperature rise. Which statistical textbook does the IPCC follow? Can anyone tell me? Why is it from 1999, this correlation is actually negative 0.12??? : @ Jairam Ramesh
I will tell you. Simple: If any statistical text book does not permit these kind of statistical manipulation, IPCC will produce their own, Jairam.
Permalink
The whole con was trying to get people to support policies that were meant to harm them. Permit carbon trading and then for everything one does, you need to take a carbon permit or claim carbon credit. It will become a substitute for money. Claiming carbon credit will not be easy. Suppose to create a carbon sink we grow a garden and claim carbon credits, we will be instead be surprised that instead they will enforce carbon penalties on us based on arguments that plants also give net CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methane etc
Permalink
One has to wonder at the STAGGERING STUPIDITY of those who bought into the anthropomorphic global climate change nonsense...
Do the people who believe in this FRAUD also believe the planet is the center of the universe too?
Permalink
It took the Mainstream Media the Himalayan Glacier expose as fraud to open their floodgates. I am sure some of them must be feeling sheepish of their blind support to the AGW. But it is never too late. This article is definitely the most venomous tirade against AGW. Congrats. And keep it up
Permalink
@ Vivek.
Yes. It is refreshing the Indian media has woken up to the fraud, late, but nevertheless welcome all the same. Industrialized countries were historically culpable for CO2 emissions. China joined their ranks of countries with the greatest emissions. Still in these countries, climate skeptics are majority. In India, ranked 120th in terms per capita emissions, support to AGW is one of the highest in the world. It is articles like these that set this distortion straight.
Well written article. Thank you profusely.
Permalink
Open is a great magazine and this article just out of the world. Can we have a similar piece on NGO culpability on the whole scam with the spotlight on Greenpeace and WWF. Now with AGW has been revealed a scam, this makes most of our environmental textbooks, junk science. NGOs who have school awareness programs on "Climate Change" are guilty of child abuse, both in terms of scaring children and disseminating junk science
Permalink
Breaking News: They didn't just destroyed original temperature data in East Anglia CRU. Now in New Zealand, they admitted the same.
Now why would these AGW scientists refuse to part with data and failing which destroy them? Its a scam as this article brilliantly exposed
Permalink
@Nathan: Open is a great magazine and this article just out of the world. Can we have a similar piece on NGO culpability on the whole scam with the spotlight on Greenpeace and WWF. Now with AGW has been revealed a scam, this makes most of our environmental textbooks, junk science. NGOs who have school awareness programs on "Climate Change" are guilty of child abuse, both in terms of scaring children and disseminating junk science
I think this is a great idea.
Permalink
@Shoba & @ Nathan
Sure, Greenpeace and WWF were central in the scandal. But do not forget the Oxfams, Christian Aid, Save the Children, Aawas Foundation - all supporting the evil carbon trading that has caused diversion of agriculture land to be used as carbon sinks or bio-fuels - the recent for global food inflation; food riots and starvation.
Permalink
@AshokNair: Its precisely because this scam caused diversion of agriculture land to be used as carbon sinks or bio-fuels - the reason for global food inflation; food riots and starvation, that GM food becomes important. The scam argument is that since - agriculture productivity has declined (in reality it is decrease in cultivated land) , GM should fill the breech in feeding the world.
The whole scam is about profits. It is sad that NGOs are in the middle of this too
Permalink
Isn't it interesting that so many AGW apologists say this was all a simple "mistake"; that "thousands" of scientists support AGW; that there are plenty of other data sources supporting AGW.
Hmm. I don't see any "mistakes" in the premeditated malfeasance at East Anglia and the deliberate inclusion of nonscientific, non-peer reviewed sources in IPCC reports.
I'd also like to see a list of how many of these "thousands" of scientists depend for their livelihoods on AGW being true.
And those other data sources? Why do they keep "disappearing" -- or being placed under lock and key? The New Zealand fraud (wait, that's just a "mistake" too, no?") is only another "startling" clue that something is amiss. Might I point out that the nasa people have been fight American FOI requests for years? I wonder why?
No, actually I don't wonder.
Permalink
The only two reasons I can think of that all these people are lying thru their teeth about global warming is that 1. they stand to make bucket loads of money or 2. they just enjoy lying. Either way, not a good thing.
Permalink
The author's claim that big businesses stand to gain in some way from 'Climategate' frankly doesn't make any sense. The cap-and-trade system exists to provide some kind of buffer for companies with high marginal costs of abatement to barter credits with other companies who have lower marginal costs.
Clearly, all these businesses would prefer not having to abate at all, because then they only have to concern themselves with their own marginal costs of production. That's the reason why so many businesses are against ANY kind of pollution reduction program - be it an emissions fee or a permit scheme.
To suggest that big businesses tend somehow to benefit from Climategate is therefore, well, ridiculously bad journalism.
Permalink
TD Lysenko was the communist GW hoax of the late 40's - 50's. Millions of Russian starved to death. Lysenko maid millions because he was a favorite of Stalin and
Kruschev .
Lysenko's system of farming was based on Lamarckism that opposed the West use of Mendelian genetics. The misuse of science to benefit oneself for monetary gain is the basis of global warming. Al Gore has benefitted greatly by this misuse.
Obama's goons are taking over industries and bankrupting this nation to gain power for the benefit of his corrupt progressives.
This is not funny anymore and is getting very scary.... The bums must be voted out.
Permalink
Looking at the first article below, there is an expectation that warming activists will plow ahead, regardless of the demonstrated falsity of their climate-related projects.
The other references below illustrate how researchers around the world have built on top of -- and interwoven their findings with -- falsified IPCC data. The emerging challenge to scientists is ethical: will scientists invest in rewriting the mountain of research that references fraudulent IPCC data?
Probably the only practical thing to do is for ethically serious scientists to create an objective list of infected articles and leave it to these articles' authors to rewrite them; in this way, inadvertently victimized authors as well as chastened willing dupes could get their names off the list.
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/02/03/global_warming...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091214173646.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090220185537.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070720163907.htm
Permalink
The whole science of global warming is a farce. I am a chem Engineer, many reactions and effects that can be produced in a lab can not or are extremely difficult to produce in the real world. Greenhouse effect is because certain gases are transparent to visible light and absorb infrared. Visible light striking the ground is absorbed and warms the soil. The warmer soil radiates more infrared and that is what the greenhouse effect is (in greenhouses its the glass) The problem with this theory is 75% earth is water. The effect on the oceans is different. Much visible light is reflected, the light that is absorbed warms the water which increases the water vapor which creates clouds which block the light. In actual practice the entire dynamics are extremely complex and in reality the oceans act as huge heat and carbon (plankton) sinks. The bottom line is that nobody except Al Gore (the inventor of the internet) knows what the long term effects of an increase/decrease in CO2 would be. The earth has had ice ages and warming periods long before man even existed. To spend trillions and lower our standard of living so a few tree hughers can feel good is absurd.
Permalink
Okay, folks, VERDICT TIME
OPEN kicks ass !!
Permalink
@Twin-Cup Globe Warmer "OPEN kicks ass !!"
They did. Did well too. But need to followup with more articles. The AGW crowd is too invested in this fraud. They maybe lying low at this moment. You can count on them to re-group and strike back with a vengeance.
So Open, do the right thing. Do the Mercy kill in the followup
Permalink
The author makes a great rant about how global warming is a hoax especially regarding the anthropogenic variety.
But whom does he quote in this article? The three people he mainly quotes are
a) Benny Peiser who has a background in studied political science, English studies and sports science,
b) Christopher Monckton who is a business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, puzzle inventor and hereditary peer.
c) Patrick Michaels is the one person who has a background in Climatology but he has been retired for some time now and is employed by the Cato Institute, which believes in unfettered free market capitalism and has always been against even the earlier frmawork agreemnets such as Kyoto Protocol since it would have no detectable effect on average temperature within any reasonable policy time frame (i.e., 50 years or so), even with full compliance. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-45.pdf)
Permalink
Interesting article. But I don't agree with the author's point that because Dr. Pachauri studied railway engineering he can't talk about the climate. This is very regressive thinking.
People study different subjects in college and end of doing many other things in life. Its about the rigour, hard work and training acquired while working in a particular field and not what degree they have that matters. Also, a college degree (any good one) prepares you to think properly and gives you the tools necessary to enter other fields. Its not necessary that Dr. Pachauri should have studied climatology to be able to lead IPCC.
Permalink
Siddarth writes: "But I don't agree with the author's point that because Dr. Pachauri studied railway engineering he can't talk about the climate. This is very regressive thinking."
Well then, is it "regressive thinking" to say that I shouldn't attempt to present myself as an authority in the field of neurosurgery simply because I've never spent so much as a single day in med school?
I think that people can be forgiven for expecting that the head of a UN bureaucracy that seeks to force a reallocation of global resources amounting to trillions of dollars based on the premise of climate change might actually have a substantive background in that subject.
Permalink
Climate Change Policy of Christian Aid: Nothing inherently Christian about it!
The theory of Global Warming has run its course. NGOs are now left high and dry, having to painfully re-examine their own roles in this scam. Climate Change will certainly go down as one of the darkest chapters of NGO history, when they went amok, exchanging their ideals for thirty pieces of silver. Where have they gone wrong?
Visit our new bog site: http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com to read a critique of Christian Aid's Climate Change Policy.
Permalink
Thanks for an excellent article, I believe these Alarmists have so much invested in their lies that they will simply say repeatedly "but the science is real." It’s all they have left to do.
It's not all that difficult to put the data up on the table and analyze it together is it?
Meanwhile Penn State University investigates itself! (Michael Mann) I think I would recuse myself in attempt to save my good name versus take part in an internal investigation like theirs. And now East Anglia will do the same?
I think the Internal Revenue Service should take note, anyone accused of tax fraud should investigate themselves and let the IRS know whether they found themselves guilty or not right?
Let us pray that Citizens of the world work together to make sure these men do not participate in Science in the future, not on our behalf!
Thank God for India and Her strong affection for education, she has plenty of good newspapers, and now a good magazine the world will want to read.
George in Seattle
Permalink
Sir
I am happy to see that free media still exists in India. Considering that climate change is a global conspiracy. I must congratulate the author on his intimate knowledge as well as in death research. I read all the comments and am taken aback that those who question the premise do not question the fact that the world has been as hot before blowing cold again. I do hope that people realise that there is a discipline called physics which has consistently talked about sun spot activity why overlook rigor, as the rigorous article points out for hysteria. Pauchuri deserves the shame of the year award.
Permalink
I just wanted to thank you for the best article on this subject that I've read.
Keep up the good work!
With sincere respect,
RJ King
Oregon, USA
Permalink
Its refreshing to see the Indian Media take the lead on this, the BBC and US counterparts had for the longest time avoided looking at the counter argument, so much so they have descended into advocacy journalism.
Skeptics of AGW simply ask for transparency, open the data for unbiased revision, follow the scientific method, stop muddying the issue.
Great start OPEN, keep it up.
Permalink
Thank you Ninand. Well written and easy to understand. I am sure you are quite familiar with Joan Nova and her blog
Permalink
Awesome. How about an encore?
Permalink
The first and the second reaction is that you guys are pulling a fast one! Amazing, how these pseudo-scientists kept pulling wool over our eyes, kept repeating a lie till it seemed like the truth! Heck, it still seems like the truth. It is almost like living in a 'Matrix' a.k.a. Matrix-the movie. Neo finds himself at odds with the world at large and OPEN has done a Neo here. The news refuses to sink in, keeps floating on the surface of the consciousness like a bloated carcass in a river...An real eye opener from your pen. You guys have me almost cringing in fear, wondering which myth you'll best next and turn the world as I know it, upside down!
Permalink
As a scientist, I assert that the most damning aspect of Climategate is the fact that Phil Jones cannot (or will not) let others see his data.
The basis of science is open review; if a scientist's data is irrefutable regarding AGW, then we have a problem with the climate.
It doesn't matter who the spokespersons are; it doesn't matter how the emails were exposed, it doesn't matter if Pachuri is a circus clown, etc. etc.
All that matters is whether the data can be examined by critics and whether they come to the same conclusion. If they find the data doesn't withstand scrutiny, the theory of AGW is dead. If they find that the data is interpreted correctly, the theory has more validity.
The problem in this case is that there is no raw or base data to begin with. It is supposedly "lost" as Phil Jones says. (I suspect it's probably sitting in somebody's basement or garage somewhere but, because of inept management, could actually be gone, which is something no scientist would ever do.)
A scientist without his data is no scientist at all. He's a soothsayer. No more, no less.
Permalink
Very well written post filled with excellent information. I've read the other comments. I agree the post contains only one point of view. Yours. What's wrong witth that? When we read a post on the other side of the issue, we're reading that person's point of view. Thanks for sharing this valuable information.
http://bit.ly/aVVGdh
Permalink
Still say Bangladesh has nothing to worry about vis a vis rising sea levels? Or is this disappearing island just another conspiracy?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_sc/as_india_disappearing_island
Permalink
Ninad D. Sheth writes: "The world awaits answers, based not on writings of sundry freelance journalists and non-experts, but on actual verifiable data on whether the globe is warming at all, and if so by how much."
Perhaps the UN could start by responding to our open letter to the UN Secretary General, The Copenhagen Climate Challenge, asking for that very thing - neither he, nor his staff have responded in any way despite the fact that the submission was made via their Web site and by registered surface mail:
See http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/ .
Tom Harris
International Climate Science Coalition
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
Permalink
This hoax is of a piece with the H1N1 and in some ways, the HIV/Aids haoxes. It is clear now that the former was perpetrated on the world to help some drug manufacturers make impossible profits in a short time. Evidence: lots of drugs which were bought by countries in a panic have expired and have to be destroyed. The same story played out in HIV/Aids when poor people were made to pay high costs for drugs which could have been manufactured at much lower costs.
Sadly, it is unlikely that this will change. That is why articles like these are important.
When I read The Prize by Irving Wallace (which exposed the sordid world of Nobel Prizes) many years ago, I never believed it fully. Now, I do.
Permalink
Thanks for sharing
Permalink
Nice article Sheth. Now you've given me good reason to sit on my hands and do nothing but enjoy the warm weather. Why should I worry and do anything but save my money for retirement when it'll be my kids and grandkids who pay the price for my stupidity. Looking forward to your next article.
Permalink
interesting views on climate change. However it should have counter views within the article. the writer seems to have one sided views.
Permalink
Absolute, total, pile of crap. The evidence for global warming is OVERWHELMING. OPEN magazine yet again makes a name for itself as a publisher of OPINION based on nothing more substantial than.... OPINION. The fewer the facts, the more forcefully the opinion is stated, seems to be the general editorial policy. Ninand Seth - get your head out of the sand. It's an inconvenient truth alright....
Permalink
the primary business of this magazine's owner is carbon black, mining, natural resources, the works - industries responsible for climate change. doesn't take a genius to figure out why OPEN magazine would side with the anti-climate change propaganda lobby.
Permalink
Good article. submit this to WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/submit-story/
Permalink
"industries responsible for climate change"
Don't you mean industries responsible for human health and prosperity? Take a look at the third world and what happens when you don't have industries. Now take a look at history and what happens when the climate is cold as compared to warm.
Does anyone seriously think we can feed 7+ billion people without vast amounts of low cost energy? Energy rationing to prevent CO2 can only be achieved on the backs of billions of human deaths. Which in the end is what this is all about - limiting the number of people through energy rationing and mass starvation.
Post new comment