Monday, January 25, 2010

IPCC: corrupt to its core

The IPCC is a political institution—which means that it is utterly corrupt. Worse, it is part of the UN, a body which is basically only good for one thing—pimping children.

As such, the IPCC is a body that has been set up by an institution that, by its inaction, encourages the sexual exploitation of children by its officers, is paid for by governments (with taxpayers' money and without those taxpayers' consent) in order to lobby those same governments.

It would be institutionally corrupt, even without what we know of its operatives' methods.

However, the row escalating over "Glaciergate" (dear god, why?) is threatening to unseat the evil Pachauri and seriously destabilise the IPCC. The latter is, of course, a good thing: the former is not—for, with the hopelessly compromised Pachauri at the helm, the IPCC's destruction would be ever more ensured.

Sweeping statements? Yes, sure. Because these people are deceiving us, and expecting us to pay for their fortunes. You think the bankers are bad? They've got nothing on this lot.

I'm sorry, we've missed a bit. Let me expand...

As regular readers will recall, the IPCC was recently caught out in a total fabrication surrounding the Himalayan glaciers. Essentially, the ARA4 had reported—as scientific fact—the idea that the Himalayan glaciers would entirely disappear by 2035.

This information came from a New Scientist article that had merely reported a "speculative" view from an scientist in a conversation. This NS article was the only evidence for such an assertion—a forecast that was rejected by all of the scientist's peers.

As we now know—for NS was being very coy—that scientist was a man named "Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi."

After this story broke, multi-millionaire businessman and chair of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, maintained that an Indian scientific study proving the falsity of Hasnain's claims was "voodoo science".

The IPCC has tried to defend itself, by claiming that the man in charge of the glaciers section of the ARA4, Professor Murari Lal, admits that he knows little about glaciers and that the whole incident was a mistake and an oversight—presumably of the sort that Catholic priests or UN inspectors make when they continuously protect and hide child molesters.

Of course, all of this was slightly undermined when EUReferendum revealed that Pachauri's TERI Institute actually employs Syed Hasnain—and has done for some years.
At the time of the announcement and for nearly two years, Dr Hasnain – the originator of the 2035 claim – had been working for Dr Pachauri and was to lead the TERI glaciology unit implementing the EU-funded research.

TERI had already been awarded a major part of a $500,000 grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, also to research the effects of melting glaciers, although this was not to be formally announced until 15 January this year.

As with the EU project, reference was made to Dr Hasnain's claim, with the grant award citation reading: "One authoritative study reported that most of the glaciers in the region “will vanish within forty years as a result of global warming…resulting in widespread water shortages." Again, as with the EU project, Dr Hasnain was to lead the research programme.

The issue of Pachauri using IPPC claims as a means of attracting funding to investigate melting glaciers was first raised by this blog on 17 December, his financial interest largely explaining his hostile reaction to criticism of Dr Hasnain's claim retailed by his own report.

Since the extent of the funding has become clearer, and the link with Hasnain have fully emerged, the response from both Pachauri and Hasnain has been denial and contradiction.

Now, with two heavyweight newspapers pitching in, the pair may find it harder to sustain their denials of what is very clearly documented evidence of conflict of interest and, on Dr Pachauri's part, a misuse of public office. His refusal to resign looks thinner by the minute.

Indeed. To your humble Devil, it seems vanishingly unlikely that—having employed Hasnain for some years—Pachauri was unaware that Hasnain's claim about the glaciers was totally "speculative". Or, as I like to put it, a lie.

But it gets worse—you'll remember Murai Lal, whose ignorance apparently allowed Hasnain's comment to be reported in the IPCC ARA4? Yep, he's now come out with a statement which is analysed by Richard North...
One can hardly admit surprise at the report in the Mail on Sunday which has the scientist "behind the bogus claim" on melting Himalayan admitted that the offending section "was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders."

This is from Dr Murari Lal, the lead author of 4AR's chapter on Asia. He also said he was well aware the statement did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. "It related to several countries in this region and their water sources," he says. Thus: "We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action ... It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in."

Lal, in making this admission confirms that which we have known, and asserted, for a long time – that the IPCC is not a scientific body. It is political institution, dedicated to delivering a highly political message in single-minded pursuit of its global warming agenda.

What we learn, therefore, ties in perfectly with the report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which sets out in detail the attempts to modify the Himalayas section, and the blank refusal of Lal to make any changes.

As such, the 2035 claim can hardly be called a mistake – or even representing of failure of the IPCC processes. Lal did what he was supposed to do, and then defended his work to the hilt, as indeed did Pachauri until forced to concede the "error".

And this is the crucial thing—the claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 was not a mistake. It was an entirely deliberate fabrication by an employee of Pachauri, bolstered by Pachauri and his associates, and sponsored by the baby-fuckers of the UN.

And why?

Well, it would hardly do for me to replicate Richard North's series of posts in their entirety—indeed, it would take many hours to do so—but one of the key drivers is most certainly money. And the commercial imperative is also being embraced by Western companies.
In fact, there is little to go on, a yet, but already it is clear that the driver behind this particular scam is as much financial as it is political. And behind that is the lucrative re-insurance industry which sees in "climate change" several business opportunities.

One is the ability to dump its liabilities for what are defined as "climate related events", drawing instead on a newly-created global catastrophe insurance fund underwritten by the governments of the developed states. Another – already up and running – is the Global Index Insurance Facility (GIIF), a World Bank-backed scheme designed to allow developing countries to take out insurance against "the increased risk of climate-change related storms and extreme weather events."

The business agenda is scarcely concealed in the eagerness of Munich Re to talk up the effects of climate change and its heavy investment in research into insurance-related aspects of climate change.

Make no mistake, there is a lot of money to be made in the whole AGW market—and not only through the Carbon Credits market (worth £31 billion last year, and up to $2 trillion by 2020).

In the meantime, you and I are being stitched up by governments and multi-nationals in some kind of hideous, world-wide corporatist Armageddon.

It is in our interest to bring down this attempt at the comprehensive arse-fucking of ordinary people: we aren't going to fry but, if we are not very careful, we are going to be absolutely fucking screwed.


Dodgy Geezer said...

A bit off-topic, I know, but I recall the amazing Gordon Brown (it's amazing that he's still in power) telling people who disbelieved in the IPCC scare that they were 'flat-earthers' only a few weeks ago.

Normally, I cannot see the point of governments standing up and apologising for some historical issue. But I reckon that Gordon owes all the UK citizens an apology for insulting them when they were right and he was wrong all along.

Luckily, there is a process for calling for this - the No. 10 petition process. Would it be a clever idea to petition for such an apology...?

Prodicus said...

You're making me grumpy now. Do go on. I risk a coronary daily reading about this shit, but it has to be worth it. The whole world should be as angry with these global-control fuckers as I am right now.

I trust the Kitchen's cockroach-breeding programme goes well.

View from the Solent said...

Anoneumouse says it all

Barry Tebb said...

Martin Amis is a Nazi,his comment about the elderly "stinking out restaurants and shopping malls"is worthy only of Hitler and his accolytes justifying the mass killing of society's "worthless eaters",statements that led directly to the death camps.If this is the sum total of a life opf self-indulgent privilege then God help us all.If it is a stunt to push his new book it stinks.Barry Tebb and Brenda Williams(poets and campaigners)

John R said...

As the castle walls crumble around them the General began to wonder for how much longer the troops would continue to fight on.

Not long now!!

chris edwards said...

Hey, how about this idea to reduce all government deficits, stop funding the UN. Simple and neat, the yanks could sell the real estate to help as well. Mind you they could not organize a shake proof HQ in a quake zone!