Dr Rajendra Pachauri's astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

Full article here

Posted via email from Garth's posterous

IPCC "is a four-legged stool that is fast losing its legs"

From the National Post:

T

he official United Nation’s global warming agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a four-legged stool  that is fast losing its legs.  To carry the message of man-made global warming theory to the world, the IPCC has depended on 1) computer models, 2) data collection,  3) long-range temperature forecasting and 4) communication.  None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground.

Over the past month, one of the IPCC’s top climate scientists, Mojib Latif, attempted to explain that even if global temperatures were to cool over the next 10 to 20 years, that would not mean that man-made global warming is no longer catastrophic. It was a tough case to make, and it is not clear Mr. Latif succeeded. In a presentation to a world climate conference in early September, Mr. Latif rambled somewhat and veered off into inscrutable language that is now embedded in a million blog posts attempting to prove one thing or another.

A sample: “It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two, you know, when the temperature cools, all right, relative to the present level...And then, you know, I know what’s going to happen. You know, I will get, you know, millions of phone calls, you know —‘What’s going on?’ ‘So is global warming disappearing, you know?’ ‘Have you lied on us, you know?’ So, and, therefore, this is the reason why we need to address this decadal prediction issue.”

Read the rest here.

Posted via email from Garth's posterous

Global temperature falls again in June

Saturday, July 11, 2009 at 07:18am

Both the UAH and RSS statellite data show the globe cooled in June. Lucia now plots the temperature trend since 2001, and contrasts it with the trend you’d expect from the IPCC’s gloomy warning of a temperature rise of 2 degrees by the end of the century (brown line).

 

Meanwhile, a reporter goes to a far more authoritative source on global warming than a lousy satellite:

 

 

UPDATE

Yet Prince Charles says we’re just eight years to sayonara:

Delivering the annual Richard Dimbleby lecture, Charles said that without “coherent financial incentives and disincentives” we have just 96 months to avert “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.”

If he flew less, we might have one year more.

 

Andrew Bolt

 

Eight years, five years, ten years etc etc. People have been saying we've only got this much time left for at least the past 30 years.

 

Why anyone would be stupid enough to pay any attention at all to these numbers, that are clearly just pulled out of thin air, is beyond me.

 

Posted via email from Garth's posterous

Reasons not to trust the IPCC

Just got my copy of Ian Plimer's new book, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming:The Missing Science. Going to be a good read I reckon. It must be sticking in the alarmists craw that 10,000 copies sold here in Australia in just two days and it had to be reprinted. Here's a snippet: In the 1996 report on the impact of global warming on health, one contributing author was an expert on the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets. That author had also written on the health effects of mobile phones. Other authors were environmental activists, one of whom had written on the health effects of mercury poisoning from land mines. If a land mine explodes, the last thing one thinks about is the health effects of mercury poisoning. In the 2007 report, the health effects of global warming were expertly dealt with by two lead authors, one of whom was a hygienist and another a specialist in coprolites (fossil faeces). Those who drove the publication of the chapters on the health effects of global warming had no formal expertise in the chapters' subject material, especially tropical diseases. In fact, the expert opinions of tropical disease scientists were ignored by the other lead authors with no experience in the field. I know that when a biography check was done on a number of the supposed "expert" reviewers listed for the Fourth Assessment Report (from an admittedly less technical part of the report), a number turned out to be administrative assistants, website designers, database administrators, lawyers and the like.

Posted via email from Garth's posterous