Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.
A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.
Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.
How much clearer could it be? Global warming isn’t about saving the planet, it’s about redistributing the wealth. But the real question is who does it get redistributed to and who gets to do the redistribution?
The Global Warming Policy Foundation dug up an interview in Neue Zürcher Zeitung with German economist and IPCC official Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer.
As they said back at IPCC headquarters, “Ach, du Scheiße! Can’t Edenhofer keep his big mouth shut?”
"Ja wohl," Dr. Edenhofer said, "Each IPCC official is expected to get a stack of cash this big."
The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War … one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.
How much clearer could it be? Global warming isn’t about saving the planet, it’s about redistributing the wealth. But the real question is who does it get redistributed to and who gets to do the redistribution? Luckily, Edenhofer continued shooting off his big mouth:
If global emission rights are distributed … then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
So the way we understand this, the rich countries must give up their wealth, yet the poor countries are incapable of dealing with the influx of all that wealth.
Oh, life on planet Earth would be perfect if only there were some international organization that could be in charge of it all.
And if only there were a few munificent executives within that organization who were willing to take on that assignment for the honor of skimming a little off the top.
These are dark days for the global warming crowd. So dark, in fact, that one might assume they’ve already succeeded in turning all the the electricity and moved into a cave. Which, figuratively, they have.
The Amazon rain forest is a lot healthier than the IPCC report
These are dark days for the global warming crowd. So dark, in fact, that one might assume they’ve already succeeded in turning all the the electricity and moved into a cave. Which, figuratively, they have.
Christopher Booker exposes the false claims of yet another IPCC source:
Last week, after six months of evasions, obfuscation, denials and retractions, a story which has preoccupied this column on and off since January came to a startling conclusion. It turns out that one of the most widely publicised statements in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a claim on which tens of billions of dollars could hang – was not based on peer-reviewed science, as repeatedly claimed, but originated solely from anonymous propaganda published on the website of a small Brazilian environmental advocacy group …
Fire in the Amazon, it turns out, was not a “report” or a scientific paper but, as the WWF now acknowledges, a “text published by IPAM… on its website in 1999”. It was merely a brief, anonymous and unreferenced note on the exposure of the forest to fire risks, posted in February 1999 and taken down four years later. Here, at last, is the sole source for the statement later published by the IPCC.
Let’s review: The rain forests are ok. The glaciers aren’t melting. The polar bears aren’t dying. The sea levels aren’t rising.
In fact, the only thing that’s rising is public skepticism.
Times have changed and now the IPCC wants scientists to avoid the press as if they have some horrible global warming-caused disease.
Edward R. Carr is talking to the media about the fact that the IPCC doesn't want him talking to the media
Remember the good ol’ days when climate scientists were encouraged to spread the word about global warming?
You know, back before ClimateGate and news about the glaciers not melting and the coral not bleaching and the sea levels not rising and the rain forests not disappearing. Ahhh, those were the days.
But times have changed and now the IPCC wants scientists to avoid the press as if they have some horrible global warming-caused disease.
The New York Times has the story:
The 831 researchers who will contribute to the next round of assessments of climate science and policy options by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been sent a letter admonishing them to “keep a distance from the media” and send any press inquiries about the work of their author groups to supervisors.
On Friday, one recipient of the letter, Edward R. Carr, an associate professor of geography at the University of South Carolina who will work on the assessment of climate impacts and adaptation options, complained about the letter in a post on his blog under the heading “ Apparently we have learned nothing….”
He warned that the panel appears stuck in a “bunker mentality” that will do little to build its credibility after a trying year of attacks by foes of restrictions on greenhouse gases and skeptics of climate science. In an e-mail message alerting me to Carr’s post, Mickey Glantz, a University of Colorado specialist in climate impacts in poor regions who has been an author on previous panel reports, said he agreed with Carr, adding: “I think the I.P.C.C. is on the wrong path.”
Polar bears are also being encouraged to avoid the media, lest children find out they really aren’t dying out.
This is going to come as a terrible shock to Al Gore and his band of Gorebots, but that IPCC report – you know, the one that foretold all the horrible consequences of global warming – was mostly hot air.
The polar bears are going to be fine, but global warming scaremongers may face extinction.
This is going to come as a terrible shock to Al Gore and his band of Gorebots, but that IPCC report – you know, the one that foretold all the horrible consequences of global warming – was mostly hot air.
The Australian, one of the largest newspapers in the land down under, reports on chicanery within the IPCC:
THE UN body that advises governments on climate change failed to make clear how its landmark report on the impact of global warming often presented a worst-case scenario, an investigation has concluded.
A summary report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on regional impacts focused on the negative consequences of climate change and failed to make clear that there would also be some benefits of rising temperatures.
The report adopted a “one-sided” approach that risked being interpreted as an “alarmist view”.
For example, the IPCC had stated that 60 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef was projected to suffer regular bleaching by 2020 but had failed to make clear that this was the worst projected outcome and the impact might be far smaller.
The wording of a statement on between 3000 and 5000 more heat-related deaths a year in Australian cities had suggested that all of the projected increase would be the result of climate change, whereas most of it would be caused by the rising population and an increase in the number of elderly people.
The report, which underpinned the Copenhagen summit last December, wrongly suggested that climate change was the main reason communities faced severe water shortages and neglected to make clear that population growth was a much bigger factor.
Have at it, global warming lunatics. Remind us again how your cause is just and how you’re doing it for the children.
The Guardian UK has the story of Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, which got caught flat out lying about the fate of the world’s glaciers
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC and congenital liar
The make believe world of global warming doesn’t work like the rest of the world. Not at all.
In the real world, you get fired from your job if it’s discovered that all the reports you’ve written are nonsense. But in the FantasyLand of global warming, you keep your job and attack those who reveal your perfidy.
The Guardian UK has the story of Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, which got caught flat out lying about the fate of the world’s glaciers:
The embattled chief of the UN’s climate change body has hit out at his critics and refused to resign or apologise for a damaging mistake in a landmark 2007 report on global warming.
In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said it would be hypocritical to apologise for the false claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035, because he was not personally responsible for that part of the report. “You can’t expect me to be personally responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report,” he said.
The IPCC issued a statement that expressed regret for the mistake, but Pachauri said a personal apology would be a “populist” step.
“I don’t do too many populist things, that’s why I’m so unpopular with a certain section of society,” he said.
Of course, that “certain section of society” to which Pachauri refers includes all honest people who aren’t ripping off the world’s taxpayers for billions of dollars.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the UN’s climate change chief, is doing something other climate scientists are not: writing smutty novels. In the midst of the Climategate scandal Pachauri has found time to write a romance novel. A novel that features sex. A lot of sex. And breasts. A lot of breasts.
Rajendra Pachauri, U.N. climate guru and budding romance novelist. Is there no end to the man's talent?
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the UN’s climate change chief, is doing something other climate scientists are not: writing smutty novels.
In the midst of the Climategate scandal Pachauri has found time to write a romance novel. A novel that features sex. A lot of sex. And breasts. A lot of breasts.
The Telegraph reports:
In breathless prose that risks making Dr Pachauri, who will be 70 this year, a laughing stock among the serious, high-minded scientists and world leaders with whom he mixes, he details sexual encounter after sexual encounter.
A smutty novel’s going to make him a laughing stock among serious scientists? Hell, if ClimateGate hasn’t already done that, nothing will.
Of course, Pachauri is known around the world for his series of IPCC reports. So this is not his first work of fiction.
But putting that aside, if most characters reflect the writers themselves, what do passages like this say about the 2007 Nobel Price winner wiener?
“Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before … He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts.”
“He enjoyed the sensation of gently pushing Susan’s shoulders back a few inches, an action that served to lift her breasts even higher. He was excited by the sight of her heaving breasts, as she breathed in and out deeply.”
“Afterwards she held him close. ‘Sandy, I’ve learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don’t we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?’”
Whew! Is it getting hot in here? Or is it just global warming?
“Amid controversy surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on melting glaciers, Xie Zhenhua, Vice-Chairman of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, today urged the UN panel to make the fifth assessment report comprehensive by also citing contrarian views.”
Call this one another nail in the coffin of global warming. The Chinese government, never known for endorsing open communication, has called on the UN’s IPCC to show more tolerance for dissent.
Business Standard reports the duplicitious details:
“Amid controversy surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on melting glaciers, Xie Zhenhua, Vice-Chairman of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, today urged the UN panel to make the fifth assessment report comprehensive by also citing contrarian views.”
Alright, class, what does it tell us when an authoritarian dictatorship known for denying its citizens the right to open communications is appalled by the censorship of the IPCC?
Calls for the resignation of IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri have been made. But Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the IPCC’s Vice Chairman is looking for some sympathy instead, falling back on the frequently-used excuse that their mistakes were “only human.”
IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri is only human
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) has gone into full damage control mode after it was revealed that the Himalayan glaciers will not, in fact, be melting by 2035 and that the IPCC knew its prediction that they would was a complete fabrication.
Calls for the resignation of IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri have been made. But Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the IPCC’s Vice Chairman is looking for some sympathy instead, falling back on the frequently-used excuse that their mistakes were “only human.”
Golfer Tiger Woods cheated on his wife repeatedly, but he's only human
The UK Telegraph reports:
“Aren’t mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution and I do not know of any human institution that does not make mistakes, so of course it is a regrettable incident that we published that wrong description of the Himalayan glacier,” van Ypersele said.”We are trying to do our best, we are going to reinforce the review procedures so the probability in the next report of such incidents happening is even lower. But to guarantee a zero fault product is probably not possible for any human enterprise,” he said.
Of course, it’s understandable, Mr. van Ypersele. Everyone makes mistakes. It’s just appreciated that you’re trying your best on these life-changing issues. You get an “A” for effort, buddy. But just so you don’t feel like you’re alone in this situation, rest assured that some other prominent people also made the news recently for being human:
Singer Chris Brown savagely beat his girlfriend, but he's only human
According to TheIndian.com, Tiger Woods said, “I’m human, and I’m not perfect.”
And according to TheCount.com, girlfriend-beating singer Chris Brown said, “I’m human and I make mistakes.”
Jean-Pascal, we know it’s a tough time for humans right now. But remember, you’re in good company.
We hope this news has turned your frown upside down.
The U.N.’s leading panel on climate change has apologized for misleading data published in a 2007 report that warned Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
More weird science from the U.N. global warming scientists.
Apparently the new battle cry for global warming activists goes something like “Even if the data’s wrong, the overall theory is right.”
This idea was reinforced in a CNN report that said, “The U.N.’s leading panel on climate change has apologized for misleading data published in a 2007 report that warned Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.” Apparently those facts guesses were “poorly substantiated” and “well-established standards of evidence were not applied properly.”
Now in the old fashioned days of real science even a high school science paper required that facts be “substantiated” and “applied properly” or you had to start all over again from scratch. Not so in today’s U.N. mad scientist “we don’t need no stinking facts” world.
The CNN story continued: “Despite the admission, the IPCC reiterated its concern about the dangers melting glaciers present in a region that is home to more than one-sixth of the world’s population.” And then the spin on facts begins. “Speaking at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi Wednesday, the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri admitted errors had been made but said it was not an excuse to question the legitimacy of all global warming science.”
“Theoretically, let’s say we slipped up on one number, I don’t think it takes anything away from the overwhelming scientific evidence of what’s happening with the climate of this earth,” he said, according to Agence France-Presse.”
Apparently the controversy began because “The IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers, which was based on information from a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund, was in turn gleaned from an article that appeared in the popular UK science journal, The New Scientist in June 1999.”
We are guessing that it left out the part were “The New Scientist” heard it from this scientist at a bar, who heard it from a guy he knew at work, who read it somewhere on the Internet.
Let’s just say the IPCC is full of crap. And we don’t mean theoretically.
Global warming skeptics have said that meeting the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s harsh emission goals would require a return to life the Stone Age.
Global warming skeptics have said that meeting the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s harsh emission goals would require a return to life in the Stone Age.
This seemed preposterous until we saw a photo of Rajendra Pachauri, Director General of the Energy and Resources Institute and Chairman of the IPCC. Suddenly, it all makes sense.
Pachauri and the Geico caveman. Separated at birth?
