Posts Tagged 'Fraud'

Is Denis MacShane considering a moonlight flit?

It was interesting to note whipless Labour MP Denis MacShane tabled the following question in the House of Commons:

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Ministers of foreign governments have immunity from arrest during visits to the UK.

Could EUfanatic MacShane be considering all possibilities for securing diplomatic immunity to avoid prosecution in the UK for claiming £125,000 in office costs for this?

Cameron’s slippery weasel words on people power

From the august pages of the Telegraph we are provided with yet more fiction masquerading as news. The readers are told that David Cameron promises to transfer power away from Whitehall, that he has promised a shift in power from government to the people as Whitehall departments publish business plans setting out what they intend to do and how voters can hold them accountable for it.

Presumably the ‘people’ he is referring to are the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats of the EU in Brussels. Or perhaps this only relates to the 20% or so of laws and regulations that are conceived in the United Kingdom. As always with Cameron the devil is in the detail or conspicuous by what he leaves out. So it is only by examining his comments in detail we find he is restricting this decentralisation to matters of public services. Spin, bluster, deceit and weasel words. In reality this big dramatic fanfare will amount to diddly squat for the average put upon taxpayer.

If Cameron is going to transfer power from Whitehall to the people and make departments accountable then for starters he would abide by the wishes of the people and:

  • refuse to meet any demand from the EU for increased funding for its budget
  • refuse to implement votes for prison inmates that the ECHR imposed on us
  • refuse to continue with the renewables obligation that is driving our energy prices up
  • stop acting like a tin pot dictator and give us a binding referendum on EU membership

We know Cameron will not abide by the wishes of the people on any of these issues. We know his social democrat coalition will not be held accountable for acting in their interests rather than our interests. Therefore we know this exercise is nothing more than a cynical fraud. It is a piece of fantasy politics designed to give the illusion of people power while increasingly denying us a say on the major issues that go to the very heart of who governs us and how.

Cameron claims he is ‘shining a bright light of transparency on everything government does’. His words immediately brought to mind this scene from Douglas Adams’ brilliant Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy:

“But the plans were on display …”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”

That will be much closer to reality than people might imagine. Cameron is taking us for fools and treating us with undisguised contempt. We should treat him the same way.

Update: Having just seen a news clip of the odious slime merchant talking about this issue, it is now clear Cameron is saying this initiative is to ensure ‘we do what we said we would do’. Therefore it has nothing at all to do with the wishes of the people or devolving power to them. It is just an extension of the navel gazing of the political class that will continue uninterrupted as their fingers remain stuck firmly in their ears.

Do you feel empowered now?

Climategate joke of the day

From the official organ of climate change propaganda:

There was no scientific malpractice at the research unit at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, an independent panel has concluded.

The panel, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, was convened to examine the conclusions of research published by the unit.

It began its review after hacked e-mails from CRU scientists were published on the web.

The panel said it might be helpful if researchers worked more closely with professional statisticians.

Independent?  Hahahaha ha ha hahaha ha.  Imagine the shock of this outcome.  No one could have predicted it, I tell you, no one.  Below we have an exclusive picture of the panel’s report being produced…

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Phil Jones ‘fightback’ in the Guardian confirms defeat

As a misleading article title, this one in the Guardian today is up there with the best of them.  From the ‘Freddie Starr ate my hamster’ school of hype and spin comes Olive Heffernan with ‘Climatologist Phil Jones fights back’.  After the BBC interview of Jones by Roger Harrabin, any passing reader might well delve into La Heffernan’s missive in the expectation of discovering Jones roaring with indignation at headlines over the last few days, that have circled the statistically insignificantly warmer globe.  However, it reeks of desperation and the bitterness of utter defeat.

Heffernan set aside any consideration for her own safety and bravely trekked from her cosy metropolitan environs to the wilds of East Anglia to give Professor Jones the opportunity to launch his big ‘fightback’.  The angle of attack was Jones being ‘eager to set the record straight on the science’.  As readers brace for a powerful reversal of the position reported in a raft of newspapers, the ‘fightback’ becomes clear.  Did Jones or his Climatic Reasearch Unit colleagues, including report co-author Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany in New York, ever published data that they knew was potentially flawed, in order to bolster the evidence for man-made global warming, as alleged in 2007 by amateur climate-data analyst Doug Keenan?  We learn that:

The authors had claimed in the paper, published in Nature in 1990, that the Chinese data were selected on the basis of station history. “We chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times”, wrote Jones and colleagues.

Jones now admits that the stations probably did move during the period of analysis, and as such, the paper may in fact need a correction. “I will give that some thought. It’s worthy of consideration,” says Jones.

But Jones is adamant that this doesn’t actually change the conclusion of the analysis. In a subsequent paper, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2008, Jones verified the original conclusions for the Chinese data for the period 1954–1983, showing that the precise location of weather stations was unimportant to the outcome.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is it!  An hour-long interview between Heffernan and Professor Phil Jones results in this ground breaking assessment from our intrepid hack:

So what does all of this mean? Well, for the sake of clarity, it would seem that the 1990 paper should be corrected to clear up the claim about the station positions, in light of the fact that it can no longer be verified. A correction could also point readers to the subsequent paper that is based on a more substantive analysis.

This error isn’t evidence of research misconduct or fraud, however, as has been suggested elsewhere. As lead author on the paper, Jones should have been confident of the quality of the data sets. But twenty years ago, standards for collecting and archiving data simply weren’t what they are now and these sorts of data were hard to come by. At worst, the current evidence seems to point to sloppy record-keeping, something that I suspect more than a handful of scientists are guilty of.

Somehow I doubt those of us who are sceptical of the theory of man made global warming are licking our wounds from that, erm, battering.  This isn’t a fightback, it is a running up of the white flag.  Jones has been nailed by his own incompetence and his propensity to spin findings into something that simply cannot be justified by examination of the raw evidence.

The game is up.  Even the Guardian is devoid of any perceived ammunition to hold back the gathering tide of doubt, as the scrutiny throws up exposure of outrageous spin, manipulated data, poor scientific methodology, appalling record keeping and the reality of the lack of warming since 1995.  The science is not settled.  We need to go back to school with a clean slate and open mind and let science learn more about climate and investigate variations in honest fashion.  There has to be an end to political interference and activists hijacking such investagation to further their own political agendas.

That of course is all very easy to say, but we know in reality the politicians and class warriors will not take this laying down.  Therefore we need knowledgeable people to continue to expose dishonesty and keep the public up to date with facts, not hyperbole and spin.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

‘If, if, but…’ the science of climate is not settled – official

The comments of Professor Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, who was giving an interview to a very sympathetic Roger Harrabin at the BBC, can only be described as astonishing.  He has single handedly cut the legs from under advocacy groups and politicians who have cited his work as evidence that man is without doubt responsible for warming the planet.

Here we have a man who has led the charge for advocates of the theory of man made global warming (AGW) finally making it crystal clear that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.  One man who has consistently argued that there has been significant warming is the Guardian’s pin up activist George Monbiot.  One trusts that Monbiot will continue to adopt the comments of a scientist he has frequently cited in his arguments and correct his previous assertions.

Jones has betrayed the lack of certainty in the science underpinning political actions taken and planned around the world.  This is a clear example:

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

If, if, but… the absence of any degree of certainty is undeniable.  Phil Jones has finally stated unequivocally for a mass audience that climate science is not settled.  He has changed gear and is slowly backing away from his previous position.  For years we have been told that the science is settled, but Jones’ admission fundamentally undermines those who have sneered at people who were more cautious and suggested there were too many flaws in the theory.  One of those undermined is Gordon Brown who just days ago said:

“Those people who have become global warming deniers and those people who have become climate change deniers are against the grain of all the evidence that has been assembled that global warming and climate change are indeed challenges that the world must meet and that can only be met together,”

Yet here we have Phil Jones admitting the evidence could be seriously flawed and showing that Brown’s position is based on faith not fact.  Consider this, there are serious questions about the accuracy of temperature records, data that underpins the ‘hockey stick graph’ to support the theory of AGW cannot be found, it has been impossible to disprove the medieval warm period, previous periods of warming that could in no way be blamed on mankind have been identified and now, while Jones believes temperature rises in years gone by were predominantly man-made, the fact remains there is no proof of this.

Gordon Brown previously described people who have reservations about the theory of AGW as ‘anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics‘.  His argument demonstrates his ignorance and fundamental lack of understanding about science.  It leaves him looking like the arrogant fool he is.  It also reinforces that political and financial considerations, not science or protection of the environment, have been the primary driver behind the doling out of billions of pounds to campaigns and advocacy groups.

The pressure being put on people to change their habits and the increasing costs of good and services caused by legislation and taxation to ‘fight climate change’ has always been about realising political aims.  Professor Jones’ comments have revealed how flimsy the arguments always were and are all the more significant given it was Jones’ department that was the origin of so many of the claims leapt upon by politicians and campaigners and treated as a given truth.

More and more evidence is rising to the surface that calls into question the basis of the theory of AGW, as neatly collated by Dr Richard North at EU Referendum.  These are reviews, articles and evidence that would never have received an airing several months ago, because the media was sold on the idea that the debate was over and the science settled.  As a result they were intentionally deaf to the counter consensus scientists who had very valid arguments to share.  Only the leak of emails and data from Jones’ department at UEA made journalists sit up and accept that this issue was not cut and dried.

But it is this interview with Jones that is the real game changer.

Yes, Jones still believes mankind is responsible for the tiny amount of warming that has possibly been detected, even though the temperature gathering is being discredited.  But moreso than ever his position has moderated markedly and the real level of certainty about the amount of change and the cause of it has been exposed as minimal.  We really do not know what man’s role is because we do not understand what nature’s role is.  The science is not settled.  Nowhere close.

Therefore, once again, we see there is as yet no justification for expensive actions based on what has now firmly been put into context as little more than guesswork.  The vested interests in the political class and corporate world may not be happy about it because of the money and power they stand to lose out on, but please retake your seats because the debate is back on.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine


Do you remember this from January…?

Rajendra Pachauri, who heads the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on Friday said the chances of the U.N. panel having made more errors in its benchmark 2007 report were “minimal if not non-existent”[…]

If Pachauri thought he would throw people off the scent of other bogus claims nestling in the report, he was very much mistaken.  Today sees the revelation and examination of yet another known distortion that was included in the IPCC’s 2007 AR4:

Following an investigation by [EU Referendum] (and now featured in The Sunday Times), another major “mistake” in the IPCC’s benchmark Fourth Assessment Report has emerged.

Similar in effect to the erroneous “2035” claim – the year the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt – in this instance we find that the IPCC has wrongly claimed that in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.

At best, this is a wild exaggeration, unsupported by any scientific research, referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.

The argument has moved from the mountains of Nepal to the plains of Africa.  Africagate is a detailed and referenced investigation, something the IPCC is unfamiliar with.  For Rajendra K Pachauri, time is up.  The Africa claims were his personal responsibility as they were included in the Synthesis Report.  The lies have caught up with him and his IPCC team.

No doubt we will be treated to the sight and sound of more scientists and activists, from various climate change centres and government funded agencies, such as the Met Office, telling us that this further revelation does not mean the science is not sound.  If that is the case, why does the IPCC report rely so heavily on such bogus claims?  Why doesn’t the science stand on its own merits?  Perhaps because it has been so badly corrupted to achieve a pre-determined conclusion.

Pachauri says he cannot be held responsible for errors contained in the 2007 IPCC report, yet he was happy enough to accept the plaudits for it when he received a Nobel Prize for it.  He has been happy enough to use the Africa references in speeches.  Such selective responsibility does not wash.  A fraud is knowingly being perpetrated against the public.  It is time to say no to the self serving politicians who are committing this fraud.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Phil Jones turns to emotional blackmail

Let’s get this right. From a story in the Sunday Times we learn that Dr Phil Jones considered suicide because of the backlash against him and his department at the University of East Anglia, but he didn’t consider resignation?  I notice there’s no mention of an apology for his reprehensible conduct either.

The fact he stands by ‘science’ that has been discredited after his methods were scrutinised tells us this is nothing more than an attempt to worm his way back into his lavishly funded lab.  As for comparing his supposed plight to that of Dr David Kelly, this man proves himself to be a thoroughly unpleasant, manipulative and calculating individual.  This blatant attempt at emotional blackmail should be treated by all with the contempt it deserves.  Phil Jones should resign immediately.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Climate change and Big Oil

When climate change activists launch their regular assaults on sceptics they often claim the sceptics are funded by big corporations with vested interests in promoting fossil fuel use.  They mean ‘Big Oil’.  They suggest that huge sums are diverted to sceptics to help them sow confusion and spread misinformation.

But as with so many of the claims made by the climate change activists who argue that mankind’s CO2 emissions are cooking the planet, the truth is very different.  Big Oil isn’t on the side of the sceptics.  Big Oil is on the side of the warmists in this debate.  If you want proof of how these supposed sworn enemies are actually working hand in glove with one another, Canada’s National Post very kindly published it back in January:

“The debate about climate change is over and we need to take action,” says Gerry Ertel, Shell Canada’s climate change expert.

Maybe this is an error of some kind?  No, it seems there’s more…

As for Shell, he’s proud that his company acknowledged the reality of climate change many years ago, and has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars on measures such as reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, increasing energy efficiency and working with governments.

It looks pretty clear that Shell is part of the ‘consensus’.  Now, why could that be?  Like so many big global corporations, Shell would not seem to have much in common with environmental activists and global warming campaigners.  There has to be some reason why Shell is so committed to reducing the emissions released by the very product they go out of their way to sell.  We don’t have to read too much futher to see what the motivation is:

Cap and trade is one of the five essential actions needed by Canada and the world to forestall the worst effects of increasing global temperatures caused by CO2 emissions, Ertel says.

Good old emissions trading.  The path from thin air to incredible riches.  While Ertel argues that cap and trade sets a firm greenhouse gas reduction, and that the market figures out the most cost-effective way to get there, the fact is the number of credits available means companies like Shell can actually emit more CO2 and sell credits to make extra cash on the side.  Governments know this, the IPCC knows this and the corporates certainly know this.

That’s why all the agreements that are made at soirees like Copenhagen are all about money and how business can cash in, and nothing to do with actions mankind can supposedly effect to stop the climate from changing.  The climate is not an issue, it’s just the contrived excuse that’s used to enable corporations to enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers and consumers.  That’s why claims that Big Oil (to use the main example) is behind the sceptics are complete rubbish.  It’s simply not in Big Oil’s interest for this money train to come to an end.  In fact Big Oil’s interest is in more flawed science, scaremongering projections and international agreements to come to pass, because there is big money to be made from this carefully crafted international ponzi scheme.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Glaciergate moves on to Amazongate

Readers will be no doubt familiar with Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell’s dodgy dossier, used to justify the invasion of Iraq, which included information lifted from a college student’s thesis.  Now we have reports that the IPCC took a leaf out of Labour’s manual of deception and distortion and did the same thing in constructing baseless claims that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 because of human activity affecting the climate.  As the Sunday Telegraph explains:

The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

You have to read it to appreciate it fully.  The problem is it completely misses the very essence of the misrepresentation of data and findings by groups such as the WWF.  It would be a funny piece if the implications for lax journalism were not so serious.  But at least the Telegraph is redeemed by the column of Christopher Booker, who moves us on from Glaciergate to Amazongate and yet more distortions in the IPCC’s AR4 in 2007.

The authority of the IPCC has been blown to pieces. Nevertheless its friends have been rushing to various media outlets to argue that this was one, quickly rectified, mistake and that the scientific basis for man made global warming is sound.  Witness the damage limitation editorial of Jennifer Morgan, director of the Climate and Energy Program at the World Resources Institute, in the Times of India.  One wonders if she will be back on those pages in a few weeks’ time, telling readers how the IPCC references to 40% of the Amazon being at risk of climate change were lifted from Nature magazine ‘by mistake’.  And that although the information was not peer reviewed and actually related to the possible effects of logging, this latest ‘one slip’ doesn’t change the big picture either.

The problem is, it isn’t just one mistake.  Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick was used as evidence that mankind was causing runaway global warming, until the source code was unpicked and found to deliver the same result regardless of the data fed into the system.  NASA’s GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) had to be corrected because it over stated the recorded temperatures.  Reported warming suddenly disappeared.  There was Keith Briffa’s selective use of 12 tree cores from the Yamal peninsula to suggest a dramatic rise in temperature in the 20th century, which suddenly disappeared when a more representative 34 other tree cores collected nearby were examined

There are other stories which reveal a mix of shoddy science and outright distortions, each of which gets played down and the same comment comes back time and again, ‘it doesn’t change the underlying science’.  Well, actually it does because it is these findings that underpin the ‘science’ of derivative researchers.  It is all guesswork, correlation, theory and hypothesis; algorithms, models and adjustments.  In the final analysis, there is no factual evidence, only belief.  That is not a good enough basis for the ‘solutions’ governments and advocacy groups are trying to force upon us that are rooted in social ideology and redistributive economics rather than science and environmental preservation.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

The Hottest Hoax in the World

Not all Indian media outlets are shilling for Rajendra Pachauri like his vested self interest cheerleaders at NDTV…

“It was presented as fact. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, led by India’s very own RK Pachauri, even announced a consensus on it. The world was heating up and humans were to blame. A pack of lies, it turns out.”  (click on the image below to read the full story)

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Climate change claims have been a WMD

Not a weapon of mass destruction, but a weapon of mass deception.  A desperate attempt to continue obfuscating the facts and hiding the truth, by a member of the inner circle of panic-striken dissemblers and spin doctors who see their house of cards collapsing about their ears.  That is the most restrained comment I can offer in response to Vicky Pope’s work of fiction in The Times today.

Who she?  The Head of Climate Change Advice at the increasingly discredited Met Office.  It was all too clear what was coming when she started her fantasy piece with a classic understatement:

For Britain’s climate science community, the past few months have come as a profound shock.

Not half.  Never in their wildest dreams did the warmists think their lazy or non existant scientific methods, deliberate actions to withhold data from educated people who would see through it and, personal biases and beliefs being presented as evidence, would ever come under the kind of scrutiny they considered themselves to be immune from.  The complicity of lazy, unquestioning journalists desperate to be fed dramatic copy and the unscrupulous power hungry environmental groups and charities was thought to be sufficient to perpetuate their unsubstantiated claims and terrify people into thinking their actions were changing the climate with terrible consequences.

But even though the shroud has been pulled aside, the ‘evidence’ discredited and the naked political agenda of the climate warmists exposed, the delusional nature of people like Vicky Pope remains on open display with articles such as hers.  The lies creep across the screen in a shameless exercise of self pity combined with misplaced vindication.  Clearly Pope and her comrades-in-deceit have told the lies so often, they really do believe them.  They cannot understand why people laugh or react with incredulity.  It really is a state of mind.  The only thing truly scientific about this scam is the implications for psychology of their continuing inability to accept what the facts show.

More recently we have had a series of reports suggesting that “key” sections of assessments of climate change science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were in error.

Not suggestions, evidence.  A concept that seems entirely alien to Pope and her fellow travellers.

For scientists, climate research was based on powerful computer models backed by a wealth of real-world evidence.

That is, the evidence that was allowed to remain after discounting everything that was collected and found not to provide the desired outcome.  From the temperature records of surface stations, to the tree cores of the Yamal peninsula whose tale was discarded, the ‘real-world evidence’ was a distorted and contrived fraud.  But still she goes on, desperate to hook any reader who might have not seen the myths perpetuated by her and her friends completely shot down and utterly destroyed.

The more substantive mistake in the IPCC report that Himalayan glaciers were melting so fast that they would vanish by 2035 has been dealt with swiftly and clearly by the IPCC.

You know, perhaps it’s true that there is runaway global warming and that everything Pope and her friends have claimed and projected is accurate.  Perhaps the problem is that this all this is taking place in the parallel universe they inhabit, which is why we don’t see it here.  Anyone who can suggest the IPCC dispensed with the Himalayan glacier farce ‘swiftly and clearly’ is in need of therapy.  Pope’s claim flies in the face of the established facts of the matter.  How are we to have confidence in anyone who is willing to lie so effortlessly?

The big difference then, is not in the physics of climate change but the public’s perception of what climate research is all about.

That means it is a communications problem and the blame for that has to lie at least in part with the scientists and in part with the way that science is reported.

It didn’t take long for the old ‘communication problem’ chestnut to surface did it?  This is the polite way of Pope saying ‘we’ve given you the truth you must believe, but you’re too stupid to accept it’.  It’s nothing to do with the reporting.  In fact for too many years, Pope and her ilk have had carte blanche to put any old rubbish in the press, reporting theory as fact and ideas as forgone conclusions.  Now the truth has started to undermine the cosy little consensus and expose the vacuous and unscientific nature of what we have been told for so long, the problem is suddenly a communication one.

If there is a communication problem it’s the determined refusal of the small cabal of leading scientists, who form the foundation for thousands of derivative researchers, to tell the truth.  This is the reason why the climate change consensus is falling apart.  This is why confidence is plummeting.  This is why Vicky Pope has been reduced to nothing more than a joke to be rolled out at dinner parties, like an exhibit at a Victorian era freak show.  The genie is out of the bottle and compounding the lies in the way Pope has done in this article will do nothing to put it back in.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Pachauri’s ‘regrettable error’ is a blatant lie

On Saturday, the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra K Pachauri, stated the bogus and long standing claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 as a result of man made global warming was a ‘regrettable error’.  Pachauri said that no action would be taken against any scientist in respect of the bogus claim and explained that:

“There is a full process that is followed and attributing responsibility on specific experts may not be desirable, particularly since the error was more of one of judgement,”

However, Pachauri has been caught out lying in his statement of regret.  A report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) sets out in detail the concerted attempts that were made by scientists to modify the Himalaya glacier section of the IPCC’s 2007 4th Assessment Report due to the bogus claim (hat tip: EU Referendum).  It reports on the blank refusal of Dr Murari Lal, one of the four Coordinating Lead Authors for the Chapter on Himalayan glacier melt, to accept any changes despite the lobbying and evidence presented.  It also details Lal’s subsequent lies on the matter this very weekend when declaring that:

“This is more about a systematic failure of the (IPCC) review process. The… conclusions were sent to hundreds of scientists and governments… and no one raised any doubts… then.”

The GWPF documents prove that is false and that far from an error of judgement as Pachauri put is, what we had was a deliberate plan to deceive people by publishing a claim that was known to be completely false.  What we are seeing is nothing less than an international conspiracy to perpetrate a gigantic fraud against ordinary people around the world.  It is a deception of immense proportions.  It is being carried out by political appointees who are not interested in science or truth, but in carrying out a series of political objectives using the theory of man made global warming as justification for their actions and impositions.

Despite the growing body of evidence supporting this accusation of fraud, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg still accept the climate change theory as fact.  Are they ignorant, stupid or are they part of the cabal of vested interests and opportunity seekers who are driving this scam?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Pachauri calls false Himalayan claim ‘regrettable error’

The Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra K Pachauri, has finally broken his silence about the false claims that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 as a result of man made global warming.  The Press Trust of India has reported Pachauri as saying the claim was a ‘regrettable error’ and that no action will be taken against any scientist for the conclusion!

The man is on another planet.  How very magnanimous of Pachauri seeing as the IPCC itself chose to use the speculation, ignoring the need for peer review or evidence for the claim.  Pachauri has even made himself a hostage to fortune by stating that the possibility of there being more errors in its 2007 report ‘is minimal if not non-existent’ according to The Hindu newspaper.  There was no pressure on the IPCC to include the claim at face value.  They only did so because they wanted to add credence to claims published by their fellow travellers at the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF), who swallow every far fetched tale that reinforces their ‘settled’ viewpoint.  Pachauri said that the IPCC would review and strengthen its processes in the future:

“There is a full process that is followed and attributing responsibility on specific experts may not be desirable, particularly since the error was more of one of judgement,”

Stop laughing at the back, we are talking about a very serious gentleman who is dealing in very big and very lucrative business.

On that note, Pachauri’s big and lucrative business will come under scrutiny at 10am UK time tomorrow (Saturday) when the great man himself will don another expensive suit and attend a special press conference in India.  He is expected to answer questions about his personal affairs and dealings that have been revealed in fascinating detail by Richard North at EU Referendum and Christopher Booker at the Daily Telegraph.

Back to the story, in his response Pachauri has tried to deflect responsibility from the IPCC.  He has refused to apologise for yet another inclusion of data that, like Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick, has been found to be completely worthless.   Pachauri went on to say that the controversy over the claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035:

“should not in any way detract from the work done by hundreds of eminent scientists carefully selected and nominated by governments.”

Of course not.  After all, it was only unmitigated rubbish.  A false claim of the type the local drunk could make while ranting his way through inebriation.  It was more of the same kind of ‘settled science’ that is influencing public policy to the detriment of taxpayers.  Only this claim was made in an attempt to keep those nominating governments supplied with unscientific assertions that supposedly justify ever greater control over the people they are supposed to serve.  We now have the considered opinion of the well heeled former railway engineer.  Worth waiting for, wasn’t it?

Addendum: Here in the UK, the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee has announced that it is to investigate the ‘Climategate’ affair.  The Bishop Hill blog has the details.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Trade Unions soak up international aid money

It is embarrassing that this story almost went past Autonomous Mind Towers without being noticed.  Yet again we have another example of public funds being misused for self serving political ends by the Labour government.  Once again it is the Department for International Development (DFID) which is being free and easy with our hard earned cash (hat tip: ConservativeHome).

Earlier this week it was confirmed in Parliament that a DFID civil servant has been seconded to Tony Blair for his work as Quartet Representative in the Middle East.  But at the same time the International Policy Network (IPN) was explaining that:

Following on from our previous investigation [Sept 2009] of how “foreign aid” is being used for advocacy work by NGOs inside the UK, IPN has discovered that trades unions are benefiting from millions of money aimed at “international development”.

From 2003 to 2006, the Trades Union Congress [TUC] has rececived £3.6 million from the UK Department for International Development (DfID). But much of this money has been spent on projects benefiting the domestic UK labour movement. We’re just not sure how this benefits the poorest people around the world.

Download the IPN report ‘A Closer Union’

Perhaps this is another generous ‘thank you’ from Labour to the trade unions who are keeping the party alive financially.  After all, during the period in question, 2003-06, trade unions donated £39,086,216.09 (yes, £39m) in cash to Labour both directly and through constituency Labour party groups.

In return, Labour has channelled around £10m of our money back to the trade unions for the ‘trade union mondernisation fund‘.  This meant the unions did not have to use their own money for training and development, enabling them to maintain huge political donations to Labour.  And now we see a further £3.6m of our money being given to the trade unions to help train people how to be better advocates of the trade union movement and the Labour party.  Labour is only one short step away from actually paying the subs for union members!

Strangely enough, the DFID web page ‘Where the money goes‘ makes no mention at all of these Partnership Programme Arrangement (PPA) payments to the TUC for use in the UK.  PPAs are made through a mechanism that is supposed to channel money to dedicated aid charities operating in poorer countries, such as Oxfam.

Clearly the payments to the TUC are neither international aid nor benefiting people in desperate need.  They are a corrupt abuse of public funds for political gain by a corrupt and morally bankrupt government.  This is just another example of ‘public spending’ that can be cut without affecting front line services.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

The similarities between swine flu and global warming

The Daily Mail is reporting a major story concerning swine flu and the outrageous behaviour of pharmaceutical companies in the response to the spread of the disease:

“The swine flu outbreak was a ‘false pandemic’ driven by drug companies that stood to make billions of pounds from a worldwide scare, a leading health expert has claimed.

“Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, accused the makers of flu drugs and vaccines of influencing the World Health Organisation’s decision to declare a pandemic.

“This led to the pharmaceutical firms ensuring ‘enormous gains’, while countries, including the UK, ‘squandered’ their meagre health budgets, with millions being vaccinated against a relatively mild disease.”

How is this is any different to climate change/global warming alarmism?  Instead of swine flu we have climate change; instead of drug companies we have the myriad of corporations peddling supposed solutions to global warming; instead of the World Health Organisation we have the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But there is no difference between swine flu and global warming when talk turns to firms pushing an agenda in order to make ‘enormous gains’ as countries including the UK ‘squander’ their money, on a fight against a grossly exaggerated problem.  In both cases millions of people experience unnecessary discomfort, in the case of global warming alarmism seeing their bills rise to fund measures to combat something theoretical for which the causes and effects remain unproven.

When people read the story I wonder how many of them will make the connection between the obvious common denominator in both cases, big business chasing lucrative revenues.  Corporations and their political friends are hyping a theory out of all proportion and in so doing are deceiving the public in order to enrich themselves.  If you want to understand what’s really going on, follow the money.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive