Head of IPCC Poised to Make a Fortune for Himself — Wow, this guy is really something. Exactly how all the facts in this article were ignored by the media until now is astonishing. He will be the first Carbon billionaire, not Gore. Gore is small potatoes compared to this genius.
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.
related story:
Carbon traders already making millions. And they are not who you think they are.
The oil companies, given huge amounts of permits, found it easy to trim their emissions a little and so make huge profits. Expanding businesses and public services, on the other hand, were forced to buy more permits. In its first year of operation Shell made a profit from carbon-trading of £49.9million and BP a profit of £43.1million.
How much detail will the public and “warmists” need to read and hear about before it dawns on them that this is one huge scam and the money is coming out of their pockets in the form of increased prices and taxation? Dumbing down the educational system and subverting the media has indeed paid off.
Found by Tom Diggle and Stuart001 via Twitter.
qb scroll up and look at post #17
#57, Serious,
You’re full of shit. Look it up.
If your point in another post was relevant I’d have checked it out already. Obviously there would be no need to suggest I do. Nothing you posted in #17 is worthy of my commenting on. Someone else might find it worthy, I found it rambling and irrelevant.
If you have a point to make, make it. If it is necessary to back up your point, provide a link. Links to a search (that Google cut off) don’t cut it.
Accusations that Al Gore installed someone into a position of power requires a citation. A casual association is something entirely different and should not be used as a fact.
Through your piece you continue to accuse everyone of ulterior motives instead of accepting that ALL serious scientists and ALL serious professional associations have accepted the concept of AWG.
According to previous posts of Obamaforever and Mr Fusion et al. this means they have no knowledge and understanding of climate, this was the argument made against the climate skeptics so the same would apply to them
It means I trust those smarter than myself and who have actually studied the matter to have a lot more validity than someone who listens to and accepts conspiracy bullshit from right wing nut talk radio. I have a degree in engineering, yet I have to accept that I don’t know everything and have to accept others have done the work. I have learned to cull investigation from bullshit.
That a mathematician, statistician, astronomer or geologist could not speak out against AGW, because they were not qualified and that majority of “scientists” worldwide agreed that AGW was happening – which i proved wrong.
YOU proved wrong? Now you are the ultimate “decider”? NEWS FLASH, “A denier is the ultimate decider”!!!
Let me make a long story short. The majority of your post is just ramblings. There is no point made. There is no refutation of any data presented. There are no alternative ideas presented. The links you present are disjointed from your comments (I won’t read a 80 page report to find what you want me to, I WON’T do your homework). All I can see is your attempt to refute some of the lead advocates of global warming by smearing them.
#62 Mr.Fusion – sorry to hear that you are unwilling to read the links. You’ve asked for the facts before and I give it yet again, but your so stubborn you believe whatever is spoon fed you rather than checking the sources yourself. FYI that Watson was Al Gore’s right hand is common knowledge it was the reason why Bush got Rajendra into power.
“Critics of Pachauri’s candidacy note that his two PhDs are in economics and industrial engineering, and argue that a scientist with a stronger background in atmospheric science would be a better choice.
Today, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a private conservation group, released papers showing that the energy industry has been quietly pressing for the removal of Watson from the helm of the IPCC since the Bush administration took office in January 2001.
Oil giant ExxonMobil sent a confidential memo to the White House urging the Bush administration to replace Watson, who “was hand picked by [former Vice President] Al Gore,” along with other Clinton era appointees, with a “team that can better represent the Bush Administration interests.”" – Environmental News Service (http://ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2002/2002-04-03-07.asp)
Quote on quote written by Al Gore in NYT: “ExxonMobil has been allowed to veto the United States government’s selection of who will head the prestigious scientific panel that monitors global warming. Dr. Robert Watson, the highly respected leader of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, was blackballed in a memo to the White House from the nation’s largest oil company. The memo had its effect last Friday, when Dr. Watson lost his bid for re-election after the administration threw its weight behind the “let’s drag our feet” candidate, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri of New Delhi, who is known for his virulent anti-American statements.” – NYT
http://nytimes.com/2002/04/21/opinion/21GORE.html
“[Robert T. Watson] was defeated by Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian candidate who was backed by the United States but who, Gore wrote, “is known for his virulent anti-American state” – Washington Post
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/116961618.html?dids=116961618:116961618&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+21%2C+2002&author=Thomas+E.+Ricks&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=Industries+Dominate+Bush+Policy%2C+Gore+Says%3B+Former+Candidate+Blasts+Energy+Moves&pqatl=google
Check the rest of the links and learn how to investigate before jumping to your own conclusions.
And you are completely wrong Mr.Fusion – NOT ALL serious scientists and ALL professional association have accepted the concept of AGW, in fact if you have watched the news, more and more scientists are speaking out against it. Even highly acclaimed climatologists, even IPCC scientists that contributed to the 4 IPCC reports have spoken out against AGW and cap and trade. Look em up and you will be surprised!
My reference to no knowledge was not to you or obamaforever it was specifically to Rajendra and Watson, because neither is a climatologist. From previous posts both you and Obamaforever hacked down on climate sceptics saying that only climatologist could accurately address AGW, citing 97% agreement among climatologist in a CNN poll, because only they knew the climate. That poll was actually de-bunked by another poll showing the contrary. Well neither of these IPCC nuts are climatologists. In another post that i made i specifically addressed this issue.. it is a fallacy in argument, because it is an appeal to authority. A mathematician, geologist, astronomer can indeed address the climate and be accurate at it.. and within these fields acceptance of AGW is far lower than 50%, if you cite that exact same CNN poll. That is what i proved you wrong with. If you spent a few minutes reading what people write, you would understand that; assuming i proved AGW was wrong is being stupid. I have no idea what right wing conspiracy radio nut talk you are talking about, because i don’t listen to it.. i’m not even American!
You don’t have to do any homework for me Mr.Fusion i read the reports, presentations and watched the videos and reported the facts as stated in quotes. I dare you to do the same and educate yourself rather than taking whatever is spoon fed to you by the media and bash people and call them names.
I didn’t smear them, they smeared themselves, all i did was to report the facts and show how tightly they are all connected to each other. Funny how Watson and Pachauri ended up at a vegetarian panel talk in 2008, promoting vegetarianism due to meat production harmful effect on the environment.. but i guess you are too scared to watch his presentation video?
1 (http://suprememastertelevision.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=featured_tw&wr_id=295)
2 (http://suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos_video&wr_id=22&goto_url=)
“Dr Rajendra Pachauri (Chair of UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): Thank you very much! I would like to say this to Supreme Master Television: Best wishes for your endeavors towards a sustainable world, thank you!
I would say, Go Veg, Be Green and Save Our Planet!
HOST: We thank you, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, for your tireless work to raise awareness about climate change and your encouragement of the vegetarian diet to solve global warming” – 2008 NZ (link 2)
#63, Serious,
You are improving.
You still didn’t provide any link or cite demonstrating Gore hand picked Watson. That is an accusation contained in a memo from an apponent. Your own link provides the clue as to how the head of the IPPC is chosen.
Did you read that. They are elected by the member countries, not hand picked by a Vice President.
*
Second quote,
Dr. Watson lost his bid for re-election after the administration threw its weight behind the “let’s drag our feet” candidate,
Dang !!! There is that “election” word again. How the heck are you supposed to appoint people to a position when others get to vote on him?
*
Third link, well lets just say it doesn’t alter anything. Watson wasn’t re-elected there either. BTW, have you ever heard of “tinyurl.com”? If you are going to use URLs that long it might be to your advantage.
*
And you are completely wrong Mr.Fusion – NOT ALL serious scientists and ALL professional association have accepted the concept of AGW, in fact if you have watched the news, more and more scientists are speaking out against it. Even highly acclaimed climatologists, even IPCC scientists that contributed to the 4 IPCC reports have spoken out against AGW and cap and trade. Look em up and you will be surprised!
Such as … ?
You see, here again you made a bold statement without backing it up. You then have the audacity to tell ME to look it up. If there are so many scientists speaking out then surely you can name five that don’t believe the earth’s climate is warming. As for professional associations, I’ll accept just one. The only caveat is that the professionals and association have some connection to climate sciences. BTW, Cap and Trade is a totally separate issue.
*
My reference to no knowledge was not to you or obamaforever it was specifically to Rajendra and Watson, because neither is a climatologist.
Well, you didn’t phrase it well. In fact you said,
According to previous posts of Obamaforever and Mr Fusion et al. this means they have no knowledge and understanding of climate, this was the argument made against the climate skeptics so the same would apply to them – That a mathematician, statistician, astronomer or geologist could not speak out against AGW, because they were not qualified and that majority of “scientists” worldwide agreed that AGW was happening – which i proved wrong. Funny thing is that they have all released papers making scientific claims about the climate, yet having no doctorate in climatology.
As I pointed out above. Rambling and disjointed. What is the subject in this paragraph? Is it Obamaforever, mathematicians, AWG is happening, you proving us wrong, or what?
Anyone can speak out about something. In order for their opinion to carry weight though, it is best if they know and understand the subject. A mathematician can very well discuss the attributes of any math computations, an astronomer can understand the value and quantity of the sun’s impact, … as experts. That does not qualify them to start deciphering ice cores or discount a correlation between CO2 and historical climates.
*
From previous posts both you and Obamaforever hacked down on climate sceptics saying that only climatologist could accurately address AGW, citing 97% agreement among climatologist in a CNN poll, because only they knew the climate. That poll was actually de-bunked by another poll showing the contrary.
You see, this is where you lose all credibility. Well, what little you had left. I don’t recall Obamaforever, and I know I haven’t, cited any poll claiming “97% agreement”. Especially one that was debunked. Maybe if you have the time, you could tell us what thread and post numbers those were.
*
You don’t have to do any homework for me Mr.Fusion i read the reports, presentations and watched the videos and reported the facts as stated in quotes. I dare you to do the same and educate yourself rather than taking whatever is spoon fed to you by the media and bash people and call them names.
You see, we have a problem. You like quantity and I like quality. You will post a link and suggest someone read it it. Why? How about I post some links for you to read? If you got past Gr. 10, you would know that that kind of sloppiness quickly earns a F. As the reader you give ME the information, don’t tell me to read someone elses report and sift through the garbage. Don’t point me to a video and say “see, proof”.
The “proof” you posted is meaningless. Just because you don’t like someone is not a refutation of a report with their name on it. It is a personal smear and usually only worthy of contempt. If you can’t attack the message, DON’T attack the messenger.
#64 You like quality? Don’t make me laugh, please. Like a run-of-the-mill lefty loon, you hate quality.
#65, Cherman,
You have no shame. Therefore, calling you a hack wouldn’t bather you in the least.
Carbon trading is pretty much exactly the same as mortgage derivative trading- and it would dwarf cdo trading.
Including the fraud.
#64, Mr. Fusion
You are improving.
- Thank you – not that it means anything to me. You have yet to improve.
You still didn’t provide any link or cite demonstrating Gore hand picked Watson. That is an accusation contained in a memo from an apponent. Your own link provides the clue as to how the head of the IPPC is chosen.
- No this is common knowledge or perhaps you don’t read the mainstream news you like to site.. even liberal ones. Check the links! I won’t feed you with a baby spoon. If you don’t want to check it, too bad.
The removal of U.S. support for Watson’s leadership makes it likely that he will not be reelected when the IPCC meets in Geneva from April 17-20 to elect a new 30 person bureau.
Did you read that. They are elected by the member countries, not hand picked by a Vice President.
- Wrong, read the links i provided they are “voted” aka appointed and lobbied in by the presidents office that is how Rajendra got into power – this is what the NYT claims. You choose whatever is convenient to you.. “watson was voted” “rajendra was voted” although NYT etc.. claim he was “lobbied into power”…do you think watson got into power without the lobbying? <- the argument makes no sense.
*
Second quote,
Dr. Watson lost his bid for re-election after the administration threw its weight behind the “let’s drag our feet” candidate,
Dang !!! There is that “election” word again. How the heck are you supposed to appoint people to a position when others get to vote on him?
- you lobby. Did you read the other links i provided on how Rajendra got into power? No you didn't…
*
Third link, well lets just say it doesn’t alter anything. Watson wasn’t re-elected there either. BTW, have you ever heard of “tinyurl.com”? If you are going to use URLs that long it might be to your advantage.
- have you heard about stfu? if you can't take long links go suck on it.
*
And you are completely wrong Mr.Fusion – NOT ALL serious scientists and ALL professional association have accepted the concept of AGW, in fact if you have watched the news, more and more scientists are speaking out against it. Even highly acclaimed climatologists, even IPCC scientists that contributed to the 4 IPCC reports have spoken out against AGW and cap and trade. Look em up and you will be surprised!
Such as … ?
- google (type in agw sceptics), i've posted it about 2-3 other times in similar threads. (see below again) Not just me, but about 20 other people on here as well. You just don't read do you, zealot
You see, here again you made a bold statement without backing it up. You then have the audacity to tell ME to look it up. If there are so many scientists speaking out then surely you can name five that don’t believe the earth’s climate is warming. As for professional associations, I’ll accept just one. The only caveat is that the professionals and association have some connection to climate sciences. BTW, Cap and Trade is a totally separate issue.
- Go suck it Fusion (there are over 30,000 scientists.. find the list d-bag i dare you) and it has nothing to do with the earth's climate warming it has everything to do with the debate on whether it is anthropological global warming. Stop twisting shit and see the HUGE difference. And no, Cap and Trade is not a separate issue, because it is the same d-bags pushing that agenda and who owns the systems they want to implement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=9469
http://businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7#bjorn-lomborg-2
http://newsbusters.org/node/12793
*
My reference to no knowledge was not to you or obamaforever it was specifically to Rajendra and Watson, because neither is a climatologist.
Well, you didn’t phrase it well. In fact you said,
According to previous posts of Obamaforever and Mr Fusion et al. this means they have no knowledge and understanding of climate, this was the argument made against the climate skeptics so the same would apply to them – That a mathematician, statistician, astronomer or geologist could not speak out against AGW, because they were not qualified and that majority of “scientists” worldwide agreed that AGW was happening – which i proved wrong. Funny thing is that they have all released papers making scientific claims about the climate, yet having no doctorate in climatology.
As I pointed out above. Rambling and disjointed. What is the subject in this paragraph? Is it Obamaforever, mathematicians, AWG is happening, you proving us wrong, or what?
- Oh sentence structure and punctuation nazi.. i clarified your misunderstanding. "They" was in reference to Watson and Rajendra, based upon the argument you and obamaforever had made, which i proved wrong – your argument structure is what we call "appeal to authority". May i be a grammar nazi and tell you that it is spelt AGW and not AWG? or are you rambling and being disjointed as well?
Anyone can speak out about something. In order for their opinion to carry weight though, it is best if they know and understand the subject. A mathematician can very well discuss the attributes of any math computations, an astronomer can understand the value and quantity of the sun’s impact, … as experts. That does not qualify them to start deciphering ice cores or discount a correlation between CO2 and historical climates.
- Who says that they are deciphering ice cores? are you making an assumption here? i never made that argument. And yes a mathematician can indeed discount a correlation between CO2 and historical climate if the mathematics and statistical analysis is wrong… A high school student can even do so.. they don't need to look at the ice core, they look at the data. If there is no significant statistical correlation then they can indeed say that it is wrong. After climate gate, russian and australian scandal it was pretty evident the data was indeed wrong.
*
From previous posts both you and Obamaforever hacked down on climate sceptics saying that only climatologist could accurately address AGW, citing 97% agreement among climatologist in a CNN poll, because only they knew the climate. That poll was actually de-bunked by another poll showing the contrary.
You see, this is where you lose all credibility. Well, what little you had left. I don’t recall Obamaforever, and I know I haven’t, cited any poll claiming “97% agreement”. Especially one that was debunked. Maybe if you have the time, you could tell us what thread and post numbers those were.
- No indeed it wasn't you, my mistake. The poll is here.
And yes it was debunked.. the questions were leading.
*
You don’t have to do any homework for me Mr.Fusion i read the reports, presentations and watched the videos and reported the facts as stated in quotes. I dare you to do the same and educate yourself rather than taking whatever is spoon fed to you by the media and bash people and call them names.
You see, we have a problem. You like quantity and I like quality. You will post a link and suggest someone read it it. Why? How about I post some links for you to read? If you got past Gr. 10, you would know that that kind of sloppiness quickly earns a F. As the reader you give ME the information, don’t tell me to read someone elses report and sift through the garbage. Don’t point me to a video and say “see, proof”.
- Ok, you need to start to STFU.. look at your own bloody posting history. Crap load of posts where you only give the link and expect people to go find the information. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ, DON'T F*** COMPLAIN! and you have no quality what-so-ever, just a self inflated ego.
The “proof” you posted is meaningless. Just because you don’t like someone is not a refutation of a report with their name on it. It is a personal smear and usually only worthy of contempt. If you can’t attack the message, DON’T attack the messenger.
-Interesting how you have decided that I don't like someone and that is the basis of my debunking of their theories. The messenger has a lot to say how the message is delivered – and i can surely attack both. I see you doing so all the time..
#64, Mr. Fusion
“The “proof” you posted is meaningless. Just because you don’t like someone is not a refutation of a report with their name on it. It is a personal smear and usually only worthy of contempt. If you can’t attack the message, DON’T attack the messenger.”
- Kate Hampton, international climate co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth said: “The fossil fuel industry and the US government will be celebrating their success in kicking out Bob Watson, an experienced scientist who understood that urgent action is needed to tackle global climate change. The Bush administration and its friends would rather shoot the messenger than listen to the message.”