Head of IPCC Poised to Make $Billions$

It seems to be more clear to more people that the climate scare is BS. Perhaps it will soon go the way of the nuclear winter cooling threat of the 70′s. Dopenhagen seems to have had a cooling effect.

Proper rephrasing of #1:

This jerk seems like just another liberal insider fatcat to me.

I agree with John here — even if he is simply running this post in his on-going attempt to make us all cynical and dull in our attempts to avoid an epic swindle.

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?

Ah, come on, John! Why so cynical?

All we need to do is hold each other’s hands, sing kum-ba-ya, and then they’ll want to accept the lower profit margins.

So the people investing in green technologies and possibly making millions makes climate change a scam. Then what about the people invested in oil and the status quo who make hundreds of billions a year? Isn’t that an even bigger scam?

millions off of climate change = scam

hundreds of billions off of no climate change = no scam???

jccalhoun, I think everyone knows I’m a green guy. Personally I do the little things that I think are important, but mainly I have the money to invest and can wait 5-10 years for things to pay off. I’m talking mainly about home efficiency and travel.

I also think that cap and trade is idiotic. After Kyoto carbon emissions accelerated and carbon trading started. That system doesn’t work. What it does mean is that money flows out of pockets of you and me, the people who can have the most direct impact on carbon emissions.

And all you guys who think it’s a right vs. left issue. Everyone has their hands deep in this trough.

I don’t get it, capitalism is only good when the government is screwing it with bailouts?
At least this clown is offering something in return. This guy’s got a scam going, but your government hasn’t? At least people can decide to buy things from the company he invests in or not. But the banks most of you deal with all the time have screwed you real hard and few of you have even noticed.
Personally I’ve given up on posting about the climate. There’s no avoiding the disaster to come. I will continue to prepare, and pray for the salvation of the human race. Even the idiots living in denial that made matters worse.

>> Dr Dodd said, on December 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 am
>> In reality, he is a Socialist who preys upon the stupidity of those that are convinced global warming is an actual problem.
>> Like you.

… and all the thousands of “stupid” scientists!

It is the climate change deniers who are throwing their lot in with the creationists, corporatists and the anti-science lunatic fringe.

Seriously – the only reason I believe in global climate change is because I believe in science. It’s the same reason I believe in evolution and the big bang theory. I haven’t done the research myself but I can judge a source.

I’m going along with the 90% of earth scientists who think this is real.

It’s TOTALLY IDIOTIC to side with nut case bloggers, Russian hackers, and Sarah Palin over the near-unanimous agreement of climatologists.

Yet, inexplicably, this is exactly what John Dvorak and a whole bunch of you are doing. You think _I’m_ the stupid one for siding with the scientists over Rush Limbaugh. Bizarre.

The SCAM is that the people who are creating the hysteria are profiting. Oil companies aren’t saying that if you don’t buy oil that the earth will burn. Climate change alarmists are profiting off a bogus danger.

No but the Oil Companies are saying “There’s a debate! The science isn’t settled! Don’t change your behaviors!” It isn’t any different than the tobacco companies saying that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Much of the climate change denying stuff comes from organizations and/or people who are paid by the oil and/or coal industry.

Big Oil meme will be replaced by Big Carbon.

…and he looks like a Klingon. Reptile!

Greg, it’s very sad, but the science has been compromised, and we have been played like sheep. There are no official numbers of earths scientists that agree 100% on anthropogenic climate change. There is no list, no official petition signed by all these supposed scientists. The mysterious numbers range from 2000 to 10000 and now to 90% of world scientists. It’s just verbal BS. Our very existence is supposedly on the line and we’ve got data disappearing, being altered, A roller coaster chart manipulated into a hockey stick, dissenters being removed from an IPCC report by Benjamin Santer, and now a head scare monger making huge profits on a successful campaign. What is it going to take for you to realize you are being taken for a chump?

The fact is, by their very own analysis, they don’t know with any certainty what effect CO2 will have on world temperatures. In fact the dreaded 2° increase at 450PPM has a 67% chance of being only a 1° increase. Below 67% confidence the temperature increase approaches ZERO. So if nothing happens, they have covered their asses and we pay to eliminate a gas that may in fact do more good than harm.

Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, WG I, Chapter 10, Table 10.8

It’s not just the overt corruption, it’s the behind the scenes power mongering that is so frightening about this entire scenario. It’s a perfect storm of corruption.

AGW-based laws allows government and its minions to decide who wins and who loses. Without special protection, available only from government, entire industries can be destroyed. But with a kindly nod from the government (available by bowing to power), billions can be made.

This is designed for trading political protection into money. And yet because of the green religion, few will admit its danger.

Global warming deniers are tools of Big Oil.
Global warming believers are tools of Big Carbon.
The people in charge screw everyone.

And the sun rises in the morning.
And life goes on.

The idea that skepticism is illegitimate in the face of consensus (of all things!) was always a red flag indicating that the side which was making that point was not engaged in science.

Now we see that belief is bought-and-paid-for.

We have also seen recently that the ‘consensus’ is artificial.

None of this PROVES anything. But it does mean we have to press the ‘reset’ button on the whole ‘you’re stupid if you don’t believe it’ line- a line that has always constituted a single-step proof that its speaker is unconcerned about science.

It also means that years of research, mostly done by sincere and honest and conscientious actors, has been contaminated and must be redone.

Everything has changed. The global warming debate is virtually at square one.

This is bad no matter how you look at it.

Let’s try to stick to actual science – the kind that has skepticism at its very heart, as part of the definition of what it is – this time, shall we?

14 Greg Allen

“I’m going along with the 90% of earth scientists who think this is real.”

News Flash: global average temperatures peaked during the El Nino year of 1998 — and since 2001, the temperature trend has declined slightly.

This against all the manufactured computer projections of your experts. The science shows your experts don’t know what they are talking about.

RBG

Check out the founder of the weather channel.

http://tinyurl.com/y9x8dns

Oh, and…

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher

Opps! I don’t know why the tinyurl thingie did’t work..
sorry!

Check out the founder of the weather channel.

#30 RGB

Um, no.

This is just amazing. It’s just amazing how few people can handle power and influence and not become corrupted.

When we see things like this it makes one hold out little hope for the regular guy and apparently human nature as many great writers have said basically NEVER changes, not even over thousands of years. One could argue were actually getting dumber…

European caviar-eating lefty at its best.

#12 Then why are you hailing capitalism if you don’t give a shite about it?

#31 Whatever keeps you retardedforever if good with me. The sky is falling, give your money to Gory.

#35 Nobody wins you at inanities.

JimR

Actually that’s not true. As time goes on, more and more of the original science is uncontested and found to be correct. I said it so it has to be true, right?

qb,

By George, I think you’ve got it!

(Now I’m wondering where that originated and who George is.)

#44 You’re a good lad JimR. I raise my beer glass to your health.

Mr. Fusion, here is Wikipedia’s take on Rajendra Pachauri:

He began his career with the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi.

Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.[5]

He served as Assistant Professor (August 1974 – May 1975) and Visiting Faculty Member (Summer 1976 and 1977) in the Department of Economics and Business at NC State.

So, he doesn’t appear to have any real “climatology” related qualifications. However, he WAS apparently tied to the BIG OIL and BIG NATURAL GAS industry in India:

“Pachauri was on the Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation (January 1999 to September 2003); Board of Directors of GAIL (India) Ltd. (April 2003 to October 2004)” – [also from Wikipedia].

Sooo, he was actually a shill for the despised oil industry?! Say it ain’t so!

This AGW scam just keeps getting weirder and weirder. There is too much money at stake. There are charlatans are all over this ponzi scheme. And I fear we have barely scratched the surface.

If you combine this guy with Al Gore, you still have zero actual climatology expertise but you do get one Nobel Peace Prize.

Don’t blame the educational system. These people are liberals and they go with their feelings. Facts just get in their way.

#12 Pedro.

Hailing Capitalism! Capitalism in it’s current version is obviously a failed experiment that little by little is showing itself for what it is, a scam much worse than climate change. Most of the brainwashed preconditioned idiots living in denial here on this blog will continue to repeat the dogma they’ve heard and even shout it to prove how right they are. There’s no sense in trying to use sense or reason with a zombie. Por los mismos gilipollas que no paran de llorar sobre gente como este, que van a engañar a sus gobiernos y costarles una fortuna en impuestos. Este misma gente apenas soltaron un gemido cuando el gobierno les estaba violando con los bailouts.

So it’s really important to have a “public option” in health care so greedy fatcats can’t profit from something that should be done only for the good of humanity, but when it comes to AGW, it’s perfectly OK for corrupt A-holes to engineer a scam that will harm billions simply to make immoral profits for themselves.

Interesting.

In semi-profile (shown above) this guy looks like a cross between the excellent Penn Jillette and a monster from hell.

#57 serious

Nice post, if you leave the www. out of the URL your links would work, thanks anyways!

#57 Serious

Sorry dude, you lost me at “Check out my 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.

#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.

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.

*

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.

#65, Cherman,

You have no shame. Therefore, calling you a hack wouldn’t bather you in the least.

#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..