Bishop Hill Great Northern
Dec 20, 2009 Climate: Pachauri Richard North has two articles in the newspapers today, both on the extraordinary financial conflicts of interest in the IPCC process.
In the Telegraph, he and Christopher Booker look at how IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri has reaped vast sums of money from his involvement in the trade in carbon credits:
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.
The Mail meanwhile, has completely messed up, attributing the story to a completely different Richard North, and printing the wrong photo alongside the article to boot. The story though is a good one, looking at the big picture of how Copenhagen was a victory for the money-men, retaining the lucrative trade in carbon credits.
Forget 'Big Oil' - this is 'Big Carbon' making the most of a 'business opportunity' that was created by the first climate treaty at Kyoto in 1997.
The frenzied negotiations we have just seen were never about 'saving the planet'. They were always about money. At stake was this new 'climate change industry' which last year ripped off £129billion from the global economy and is heading for that trillion-pound bonanza by 2020 - but only if the key parts of the Kyoto treaty could be renewed.
Reader Comments (21)
Repeating my comment of yesterday:
Actually, it's the Mafia behind it all.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/14/fraud-europes-cap-trade-red-flag-critics-say/
As several other contributors noted "Follow the Money". They are right.
sure the paleo data showing high climate sensitivity and the models that calculate high climate sensitivity are all wrong because of...
...carbon trading
An exerpt from a policy document linking the CRU, Tyndall centre, with the Tata Energy Research Institute whose director general is non other than Rajendra Pachauri also chairman of the IPCC.
'A science-based policy dialogue on fair and effective ways to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system and implications for Post-Kyoto policies. '
Tender: P-02/73
Date: November 28, 2002
Institute for Environmental Studies
Vrije Universiteit
De Boelelaan 1087
1081 HV AMSTERDAM
The Netherlands
This proposal is being submitted by a research consortium. The consortium is set up in such a way as to ensure balanced input from Northern and Southern expertise. It will be coordinated by the Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, in cooperation with the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). Other project partners are the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia. UK, Tata Energy Research Institute in New Delhi, India, ENDA Tiers Monde in Dakar, Senegal and the COPPE/Climate Centre at the University of Rio De Janeiro in Brazil (See Figure 2).
This man not only directs governmental policy over carbon trading but gets into bed with the scientists providing the independent data!!
No wonder it's a licence to print money.
Thankyou for the information Lord BeaverBrook. hot-proposal.doc is frankly, weird. It suggests there is an inbuilt confirmation bias at the heart of the UNIPCC. The document is about preparing the ground not for debate or negotiation but 'dialogue', and you're only allowed to participate in the dialogue if you are certain it needs to be done.
What is 'post-normal science'? From the document: "Traditional scientific methods cannot deal with the question of defining acceptable risks, since this is seen essentially as a political choice. Within the context of post normal science, where problems are urgent and uncertain and the stakes are high, participatory integrated assessment is seen as the key method for determining high quality answers. Participation can increase the quality and legitimacy of science and improve the quality, legitimacy and compliance pull of decision making. "
The more voices we have the more right we are? That would explain why warmist scientists are so dogmatic.
What beguiles me most about the situation is that the political side of this cabal, the Un and the IPCC, state that all their reports and recomendations to governments are based upon independent scientific study from various scientific comunities producing peer reviewed work.
Yet these very groups of scientists are hand picked to confirm to the party line and be led into the group think as stake holders of the future of mankind.
I don't really pass judgment on the science because, I am not a scientist and, there is still so much unknown and I think that those involved with it are starting to realise this as well. The general consensus is now starting to change to a view of wait a minute thats not really what I meant, I only agreed with part of that, I think you took my research out of conext and my credibilty within the scientific comunity is more important than conforming to the needs of political agenda.
Copenhagen was probably the point of no return for many, which in my opinion is why 'climategate' has happened and why in the next months more and more of those caught up in the snowball, parden the pun, will come forward with differing views than have previously been attested to them.
The time has come to revolutionise actions against the money. Every piece of information of corruption and financial bias should be broadcast and espoused to our political representatives in a clear and broadcast way, so they cannot deny ignorance. This is the only way to get some of them to take notice . Place your e-mails and correspondence on the net and then let them know where you have placed it..
Actually I wrote comments on the daily mail article at 10 am this morning to date nothing.
This needs to be broadcast widely.
Somewhere I read, on WUWT among the comments, that Pachauri is a shareholder in an Indian Steel Company, which stands to gain over a billion pounds (not sure of the figure) in carbon credits, simply by closing down its factory in the UK and throwing 1,400 people out of jobs. (It would save on paying them too I suppose)
Gareth, the reason for the persistence of the Global Warming theory and belief lies in the sheer audacity of proclaiming a myth and sticking to it. A conversation with a warmist goes somewhat like this:
"Excuse me sir, but your Emperor appears to have no clothes"
"You have raised a valid point, but this observation was dealt with effectively by Dr X in a 4,000 page technical manuscript, reviewed by a group of his peers. Since you cannot refute that document and several other documents have corroborated the original document, when it appeared to have been refuted, we now need money from you to remove the buttons that are being sewn onto his coat, without which the Emperor will die of the heat."
Meanwhile outside the palace it snows.
"Up yours, Pachauri, you are a thief as well as a liar."
Richard responds to Pachauri's claims of innocence:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/its-all-lies.html
No, there is no mafia behind all this making,
they are not scientist, are ingrorant, are stupid,
and can not define what they are talking about:
CLIMATE, as it is well explained in an
Open Letter at:
http://www.whatisclimate.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science
Fascinating definition
CTHULLHU. No, of course not. The scientific critisisms of the catastrophic AGW narrative stand on their own. But the is not simple science - it has become heavily politisised. - think of the scare the children TV propaganda, for example. And the vast sums of money involved, being put the politics in a certain context, don't they ?
Lord Beaverbrook,
"Peer review", needs to be nailed.
All it should mean is that workers current in the field have reviewed a piece of work; they find it offers something new and of interest, they can see no obvious flaws in the analysis and there are no experiments which should reasonably have been included which have been omitted. It is worthy of publication.
It does not mean the work has been thoroughly scrutinised and has withstood attempts to reproduce it and falsify it.
Science involves scepticism. It can't proceed by circles of the wise and the good putting a stamp of approval on certain pieces of work and thereafter, they become unquestionable.
Lord Beaverbrook,
I think your second comment, in particular, fairly describes the reality of the AGW political process. And as a retired scientist I can say that the BS I have seen coming from the AGW crowd is not science -- it is propaganda. One has to match one's theory to the data, not the other way around.
Cosmic,
You have indeed "nailed" the meaning of "peer review." Science is a step-by-step process and the peer review is merely a check on taking obvious missteps. It is not the sanctification that some think it means.
""Up yours, Pachauri, you are a thief as well as a liar."
So he is.
Slightly O/T but I have found it dificult to hold back a laugh today as BBC news has flipped between stories of Global Warming, including the PM's live speech from Kitcaldy, and stories of how Britain is so crippled with the current "unprecedented" cold.... closing roads, closing the EuroTiunnel etc.. Truly risible!!
KnockJohn - The BBC also have a show called 'Defining the Decade: The Heat is On' on BBC Radio 4
Here is a picture of the Empire State Building. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8413663.stm
I wonder if you could the latest picture of it covered in snow?
Cosmic
Hopefully the peer review process gives the opportunity of fellow scientists within a specific field to test the proposed theory. If there are points that need explanation or areas of concern then these should be addressed in a proffessional manner with the originator of the theory being able to explain with source data or refine the research to improve the theory. Sceptical review should be gratefully accepted as a means of improvement.
What has happened with the groups providing the data for the IPCC is that they have been systematically brainwashed by the politicos into believing that they cannot be wrong and therefore must protect their methodology and data from 'outside' intervention as the political needs are time limited.
Don Pablo
Following on from the above with more and more scientists providing review across bloggs and eventually in the mainstream media the world that the few have existed in will get smaller and smaller and as the leaders of the cabal also face increasing pressure to explain their connections their commitment to the scientists will deteriate. Tony Blair, connection undetermined as yet, recently made a statement in interview that the science no longer matters, we have to take these desicions because of the enormous risk. Rajendra Pachauri recently said that those resposible for hacking into the CRU servers are the very same that are now questioning his authority as guru to the world. This obviously now alienates the British press in particular the Telegraph which I would think will now get the bit between its teeth and start putting some editorial effort into the allegations.
In short, the scientists will take care of their own and the press will take care of the politicians, the problem is that some of the key people pushing the AGW theory are running out of time politically. Both Brown and Obama are facing upcoming elections and there is a time limit to get a global agreement in Mexico next year. This makes things very unstable so any investigation, law suits, scientific review has to be under way soon and be very public.
Lord BeaverBrook - "What has happened with the groups providing the data for the IPCC is that they have been systematically brainwashed by the politicos into believing that they cannot be wrong and therefore must protect their methodology and data from 'outside' intervention as the political needs are time limited."
With respect, I think you are giving quite a magnanimous explanation for the behaviour of the small group of scientists providing the main data to the IPCC. Your explanation does not seem to agree with the story being unravelled by the emails. I confess that I have not read all the emails, or even most of them, but judging from a report by Terence Corcoran, who has read a lot of them, there seems to have been a conspiracy, argumentative and divisive internally, but forming a united front externally, to promote a finding, in line with the IPCC requirements, that would show indisputable evidence of man-made Global warming, harmful to the environment.
"The 13-year email exchange, while often chaotic and disjointed, follows two main tracks that, in the end, must somehow converge. The first is to develop a convincing history of global temperature going back over thousands of years. The second is to develop models and scenarios that allow the scientists and the IPCC to forecast climate change to 2100 and beyond."
"What really rocked the paleoclimate work at CRU, and ultimately shook the IPCC, was a seemingly out-of-the-blue email on June 17, 1998, from Michael Mann to Phil Jones, then head of East Anglia’s CRU centre. Before then, no mention had been made in the email cache of Michael Mann, ... It is, in many ways, the email that rocked climate science."
Dear Phil,
Of course I’ll be happy to be on board. I think the opportunity for some direct collaboration between us (me, and you/tim/keith) is ripe, and the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with manufactured biases/etc remains high priority. It sounds like it would all fit into the proposal you mention. There may be some overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to NSF (renewal of our present funding), etc. by I don’t see a problem with that in the least.
Once the collaboration is officially in place, I think that sharing of codes, data, etc. should not be a problem. I would be happy to make mine available, though can’t promise its the most user friendly thing in the world.
In short, I like the idea. Include me in, and let me know what you eed from me (cv, etc.).
cheers,
mike
"With Mr. Mann on board, everybody else seemed to go overboard. In the emails, he soon elbowed out Keith Briffa as the prime tree-ring guru. The Mann hockey stick, and the science work behind it, would end up consuming thousands of email hours over the next decade .."
Here are the links to this unravelling saga:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/terence-corcoran-a-2-000-page-epic-of-science-and-skepticism-part-1.aspx
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/21/terence-corcoran-a-2-000-page-epic-of-science-and-skepticism-part-2.aspx