IPCC Chief Pachauri Writes Smut Novel of Sexual Adventures of a Climatologist

You can’t make this stuff up.

Rajendra Pachauri was apparently too busy to check into glaciergate problems in December. We now know why. Instead of proofreading climate articles, Pachauri has been busy launching a softcore novel about the sexual adventures of a climate expert in his late 60s.

He must be following in our beloved Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd's footsteps. Kevin recently found time to write a children's book.

Pachauri's novel is called Return to Almora. Here are a few extracts:

By page 16, climatologist Sanjay is ready for his first liaison with May in a hotel room in Nainital. “She then led him into the bedroom,” writes Dr Pachauri.

“She removed her gown, slipped off her nightie and slid under the quilt on his bed… Sanjay put his arms around her and kissed her, first with quick caresses and then the kisses becoming longer and more passionate.

“May slipped his clothes off one by one, removing her lips from his for no more than a second or two.

“Afterwards she held him close. ‘Sandy, I’ve learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don’t we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?’.”

More follows, including Sanjay and friends queuing to have sexual encounters with Sajni, an impoverished but willing local: “Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before … He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts.”

Now go take a cold shower.

No doubt there will be many budding climatologists enrolling in Obfuscation 101 to get in on the hot action before it is too late.

Have they all gone barking mad?

Puchauri: "Let Them Eat Cake"

How does global warming luminary and Chairman of the UN’s IPCC travel from his home to the office 1 mile away? Does he:

A Walk

B Ride a bicycle

C Take public transport

D Drive his eco-electric car

E Drive one of his traditional cars

F Have a chauffeur drive him in an eco-electric car

G Have a chauffeur drive him in a traditional car


Suprise! It is G, have a chauffeur drive him in a traditional petrol consuming car the grand distance of 1 mile to the office.

It is always amusing to see how, without fail, those that tell we peasants to catch the bus or cycle to work always have a reason to use private cars and private jets to get around. The IPCC provides us with tips on how to cut our carbon footprint and one would think it’s Chairman would be leading the charge in his own backyard. There is always a good reason why those peddling the lie of immenant global catastrophy do not use the bus, walk or cycle.

"I'm very busy"
"It is not convenient"
"It is too wet/hot/cold/windy"
"I need to carry papers"
"I have a lot of meetings"
"I don't have time"
"I am too old"
"I am too important"

Meaning YOU are none of those, peasant. Laughable if it wasn't so pathetic and potentially costly to taxpayers.

“Let Them Eat Cake”

Pachauri jokes about his carbon footprint.

He spends much of his time travelling and speaking on climate change at international fora and jokes he "lives at 30,000 feet".

Jokes?!! His emissions (I mean emissions due to him) are destroying the world -doesn't he take his own IPCC's reports seriously?

Even as he constantly roams the world putting tons and tons of planet-killing CO2 in the atmosphere, while joking about it, he wants you to "give up cars or all of the other good things in life that represent achievement for human civilization".

For Pachauri this whole carbon catastrophy is a joke.

The joke is on us.

I Don't Give A Damn About My Reputation! - Joan Jett

UN Based Claims on Student Dissertation and Magazine Article

And from the UK press:

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article.

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.

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.
The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

Let’s refresh our memories of a few lies that the Chairman of the IPCC Dr Pachauri has told which relates directly to the above embarrassing findings. This is from a meeting of the Commenwealth Club in June 2008,

PACHAURI: “The point is you have a transparent, comprehensive, extremely widespread process involving the best scientists and experts from all over the world telling you that climate change is for real.

“And this is not something that the authors working on IPCC reports have invented. This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions.

“We don’t pick up a newspaper article and based on that come up with our findings. This is on the basis of very rigorous research which has stood the test of scrutiny through peer reviews.

Well in fact your IPCC does pic up magazine articles and come up with findings Dr Pachauri. You are a liar.

For the missing in action global alarmist, Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, this will be more devastating news that he has yet to address with the Australian people. Recall that in November 2009 Kevin Rudd met with Pachauri in India at Pachauri’s TERI headquarters and committed tens of millions of Australian taxpayer dollars in funding. Refer to this article in The Australian,

During his lightning 36-hour visit to India last month Kevin Rudd met with Dr Pachauri at the TERI headquarters in New Delhi where he announced $71 million in funding for joint Indian-Australian scientific research and fellowship programs.

While the aged in Australia wait for life saving operations and decent aged care, while taxpayers wait for hospital services and Australia’s massive debt remains unpaid, PM Kevin Rudd continues to emit Australian taxpayer dollars to deeply suspect overseas organisations for no benefit to Australians faster than the CO2 emissions are emitted from the exhaust of his jet while he trots around the gloabe embaressing the people of Australia with his sycophantic ways.

Where are you Kevin? You relied on the IPCC assessments for Australia’s climate policy and the expenditure of vast sums of money. What have YOU to say, as Prime Minister, on the continuing revelations re the IPCC? Millions of Australians await your answer with interest – however none of us are holding our breath.

Here’s a screen capture of Kevin meeting with his mate Pachauri in India taken from a video (left of shot) before handing over $71M dollars on behalf of Australian taxpayers.

BOM: Heat NOT Blamed on Global Warming

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) blames Melbourne’s equal warmest overnight temperature of 30.6 degrees, on January 12 on the heat island effect. The previous time the city was that hot overnight was February 1, 1902.

The Age newspaper cites a meteorologist at the bureau, Harvey Stern,

Melbourne recorded its equal warmest overnight temperature, 30.6 degrees, on January 12. The previous time the city was that hot overnight was February 1, 1902.

A meteorologist at the bureau, Harvey Stern, said that Melbourne suffered from a heat island effect, in which a city is warmer than the surrounding countryside.

This was the case especially at night, because of heat stored in bricks and concrete and trapped between close-packed buildings.

I am stunned if that is correct firstly because BOM isn't blaming Global Warming and secondly that the urban heat island effect directly receives the blame. With faults in the 2007 IPCC's AR4 now pouring out I guess it is not suprising that attributions of weather events are now, shall we say, possibly becoming more circumspect.

A shot in the dark by BOM? We shall see.

WSJ: U.K. Says University Broke Law on Turning Over Data

Today's Wall Street Journal:

U.K. authorities said the British university at the center of a controversy over hacked emails on climate-change research broke the law by failing to comply with requests for raw data about global warming, but that too much time has elapsed for the institution to be prosecuted.

The U.K.'s Information Commissioner's Office said breaches of the Freedom of Information Act require action by the authorities within six months of an offense taking place.

The requests for information by climate researchers were submitted in 2007 and 2008, and the alleged efforts to thwart them came to light only recently.

The university, not individuals who may have held back information, would have been subject to prosecution.

The university, which hasn't admitted wrongdoing, said the ICO's opinion that it had breached the law was a "source of grave concern to the University." The university's vice chancellor, Edward Acton, said it was scrutinizing its handling of Freedom of Information Act requests as part of the independent review.

There is No Frakking "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming: Greenpeace and the Nobel-Winning Climate Report

There is No Frakking "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming: Greenpeace and the Nobel-Winning Climate Report

Considered the climate Bible by governments around the world, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is meant to be a scientific analysis of the most authoritative research.

Instead, it references literature generated by Greenpeace - an organization known more for headline-grabbing publicity stunts than sober-minded analysis. (Eight IPCC-cited Greenpeace publications are listed at the bottom of this post.)

In one section of this Nobel-winning report, climate change is linked to coral reef degradation. The sole source for this claim? A Greenpeace report titled "Pacific in Peril" (see Hoegh-Guldberg below). Here the report relies on a Greenpeace document to establish the lower-end of an estimate involving solar power plants (Aringhoff).

When discussing solar energy elsewhere, the report references two Greenpeace documents in one sentence. Here it uses a Greenpeace paper as its sole means of documenting where the "main wind-energy investments" are located globally (Wind).

...

Thus, we read on page 14 that, "According to a WHO study, as many as 160,000 people are dying each year as a result of climate change." Should we care to double-check this claim, we're on our own.

As incredible as it sounds, this publication/brochure is itself cited in the Nobel-winning IPCC report as evidence that a particular statement is true. Appearing in the list below as Greenpeace 2006, it is one of two references mentioned in a single sentence, as discussed above.

Which begs an important question: how did it get into the same room with serious scholars? Why would it even be under consideration by a scientific body tasked with producing an assessment of the latest scientific research?

There appears to be an interesting chronology here. First Teske is granted "scientific expert reviewer" status by the IPCC. Second, a non-academic, non-peer-reviewed document in which he was closely involved gets added to the climate change research canon by virtue of it being cited by the Nobel-winning report.

Third, Teske co-authors a new Greenpeace report that receives an extra measure of prestige when it features a forward authored by the high-profile IPCC chairman. Fourth, in a final flourish, Teske - like his Greenpeace colleauge von Goerne - gets elevated to lead author status of yet another IPCC special report (on renewable energy) due to be published this year.

Where does Greenpeace stop and the IPCC begin? Sometimes it's difficult to tell.

Read the link and see the list of Greenpeace citations used in IPCC AR4.

Once We Were Climate Alarmists

And so it came to pass , the great exodus had begun, and all manner of scoundrel hid among the crowd hoping to go unnoticed, hoping to change their colours over time so as to escape recognition when the judgment came upon them.

Two days ago I posted that two high profile scientists were changing their rhetoric. First was UK Chief Scientist Prof John Beddington who no longer thought it was healthy to dismiss skeptics, called for a new paradigm of “openness” and stated that climate science was fundamentally uncertain. Then there was Canada’s most well known alarmist climate scientist Andrew Weaver turning on the IPCC chairman Pachauria and calling for his resignation declaring the IPCC tainted by political advocacy and calling for its approach to science to be overhauled.

There has also been an editorial in a recent leading alarmist journal, Nature, calling for more engagement with skeptics.

Obviously the IPCC has been severely damaged and its credibility is in tatters. The Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, despite stating that man made global warming was the greatest moral issue of our time late last year, has failed to make any speech since Copenhagen on this great issue. His silence is deafening.

As the rats push and shove to desert the sinking ship, the SS IPCC, we can return to the subject of my first post on this blog, Australia’s Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett. Penny Sackett is also singing to a different tune from that of only 2 months ago.

This is what she says now in the Australian (28 Jan 2010):

Professor Sackett said there was no real dispute within the scientific community about the reality of climate change but she wanted non-scientists to have greater access to the evidence to help inform the necessary public debate about crafting policy responses to the problem.

"The public must be provided with the best possible advice," Professor Sackett said.

"It must have available to it some understanding or the ability to develop an understanding about which issues the science is quite clear on and where there is less precision in our understanding."

For example, Professor Sackett said, while the reality of climate change was clearly understood, there was less certainty about its effects on rainfall patterns in Australia. More research was required before conclusions could be drawn with any scientific confidence.

But as recently as 25 November 2009 she was saying something totally different:

“For example, regional climate change projections indicate that we are likely to see an increase in the frequency and intensity of wildfires (predominately in south-eastern Australia), an increase in the severity of cyclones, decreased rainfall (except in the far north), increased incidence of drought, and an increase in extreme temperatures.”

Note that well. Two months ago Sackett was saying that global warming would cause, amongst other things, decreased rainfall and increased drought in Australia and two months later she says more research was required before conclusions could be drawn with any scientific confidence.

Of course Penny is known for her hysterical alarmism. On 4 December 2009 she predicted that in 5 years (by December 2014) the planet would face disastrous global warming. I was so impressed with this prediction I even placed a countdown clock on my original post about this when I started my blog so I can schedule my immanent destruction. I’ve blocked out 4 December 2014 in my Outlook calendar as “unavailable due to disastrous global warming for remainder of century”.

One observer has analysed her position,

Sackett has placed herself in a difficult position. She has realised she in a hole and has sensibly stopped digging, but still clings to the “science is settled” mantra. At the same time, she has put herself at odds with Rudd’s outlandish claims.

Even Penny Sackett’s rainfall prediction of November 2009 seems at odds with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) which is also known for its alarmist announcements. If we look at the graph from its Annual Australian Climate Statement for 2009 reproduced below we see that in fact the BOM graphs shows the last decade to be the second wettest decade on record and 2000 the wettest year on record in a decade which, according to BOM’s pasteurised and homogenised data is the warmest decade on record. This is completely at odds with Penny’s statement. Her prior statements on expected sea level rises are also overstated and alarmist in nature.

Why is it these three very prominent scientists in their respective countries are now singing a different tune? Have they detected a groundswell of opinion placing them in danger of being marginalised? Why would that concern them if their motives were objective science? Perhaps they are merely heeding Nature magazine's call for engagement of contrary points of view. Whatever their motives it is certain that they won’t be the last to deny their alarmist beliefs so strongly held until a matter of days ago.

Although not a religious person, I am reminded of the story in Mathew of Peter denying Christ.

Then he began to curse and to swear, "I don't know the man!"
Immediately the cock crowed. (26:75)Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." He went out and wept bitterly.

Bill Gates on the Human Cost of Climate Funding

In his Second Annual Letter, Bill Gates who know conducts innovative aid related programs through his private foundation full time has some very interesting things to say. Amongst them are some thoughts relating to the possible financial and human affects of diverting funds from aid to climate change. He calculates that if only 1% of the proposed $100 billion funding goal of Copenhagen comes from vaccine funding then 700,000 children could die.

Read what Bill Gates has to say.

“Deficits are not the only reason that aid budgets might change. Governments will also be increasing the money they spend to help reduce global warming. The final communiqué of the Copenhagen Summit, held last December, talks about mobilizing $10 billion per year in the next three years and $100 billion per year by 2020 for developing countries, which is over three quarters of all foreign aid now given by the richest countries.

I am concerned that some of this money will come from reducing other categories of foreign aid, especially health. If just 1 percent of the $100 billion goal came from vaccine funding, then 700,000 more children could die from preventable diseases.”

I have seen people scoff at the idea that ill considered funding for climate change could cause millions to die. Many seem to think that resources are endless and that incorrect allocation of those resources will have no consequences. I urge that Bill’s words be given proper consideration.

We have in fact already seen aid funds diverted to climate in the way bill suggests. In the Guardian on 25 Jan 2010,

“A £1.5bn pledge by Gordon Brown to help poor countries cope with the ravages of climate change will drain funds from existing overseas aid programmes to improve health, education and water supplies, the government admitted today.

The move, revealed in an email exchange between campaigners and an official at the Department for International Development (DfiD), appears to undermine repeated government pledges that such climate aid should be additional to existing overseas development aid (ODA).”

On his personal web site in an article referred to on this blog recently Bill proposes that if global warming is a problem (and he does not state that it is) the appropriate course of action is innovation. Governments roll would be to fund basic R & D. Bill is convinced that within 20 years we could find a replacement technology for electricity and power production that would be less costly than coal. He predicts that it would only take another 20 years to bring that to market and replace older technologies. The focus on ineffective strategies (see prior post on this blog) should be replaced by focusing and harnessing the massive parallelism of our industrial, technological and economic base to bring about the future technologies we need.

“One area that I have been spending a lot of personal time on is energy and its effect on climate. The most important innovation required to avoid climate change will be a way of producing electricity that is cheaper than coal and that emits no greenhouse gases. There will be a huge market for this, and governments should supply large amounts of funding for basic R&D. Because the foundation invests in areas where there is not a big market, I have not yet seen a way that we can play a unique role here, but I am investing in several ideas outside the foundation. I am surprised that the climate debate hasn’t focused more on encouraging R&D since it is critical to getting to zero emissions. Still, I think it is likely that out of the many possible approaches, at least one scalable innovation will emerge in the next 20 years and be installed widely in the 20 years after that.”

At this time there is no hard evidence to prove that CO2 is causing global warming so I think that should be the first priority. There is no point fixing a problem that does not exist. If that is established in the future then I think Bill Gates has broadly mapped out the best approach we have seen to date.

As Dr Roger Pielke Jr says on his blog,

“Obviously, 700,000 dead kids per $1 billion is a big, big number. What is climate policy worth to you in such terms?”

UK Chief Scientist: Climate Change “Fundamentally Uncertain”

Not one but two leading alarmist climate scientists desert ship

The credibility of the IPCC has reached a new all time low. Another leading warmist scientist, this time the UK’s Chief Scientist Prof John Beddington is deserting ship.

The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.

Beddington states in the Times Online:

“I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper skepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”

...

“I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.”

Climate science fundamentally uncertain!? That is the first time we have heard anything but the mantra, the science is settled from an alarmist scientist. Utterly astonishing. Just as astonishing:

Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, said: “Climate scientists get kudos from working on an issue in the public eye but with that kudos comes responsibility. Being open with data is part of that responsibility.”

It is astonishing because from the Climategate emails leaked in December 2009 the now stood down Prof Phil "Hide the Decline" Jones former head of the CRU at the University of East Anglia we have this email response from him after repeated request for data:

“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

This talk of openess is totally new for the alarmist scientists. Obviously seeing the way the wind is blowing the more astute are now urging a total change of approach. The IPCC has obviously taken some heavy damage in the last couple of weeks with revelation of known errors being published for political reasons.

See the Times for the full article .

Canada’s leading climate scientist is also deserting ship! When not one but two leading Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming admirals desert the IPCC you can be sure it is damaged. These two scientists, as well as some others are pulling back now while the going is good.

Read about Canada’s Andrew Weaver in the National Post :

A catastrophic heat wave appears to be closing in on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. How hot is it getting in the scientific kitchen where they’ve been cooking the books and spicing up the stew pots? So hot, apparently, that Andrew Weaver, probably Canada’s leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of IPCC leadership and institutional reform.

If Andrew Weaver is heading for the exits, it’s a pretty sure sign that the United Nations agency is under monumental stress. Mr. Weaver, after all, has been a major IPCC science insider for years. He is Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, mastermind of one of the most sophisticated climate modelling systems on the planet, and lead author on two recent landmark IPCC reports. For him to say, as he told Canwest News yesterday, that there has been some “dangereous crossing” of the line between climate advocacy and science at the IPCC is stunning in itself.

Not only is Mr. Weaver an IPCC insider. He has also, over the years, generated his own volume of climate advocacy that often seemed to have crossed that dangereous line between hype and science. It is Mr. Weaver, for example, who said the IPCC’s 2007 science report — the one now subject to some scrutiny —“isn’t a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles.”

He has also made numerous television appearances linking current weather and temperature events with global warming, painting sensational pictures and dramatic links. “When you see these [temperature] numbers, it’s screaming out at you: ‘This is global warming!

Abandon Ship, it is every man for himself.

There is No Frakking "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming: More Dodgy Citations in the Nobel-Winning IPCC Report

There is No Frakking "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming: More Dodgy Citations in the Nobel-Winning IPCC Report

See this article for a large list of non peer reviewed citations in the 2007 IPCC AR4 report. It is astonising.