30 January 2010

IPCCs Pachauri Lied About Himalayan Glaciers -- Again

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists _TimesOnline
It is impossible to keep up with all the lies that IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri has told to the press. Perhaps even Pachauri himself has lost track of them all. Here is but the latest:
Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”

Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”

However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.” _More at TimesOnline

Using the bogus findings, Pachauri was able to obtain up to millions of dollars worth of grants to TERI, one of Pachauri's many private interests -- interests that stand to profit from a skewed reporting of climatic changes.

Pachauri's IPCC confederates at the UEA's CRU have been found to have broken the law in their zeal to slant the science of climate.

More and more people are starting to wonder if anthropogenic climate change may indeed be just a pile of shite.

Questions of data integrity are beginning to plague US climate researchers, including those at NASA GISS. Is that why Obama wants to strip NASA of space flight and divert all of NASA's budgeted funds to studying global warming? Right.

Recent research has overturned alarmist assumptions on questions of climate feedback, water vapour impacts on climate, and the exaggerated estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 promulgated by (dishonest?) alarmists at the IPCC, CRU, GISS, and NOAA.

For an openminded, intelligent, and aware person, there is virtually no reason to believe in the alarmist crusade of climate catastrophe as promoted by President Obama, Barbara Boxer, Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, and the rest of the crusaders of the holy warmer orthodoxy.

Billions of dollars better spent elsewhere are being diverted to the climate crusade. If the crusade prevails over the climate skeptics and infidels, trillions of dollars of resources will be diverted from necessary energy and industrial projects into carbon trading scams and billion dollar gifts to third world dictators.

Your governments are scheming together to pull of a scam of legendary proportions, using pseud-science, blatant lies and illegalities, and a compliant news and entertainment media that just wants a big crisis to cover -- any crisis as long as it is politically correct.

It is up to you to decide what to do, once you figure out how badly you have been duped.


Bookmark and Share


Blogger Sojka's Call said...

I agree completely that there is scant evidence to support AGW. From some of the research I did on the origins of promoting AGW the Maggie Thatcher early support of the theory came up in more than a few seemingly factual summaries of the issue. Apparently, she wanted to use AGW to support the nuclear industry. On my blog and in personal em's with friends we have discussed the link of Al Gore to the nuclear industry. Now, Obama is tepidly promoting the nuclear industry. I have no problems with deployment of nuclear reactors in low probability of seismic activity areas. But, there is a certain irony to the whole discussion if indeed it was initially promoted by Maggie to promote nuclear. The motives beyond cap/trade which, to me, seem so linked to organized crime and Goldman S as to almost make them look naked, are still unclear. Is it really as simple as cap/trade and nuclear? Or, is there something else? Surely, the politicians in positions of power don't really believe this smelly pile of horse s*%t.

Saturday, 30 January, 2010  
Blogger finlay wexstrung said...

Why stop with the Himalayas? Is there anything this guy DIDN'T lie about?

Saturday, 30 January, 2010  
Blogger al fin said...

SC: Politicians in positions of power are typically horse shite themselves, so you cannot expect them to discriminate against other varieties of horse shite.

FW: Stay tuned to Anthony Watts , Tom Nelson, Ice Capor Climate Depot.

Monday, 01 February, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neil Craig reported on his blog of a link between this Indian you are profiling and the destruction of a major British steelworks. Apparently this Indian is working for Tata steel on the side, while destroying Western Industry.


I need to go to bed, and I need to stop spamming your blog with links.

Wednesday, 03 February, 2010  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts