Tag Archives: IPCC

Pachauri passes go and collects!

After all the noise from the IAC about Pachauri and the IPCC needing new leadership and numerous other “improvements” Pachauri will not be officially staying with the IPCC for their AR5 report. Was this laughable decision due to Pachauri’s ass-kissing? Was it due to the mamby-pamby United Nations decision-makers? Or, perhaps both?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded its four-day meeting. Despite a scathing report [113-page PDF here] issued six weeks ago that said no IPCC chair should serve more than one term, the meeting decided not to cut short Rajendra Pachauri’s second term. It intends to soldier on with him at its helm for an additional four years.

I really could care less as I’ve already pointed out that the best thing that could happen to defeat the global warming IPCC (International Propaganda Carbon Council) is for Rajendra Pachauri to stay. With the rather obvious exception of the idiots who decided he should remain in charge, he’s blown his credibility with  most of the rest of the planet. This includes some of the warmers, who realize he’s about as believable as Pinocchio in mid-lie and would rather have someone in charge who has better credentials and more credibility. Do they have a Nobel Prize for BS? Perhaps they should consider it.

Absent this decision, I’d say the only “better” choice would be to elect James Hansen to the post.  Now that would really be something to see.  He might even have his ready for spontaneous combustion by 2035, providing that “unprecedented” sea-level rise of 20 or so feet doesn’t dampen the Earth’s ability to ignite.

I predict he’s on the way to a CO2 Insanity train-wreck.

Source: N0 Frakking Consensus

Advertisements

Comments Off on Pachauri passes go and collects!

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, United Nations

U.N.: ‘Credible’ climate report needed

IPCC - Scamming the globe since 1989

You have to love the United Nations if for no other reason than for comedy relief. The last report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) contained numerous errors. You can take one such example, the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035,  (Glaciergate) whose source was a magazine article. Talk about a “the science is settled moment!”

In a review done by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) on of AR4 they got blasted.  The IAC noted not only the aforementioned Glaciergate problem but also other problems regarding not only sources of information but also the lack of transparency, lack of ability to answer questions, election of an executive director (sounds like they didn’t like Pachauri), and the lack of a probability scale to show how much of a chance some of their outrageous claims have of actually happening (like slim & none should be one).

After all this we now get this one from the IPCC 32nd Plenary Session in Pusan, South Korea……

BUSAN, South Korea, Oct. 12 (UPI) — A U.N. climate panel needs a “credible and convincing” report to highlight the risks of global climate change, a U.N. environmental director said.

I am amazed that the IPCC actually needs to have a meeting to figure this one out. There’s that old saying “it takes a village to raise a child,” which appears to now be “it takes a building full of IPCC members to figure out what should be obvious to a moron,” which is AR4 was a total piece of crap and that Rajendra Pachauri should be ashamed to be associated with it, but I guess he’s too clueless to figure it out because he now wants to stay on as chair of the AR5 report.

Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, told delegates……

“Indeed, a rigorous, credible and convincing (report) — at least in terms of the global public — may in part rest on your decisions here in terms of this scientific body and the way it operates and communicates.”

So, what’s my take on that statement? Well, reading between the lines, it sounds to me like he’s saying the IPCC needs to figure out better ways to lie to the public about climate change because last time they did a half-assed job, the AR4 Report lacked a lot of credibility (what do you expect when you use magazine articles as data?) and I’d translate “convincing” to mean that they have to really do a much better job of BS’ing people, which means we’ll probably be hearing words like “unprecedented” and “the science is settled” for years to come.

So what are they planning on scaring us with this time? Well, if you go to their meeting site you can see they have a budget page.  When you look at what they want to spend in 2010 and 2011 you can plainly see.

  • Sea-level rise (funny it’s been going down)
  • Climate projections (aka: garbage in garbage out).
  • Ocean acidification (aka: the latest scare tactic)
  • Human settlements (want to bet they want to tell us where to live next?)
  • Geoengineering(aka: let’s play GOD and get rich pumping crap into the atmosphere that probably won’t do any good anyway and may cause more problems)

So what’s all this going to cost? Well if you add the budgets up for 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 it’s only a mere 32,023,455 Swiss Francs, which is equivalent to $33,378,687 USD. Seems like a huge price to pay for a product that will, like AR4, probably be defective to say the least.

Want to know what they’ve spent on BS since 1989? Oh, only 108,573,004 Swiss Francs or a mere $113,167,813 USD. Yes $113 million dollars pissed down the drain on what amounts to a natural occurrence (climate change). Just imagine what that could have been spent on that would have actually solved real problems.

Hopefully I’ve given you an idea how the UN pisses away money to provide the world with useless BS. You can find the budget page here if you want to see how much money your own country has wasted.  The United States, who’s not surprisingly, their largest contributor, has only pee’d away $35,337,124 since 1989. That’s just on the IPCC and not an accounting of what we waste on the UN as a whole.

More Co2 Insanity.

Source: UPI

Comments Off on U.N.: ‘Credible’ climate report needed

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, United Nations

Good News! Pachauri wants to stay at IPCC

Reuters brings us good news this morning! Rajendra Pachauri wants to stay on at the IPCC to ensure the next report will be a mess like the last one was!

The head of the U.N. panel of climate scientists said on Monday he aimed to stay on and lead “overdue” reforms after errors in a 2007 report, including an exaggeration of the thaw of the Himalayan glaciers.

India’s Rajendra Pachauri, opening an October 11-14 meeting of 300 delegates from 130 nations in Busan, South Korea, admitted “shortfalls and mistakes” in the 2007 overview of climate science but has resisted suggestions that he should quit.

“I am committed to carry reform forward,” he told the first talks of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since an August 30 report by the InterAcademy Council, grouping science academies, urged fundamental reform of IPCC management.

“Change and improvement in an organization as important and complex as the IPCC is inevitable and overdue, but it must build on the demonstrated strengths of the system,” he told delegates.

Well, Obama has given us “hope and change” so I guess it’s Pachauri’s turn to give us “change and improvement.” I wonder if those changes and improvements will consist of new and better ways to “hide the decline?”

Source: Reuters

Comments Off on Good News! Pachauri wants to stay at IPCC

Filed under Climate Change, Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, United Nations

Pachauri Interview

You can read it but you won’t believe it. Sounds like the reporter and Pachauri are in total denial. It also smacks of nepotism. Think not? Here’s the first question.

You have emerged unscathed out of the accusations about your role as chairman of the IPCC…

OK, we’ll ignore the 2035 glacier melt, the politicizing, the scare-tactics, the use of non-peer-reviewed information, the use of magazine articles (where the 2035 melt idea came from), not to mention the fact you knew about it before COP15. Nothing going on here….please ignore all of this. He’s “unscathed.”

Here’s another doozy.

Anything in the UN probe report you completely or partly disagree with?

They have talked about quantifying uncertainties. To some extent, we are doing that, though not perfectly. But the issue is that in some cases, you really don’t have a quantitative base by which you can attach a probability or a level of uncertainty that defines things in quantitative terms. And there, let’s not take away the importance of expert judgment. And that is something the report has missed or at least not pointed out.

OK, so shoot me and call me stupid if you like, but if you don’t have a “quantitative base by which you can attach a probability or a level of uncertainty that defines things in quantitative terms” should it even be in the report to begin with? Does “expert judgement” belong in science? Science is now a guessing game? Is this how a magazine article was used to promote the thought that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. What ever happened to using real data and arriving at real conclusions? Must be too old school these days.

You can read the whole interview (what there is, which isn’t much) at the source below. The denial seems to be one good reason the IAC is suggesting that the IPCC put a new sheriff in charge.  Frankly, I don’t think the man gets it.

Source: The Times of India

Comments Off on Pachauri Interview

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IAC, IPCC, Science

IAC REPORT ON IPCC: Finally skeptics exonerated

Finally we get a report from the UN IAC (Inter Academy Council) regarding their investigation of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Here’s my take on it.

While this seems a possible case of the proverbial fox guarding the hen-house, in my opinion the  IAC appears to be VERY AWARE of the shenanigans surrounding the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4) that was published in 2007, and moreover, what’s been going on since. There have been many questions about this report and the data surrounding it (Climategate for example), with little or no response other than obfuscation, stonewalling or just plain old-fashioned BS. It seems this is a good report that addresses the problems.

By their own response the IAC appears to me to exonerate the “skeptics” who have questioned how they came to their conclusions by citing errors the IPCC made regarding things such as the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, use of non-peer reviewed items, use of things such as magazine articles, the peer-review process, estimates of probability and many other items. This is tantamount to an admission that the IPCC AR4 is riddled with errors, omissions, possibly even fraud, and that the people who have been questioning what has been going on at the IPCC have been correct in their assessments of “unprecedented” problems with the report and the people responsible for it.

I am glad to see that they have made what appear to be some solid recommendations about how future IPCC reports will be handled, which hopefully won’t only provide a more realistic report, but will have ways for non-participants to be able to review the old who-what-where-when-and why based upon what’s contained in the report without having to ask a lot of questions with no answers received. In other words the next report should contain just about everything anyone would want to know about the data, the process, the scientist involved, how decisions were made, etc.

It also appears based upon their recommendation to elect an Executive Director and limit his or her term that they’re less than happy with Rajendra Pachauri who throughout this process seems to have, to be polite, done an lees than stellar job.  They also want people in charge in between reports so there can be valid responses to valid questions after the next report is issued.

If this document isn’t ignored it will be a good thing.  But, there’s always the possibility that we’ll end up with it only producing new ways for some of the participants to provide another faux report with faux information, provided by faux science in an effort to keep the pressure on that anthropogenic global warming is real. That remains to be seen.

Per their Executive Summary found here (PDF), we get the following recommendations.

  • Recommendation: The IPCC should establish an Executive Committee to act on its behalf between Plenary sessions. The membership of the Committee should include the IPCC Chair, the Working Group Co-chairs, the senior member of the Secretariat, and 3 independent members, including some from outside of the climate community. Members would be elected by the Plenary and serve until their successors are in place.
  • Recommendation: The IPCC should elect an Executive Director to lead the Secretariat and handle day-to-day operations of the organization. The term of this senior scientist should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.
  • Recommendation: The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all non-editorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments.
  • Recommendation: All Working Groups should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in their Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary, as suggested in IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the Fourth Assessment Report. This scale may be supplemented by a quantitative probability scale, if appropriate.
  • Recommendation: Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert judgment, and/or model runs).
  • Recommendation: The IPCC should complete and implement a communications strategy that emphasizes transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses, and relevance to stakeholders, and which includes guidelines about who can speak on behalf of IPCC and how to represent the organization appropriately.

From Fox News we get quotes from Harold Shapiro, Chair of the IAC investigation:

It appears that editors “didn’t follow through carefully enough on what review editors commented,” said Shapiro.

“We found in the summary for policymakers that there were two kinds of errors that came up — one is the kind where they place high confidence in something where there is very little evidence. The other is the kind where you make a statement … with no substantive value, in our judgment.”

And quotes from Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University:

“The IPCC report is filled with statements of ‘90% certainty’ without even saying 90% of what or providing any basis for such statements. Yet those pronouncements of certainty were used over and over as though that had been scientifically proven somehow,” he told FoxNews.com.

It seems Pachauri doesn’t get the message:

“The IPCC has yet to review the IAC’s findings, so I am not able to comment on its findings,” said longstanding chair Rajendra Pachauri in a press conference following the presentation. But he did note that none of the seven reviews of the IPCC to date had found flaws in the U.N. group.

Hopefully he will get it, in the end (pun intended).

The main report found here (PDF), will provide you with more details about the IPCC’s failures and what direction the IAC wants them to go in, which seems to be in the direction of real science, and that’s a good thing.

Perhaps the CO2 Insanity is beginning to subside.

Source: IAC

Source: Fox News

Comments Off on IAC REPORT ON IPCC: Finally skeptics exonerated

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IAC, IPCC, United Nations

Pachauri cleared of financial wrongdoing….really?

Today we have George Monbiot (referred to as “Moonbat” by some of his “friends”) yelling like Tarzan after getting a nice sloppy kiss from Jane, about how Rajendra Pacuauri, Chairman of the IPCC, has been cleared of financial wrongdoing by KPMG, found here.

To read Mr. Monbiot’s blog one would think that this entailed a complete financial audit and that it is 100% proof positive of no wrongdoing by Pachauri. It would be nice if that was true, if it were I’d accept it. But after reading the report I have to say that while it sounds like “exoneration” on the face of it, I find some things surrounding this “exoneration” that I feel would lead a reasonable person to question the veracity of the report.

First: To analyze this, lets first remember that there’s absolutely zip, nada, nothing in the KPMG report regarding any of the actual science surrounding the last IPCC report.  If you remember it is the one that had the glaciers in the Himalayas melting by 2035. This is not reporting about anything other than anything other than Mr. Pachauri’s finances. KPMG is financial accounting company, not Science-R-Us.

Second: Lets go over the report and see what we find inside it.

  1. Note it’s only a “review” and isn’t a complete audit.
  2. It’s been done by KPMG, which while I’m sure is a good organization still has had its pecadellos over the years such as:

a) A 2003 scandal in which KPMG admitted setting up phony tax-shelters: “KPMG admitted to setting up fake tax shelters for it’s wealthiest clients, which helped them evade paying $2.5 Billion in tax dollars throughout the 1990’s. If that wasn’t enough, KMPG was accused with the obstruction of justice as investigators tried to piece together the facts of the accounting scandal.”

b) The 2020 Hontex Scandal in China where evidently KPMG

i) Slipped up when providing statements for the Hontex IPO in 2009, which raised $129 million USD.

ii) Which caused the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission to go to court to freeze the assets of Hontex.

iii) “The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) charged KPMG senior manager Leung Sze-chit, 32, of offering a bribe of HK$100,000 (US$12,900) in February to his subordinate, Lau Shuk-ting, “as a reward for preparing the accountant’s report in the prospectus for the global offering of Hontex.”

(Again, I am can’t and won’t say that KPMG did anything regarding this review that was improper, you can read up on them and judge for yourself. I do think the aforementioned “problems” would at least cause a reasonable person to wonder if perhaps anything “off-color” went on with this “review.” Don’t blame me, blame KPMG’s past performance, I’m only making you aware of it, you can judge for yourself.)

3. At the end of this “review” in Section 6.1, please note the following statements:

6.1 Limitations

6.1.1 This report is based on information provided to us by TERI, Dr. Pachauri and his tax counsel,Mr. Ashok Khurana (M/s A.K. Khurana & Associates, Chartered Accountants). Work done by us was as considered necessary at the given point in time. Third party evidence has not been verified. We have relied on both oral and documentary evidence.

6.1.2 In accordance with its policy, KPMG advises that neither it nor any Partners or employee undertakes responsibility arising in any way whatsoever, to any person other than our client in respect of the matters dealt in this report, including any errors or omission therein, arising through negligence or otherwise, however caused.

6.1.3 Our work constituted limited review, and the scope of our work was significantly different from that of an audit and cannot therefore be relied upon to provide the same level of assurance as an audit.

4. Date of Report

a). Please note per the shot of the cover above that the report only covers for the dates between April 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009.

b) The IPCC 4th Assessment report was completed and published in February, 2007.  This is  an amazingly long time before the review starts covering Pachauri’s finances in 2008.

c) One should also note that Dr. Pachauri was hired as Chairman of the IPCC in July, 2001. This leaves almost 6 years of no financial data having been provided or reviewed while he was Chairman of the IPCC.

5. Future Compensation

a) There is no mention of any future compensation that may or may not have been promised to Dr. Pachauri by TERI, or anyone else.

(I know it’s not anything that KPMG could put a finger on, but face it, it is entirely possible that Pachauri could end up with a nice fat seat on the Board of Directors at someplace after he’s done being Chairman of the IPCC as a reward for being a good boy. I guess one could pick anyone who will profit from global warming and the resulting carbon trading as a potential benefactor. Speculation indeed, but it’s a valid question.  Whether it has a valid answer or not is another story.)

SUMMARY

Here we have a “review” based upon information provided by the people being investigated that has not been verified. We also have KPMG playing CYA by basically stating they’re not going to be responsible if there was any hanky-panky or if TERI, Pachauri or his tax counsel “conveniently” forgot to provide them with anything, or if anything they provided wasn’t 100% accurate. (To simplify things it means this could perhaps be a case of bullshit in and bullshit out.)

Then they close by saying it’s not an audit and shouldn’t be taken as an audit because of all the aforementioned reasons. If it were an audit the information would have been verified, but it wasn’t. Sorry, but this really sounds just like the computer “models” used by certain “warmer” orientated scientist to “prove” their global warming theories.  They plug-in whatever “conveniently” arrives at the conclusion that we have CO2 induced global warming.

Perhaps the information provided in this “review” was of the same order. Instead of feeding in scary things like hot temperatures, we may have a case of feeding in nice financial things that prove everyone is “above-board” and totally honest.

You can decide for yourself.  Do you think this really is an exoneration of Dr. Pachauri’s financial dealings? Or, is it a case of  CO2 Insanity? Sorry but I can’t feel satisfied that this is an exoneration.

Source: The Guardian

The KPMG Review in its entirety is here

Comments Off on Pachauri cleared of financial wrongdoing….really?

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Legal, Science

IAC Whitewash of IPCC due 8/30/10

We can see what will happen but I’d wager that the IAC will find the IPCC to be almost perfect.  What generally seems to happen when institutions investigate them selves. It’s going to be available 8/30/10 at http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/.

Whitewash or not it should be an interesting read. Note at their website it’s described as “an independent review of the processes and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” Funny, like other recent investigations they don’t seem interested in the actual science.

At the below link you can reserve your copy and even submit your comments about it.  I wonder if the comments button will disappear shortly after the report comes out?

Source: IAC

Comments Off on IAC Whitewash of IPCC due 8/30/10

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, United Nations