The fraudulent researcher who claimed the Himalayan glaciers could disappear in three decades is on the payroll of the Chairman of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The invented research even helped the global warmers' favourite maharishi, Dr Pachauri, win $4 million in research grants for his own private company.
So a lucrative job with the UN was not enough!
Even though the Himalayas are not melting, not even the rocks, it looks like we have a corruption scandal here.
To recap, the IPCC’s 2007 report claiming the world is going to hell contained supposed research showing the Himalayan glaciers, supplying water to 40% of the world’s population, could disappear by 2035.
GREENPIECE THE PIONEER
It was the work of one Dr Hasnain, criticized by at the time by his colleagues as "so wrong that it is not even worth dismissing". Yet it still went into the IPCC’s 2007 report.
Now even the IPCC admits it was codswallop. Will Dr Pachauri repay the $4 million in research grants that he’s managed to raise for his own private business?
The environmental movement had more than its fair share of crooks long before people started spelling its most famous institution, Greenpiece, after the US dollar.
The founding father of EU environmentalism Sir Maurice Strong is a crook and it looks very much like the railway engineer-cum-chairman of the IPCC is, too. Don’t mention Al Gore.
ANYTHING WHICH IS DELIBERATELY OPAQUE IS LIKELY TO BE FRAUDULENT
Few people tend to be against the concept of cutting pollution. The far most effective way is to control what you burn, not what you emit!
Even carbon traders admit, "If you want to keep a donkey healthy, you don't regulate what comes out of it: you regulate what goes in."
Yet look what we have. A system of carbon trading so opaque, that the biggest polluting companies are enthusiastic supporters!
As one poster to the FT wrote: “Monetising by political and administrative fiat something intrinsically worthless - ie CO2 - could only make sense to people accustomed to a financial system based upon monetising intrinsically worthless bank IOUs. IMHO for a carbon market that actually works, we must look at ways in which we may monetise the intrinsic energy value of carbon.”
Carbon trading is so complicated it makes derivatives easy. It's also a very risky basis for saving the planet, as the FT reports:
"According to the newspaper, banks and investors are already pulling out of planned clean-energy projects in the developing world on a large scale because of the lack of certainty over international carbon trading rules after 2012, when the Kyoto protocol expires, while the recession is blamed for dampening demand for credits under the current regime. Staffing levels on carbon trading desks, meanwhile, are reportedly also beginning to be cut."
The invented research even helped the global warmers' favourite maharishi, Dr Pachauri, win $4 million in research grants for his own private company.
So a lucrative job with the UN was not enough!
Even though the Himalayas are not melting, not even the rocks, it looks like we have a corruption scandal here.
To recap, the IPCC’s 2007 report claiming the world is going to hell contained supposed research showing the Himalayan glaciers, supplying water to 40% of the world’s population, could disappear by 2035.
GREENPIECE THE PIONEER
It was the work of one Dr Hasnain, criticized by at the time by his colleagues as "so wrong that it is not even worth dismissing". Yet it still went into the IPCC’s 2007 report.
Now even the IPCC admits it was codswallop. Will Dr Pachauri repay the $4 million in research grants that he’s managed to raise for his own private business?
The environmental movement had more than its fair share of crooks long before people started spelling its most famous institution, Greenpiece, after the US dollar.
The founding father of EU environmentalism Sir Maurice Strong is a crook and it looks very much like the railway engineer-cum-chairman of the IPCC is, too. Don’t mention Al Gore.
ANYTHING WHICH IS DELIBERATELY OPAQUE IS LIKELY TO BE FRAUDULENT
Few people tend to be against the concept of cutting pollution. The far most effective way is to control what you burn, not what you emit!
Even carbon traders admit, "If you want to keep a donkey healthy, you don't regulate what comes out of it: you regulate what goes in."
Yet look what we have. A system of carbon trading so opaque, that the biggest polluting companies are enthusiastic supporters!
As one poster to the FT wrote: “Monetising by political and administrative fiat something intrinsically worthless - ie CO2 - could only make sense to people accustomed to a financial system based upon monetising intrinsically worthless bank IOUs. IMHO for a carbon market that actually works, we must look at ways in which we may monetise the intrinsic energy value of carbon.”
Carbon trading is so complicated it makes derivatives easy. It's also a very risky basis for saving the planet, as the FT reports:
"According to the newspaper, banks and investors are already pulling out of planned clean-energy projects in the developing world on a large scale because of the lack of certainty over international carbon trading rules after 2012, when the Kyoto protocol expires, while the recession is blamed for dampening demand for credits under the current regime. Staffing levels on carbon trading desks, meanwhile, are reportedly also beginning to be cut."
Comments