It’s not exactly the same feeling Rajendra Pachauri must have felt from the adoration of worshipers as he took the stage to share the Nobel Peace prize with Al Gore, but the Wall Street Journal gave him and his IPCC some press today. In fact, they placed the story right smack on the front page, in the article entitled, Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel.

Here’s a short excerpt:

The IPCC has faced withering criticism. Emails hacked from a U.K. climate lab and posted online late last year appear to show scientists trying to squelch researchers who disagreed with their conclusion that humans are largely responsible for climate change. And last month, the IPCC admitted its celebrated 2007 report contained an error: a false claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. The IPCC report got the date from a World Wildlife Fund report.

Even some who agree with the IPCC conclusion that humans are significantly contributing to climate change say the IPCC has morphed from a scientific analyst to a political actor. “It’s very much an advocacy organization that’s couched in the role of advice,” says Roger Pielke, a University of Colorado political scientist. He says many IPCC participants want “to compel action” instead of “just summarizing science.”

To restore its credibility, the IPCC will focus on enforcing rules already on the books, IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri and other officials said in interviews. Scientific claims must be checked with several experts before being published. IPCC reports must reflect disagreements when consensus can’t be reached. And people who write reports must refrain from advocating specific environmental actions—a political line the IPCC isn’t supposed to cross.

Of course, WSJ readers are likely more skeptical (and intelligent) than readers of most other news publications, but even so, the accompanying readers’ poll showed vast numbers of people are now seeing the whole scheme as a fraud. The poll asked readers to grade the IPCC on how good of a job they were doing. At the time we read it, with about 650 votes in, 82% had given them an F.

Is that an F for fail or an F for fraud?

He will try to save his job and shore up support for the IPCC in the wake of the discovery of errors in its latest report.

He is attending a special closed meeting of environment and climate ministers in the fringes of the annual assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Governing Council, the biggest such event since Copenhagen climate summit that ended in confusion and recriminations last December.

After reading the entire article, it sounds like another dog & pony show. They really can’t fire him now, and it sounds like the UNEP probably wouldn’t even if they could. I’d venture a guess this will be more like a meeting of the minds to come up with some new and improved BS so they can justify not replacing him. But then, I’m a suspicious person.

Instead ministers will press him to regain their confidence by outlining measures to prevent future errors and subject his organisation to independent scrutiny.

I wonder if “independent scrutiny” is a code word for having watchdogs from the UN all over him so he doesn’t screw up this time?

After all the lies, deceit, manipulation and corruption, I can’t fathom why they would even want to talk to this guy, much less expect him to regain UNEP’s or anyone else’s confidence.

A quote from Forrest Gump comes to mind: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

“On behalf of the President of Finland Ms. Tarja Halonen, Prime Minister Vanhanen and Ambassador of Finland to India, Ms. Terhi Hakala presented Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, the Director-General of TERI and Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with The Commander of the Order of the White Rose of Finland. Dr Pachauri had been conferred with the award for his decade’s long, dedicated work in promoting international co-operation on climate change and sustainable development.”

Finland joined the European Union in 1995, and the Eurozone in 1999, as the only Nordic country of that trading bloc. Around 5.4 million people reside in Finland, with the majority concentrated in the southern part of the country and it is the most sparsely populated country in the European Union.

Readers should be under no illusions about this. Despite all the recent shocking climate scandals, including Glaciergate, traced directly back to the lies and deceit of Pachauri, world leaders are now falling over themselves to excuse or reward this criminal fraudster because he has served their hidden political agendas.

This is no less a controversy as when that other Nordic socialist nation, Norway, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to fellow climate crooks, Al Gore and the IPCC in 2007.

Climate skeptics can interpret the Finnish socialist government’s outrageous public gesture as a further snub to truth, integrity and transparency in climate science. The surprise of this award gives further unexpected ammunition to the accusations that the IPCC’s true ulterior goal was to trick national democracies into signing away hard-won freedoms over to an unelected and authoritarian socialist New World Order.

No, this isn’t Dr Pachauri getting to work in the morning. It’s reported he prefers to use a petrol driven car, but I suspect it’s how he’d like us in the West to travel.

His views on meat consumption have been widely reported:

“People should consider eating less meat as a way of combating global warming, says the UN’s top climate scientist.”

Eating meat doesn’t produce methane – fact. If you maintain a herd of ruminants (cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels), then you will be producing methane. But, then so does rice cultivation. The USA isn’t exactly known as a major rice cultivator, but according to EPA figures, US methane production from rice cultivation in 2007 was more than six times that produced by petrochemical production.

Dr Pachauri’s comment was just grandstanding to whip up anti-West sentiment, The only way to prevent methane production by ruminants would be to massively cull the herds. Note that this was not suggested by Dr Pachauri. Is this why?

Number of cows globally: 1.5 billion [NATURE oct 04]
Number of cows in India: 200 million [Times of India aug 04]
Number of buffaloes in India: 90 million [Times of India aug 04]

In many states in India it is against the law to kill a cow, for any purpose, as it’s an object of reverence in Hindu religion. If he had suggested culling cattle it could have caused riots.

Another inconvenient fact:

India is the largest producer of milk producing more than 100 million tons of milk per annum.

Source: report by Hindustan Studies & Services Ltd. and Infolitics

Conclusion? Dr. Pachauri had to say something shocking that only affected Westerners. He couldn’t suggest banning rice production as a source of methane, or that would outrage developing countries. Similarly he couldn’t suggest culling ruminants as India has larger herds than anyone, and killing them is a religious taboo. That left eating meat as his perfect target, which ignores the fact that eating meat doesn’t produce methane at all. If producing meat for food is inefficient then surely maintaining the world’s larget herd of cattle that is never eaten is even more inefficient.

Hitler movie remakes are sweeping Youtube lately. Here is the most recent, with Hitler irate that the climate change scam is falling apart.

Lord Monckton comments on corruption in climate change funding, climate change millionaires and billionaires, and at minute 07:10 he says that Rajendra Pachuari will be jailed for fraud.

I’m not here to spout ad hominem. So first off let’s acknowledge that some apologists will argue that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chief Dr. Rajendra Pachauri has done more than anyone to go that extra mile to save us all from the global warming threat–and below we have the proof. The UK’s Daily Telegraph has disclosed that the embattled head of the United Nations’ climate change panel clocked up more than half a million miles of air travel in a year.

The high-flying former Delhi train engineer still scoots here there and everywhere telling anyone who will listen that they must eat less meat, pay increased aviation taxes and be refused iced water in restaurants. But in spreading his message, Pachauri creates an enormous carbon footprint of his own. The Telegraph tells us:

Between January 2007 and July 2008, he took more than 120 long-haul flights and 43 short-haul trips, taking in countries such as New Zealand, America and Fiji.

Dr. Pachauri’s trips would have produced 121.1 tons of carbon dioxide, according to calculations by ClimateCare, a carbon offset provider.

It is estimated that the average Briton produces around 8.6 tons of carbon dioxide a year, while the average Indian produces just over one ton.

Pontificate Pachauri pleads he is an exception from the rest of humanity by proudly boasting,

“I have to go all over the world and I have to convince people that this is a serious problem that we have to address.”

Sadly, the jet-setting jokester hasn’t heard of the power of the Internet whereby a handful of unpaid climate skeptic bloggers, with no frequent flyer benefits, are doing a far better job of communicating their message that the multi-governmental taxpayer-funded IPCC is conning the world into blowing billions on a non-problem.

In May 2008, the humble, modest living Pachauri felt compelled to fly more than 6,500 miles from Tokyo to New Haven in Connecticut to collect an honorary degree from Yale University. I wonder if Yale still feels so “privileged” to have honored him so handsomely?

Dr. Pachauri would be in line to add tens of millions to his personal fortune if the global carbon trading market ever takes off as much as he does. Pachauri has innumerable links to worldwide business interests and is director-general of Delhi based “The Energy and Resources Institute” (Teri). Dr. Pachauri has so far refused to resign despite Greenpeace, a major driving force at the IPCC, asking him to step down.

Clearly Delhi’s Doctor of Deceit possesses a very thick skin despite currently being investigated in Britain for charity fraud. Speaking on “Today” a UK show on Radio 4 last week, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and soft porn novelist still insisted he’d done nothing wrong. Come off it, Rajendra, next you’ll be telling us you’ve being persecuted like your chum, Phil ‘Death Threats’ Jones.

The revelation was overlooked first time round by the mainstream media as it broke during the deluge to cover the Pachaurigate and Glaciergate stories. The London Times reports:

Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the IPCC from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.

“The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.”

The fabrication was discovered by the UK group Climate Resistance as it was fact-checking an Oxfam publication.

In a guest post at Roger Pielke Jr’s blog, Ben Pile explained,

There is only limited discussion of “deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture” in that paper, and its focus is not ‘some’ African countries, but just three: Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria. It is not climate research. It is a discussion about the possible effects of climate change.

This will no doubt again make no impression on IPCC’s head honcho and the “world’s leading climatologist” Rajendra Pachauri, who has more important tasks in hand such as peddling his latest soft porn offering, Return to Almora, published in Dr Pachauri’s native India last month.

This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team told the Times:

“I was not an author on the Synthesis Report but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines.”

But as a devastating twist, we can add a postscript to the plot as reported by that superb blog, eureferendum:

Unlike the glacier claim, which was confined to a section of the technical Working Group II report, this “50 percent by 2020″ claim forms part of the key Synthesis Report, the production of which was the personal responsibility of the chair of the IPCC, Dr R K Pachauri. It has been repeated by him in many public fora. He, therefore, bears a personal responsibility for the error.

Even if you don’t like Glenn Beck (we happen to love him), you should listen to the video. He has a way of simplifying the complex, and here he takes on Rajendra Pachauri and the IPCC.

“It doesn’t take a genius to arrive at the conclusion that apparently this is carefully orchestrated.”

He does have a point, something is going on. It’s called an awakening. And the only orchestration on the skeptical side consists of a sweeping baton that cues a new story, the rhythmic word of mouth traveling down the climate vine, and the crescendo of hope skeptics feel when a resignation is asked for. But his desperation becomes apparent when he says:

I don’t want to get down to a personal level, but all you need to do is look at their backgrounds. They are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder – I hope that they apply it to their faces every day – and people who say that the only way to deal with HIV/Aids is to screen the population on a regular basis and isolate those who are infected.

That is a bold statement, Mr Pachauri. What kind of evidence do you have that skeptics don’t see the link between smoking and cancer? Do you really think some of us powder our bodies with talcum while we have a smoke instead of vitamins. You probably also think we all have gun racks in the back of our pickup trucks.

It’s only a surmise. I have no evidence. But there is enough documentary evidence to show that, for instance, in Washington DC, the number of lobbyists (trying to influence US climate change policy) has increased many fold and from what I read from the Centre for Public Integrity, 770 companies are supporting some of these lobbyists. And certainly some of them are active on the other side of the Atlantic as well.

The presumption is since these people are spending so much time trying to write all kinds of malicious articles and indulge in invective, there would probably be some resources that are flowing to them. It’s all part of a pattern. But let me clarify. I have no proof. I can only presume something like this is at work.

Ah, the amount of substantial backing you put into that statement seems about up to par with your reports, don’t you think? And, by the way, we think you know a few things about resources flowing into companies based on false information.

Source: FT