Dec 20 2009

A Liberal Con Worth Billion$

Published by at 1:46 pm under All General Discussions,Global Warming

The concept of man-made global warming could easily be seen as a complex con meant to create a myriad of liberal billionaires. Why?

Well simply because the liberals espousing man-made global warming (based on fatally flawed and unprofessional science) have already amassed fortunes based on the fad of AGW, and are poised to become the next Bill Gates if the con plays out in their favor – all at taxpayer expense of course:

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

The guy is not even a real theoretical scientist, he worked on a railroad! While oil companies make good money fueling the economies of the world, the green corporate greed makes them look like amateurs. Now that last few real journalists are finally taking notice of the obvious conflict of interest (where those whose fortunes and credibility rest on AGW being proven are responsible for proving AGW) maybe the con will be exposed?

It at least should be investigated to ensure there is no green corporate greed! And if they have a financial interest they either cough them up or step down.

More by Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air.

11 responses so far

11 Responses to “A Liberal Con Worth Billion$”

  1. […] 1: Shady deals by UN climate change guru Rajendra Pachauri. See also “A liberal con worth billions” at  the […]

  2. Frogg1 says:

    Fraud in Europe’s Cap and Trade System a ‘Red Flag,’ Critics Say

  3. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Le Combat, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: A Liberal Con Worth Billion$ […]

  4. […] The monkey business of UN climate head honcho Rajendra Pachauri . Don’t miss Strata’s commentary. […]

  5. Neo says:

    To be fair, Dr Rajendra Pachauri does have a MS in Industrial Engineering (1972), a PhD in Industrial Engineering and a PhD in Economics from North Carolina State University, but, frankly, most of the “peer review” “climate scientists” bunch would not recognize anyone with those credentials as a “climate scientist.”

  6. Neo says:

    New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere. had this interesting point in their story on this …

    This same cooling effect is expected to happen (somewhat counterintuitively) as carbon dioxide concentrations increase from emissions at Earth’s surface. So understanding the natural variability of this layer is important to detecting any changes from carbon dioxide increases.

    The highest levels of our atmosphere are poorly understood, especially the thermosphere. At an altitude between 60 and 180 kilometers, it is the region where the Sun’s energy begins to interact with atmospheric particles. Just how this dynamic relationship proceeds is still under investigation, but according to a recent press release from the the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), the thermosphere has experienced a tenfold decline in temperature since 2002.

  7. AJStrata says:

    Neo – Many thanks, will use that in a new post!

  8. Neo says:

    China also took note of the corruption endemic in Europe’s [cap-and-trade] system

    It has long been considered that the US was the target of this massive redistribution of wealth, but for a moment, consider the case that over time the biggest “target” of this scheme turned out to be China … and China wanted no part of it.
    The irony of communist China being against “wealth redistribution” is just so far out there.

  9. sbd says:

    From: Phil Jones
    To: John Christy
    Subject: This and that
    Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005

    There has been some email traffic in the last few days to a week – quite a bit really, only a small part about MSU. The main part has been one of your House subcommittees wanting Mike Mann and others and IPCC to respond on how they produced their reconstructions and how IPCC produced their report.

    In case you want to look at this see later in the email !
    Also this load of rubbish !

    This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only
    7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

    The Australian also alerted me to this blogging ! I think this is the term ! Luckily I don’t live in Australia.


    Unlike the UK, the public in Australia is very very naïve about climate change, mostly because of our governments Kyoto stance, and because there is a proliferation of people with no climate knowledge at all that are prepared to do the gov bidding. Hence the general populace is at best confused, and at worst, antagonistic about climate change -for instance, at a recent rural meeting on drought, attended by politicians and around 2000 farmers, a Qld collegue – Dr Roger Stone – spoke about drought from a climatologist point of view, and suggested that climate change may be playing a role in Australias continuing drought+water problem. He was booed and heckled (and unfortunately some politicians applauded when this happened) – that’s what we’re dealing with due to columists such as the one I sent to you.

    Now to your email. I have seen the latest Mears and Wentz paper (to Science), but am not reviewing it, thank goodness. I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4. Somewhat circular, but I kept to my usual standards.

    The Hadley Centre are working on the day/night issue with sondes, but there are a lot of problems as there are very few sites in the tropics with both and where both can be distinguished. My own view if that the sondes are overdoing the cooling wrt MSU4 in the lower stratosphere, and some of this likely (IPCC definition) affects the upper troposphere as well. Sondes are a mess and the fact you get agreement with some of them is miraculous. Have you looked at individual sondes, rather than averages – particularly tropical ones? LKS is good, but the RATPAC update less so.

    As for being on the latest VG analysis, Kostya wanted it to use the surface data. I thought the model comparisons were a useful aside, so agreed. Ben sent me a paper he’s submitted with lots of model comparisons that I also thought a useful addition to the subject.

    As for resolving all this (as opposed to the dogfight) I’m hoping that CCSP will come up with something – a compromise. I might be naive in this respect. I hope you are still emailing and talking to Carl and Frank. How is CCSP going? Are you still on schedule for end of August for your open review?

    What will be interesting is to see how IPCC pans out, as we’ve been told we can’t use any article that hasn’t been submitted by May 31. This date isn’t binding, but Aug 12 is a little more as this is when we must submit our next draft – the one everybody will be able to get access to and comment upon. The science isn’t going to stop from now until AR4 comes out in early 2007, so we are going to have to add in relevant new and important papers. I hope it is up to us to decide what is important and new. So, unless you get something to me soon, it won’t be in this version. It shouldn’t matter though, as it will be ridiculous to keep later drafts without it. We will be open to criticism though with what we do add in subsequent drafts. Someone is going to check the final version and the Aug 12 draft.

    This is partly why I’ve sent you the rest of this email. IPCC, me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do.

    As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.



  10. Neo says:

    Good news .. a peer-reviewed study says that we are already fighting global warming ..

    “My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming.” His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.

    .. bad news, the “scientists” were all wrong.

  11. […] III: It has been well established that Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, serves on the board  of numerous green companies and […]