“The U.N. IPCC is guilty of nothing short of making the science fit their political agenda.” Marc Morano
“The U.N. IPCC is a political body masquerading as a ‘science’ body. The U.N.’s ‘science’ conclusions are agreed to line by line for its Summary for Policy Makers with politicians, U. N. officials and delegates.” Ibid
“U.N. officials were predicting as far back as 2009 that their next climate warning would return to being alarmist, in the spirit of Al Gore’s 2006 documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ Marc Morano, editor of ClimateDepot.com, asked Rajendra K. Pachauri how U.N. officials in 2009 or 2010 could possibly know what a ‘science’ report in 2014 would say.” Jerome R. Corsi
Jerome R. Corsi, WND, April 2, 2014
UNITED NATIONS – With contrary evidence increasingly prompting many scientists to distance themselves from alarmist predictions, the United Nations climate panel’s latest report warning that climate change will lead to war, famine and extreme weather that could result in the extinction of human beings shows the periodic reports are more about politics than science, charges a watchdog.
Marc Morano, editor of ClimateDepot.com, noted that the panel’s chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri, admitted in an interview last September with the London Guardian that the purpose of the periodic U.N. climate report was to make the case that “action is needed on climate change.”
“Top United Nations officials apparently knew years in advance exactly what this new U.N. climate report was going to say,” Morano said. “The U.N. IPCC is guilty of nothing short of making the science fit their political agenda.”
At a press conference in Yokohama, Japan, March 25, Pachauri released the U.N. panel’s fifth climate assessment, which concludes a continued rise in carbon dioxide levels in the earth’s atmosphere threatens the fundamental systems that support human civilization, to the extent “no one will be untouched.”
But in the Guardian interview, he admitted the purpose of the report is to prompt political action.
“There will be enough information provided so that rational people across the globe will see that action is needed on climate change,” he said.
He further confessed, Morano noted, that the IPCC science reports are tailored to meet the political needs of governments.
“We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do,” Pachauri told the London paper. “If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.”
Return to alarmism
Morano pointed out that U.N. officials were predicting as far back as 2009 that their next climate warning would return to being alarmist, in the spirit of Al Gore’s 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
The report would come, Morano said, without an acknowledgement that warnings of “global warming” have given way to “climate change” as the scientific data has shown that the average global temperature has not risen for more than 15 years.
In a 2009 interview with the Bahai News Service in 2009, Pachauri that when “the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken.”
“People are going to say, ‘My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned,’” he said.
Morano asked how Pachauri and other U.N. officials in 2009 or 2010 could possibly know what a “science” report in 2014 would say.
His answer was direct.
“The U.N. IPCC is a political body masquerading as a ‘science’ body,’” he charged. “The U.N.’s ‘science’ conclusions are agreed to line by line for its Summary for Policy Makers with politicians, U.N. officials and delegates.”
The IPCC has yet to recover from the major damage to its credibility posed by “Climategate.” The controversy that developed in 2009 centered on the release of thousands emails between IPCC members that were hacked from a computer server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
The emails showed that prominent climate scientists had falsified data to support their contention that human-generated carbon dioxide would have disastrous environmental consequences.
Morano further points out the London Daily Mail has reported a contributor to the IPCC’s latest climate assessment, Professor Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex, has accused the IPCC of being “alarmist” and has demanded his name be withdrawn.
Tol told the Daily Mail his colleagues had “drifted too far to the alarmist side” and were likening climate change to the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.”
Morano pointed out Tol’s section of the report, based on 18 economic studies, had predicted in early drafts that global warming of 2.5°C would cut economic output between 0.2 and 2 percent a year, much less than previous estimates of up to 20 percent.
As WND reported in 2010, Pachauri faced demands to resign as chairman of the IPCC after the panel “expressed regret” in having to admit its warning that the Himalayan glaciers were “very likely” to melt by 2035 had no basis in fact.
Pachauri dismissed calls for his resignation, but the damage was still done.
“I know a lot of climate skeptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” the beleaguered Pachauri told the Times of London. “It was a collective failure by a number of people. I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”
Graham Cogley, the Canadian scientist who exposed the IPCC glacier error, warned that Pachauri now was the one on thin ice.
“People who want to undermine the science on climate change will be crawling over the report looking for another mistake like this, and if they do find another one it will be curtains for Pachauri,” said Fred Pearce, a British environmental journalist who has reported extensively on Gogley’s refutation of the Himalayan glacier prediction.
“The way [Pachauri] has handled this glacier issue means he’s now a sitting duck if anything else turns up,” Pearce said.
In 2007, when Pachauri shared the Nobel Peace prize with Al Gore for leading the global warming charge, it would have been hard to predict his fast fall.
By 2010, media worldwide began describing Pachauri with the tag of “controversial former railroad engineer” and “lobbyist,” rather than as “the world’s leading climate scientist.”
Pachauri turns carbon into green
WND reported in 2009 a Mumbai-based Indian multinational conglomerate with business ties to Pachauri stood to make several hundred million dollars in European Union carbon credits simply by closing a steel production facility in Britain with the loss of 1,700 jobs.
The Tata Group headquartered in Mumbai had been calculated to receive windfall profits of up to £1.2 billion from closing the Corus Redcar steelmaking plant in Britain. About half of the savings was expected to result from cashing in on carbon credits granted the steelmaker by the European Union under the EU’s emissions trading scheme, or ETS.
In 1974, the TATA Group provided the financial resources to found the Tata Energy Research Institute, or TERI, a policy organization headquartered in New Delhi, India, for which Pachauri has served as chairman since its formation.
Continued business ties between TERI and TATA were demonstrated by a press announcement on the TERI website Feb. 4, 2009. Jairam Ramesh, the Indian minister of state for commerce and industry as well as minister of state for power, announced a joint venture with TERI and TATA power to extract and use carbon dioxide for the propagation of micro-algae.
WND reported in 2009 that at the time, the head of the Asian Development Bank, Haruhiko Kuroda, was warning governments that failure to reach a deal at the upcoming U.N. Climate Summit in Copenhagen could lead to a collapse of the carbon market. He said rich countries, therefore, should commit up to $100 billion to finance a climate deal that would benefit the developing world.
Pachauri at that time chaired the Asian Development Bank Advisory Group on Climate Change.
Christopher Booker, author of “The Real Global Warming Disaster,” estimated that carbon permits traded in global exchanges such as the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System, then estimated worth an estimated $126 billion, stood be valued in the trillions, “making carbon the most valuable traded commodity in the world,” outpacing even oil.
“Forget Big Oil: the new world power is Big Carbon,” Booker wrote. “Truly it has been a miracle of our time that they have managed to transform carbon dioxide, a gas upon which all life on earth depends, into a ‘pollutant,’ worth more than diamonds, let alone oil.”
Had the U.N. meeting succeeded to impose a new cap-and-trade scheme on the world economy, Pachauri and others working within the environmental industries emerging out of global-warming activism were positioned to make millions personally.
On Dec. 10, 2007, Pachauri shared with Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. In his lecture at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies, Pachauri openly represented the U.N.’s IPCC.