Meet the New IPCC Chair
New IPCC Chair
https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/new-ipcc-chair/
The previous chairman of the IPCC, railway engineer and soft porn writer Rajendra Pachauri, faces allegations of sexual harassment and has at last been replaced after 13 years in post. After an election involving representatives of 134 different countries, his replacement has been announced as Hoesung Lee, an economist from Korea, see IPCC press release. His CV reveals the intriguing fact that he worked for Exxon for three years in the 1970s. He has been involved with the IPCC since 1992, as part of IPCC WGIII, Mitigation of Climate Change. Lee appears already to have got himself in something of a muddle regarding the IPCC’s remit. The IPCC principles say that “The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive”. However in an interview quoted here he makes a clear policy call for a carbon tax: “Climate change is a typical example of externalities and the way to correct the externality problem is to have a price on certain activities that cause those externalities. In our case, that is a price on carbon emissions – what you may call a carbon tax”. Mike Shellenberger is not impressed: Runner-up in the election Jean-Pascal van Ypersele might have been expected to congratulate Lee, but does not appear to have done so, though he did retweet someone describing himself as “the best IPCC Chair the IPCC never had”. See coverage elsewhere from the BBC, Climate Home, Revkin in NYT, Carbon Brief, Bishop Hill, Nature.
— gReader Pro…
Running Away: Yet another fake Nobel claims bites the dust, courtesy of JunkScience.com
Running Away: Yet another fake Nobel claims bites the dust, courtesy of JunkScience.com
The University of Montana’s Steve Running has been de-Nobeled. Running is yet another warmist who has falsely claimed to be a Nobelist. Below are images from his web site: Both Running and the University of Montana have exploited these false claims as revealed by this Google search result: Though others have raised Running’s false claim […]
— gReader Pro…
Australia MUST SAY NO to COP21 Climate Treaty
Australia MUST SAY NO to COP21 Climate Treaty
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/10/australia-must-say-no-to-cop21-climate.html
Why say “No” to a new UN Climate Treaty? 25 years of Propaganda – The upcoming conference in Paris is the culmination of more than two decades of intensive (and very expensive) propagandizing and fear-mongering aimed at convincing the people of the world (especially in The West) that we must all submit to drastic global controls or face dreadful consequences from catastrophic anthropogenic (human- caused) global warming (CAGW). Bogus ‘science’ collapsing -The Paris conference is probably the ‘last ditch stand’ for the climate alarmists because real world measurements are steadily demolishing the predictions derived from deficient computer models. For example, even though carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are steadily increasing: average global temperatures have not risen for more than 17 years. actual sea level rise is looking like approximately 17 cm per century compared with UN predictions of 90 cm. Arctic and Antarctic sea ice coverage is growing despite predictions it would disappear. Plans to subvert our democracy -The conference organisers are desperate to get every nation to sign up to a new climate treaty which will commit the entire world to new emission reduction targets and commit developed nations like Australia to billions of dollars in contributions to the UN’s climate fund. Global Governance -The UN sees such a treaty as a major step forward in establishing a world government which will be able to over-ride national sovereignties by controlling global energy resources and supply. It looks like both President Obama and misguided Pope Francis will support the UN push. Canada & Australia unwilling -The conservative national governments in Canada and Australia were the only likely standouts’ in the western world – likely to resist signing the treaty. This is because the Canadian Prime Minister (Harper) and the former Australian Prime Minister (Abbott) had both rejected any climate control policies (like carbon taxes or emission trading schemes) which were likely to damage their national economies. Plot against Abbott – For this reason, left wing forces, sponsored by UN affiliations, have successfully unseated Abbott by destabilising his Prime Ministership and are working relentlessly to replace Harper’s Party at the Canadian elections in October, 2015 Turnbull turnabout – Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop, with the support of Greg Hunt, without the moderating influence of Abbott’s scepticism, now will be almost certain to sign the Paris treaty and so sell us all …
Has the Australian government decided to sign the Paris agreement (whatever it is)?
Has the Australian government decided to sign the Paris agreement (whatever it is)?
Does Ove Hoegh-Guldberg know something about Paris that hasn’t been announced? Last week his office sent out an email to all pollies, inviting them to a propaganda event for the climate machine (all paid for by the taxpayer, as usual). Not only were we told that Greg Hunt apparently supports this event (whatever that means), we are also told that “leading Australian climate scientists will discuss the impact of Australia’s decision to sign the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and the upcoming COP21.” That sentence is ambiguous. We definitely have decided to endorse the UN goals for 2030 (whatever that means, and who knows?). Julie Bishop did it last week. But have we also decided to sign the Paris agreement? That would be news. Either Ove is forward projecting his fantasies, or he’s just let slip something that Hunt told him privately. Who knows what is on offer at Paris anyway? I think the real scandal is that Australians have no idea what either the UN goals or the Paris document means. The nation ought to get to look at the fine print before anything is signed. How much sovereign power will Bishop and Turnbull give away to unelected UN bureaucrats? As far as the […]Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
— gReader Pro…
University of Montana removes Professor Running’s claim to 2007 Nobel Prize
University of Montana removes Professor Running’s claim to 2007 Nobel Prize
http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/u-of-montana-removes-professor-runnings-claim-to-2007-nobel-prize/
by Dr. Ed Berry 97 percent of the people who claim our carbon dioxide emissions cause climate change haven’t a clue as to what they are talking about. They might as well claim the most important medical remedy is to use leaches to suck blood. Yes, they are that far away from physical reality. They also believe 97 percent of scientists believe in their climate fiction, which is false. See here, here, and here. Since 2007, the University of Montana and Professor Steve Running have used Running’s claim to a Nobel Prize to implement their green agenda to promote the climate fraud. Here’s my September 2014 article about Running’s Nobel Prize fraud. Now, after eight long years of climate fraud, the University of Montana has removed Running’s false claim to a Nobel Prize from its website. After eight long years of defrauding Montanans and its students, the University has quietly admitted it was wrong. They did not remove Running’s false claim willingly. My friend Steve Milloy took them down. Running never had a Nobel Prize. Even if he did, it would not make him an expert on climate. He is a forest ecologist, not an atmospheric physicist. And a Nobel Peace Prize is not about expertise in any science. Professor Running lied about his claimed Nobel Prize. How can anyone believe he did not also lie about climate change? Running neither followed nor taught the scientific method. Instead, he brainwashed students to believe in the climate fraud. As a result of lies by so-called scientists across America, we have morons in our media who rate presidential candidates on how they “address” climate change. We have morons in our EPA who want to shut down America based upon their false eco-freak religion. We have morons in our population who believe their peer group about climate rather than read articles that show the truth. “Hey, if I’m a Democrat, I should believe Obama on climate change.” Yeah. Right! Will they read this simple article about how the Sun, not CO2, causes climate change? Will they listen to what these world-class physicists, Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever, and Murry Salby, say about climate change? No. They would rather get their education from morons. Morons who got their opinions from other morons. Myths embedded in human populations become self propagating. Myths destroy our …
Climate Depot’s Morano on Kerry’s claims of ‘climate refugees’: ‘It is the lowest common denominator of politics’
http://onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2015/10/07/kerry-chasing-an-elusive-legacy
Marc Morano, spokesman for Climate Depot, tells OneNewsNow that Kerry is after a climate legacy.
“A global warming legacy has eluded him for decades – and this is his year, this is his moment,” says Morano. “He’s coming up to the Paris (climate) talks. So he’s going to say any kind of nonsense to make that happen.”
The global-warming skeptic says while there are no climate refugees, “There are weather refugees. There are extreme disaster refugees …. Now they’re trying to say that ISIS was in part created by global warming because it created the drought in Syria which created the conditions that made ISIS.”
Morano adds there is no standard for this. “It is just the lowest common denominator of politics, and I don’t even think fellow Democrats follow this stuff,” he says. “This is preaching to the ten-percent environmental activists who like these kinds of linkages.”…
German Flagship Daily ‘Die Welt’ Ranks Gore/Pachauri Among ‘Worst Nobel Peace Prize Choices’ Ever!
German Flagship Daily ‘Die Welt’ Ranks Gore/Pachauri Among “Worst Nobel Peace Prize Choices” Ever!
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee is (in)famous for its controversial choices when selecting the winner of the prestigious prize. Many among us recall how the Oslo-based Committee once awarded the Prize to PLO leader and terrorist Yasser Arafat. “One Peace Prize winner bombs another” Today German online flagship daily ‘Die Welt’ presents an article about the worst choices made by the Committee. For example mong them they select US President Barack Obama, who was given the award in 2009. Die Welt writes: “…when one Nobel Peace Prize laureate (Barack Obama, 2009) bombs another (Doctors Without Borders, 1999) in Afghanistan, thus killing dozens of people, then doubt is warranted over whether the Prize really delivers what it promises.” Surely one has to wonder if amid the Middle East chaos Obama has really acted in the Prize’s original spirit: “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Die Welt presents its list of laureates to whom they feel the award was a blunder. Here are the top 5: 1. Henry Kissinger 2. Yasser Arafat 3. Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri 4. Wangari Maathai 5. Barack Obama Gore and Pachauri come in third. Die Welt writes that the selection of former vice president Gore had little to do with promoting ‘fraternity among nations’. Moreover the Die Welt adds: Since then Gore’s climate-political engagement has diminished markedly, as well as that of then IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, who was sharply criticized because he used dubious data to promote doomsday scenarios such as predictions of the destruction of the Netherlands or the desertification of the Amazon rainforest. Probably to avoid going over the top with its criticism, Die Welt remained diplomatic and elected not bring up the now disgraced former IPCC chairman Pachauri’s sexual harassment affair and crony green energy deals. Also the once wildly popular Barack Obama has lost his shine in Europe. Die Welt placed the current US president at number 5 on the list of Worst Peace Prize decisions, and as the turmoil in the Middle East spirals and race-baited tensions simmer in the US, he may eventually reach the top of the list before his presidency ends. Die Welt summarizes: Looking at the decisions over the …