Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Former IPCC boss claims Big Oil set him up

Former railway engineer, Rajendra Pachauri, the ratbag who ran the IPCC is claiming that Big Oil set him up on sexual harassment charges.

Rajendra Pachauri, the disgraced former head of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), has produced an ingenious defence against the sexual harassment charges he is now facing in an Indian court.

It turns out that, no he didn’t pester, bombard with emails, and grope the attractive female employee at his TERI climate research institute.

Rather, the whole thing is the result of an evil conspiracy by climate change sceptics and right-wing think tanks, funded by Big Oil. Apparently they hacked into all his computer accounts and, without his knowledge, sent a series of flirtatious emails and love poems to his unnamed accuser.

Read more »

Former UN climate chief charged with sexual harassment

My, how the mighty have fallen.

A former chair of a UN panel of climate scientists has been charged with stalking, intimidating and sexually harassing a woman who worked at a think tank he headed for more than 30 years.

Rajendra Pachauri, 75, was accused in February last year of sexual harassment by a researcher working at Delhi-based The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) where Pachauri was director general.

Pachauri, who quit as chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) a year ago, denies the allegations.

After a year-long investigation, Indian police said on Tuesday they had sufficient evidence to file charges.

“A charge sheet was filed today in the Metropolitan magistrate court of Shivani Chauhan in Saket,” said a senior Delhi police official connected to the investigation. “Dr Pachauri has been charged with various misconduct and offences.”

The official, who declined to be named, said the charges included stalking, sexual harassment, “outraging the modesty of a woman” and criminal intimidation.   Read more »

So you are worried about sea level rises due to climate change?

Well don’t be

Carbon dioxide, climate change, disaster, SEA LEVELS WILL RISE!

You can see all kinds of sea level rise predictions for the 21st century, with over-wrought images of houses and buildings under water.  One of the favorite predictions of the hand wringers is “1.8 meters” of sea level rise for the 21st century.  A major purveyor of this lurid climate-porn prediction is Stefan Rahmstorf (see here, here, and here).

Consider the following points

  • 75% of atmospheric anthropogenic CO2 arrived after 1950.
  • There has been no obvious acceleration in sea level rise rates since 1950 as seen from tide gauges.
  • Extrapolating tide gauge time series to 2100 would give about 15cm of sea level rise between 200o and 2100.
  • Projections of 1, 1.8 or 2 meters of sea level rise between 2000 and 2100 would require extraordinary rise rate accelerations.   Read more »

Last Chance? Really?

lastchance

The Herald has fallen for the hype again…exclaiming that the Paris Climate Fraud is our “last chance” to save the planet.

The first half of the article is strange, it talks about a weather event in Northland with a little bit of flooding. We are constantly told by warmists that weather is not climate, but whatever, it eventually gets into the clouds, maybes and might happens of climate change.

Sophisticated models tell us we’re already reaping the whirlwind, having pumped enough pollution into the atmosphere to reach a carbon dioxide level of 400 parts per million, something not seen for several million years.

Models so sophisticated they have got absolutely every prediction wrong…and how about that industrial age millions of years ago that pumped Co2 into the atmosphere…oh wait!

Overnight on Wednesday, the World Meteorological Organisation found the past five years had been the warmest such period on record, with many extreme weather events — especially heatwaves — influenced by climate change.

In July, temperatures around the Persian Gulf were, for the first time, close to the upper limits that humans can survive without air conditioning.

This year was on track to have the hottest global average surface temperature on the books, owing to a strong El Nino but also a warming planet.

The WMO’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, summed up the situation: “This is all bad news for the planet.”

Read more »

Uh oh, looks like the math was wrong, way wrong on climate models

The Climate Change debate is over…the science is really settled now…and in settling it it shows that the math was wrong in all the models.

A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.   Read more »

Uh oh, looks like the models were wrong…again

We have been told that we are all going to burn alive, that the tipping point has been reached, we are all doomed because of a warming planet.

But not a single one of the models used for predictions have been right, and now it turns out some key information has been completely left out of climate models.

As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn’t as much urgency about the matter as had been thought.

A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea – a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.

In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the “microlayer” at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals – no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.   Read more »

Guest Post: Global warming gets a hot flush

Embed from Getty Images

James Hansen is generally considered the godfather of global warming alarmists. He recently retired from NASA’s Goddard Institute. What he says is swallowed by his followers and a naïve press without a dissenting murmur or a moment’s checking.

He, and his fellow warmists, are working in overdrive to produce as much shocking material as possible in the run up to the all important Paris conference when the world’s leaders are supposed to dip into our pockets like never before to stop the rise of CO2. According to Hansen this is the planet’s last chance to save us from a scary scenario of rising sea levels, record droughts, catastrophic storms, horrendous loss of life – in fact every conceivable negative effect you can imagine.

Hansen has been leading from the front. His latest paper is a monument to idiocy and gratuitous, publicity-seeking, humbug. He and a bunch of no-name sycophants have predicted a warming of “at least 2 degrees” (would have been nice this morning!!) and “sea level rise of 3 metres by 2100” with another 2 metres within a “couple of decades”. The paper contains unscientific language describing “super storms” wreaking havoc around the world. (Can feel a movie in the making? Where are you Sir Peter??)

Several telling events accompany this madness.    Read more »

Daily Mail Editorial on Climate Change lies

The Daily Mail Editorial discusses the disconnect between reality and the claims of climate change pimps:

In a major report last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gave a grave assessment of how man-made global warming was rapidly destroying the Arctic ice cap.

Steadily increasing temperatures had made the pack ice contract by up to 12 per cent between 1979 and 2012, leading to rising sea levels which threatened to swamp coastal regions – not to mention endangering stranded polar bears.

By the middle of the century ‘a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean’ was likely for a large part of the year, the report predicted.

The more climatologists juggle their theories to fit the inconvenient truths, the more the public will question whether these prophesies of global doom are based on genuine science, or guesswork

How interesting then, that the latest analysis of 88million measurements from the European Space Agency’s Cryosat satellite show the northern ice-cap INCREASED by a staggering 41 per cent in 2013 and, despite a modest shortage last year, is bigger than at any time for decades.  Read more »

What would you say if I told you each wind turbine needs 225 tonnes of coal to produce?

The Green taliban love to promote wind power.

Apparently it is clean and green.

But like most things these hypocrites tout they don’t tell you the full story of them.

Like how they use rare earth metals, mining of which is creating highly toxic sites around the world.

But perhaps the most interesting salient fact that the green taliban forget to tell you is that all of those wind turbines are sitting on top of steel towers…each of which needs 225 tonnes of coal to manufacture.

Now unless they are proposing to find a replacement for steel sometime soon they have a little bit of a problem with their claims, considering they constantly promote campaigns against “dirty coal”.

[C]ampaigners claim that coal has no future in a low emissions world. Not true. New generation technologies are slashing CO2 emissions from coal fired plants by as much as 40 per cent. These high efficiency low emissions plants are being rolled out in China, Japan and elsewhere in Asia. And the first large scale carbon capture and storage coal plant in Canada has slashed its CO2 emissions by 90 per cent. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated the cost of meeting global reduction targets will be 138 per cent higher without the deployment of carbon capture and storage.   Read more »

Comment of the Day

GenericUsernam101 commented on the post about rare earth metals in Mongolia:

One of the most annoying “green initiatives” to me is the recycling of paper and cardboard. Ask anyone including greenies why they do it and you get a blank stare, and then a faint “because recycling is good”. Challenge them on it, and you get “because it stops trees being chopped down, and saves our native forests”.

Well, for one, recycling costs more and uses more pollutants than creating the same paper products from scratch. Very aggressive chemicals must be used in breaking down the old paper and removing inks/glues etc, before re-casting it. They will tell you that they are on top of this, and recycling is almost as polluting now as starting from new, woohoo. They are forgetting all the fossil fuels used in collecting the recyclables.

But all of that is irrelevant anyway, because the real issue is that since recycling of paper and cardboard started, the pine forests of New Zealand have been reduced by around 30% in size, since the forests, which were planted to provide pulp and paper, are no longer needed. Yes, recycling does not save trees, it destroys forests! Oh and greenies, nobody cuts native trees to make paper, you figure the economics of that out.

Not only that, but the forests, like the Kaingaroa, that have been cut down solely as a result of recycling, by around 25-30%, have been reclaimed back by dairying, from whence they came, before they were planted to make paper. So now greenies, there are less forests, and more of what you hate more, cows producing fart-gas and effluent (their opinion, not mine).   Read more »