Baron Von Raschke Climatology and the IPCC
Timothy Birdnow
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the not-warming ocean, it's baaack! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, we have Son of Climate Gate!
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/06/17/climategate-part-2-a-worrying-conflict-of-interest/
Not content to have just hack scientists writing their reports, the IPCC has now turned to Greenpeace and "green energy" enterpreneurs; a recently released report on renewable energy was authored by a Greenpeace activist, and co-authored by investors in the very technology which the report advocates.
According to the article in the Independent:
"Yesterday I wrote a story in the paper about how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the UN’s authority on climate change) had used a Greenpeace campaigner to help write a key part of its report on renewable energy.
Many who follow the subject – and not just the usual climate change deniers – expressed concern that the IPCC, a body set up by the UN to provide scientific evidence for government decisions, had allowed itself to appear compromised by association.
This was then compounded by a press release for the report which suggested that renewable sources alone, without nuclear power, could provide 77 per cent of the world’s energy supply by 2050.
The supporting documents, which weren’t released until over a month later, reveal that this claim was based on a large real-terms decline in worldwide energy consumption over the next 40 years (highly unrealistic as India and China grow their economies).
Greenpeace, of course, is passionately anti-nuclear.
Now it appears that there are more apparent conflicts of interest in the IPCC’s energy report.
Peter Bosshard, Policy Director of the campaign group International Rivers, contacted me to point out that the scenario for 77 per cent renewables included (against standard practice) large hydropower projects among the technologies to be promoted.
[...]
So why is the IPCC contravening international standard practice to promote hydropower?
Well this may be total coincidence but in addition to several independent scientists, the IPCC selected a number of authors to write the section of hydropower who have a vested interest in growing the sector.
Of the nine lead authors there are representatives of two of the world’s largest hydropower developers, a hydropower consultancy, and three agencies promoting hydropower at the national level.
As Peter Bosshard says: “The authors’ conflict of interest is reflected throughout the hydropower section of the report, which at times reads like a marketing brochure of the dam industry.”"
End excerpt.
So, first a Greenpeace communist is writing "scientific" papers for the IPCC, and then a bunch of hydropower hacks who stand to profit from investments in their industry are writing papers for them. Where does it stop?
It doesn't. The IPCC is to science what the WWE is to competitive sports; they are both theatre pretending to be something real, and for profit. The IPCC is intended to redistribute wealth by giving scientific cover, by creating a panic over a catastrophe that is not real. OF COURSE they are using industry hacks and environmental activists; that was and is the whole point. Pro wrestling redistributes wealth by selling tickets and television time to people to entertain them with fake fighting and melodrama. Both have the same goal in the end; to make money. Neither admit that they are not real, but most spectators know pro wrestling is fake, while many still believe that pro climatology is real.
And the IPCC has to use partisans and conflicted parties; they cannot get enough real scientists to whore for them. James Donald Raschke was born in Omaha, but he was portrayed as a Baron from Germany because it made money for the wrestling promoters. Many in the IPCC aren't really scientists, they just play one in the climate drama.
Why does anyone pay any attention to the IPCC? I find pro wrestling much more entertaining.
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the not-warming ocean, it's baaack! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, we have Son of Climate Gate!
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/06/17/climategate-part-2-a-worrying-conflict-of-interest/
Not content to have just hack scientists writing their reports, the IPCC has now turned to Greenpeace and "green energy" enterpreneurs; a recently released report on renewable energy was authored by a Greenpeace activist, and co-authored by investors in the very technology which the report advocates.
According to the article in the Independent:
"Yesterday I wrote a story in the paper about how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the UN’s authority on climate change) had used a Greenpeace campaigner to help write a key part of its report on renewable energy.
Many who follow the subject – and not just the usual climate change deniers – expressed concern that the IPCC, a body set up by the UN to provide scientific evidence for government decisions, had allowed itself to appear compromised by association.
This was then compounded by a press release for the report which suggested that renewable sources alone, without nuclear power, could provide 77 per cent of the world’s energy supply by 2050.
The supporting documents, which weren’t released until over a month later, reveal that this claim was based on a large real-terms decline in worldwide energy consumption over the next 40 years (highly unrealistic as India and China grow their economies).
Greenpeace, of course, is passionately anti-nuclear.
Now it appears that there are more apparent conflicts of interest in the IPCC’s energy report.
Peter Bosshard, Policy Director of the campaign group International Rivers, contacted me to point out that the scenario for 77 per cent renewables included (against standard practice) large hydropower projects among the technologies to be promoted.
[...]
So why is the IPCC contravening international standard practice to promote hydropower?
Well this may be total coincidence but in addition to several independent scientists, the IPCC selected a number of authors to write the section of hydropower who have a vested interest in growing the sector.
Of the nine lead authors there are representatives of two of the world’s largest hydropower developers, a hydropower consultancy, and three agencies promoting hydropower at the national level.
As Peter Bosshard says: “The authors’ conflict of interest is reflected throughout the hydropower section of the report, which at times reads like a marketing brochure of the dam industry.”"
End excerpt.
So, first a Greenpeace communist is writing "scientific" papers for the IPCC, and then a bunch of hydropower hacks who stand to profit from investments in their industry are writing papers for them. Where does it stop?
It doesn't. The IPCC is to science what the WWE is to competitive sports; they are both theatre pretending to be something real, and for profit. The IPCC is intended to redistribute wealth by giving scientific cover, by creating a panic over a catastrophe that is not real. OF COURSE they are using industry hacks and environmental activists; that was and is the whole point. Pro wrestling redistributes wealth by selling tickets and television time to people to entertain them with fake fighting and melodrama. Both have the same goal in the end; to make money. Neither admit that they are not real, but most spectators know pro wrestling is fake, while many still believe that pro climatology is real.
And the IPCC has to use partisans and conflicted parties; they cannot get enough real scientists to whore for them. James Donald Raschke was born in Omaha, but he was portrayed as a Baron from Germany because it made money for the wrestling promoters. Many in the IPCC aren't really scientists, they just play one in the climate drama.
Why does anyone pay any attention to the IPCC? I find pro wrestling much more entertaining.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 6:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home