28/01/2010 - 00:00

Questions over climate measuring

28/01/2010 - 00:00

Bookmark

Save articles for future reference.

Revealing emails set to shift the climate change debate.

History is uncanny in thwarting the best-laid plans of rodents and males.

That’s precisely what’s happened to the worldwide United Nations-driven alarmist crusade to demonise life-nourishing carbon dioxide, alleging it’s causing global warming.

Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University describes this as a vendetta against “an ecologically beneficial trace gas that forms the base of almost the entire planetary food chain, and which currently exists at the atmospheric starvation level of 380-parts per million compared with up to 10 times that concentration and more during the preceding 600 million years of multi-cellular life on earth”.

Have Australia’s four leading crusaders – Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull, Penny Wong and Julie Bishop – ever put it so?

If not, why not? Ignorance, perhaps?

Why have they instead joined the global crusade that’s blossomed into irrational hysteria against a life-nourishing compound when Australia’s weather is dominated by the El-Nino-La Nina events of the Pacific Ocean, not carbon dioxide?

Thankfully, as their campaign, which has cost $50 billion worldwide since 1990, was poised to reach its goal of imposing whopping taxes on energy, things went belly-up.

Here are some of the embarrassing ordeals they’ve already endured.

But please note, there’s lots more coming with professional and political reputations, perhaps even careers, likely to be irretrievably destroyed.

As State Scene highlighted late last year, the three key insider providers of temperature data to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the New York-based Goddard Institute for Space Studies,and Britain’s Hadley and University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Units – have come under a cloud with the unexpected release of thousands of confidential emails between over-enthusiastic crusading staffers.

One email to the East Anglia University unit’s chief, Phil Jones, was from Neville Nicholls of the Melbourne-based Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, who asked in July 2005: “Do you expect to get a call from [the United States] Congress?”

Dr Jones replied: “I hope I don’t get a call from Congress! I’m hoping that no-one there realises I have a US Department of Energy grant and have had this (with Tom W[igley]) for the last 25 years.”

Interesting reply from a scientist who shouldn’t be hiding anything.

Well, Dr Jones faces further disappointment.

Much has happened since his revealing emails unexpectedly surfaced in November.

Firstly, he’s been stood down while his unit’s treatment of temperature data is audited.

Secondly, because the IPCC, the primary driver of the whole climate crusade, relies on his temperature data which has received American taxpayer funding, 27 US senators have written to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon requesting an independent investigation into the controversial emails released from Dr Jones’ unit.

Let’s be clear on what this means – because US taxpayers have partially bankrolled Dr Jones’ unit Congressmen now want to know if his data truthfully portrayed the climatic situation. And if not, why not?

We’re therefore approaching something akin to the special 2005 investigation into the UN’s Oil-for-Food Program that led to Australia’s AWB and Howard government ministers being so badly damaged, and top AWB staffers being fired.

Time will tell if an investigation awaits the Australian Greenhouse Office, Bureau of Meteorology, including Dr Nicholls’ research centre, and perhaps even some within the CSIRO.

This year seems set to become an uncomfortable one for many American, English and UN-bankrolled climate crusaders.

It may well become as uncomfortable as for those selling wheat and other commodities to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during the food-for-oil years following Kuwait’s rescue by international military forces.

Here are some paragraphs from the letter those 27 US senators wrote to Ban Ki-Moon.

“In 2004, in response to irregularities uncovered in the UN’s Oil-for-Food Program, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announced an ‘independent high level inquiry’, which was headed by former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker,” it says.

“Similar to Volcker’s Independent Inquiry Committee, the United Nations must now appoint another independent investigator with an international team to pursue this matter.

“The team should coordinate with the inspectors general and general counsels from the relevant US federal agencies and departments.”

But that’s just the beginning.

Outstanding US senator James Inhofe has moved on another front.

As member of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Works he’s written to the US Department of Energy’s inspector general.

“I am requesting that you secure, as soon as possible, all documents and records related to the communication or other interactions with [the University of East Anglia’s] CRU,” he said.

“This would include materials directly and reasonably related to CRU documents, emails, and its subject matter.

“Should you discover that other employees in your agency/organisation have interacted with CRU or have furbished information which may be used in communication with CRU, please secure those documents as well.”

One report on this hold notice said: “The lawyers are coming for the climate research manipulators, who have received millions of dollars of American money. Uncle Sam takes that sort of thing seriously: expect Congressional hearings and grand juries.”

Congress is also becoming interested in IPCC chief, Rajendra Pachauri, who has picked-up several private sector consultancies with concerns involved in “carbon trading”.

Although sometimes described as a scientist (the BBC once said he was ‘the world’s top climate scientist’) he’s in fact a onetime railway engineer with a PhD in economics.

“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,” one report said.

“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.

“Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’.’’

Dr Pachauri was a director of India Oil, the country’s largest commercial enterprise, and until 2009 remained a director of the National Thermal Power Generating Corporation, its largest electricity producer.

In 2005 he set up Texas-based GloriOil specialising in equipment that allowed extraction of the last remnants of oil in ageing fields.

In 2008 he was adviser on renewable energy to Bank Credit Suisse and the Rockefeller Foundation and joined the Nordic Glitnir Bank board after it launched its Sustainable Future Fund in search of £4 billion.

He was also chairman of the Indochina Sustainable Infrastructure Fund and became director of the Geneva-based International Risk Governance Council established by two of Europe’s largest power generating firms, to promote ‘bio-energy’.

Nice extras to his IPCC pay packet.

A question for Mr Rudd is whether our taxpayer-funded scientists knew of these matters and if their political masters and advisers were on top of matters as paid to be. Only an inquiry with evidence given under oath can provide the answers.

Convene the inquiry immediately, Mr Rudd.

 

STANDING BY BUSINESS. TRUSTED BY BUSINESS.

Subscription Options