Pachauri = Climate Crook

**Mcgruder** · December 23, 2009, 08:12 AM

It appears the head of the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on climate change) has a many financial interests attached to his efforts to combat climate change.

Take a look at this piece from last Sunday’s Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847...-Pachauri.html

Its clear that Pachauri has serious conflicts of interest and shouldn’t be in the post he is, but more that that it shows that climate change is not about science and never was.

AGW has been well a truly hijacked by big business, carbon credit trading is estimated to be worth 2 trillion dollars in ten years time. It must surly be the ultimate trading commodity, a commodity that doesn’t actually exist.

Socialist politicians have embraced AGW as a way of forwarding their agenda for more taxation and control.

The only people left out and very upset are the environmental Eco beardies that are still

ing about the failure at Copenhagen and the lost opportunity for us all to live in mud Huts.

Its all a big con, it will costs us dearly.

**Phier** · December 23, 2009, 08:47 AM

No no no no no!

The warmists only want to save the planet from big business and evil Repuglicans.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

**motiv-8** · December 23, 2009, 09:04 AM

but more that that it shows that climate change is not about science and never was.

Yes, a logical conclusion based on one person making money *gasp*!

Its all a big con, it will costs us dearly.

As opposed to the other big con, pretending that nothing is happening?

**Phier** · December 23, 2009, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by motiv-8

Yes, a logical conclusion based on one person making money *gasp*!
[/FONT][/COLOR]
As opposed to the other big con, pretending that nothing is happening?

I'm sure you see nothing wrong that the guy is the head of the IPCC amiright?

**justicar5** · December 23, 2009, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Phier

I'm sure you see nothing wrong that the guy is the head of the IPCC amiright?

you should love it, being a republican supporter, the connection gives him 'valuable real world experience' (or does that only work for republicans?) .

**Phier** · December 23, 2009, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by justicar5

you should love it, being a republican supporter, the connection gives him 'valuable real world experience' (or does that only work for republicans?) .

Not if they are still getting paid my friend, and undisclosed amounts too in this case. You see while you try to smear, you failed to mention that important caveat. For example, I think a former CEO of an oil company would have a better grasp to be say secretary of energy, I think a guy currently getting undisclosed amounts of money from an oil company would be bad. You follow that correct?

The problem is that the UN doesn't seem to worry about said conflicts, and doesn't even report salaries.

**Pickle_mole** · December 24, 2009, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by motiv-8

Yes, a logical conclusion based on one person making money *gasp*!
[/FONT][/COLOR]
As opposed to the other big con, pretending that nothing is happening?

Change is the one constant of our life, do you expect to stop it? the reason the viking colonies in canada and greenland died is becuase it got cold and farming was impossible, so wouldnt this "warming" be considered a return to normalacy?

**Erik** · December 25, 2009, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Pickle_mole

Change is the one constant of our life, do you expect to stop it? the reason the viking colonies in canada and greenland died is becuase it got cold and farming was impossible, so wouldnt this "warming" be considered a return to normalacy?

The Vikings benefited from a short period when the temperature was about +1C higher in the northern Atlantic region than it was at the start of the 20th century.

The UN climate target is +2C, so TWICE the warming in Viking times. (without action, it will be even more than that).
And unlike the Northern Atlantic "medieval warm period" (which was a regional phenomenon), this warming is global.

So no, this warming is far from normal: it's a lot higher than it has been in the entire history of our species (Homo sapiens).
Last time it got this warm, our direct ancestors (Homo erectus) were pushed to the brink of extinction as more than 99.9% of these early humans died as a consequence of the climate change.

**Syron** · December 23, 2009, 11:34 AM

I pointed this out earlier......

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...65#post6453465

**danzig** · December 24, 2009, 02:35 AM

Al Gore is the same, only with climate change can someone be at the forefront of pushing change all the while owning vast stock/shares in companies that will profit from such agreements and its seemingly ok. If it was military, industrial, energy based people would be screaming conflict of interest, war profiting etc but with climates ITS OK...apparently.

**boofhead** · December 24, 2009, 06:35 AM

How in the hell can one man do all those jobs? It's impossible. Is he so brilliant that he can just do 30 mins a day on each job and make a fortune?

Something is suss about this guy.

**Erik** · December 24, 2009, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by boofhead

How in the hell can one man do all those jobs? It's impossible. Is he so brilliant that he can just do 30 mins a day on each job and make a fortune?

Something is suss about this guy.

Once you are inside the "old boy's network" it's normal to get board positions on at least a dozen different companies.
Many of these boards only meet once every two months, so it's more than doable.

I know the EU commiczar of corruption, Neelie Kroes, has more than 30 board positions, for example.
But this of course causes absolutely no conflicts of interest when she has to investigate corruption in those companies.

**Erik** · December 24, 2009, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Mcgruder

[COLOR=black]Its clear that Pachauri has serious conflicts of interest and shouldn’t be in the post he is, but more that that it shows that climate change is not about science and never was. [/COLOR

Implying the vast majority of "skeptics" aren't payed by the oil industry.

This is why I listen to the science, not the scientists.

**GrnEyedDvl** · December 24, 2009, 10:05 PM

There is no surprise here. Many of the big global warming advocates have their hand in the cookie jar. It just needs to be pointed out more often.

**justicar5** · December 25, 2009, 05:30 AM

you want to see funny, look at how many senators wifes are on the board of health insurance companies, and compare that to the senators voting record. But ofc the wifes have relevent experience... oh wait usually not, and they concidently got the board position at the same time the husband became a senator... hmm nothing shady their amirite?