The screenshot below shows exactly what John Reid, and other lying Labour scumbag twats like slippery Alan Johnson, have said in the past about banning extremist terror groups... ....
Now here is the real truth of how Labour banned those radical Muslim organisations - I capturedthese screenshotsjust a few minutes ago......
This shower of shit survived a proposed ban...... thanks to our wonderful police "service". You can read all about them here - Wikipedia says that the article's "neutrality" is in doubt but I would personally take that with a pinch of salt - it simply hasn't been watered down!
CLICK TO ENLARGE
All of these websites are still up and running!
Labour always made a great deal of noise so they could grab headlines and and appear to be doing something - they then proceeded to do absolutely nothing and, unfortunately for us, we can only expect more of the same from the Lefty Brokeback Coalition.
I've signed a petition supporting the Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill. This may be the only chance we get to end dishonest politics. Please join me, by signing the petition and forwarding this to friends and family. I'm not sure about you, but I had enough of Members of Parliament deceiving us.
The first words out of the lying cunt's mouth are...... a lie..... "I won't let you down", says McPorkies...... you already have, you lying cunt!
The whole question and answer session is conducted exactly like PMQ's with McShite reeling off tractor stats while avoiding answering a single question from his digruntled audience truthfully.
These people have lost their jobs, are under huge stress in the NHS all because of McFuckwit's micro-mismanagement and meaningless fucking targets, they have lost loved ones in Afghanistan and in the illegal war in Iraq and he is not capable of answering one question honestly because, if he did, he would incriminate himself all the way up to his fucking glass eye and beyond!
LORD MONCKTON WARNS OF CLIMATE CHANGE TREATY RESURRECTION IN BONN
Please distribute this widely - copy it as is - or change it as you see
fit, but please get the word out to as many people as possible.
Your freedom and democracy are in imminent peril
for a threat that doesn't exist.
Lord Monckton warns us of the impending Bonn Climate conference - another Copenhagen, but this time, probably more devious in its conception.
Video produced on March 13th, 2010
Transcript:
This is Christopher Monckton.
They're at it again.
The United Nations, having abjectly failed at Copenhagen in December of 2009 to impose upon the world a totally unnecessary, wickedly expensive, democracy-destroying world government treaty, it has now decided to hold an emergency meeting of states, party to the United Nations Framework Convention in Bonn and there, seven months before the next Cancun round, they're going to try to stitch together a deal to take democracy and freedom and prosperity away, worldwide, forever and, to make themselves very, very rich. And to make you who are watching this video, very, very poor.
Now why is this a bad idea?
First of all, government of the people, by the people, and for the people is a rare and precious thing. Very few countries around the world have it.
The United States in particular, has it, and has it very strongly. And if you carelessly transfer the powers of the government whom you elect to a world government that no-one will elect, and give that government supreme powers of taxation, of economic intervention, of environmental intervention, over the heads of your elected representatives in your country, then you will carelessly have thrown your democracy and your freedom away.
And you will have done so in the name of saving the planet from a threat which does not, in fact, exist.
So what are these representatives going to do?
They're going to meet and discuss how to take your freedom away.
What could you do about it?
You should telephone them. That's the way to do it best. That's what gets noticed.
Telephone your elected representative. If you're in the United States, you telephone your senators; there are two of them for each state.
Telephone them, in Washington. Try to speak to the Senator himself, or to a senior staffer. Do not be fobbed off with a secretary, or an intern, or receptionist, or telephonist.
Get throught to a staffer or to a senator - say there is no need for any climate treaty, and you, in the Senate, must understand that and must not pass any climate treaty.
Get on that telephone.
OK, you may have done it before. You may have done it just before the Copenhagen debacle.
Why did Copenhagen fail?
Because so many millions of you did ring your senators, and several of them got in touch with your President, and your President realised that the treaty draft that would have set up a world government would not pass.
And so, that treaty draft was very quietly dropped for a time; but now they're back. They're trying again. They will try in Bonn. They will try in Cancun. They will try next year in South Africa.
And if they haven't succeeded by then, they will try at Rio in 2012, the 20thanniversary of the Earth Summit that started all of this nonsense.
But every step of the way, and on every occasion, you must telephone, telphone your senator and say "this treaty shall not pass".
Do it now, because it's your democracy.
Use it or lose it.
You have until the 9th of April to call your democratic representatives. Don't wait! Do it now!
Two government advertisements which use nursery rhymes to warn of the dangers of climate change have been banned for exaggerating the threat. Commissioned by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, the adverts are based on children’s poems "Jack and Jill" and "Rub-A-Dub-Dub" and assert that climate change will cause flooding and drought.
The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) ruled the adverts – which attracted 939complaints - made exaggerated claims which went beyond mainstream scientific consensus
One advert read:
‘Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.’
Beneath this was written:
‘Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense.’
The other read:
‘Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub – a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change.’
It added:
‘Climate change is happening. Temperature and sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense. If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different.’
The watchdog stated the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) should not publish the adverts again, ruling that the text accompanying the rhymes should have been phrased more tentatively. Using reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as reference, the ASA determined it was not possible to make such definitive statements about Britain’s future climate.
As a result the adverts were found to have broken the code on substantiation, truthfulness and environmental claims. The ASA said: ‘All statements about future climate were modeled on predictions, which the IPCC report itself stated still involved uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change.’
The watchdog found that other elements of the campaign, including a TV and cinema advert in which a father read his daughter a bedtime story about a world affected by climate change, did not breach its guidelines.
Mr Miliband said his department had been ‘comprehensibly vindicated’ by the ASA but promised to more accurately reflect scientific uncertainty about global warming in future campaigns.
The ruling comes amidst the fall-out from the leak of more than 1,000 emails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s controversial Climatic Research Unit. The emails, which dealt a severe blow to the credibility of environmental science, were seized upon by global warming sceptics as evidence that academics were massaging the figures.
Since the leak, belief in global warming has fallen from 41% to 26%
It's as if Climategate never happened, the "hockey stick" graph was never discredited, the Himalayan glaciers were still going to melt by 2035 and that Antarctic ice hadn't increased. It's as if Phil Jones, the CRU, Michael Mann and Rajendra Pachauri were not under investigation for falsifying data, or that NASA and the Met Office were not also complicit in the global warming scam.
Isn't it absolutely fucking typical of these twats to push this climate change bollocks to the limit in their attempts to indoctrinate our children, tax us into oblivion and to control our lives completely and utterly, (as their slaves).
And they actually have the bare-faced audacity/Lefty stupidity to call these pieces of shite "rhymes"!
Must do better, Minibrain Minor, these are not rhymes and they don't even scan properly - now go and see the headmaster, you stupid boy!
Let's put it this way......."Don't give up your day job, twat"!
Here's another one for you:
‘Humpty dumpty sat on the wall. Ed Miliband is a stupid Lefty cunt who can't write rhymes for toffee!’
You see, Minibollocks?......anyone can do it! I tried to do the worst I possibly could but it's still better than yours and mine is true while yours are both downright lies!
I also fail to see how theASAcan find that theserhymesbreak the rules but that the offensive video, (pictured above, and which was nothing but out-and-out scaremongering designed to frighten our children), doesnotbreak those same rules as both are based on pure speculation and Labour's real Left-wing goal of world government and ruling our lives entirely!
The ASA hasn't gone nearly far enough - this ruling is only partly correct and the corrupt Lefty politics behind it stinks - as usual!
And just to finish off, here are two more of the horrible things that weren't mentioned in the story:
Twinkle twinkle Gorgon's eye.......
Hey diddle diddle?You have been and you will be again!
I know I've fucking well had enough of it from commie cunts like Gorgon McShite!
Well, here's your chance to tell the one-eyed twat to shut the fuck up!
There is a new No10 petition, I've already signed it and I'm sure that many of you would like to do the same so why not head on over there and tell the fucking fucker to fuck the fucking fuckety fuck off! Go on, you know you want to.
There has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.
Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995. The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support theglobal warmingtheory. Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.
The revelations will be seized upon by sceptics as fresh evidence that the science of global warming is flawed and climate change is not man-made.
TheDaily Expresshas led the way in exposing flaws in the arguments supporting global warming. Last month we revealed how the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was “speculation” lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The influential IPCC then admitted it had got the key claim wrong and announced a review. The Daily Express has also published a dossier listing 100 reasons why global warming was part of a natural cycle and not man-made.
Yesterday it emerged that Professor Jones, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, had admitted he has trouble “keeping track” of the information. Colleagues have expressed concern that the reason he has refused Freedom of Information requests for the data is that he has lost some of the crucial papers.
Professor Jones also conceded for the first time that the world may have been warmer in medieval times than now. Sceptics have long argued the world was warmer between 800 and 1300AD because of high temperatures in northern countries. Climate change advocates have always said these temperatures cannot be compared to present day global warming figures because they only apply to one specific zone.
Professor Jones first came under scrutiny when he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in which leaked emails were said to show scientists were manipulating data. Researchers were accused of deliberately removing a “blip” in findings between 1920 and 1940, which showed an increase in the Earth’s temperature.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama and a former lead author on the IPCC, said: “The apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”
Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited to review the IPCC’s last report said: “We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias.”
I don't know about you, but this belated climbdown and back-pedalling looks very much to me like Phil Jones has realised what may actually happen to him when investigations and lawsuits have concluded and is now running scared in case he finds himself ending up in prison.
His attitude is certainly very different to the arrogance he displayed immediately after the Climategate scandal was exposed but I personally believe that it is too little, too late - if it had not been for those leaked E-Mails, it's glaringly obvious that this admission would never have been made voluntarily.
I honestly hope that he and others, Michael Mann and Rajendra Pachauri in particular, do end up receiving prison sentences for what they have done. They have debased all science by their actions and have brought it to the same level of disrepute as politics in general, but the politicians who commissioned and funded this deceit and the relatively small number of "scientists" who carried out their instructions are beyond contempt and would have used this so-called "crisis" to carry out their sinister agendas.
I also notice that Al Gore has been uncharacteristically silent ever since he was chased out of that book store by protesters when he was signing his latest work of fiction new book.
Clearly we still have to be vigilant as the global warming lie has taken a good beating but has still not gone away - they would have to think up a whole new way of achieving their objectives and, quite frankly, I don't believe that they have a Plan B. Obama still hasn't shut the fuck up about climate change and is talking about bypassing the democratic process entirely and ramming his socialist control-freak agenda through - he mustn't be allowed to get away with it - Brown and Rumpy Pumpy will jump on the same bandwagon on this side of the pond, and then we really can say goodbye to democracy and freedom, already in very short supply, once and for all.
It was presented as fact. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, led by India’s very own RK Pachauri, even announced a consensus on it. The world was heating up and humans were to blame. A pack of lies, it turns out.
If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrarywise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?—Alice in Wonderland
The climate change fraud that is now unravelling is unprecedented in its deceit, unmatched in scope - and for the liberal elite, akin to 9 on the Richter scale.
Never have so few fooled so many for so long, ever.The entire world was being asked to change the way it lives on the basis of pure hyperbole. Propriety, probity and transparency were routinely sacrificed.
The truth is: the world is not heating up in any significant way. Neither are the Himalayan glaciers going to melt as claimed by 2035. Nor is there any link at all between natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and global warming. All that was pure nonsense, or if you like, ‘no-science’!
The climate change mafia, led by Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), almost pulled off the heist of the century through fraudulent data and suppression of procedure. All the while, they were cornering millions of dollars in research grants that heaped one convenient untruth upon another. And as if the money wasn’t enough, the Nobel Committee decided they should have the coveted Peace Prize.
But let’s begin at the beginning. Mr Pachauri has no training whatsoever in climate science. This was known all the time, yet he heads the pontification panel which proliferates the new gospel of a hotter world. How come? Why did the United Nations not choose someone who was competent? After all, this man is presumably incapable of differentiating between ocean sediments and coral terrestrial deposits, nor can he go about analysing tree ring records and so on. That’s not jargon; these are essential elements of a syllabus in any basic course on climatology.
You cannot blame him. His degree and training is in railroad engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads from point A to point B.
THE GATHERING STORM
There are many casualties in this sad story of greed and hubris. The big victim is the scientific method. This was pointed out in great detail by John P Costella of the Virginia-based Science and Public Policy Institute. Science is based on three fundamental pillars. The first is fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by experimental input, any hypothesis can be - indeed, must be - corrected.
This was systematically stymied as early as 2004 by the scientist in-charge of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit. This university was at the epicentre of the ‘research’ on global warming. It is here that Professor Phil Jones kept inconvenient details that contradicted climate change claims out of reports.
The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the quest. However, in the entire murky non-scientific global warming episode, if anyone was a sceptic he was labelled as one of ‘them’. At the very apex, before his humiliating retraction, Pachauri had dismissed a report by Indian scientists on glaciers as “voodoo science”.
The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in confidence. However, the entire process was set aside by the IPCC while preparing the report. Thus, it has zero scientific value.
The fact that there was dissent within the climate science teams, that some people objected to the very basis of the grand claims of global warming, did not come out through the due process. It came to light when emails at the Climate Research Centre at East Anglia were hacked in November 2009. It is from the hacked conversations that a pattern of conspiracy and deceit emerge. It is a peek into the world of global warming scaremongering—amplify the impact of CO2, stick to dramatic timelines on destruction of forests, and never ask for a referral or raise a contrary point. You were either a believer in a hotter world or not welcome in this ‘scientific fold’.
HOUSE OF CARDS AND COLOUR OF CASH
So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. We have the fact that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350, some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an Indian glacier expert, in an interview to a magazine. It had no scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative.
On the basis of that assertion, The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) that Pachauri heads and where Hasnain works in the glaciology team, got two massive chunks of funding. The first was estimated to be a $300,000 grant from Carnegie Corporation and the second was a part of the $2 million funding from the European Union. So you write a report that is false on glaciers melting and get millions to study the impact of a meltdown which will not be happening in the first place. Now if this is not a neat one, what is?
The same goes for dire predictions on Amazon rain forests. The IPCC maintained that there would be a huge depletion in Amazon rain forests because of lack of precipitation. Needless to add, no Amazon rain forest expert could be trusted to back this claim. They depended on a report by a freelance journalist and activist, instead, and now it has blown up in their faces.
There’s plenty more in this sordid tale. For one thing, there is no scientific consensus at all that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, as claimed by the IPCC. In a recent paper, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who has worked extensively on climate change models, argues: ‘There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps—if any—we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.’
An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC. Thus the very basis of the claim of consensus on global warming is false. And so deeply entrenched is the global warming lobby, the prestigious journal Science did not publish a letter that Dr Peiser wrote pointing out the lack of consensus.
Speaking toOpen, says Dr Peiser, “The IPCC process by which it arrives at its conclusions lacks balance, transparency and due diligence. It is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports. Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. It is also losing the trust of more and more governments who are no longer following its advice. Until it agrees to undergo a root and branch reform, it will continue to haemorrhage credibility and trust. The time has come for a complete overhaul of its structure and workings.”
Another fraud is in the very chart central to Pachauri’s speech at the Copenhagen summit. As Lord Monckton has pointed out, ‘The graph is bogus not only because it relies on made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, but also because it is overlain by four separate trendlines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however—neatly obscured by an ingenious rescaling of the graph and the superimposition of the four bogus trend lines on it—is that from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940 the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975 to 1998.’
PACHAURI’S WRONG NUMBERS
This chart, tracking mean global temperature over the past 150 years, was central to the presentation that IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri made at the Copenhagen environment summit. Many scientists believe that the graph is fraudulent. First, there are strong allegations that the data, collected from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, is a tissue of lies. Plus, as British climate change expert Lord Christopher Monckton puts it: “(The main graph, in darker blue) is overlain by four separate lines, each carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however... is that from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940, the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975 to 1998.” In other words, the graph has been drawn with a motive to prove one’s point, and not to show the truth.
Thus the earth has warmed at this rate at least twice in the last 100 years and no major catastrophe has occurred. What is more, the earth has cooled after that warming. Why is the IPCC not willing to explore this startling point?
Another total lie has been that the Sunderbans in Bangladesh are sinking on account of the rise in sea level. The IPCC claimed that one-fifth of Bangladesh will be under water by 2050. Well, it turns out this is an absurd, unscientific and outrageous claim. According to scientists at the Centre for Environmental and Geographical Information Services (Cegis) in Dhaka, its surface area appears to be growing by 20 sq km annually. Cegis has based its results on more than 30 years of satellite imagery. IPCC has not retracted this claim. As far as they are concerned, Bangladesh is a goner by 2050, submerged forever in the Bay of Bengal.
THE COOKIE CRUMBLES
The fallout of Climategate is slowly but surely unfolding right where it hurts a large number of special interests—in the field of business. Yes, the carbon trading business is now in the line of fire. Under a cap-and-trade system, a government authority first sets a limit on emissions, deciding how much pollution will be allowed in all. Next, companies are issued credits, essentially licences to pollute, based on how large they are, and what industries they work in. If a company comes in below its cap, it has extra credits which it may trade with other companies, globally.
Post Climategate, this worldwide trade, estimated at about $30 billion in 2006, is finding few takers. It is under attack following the renewed uncertainty over the role of human-generated CO2 in global warming. In the US, which never adopted any of this to begin with, there is a serious move now to finish off the cap-and-trade regime globally. It’s a revolt of sorts. Six leading Democrats in the US Congress have joined hands with many Republicans to urge the Obama Administration to back off from the regime.
The collapse of the international market for carbon credits, a direct fallout of Climategate, has already sent shudders down many spines in parts of the world that were looking forward to making gains from it. It was big business, after all, and Indian businesses were eyeing it as well. In fact, Indian firms were expected to trade some $1 billion worth of carbon credits this year, and with the market going poof, they stand to lose quite some money (notional or otherwise).
Besides the commercial aspect, there is also the issue of wider public credibility. There have been signs of scepticism all along. In a 2009 Gallup poll, a record number of people—41 per cent—elected to say that global warming was an exaggerated threat. This slackening of public support is in sync with a coordinated political movement that is seeking to re-examine the entire issue of global warming from scratch. The movement is led by increasingly vocal Republicans in the US Senate and packs considerable political power.
Pachauri’s position is also becoming increasingly untenable with demands for his resignation becoming louder by the day. In an interview to Open, Pat Michaels of the Cato Institute, a noted US think-tank, who has followed the debate for years, says, “Dr Pachauri should resign because he has a consistent record of mixing his political views with climate science, because of his intolerance of legitimate scientific views that he does not agree with, because of his disparagement of India’s glacier scientists as practising ‘voodoo science’, and because of his incomprehension of the serious nature of what was in the East Anglia emails.
Richard North, the professor who brought to light the financial irregularities in a write-up co-authored with Christopher Booker, has also said in a TV interview that, “If Dr Pachauri does not resign voluntarily, he will be forced to do so.”
GLOBAL STORMING AHEAD
The world awaits answers, based not on writings of sundry freelance journalists and non-experts, but on actual verifiable data on whether the globe is warming at all, and if so by how much. Only then can policy options be calibrated. As things stand, there is little doubt that the IPCC will need to be reconstituted with a limited mandate. This mess needs investigation and questions need to be answered as to why absurd claims were taken as gospel truth. The future of everything we know as ‘normal’ depends on this. The real danger is that the general public is now weary of the whole thing, a little tired of the debate, and may not really care for the truth, convenient or otherwise.
Fresh doubts were cast over controversial global warming theories yesterday after a major climate change argument was discredited.
The International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed up by research.
A. CUNT
It was also revealed that the IPCC’s controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, described as “the world’s top climate scientist”, is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics and no formal climate science qualifications. Pachauri was yesterday accused of a conflict of interest after it emerged he has a network of business interests that attract millions of pounds in funding thanks to IPCC policies. One of them, The Energy Research Institute, has a London office and is set to receive up to £10million from British taxpayers over the next five years in the form of grants from the Department for International Development. Pachauri denies any conflict of interest arising from his various roles.
Yesterday, critics accused the IPCC of boosting the man-made global warming theory to protect a multi-million pound industry. Climate scientist Peter Taylor said: “I am not surprised by this news. A vast bureaucracy and industry has been built up around this theory. There is too much money in it for the IPCC to let it wither.” Professor Julian Dowdeswell, a glacier specialist at Cambridge University, said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one even at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.”(I'd have said "fucking ridiculous", myself!)
The scientists behind the report now admit they relied on a news story published in the New Scientist journal in 1999. The article was based on a short telephone interview with scientist Syed Hasnain, then based in Delhi, who has since said his views were “speculation”. The New Scientist report was picked up by the WWF and included in a 2005 paper. It then became a key source for the IPCC which went further in suggesting the melting of the glaciers was “very likely”.
Yesterday, Professor Murari Lal who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, then I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.” ("recommend"?.....it's a fucking no-brainer!)
Last year the Indian government issued its own scientific research rejecting the notion that glaciers were melting so rapidly. Before the weakness in the IPCC’s research was exposed, Dr Pachauri dismissed the Indian government report as “voodoo science”. The revelations are the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus on climate change.
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC.
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme.
"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund.
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor.
"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b77a96f0-91c8-4832-871b-bca74b6a75e7)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=08773f6a-7cd1-4211-a62f-b842e379eabe)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=da2be083-e5a5-47c8-889a-bcd421dcf2db)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0516c346-4b23-46d5-896f-73c1733d1cdb)
