The plot thickens – The IPCC and ideological green money-laundering

Greenpece word mark

Image via Wikipedia

After the revelations yesterday of the latest IPCC self destructing FUBAR, we now have at Bishop Hill,  a guest post by Ben Pile. In it he outlines what he has found about the millions of Euros that are being spent to create the appearance of favorable research influence on green policy. It is post-normal “science” at it’s worst.

Some excerpts:

The advice it produces will further the agendas of those policy-makers. The suggestion here is not that money has changed hands — Greenpeace doesn’t need the money; what  it gets for the favours it does the establishment is influence. The service it provides is to give government-funded, agenda-ridden ‘research’ the superficial appearance of independence and legitimacy: ideological money-laundering. It makes clean the millions of Euros of public money given to the renewable energy sector for its PR.

It is no surprise that the EU and governments, spurious quasi-autonomous organisations and NGOs are in cahoots. It has long been known that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and WWF are paid by the EU to lobby the EU in favour of the policies that the EU wants. And it is no surprise that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change takes research that benefits the agendas of governments. We all knew this much.

What is surprising is the sheer scale of this shameless enterprise. We all knew that ‘grey literature’ — non-scientific and non-peer reviewed ‘research’ — found its way into IPCC reports. What surprises is the extent to which ‘grey organisations’ — para-govermental institutions with public functions, but little or no democratic accountability or transparency — are involved in the production of policy and evidence-making, benefitting a narrow industrial sector and serving a particular political agenda.

h/t to Josh

About these ads

53 thoughts on “The plot thickens – The IPCC and ideological green money-laundering

  1. Greenpeace doesn’t need the money…
    I would disagree with this statement. Greenpeace is a roughly $250 million operation, from money raised largely from donations. This means that Greenpeace must raise roughly $1 million every business day to keep the lights on, and that means plenty of PR and manufactured enviro-scare stories.

  2. My special research has concerned the media smear of skeptic scientists – when Donna LaFramboise at nofrakkingconsensus.com said Greenpeace people were found in the IPCC’s “Annex IV Reviewers of the IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report”, I looked to see if I could recognize any names in the United States section who relate to the smear. I found three, explanations about two of them are too long to detail, but this simple one is as direct as it comes to the enviro-advocacy group Ozone Action, which was merged into Greenpeace USA in 2000.

    * Gallagher, Kelly Sims, Harvard University – formerly just Kelly Sims, Science Policy Director/International Policy Specialist at Ozone Action, a speaker on behalf of that group at the UNFCCC (Bonn) in August ’97, later described at a nautilus.org bio as participating “in more than a dozen rounds of international negotiations on global climate change and was an advisor to CNN in Kyoto and Buenos Aires. She was previously a Truman Scholar in the office of Vice President Gore…”

  3. These are the hundreds of thousands of Green jobs promised in the new sustainable economy you are dissing here! Every young idealist aspires to a position with an NGO, awareness raising tax exempt “charity” or Progressive government organization as long as it can appear to be “non profit”….that would be so gross.

    Now that we have the Climate Science auditing program rolling it is time to follow the money to see where the polluters are.

  4. I read Pile’s guest post at Montford’s website. The details are frightening. It appears that the EU has chosen to become engaged in systematic corruption. It hires Green advocacy groups to lobby it and the world for green policies that it created. The corruption is systematic because the relationships among the EU and these groups is hidden, except to skilled investigators such as Pile, and because transparency policies are flouted. Apparently, the EU supports Pachauri’s decisions to give prominent place to radical activists in the IPCC and does it as a matter of policy. Exactly who are the puppet masters in all this is a mystery. Pachauri is no more culpable than the EU.

  5. The IPCC acts as if it is untouchable by those who are independent of their perceived consensus; whether the independents be scientists, intellects or informed citizens.

    The IPCC was given UN political sanction . . . . we need to address the UN directly as well as interact with the IPCC.

    John

  6. … so I was reading “The Road to Hell” by Michael Maren, on how NGOs destroy lives and countries (particularly Somalia)…

    The same corruption and reckless disregard by NGOs seems to apply here.

    Disgusting.

  7. This kind of coziness is of course downright sickening and certainly speaks volumes about the credibility and objectiveness of some IPCC findings, but the bigger issue here ultimarely is really about the corruption of governmental processes across the board, and that corruption centers on the undo influence of money in political processes. That the IPCC would even be partially corrupted by alternative energy companies looking to make a market via forced legislation is only the latest chapter in the long-term domination of governments and governmental authority around the world by big money interests.

  8. The IPCC was corrupted by Greenpeace using government Climate Ca$h??? Who would have thought it was possible???
    /sarc

  9. I’ve already seen posts from True Believers saying things like “well, those people in Working Group III are pretty useless and corrupt, but the Real Scientists in Working Group I haven’t done anything wrong yet, so the science is still untouchable.”

  10. They tell us there is overwhelming evidence that climate is sensitive to changes in CO2 but where does this evidence come from?

    From the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of course.

    But the IPCC does not use the scientific method.

    Humans, journalists and even politicians do not generally know this. And so they trust the IPCC pronouncements when they should not.

    Hopefully this scandal will recieve wide MSM coverage.

  11. First step in marketing anything is to first create a demand for the product and then provide the product.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history

    From the Climate Research Units own web site you will find a partial list of companies that fund the CRU.
    These companies ALL produce product or services that claim to have a lower CO2 level per unit of energy then does coal.

    It includes:
    Shell Oil, ‘Oil, LNG’
    British Petroleum, ‘Oil, LNG’
    Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, ‘Food to Ethanol’
    The United States Department of Energy, ‘Nuclear’
    Irish Electricity Supply Board. ‘LNG, Nuclear’
    UK Nirex Ltd. ‘Nuclear’
    Sultanate of Oman, ‘LNG’
    Tate and Lyle. ‘Food to Ethanol’
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, ‘Nuclear’
    KFA Germany, ‘Nuclear’

    Sometime you do not actually need a tangible product to get peoples money.
    Greenpeace International, ‘Guilt, Fear’
    Wildlife Fund for Nature, ‘Guilt, Fear’

  12. John in NZ 11:46am

    “Hopefully this scandal will receive widespread MSM coverage.”

    Don’t hold your breath, John.

  13. “Earth First
    Sierra Club”
    Actually those are small time late comers to the cap and trade scandals. The traditional astroturf front groups for sale are the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, the WWF. Each [is] a corportist front group in the USA for cap and trade financial interests. Greenpeace USA is actually less involved in the climate change/cap and trade scandal than its European cousin. However the USA government owns a variety of supposed “charities” by transferring them money for “promotion.” Even American Lung Association has in part established itself to be a laundering front for cap and trade political money.

  14. If western civilization is to recover from the deep level of corruption that AGW has injected into the governing process, those who take high office must clear out the apparatchiks who are the real masters of public policy.

    This is one of the major areas where Bush failed and is in large part why we now find the EPA and other regulatory agencies expanding once again at breath taking speed like they did in 1990’s. He left intact the many career civil servants who had been elevated on the basis of ideological purity rather than service.

    I notice that both the Clinton and Obama administrations purged widely upon taking office. Will the next president do the same?

  15. R. Gates says:
    June 16, 2011 at 11:24 am
    “That the IPCC would even be partially corrupted by alternative energy companies looking to make a market via forced legislation is only the latest chapter in the long-term domination of governments and governmental authority around the world by big money interests.”

    Excuse me, but you seem to be 180 degrees off. The Renewables Industry is not rich, does not account for a lot of votes, and seems to have no particular influence in the general population. In addition, the money is flowing the other way. The EU is giving money to the Renewables Industry and the Greens to lobby the EU in favor of green policies that the EU has adopted. The government seems to be the actor here. Now, who are the puppetmasters and what are their goals?

  16. Having picked up my jaw from the floor, where it made a dent after reading Ben Pile’s excellent analysis, two points need to be made:

    * note that the accounts accessible to Ben only went to 2009. How much more money have EREC received since?

    * Corruption and EU go hand in hand. Their accounts have not been audited for nearly a decade, after all, and a whistleblower was unceremoniously sacked for her efforts. so no surprise there.

    However, isn’t it time for all those who really care for the environment to not just cut their ties with Greenpeace, but to show them up for the corrupt lobbyists they are? And why should we now pay any attention at all to those who bleat about ‘consensus’ and ‘the science is settled’, when it is obvious that this is nothing but an unholy alliance of vested interests, pushed by supra-national organisations back to national governments who seem to have asked for such ‘evidence’ in the first place.

    Oh – and perhaps we should ask how come we, the taxpayers, are paying lobbyists for their work? I’m sure some US politician might like to take this up – the EU lot are hopeless and hopelessly implicated in this scam.

  17. John in NZ says:
    June 16, 2011 at 11:46 am
    They tell us there is overwhelming evidence that climate is sensitive to changes in CO2 but where does this evidence come from?

    From the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of course.
    ——-
    The possible corruption at the IPCC and the issue of how sensitive the climate may be to the 40% rise in CO2 levels over the past few centuries are two completely different issues. It may be convenient for some AGW skeptics to blur the two, but such a blurring has no basis in reality as a great deal of non-IPCC funded or sponsored research has come to similar conclusions about the existence of a measurable signal in the rise in global temperatures in the 20th century attributable to a high degree of confidence (95%) to anthropogenic GH gases.

  18. How many of the warmist IPCC scientists, of the Realclimate scientists, of the WBGU members, of the PIK and GISS scientists are Greenpeace members? I would not be surprised if it were the majority, with German surnames.

  19. It seems anyone can now get in on the act, if this piece of spam that just got filtered out is anything to go by …

    Have You Thought About Powering Your Business by Solar?

    We all know energy prices are rising, and that this rise won’t stop unless fossil fuels are substituted by a renewable source.

    But can solar really provide much energy? The simple answer is yes, tons. It could not only provide your business with enough energy to power your entire building, but also give you a very healthy profit by selling the excess back to the power grid at government enforced prices.

    There are generally 2 types of offer, one is run by hedge fund managers that are cashing in on the government enforced prices, and 0% government funding. They will “give” you a solar installation, and a small shared amount of the power generated (while they sell the excess back to the grid for vast profits).

    The other way is to easily take advantage of the government funding yourself, and get paid for 100% of the energy you generate. The average break even period is 8 years, and profits (above repayments) are around £197,000 over the guaranteed 25 year period. After those 8 years profits get even higher as the funding is paid off. Doing it this way is expected to get you an extra £197,000 over 25 years.

    It’s a no brainer, zero cost energy, big profits with government backed funding. Even the guardian thinks so (please note this article was written before government funding was available, which now make it an even more attractive option).

    However there is a limited window, the government is only going to enforce the high grid sale price until 2012 (but once you sign up, the feed in tariffs are locked in for 25 years). If you think you might benefit from this, it’s extremely important you get in touch asap to avoid losing out on this bonanza.

    Our service will get you up to 3 no obligation quotes from local MCS certified and vetted suppliers in your area that will reduce your install costs by up to 75%.

    It’s a no brainer alright – yet another 21st century scam artist bubble in the making.

  20. R. Gates says:
    June 16, 2011 at 11:24 am

    This kind of coziness is of course downright sickening and certainly speaks volumes about the credibility and objectiveness of some IPCC findings, but the bigger issue here ultimarely is really about the corruption of governmental processes across the board, and that corruption centers on the undo influence of money in political processes. That the IPCC would even be partially corrupted by alternative energy companies looking to make a market via forced legislation is only the latest chapter in the long-term domination of governments and governmental authority around the world by big money interests.

    So, let me understand you. You seem to be saying that it was the alternative energy companies who corrupted the process. I don’t recall large tens-of-billions a year companies doing alternative energy before the AGW scare came about. In fact the only big money in energy before this came about was in oil. But your post seems to suggest that the corruption originated with capitalism. Does anyone remember large lobbying groups lobbying on behalf of Solar, Wind, and biofuel industries before 1990? I don’t. And I think our perennial troll Mr Gates here is revising history.

    In fact exactly the opposite occurred. Non-governmental-organizations (NGOs) created a justification for alternative energy, and the alternative energy companies then contributed to the corruption that spawned their need. When not supported by government subisidies, these companies die as fast as NOGs without donations.

    You, Mr Gates, seem to want to lay the blame on capitalism. I’m not going to stand here and tell you that big corporations don’t corrupt democracies, I would easily grant you that and I find it disgusting too. But I’m also not going to accept a shifting of the blame of IPCC corruption onto capitalism when in fact it was eco-socialists all along.

  21. R. Gates says:
    June 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm
    “The possible corruption at the IPCC and the issue of how sensitive the climate may be to the 40% rise in CO2 levels over the past few centuries are two completely different issues.”

    Ah, you just can’t get away from your favorite Gatesism: 40% rise in CO2 levels. Once again without any reference to real world magnitude of the number.

  22. R. Gates says:
    June 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    So the fact that the largest and most influential outfit pusing the AGW scam is corrupt to it’s core, is irrelevant to whether the AGW scam is true or not. Let’s not forget that the vast majority of people who also push the AGW scam also point to the IPCC as their irefutable proof of AGW.

    Interesting take there.

  23. Greenpeazers, the bearded methane outgassing vegan weed mongers for regenbogenblasrohrsturmsoldaten, who will only “attack” those who can’t legally defend themselves, the au natural shock trousers to the Wahnsinnig Waffen Fond, the vanguard of the Internationale Pyramidenspiel Kohlenstoff Korporation.

    Like the head of Big dirty coal munching industry would spear head a save the planet by going green organization be fronted by non profit organization who runs a bunch of profitable corporations and the greenest of them all organizations running their own profitable corporations all the while being indirectly backed by Biggest oil. Pfft, right? o_O

  24. R. Gates June 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    “[T]he existence of a measurable signal in the rise in global temperatures in the 20th century attributable to a high degree of confidence (95%) to anthropogenic GH gases” is a curiously weak statement in light of the IPCC AR4 statements on detection and attribution. You’d need studies that claimed significantly more than that to support AR4.

  25. Thought this might be timely:
    “The most important conclusions about global climatic disruption…have not been concocted by the Sierra Club or the enemies of capitalism. They are based on an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted. [bold added]”

    John Holdren, science adviser to President Obama

  26. Exactly who are the puppet masters in all this is a mystery. Pachauri is no more culpable than the EU.

    It is a fellow traveler thing. Read these three books in sequence.

    Limits to Growth
    Beyond the Limits
    Earth in the Balance

    The theme is common, the agenda is there, it is being executed by those who do not have the vision to understand that Limits to Growth as it is presented is a myth. They had spiffy computer charts with predictions there as well, and all of them have failed the test of time.

  27. @Russell C
    If Donna LaFramboise said that Greenpeace people were found in the report, and it turns out that Greenpeace people WERE found in the report, how does that constitute a smear?

  28. To paraphase Eric Hoffer ( I think ) , every great cause becomes a racket . This is true throughout the envionmental movement , and has been for quite some time .

  29. R. Gates says:
    June 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    The possible corruption at the IPCC and the issue of how sensitive the climate may be to the 40% rise in CO2 levels over the past few centuries are two completely different issues. It may be convenient for some AGW skeptics to blur the two, but such a blurring has no basis in reality as a great deal of non-IPCC funded or sponsored research has come to similar conclusions about the existence of a measurable signal in the rise in global temperatures in the 20th century attributable to a high degree of confidence (95%) to anthropogenic GH gases..

    No, they aren’t two separate issues. The second issue, CO2 = CAGW, derives directly from the first = ipcc corruption, with its obligatory failure to practice real science.

    No one needs to deny that CO2 is a ghg or that within the workings of the climate it has a small effect on atmospheric temperatures. It’s the completely concocted “sensitivity” of atmospheric temperatures to CO2 concentrations, magically abetted by water vapor, and the likewise completely ginned-up postulate that a catastrophic runaway of atmospheric temperatures will occur with increasing CO2 concentrations, still as magically abetted by water vapor…while this magic has never happened before when it should already have happened according to CO2 = CAGW’s own “science”, and even independently according to water vapor’s nature as a ghg, regardless of CO2 concentrations…it’s this magic mechanism and its postulated catastrophe which is not only not a blur between the two issues: the second issue is essentially a functioning corollary of the first.

  30. P Walker says:
    June 16, 2011 at 2:18 pm
    “To paraphase Eric Hoffer ( I think ) , every great cause becomes a racket . This is true throughout the envionmental movement , and has been for quite some time.”

    Ah, for the days when the Mob was the only international crime syndicate. Because the goals of the Greens are exactly the goals of the communists and because highly-placed Greens are self-avowed communists, people such as ex-czar Van Jones, I think the communists are driving this.

  31. Doug says:
    June 16, 2011 at 1:16 pm
    “Thought this might be timely:
    “The most important conclusions about global climatic disruption…have not been concocted by the Sierra Club or the enemies of capitalism.”

    And with the exception of Arrhenius’ physical hypotheses, there is not one physical hypothesis among all those papers. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? If you produce no reasonably well-confirmed physical hypotheses, then you are not doing science.

  32. For the faithful of the AGW cult, Greenpeace is a truly scientific organisation.

    In reality, Greenpeace is an almost perfect clone of one of those weird religious cults for which the USA is so famous. It is a money making machine whose survival depends on spreading unfounded scare stories to the lumpen proletariat/their faithful in order to keep that machine well oiled. The people at the top of these organisations have benefits and a morality which would make a 2007 investment banker blush.

    If anyone doubts this, ask Greenpeace for some scientific information on any subject you choose – the response will be mostly useless gibberish, almost without any scientific basis or backing.

    As for the IPCC, it is difficult to figure out which writes the best fantasy – them or Greenpeace?

  33. R. Gates says:
    June 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    The possible corruption at the IPCC and the issue of how sensitive the climate may be to the 40% rise in CO2 levels over the past few centuries are two completely different issues.

    Yaaaawn! Tell the IPCC to start looking at the last few centuries instead of since 1960.

  34. Theo Goodwin ,
    I think he was referring to the labor movement , and look at what’s become of it . The same holds true for the environmental movement – it has evolved into what is essentially an extortion racket . As far as their political agenda ? Well , you called it , although the “c ” word has fallen out of fashion .

  35. Did the UN require financial disclosure statements from IPCC authors? If organizational conflicts of interrest were not controlled, it raises the question if personal ones were managed.

    The UN’s past performance and what is publically available via a brief search, do not inspire confidence.

  36. Jeremy says:
    June 16, 2011 at 12:44 pm
    R. Gates says:
    June 16, 2011 at 11:24 am

    This kind of coziness is of course downright sickening and certainly speaks volumes about the credibility and objectiveness of some IPCC findings, but the bigger issue here ultimarely is really about the corruption of governmental processes across the board, and that corruption centers on the undo influence of money in political processes. That the IPCC would even be partially corrupted by alternative energy companies looking to make a market via forced legislation is only the latest chapter in the long-term domination of governments and governmental authority around the world by big money interests.

    So, let me understand you. You seem to be saying that it was the alternative energy companies who corrupted the process. I don’t recall large tens-of-billions a year companies doing alternative energy before the AGW scare came about. In fact the only big money in energy before this came about was in oil. But your post seems to suggest that the corruption originated with capitalism. Does anyone remember large lobbying groups lobbying on behalf of Solar, Wind, and biofuel industries before 1990? I don’t. And I think our perennial troll Mr Gates here is revising history.

    In fact exactly the opposite occurred. Non-governmental-organizations (NGOs) created a justification for alternative energy, and the alternative energy companies then contributed to the corruption that spawned their need. When not supported by government subisidies, these companies die as fast as NOGs without donations.

    You, Mr Gates, seem to want to lay the blame on capitalism. I’m not going to stand here and tell you that big corporations don’t corrupt democracies, I would easily grant you that and I find it disgusting too. But I’m also not going to accept a shifting of the blame of IPCC corruption onto capitalism when in fact it was eco-socialists all along.
    ——–
    I think you are confused about the difference between capitalism and corporatism. The corruption of the IPCC, to whatever level it is corrupt, isn’t about capitalism, and it isn’t about some Eco-socialists wanting to take control of the world. There are some dedicated scientists and some idealists involved, and whatever corruption there is ultimately about money somewhere down the line, and this kind of money-centric influence in setting international governing policy isn’t capitalism, but more akin to the kind of corporatism that has run Washington D.C. for so many decades. Follow the money and you’ll usually find the truth.

  37. Mark Wilson says:
    June 16, 2011 at 12:57 pm
    R. Gates says:
    June 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    So the fact that the largest and most influential outfit pusing the AGW scam is corrupt to it’s core, is irrelevant to whether the AGW scam is true or not. Let’s not forget that the vast majority of people who also push the AGW scam also point to the IPCC as their irefutable proof of AGW.

    Interesting take there.
    ———–
    I have no problem separating the real science from politics…in fact I prefer it that way. I highly recommend it to warmest and skeptic alike as it can be quite enlightening.

  38. Andrew30 says:
    June 16, 2011 at 12:05 pm
    “Sometime you do not actually need a tangible product to get peoples money.
    Greenpeace International, ‘Guilt, Fear’
    Wildlife Fund for Nature, ‘Guilt, Fear’”
    Heck, organised religion has been running with that for thousands of years.

  39. New Zealand had the right idea with a judge stripping Greanpeace of their tax free charity status and classifying Greenpeace as a political organisation.
    With the revelations of NGO’s such as Greenpeace having direct influence on the content of IPCC AR4 and now AR5, should ring alarm bells.
    When is the rest of the world going to wake up ?
    I find it particularly confronting to see a tee shirt with Greenpeace China emblazoned upon it.

  40. When Schneider was still alive this sort of thing wouldn’t have come to light. They’re really falling apart without their mastermind. He was the master in balancing honesty with efficiency.

  41. The agenda-driven funding of climate alarmism goes far beyond Europe. The Asian Development Bank, the World Bank and many bi-lateral governmental aid agencies use grant funding to promote policies, programs and projects in support of investment in climate adaptation and climate mitigation. This grant money is taxpayer funded.

    The objective is to get a developing country to accept the need to invest in infrastructure and equipment to cope with climate change and/or to mitigate climate change. The developing country will be expected to borrow from the agency that provided grants. First grants to justify the projects and then loans to finance the projects.

    What if the consultant working on the grant-financed project says that he/she does not accept the regional/ local projections produced by the climate models?

    What if a consultant or adviser advises the country not to borrow to invest in either adaptation of mitigation of climate change?

    What position is taken by the US representatives on the board of governors of the ADB and World Bank?

    How come the US Senate has not explored the role of the US Government in directly or indirectly supporting these activities?

  42. It seems inevitable that large organisations, however they present themselves and no matter how noble their stated ‘mission’, will slide into corruption as individuals withing those organisations become accustomed to living well. The Olympic movement, FIFA and many other supposedly ‘non-profit’ organisations have demonstrated that they are subject to corruption and must, on an almost continuous basis, clean house. The EU has a deserved reputation for endemic corruption and it is no surprise that Greenpeace, which began with the highest of ideals, has itself succumbed to corruption. The UN is merely another example of an organisation which grew out of the horrors of war and began with the loftiest of ideals, which has become corrupt with the passing of time.
    Immediately organisations resist public financial audits by reputable auditors, alarm bells should ring and automatic mechanisms which begin the stable-cleaning should be triggered.

  43. Theo Goodwin says:
    June 16, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    And with the exception of Arrhenius’ physical hypotheses, there is not one physical hypothesis among all those papers.

    Arrhenius (1906b, pp. 154 and 225) still clung to the aether hypothesis, which refers to the unspecified material medium of space. Arrhenius’ adherence to this hypothesis remained firm in spite of its sound refutation by Michelson & Morley (1887).

    http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

    Arrhenius was in a scientific backwater in his own time.

  44. You can search for EU funding beneficiaries here: http://ec.europa.eu/beneficiaries/fts/index_en.htm

    Looks like some “brown washing” is going on too: LINDE GAS BENELUX BV, SHELL DOWNSTREAM SERVICES INTERNATIONAL BV*SDSI , DEUTSCHE STEINKOHLE AG* , UK COAL MINING LTD, IEA COAL RESEARCH LIMITED, COAL SERVICES PTY LIMITED, GDF SUEZ SA, LNG MEDGAS TERMINAL SRL etc etc

  45. Allan M says:
    June 17, 2011 at 2:06 am

    Thanks for this juicy bit, Allan. My guess is that Schmidt has aether in his Gaia Model. At least we know that Schmidt is working in a tradition that denies experimental science and scientific method.

  46. Alexander K says: June 17, 2011 at 1:41 am
    Immediately organisations resist public financial audits by reputable auditors, alarm bells should ring and automatic mechanisms which begin the stable-cleaning should be triggered.

    Perhaps some distinction between an individual(s) and an organisation is needed firstly Alex K.

    This would be an interesting book to read given the debate above?

    Lecturing Birds on Flying: Can Mathematical Theories destroy Financial Markets?
    Pablo Triana, Nassim Nicholas Taleb (May 2009) ISBN: 978-0-470-40675-5

    “An intriguing look at how financial models have repeatedly failed our markets, including now

    Leading and contrarian thinkers have been talking for years about the conflicts between theoretical and real finance. Nassim Taleb first addressed the issue in his technical treatise on options, Dynamic Hedging. Now, in Lecturing Birds on Flying, Pablo Triana moves the conversation to a narrative that anyone can follow, and explains how it is that theoretical finance can fail dramatically in the real world. The heart of the book, though, isn’t about technicalities, but instead explores how widely accepted theories that are applied daily cause our world real harm. Many times, it’s the quantitative models that hedge funds and investment banks use (and regulators and rating agencies embrace) that lead to market implosions. These so-called models end up offering false guidance and misplaced certainty, and sanction unsavory behavior. In fact, these models were largely responsible for the stock market crash of 1987, the LTCM crisis of 1998, the credit crisis of 2008, and many other blow-ups big and small. Pablo Triana has been writing about the limits of these types of mathematics for several years; now he reveals exactly what this means for our markets and why blind self-enslavement to quantitative dictums puts us at great peril.

    Pablo Triana (New York, NY, and Madrid, Spain) has successful derivatives experience at all levels: trading floor, professor, consultant, and author. He is a frequent contributor to business publications, including the Financial Times, Forbes.com, Breakingviews, and Risk magazine, among others. His prior book is Corporate Derivatives. Triana holds a master of science from New York University, Stern and an MA from American University.’

    source: http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470406755.html

Comments are closed.