Pachauri's Carbon Choo-Choo off the rails

Where are the cries he is in the pay of big oil.
“These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies “

Another good story on this in the Telegraph by James Delingpole
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/

Moderator, et alii, I had a post removed and replaced with:
Karl Maki (09:23:46) :
[pointless religious bashing ~ ctm]
In the post I compared Pachauri’s enriching himself as reported in this story to the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences. My intention was to draw a parallel between the actions of Pachauri and the Catholic Church of the late Middle Ages, which saw fantastic and unrestrained profiteering through the sale of papal indulgences. By implication, I was suggesting that certain prophets of Global Warming doom have turned climate science into no more than a cynical, self-serving religion.
My intent was certainly not to suggest the Catholic Church of today is guilty of any such pursuits — I did not, in fact, even realize indulgences were still granted by the Church — and I apologize to any who perceived my comment thus.
Thanks!

Indiana Bones (22:54:46) :
…First you have to send money to the CCE. That seems to be a dimming proposition given the collapse of carbon prices and scandal…..
I sure hope so but I doubt it. The spin doctors are at work. I do not think public opinion will stop the three takeover bills: Cap n’ Trade, Food Safety Enhancement, and the Health Care bil,l all of which have already passed the house.
Too much time and effort has been put into getting the bills to where they are now and those behind the scenes pulling the political strings are not about to let the politicians waffle on these bills. If someone pulls the plug on you donations you will not get elected and that is a much bigger lever than public opinion. Ever notice how many lawyers/law firms donate to election funds? Or how many “house wifes and retirees”? Or how much money candidates receive in corporate PAC or “soft money”? For example, Goldman Sachs donated $994,795 to Obama last year according to opensecrets.org Who knows how much else was donated through less transparent means such as through law firms.

Someone tell me this isn’t true
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/12/and-so-it…
And so it begins…”The shift happens as the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause — in a sense offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth.” – Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, today
The deal expected at Copenhagen, highlighted back in May when I released my book Air Con, followed up by Investigate magazine and Lord Monckton before catching fire across the internet, has now come to pass.
No, it is not yet legally binding. But it will be.
You see, throughout this torturous process in the Danish capital over the last 14 days, the people pulling the strings have clung to their central core themes: wealth transfer, world governance. Climate was actually a distant third on the priority list.
Anyone wishing to trace back the longer history need only read Air Con, or any number of UN publications buried deep in the UN website with innocuous names that give no clue to the ambitions contained within their pages.
Here’s why the US$100 billion wealth transfer is the wedge that will fundamentally overhaul the political landscape of planet earth forever:
It’s not the amount of money that’s the issue, it is instead the infrastructure required to administer the money and oversee its collection and expenditure. By agreeing to provide a vast sum on money in “climate compensation”, the globalists have automatically created the need for a vast global bureaucracy to administer the programme. How else could it possibly be done?
And which global agency is perched to implant itself as this massive governance organization? Try this one for size.
What’s integral to this is what administering this money will do for the UN. Currently, it has an ‘official’ budget of US$4.2 billion a year. I say ‘official’ because in partnership with donor countries the UN administers several billion more each year through the UN Development Programme and similar entities. But let’s go with $4.2 billion for now.
For US$100 billion a year, you are talking some serious prestige and power for the UN. Assuming 80% of the funding reaches its destination (probably in the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt Third World leaders), that’s still 20% to pay the wages of a vastly increased UN field staff and ‘peacekeeping’ force to protect them as they administer the programme.
And of course, $100 billion is only a starting point. The UN and the Third World have talked of up to $1 trillion a year in climate adaptation and compensation.
Barack Obama talks about the ‘mechanism’ to deliver this pool of funds, that it needs to be global but it need not encroach on sovereignty too much. In principle, it won’t at all – that’s because sovereigns make a free will choice to sign and ratify the agreement and its conditions. They’re still sovereign, but like any contract they are required to keep their promise to allow the UN agency access and control over relevant areas if required. Sovereignty in name only.
The Third World countries are suspicious because, much as they desire the cash, they know the UN will be demanding accountability for the cash, and perhaps even political reform. In this way, the UN hopes to drag the Third World up closer to the level of the First World, and it hopes to be hailed as a hero for modernizing and democratizing the planet, ready for full global government and the end of nation states.
This is, of course, is already on the UNDP agenda.
So while others label Copenhagen a “failure”, I suggest you look a little more carefully. This is not really about specific emissions cuts, the bigger game is to sneak the infrastructure in. And there’s every indication they are well on track to succeed on this.
Posted by iwishart on December 19, 2009 at 08:13 PM |

Pachauri’s claiming accusations coming from the same group of people who had tried unsuccessfully to discredit the IPCC and the “irrefutable science” on climate change . . .
Irrefutable Science ?
Simply Amazing !

To:
Henry Galt (03:21:34) :
‘This was not Smokey you were at contretemps with. It was I, a UK citizen.’
I wouldn’t put it as strongly as ‘contretemps’, just a mild disagreement.
‘The public do not vote for the Prime Minister. The public can only vote for their local Member of Parliament.’
Yes, but this is looking at trees and not the forest, Amazon or otherwise. When in the voting booth the local candidates get preferred on the basis of how the voter feels about the policies and the emotional appeal of the party they represent (unless there are some overwhelming local issues which cause atypical choices).
‘The party chooses its leader.’
The basis on which a party chooses its leader largely depends on in which part of the electoral cycle the choice has to be made: midpoint or earlier then policies, intellectual brilliance, past record, approval of peers etc all count; closer to an election the overriding decider is how that leader will attract the voter. If the political party is considered as a living being, that is when its survival instincts come heavily into play.
This is modern politics in the 21st century. It certainly isn’t how to construct a meritocracy. When I was 14, an incrdibly long time ago, I wrote a ‘Future History’ which at one point predicted that both courts and government would be by a giant computer, as human beings were too irrational to make sensible decisions on how they should be judged or governed. Nothing I have seen over the intervening years has changed my mind. Certainly with the rise of the Church of Global Warming, the latest in a long series of moral panics, I see just more evidence of our intellectual failure.
As for ‘Call me Dave’ it is perfectly possible, as I have taught my students over the years, that we can present an acceptable persona to whoever it is we wish to impress at a particular time and in a particular context; in changed times and altered position we can tuck that persona away and show another of perhaps many such masks that we possess. This persona may be harsh, stern and ascetic, for times that require it, as they do in the UK today. Mandelson, the lineal descendent of Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’, shows us how it should be done. CMD is more similar to him than people realise.
By the way, I thought ‘WAG’ was a footballer’s wife or girlfriend?

James F. Evans,
“Un-elected world government rulers that own private interests that directly benefit from their “public” actions and policies.
Some might call it crony capital, but it’s a lot closer to Fascism.
The state runs private enterprise.”
Corruption is in the eye of the beholder. Members of Western democracies are not inclined to accept gladly public servants abusing their power for financial gain. Even within the West, there is a lot of variation, with the US and Britain raising the bar higher than say Italy or Greece. So far, auditors have refused to sign off EU accounts for more than 10 straight years – corruption.
Once you move into developing countries, the bar is almost at ground level. The public merely shrugs it’s collective shoulders when the Mayor of Moscow diverts lucrative building contracts to a company owned by – his wife. Go even further east, and people are too poor to even care.
So who in the UN could care less that the head of the IPCC is using his position to enrich himself? “Say what? Ethical standards?” they ask with a puzzled expression.
That in fact is the UN (and EU) – corrupt from top to bottom, and destined to become even more so.

Dr Anthony Fallone (08:01:17) :
Working backwards;
Wild Arsed Guess 😉
The Prince of Darkness. Eloquent, or snarling as the situation dictates. I agree, completely. We could wish that “Dave” has more arrows in his quiver than he appears to, or Mandy actually has, but I somehow doubt it.
Humanity gets an F in discernment, especially politically 😉
Class and peer pressure aside, I agree that the media generally determines the majority in most general elections. Very sad.
I have hope though. I remember a certain leader getting on his soapbox in a last ditch attempt to throw the election. The public saw through it and returned the Conservatives for the last time, ’til date. The old ploy of “let the opposition in, they will only last one term digging the country out of the muck they inherit and then we get to have a long run” failed them spectacularly. I too am old and cannot remember another occasion when the floating voter thrilled, rather than nauseated me.
I perceived “an awkward clash” or “a small disagreement that is rather embarrassing” and apologise unreservedly for my failure to add quotes to the post that lead to such.
Seasons greetings.

From eureferendum is this,
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/290167/
It appears that Pachauri has been trouble for lying and giving false information in the Indian Courts. Not once but as a carrier, Judges verdict ;” he is a deceitful liar” Perhaps … ‘Indian Railway Engineers’ and, or, Con men ? would be a good tittle.