The IPCC released their “synthesis report” today. The long awaited conclusion to their massive multi-hundred billion dollar industry’s belief that they need to keep getting paid. I have listed the authors from the front page. Take a few minutes and look up some of the names on this list, copy their resume’s into the comments below. Anecdotes are appreciated. My contention is that AGW is an industry, alarm is their product, their personal pay depends on more study and extreme conclusions. Without yet checking, I believe that nobody on this list is conservative or moderate politically and the message is uniformly more government, more tax and more study. If you find anyone moderate in the list, please add it to the comments.
Core Writing Team members
X- Myles R. Allen (United Kingdom),
X-Vicente Ricardo Barros (Argentina),
X-John Broome (United Kingdom),
X-Wolfgang Cramer (Germany/France),
X-Renate Christ (Austria/WMO),
John A.Church (Australia),
X-Leon Clarke (USA),
Qin Dahe (China),
Purnamita Dasgupta (India),
Navroz K. Dubash (India),
Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany),
Ismail Elgizouli (Sudan),
Christopher B. Field (USA),
X-Piers Forster (United Kingdom),
X-Pierre Friedlingstein (United Kingdom),
Jan Fuglestvedt (Norway),
Luis Gomez -Echeverri (Colombia),
Stephane Hallegatte (France/World Bank),
Gabriele Hegerl (United Kingdom),
Mark Howden (Australia),
Kejun Jiang (China),
Blanca Jimenez Cisneros (Mexico/UNESCO),
Vladimir Kattsov (Russian Federation),
Hoesung Lee(Republic ofKorea),
Katharine J. Mach (USA),
Jochem Marotzke (Germany),
Michael D. Mastrandrea (USA),
Leo Meyer (The Netherlands),
Jan Minx (Germany),
Yacob Mulugetta (Ethiopia),
Karen O’Brien (Norway),
X-Michael Oppenheimer (USA),
R.K. Pachauri (India),
Joy J. Pereira (Malaysia),
Ramón Pichs-Madruga (Cuba),
Gian-Kasper Plattner (Switzerland),
Hans-Otto Pörtner (Germany),
Scott B.Power(Australia),
X-Benjamin Preston (USA),
N.H. Ravindranath (India),
X-Andy Reisinger (New Zealand),
Keywan Riahi (Austria),
Matilde Rusticucci (Argentina),
Robert Scholes (South Africa),
Kristin Seyboth (USA),
X-Youba Sokona (Mali),
Robert Stavins (USA),
X-Thomas F. Stocker (Switzerland),
Petra Tschakert (USA),
Detlef van Vuuren (The Netherlands),
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele (Belgium)
Extended Core Writing Team members
Gabriel Blanco (Argentina),
Michael Eby (Canada),
Jae Edmonds (USA),
Marc Fleurbaey (France),
Reyer Gerlagh (The Netherlands),
X- Sivan Kartha (USA),
X-Howard Kunreuther (USA),
Joeri Rogelj (Belgium),
Michiel Schaeffer (The Netherlands),
Jan Sedláček(Switzerland),
Ralph Sims (New Zealand),
Diana Ürge-Vorsatz (Hungary),
David Victor(USA),
Gary Yohe (USA)
Review Editors
Paulina Aldunce (Chile),
X-Thomas Downing (United Kingdom),
Sylvie Joussaume (France),
Zbigniew Kundzewicz (Poland),
Jean Palutikof (Australia),
Jim Skea (United Kingdom),
Kanako Tanaka (Japan),
Fredolin Tangang (Malaysia),
Chen Wenying (China),
Zhang Xiao-Ye (China)
the Air Vent 
Also analyze country and years from PhD
Picked this one at random. Is this what you’re looking for?
Sivan Kartha
http://sei-us.org/about/staff_person/13
http://sei-us.org/projects/id/124
yup
It’s not just the IPCC and its members. It’s climate scientists in general. Witness what Peter Kalmus, who used to work on LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, an international effort to “make the first direct detection of gravitational waves”), had to say about his new career in climate science:
“I don’t miss the lack of signal in LIGO, but hopefully that will change for you soon. I found it tough doing science without a signal. The signal in climate science is only getting stronger with time. Also, searching for that mythical tenure-track job year after year as a LIGO postdoc was discouraging. It’s a relief having a position in science in which, if I do good work, I can be confident of a good career.”
It’s all about the money.
source: http://www.ligo.org/magazine/LIGO-magazine-issue-5.pdf – top of page 18 (Peter’s blurb starts on page 15).
I wonder what constitutes “good work” in climate science these days? (as if we don’t already know!)
Myles Allen
Resume:
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/people/allenmyles.php
Here Myles losely recognizes the failure of models yet advocates for continued disaster mitigation anyway:
or
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/delays-in-curbing-emissions-will-result-in-more-global-warming-despite-lower-carbon-sensitivity.html
Here Myles calls for “mandatory sequestration”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo709.html
At Bishop Hill:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/5/26/myles-allen-writes.html
It is hard to see him as an unbiased broker of economic climate science strategy.
BTW, just because I’m a recovering pedant (one day at a time)…
“industries” is plural, “industry’s” is possessive
“who’s” is “who is”, “whose” is possessive
FWIW… 😉
Keep teaching, education is not an event, it is a process 😀
Thanks for defending the informational content of the apostrophe!
Vicente Ricardo Barros
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9619-x
Appointed to IPCC through a complaint WRT an Iranian prof. Hmm..
The abstract of the article is rather priceless if you get stats.
I had to read that abstract twice, but I think all it said is that they did a study on rainfall trends. That is it, they did a study and couldn’t detect a trend.
What about the part where they wrote about the predominant positive trends and the remarkable increment in the frequency of trends, right before they say nothing was significant when averaged out. It looks like storymaking for a result to me, of course I didn’t read the paper.
” There were predominant positive trends in the annual maximum rainfalls, as well as a remarkable increment in the frequency of heavy rainfalls over thresholds ranging from 50 to 150 mm. However, significant positive trends were not shown in the series of annual maximums and shown only in 15% to 30% of the series of frequencies over thresholds.”
How “remarkable” could it be?
John Broome
Check out the preview of his book “climate matters” Don’t forget your galoshes. Wow!!
http://www.smh.com.au/world/climate-change-controversy-takes-a-philosophical-turn-20131011-2vdt7.html
Maximum extremism.
An hour and a half of extremism that fails to notice any problem with mitigation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSl_noHhhFI
Wolfgang Cramer
http://interacademies.net/?id=9667 –Apparently he has won the same Nobel as Mann.
This hardly does the next link justice but —
from: https://www.pik-potsdam.de/institute/organization/annual-report-2012
So like most here, multiple government salaries paid by different institutions and extremist conclusions of the same angle as the previous two.
Is that enough?
No, well here is a link to a statement with more:http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/sbsta40/140611_land_use_Christ.pdf
Complete advocacy type, and like before, ON THE TAKE!
Thomas Stocker was born in Zürich and obtained a PhD in Natural Sciences of ETH
Zürich in 1987.
He held research positions at University College London, McGill University
(Montreal), Columbia University (New York) and University of Hawai’i (Honolulu). Since
1993 he is Professor of Climate and Environmental Physics at the University of Bern. His
research encompasses the development of climate models of intermediate complexity,
modelling past and future climate change, and the reconstruction of greenhouse gas
concentrations based on ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica.
Thomas Stocker has authored or co-authored 180 peer-reviewed papers in the area of
climate dynamics and paleoclimate modeling and reconstruction. After more than 10 years
of service in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) he has been
elected Co-Chair of Working Group I of the IPCC in 2008. The comprehensive
assessment report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis was approved by
the governments on September 27, 2013. Thomas Stocker was awarded a Dr. Honoris
Causa of the University of Versailles (France) in 2006 and the Hans Oeschger Medal of
the European Geosciences Union in 2009. In 2012 he was elected Fellow of the American
Geophysical Union.
A bit of carbon price advocacy to add:
Click to access ghg-exec_summary2013-web.pdf
“Thomas Stocker, a co-chair of the IPCC working group, flatly asserted in an accompanying release that “substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions” are required.”
And a little speech where the advocacy comes out:http://ubyssey.ca/news/thomas-stocker-leading-authority-on-climate-change-speaks-in-vancouver/
Not just a bit of advocacy. He plays a major role as a consultant to the Swiss government. He is the Pope of climate science, and they believe what he says.
Bernd, my personal OPINION is that the politicians do not just listen to these advocates, they seek them out to support their agenda. If there hadn’t been a James Hansen the Politicians would have found someone to do the job.
Thank you, Jeff, for the enlightening information.
Publicly-funded researchers in former US National Laboratories like Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Pacific Northwest Laboratory now promote misinformation for the UN’s IPCC.
Leon Clarke at U. Maryland and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/staff/lclarke/
Benjamin Preston at Oak Ridge National Laboratory: http://climatechangescience.ornl.gov/content/benjamin-l-preston
What are the candid opinions of real scientists – nuclear physicists and chemists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory – about the quality of their new colleagues research?
Prosecutors will be looking for this list of names when the Sun delivers the next unexpected human tragedy in the form of another ice age, powerful EMP (electro-magnetic pulse), or CRB (cosmic ray burst.
Leaders of the consensus science community (UK’s RS, US NAS, UN IPCC, etc) will also want the list as the first scapegoats to be offered.
Readers need to look for themselves at Benjamin’s leadership roles in the AGW fable as an employee of the US Government at ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory).
http://climatechangescience.ornl.gov/content/benjamin-l-preston
Benjamin appears to be Deputy Director for ORNL’s Climate Change Science Institute, actively enganged in Lead, Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Science Research Theme
ORNL is Oak Ridge National Laboratory, originally established during WWII to isolate U-235 for atomic bombs and nuclear reactors from natural uranium where U-238/U-235 = 137.
Benjamin L. Preston is a senior research scientist in ORNL’s Environmental Sciences Division and the Climate Change Science Institute where he conducts research on the societal impacts of climate change and the role of adaptation in reducing climate risk. His research involves the development of empirical and process models as well as the application of geographic analysis tools to estimate climate impacts and, in particular, characterize the many interactions between climatic and socioeconomic change. Preston is also the Lead for the Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Analysis research theme within the Climate Change Science Institute.
Preston received a BS in biology from the College of William and Mary and a PhD in environmental biology from the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he also minored in public policy. He subsequently worked as a postdoctoral fellow with the Carolina Environmental Program at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill where he developed his interest in applications of geographic information systems to investigate spatial and temporal relationships among environmental pressures and outcomes. Preston’s interest in making science relevant to decision-making then drove him to Washington, DC where he worked as a senior research fellow at the Pew Center on Global Change. He later moved overseas to join Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization where he was a research scientist with the Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research.
Preston has contributed dozens of publications to the scientific literature on climate change impacts, adaptation and environmental assessment, and he has served as an expert peer-reviewer for a broad range of academic journals in the environmental sciences. He is also a coordinating lead author for Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report.
Email: prestonbl@ornl.gov
Phone: 865-574-6496
Howard C. Kunreuther
https://opimweb.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/37/
The research tab lists a number of publications. One:
Click to access WP201219_HK-EUW_AidingDecisionsAdaptCC.pdf
IOW, he wants to trick us into accepting
1) his premise that climate science is right on the money
2) not reviewing the policy choices he prefers much less the science
3) to be silent while they impose their solutions
So you can sum it up that he is a pretnetious ahole and with his many opportunities to influence the insurance industry (per his resume) he can see that we poor consumers get stuck paying for his social madness for decades to come.
While the good professor of course gets his $per diem + expenses consulting fees.
Review Editor : Dr Thomas E. Downing received his PhD in Geography from Clark University. Over his career he has held a number of influential positions, including Advisor to the United Nations Environment Programme and the Munich Re Foundation Chair for Social Vulnerability. Before establishing GCAP, he was the first Director of the UK Climate Impacts Programme at the Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University. He later became the Director of the Stockholm Environmental Institute’s Oxford office, where he managed a $2 million revenue base.
In his 30 years of experience working in the field of adaptation and vulnerability he has led numerous projects. He is currently leading a GCAP consortium to undertake Phase two of the Ethiopian Climate Resilience Programme funded by the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI). He continues to work with the African Development Bank on Climate Safeguards.
Thomas Downing is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Global Climate Adaptation Partnership (GCAP)and Director of GCAP UK.
Dr Andy Reisinger joined the NZAGRC ( NZ Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre) team in November 2010 from the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute, based at Victoria University of Wellington. Andy spent six years working for the Ministry for the Environment as Senior Adviser on climate change and has also worked for the Inter-governmental Panel for Climate Change in the UK and in India.
Andy is a Coordinating Lead Author for the International Panel for Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and is a New Zealand representative for the Global Research Alliance Livestock Research Group.
Andy works from the NZAGRC Wellington office to enable robust interaction with MPI with respect to the Alliance. Andy provides strategic support to the NZAGRC Director and leads New Zealand’s science contribution to the Global Research Alliance and NZAGRC’s input into the Global Research Alliance Livestock Research Group.
On another front in the anti-science movement look at the people who are against cannabinoid medicine. Lots of “free market – small government” people there. You have more cannabinoid receptors in your body than any other type and cannabinoids regulate the immune system. And every other system studied with respect to cannabinoids. But cannabis is not medicine. Legally.
I’m trying to figure out the commonality between the two groups (anti-climate change, anti-cannabinoid medicine). Adversity to change? Interest? Belief trumps knowledge? Because obviously their politics is not common.
I estimate that cannabinoid medicine if fully exploited would destroy the medical industry as we know it and be worth around $1 trillion a year in medical savings. A cure for at least some cancers and maybe all of them. So there is also interest at work. The drug companies are some of the biggest backers of Prohibition. With the alcohol companies right up there. And of course all the lost government jobs.
Maybe that is the key. Government jobs/funding.
And then there is aging. A look at “cannabinoids cytokine” is informative. And just for information: Ebola kills by cytokine storm.
In time the discovery of the body’s cannabinoid system will rank up there with Einstein’s discovery of Relativity. You will have Raphael Mechoulam to thank for getting the ball rolling and for his support of many other researchers in the field.
Hopefully, one day (in the far future) we will see a judgment like this:
Federal Judge to FDA: Tobacco Advisory Panel Tainted by Conflicts of Interest
“The presence of conflicted members on [FDA Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, TPSAC] irrevocably tainted its very composition and its work product” and “the Committee’s findings and recommendations…are, at a minimum, suspect, and, at worst, untrustworthy.” So ruled federal judge Richard Leon this week (here).
A lawsuit by Lorillard et al. claimed that the FDA appointment of TPSAC members Neal Benowitz, Jack Henningfield and Jonathan Samet was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in compliance with the law” because they had conflicts of interest. The evidence was abundant and uncontested.
Here is a quote from the biggest bio of them all:
“The work of the organization (IPCC) is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.” https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml
Of course, they forgot to mention that any member of their organization can be as policy-prescriptive in public as he/she wishes.
You have quoted a nice bit of deceptive misdirection. The people who actually put that stuff out bring to mind the concept of “high functioning sociopath”/
MIchael Oppenheimer:
http://www.princeton.edu/step/people/faculty/michael-oppenheimer/
Now Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs at Princeton.
BS in chemistry (MIT). PhD in chemical physics (U Chicago). Post-doc and Lecturer
Employed for more than two decades by Environmental Defense Fund. Sill serves as science advisor. Working on acid rain in 1982.
Extensive work with the IPCC.
One of organizers of Villach Meeting on GHGs in 1987 predicting 0.3 degC/decade warming over 1990-2050 and need IPCC.
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/01/ipcc_beginnings/
Published book on global warming in 1990.
Piers Forester
bio link
http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/people/p.forster
an abstract:
wow!
this one is spectacular!
from the same article
That’s it! I’m cranking the thermostat and opening the windows for an hour.
Wanting to be the hero could be where a lot of our problem arises.
Piers Forster is also a director of two companies:
United Bank of Carbon Trading
and
United Bank of Carbon.
I wonder how they hope to make money….
Awesome Terry! That is exactly the kind of thing I’m looking for.
https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/director/3558725/piers-forster
Every one of these guys is hip deep in government payout and some are into the private sector.
I’m going to put an X by the names we have completed above.
Yup. No discrimination: Hip deep in funds from
1. The government, and
2. The public sector
Tweaking the numbers to make his “banks” a wee bit more profitable would never cross his mind…….
Dr. Sivan Kartha
Senior Scientist
Local Address: Tufts University, United States
Stockholm Environment Institute
Board membership: EcoEquity, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Advocates for cap and trade, carbon taxes, climate justice. http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Sivan-Kartha/55727926
SEI is providing guidance for the potential development of a U.S. carbon offset program as part of a future mandatory GHG compliance regime. SEI has done extensive research on mandatory and voluntary carbon offset programs and cap-and-trade systems. All of our papers on the topic and extensive information about carbon offsetting can be found on our website:
More generally, EcoEquity is focused on developing and promoting climate solutions that are just enough to actually work. Through our participation in both domestic and international networks of both activists and scholars, we argue for emergency climate strategies that protect the poor, and more generally protect the rights of all people to dignified levels of just and sustainable development. In other words, we focus on the development and promotion of new approaches in which the politics of economic justice (global as well as domestic) and the politics of emergency climate mobilization are one and the same. EcoEquity works by emphasizing the importance of equity principles in all aspects of the policy response, by producing political and economic analyses that highlight equity issues, and by developing practical proposals for equitable climate policies. Our focus has been on the international negotiations but we also work to develop domestic approaches to climate justice that explicitly and organically expand into the project of a just global transition. We believe that, particularly given the failure of 2010s push for US climate legislation – and the major rethink that it has catalyzed – it is critical to stress the US’s role in the international deadlock, and its responsibility to help break it. This is of course true for both realist and moral reasons.
Pierre Friedlingstein
Exeter/Bristol.
http://emps.exeter.ac.uk/mathematics/staff/pf229
Prof Pierre Friedlingstein
Chair, Mathematical Modelling of Climate Systems
http://www.yasni.co.uk/pierre+friedlingstein/check+people
Pretty standard climatologist of the “Sky is falling” wing.
Lots of quotes from last year.
“Prof Pierre Friedlingstein from the University of Exeter said: “We have exhausted about 70 per cent of the cumulative emissions that keep global climate change likely below two degrees. In terms of CO2 emissions, we are following the highest climate change scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in September.”
Looking at the representative from that scientific power house, Mali.
Youba Sokona
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ces/people/visiting_staff/youba_sokona/
Ride that gravy train old chap!
Ottmar Edenhofer
I might have found the best one:
“[W]e redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” Via the Media Research Center, Germany’s NZZ Online Sunday interviews Ottmar Edenhofer of the U.N. (emphases mine):
OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/11/18/u-n-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/
Prof. Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer is Director of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), founded jointly by Stiftung Mercator and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). He is professor of the Economics of Climate Change (appointment together with the Michael Otto Stiftung) at the Technische Universität Berlin and Co-Chair of the Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He is Deputy Director and Chief Economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and is currently leading Research Domain III – Sustainable Solutions, which focuses on research in the field of the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilisation. He is a member of the Climate, Energy and Environment Committee of the German National Academy of Science Leopoldina, and advises the World Bank as a member of the Green Growth Knowledge Platform. Since 2013 he is also co-chairing the new Energy Platform by the European Council of Academies of Applied Sciences, Technologies and Engineering (Euro-CASE), a non-profit organisation of national academies from 21 European countries.
wow again!!!
Wow indeed,. Edenhofer’s accumlation of top positions in advocacy groups is breath-taking. Lots of influence and lots of revenue sources with a minimum of effort. He can disseminate his opinions and personal wisdom (no research work involved) to top level institutions and the government. He is closely linked to Rahmstorf’s PIK (government sponsored) that is probably his main source of information. “He advises the World Bank” says enough to get an idea of the amount of money he takes in.
Ottmar is a loon, but a very clever ollon. He is insinuated across a nice web of NGO’s like a cancer cell undergoing metastatic transformation.
Here’s a flyer in the group. Katherine Mach. She has coauthored a number of papers but seems to have little pre-determined interest excepting the honor of working with the top pro’s on scamming the global economy.
http://dge.stanford.edu/people/kmach
Plenty of extreme enviropapers though.
This guy is up to his ears in government money too:
Keywan Riahi is Program Director of the Energy Program at the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA, Austria). In addition he holds a part-time position as Visiting Professor in the field of energy systems analysis at the Graz University of Technology, Austria.
Professor Riahi is a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC) and a number of other international and European scenario activities. His work within international modeling comparison projects, such as the Stanford-based Energy Modeling Forum (EMF), focuses on the spatial and temporal characteristics of technology diffusion and the path-dependent development of the energy system under alternative policy configurations.
Since 1998, he has served as a Lead Author and Review Editor to various international Assessments, such as the Global Energy Assessment (GEA), and Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), including the IPCC’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports, the IPCC’s Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), the Special Report on CO2 Capture and Storage (SRCCS), and the Special Report on Renewable Energy (SRREN). Recently he has also been appointed a Lead Author of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.
Professor Riahi’s main research interests are the long-term patterns of technological change and economic development and, in particular, the evolution of the energy system. His present research focuses on energy-related sources of global change, and on future development and response strategies for mitigating adverse environmental impacts, such as global warming and acidification. His articles in the field of energy receive more than 500 citations per year (Source: SCOPUS).
Jeff, having established beyond reasonable doubt that many members of the consensus climate change community are “on the take,” . . .
do you agree with E.M. Smith that there may be possible justification for deception of the public if you are personally convinced the whole world is at risk?
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/republican-landslide-democrats-surprised/#comment-59930
I am not in a position to judge anyone else’s decision on such matters, but I believe it is best to just do what is right and to trust the outcome of that action to whatever is in control of the universe.
I’m not about mincing words on politics or government.
The government of the US is corrupt beyond recognition, but if we want to see motivation, all we have to do is look at monetary pressures. The intent isn’t about covering good science, it is about personal power.
Imagine the pressures the new senators are feeling as they walk into their mahogany offices, invited to the top power holder meetings, huge permanent salaries and servants. Then imagine the media pressures when they don’t toe the pro-government line! There is so much pressure on them to ignore the “right thing that it is almost ludicrous for us to expect them to do what is best for the country, instead of what is best for themselves.
There is no need for a big conspiracy when a small one will do. – Jeff Condon
How big? How many different national governments are involved in deceiving the world population by supporting the UN IPCC’s dogma of anthropological global warming?
Robert N. Stavins
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/
And runs a blog:
http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/10/20/what-can-universities-do-about-climate-change/
Notice that Stavins is simply a soft academic who has decided to believe deeply in ‘climate change’ and push his belief. Everything he writes and publishes on the topic is based on the premise that so-called ‘climate change’ is in fact a signficant threat. He has *no* academic or professional background in science to justify his opinion.
I do not like big conspiracy theories either, but nothing else explains sudden, worldwide changes in
1. The internal composition of ordinary stars like the Sun from iron (Fe) in 1945 to hydrogen in 1946
2. Textbooks of nuclear physics, replacing Aston’s valid concept of “nuclear packing fraction” with von Weizsacker’s deceptive concept of “nuclear binding energy” after WWII.
Sorry, Jeff. I intended for my reply to be posted below your reply to me. I do not want to distract from the central theme of this excellent blog: Many consensus scientists are “on the take.”
QIN DAHE (CHINA)
Qin Dahe male, Han nationality, is a native of Lanzhou, Gansu Province. He was born in 1947 and in 1970, graduated from the Faculty of Geography of Lanzhou University. He began work in 1978.
Qin is a glaciologist and the first Chinese ever to cross the South Pole. He was a member of the 1989 International Cross South Pole Expedition and has published numerous ground-breaking articles, using evidence gathered from his Antarctic expeditions. His work, which concentrated on the differences between the southeastern and southwestern parts of the Antarctic ice surface, reveals that the hydrogen isotope content in the southwestern area is 40% higher than that in the southeast. Qin has been praised as one of China’s most outstanding scientists.
Qin served as Director of the China Meteorological Administration from 2003-2007. He enjoys a State Special Allowance.
VLADIMIR KATTSOV (Russia) is a master communicator of inevitable disaster ahead:
http://survincity.com/2012/08/global-warming-the-new-reality-is-inevitable/
Director of the Main Geophysical Observatory. AI MGO Roshydromet Vladimir Kattsov told what disasters we expect in the near future:
Drought is replaced by terrible floods in the middle of summer, all of a sudden it is snowing and cold weather hit, blazing forests, people are dying from the heat. This is only a small part of what will global warming, which is not the first scare us scientists. It will be even worse. And the cause is humanity itself. Recently, the director of the Nizhny Novgorod visited the Main Geophysical Observatory. AI MGO Roshydromet Kattsov Vladimir, who told us to wait any disasters in the near future.
Planetary changes
– Vladimir, global warming really inevitable?
– Scientists have shown convincingly that the processes are, and the cause is emissions of greenhouse gases. They are a kind of plastic film, which retains the heat reflected by the earth. The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the more heat remains. There are gases in the combustion of coal, oil, gas, and deforestation. Because of this, every decade the temperature on Earth increases by 0.2 degrees Celsius. The figure seems to be small, but if it goes on like this, the face of the planet will change beyond recognition.
– What can we expect from global warming? Global heat?
– Global climate change — it is not a smooth warming, especially unbalancing the entire climate system. This is evident in the increasing number and strength of natural disasters: floods and droughts, heat waves and sudden frost, hurricanes, heavy snow and so on. In Russia, the number of dangerous events each year is growing at 6.3 per cent. Now they come almost every day, not every other day, as it was 15 years ago.
Particularly strong temperature increase in the Arctic. By the end of the XXI century the Arctic Ocean in the summer will be completely released from the ice. On the one hand, it promises some of the economic benefits. Northwest Passage becomes more navigable, it will be easier to extract natural resources, there will be new territory for agriculture. But this will be done huge damage to the environment.
For example, only in the next decade can be reduced by a third the number of polar bears. Affected indigenous people with their well-established way of life. Melting permafrost will lead to the destruction of buildings, oil and gas pipelines, mining complexes, roads, runways, the leakage of radioactive waste repositories. Under the threat of future Bilibino nuclear station and associated transmission lines.
In the area of greatest risk fall Chukotka, basins Indigirka and Kolyma, the south-eastern part of Yakutia, a significant part of the West Siberian Plain, the coast of the Kara Sea, Novaya Zemlya. Melting permafrost will increase the greenhouse effect. Stand out from its interior methane, which is 20 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide. According to experts, by 2050 the temperature of the Earth due to this increase by 0.01 degrees.
Heat will be much, but a little cold
– But maybe it’s not so bad? For example, reduced heating season. And this is a direct economic benefit …
– Yes, heating costs will be reduced, but significantly increase costs for air conditioning. And they will require even more energy than heating. This has already happened in Moscow in the summer of 2010. Because of the heat will increase the number of deaths and there will be new diseases not peculiar northern regions.
In addition, in the southern regions of the country significantly reduced yields. According to forecasts, in the Volga region, the Urals and Western Siberia in the south, it will decrease by 12 — 14 percent. In the future, the situation will be even worse. Because of the drought, our southern neighbors will begin overseas serious problems with water and food. In Russia will pour hundreds of thousands of “climate refugees.” By 2025, the number of residents in countries that lack water, can reach more than 3 billion people.
Strengthen Russia as a great “freshwater” power, as its water resources increase. But not everything is so rosy. The fact is that in our country one-fifth of the world’s fresh water, but it is unevenly distributed over the territory. The central and southern regions of the European part of the country are home to 80 percent of the population and the industry accounts for only 8 percent of water resources. In some areas, water shortages occur. The situation will be exacerbated by significant pollution of surface water and groundwater.
Trouble, which is fraught with global warming, come by themselves. And for the benefit will have to fight. Large areas that can become fertile (the first time such a region can be a Nizhny Novgorod region), would require a large investment. Development of shipping in the Arctic Ocean, mining will lead to the construction of ports, various types of infrastructure. But with all that sky will not fall.
– What can the human race, to avoid all these horrors?
– Some scientists propose to fight global warming by spraying sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere, which lower the temperature, not missing the sun. But opponents of the decision fear that the intervention will lead to a new ice age.
Universal way humanity has not invented. Even if we now stop all production and stop to emit greenhouse gas, by the inertia of the planet will warm up by 0.1 degrees per decade.
Therefore, we are left to adapt to the new conditions, restore the forest, and the transition to new energy-saving technologies to reduce emissions. It must be understood that the new reality is inevitable, and to be ready for it.
@ Jeff Id,
Your post
“Jeff Id said
November 7, 2014 at 7:47 am”, buried in that thread is one of the great posts of your blog.Thanks.
Jim Skea
The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) is pleased to announce that UKERC Research Director, Jim Skea, has been elected Vice-Chair of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). WG-III focuses on mitigation issues.
Jim has strong links to policy processes. He is a founding member of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change and is Vice-Chair of Working Group III (Mitigation) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the past, he was a member of the Commission on Environmental Markets and Economic Performance and acted as Launch Director for the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership.
He is Vice-President of the Energy Institute and a member of the Advisory Board of the Scott Institute for Energy Innovation,Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
He was awarded an OBE for services to sustainable transport in 2004 and a CBE for services to sustainable energy in 2013.
http://www.carbontrust.com/about-us/our-board/our-advisory-panel/jim-skea
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/UKERC_Directors
https://www.energyinst.org/media-relations/media-centre/1469
Professor Jim Skea was born in 1953 and the first directorship we have on file was in 2000 at Policy Studies Institute. Their most recent directorship was with Renewables East where they held the position of “Research director”. This company has been around since 30 Oct 2003 and lists its registered address as being in Norfolk. Jim has held 2 directorships, 0 of which are currently active, and 2 are no longer active.
Jim is also a non-executive director of the Blackrock New Energy Investment Trust plc
(Good move there, it’s in voluntary liquidation!)
Gabriele Hegerl
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/25/the-ipcc-insiders-club/
“Gabriele Hegerl, a climate modeler, has all of the above beat. Her name turns up in seven distinct roles. She was:
•one of the two most senior authors for a chapter devoted to Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
•a contributing author of a chapter titled Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
•a contributing author (along with Vaughan) of the chapter about Global Climate Projections
•an expert reviewer for Working Group 1
•an expert reviewer for Working Group 2
•a lead author of the Working Group 1 Technical Summary document
•a drafting author of the Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers”