Friday, February 19, 2010
BBC Climate Fraud and Two Heretics: McIntyre and McKitrick
Today, now, I am fully willing to use that word. Fraud.
And for the oldest reason in the book: Money.
Follow the money.
Follow the money: BBC exposed in biggest climate racket on planet
by JOHN O'SULLIVAN on FEBRUARY 12, 2010
The world is learning fast that climate pseudo-science is fraught with fraud. The best way to go to the heart of any moneymaking scam is to follow the money. Let's go on a journey from the toilet of the United Nations to the BBC's top floor.
For non-British readers the BBC extorts an annual compulsory license fee of £142.50 (US $200) per household via government legislation for the privilege of owning a television.
The BBC Pension Trust is worth about £8 billion while its mainstream operations are struggling to reverse an estimated £2 billion deficit as reported on last weekend by James Delingpole of the 'Telegraph.'
The BBC's handsome pension pot is invested in the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) alongside another 50 plus member funds. The total assets of this consortium is around ¤4 trillion (Euros), that in turn are invested in a larger consortium known as 'UNEP FI' worth about $15 trillion (US).
UNEP FI is fast becoming seriously embarrassed with its strong ties to the now discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that lurches from one climate data fraud scandal to another. Nonetheless, the UNEP FI puts on a smug face and gleefully describes itself as, "a global partnership between UNEP and the financial sector. Over 180 institutions, including banks, insurers and fund managers, work with UNEP to understand the impacts of environmental and social considerations on financial performance."
The UNEP FI Insurance Working Group boasts of its "ground-breaking report" on its website that I well recommend reading. These swindlers advise that there is a "complex relationship" between environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, core insurance operations, and the insurance industry. Yes, and it has become so much more complex since climate scientists destroyed their fudged data and refused to obey lawful freedom of information requests for over seven years.
Despite the string of calamities that have befallen the UN since the Climategate scandal first broke last November, the UNEP FI consortium is feverishly demanding that governments impose higher fuel duties and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand. Thus this profit-chasing unholy alliance of conspirators will still be able to cream off some of the loot for their green pension scams. The losers in the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time are western taxpayers and Third World poor who will likely suffer starvation and disease due to the increased costs of food and essential medicines.
The chairman of IIGCC and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said:
"The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes."
Yes, you did read that correctly: "IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe"
The BBC is in the chair of this carbon trading driven investment scheme. Now you know why the BBC's thought police have been censoring climate skeptics shamelessly for years.
UKIP's Member of the European Parliament, Godfrey Bloom was vilified by the warmist press for refusing to back down from his attack on the BBC in the UK's fine Daily Telegraph, in which he said:
"The BBC has blocked skeptics of climate change for four years now, no debate is allowed on the BBC. It is biased reporting and it is censorship."
Speaking to Left Foot Forward, Mr Bloom continued:
"I absolutely stand by what I said. This is one of the most important subjects since the war. The whole thing has been a complete farce and a cover-up. Name me one instance of an informed debate on the subject?"
But Godfrey Bloom is now being entirely vindicated as we see that the BBC has been shamelessly plugging its own profiteering agenda and ignoring any dissent even when it involves news stories of great interest to its viewers and listeners. And all for the so-greater good of that 'Low-Carbon Economy.' The statement reads:
"it is imperative that efforts advance this year to negotiate and conclude a legally binding agreement with ambitious greenhouse gas emission reduction targets."
The BBC's Peter Dunscombe, as Chair of the IIGCC, endorses (he may have even written) that in his pension trust's policy statements that:
"Without government actions, however, private-sector investment will not reach the scale required to address climate change effectively."
You got that? Climate change has to be addressed "effectively," i.e. effective for his pension pot. With a shameful hidden agenda like that its no wonder viewers are abandoning television and coming to the internet for impartial news reporting. This self-serving hypocrite baloney goes further:
".we remain firmly convinced that climate change presents both material risks and significant opportunities for investment portfolios"
The 'risks" it seems are wholly upon gullible taxpayers, the incentives for BBC newsreaders, environment correspondents, journalists, planners, schedulers, documentary program makers, etc. is enormous. No wonder the BBC produces the best environmental television in the world-a BBC employee would think: 'investment portfolios!'
Meanwhile, something for all our readers in North America: a story waiting to be written concerning that other vast consortium in the U.S. known as the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR). INCR has over 80 members and $8 trillion in assets across its network of North American private funds and very much tied up with UNEP FI. So for anyone wondering why the American mainstream media has done diddly to report on the great climate swindle, I'm betting it's something to do with INCR.
For U.S. readers looking to know more about what INCR is doing you may contact:
Mindy Lubber at lubber@ceres.org
Web: www.incr.com
For European readers would like to know more about the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) we suggest you contact:
Stephanie Pfeifer at spfeifer@theclimategroup.org
Web: www.iigcc.org
Those British organizations tied into IIGCC who may have a conflict of interest when they communicate with you include the following:
+++++++
More.
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/19/the-heretics-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/
The Heretics: McIntyre and McKitrick
When the infamous hockey-stick graph that purported to prove that human activities are causing runaway global warming was finally broken, there is some irony in the fact that a couple of Canadians did the breaking. Retired mining engineer Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph, have been a thorn in the side of global warming alarmists for years. McIntyre, McKitrick and, more often, the acronym "M&M" to refer to the pair, are the subject of many discussions in the e-mails released from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) last November.
Reading the e-mails, it quickly becomes clear that leading alarmist scientists, like Michael Mann at Penn State and Phil Jones at the CRU, seemed positively obsessed - almost to the point of appearing deranged at times - with discrediting McIntyre and McKitrick. For example, when the pair published their first hockey stick busting paper in 2003, Mann sent an angry e-mail to his colleagues, telling them how to deal with MM: "The important thing is to deny that this has any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for the stunt that it is." ...
What did McIntyre and McKitrick do to put these climatologists on the defensive? To understand the significance of their work, we have to delve into global warming theory a bit. The disaster scenarios that alarmists predict can not be proven in real time. These scenarios are based on computer models that are horrendously complex and, even if modeling results match up with actual data during this year or that, it still proves nothing in terms of long-term trends. ....
*snip*
Go to the above weblink for the remainder of the article
-----------------------------------------------------
If you find this material of value, please donate to OBRL:
http://www.orgonelab.org/donation
Or, purchase books on related subjects from our on-line bookstore:
http://www.naturalenergyworks.net
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]
