October 4th, 2010

Carbon Credit and Charities Fraud by ACO2 Fraud

When all the "justifications" for the carbon credit scam have finally been demolished, who will be responsible for refunds of carbon credit purchases, taxpayers?  And at what rate?

The UN IPCC leader Pachauri's company TERI seems to have been involved in a charity scam
involving TERI's branch in London that seems to be an arm of the NWO money laundering into which the company may have been subsumed.
Chris Booker and Richard North picked up the story by investigating the accounts of the  local branch.
"When Dr Richard North and I came to examine this empire, our interest was drawn to Teri Europe, based in a suburban house in south London, which is registered under British law as a charity and is obliged to publish its accounts on the Charity Commission website. When we looked at these, however, they seemed rather odd. The figures showed the charity’s income and expenditure rising steadily in its early years – but from 2006 onwards they suddenly plunged to below £10,000 a year.
This was significant because £10,000 is the threshold below which a charity does not have to publish full accounts.
Yet we knew that in these years Teri Europe was rapidly expanding, receiving sums way above that threshold.
These included several payments from the UK government, such as £30,000 for the services of an employee of Dr Pachauri’s Delhi office to act as his co-editor on the IPCC’s 2007 Synthesis Report
The story continues and arrives at the finding that Houghton and Tickell immediately withdrew from the list of trustees when the charity commission was brought in (I can speculate why).
"Since it seemed that both Teri Europe and the trustees were in serious breach of the Charity Commission’s rules, this has led over recent months to a protracted series of exchanges with the commission.
First, the names of Houghton and Tickell swiftly disappeared from the list of trustees. Then, in May, after an audit by a firm of accountants, the commission’s website showed dramatically revised figures for one of the three years in question. The charity’s income for 2008 had now risen from £8,000 to £103,980, its expenditure from £3,000 to £97,419. But the figures for the previous two years were unchanged. The commission explained that it had allowed this “to save the charity a considerable amount in accounting fees”. It also claimed that the errors were due to the charity’s “inexperience in preparing accounts”, though the figures for earlier years showed no sign of “inexperience
Other anomalies arose as a result of the inquires, "Income for 2007 rose from £9,000 to £49,878, for 2006 from £7,000 to £16,610 – showing that nearly £150,000 had not previously been disclosed. And, as can be seen from the commission’s website, the accounts are now shown to have been up to “1,246 days overdue”."
This would appear to be criminal activity possibly within the knowledge of Crispin and Tickell and likely Pachauri. It should be noted that TERI's Indian HQ are very coy about sharing their accounting information with anyone except the tax office (and most people know that 3rd world tax offices work on the greased palms principal).
Booker asks a final question that further points to the "old boys network" at work, (if it supports fraud then maybe some people should see a judge): "...an important question remains: why, when they came to light, did the Charity Commission struggle so long and hard to give this particular charity such an extraordinarily easy ride?"

I add my question, TERI has built up a cobweb of international branches, how many are keeping fraudulent accounts and how has TERI itself dispensed UN and various other organisations' largesse? If a company is not willing to share accounting information, it should be blacklisted.

Why Are Climategate Charlatans Still Free?
By Alan Caruba
If I had engaged in activities that involved fleecing the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom of billions in public funds in the name of “climate research”, and it was found that I had manipulated the data to advance the “global warming” hoax, wouldn’t I be facing charges of fraud?
Or if the universities for which I worked had benefited from receiving those public funds had conducted hearings that exonerated me, wouldn’t those institutions be considered accessories to the alleged crime?
This is the case today for the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England and Pennsylvania State University in America. If the CRU is above suspicion, why did the U.S. Department of Energy suspend funds for it in July citing scientific doubts raised by the Climategate revelations last November? /continues

Is global warming by human CO2 emissions a scam?
[In support of UN, EU, Enron, DuPont, Gore, Soros,Strong carbon credits and funding rip-offs?]
Vincent Grey provides his insight gained over 18 years of scrutiny and comment in a pdf that can be downloaded here.
The Global Warming Scam has been perpetrated in order to support the Environmentalist belief that the earth is being harmed by the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up to provide evidence for this belief. They have published four major Reports which are widely considered to have proved it to be true. This paper examines the evidence in detail and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. It is the result of 18 years of scrutiny and comment on IPCC Reports and of a study of the scientific literature associated with it.
In order to establish a relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and any influence on the climate, it is necessary to solve three problems:

- To determine the average temperature of the earth and show that it is increasing
- To measure the concentrations of greenhouse gases everywhere in the atmosphere
- To reliably predict changes in future climate
None of these problems has been solved.

It is impossible to measure the average surface temperature of the earth, yet the IPCC scientists try to claim that it is possible to measure “anomalies” of this unknown quantity. An assessment of all the temperature data available, largely ignored by the IPCC, shows no evidence for overall warming, but the existence of cyclic behaviour. Recent warming was last recorded around 1950. An absence of warming for 10 years and a current downturn suggest that the cool part of the cycle is imminent.
The chief greenhouse gas, water vapour, is irregularly distributed, with most of it over the tropics and very little over the poles. Yet the IPCC tries to pretend it is uniformly distributed, so that its “anomalies” can be treated as “feedback” to the global temperature models.
Carbon dioxide is only measured in extremely restricted circumstances in order to pretend that it is “well-mixed”.
No general measurements are reported and 90,000 early measurements which show great variability have been suppressed.
Methane is mostly recycled plant material, unrelated to fossil fuels, yet it is used to penalised farmers for animal recycling, when the larger emissions from wetlands are exempt.
Although weather cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead, the claim is made that “climate” can be predicted 100 years ahead. The claim is based on the development of computer models based on the “flat earth” theory of the climate which assumes it is possible to model the climate from “balanced” average energy quantities This assumption is absurd since all the quantities have skewed distributions with no acceptable average. No resulting model has ever been tested for its ability to predict the future. This is even admitted as the model outputs are mere “projections”. Since the projections are far into the future, nobody living is able to check their validity.
Since no model has been validated, they are “evaluated” based on “simulations”, which are mere correlations, often obtained by adjusting the many poorly characterized parameters to give a “fudged fit”. Several such attempts fail to agree with observations. Future “projections”, which combine the untested models and exaggerated “scenarios” are graded for their “likelihood” from the unsupported opinion of those paid to produce the models. A spurious “probability” attached to these opinions is without mathematical or scientific justification.
Humans affect climate by changes in urban development and land use, but there is no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are involved, except in enhancing plant growth.

United Nations climate panel 'one-sided'
"The [IAC] criticisms ... all point in the same direction, which is that the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is one-sided," Ross McKitrick, professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph in Canada, told Baptist Press. /continues

Next, a reprimand (perhaps some time in the stocks would be more appropriate);

01 October 2010
Lord Rees
The Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AG.

Dear Lord Rees
Let me begin by quoting in part a letter from you to me dated as long ago as 20 April 2007. You wrote:
We have on our website a detailed response to some of the comments made in the Channel 4 programme last month. The issues are sufficiently important that they deserve wide discussion, but this should be on the
basis of the best scientific evidence
During the intervening three and a half years, in essentials, “the best scientific evidence” has changed hardly at all. In colloquial terms, a trace gas, amounting to less than 1/400th part of a single percentage point by volume of the atmosphere, continues to be branded as “the Great Satan”. As such tens, nay hundreds, of billions of taxpayers funds in consequence continue to be squandered.
So, there’s the background. Now, though, from the Royal Society, we have this morning the following:
It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future."
“There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”
There is also the acknowledgement that any warming “trend” seemingly represented by the 80s and 90s has ceased during the past decade.
In reaction to its freshly acknowledged epiphany, the new RS guidelines also note:
The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”
There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.”
It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future."
There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”
Hitherto, you wrote to me as follows:
The point on which we, at the Royal Society, are very firm is that the science, despite the wide range of uncertainties, gives sufficiently strong evidence of the likelihood of drastic climate change that the way to deal with it should be high on the political agenda.”
Inconsistencies can be allowed to speak for themselves. In any event, however, whilst the change of tone may warrant a tepid welcome, it should not be forgotten that, for years now under your stewardship, the Royal Society stands accused of having done everything in its power to obstruct legitimate questioning of AGW orthodoxy and to stifle debate surrounding the science. Furthermore, even now, it continues to peddle falsehood. In relation to climate models, for example, its stance continues to be predicated on their essential reliability, when it is abundantly clear that they are even now highly subjective, and have been in the recent past manifestly fraudulent. As much to the point also, of course, is the fact that the IPCC has publicly acknowledged that general circulations models are unreliable. Malign human influence on climate remains the theme, but actual mechanisms are carefully skirted.
In my reply to your 20 April 2007 letter, amongst other things, I wrote as follows:
An important cause is at stake here, and it is not global warming. It is nothing less than the truth allied to the integrity of the scientific endeavour. It may surprise you to learn that there are people in the world outside of science, as well as inside (pray God!), who consider that to be quite important.”
Three and a half years later, I see no reason to alter a syllable of that conclusion.

Yours sincerely
R.C.E Wyndham

Cc: Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. C. Huhne, MP Lord Lawson, Lord Leach, Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop of London, Archbishop of Westminster, Lord Sachs,
As the spirit moves


Message To Ed Milliband The New Labour Leader
by Piers Corbyn
You have been called as green as they come in terms of the CO2- Climate hype lobby; now it's time to GET REAL!
You may recall I asked you at a Labour leadership hustings in Walworth on July 1st (having applied the night before to rejoin in order to quiz you) if you would organise an HONEST PUBLIC EVIDENCE-BASED DEBATE on CO2 & Climate Change. You said to the meeting that you were in favour of debates but there was no-one I could vote FOR in this leadership election on this matter. /continues

There are gaps in scientific understanding
making predicting the extent of climate change and sea level rises impossible.
That's the claim of Britain's highest scientific authority, the Royal Society. /more here.

Etcetera, etcetera, etceteras.

Accurate Hurricane Forecasts At Last
The U.S. government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been wrong about its hurricane forecasts three out of the last four years, and 7 out of the last 11 years. The National Center for Public Policy Research believes there may be a better way, so we commissioned a forecast by our own climate expert, Dr. James Hansimian. Visit this YouTube Channel at the end of hurricane season to find out who had the better forecast, NOAA or Dr. Hansimian.

Birth of the Solar System by Oliver K. Manuel

Accompanying article here.

Why is common purpose still a registered charity?
Mr Cameron, is it that you approve of the EU's trojan horse? John Prescott and Peter Mandelson certainly did/do.

We're Skint. Who, How, Why?


In probably the craziest ever perversion of capitalism, drowning US taxpayers are about to fund a QE2 that won't work, struggling with ZIRP rates on which they cannot live, and watching in bewilderment as big business and banks get richer and richer. And it's not that different in Europe.

New data from the USA - and Europe presents the same picure in most major aspects of the scandal - demonstrate with damning clarity how big banking and business are pauperising the West's citizenry in the most flagrantly unfair example of extortion since the Sheriff of Nottingham started taxing firewood.

Corporate America finished the second quarter of 2010 with "near-historic" profits, largely by cutting costs, laying off employees and investing hoarded cash. This entirely patriotic and socially-aware set of bean-counter policies meant that profits in the S&P 500 soared 38% from the same period last year, hitting $189 billion - the sixth-highest quarterly total in US history. And here's the final lulu: analysts expect the trend to continue in the third quarter.

The robust state of corporate profits means, in reality (as The Slog has posted many times before) that companies won't spend their money until the economy improves, but the economy won't improve until they spend their money.

If we are going to have eclectic economic stimulation - and that's what we need, not more narrow QE to ease credit that nobody wants - then the cash-rich multinational public companies and top six banks need to fork out most of it: they have mountains more money than the Government, which as ever relies on taxes paid by the ordinary citizens. 

The New York Times reports that near-zero interest rates (ZIRP) have encouraged companies to borrow money and simply hoard it 'because they can'. The S&P big boys alone have $1.6 trillion in cash cash reserves today, representing the highest percentage of company assets since 1964.

Bank profits during the second quarter rose 21% to almost $22 billion, the highest level in three years. But the net worth of households and non-profits dropped 2.8% over the same period - the lowest since Q3 2009.

This same scam is going on in the UK and throughout the EU. This has to stop. This has to stop, and there have to be citizen Parties or Pressure Groups of some kind to stop it....before people with a whole other agenda start muscling in on the protests. Before things start to turn really nasty.

We need a Basel IV - one that says "clear up your own mess this time, because we're broke and innocent and you guys are rich and guilty".

Just think this through. Because the banking industry went on a binge of notional paper-money shuffling - a practice of no purpose whatsoever in the encouragement of entrepreneurial capitalism - the taxpayer had to bail them out: despite the fact the the surviving, flourishing bank sector had more than enough money to do that itself.


Despite the fact that this cost all of us $23 trillion globally, the survivors and the bailed out carried on just as before and within a year were paying themselves enormous bonuses again.


In order to 'help' the economies these psychos had wrecked, the Irish taxpayer will be pauperised for a generation, 25% of all Western populations living on retirement investments have seen their meagre incomes destroyed by ZIRP, and well over $13 trillion of their money has been invested in 'QE' that has achieved nothing....except to allow big business to do M&A on the cheap, which enabled them to lay off and foreclose more of the people who stumped up the QE in the first place. 

Now Ben the banker wants Americans to do this all over again, despite the fact that the beneficiaries are richer than they were before we started this crazy ride. And this morning, the UK's once-rescued banks are already saying they're going to need more bailout.


I mean, is Government putting valium in the water supply or something? Are we all completely mad? Have the folks who built the British Empire and the American Union, the Channel Tunnel and the Golden Gate, suddenly decided they like nothing better than having a Yardbrush rammed up their backsides twice a day and three times on Saturdays?

UK banks may require a government-funded bailout in 2011 due an emerging funding gap of £25bn a month, the New Economics Foundation warned.
The report, entitled Where did our money go?, found banks currently borrow £12bn a month, which will rise to £25bn a month next year as government-backed funding ends, the NEF said on Monday.
This vast "funding cliff" could force them to ask the state for aid, it warned.
The London-based think tank also lamented a “shocking” lack of information on the expenditure of £1.2 trillion already spent by the public sector on bank bail-outs.
“The public have already paid for the failure of the banks twice, first by bailing them out, and then by suffering a program of drastic cuts to public services,” Tony Greenham at the NEF said. “We need urgent reform of the banking system to ensure the bailed-out banks are not allowed to repeat their failures.” /continues

In the comments to the above, alfredo wrote -
This is a blatant scam. They got away clean with the proceeds of crime without so much as a proper investigation, so now they want to do it again. Let us get some context here: What we are witnessing is a little like the "ferrets in a sack analogy". Or put another way, all out financial warfare. Such warfare has a habit of turning into real warfare of the blood and bullets variety. More context: We pay with blood, while Bankers make money from the bullets. Back to the ferrets. Bankers are too busy buying up the bond issues of foreign banks to bank effectively. A more cynical man than myself might hold the view that these arrogant and criminal financial hoodlums are pushing the world towards war.
Well, are they? Quite likely, in my view.
The austerity brigade led by the man from Corfu (george osborne) are howling about the state of the nation. I remain of the view that England is a very rich nation and that we are being lied to in a massive way. The austerity is designed to pay the criminal banks more interest on there fiat currency,
A couple of facts to mull over.
1/...In 1970 the M2 money inthe US was 624 Billion dollars.
The US then moved away from the gold standard and embarked upon the ponzi scheme known the fiat banking system.
2/..As a result by 2008 the M2 money in the US rose to $8.2 trillion. A multiplier of 1314%.
Why? Primarily greed, the bankers who own the Federal Reserve such as NM Rothschilds get interest paid to them by the working classes on every banknote they print or introduce by the medium of "virtual banking". How corrupt is that? This interest through government collusion compounds radically until the nation owes mega Billions to a bunch of crooks whose only investment is a printing press. This is what the dishonest and craven coalition is selling us through its tame media machine.
It would be nice to think that people were getting thoroughly angry with this serial dishonesty from our illegitimate government. This austerity like AGW and all the eco frenzy IS a scam. Bailout Number Three.
Let these crooks fall or stand by their business acumen. That is the right thing to do.
It is worth noting that China's' holdings of US debt now has swollen to $24.5 trillion. Almost one half of the worlds GDP.
This is enormous damage. All manufactured by the Central Banks, and Wall st, and RBS, among others, Deutches Bank in particular.

Bank of England's Adam Posen calls for more quantitative easing

The Bank of England should restart the printing presses and pump more money into the economy to prevent a "lost decade" of low growth and high unemployment, one of its senior policymakers Adam Posen has said.
Mr Posen, an external member of the Bank's nine-strong Monetary Policy Committee, has called for a second round of quantitative easing (QE), on top of the £200bn already injected into the economy, to stave off the threat of a period of deflation to rival Japan and the Great Depression. /continues

Pumped into the economy or pumped into banks?

Bank of England policymakers are poised for a three-way battle over how best to steer the economic recovery as they meet before Thursday's bank rate decision.
Economists said unchanged interest rates and quantitative easing (QE) are likely to mask a three-way split if Mr Posen votes for more monetary easing, Mr Sentance keeps arguing for a rate hike, and the rest of the nine-strong MPC vote for no change /continues

Some suggest the borrowers and government are as guilty as the banks. Banks are supposed to advise people on finance and not lend imprudently as is their rule with 3rd world developing countries, they lend to government to lend to those unfortunates with little prospect of repayment.

Banks are supposed to invest wisely, derivatives have always been a risky gamble, hey but with the strength of the public purse behind them, do banks give a monkey's? As for government, low interest or giveaway loans against property to make eu lab look good in return for a guaranteed bail out when the bubble bursts. Brown kept to his word in that instance.

I would suggest to Cameron that now is a good time to encourage a spurt in council house building but for heaven's sake don't build estates for the unemployed. Shunting all the L'pool councils' undesirables to Kirkby was a disaster for example. It would at least give one industry a fillip and make a small dent in the unemployment statistics.

Green Hell (Steve Milloy) advises us that -
Sony, Kyocera bail out of violent climate video outfit
Sony and Kyocera Mita are no longer listed as sponsors of the violence-advocating 10:10 climate group. (h/t Paul Chesser)
Click here to see the letter we sent the companies last Friday.
In addition to Sony and Kyocera leaving 10:10, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Deere & Co., Xerox and Marsh & McClennan have abandoned the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). /more and comments here.