clothcap (clothcap) wrote,

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): " 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.
Tags: carbon credit fraud, charities fraud, politics

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.