AMOMENT
OF TRUTH
COMMENTARY
BY
RAJENDRA K.
PACHAURI
(head of the IPCC)
Hello....
Hello...
Could the person who stuck me in this strange metal tube that forces me to tell the truth please open the hatch just a skitch, because my comb-over is caught in it.
Thanks.
Well, since I'm stuck here until I start dishing out the truth like Grandma's cooking, I might as well start.
Climate change is real.
The climate of the planet Earth is constantly changing. It's been up and down like a whore's drawers, and the all that shit about mankind causing it is just that, shit. It's been warmer, it's been colder, it happens all the time, it hasn't wiped out the world yet, and mankind has nothing to do with it.
Come on, a single volcanic eruption pumps more carbon into the atmosphere than humanity can in decades, and even then it's got nothing on water vapor when it comes to atmospheric content and its effect on the climate, and I haven't even brought up sunspots and cosmic rays and their effect on the weather.
I know, it's confusing to you, and it's confusing to me, remember, I'm not a climatologist, I'm a railway engineer, and a bureaucrat, when it comes to about 90% of what I pronounce upon, I'm just pulling stuff out of my ass.
"But what about the 'Hockey stick' graph?" you may ask.
Well, let me explain the infamous hockey stick graph, what it means, where it came from, and why we push it so hard.
The hockey stick graph is what all us global warm-mongers bring up when we demand that the Western world cripple itself economically and give trillions to dictators, despots, and petty bureaucrats like me.
The graph claims that Earth's temperatures were a constant even line that suddenly shot up in the 20th century because of evil carbon spewing Americans and literally everything about their lives and lifestyles.
Well, to be blunt, it's BULLSHIT.
Yep.
That's right.
Grade A faux-scientific poop.
First, there was how were put it together. The 19th and 20th century temperatures were taken from actually temperature records, even though some of them were a tad iffy, but that's not the iffiest part of this boondoggle. The really iffy stuff comes from that everything before the written temperature records was gleaned from tree ring data. You see, we'd cut an old tree down, and look at the condition of its rings to determine what the weather was like at different years.
Now you're probably thinking that climate scientists studied thousands of trees and millions of rings to make our determination.
Not exactly.
You see, a wide survey of tree ring data showed that carbon output increases actually followed temperature rises, instead of causing them. That's because warmer temps mean longer growing seasons, more life, more carbon being exhaled, which then causes more vegetation, and everything pretty much evens out until the planet enters another natural cooling cycle. Which, I might add, the sort of cooling cycle that we've been in since 1998.
That's not what we wanted.
We wanted something we could point at to justify our bloated salaries and luxurious lifestyles, plus scare people into buying bogus "carbon credits" from our cronies.
So we had to narrow down our sample.
Really narrow it down.
In fact we narrowed it down to a single tree in Siberia.
Yep, I'm talking about one single lone tree.
Sure, it's not scientific, but we're not talking about science here, we're talking about giving me a government funded jets to take me from New York to India, to watch a cricket practice by my favorite team, or to have a conference about the evils of carbon that created more carbon in a little more than two weeks than the entire nation of Morocco in a year.
We're talking about a creating a system that gives us what we want.
Basically what we want is money and power.
The "scientists" get more money by telling us what we want to hear, as well as our backing to suppress and/or slander researchers who don't tow the party line. Completely destroying the scientific process and the value of "peer review" making it more like "fear review." Then we scare politicians into handing over power and money to unelected bureaucrats like myself, to expand our ability to control the very air you breathe, and hopefully eliminate democracy and free markets as well.
So we fudge and fabricate data, and call anyone who challenges us a "climate criminal" a "denier," or if that doesn't work an "asshole." The media goes along with us, because they're owned by big corporations want the elimination of democracy and free markets because they threaten their stranglehold on the public discourse.
That's why in all the coverage of the Copenhagen Summit, hardly anyone in the mainstream media bothered to acknowledge that it was the bigger collection of crooks and scammers since the Appalachin Meeting, but with less integrity.
At least the mafioso meeting at Appalachin never claimed to have a monopoly on morality like we do.
We're sort of like James Cameron, the man who spends $500 million of a major multinational corporation's money to develop advanced technology to make a film whose sole purpose is to decry money, corporations, and technology. The combination of extreme luxury, and ass kissing is a very heady mix that makes you unable to see your own hypocrisy, because your eyes are wedged too deep within your own colon.
Anyway, sure the agreement was non-binding, and more aspirational than active, but that doesn't bother me. I'm still getting paid the big bucks, and so are my buddies, and in the end, that's all that matters.
Hello...
Could the person who stuck me in this strange metal tube that forces me to tell the truth please open the hatch just a skitch, because my comb-over is caught in it.
>CLICK!<
Thanks.
>CLANK!<
Well, since I'm stuck here until I start dishing out the truth like Grandma's cooking, I might as well start.
Climate change is real.
The climate of the planet Earth is constantly changing. It's been up and down like a whore's drawers, and the all that shit about mankind causing it is just that, shit. It's been warmer, it's been colder, it happens all the time, it hasn't wiped out the world yet, and mankind has nothing to do with it.
Come on, a single volcanic eruption pumps more carbon into the atmosphere than humanity can in decades, and even then it's got nothing on water vapor when it comes to atmospheric content and its effect on the climate, and I haven't even brought up sunspots and cosmic rays and their effect on the weather.
I know, it's confusing to you, and it's confusing to me, remember, I'm not a climatologist, I'm a railway engineer, and a bureaucrat, when it comes to about 90% of what I pronounce upon, I'm just pulling stuff out of my ass.
"But what about the 'Hockey stick' graph?" you may ask.
Well, let me explain the infamous hockey stick graph, what it means, where it came from, and why we push it so hard.
The hockey stick graph is what all us global warm-mongers bring up when we demand that the Western world cripple itself economically and give trillions to dictators, despots, and petty bureaucrats like me.
The graph claims that Earth's temperatures were a constant even line that suddenly shot up in the 20th century because of evil carbon spewing Americans and literally everything about their lives and lifestyles.
Well, to be blunt, it's BULLSHIT.
Yep.
That's right.
Grade A faux-scientific poop.
First, there was how were put it together. The 19th and 20th century temperatures were taken from actually temperature records, even though some of them were a tad iffy, but that's not the iffiest part of this boondoggle. The really iffy stuff comes from that everything before the written temperature records was gleaned from tree ring data. You see, we'd cut an old tree down, and look at the condition of its rings to determine what the weather was like at different years.
Now you're probably thinking that climate scientists studied thousands of trees and millions of rings to make our determination.
Not exactly.
You see, a wide survey of tree ring data showed that carbon output increases actually followed temperature rises, instead of causing them. That's because warmer temps mean longer growing seasons, more life, more carbon being exhaled, which then causes more vegetation, and everything pretty much evens out until the planet enters another natural cooling cycle. Which, I might add, the sort of cooling cycle that we've been in since 1998.
That's not what we wanted.
We wanted something we could point at to justify our bloated salaries and luxurious lifestyles, plus scare people into buying bogus "carbon credits" from our cronies.
So we had to narrow down our sample.
Really narrow it down.
In fact we narrowed it down to a single tree in Siberia.
Yep, I'm talking about one single lone tree.
Sure, it's not scientific, but we're not talking about science here, we're talking about giving me a government funded jets to take me from New York to India, to watch a cricket practice by my favorite team, or to have a conference about the evils of carbon that created more carbon in a little more than two weeks than the entire nation of Morocco in a year.
We're talking about a creating a system that gives us what we want.
Basically what we want is money and power.
The "scientists" get more money by telling us what we want to hear, as well as our backing to suppress and/or slander researchers who don't tow the party line. Completely destroying the scientific process and the value of "peer review" making it more like "fear review." Then we scare politicians into handing over power and money to unelected bureaucrats like myself, to expand our ability to control the very air you breathe, and hopefully eliminate democracy and free markets as well.
So we fudge and fabricate data, and call anyone who challenges us a "climate criminal" a "denier," or if that doesn't work an "asshole." The media goes along with us, because they're owned by big corporations want the elimination of democracy and free markets because they threaten their stranglehold on the public discourse.
That's why in all the coverage of the Copenhagen Summit, hardly anyone in the mainstream media bothered to acknowledge that it was the bigger collection of crooks and scammers since the Appalachin Meeting, but with less integrity.
At least the mafioso meeting at Appalachin never claimed to have a monopoly on morality like we do.
We're sort of like James Cameron, the man who spends $500 million of a major multinational corporation's money to develop advanced technology to make a film whose sole purpose is to decry money, corporations, and technology. The combination of extreme luxury, and ass kissing is a very heady mix that makes you unable to see your own hypocrisy, because your eyes are wedged too deep within your own colon.
Anyway, sure the agreement was non-binding, and more aspirational than active, but that doesn't bother me. I'm still getting paid the big bucks, and so are my buddies, and in the end, that's all that matters.
