Something similar had happened during the lead-up to the publication of the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC in 1995. On that occasion, the final draft submitted by the scientists had stated plainly, in five different places, that no human influence on global temperature at all could be detected, and it was not known when it ever would be detected.
Once again, the bureaucrats had panicked. They had realised that if, after all the millions of dollars they had spent over the years, there was still no evidence that humankind was making the slightest difference to the climate, taxpayers might not continue to subsidise their lavish quarterly junkets to exotic locations all round the world.
So they had called in a single scientist and told him to change the central conclusion of the 1995 report. He had carefully crossed out all five of the embarrassing (but true) references to the total absence of any anthropogenic signal in the global temperature record, and had replaced them with a single, more congenial (but mendacious) statement that human influence on global temperature was now discernible. He also made some 200 consequential amendments, not one of which – as far as I can discover – was sent to the thousands of scientists who had contributed to the report whose central conclusion he had now reversed.
Last year, I wanted to attend the “scoping meeting” at which scientists were going to draw up plans for the Fifth Assessment Report. I duly registered, and was peremptorily told by the convener of the meeting that I would not be welcome because – it seemed plain to me – my opinions did not accord with those of the IPCC. So much for the “open, transparent” process that Dr Pachauri used to be so fond of.
Whatever this carry-on is, it is not science.
There is no longer any credible basis for taking the IPCC seriously. It is a joke, and a failed joke. Its massive cost cannot be justified. It must be disbanded at once, and its leading bureaucrats investigated for what looks to me like scientific fraud.
In fact, it is now time to shut down the entire climate-change industry, prosecute all environmental groups, scientists, bureaucrats and bankers who have been profiting at the people’s expense by the Great Lie that was “global warming”, and to abolish the IPCC forever. It should never have been established in the first place. Now it must be put out of its misery. Enough is enough.
Once again, the bureaucrats had panicked. They had realised that if, after all the millions of dollars they had spent over the years, there was still no evidence that humankind was making the slightest difference to the climate, taxpayers might not continue to subsidise their lavish quarterly junkets to exotic locations all round the world.
So they had called in a single scientist and told him to change the central conclusion of the 1995 report. He had carefully crossed out all five of the embarrassing (but true) references to the total absence of any anthropogenic signal in the global temperature record, and had replaced them with a single, more congenial (but mendacious) statement that human influence on global temperature was now discernible. He also made some 200 consequential amendments, not one of which – as far as I can discover – was sent to the thousands of scientists who had contributed to the report whose central conclusion he had now reversed.
Last year, I wanted to attend the “scoping meeting” at which scientists were going to draw up plans for the Fifth Assessment Report. I duly registered, and was peremptorily told by the convener of the meeting that I would not be welcome because – it seemed plain to me – my opinions did not accord with those of the IPCC. So much for the “open, transparent” process that Dr Pachauri used to be so fond of.
Whatever this carry-on is, it is not science.
There is no longer any credible basis for taking the IPCC seriously. It is a joke, and a failed joke. Its massive cost cannot be justified. It must be disbanded at once, and its leading bureaucrats investigated for what looks to me like scientific fraud.
In fact, it is now time to shut down the entire climate-change industry, prosecute all environmental groups, scientists, bureaucrats and bankers who have been profiting at the people’s expense by the Great Lie that was “global warming”, and to abolish the IPCC forever. It should never have been established in the first place. Now it must be put out of its misery. Enough is enough.
Read these article :-
Investment Treaties apart from hundred other treaties in the form of FTAs. All is to solely promote FDIs. And FDI in 2007 was around $1.8 trillion which came down to $1.4 trillion in 2008. And it is further estimated to drop by half by the end of 2009. If properly scrutinised, FITs have least contribution in it. The primary determinants of attracting more FDIs are economic and political stability, size of domestic market, skilled labour force or a export platform to other neighbouring hubs. Brazil and Haiti are two Latin American countries. Brazil is the leading FDI recipient but has no FITs. Haiti signed an FIT with the US on 1983 but that didn’t make it an FDI hub. The first FIT was signed between Germany and Pakistan. Well, neither Pakistan has substantial contributions on the German market nor many German companies are interested in Pakistan. The US has many FITs with countries, including Albania, Cameroon, Morocco or Sri Lanka but FITs have never been a reason for US investments in these economies. US signed an FIT with Bahrain. The stock of US FDI in Bahrain came down to $60 million in 2007 from $138 million in 2006 while the total FDI rose by 2 per cent to nearly $1.8 billion. China, India or Russia attracts huge FDIs for their favourable conditions not FITs. What is also a matter of concern is that foreign investors enjoy some special benefits through FITs for alleged treaty violations from the host nations at the international tribunal. Argentia was ordered to pay $133.2 million to a US investor for changing monetary policy that restricted repatriation of foreign exchange as compensation. Mexico was asked to pay $15 million to another investor for adopting an environment standard that affected his business. Ecuador too was asked to pay $75 million to a US oil company for changing country’s tax policy. Smaller countries often fall trapped into rich countries’ greedy and hostile policies through FITs. Thus, FDIs do not always result into sustainable development. Poor nations lack proper institutions and development-oriented policy framework, is also a reason for it. Few nations actually succeeded to bring sustainable development from FDIs. Chile is the one that has been able to through relevant policies. Mexico attracted huge FDIs in quantity but it thought that bringing FDI will automatically bring sustainable development. The same question is before India today. It has about 70 FITs. Recently, it also signed another FIT with the US. Signing FIT will not change the picture dramatically. US is already India’s second biggest investor. Thus it’s imperative to focus more on development-oriented policy initiatives before going crazy about FITs.