Glaciergate: A Prima Facie Case of Criminal Fraud?

From the Mail Online

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified

By David Rose
Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders…

LINK

The IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report asserted that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by the year 2035.

Well… It turns out that this assertion was not drawn from any scientific study. It was drawn from a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report. The WWF had simply made it up.

The lead author of the section which cited the WWF fabrication, Dr Murari Lal, knew that the claim was baseless; yet included it anyway “to put political pressure on world leaders.”

Now… A closer look at the Nobel Prize winning IPCC AR4 reveals that it is riddled with WWF fabrications… Watts Up With That?

How many glaciers are there in the world?

How many are advancing?

How many are retreating?

How many sit still?

The answers to the first three questions are: No one knows for sure. There are at least 400,000 glaciers on this planet. Less than a few hundred (maybe less than 100) have been subjected to mass balance studies over extended periods of time.

The answer to the last question is zero. Glaciers are always advancing or retreating.

How much would humans have to cut back on CO2 emissions to alter alter the rate at which some glaciers are retreating?

At what cost?

If someone is trying to talk you into spending your money on their pet project and they fabricate a horror story to encourage you to go along… They have committed fraud…

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

[…]

Fraud resembles theft in that both involve some form of illegal taking, but the two should not be confused. Fraud requires an additional element of False Pretenses created to induce a victim to turn over property, services, or money. Theft, by contrast, requires only the unauthorized taking of another’s property with the intent to permanently deprive the other of the property. Because fraud involves more planning than does theft, it is punished more severely.

LINK

“(1) a false statement of a material fact”…

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.

10.6.2 The Himalayan glaciers

“(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue”…

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti…#ixzz0dl78oA0n

“(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim”…

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti…#ixzz0dl7RCrwV

“(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement”…

IPCC (2007b) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

EPA endangerment finding, technical references

“(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.”

Congress Went to Denmark, You Got the Bill
The High Costs of Copenhagen
Cap and Trade: A Comparison of Cost Estimates

Glaciergate is a prima facie case of criminal fraud on the part of the UN and IPCC.

Q effing ED!

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Glaciergate: A Prima Facie Case of Criminal Fraud?”

  1. MrXYZ Says:

    Glaciergate–A relatively tame Hitler parody video

    Glaciergate: Hitler’s Last Straw

  2. UNIPCC – a dead end! « TWAWKI Says:

    […] Glaciergate – its worse than you think!, A prima facea case of criminal fraud! […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: