In all the coverage lately given to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its embattled chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, one rather important part of the story has largely been missed. This is the way in which, in its obsession with climate change, different branches of the UK Government have in recent years been pouring hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money into a bewildering array of "climate-related" projects, often throwing a veil of mystery over how much is being paid, to whom and why. To begin with a small example. Everyone has now heard of "Glaciergate", the inclusion in the IPCC's 2007 report of a wild claim it was recently forced to disown, that by 2035 all Himalayan glaciers will have melted. In 2001 the Department for International Development (DfID) spent £315,277 commissioning a team of British scientists to investigate this prediction. After co-opting its Indian originator, Dr. Syed Hasnain, they reported in 2004 that his claim was just a scare story. Some glaciers were retreating, others were not. There was no way they could disappear in a time-span shorter than many centuries. Three years later, however, when the IPCC produced its 2007 report, it endorsed Dr. Hasnain's claim without any mention of the careful UK-funded study which had shown it to be false. What made this particularly shocking was that in 2008 another British ministry, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) announced that it had paid £1,436,000 to fund all the support needed to run the same IPCC working group which, as we now know from a senior IPCC author, had included the bogus claim in its report. – UK Telegraph
Dominant Social Theme: Must be coincidence.
Free-Market Analysis: It's hard to wrap one's head around the prevalence of what we call dominant social themes. The idea that a tiny and incredibly wealthy power elite can orchestrate fear-based promotions in order to offer authoritarian solutions that deprive citizens of yet more wealth and power is certainly "conspiratorial" – and such thinking is naïve, jejune, the product of paranoia and failed life-approaches.
And yet … what is one to make of the global warming disaster. Indeed a handful of scientists were apparently able to control a good part of the global dialogue about global warming simply by knowing where the choke points were. They marginalized opposing points of view while trumpeting their own – flawed – opinions about the inevitability of "climate change."
Inevitably the mainstream coverage of this unwinding disaster has emphasized the belief structures of those involved. Having to acknowledge the general outlines of a global scam, the mainstream media has consistently promoted the meme that those involved did what they did out of sheer conviction. They may have done wrong, but they did it for the best of reasons – universal concern for the good of humankind.
We disagree. Hoaxes of this magnitude are triggered, in the final analysis, by financial gain. Those who get involved are likely mercenaries (see other article, today, on Sarah Palin), often damaged personalities with little or nothing in the way of core beliefs. There are plenty of these people, and we would argue they populate the schemes of the power elite in great measure.
What are the characteristics that the Rhodes scholarship selection committees were to look for in candidates and nurture in their scholars? According to Rhodes' own criteria … the traits most desired were (and are) "smugness, brutality, unctuous rectitude, and tact." … It was expected that by 1920 there would be "between two and three thousand men in the prime of life scattered all over the world, each of whom, moreover, would have been specially – mathematically – selected toward the Founder's purposes." (- bioleft.tripod.com)
Now comes the UK Telegraph – with very good reporting and much puzzlement (we are not puzzled) to expose the massive amounts of mystery money that the British government has been pouring into global warming through the very handful of "smug and unctuous" men that were manipulating research to support the hoax of global warming. Here's some more from the article:
The trail into this tangled undergrowth began last December, when Dr. Richard North and I were trying to track down 11 payments made by four separate government departments for projects involving Teri Europe, the London-based branch of Dr. Pachauri's institute. We were struck by how reluctant the ministries often seemed to be to reveal how much they had paid under these contracts. What's more, why was UK taxpayers' money being used to fund these projects in the first place?
Why in 2005, for instance, did Defra pay Teri for a study designed to help the Indian insurance industry make money out of the risks of global warming? Why was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) sponsoring a study into how Indian industry could make billions out of "carbon credits", paid by Western firms under the bizarre UN scheme known as the Clean Development Mechanism?
Typical of this curiously opaque world was a payment by Defra to fund the work of an unnamed "head of unit" on something called the IPCC Synthesis Report, of which Dr. Pachauri was co-editor. This money was paid to Cambridge University (department unnamed), to be forwarded to Teri Europe, then sent on to the anonymous recipient in Delhi, whose email address was Teri India. On one part of the Defra website this payment was given as £30,417. However, the same Defra report to Parliament which had under-declared the payment to the IPCC's working group now gave this payment as only £5,800. (The IPCC itself meanwhile paid Teri a further £400,000 for its work on the Synthesis Report, although it was only 52 pages.)
The same Defra report to Parliament includes a whole string of other climate-change-related projects, covering three pages, many just as mysterious.
Why, for instance, have UK taxpayers shelled out £239,538 to unnamed recipients for a study of "Climate change impacts on Chinese agriculture"? Or £230,895 for a "research programme on climate change impacts in India"? Or £57,500 on the "Brazilian proposal support group"?
The largest single payment on Defra's list, and almost the only recipient identified, was £13,315,168 given to the Hadley Centre itself for its Climate Predictions Programme. This is just a tiny part of the money UK taxpayers have been contributing for years to assist the work of the IPCC: the Hadley Centre alone has been handed £179 million.
Naturally, it will be found that all this mystery money – for some reason – supported only research that proved the veracity of global warming. Of course, global warming proponents will argue that this is appropriate since global warming EXISTS. We have no patience with these arguments at this point. Even were global warming somehow seemingly proven, the endless manipulations and the covert funding of pro-global warming entities would render the conclusions extremely questionable.
No, the entire nexus of manipulation and money is redolent of how we believe dominant social themes work. The power elite promotes these fear-based formulas, takes a stake in the authoritarian solutions that are to protect the middle class from the faux-depredations of the promotions and uses state money to grease the wheels. The level at which the Telegraph is working currently is BELOW the level at which these dominant social themes are plotted and implemented. Let's see if the Telegraph reaches that high. Somehow despite the aspirations of these dogged journalists, we doubt they'll get to the place where they can draw the appropriate conclusions.
But we can. The unraveling of the global warming hoax shall haunt the power elite for decades. Whatever can be salvaged will be, but we have a great deal of difficulty believing that the ambitious agenda surrounding the meme will ever be fully implemented, certainly not in the foreseeable future. And because so much is already in the public domain, it is very likely that the meme will continue to unravel for the foreseeable future. Where it ends, we don't know.
Here's what the power elite may have had in mind in terms of leveraging the global warming promotion …
Investors will have to look very carefully to figure out where they want to place funds given what's going on. You want to bet on GM electric cars – or carbon-free power sources? The ability of the power elite to realize these pipe-dreams has been considerably reduced, along with the returns to be made generally from "green solutions." We're not saying they won't ever be popular. But it's not the way it used to be in the 20th century when betting against a power elite meme was likely financial suicide. These days, thanks to the Internet, things are far more complicated.