The Taxpayers Alliance published new research today revealing how the British government’s “Act on CO2″ campaign cost the taxpayer £8.6 million in grants issued through the Climate Challenge Fund.

Matthew Sinclair, Research Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“The Government has clearly crossed the line from public information to propaganda on climate change.  Many of the Climate Change Fund projects are utterly bonkers and misleading, and come with a huge price tag. Despite a fortune having been spent on these projects, the Fund has failed even on its own spurious terms. It is infuriating for taxpayers to see their money squandered on attempts to scare and indoctrinate the public.”

Link: http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2010/02/thursday-february-18.html

PDF: http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/CCF.pdf

Daily Mail article

Venue: India International Centre, (Conference Room 1, main building), Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi 110003.

Programme:
5.30 pm: Tea
6.00 pm: Welcome and introductions
6.10 pm: Presentations by Dr Fred Singer
6.30 pm: Presentation by Dr Benny Peiser
6.50 pm: Comments by Dr Dev Raj Sikka
7.00 pm: Comments by Dr Prodipto Ghosh
7.10 pm: Questions and Answers
7.45 pm: Chairman’s remarks by Prof MGK Menon
7.55 pm: Vote of thanks

RSVP:

Liberty Institute, New Delhi
Email: libertyinstitute@gmail.com
Tel: 011-42815409
India International Centre, New Delhi
Tel: 011-24619431

The Speakers:

Dr. S. Fred Singer is one of the most distinguished scientists in the U.S. He organized and chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) and was lead author of its summary report “Nature, not human activity, rules the climate.”  He co-authored its full report “Climate Change Reconsidered” [2009] www.NIPCCreport.org.
In the 1960s, Dr Singer established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership. In the 1980s, Singer served for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and became more directly involved in global environmental issues. Since retiring from the University of Virginia and from his last federal position as chief scientist of the Department of Transportation, Singer founded and directed the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project. www.SEPP.org

Dr Benny Peiser is the Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (London) and the editor of CCNet, the world’s leading climate policy network. He is the co-editor of the journal Energy and Environment, a scientific advisor to the Lifeboat Foundation and a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society. A 10km-wide asteroid, Minor Planet (7107) Peiser, was named in his honour by the International Astronomical Union. The recently established Global Warming Policy Foundation is chaired by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK. http://www.thegwpf.org/

RSVP:
Liberty Institute
Julian L. Simon Centre
C-4/8 Sahyadri,
Plot 5, Sector 12, Dwarka
New Delhi 110078

Tel: 011-42815409
Email: LibertyInstitute |AT| gmail.com

Liberty Institute, New Delhi
www.InDefenceofLiberty.org

Empowering India
www.EmpoweringIndia.org

February 8, 2010

Wall Street Journal Asia/Europe

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed support for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its leader, Rajendra Pachauri, at a local energy conference in New Delhi Friday. The move has surprised many observers, but it may prove to be politically astute.

The IPCC’s credibility is in tatters. From climategate to glaciergate, Amazongate, natural-disaster gate, and now Chinagate, the revelations of bad science keep coming. Given all that, plus the much-publicized flap between Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh and Mr. Pachauri over the science behind “melting” Himalayan glaciers weeks before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, superficially one might have expected the Indian government to jettison Mr. Pachauri as soon as possible.

But Delhi isn’t just offering him and the organization rhetorical backing. At Friday’s annual flagship event of the Energy and Resources Institute—which Mr. Pachauri has headed for almost 30 years—the prime minister offered to provide technical assistance through a newly established glacier research center. The government has also formed a network of scientific institutions to develop domestic science and research capacities on climate issues.

The explanation for this support is simple: It is in the Indian government’s interest to perpetuate a weak IPCC and a toothless Mr. Pachauri at its helm. Given the recent scandals, the IPCC is hardly in a position to lobby India for carbon concessions. No one from the IPCC can again cavalierly dismiss their critics as promoting “voodoo” science or “vested interests,” as was Mr. Pachauri’s wont. By offering scientific support to the IPCC, the Indian government is actually confirming its lack of confidence in the U.N. body’s scientific credentials.

Mr. Pachauri is now in his second term as the head of IPCC. He is not a climate scientist—or indeed a scientist at all. He is an able science administrator who built his institute from scratch. Influential governments in the rich world probably accepted Mr. Pachauri not just for his redoubtable skill in institution-building, but also in the hope that by placing an Indian like him at the head of IPCC, he might be able to influence Indian policy.

That’s important because after all, if countries like China and India do not subscribe to any commitment to reducing emissions, developed countries’ best efforts will not have any significant impact. Having bought the idea of man-made global warming, rich countries had to try and ensure that developing countries fell in line.

But in democratic India no leader can afford to ignore the developmental aspirations of the people. Even if some Indian elites want to sell the future of the country by agreeing to some form of restrictions on energy usage—and thus on economic growth—in the fiercely competitive world of Indian politics they stand no chance.

The IPCC was created as a way to make the world, particularly the poor, fall in line and support expensive climate-change initiatives by overwhelming them with the apparent authority of the world’s leading technical body on the subject, backed by a supposed scientific consensus. This attempt was doomed to fail, because scientific inquiry does not respect consensus, and orthodoxy is anathema to scientific progress.

There is some poetic justice in this whole drama. Countries like India that were always apprehensive of institutions like the IPCC now prefer to keep it twisting in the wind. The rich countries that gave birth to the idea of the IPCC cannot afford to disown it without exposing their own underlying design. They could try to replace its head, in the hope that the new face might be able to rebuild the credibility of the institution. But having tasted blood, there is no reason why India and China should let the current advantage pass so easily.

The IPCC has been checkmated, as have so many other U.N. institutions before it. This is the inevitable consequence of the desire for global government under the misguided belief that ordinary people do not know what is in their own interest. With the deepening of democratic ideals, people power can no longer be overturned so easily. The failure of the IPCC shows that sovereignty still lies with the people, not with the aspirants for global government.

Mr. Mitra is director of the Liberty Institute, an independent think tank in New Delhi.

Link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703427704575051130546785628.html