By Andrew Bolt
Claudia Rossett, who helped to expose UN corruption in the oil-for-food scandal, now turns her attention to the UN warmists. One in particular:
With UN climate guru Rajendra Pachauri under fire for alleged conflicts of interest and the purveying of flawed “science,” another United Nations eco-official is stepping forward to defend UN climate findings.
His name is Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Program, or UNEP, based in Nairobi. If you are curious about potential conflicts of interest among the UN climate crowd, Steiner, along with Pachauri, is someone to watch.
Like Pachauri, Steiner is still talking about “overwhelming evidence” supporting the findings of Al Gore’s co-Nobelist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — despite the growing body of evidence that the IPCC’s findings were more a product of UN politics than of science. In recent remarks featured as a top item on the UN’s official news site, Steiner has just praised the IPCC and re-issued the UN’s usual apocalyptic warnings: “Any delay… risks of a magnitude…urgent international response” — etc.
Who is Achim Steiner? A German, born in Brazil, he is a longtime environmentalist, former head from 2001-2006 of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, or IUCN….
Anyway, in December, 2005, Achim Steiner served as a judge on a panel in Dubai that awarded a $500,000 environmental prize to then-Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. With a big smile, at a banquet in Dubai, Annan — then the UN’s top official — accepted this six-figure purse for his personal use. About three months later, Annan named Steiner, one of the judges who picked Annan for the prize, to head UNEP.
Green is the colour of the cash.
UPDATE 1
IPCC Warmist Draws On His Favorite Peer Reviewer: Himself
Marc Sheppard says it’s bad enough that the IPCC bought the theory of warmist Professor David Karoly that man-made warming was causing the higher temperatures and evaporation in the Murray Darling basin in Australia.
After all, new research suggests almost the very opposite – that the higher temperatures come from a natural fall in cloud cover, and a lack of rain and a subsequent lack of evaporative cooling. Drought causes higher temperatures, and not vice versa.
But Sheppard notes that Karoly’s theory was heavily relied upon in a chapter the IPCC’s alarmist 2007 report that was supposed to be reviewed by … Karoly himself:
But amazingly, the story doesn’t end with how wrong the chapter was. Professor Franks also pointed out that … David Karoly, whose work was also heavily cited in WG1 Chapter 9, was its Review Editor.
Fabulous peer reviewing, guys. The man in charge of the reviewing supervises reviews of his own theory.
Is this the kind of thing that Climategate ringleader Phil Jones meant when he once boasted he’d ”redefine what the peer-review literature is”?
Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog
Filed under: Australia, Blundering Bureaucrats, Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Environment, Environmental activists, Europe, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, India, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, U.K., U.N. – United Nations (United Nitwits) Tagged: Andrew Bolt, Climate Change Fraud, Climate Change Religion, Climategate, Global Warming Alarmism, Global Warming Hype, Rajendra Pachauri, Tony, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
