Climate Creationists Gates And Pachauri, Massive Climahypocrites

Here’s a question for you, True Believers: if man caused global warming, or “climate change,” if you prefer, is so bad, then why does it seem that all your leaders live the high carbon life? First up today, the head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change!

RAJENDRA PACHAURI has a chauffeur, lives in luxury and jets across the world on his quest to ban Sunday roasts and cheap flights. Now he’s accused of exaggerating the climate change crisis.

MOST mornings he is driven to work from his £5 million home in a 1.8-litre Toyota Corolla by his personal chauffeur, as befits his status as director-general of a New Delhi research institute employing more than 700 staff.

How does that sound, Climate Alarmist?

And then we have Bill Gates, who told NY Times Dot Earth reporter Andrew Revkin (all links via Tom Nelson)

We need both a market push (R&D funding) and market pull by having a price on carbon. Pricing carbon emissions would help in many ways. It would encourage increased efficiency, increased deployment, more private R&D and provide funding for government R&D. More efficient use of energy is important. There are a lot of great efficiency approaches like building standards, and Cafe standards that can make a difference.

But, of course, Gates lives in a 66,000 square foot house

The house is a modern design in the Pacific lodge style, with classic features such as a large private library with a dome shaped roof and oculus (light well).[3] The house also features an estate-wide server system running Windows and heated floors and driveways. Guests wear pins that upon entrance of a room automatically adjust temperature, music, and lighting based on the guest’s preferences, according to the narration in the virtual tour below.

It has an average power bill of $30,000 a month. He flies around in a $21 million private jet. Is that climate hypocrisy, believers?

We already know about so much of the climate hypocrisy from the leaders and high profile celebs, people such as Al Gore, Barack Obama, Leonardo DiCaprio, James Cameron, Prince Charles, Robert Redford, Barbara Streisand, and so many more. Plus all the folks who jet off to exotic vacation spots for climate conferences around the world to complain about global warming. Is it any wonder more and more people are realizing that the whole AGW house of cards is pretty much like a Hollywood set, all facade and no interior?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU. Re-Change 2010!

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

40 Responses to “Climate Creationists Gates And Pachauri, Massive Climahypocrites”

  1. Reasic says:

    And, again, you continue to bark up the wrong tree. I’ve told you time and time again that taking action to fight climate change doesn’t mean living in a third world existence. That is a straw man, and would be a very myopic approach anyway. Rather, the solution is much bigger, involving re-evaluating the way that energy is generated and distributed. If most of our energy is sustainable, and especially renewable, there would be practically no need to worry about how much we use anymore. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

  2. Otter says:

    During the Massive snowstorm in Great Britain, which the global warming crowd in the UKMet TOTALLY missed – and Joe Bastardi, a skeptic, totally predicted 3 months in advance- the wind-power facilities generated a whole .2% of the power people needed to get through that mess.

    In Denmark, they are cutting down 20 square kilometers of protected forests, to build another wind-power facility.

    In Spain, wind power has gone down the tubes, along with a LOT of jobs.

    Liberals on both coasts of the US have BLOCKED solar and wind power projects, sometimes for years, in other places, forever.

    Where’s all this ‘sustainable’ energy coming from, bunny?

  3. Reasic says:

    Well, let’s see, Otter. There is biofuel, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, tidal, wave, and wind power. Wind power alone makes up about 20% of electricity production in Denmark, and about 14-17% in Spain, as well as Portugal. Where do you see that wind power in Spain has “gone down the tubes”?

    Sure, there are undesirable plans proposed for building facilities, but that happens in almost every business, and it certainly isn’t proof that renewable energy won’t work.

  4. John Ryan says:

    Teach no one (well except you I guess) expects anyone person to go completely carbon neutral. No one (except you I guess) would expect Gates to stop exhaleing carbon dioxide. And Teach back a few years ago there was that whole “chickenhawk” thing, remember ? The people who who loudest in support of the wars were the ones who chose to have never served. Ids that the reason that you are making this type of argument now ?

  5. Otter says:

    You DO know those biofuels produce twice as much CO2 as gasoline, do you not, bunny?

  6. Reasic says:

    Source? Also, still waiting for sources for your past claims.

  7. Reasic says:

    The scientists interviewed in the story you linked basically said that the way some biofuels are now developed could be done better, but nowhere did they claim that biofuels were a lost cause and should be scrapped. There are other problems with creating ethanol from corn as well, but there are several other way to make biofuels, such as using algae instead of corn.

    Oh, and how about the myriad other alternatives?

    Here’s what I don’t get. Oil and coal will eventually run out. Their production, worldwide, is messy and bad for the environment. Why would you be against pursuing clean, and most importantly, renewable sources of energy?

  8. captainfish says:

    “Why would you be against pursuing clean, and most importantly, renewable sources of energy?”

    No one does Reasic. Not even the most ardent oil-enthusiasts. What we want are reasonable alternatives. What we want are renewables that don’t cost more than what we are now using. What we want are not heavily subsidized renewables that end up costing us many times more than oil.

    Oil lifted us up from mediocrity. Why should we turn away from it now, now that we know how best to utilize it? It still provides us a way to have our advanced economy and infrastructure.

    I got no problem with renewables. Only allow them to come to market when the market wants it and at market prices. Don’t force something upon us that we don’t want and forces us to completely change how we live.

    This world has (supposedly) lived for billions of years. Animals and humans (supposedly) have survived hotter and colder temperatures than this and yet everything has survived. Are we to believe that by us using the carbon cycle will cause the destruction of this world? Isn’t the carbon cycle natural? How can forcing us to pay more for other resources save the planet?

    How can using untested and untried “renewables” save us from our billions of barrels of oil that we can extract and utilize cheaply?

    Can you really say that algae will supplant all of our oil needs? Algae? We can’t even get wind energy to be acceptable, cheap, efficient, reliable, and safe.

    Till then, it would be treasonous to bind our fate to an energy source that will lead to our ruin while our enemies pound at our door.

  9. Otter says:


  10. reasic says:

    Algae is just one biofuel option. There are still all of the other sources I’ve mentioned, and maybe others we don’t know of yet.

  11. I note that Reasic has no room to mention nuclear energy, the cleanest and lowest-impact method of producing usable energy known to Man. More than coincidence?

  12. Reasic says:

    Francis, I provided a list of RENEWABLE energy sources. Nuclear is not renewable. Historically, there have been four main problems with nuclear: safety, security, waste, and non-renewable source. More recent plant designs have reduced the first two concerns, but we still have the fact that a finite source must be removed from the earth, and a byproduct must be disposed of. It is hardly the “cleanest and lowest impact” option. I won’t say that it couldn’t play a role in supplementing renewable sources, as it is preferable to conventional energy sources here, but as I said earlier, my list was of renewable sources, which are the most preferred.

  13. captainfish says:

    Solar is not renewable. There is only a finite amount of solar photons available. And, once they are used to excite an electron, they are not recreated.

    Wind is not a renewable as it is not used in the first place. However, its longevity and existence is rarely assured. It can not be counted on as reliable source of energy unless we want windmills from west coast to east coast and pay quadruple prices (to help pay for windmills and transmission lines in the mountains).

    Nuclear is actually renewable. There is a way recharge the rods. Also, there is never an end to the source and the need for nuclear rods. Instead of spending billions to destroy nuclear, we could have spent that money to devise USES for those “spent” rods. They could be used to power other things.

    France does a lot with reprocessing while we seem to be reticent to do so.
    The only truly renewable sources of energy are water and the use of biological fuel.

    Some people even think oil is renewable, created through a deep-earth process. However your statement that oil is running out is wrong. They said that back in the 70’s and they were wrong. We keep finding more and more resources.

    The only way oil will run out is if politicians keep restricting us from finding it and from getting it WHEREVER it lies.

  14. Reasic says:

    Solar is not renewable.

    OMG, are you serious?!

    There is only a finite amount of solar photons available.

    At what point do you predict that the Sun will stop shining?

    Wind is not a renewable as it is not used in the first place.

    When will the wind stop blowing?

    Nuclear is actually renewable.

    …your statement that oil is running out is wrong.

    What time frame are you thinking about here? Do you really think oil will be a reliable source of energy, centuries from now? And reprocessing spent rods might extend their life, but that does not make nuclear renewable, as it is not available in limitless quantities.

  15. captainfish says:

    Did you ever go to school? I’ll even take public school for the sake of this argument.

    First let me ask, do photons flow to the dark side of the Earth? Second, photons are not renewed. They do not flow out of the sun, flow to the Earth, and are then go through a photon-cycle and get renewed back to the sun. And yes, the sun will die off eventually. Have you not read your fellow hyperactive-envirowacko articles claiming we are about to die… in 100 billion years?

    I won’t even touch on your wind not blowing statement. That’s just insanity.

    Nuclear is renewable. And if we had spent the funds in to research we spent to harass nuclear power plants, we could have had thousands of uses of recycled fuel rods. And, I was also speaking of revitalizing fuel rods, not just the reprocessing process. The potential uses of nuclear power are limitless, just like we have found with petroleum products.

    Think of where we would be if the fools of today were around to stop our initial use of oil to just light our lanterns? We would be stuck back in the 18th century way of living.

  16. Reasic says:

    Did you ever go to school? I’ll even take public school for the sake of this argument.

    No need for personal attacks. Just stick to the argument.

    Have you not read your fellow hyperactive-envirowacko articles claiming we are about to die… in 100 billion years?

    Don’t put words in my mouth, either. Let’s compare solar energy with oil and coal. What is your best estimate when each will be no longer available for us to draw power from?

  17. captainfish says:

    your quote:
    “What is your best estimate when each will be no longer available for us to draw power from?”

    Quote from link:
    “..peak world conventional crude oil production could plausibly occur anywhere between 2021 at a volume of 48.5 billion barrels per year and 2112 at a volume of 24.6 billion barrels per year”

    “Will the world ever physically run out of crude oil? No, but only because it will eventually become very expensive in absence of lower-cost alternatives. When will worldwide production of conventionally reservoired crude oil peak? That will in part depend on the rate of demand growth, which is subject to reduction via both technological advancements in petroleum product usage… ”

    Course, like I said, we heard the same type of story back in the early 70s, ala “Peak Oil Theory”. The only peak that is holding us down right now is the peak power of liberal politicians who are driving this country in to ruin by self-limiting our ability to get to the oil. Anywhere the oil is.

    This university prof suggests we have upwards to 54 years till peak oil.

    If we are running out of oil, and yes our consumption is growing and the supplies are shrinking, then why prevent us from accessing the other easily accessible and cheaply produced energy sources (coal and nuclear and water)? Why would our government do that? Why would they intentionally hold our country down when there is cheap and easy energy available to us?

    Would you?

    It has been 40 years now since solar and alternative energy has come on to the public. Yet, it is still only 1-3% of our total energy production. Why do you suppose that is? And why has it not gotten better\more efficient since its introduction? And yet, we continue to find more and more uses for petroleum and nuclear. Why? Because there is a market, a demand, a need for it.

  18. Reasic says:


    Let’s stick to the topic at hand. You claimed that solar and wind are not renewable, and that oil potentially is. So, I asked YOU what YOUR best estimate is for the end of the availability of each. Do you think oil will still be a viable energy source in 100 years? 200? 300? 1,000? How about solar and wind?

  19. captainfish says:

    I take it that you refuse to read as well. Which again leads me to believe you did not go to school. You did not learn to do research, read comparison and contrasting research, and come away with a sound and reasoned argument.

    If you can not garner my answers of your previous questions from my last post, then I refuse to spoon-feed you.

    Again, I have substantiated your concerns and have backed up my statements. You have yet to do the same.

  20. Reasic says:

    Please show me where you’ve given me your best estimate for the end of solar or wind energy.

  21. captainfish says:

    Holy Christ Reasic!!!

    Let’s see, you brought up that the sun will disappear and you made a statement that the wind never stops blowing, so I guess in your case, neither will ever, ever come to an end.

    The sun will always shine and provide constant renewable photons 25 hours a day forever providing 100% efficient electricity.
    The wind will continue to blow at a constant rate for ever providing 100% efficient electricity.

    I bow to your logical progression of thought, reason and logic.

  22. Reasic says:

    Well, captainfish, YOU are the one who brought up the canard that solar and wind power are not renewable, and claimed that oil might be. So, I’m just trying to understand your illogic. The best you’ve done is show me that oil will be around MAYBE for another 100 or so years, at most! I don’t know what else to make of your specious claims. Maybe you just don’t understand what “renewable energy” means.

  23. captainfish says:


    I expect you to provide proof that the sun and wind are renewable.

  24. Reasic says:

    Sunlight and wind are natural sources or energy, which are naturally replenished. By contrast, there is a finite amount of fossil fuels in the earth, from which to draw. Sure, we can find more oil deposits, but we will eventually reach an end to the amount of oil that is in the ground. Do you seriously doubt this fact?

  25. captainfish says:

    Yes and No. As I have stated before. While sun and solar may be natural, as is oil, they are not renewable.

    The sun is not a renewable resource as there is no photon-cycle. Photons are created and used, not recreated and recycled. Wind is just moving air. When air does not move, there is no wind. Air does not create nor destroy wind. Windmills which capture this movement of air, do not destroy nor capture wind. There is no wind-cycle as the earth creates the moving air and the windmills uses it, and then it flows in to the wind-cycle to be recycled by the earth.

    There is a theory that oil is a renewable in that it is recreated from the earths resources. The prevailing theory that oil is made from animal and plant matter also means that oil is a renewable energy (eventually of course).

    However, your basic idea that solar is renewable because it returns the next day is … basically.. correct. Continuing with this level of logic, does the sun “replenish” when the next day sees storms? Snow? Fog?

    The only way to lift us out of the dependence on oil, is to move to a RELIABLE, AS-CHEAP, EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT source of energy.

    While utilizing photons and the energy from air currents will help decrease our use of oil by a fraction, it is not in any way reliable or efficient. To take a house off of the grid, it would cost upwards of $20,000, or more. And then you would still have to have a reliable backup energy source.

    The only sources we can move to, now, would be nuclear, gas, coal, oil shales, oil sands, and geothermal for some areas.

  26. Reasic says:


    It seems that you are getting caught up in the idea of one photon’s life, versus total number of photons that will be emitted from the Sun. No, one single photon is not renewable, but solar energy as a whole IS renewable. Yes, there are fluctuations seasonally and daily, but on the whole, we can expect an average amount of solar energy during any given year, for a region.

    The same goes for wind. You’re trying to redefine “renewable” as meaning that there must be some sort of cycle, in which an element is created, destroyed, and recreated, but that is incorrect. Wind power is renewable, because there will always be differences in atmospheric pressure in the planet, which will cause air to move. No, it may not always move the same on a daily basis, but, especially in specific areas, we can expect a continual prevailing wind, annually.

    Seriously, captainfish. This is retarded. Please find ONE credible source, which denies the fact that solar and/or wind power is renewable. You’re really going against the grain here. Virtually EVERY source on renewable energy lists solar and wind power.

    Let’s try this question:

    Will the sun still shine, and the wind still blow in 1,000 years?

    That’s the meaning of renewable — it doesn’t run out. They are, in effect, infinite.

  27. Reasic says:

    To clarify, by “infinite”, I mean that they are available for use as an energy source for an infinite time period, versus fossil fuels, which will eventually run out.

  28. captainfish says:

    Yeah, sorry, but I went to school. I learned that renewable does not mean infinite. The base word for renewable is… “renew”. Carbon is a renewable resource as it is renewed as it cycles through the carbon-cycle. Water is renewable resource as it cycles through its water-cycle. Wood is a renewable resource because when you use it, its elements get recycled, renewed and reused to make more.

    Just because a resource will be here tomorrow, because it was created tomorrow, does not mean it was renewed.

    If oil was continually created from a confirmed act of nature, such that we could actually see the oil being created, would it be a renewable resource? Or would it be a infinite resource? Or would it just be a naturally created resource?

    What if you found that the sun would end in 50-100 years. Would you still call it a “renewable” resource? Would you be calling for solar-proponents to give up and move to another resource? Would you be calling proponents of solar crazy for wanting to use the sun while it was still around?

    If as you seem to be suggesting, our oil will be pumped dry soon, don’t you think we should be getting what we can now while we can? Shouldn’t we be trying to get at the cheap and efficient energy while we can to help build our economy and our resources in order to help fuel our research in to VIABLE alternatives?

    Tell me how algae, biomass, wind, and solar are going to replace our oil and coal energy?

  29. Reasic says:

    Yeah, sorry, but I went to school.

    Please, let’s keep the discourse above the 3rd grade level.

    Your efforts to redefine the meaning of the term “renewable”, as it is related to energy sources is laughable. As I said before, please provide ONE credible source that backs up your claim, so I’ll know it’s not some crazy claim you’ve just made up. Any source on renewable energy that I’ve seen also references solar and wind power.

  30. captainfish says:

    You first,
    I expect you to provide proof that the sun and wind and water are truly a renewable resource.

    And mind you, all three have to fit the categorization for your argument to hold, “water”.

  31. Reasic says:

    LOL! You’re the one who’s going against conventional wisdom here, bud! I’m not even asking for proof. I just want to see if you can come up with ONE credible source that corroborates your argument about wind and solar power.

  32. Otter says:

    IF there is a drought, where does the water come from for hydro?

    If there are periods of days, weeks, Months with no sun, where does the solar come from?

    Why did the UK’s major wind-power generators only provide .2% of the power required during that massive snowstorm which the global warming crowd did not even see coming, when it was windy as hell?

  33. captainfish says:

    yeah. You mean, like dramatic-climate-warming-due-to-manmade-co2 was “conventional wisdom”?

    The term “gay” still really means happy, giddy, ecstatic. But just because it has been bastardized to mean something else, does not mean the new version is right.

  34. Reasic says:

    What if, what if?! You seriously going to rule out options based on exceptions to the rule? There’s critical thinking for ya!

  35. Reasic says:


    I see you can’t even find ONE credible source that also states wind and solar power are not renewable. Shame…

  36. captainfish says:

    “What if, what if?! You seriously going to rule out options..,”

    Seems that is what I have been trying to tell you this whole time!
    Why are you trying to rule out OIL on “what if”?

  37. Reasic says:

    Not one source? ONE?!

  38. captainfish says:

    Not one source? ONE?!

  39. Reasic says:

    Real mature, captainfish.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8095 access attempts in the last 7 days.