Replies

We mustn’t leave the “liars-for-science” and “liars-for-Jesus” (like the “Reverend” Sir John Houghton) out of the mix. Maurice Strong, John Houghton, et.al., have been in on this scam (attempt at “world governance” ) together for a long time.

Excerpt:

30 Apr 2008 ... Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC and lead editor of the ... Maurice Strong and his UN committees’ objectives, especially the ...

How UN structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2840
By Dr. Tim Ball Wednesday, April 30, 2008

In previous related articles (Environmental Extremism and Historical and philosophical context of the climate change debate. and How the world was misled about global warming and now climate change) we examined how environmentalism and particularly climate was hijacked to achieve the political goals of Maurice Strong, primarily to cause the demise of industrialized nations. We saw how he established the political vehicle the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the scientific vehicle, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for his purpose. He brought them together at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. The fruits of his efforts and the policies they engendered are now emerging and are hurting the poor and middle-income people of all countries, with rising food and energy costs. They’re hurting the people they were ostensibly designed to help, but more on that later.

Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC and lead editor of the first three Reports, signaled the objectives were political and not scientific. He said, “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” The IPCC has done this with ruthless efficiency while pretending what they are doing is science not politics. Houghton gave an example of a disastrous statement when he announced “...the impacts of global warming are like a weapon of mass destruction”, which is followed by the claim that it kills more people than terrorism. Trouble is more people die of cold each year than heat. Also, notice the word “impact” because that, not science, dominates the work of the IPCC. Two thirds of the people involved in the IPCC (1900 of 2500) are not climate experts and study what might happen, not will happen. So the entire process was established to achieve the goal of announcing (potential) disasters.

Bert Bolin, who Al Gore credits with creating the IPCC, was Houghton’s co-chair. Bolin had a history of involvement in the politics of the environment. Both he and Houghton signed the 1992 warning to humanity essentially blaming the developed nations. It was more of the Club of Rome approach with no clear measures or evidence, simply a list of possible disasters if we didn’t do things their way. (link)

Science creates theories based on assumptions that are then tested by other scientists performing as skeptics. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction to this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it. Maurice Strong and his UN committees’ objectives, especially the IPCC made sure the focus was on human caused change and CO2 as the particular culprit. They’d already biased the research by using a very narrow definition of climate change in article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a treaty produced at that infamous “Earth Summit” in Rio in 1992. Climate Change was defined as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods. This makes the human impact the primary purpose of the research. The problem is you cannot determine that unless you know the amount and cause of natural climate change.

Properly, a scientific definition would put natural climate variability first, but at no point does the UN mandate require an advance of climate science. The definition used by UNFCCC predetermined how the research and results would be political and pre-determined the result. It made discovering a clear ‘human signal’ mandatory, but meaningless. As noted it thwarted the scientific method.

Other parts of their mandate illustrate the political nature of the entire exercise. Its own principles require the IPCC “shall concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.” (From Principles Governing IPCC work, approved at the 14th Session, Vienna 1-3 October 1998 and amended at the 21st Session, Vienna 6-7 November, 2003.) The role is also to “...assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy…” The process has been anything but “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent” as we will see later. However, the cynicism of the last sentence was exposed when they made the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) the most important part of IPCC reports and these have been anything but ‘neutral’ as we will see.

The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively. Of the 600 in WGI, 308 were independent reviewers, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 is listed as ‘proof’ of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.

The manipulation and politics didn’t stop there. The Technical Reports of the three Working Groups are set aside and another group prepares the SPM. A few scientists prepare a first draft, which is then reviewed by governments and a second draft is produced. Then a final report is hammered out as a compromise between the scientists and the individual government representatives. It is claimed the scientists set the final summary content, but in reality governments set the form. The SPM is then released at least three months before the science report. Most of the scientists involved in the technical or science report see the Summary for the first time when it is released to the public. The time between its release to the public and the release of the Technical Report is taken up with making sure it aligns with what the politicians/scientists have concluded. Here is the instruction in the IPCC procedures. “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) or the Overview Chapter.” Yes, you read that correctly. This is like an Executive writing a summary and then having employees write a report that agrees with the summary.

When you accept an hypothesis before it is proven you step on the treadmill of maintaining the hypothesis. This leads to selective and even biased research and publications. As evidence appears to show problems with the hypothesis the natural tendency is to become more virulent in defending the increasingly indefensible. This tendency is underlined by John Maynard Keynes sardonic question; “If the facts change, I’ll change my opinion. What do you do, Sir.” The IPCC and those who were chosen or chose to participate were locked in to a conclusion by the rules, regulations and procedures carefully crafted by Maurice Strong. These predetermined the outcome - a situation in complete contradiction to the objectives and methods of science.

As evidence grew that the hypothesis was scientifically unsupportable adherents began defending rather than accepting and adjusting. The trail they made is marked by the search for a clear human signal, identified in modern parlance as ‘smoking guns.’ They also became trapped in what Russian writer and philosopher Leo Tolstoi identified many years ago, namely, “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” Next we will examine how the political system that Strong and the UN set up allowed perpetuation of incorrect science and falsely identified smoking guns.

Global Warming Series:

Part 1: Environmental Extremism
Part 2: Historical and philosophical context of the climate change debate.
Part 3: How the world was misled about global warming and now climate change
Part 4: How UN structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming
Part 5: Wreaking Havoc on Global Economies
Part 6: The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria
Part 7: The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global Warming
Part 8: UN’s IPCC preying on people’s ignorance
Part 9: Carbon Taxes: Hand over your money! “We are saving you from yourself”
Part 10: Environmentalists Seize Green Moral High Ground Ignoring Science
Part 11: Maurice Strong Politics 101

More on John Houghton and Maurice Strong:

15 Apr 2010 ... Maurice Strong knew what he was doing when he bypassed politics to ... It is no surprise John Houghton was the first Co-Chairman of the IPCC ...

Total government control is a far more important agenda than any individual political career
Climate Bureaucracies Are The Choice Because They Perpetuate Problems

By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, April 15, 2010
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22015

The power behind Obama doesn’t care if he is a one term President. He would prefer it otherwise and an interesting battle looms as the Democratic Party rejects the incumbent African American President. Total government control is a far more important agenda than any individual political career. Many think it’s good that Obama is showing his left wing agenda too quickly and too openly. They argue it will arouse reaction and this will cause a dramatic shift to the right in the November elections and beyond. It will, but it doesn’t matter. While the pundits are distracted by political battles, Obama and the gang are bypassing elected officials and thereby the people by putting all the power in bureaucracies. They will guarantee the agenda and prevent any future politicians rescinding or reversing the major pattern.

CO2 was the vehicle chosen to destroy the industrialized nations by ‘proving’ this byproduct was causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. Cap and Trade has evolved as the ideal legislation because it controls energy and industry while creating revenue. It has survived exposure of the corrupt science, however, it isn’t necessary because it likely won’t get Senate approval. It doesn’t matter because of the administrative power given to the EPA by the Supreme Court ruling that CO2 is a pollutant. This gives them complete control of energy and industry. Growth of bureaucracies is a hallmark of totalitarianism and the death of freedom. As Mary McCarthy said, “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.”

Bureaucratic Frankenstein’s

A politician explained that he opposed projects he defined as “Frankenstein”. An example explains the difference between these and other projects. He would consider funding to write a book because it was finite, ending when the book was published. He would reject money to start a monthly journal – because once started the funding requirements don’t end. Attempts to stop funding trigger charges of ending a “tradition’. You have to keep feeding the monster. This is part of the pattern in which today’s privilege becomes tomorrow’s right and entitlements never end.

Once you assign a problem to a bureaucracy, either by creating a new one or giving it to an existing one, you are guaranteeing the problem will not be resolved. Worse, the bureaucracy will expand and costs will grow. Much of the increased cost will go to preparing arguments for perpetuating the bureaucracy. This is done by claiming the problem has expanded and was far worse than previously understood. They are paid to confirm what is already established, not determine the truth.

Turf Wars

There are very few examples of bureaucracies being shut down. Often they’re absorbed by another agency but this is not usually to improve resolution of the problem. It occurs because part of self-perpetuation of a bureaucracy involves not impinging on other bureaucracies. Turf wars are a constant part of bureaucracies. They don’t prove anything, inhibit resolution of problems, and create further problems. A classic example was the problems and failures of turf conflicts identified after the 9/11 air attacks.

Maurice Strong knew what he was doing when he bypassed politics to achieve his goal of causing the collapse of the industrialized nations. He knew bureaucracies were the answer because they remain as politicians’ come and go. Within the bureaucracies of the United Nations he had the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that gave direct access to the climate bureaucracies of every nation. It was these people who controlled the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) supporting and promoting those scientists such as the ones from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) who provided the science required for the objective.

It is no surprise John Houghton was the first Co-Chairman of the IPCC from 1988 to 2002. This overlapped with his bureaucratic role as Director General of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) from 1983 to 1991. However, as Phil Jones notes in a May 5, 2005 email to Kevin Trenberth, “IPCC has a lot of clout – much more than GCOS (Global Climate Observing System) and/or WMO.” He makes this argument to suggest IPCC should push for more weather stations and better determination of global temperature. A good idea but doing so would undermine the certainty of IPCC claims. Steve McIntyre reports on this ironic event because it involved another influential bureaucrat, Susan Solomon, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) representative on the IPCC. Solomon, as Co-chair of Working Group I of the Science Report, illogically opposed Jones’ proposal.

Meaningless Codes Of Ethics

How do you control bureaucrats? It’s an issue of concern as attempts at legislation attest, but they are all vague and apparently unenforceable. For example, the US has the Hatch Act, which relates to political activity of Federal Employees. But is that different from a code of ethics? NASA has ethical rules that involve misuse of position – but neither has inhibited the activities of NASA GISS Director James Hansen.

Apparently there are no codes or guidelines for IPCC members. The UN has general guidelines as follows; “Conflict of interest includes circumstances in which international civil servants, directly or indirectly, would appear to benefit improperly, or allow a third party to benefit improperly, from their association in the management or the holding of a financial interest in an enterprise that engages in any business or transaction with the organization.” Do they apply to IPCC? Does this mean they are guilty because they allowed Al Gore and others to benefit from carbon credits? It’s unlikely because individual governments pay for the IPCC.

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) code of ethics likely don’t apply either. They say in part, b) Refrain from acting in the course of their duties with respect to a matter in which they or someone with whom they have a close relationship, or from whom they are seeking employment or other benefit or favour, has a special interest”. Who then determines the appropriateness of the behavior and ethics of James Hansen, Phil Jones or Rajendra Pauchari? The answer is nobody and that is the advantage of bureaucracies. They are not accountable to anyone and if they get in trouble it’s easy to set up whitewash investigations. Individuals, including Obama, will come and go but the totally unaccountable bureaucracy will persist. They will mindlessly pursue and expand the agenda they were ostensibly established to resolve: they are the cancer of the body politic.