Replies

“Judi McLeod has done massive research on this guy and we should be thankful!” ~ Albertafriend

Yes. bttt

And so has Tim Ball:

“Global Warming worse than Terrorism”:
Maurice Strong Politics 101
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, June 23, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3618

At a 2004 conference of the Russian National Academy of Sciences Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to Tony Blair’s government made the startling statement that, “Global warming is worse than terrorism.” He was right, but not as he intended. The false premise promoted by the IPCC that human CO2 was causing global warming was being used to terrorize and undermine developed nations in pursuit of Maurice Strong’s goal of getting rid of them.

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, was the only world leader to openly understand the science and what Strong and his instrument the IPCC were about. He was also immediately aware of communism and recognized what is happening. In a 2008 article for The Australian he wrote,

“I am afraid there are people who want to stop the economic growth, the rise in the standard of living (though not their own) and the ability of man to use the expanding wealth, science and technology for solving the actual pressing problems of mankind, especially of the developing countries. This ambition goes very much against past human experience which has always been connected with a strong motivation to better human conditions. There is no reason to make the change just now, especially with arguments based on such incomplete and faulty science.” (The Australian)

Rather than summarize how Maurice Strong used the United Nations and specifically the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to achieve his goal of getting rid of the industrialized nations this final article examines the devastation it has already brought. Reports of the IPCC, falsely presented as based on science, were used to scare the world, initially about global warming and then climate change. Politicians caught up with the need to appear green grasped at the output of the IPCC. They were thus vulnerable and easily fooled because they didn’t understand and the entire objective of the IPCC was to mislead, misdirect and distort.

Instead of helping poor countries and poor people the machinations of Strong, Gore and the IPCC are reaping the rewards of their activities while the people pay the price. The people are paying in other ways as governments use IPCC reports to justify carbon taxes and other restrictive, punitive and expensive regulations. A huge industry has erupted as the UK newspaper the Telegraph reported. “Investing in climate change is proving to be profitable for governments, corporations, and investors from many sectors. Governments recent subsidies towards energy-efficient programs is bringing in newfound wealth for investors. In addition, the rising price of oil have been influential in pushing investments towards alternative energy sources. CEO’s are taking charge in ways that were unforeseen.” So, the very people and industries the environmentalists and socialists despise are doing what they do best - make money.

In 1976 Strong told the Canadian magazine Maclean’s I am “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology” therefore we shouldn’t be surprised he is making a great deal of money from exploiting the false doctrine of human induced climate change. The fact the ideology precludes the methodology doesn’t bother a master manipulator like Strong. Ronald Bailey provides the following quote in his article about Strong. “He’s dangerous because he’s a much smarter and shrewder man [than many in the UN system],” comments Charles Lichenstein, deputy ambassador to the UN under President Reagan. “I think he is a very dangerous ideologue, way over to the Left.” Gore is different in that his motive was initially personally political; As H L Mencken said “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” Al Gore used or rather misused the misleading information of the IPCC Reports evidenced by them sharing the Nobel Prize. However, as his political ambitions receded he also began making a great deal of money through his involvement with carbon credit trading. Scientists of the IPCC may be involved in carbon trading, but they also benefit through a high profile, easier access to funding and easier promotion. All the relationships between Gore, Strong, and carbon credit trading are well documented here; (Capital Research—pdf)

There is nothing wrong with making money, however, promoting a demand through false information raises serious questions about ethics, morality and possibly even fraud. The problem is the IPCC and the few scientists who have controlled that agency provide him with some scientific justification for his position. It is clear neither Gore nor Strong understand the science, but that doesn’t bother them and that is a major problem.

All the problems evolve from the false claim that CO2 is causing global warming/climate change. All of the malaise we now face evolves from foolish, ignorant attempts to resolve the non-existent problem. Everything was directed at reducing our use of fossil fuels particularly oil, natural gas and coal while promoting alternative fuels.

Global warming provided the perfect vehicle for environmentalists to spread their claim of human destruction of the planet. Previously they could only point at local or regional problems, but now they had a genuine “the sky is falling” cause that encompassed the entire globe. Now the demand was for global policies and Strong provided this at the Rio Conference in 1992 in the formation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC). This agency was to create the Kyoto Protocol that became the battleground. Interestingly, it encompassed what is wrong with the entire argument that CO2 is the problem. Only the industrialized countries Strong sought to “get rid of” were required to reduce CO2 emissions. Developing nations were excluded and were to receive the payments as penance from the sinful industrialized nations. It was the transfer of capitalist wealth the socialist Strong foresaw. Futility of the exercise was that if all nations participated and met their original targets no measurable difference in atmospheric CO2 would occur; yet that was the purported objective. Several nations saw the problems implementing Kyoto would create. The US Senate voted 95 - 0 against ratification even though Al Gore was Vice President at the time. It reached a critical point when a failure of Russia to sign meant the Protocol would not be implemented.

The Protocol is now dead and there is no apparent successor, however, this is not because of the false science. It is because the countries excluded from the Protocol, particularly India and China, have become the dreaded industrialized nations Strong opposes. Despite attempts by the few scientists who control the IPCC to push an alarmist Summary, China was a major opponent and forced a softening of the final document so that even mainstream media noticed (see Part 8). The naïveté and political tunnel - vision of Strong ignored the fact that every country in the world wanted to industrialize and emulate the Untied States. Or did he? In 2005 the Pittsburgh Tribune reported, “Recently, Strong was looking for an apartment in Beijing, where his Canadian interests are already enmeshed with the Chinese Red Army.” Then in 2006 reports said he had formed a company with George Soros to import cheap Chinese made cars into the North American market. As the Tribune summarized, “Maurice Strong is the fox that was invited into the henhouse—and given the tools to redesign it for his own interests.”

Actually, he invited himself in and his redesign through the UN and the IPCC did not stop global warming or climate change, but has brought serious global problems. IPCC identification of CO2 as the major culprit of environmental damage has;

•
Allowed an unfounded and unwarranted attack on fossil fuels and exploitation of the false idea we are running out, especially of oil.

•
Caused governments to promote alternate fuels as if they are the replacement solution when most are not viable alternatives.

•
Caused governments to provide massive direct or indirect subsidies that distort the value of these alternatives so that accurate cost benefit analysis is essentially impossible.

•
Caused governments to provide subsidies for biofuels so world food production is seriously impeded and people are starving.

•
Caused governments to identify CO2 as a pollutant and seek its reduction when it is essential to plants and a reduction would put them in jeopardy.

•
Caused many governments to restrict or ban development of most fossil fuel energy sources.

•
Caused governments to spend billions on climate research to stop climate change when it is impossible.

•
Caused diversion of money to climate research better spent on real and identified pollution problems.

•
Allowed environmentalists to bully whole societies into adopting inappropriate policies and ideas.

•
Caused unnecessary increases in transportation costs that results in a higher cost of living that especially impacts the poor and middle class.

•
Caused increase in travel costs that were beginning to become affordable for most people.

•
Caused extensive and unnecessary fear among people, but especially children.

Strong and the IPCC exploited fear with threats of impending doom due to global warming/climate change, but they also exploited lack of knowledge about science and especially climate science. Governments, eager to be green, unknowingly introduced policies to reduce greenhouse gases that are undermining the developed nations as effectively as terrorism.

The title of Vaclav Klaus book Blue Planet in Green Shackles succinctly summarizes the broader problem and he elaborates as follows;

“Future dangers will not come from the same source. The ideology will be different. Its essence will nevertheless be identical: the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of the common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea reality. What I had in mind was, of course, environmentalism and its present strongest version, climate alarmism.”

There is no scientific justification for any of the energy or economic policies designed to reduce greenhouse gases or stop warming or climate change. CO2 from human or natural sources is not causing global warming or climate change. The IPCC and their computer models, an agency and approach set up to mislead the world, are the sole source of this belief. Yes, Sir David the false story of global warming is worse than terrorism.

NOTE: John Houghton denies that he made this statement quoted by Tim Ball (and many others), here:

“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.’” [snip] Tim Ball 4/30/08 http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2840

He denies he said it:

Sir John Houghton explains to Steve Connor how global warming sceptics have misrepresented his views
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote\-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html

But:

No, he did say it....

Feb 16, 2010 AuthorClimate

...or something very like it.

I’m referring to the recent kerfuffle over whether Sir John Houghton did actually say the controversial words that have been ascribed to him for many years. These words:

Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.

A few days ago, after years of this quotation doing the rounds of sceptic blogs, Sir John suddenly denied that these words had ever passed his lips, pointing out that they didn’t actually appear in his book, to which early citations had pointed as the original source. Cue much gnashing of teeth and wailing about “deniers”.

There has now been another development in this story, reported by Benny Peiser, who took a certain amount of stick for repeating the quotation over the years, including a demand from Sir John that he issue an apology.

In a posting on the GWPF website today, Benny relates how Professor John Adams has unearthed from his archives an clipping from the Daily Telegraph, dating right back to 1995. In it, Sir John is quoted as follows:

“If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”

Oh dear.

The story was originally broken on Professor Adams’ blog here. More here. [Access hot links within commentary at URL below]

~ Bishop Hill http://bishophill.squarespace.com/