You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
The Political Origin of Global Warming
2008-09-23
This comes pretty close to conspiracy theory which we ordinarily don't do here at the Burg.
A conspiracy stratagem was openly presented by Maurice Strong, a godfather of the global environmental movement, and a former senior advisor to Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary-General. In 1972 Strong was a Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and he has played a critical role in its globalization. In 1992 Strong was the Secretary-General of the "World Summit" conference in Rio de Janeiro, where on his instigation the foundations for the Kyoto Protocol were laid.

In an interview Strong disclosed his mindset: "What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is "no." The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse." (Wood,1990)
Posted by:Mercutio

#24  lollypop,

Read my link. AGW is a slice of data picked to look like it's warming, when the whole data says otherwise.

i.e. AGW theory is a fraud.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-09-23 19:43  

#23  It doesn't matter who believes it. Because the earth is cooling, the entire global warming panic is a stack of wet cow poop. And, the 'science' behind GW is taken out of context. It's a slice of data relative to nothing but stupidity.
Posted by: lollypop   2008-09-23 17:22  

#22  http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/09/jeff-id-cherry-picking-in-new-hockey.html
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-09-23 16:45  

#21  "America has to lead by example." Glinetle McGurque6029

I suggest you look at the carbon numbers for the US compared to Europe in the last decade. Despite failing to sign Kyoto the US did better if I remember correctly.

What most Global Warming advocates want is not just restrictions but a real hobbling of the US economy. That is why the US is targetted and India and China ignored.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-09-23 16:39  

#20  GM6029

Evolution is science open to scientific debate, Creationism is religion not open to debate.

Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Crisis has become a religion.

Global Warming brought Earth out of the Maunder Minimum (Little Ice Age). There was a brief period of relapse in the Dalton Minimum (cost Napoleon an Army in Russia), but then the earth continued to warm up until the early 2000s.

The Global Climate has always changed. No more glaciers in Yosemite or covering Long Island.

Follow the Sun Spots on the graph and their relationship to the Earth's temperature. Currently they have dropped to zero.

Just for the record melting ice does not push cold air. Air moving over vast frozen areas with little sunshine generates cold air. There is a difference between melting and sublimation.

GolfBravoUSMC Meteorologist 1959-1969
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2008-09-23 16:00  

#19  I disagree, there is no "surgury" taking place, no proposal to fix the problem only reduce the effects of emissions which directly threaten profits of many businessmen, thus the conflict of interest.

Lowering emissions is more like making sure you have a healthy diet by eating the proper foods and reduce smoking.

There is no excuse with China or India either but if even in America we can't agree it's real then nothing can be done to put pressure on those nations anyway.

America has to lead by example. If the problem really is we are worried about up and coming countries not adhering to emission standards, then let's declare that the issue and face it instead of going cheap by denying there is any climate change.
Posted by: Glinetle McGurque6029   2008-09-23 15:59  

#18  The problem with your approach is that you want to begin the cancer surgery before there's a conclusive diagnosis of where the cancer is located if it exists at all. And you are willing to eviscerate the United States and ignore any potential cancer in China and India.
Posted by: Darrell   2008-09-23 15:26  

#17  I'm sorry but I don't know how anyone could deny the global climate is changing because of human behavior. To totally discredit it without trying to know more seems to be the pattern. The same thing with evolution-deniers.

At least most scientist continue to test and experiment while these deniers just do everything they can to not find out anymore.
Climate change is more accurate term.

So the earth get's a little cooler here and there, that doesn't mean the earth is not warming up! It means the melting ice is pushing cold air down to warmer regions, but the poles are a lot warmer now and this the change in balance of earth's climate. Hurricaines, stronger winds, and droughts.

Just assume the worst and have an open mind to fixing the problem, just like cancer. We can't wish it doesn't exist! If we really find there is no problem, good!
Posted by: Glinetle McGurque6029   2008-09-23 15:07  

#16  CT: Why are the advocates of Global Warming changing the buzzwords to Climate Change? And now some are changing to Climate Crisis. Because the facts on the ground are starting to point to global cooling.

South Africa just recorded the coldest temps in it's recorded history, New Zealand lost a great deal of their wine crop last summer to cold weather. Last winter China recorded the coldest temps in 50 years, frost in the upper Midwest in August, etc. etc.

Think Sun Spots. Their are much larger forces at work than man. The world has warmed and cooled long before the invention of the automobile.

As an aside, man should strive to clean up his act in an orderly fashion, without subcoming to the GW hysteria.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2008-09-23 13:56  

#15  The point I was making was that there is almost universal agreement amongst the political leadership of both the left and right...

Posted by Cherelet and Tenille1095

And which of them are scientists? Zero, none, nadda, zilch, zippo.

Man made climate change has been debunked in the scientific community, follow the link in my sig for more info.

The basic question, aside from the other planets in our solar system having the same issue, is how does mankind's contribution of less than 1/3 of 1% of the so-called "greenhouse gasses" can possibly have any meaningful effect on our mean global temperature?

The next problem with this "global warming" hypothesis is that CO2 is a nutrient, not a polutant.

And the list of scientific evidence against this folly continues.

Politicians, unfortunately, have to cater to the uninformed as well as the informed. And they are human, so when they are given enough disinformation they may start to believe it.

Let me close with these two quotes.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Vladimir Lenin

"Where all think alike, no one thinks very much." - Walter Lippmann
Posted by: DLR   2008-09-23 11:50  

#14  Almost every person who is an avid believer of MMGW that I have talked to is totally deficient in even basic high school science. I have never met or talked to a single educated person with a science background that threw in with it. Not a single one.
There are changes going on in our climate patterns, but there always have been and always will be. The question is are WE doing it? If so I say we drastically scale back CO2 emissions. But lets wait till the data is in before we start shutting down the power plants and capping off the oil wells. It is at best contradictory and at worse showing a great deal of cooling in our future. We may be at a pivot point between cooling and warming right now.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-09-23 11:43  

#13  I don't believe it is a coincidence that Global Warming became a religion not long after Communism failed. Most western Communists didn't truly love communism, they loathed capitalism, so global warming gave them a life-raft to keep up the fight with "pure" motives.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-09-23 10:35  

#12  And the martian polar ice cap? Is it still shrinking? Would that be related to solar output, or MMGW?
Posted by: Bobby   2008-09-23 10:26  

#11  It doesn't matter. Scientific facts are what they are, no matter who is polled.
Posted by: Darrell   2008-09-23 10:12  

#10  Let me ask C&T how many of the scientists on the UN's panel on global warming/climate change are either climate scientists, astrophysicists (sun), hydrologists or meteorologists? Now compare that total to the overall total of so-called scientists on the report. In other words, if, lets say Avian bird flu was a real threat to the world, would you believe that if all the scientists proclaiming that were mostly chemists instead of veterinarians or cellular microbiologists?
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2008-09-23 08:31  

#9  I don't buy the conspiracy theory -- the lefties have never been that good at working together or at keeping secrets. I do believe that way too many of our mostly-scientifically-ignorant politicians have either fallen for the idiocy or simply decided that giving it lip service gets some votes. Example: McCain. I don't know who advises him, but he needs some knew advisers. He has also fallen for the autism-vaccination nonsense that has been disproved in study after study. It's a shame.
Posted by: Darrell   2008-09-23 08:17  

#8  You're wrong, CT. Kyoto is dead as is most of the rest of that GW crap. If you truly believe in AGW, you're too deeply into the leftie Kool-Aid for reality to reach you. If you've still any sliver of an open mind on the issue, I suggest you google Steven Den Beste on the matter. You'll learn a lot.
Posted by: Jolutch Mussolini7800   2008-09-23 07:26  

#7  It's played out alright - and your side lost

The point I was making was that there is almost universal agreement amongst the political leadership of both the left and right (including former high profile sceptics), throughout the developed world on this issue, so it would seem that arguing climate change is just a conspiracy is pointless, as the 'facts on the ground' in terms of political debate have already reached consensus and moved on.

So it would appear more likely that "your side" has lost.
Posted by: Cherelet and Tenille1095   2008-09-23 06:54  

#6  Excalibur, I realise that, which is why I didn't refer to John Howard as Prime Minister.

However both Kevin Rudd (PM and leader of the Labour Party) and Malcolm Turnbull (Current leader of Howard's Liberal Party) hold the same opinions on climate change.

As do both Barack Obama and John McCain for that matter.
Posted by: Cherelet and Tenille1095   2008-09-23 06:48  

#5  Previous comment for CT, not you, Excalibur.
Posted by: no mo uro   2008-09-23 05:50  

#4  You, and the individuals you named, are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own reality.

No REAL scientists who don't have a socialist act to grind or who don't receive government grants to study the "problem" are on board with AGW, little man, for the simple reason that there is not sufficient evidence to prove it.

Now go back to your humanities and social "science" world and leave real science to the grownups.

It's played out alright - and your side lost.
Posted by: no mo uro   2008-09-23 05:35  

#3  Cherelet and Tenille1095, you ignorant slut. Your comments would have more weight if you knew the Prime Minister of Australia is Kevin Rudd.
Posted by: Excalibur   2008-09-23 05:29  

#2  Isn't this anti-Global Warming stuff played out? Nowadays President Bush, John Howard of Australia, Rupert Murdoch and almost every former sceptic of any significance in the political arena has come on board with the reality of climate change, the real debate is over what should be done to combat it, and how far to go.
Posted by: Cherelet and Tenille1095   2008-09-23 03:57  

#1  It is pretty easy to imagine utterly loony conspiracies emanating from the UN. UNESCO has declared 47 parts of the US to be international property, enforced by the US Dept of Interior, as "biosphere preserves", with no US citizens, other than authorized environmentalists, allowed to enter. They have also made it clear that these areas are intended to be enlarged.

To make matters worse, some years ago, some UN twit prepared a map showing most of the interior of the US depopulated, the population moved to the coasts and just a few interior cities, so that the vast majority of the US could "environmentally recover" from humans living there.

Hopefully, if there is an economic catastrophe, control and jurisdiction of most of the western US will be returned to the States it was stolen from.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-09-23 00:34  

00:00