Sep 23

Kudos to Dr. Zbigniew Jaworoski for using GORE LIED’s favorite Gore quote: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it (AGW) is, as a predicate to open up the audience to listen to what the solutions are.”

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski writing at NZCPR.org:

In an op-ed in a Polish weekly I commented recently on a remarkable decrease of global temperature in 2008, and over the past decade. Not surprisingly the op-ed evoked a strong reaction from Polish co-workers of IPCC, denying the existence of cooling. Surprising, however, was that the criticism dwelled upon a “global climatic conspiracy”, and “colossal international plot”. I did not use these words nor even hinted at such an idea. The idea was probably apparent from the data and facts I presented, showing weaknesses of the man-made global warming hypothesis. Without irrational political or ideological factors, it is really difficult to understand why so many people believe in human causation of the Modern Warm Period, which was never plausibly proved by scientific evidence. Some of these factors I will discuss here.

Suicidal conspiracy

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) .The climatic issue became now perhaps the most important agenda of the United Nations and politicians, at least they say so[1]. It became also a moral issue. In 2007 addressing the UN General Assembly Gro Harlem Brundtland, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, pointing at climatic skeptics stated: “It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the real danger of climate change”. But earlier “scare them to deaths!” morality of “climatists”[2] was explained by Stephen Schneider, one of their top gurus: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well … we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest” (Schneider, 1989) .

The same moral standard is offered by Al Gore: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are” (Gore, 2006) . In similar vein Rajendra K. Pauchari, the chairman of IPCC, commented in the last Fourth PCCC Report: “I hope this will shock people and governments into taking more serious action” (Crook, 2007) . Thus IPCC does not have ambition to present an objective climatic situation, but rather “to shock” the people to take actions which would bring no climatic effects (NIPCC, 2008) , but rather disastrous global economic and societal consequences. Implementation of these actions would dismantle the global energy system, the primary driving force of our civilization. This is what Maurice Strong and other leaders of Green Movement apparently have in mind.

Read the entire column at the New Zealand Centre for Policy Reasearch.

Hat tip: Icecap

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share

Comments are closed.

preload preload preload