When Al Gore came forth and made the film "An Inconvenient Truth" he talked about all the troubles the world is currently facing as a result of 'Global Warming.' Artic ice retreating further inwards every summer, rising sea levels threatening to wipe out Island nations and C02 levels were some of the many areas he touched on. Concluding the film, he quotes "Each one of us is a cause of global warming, but each of us can make choices to change that with the things we buy, with the electricity we use, the cars we drive. We can make choices to bring our individual carbon emissions to zero. The solutions are in our hands. We just have to have the determination to make them happen." http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm
It is incredible to think Mr. Gore can misconstrue such issues.If you're for, against or undecided about where you stand on the topic now known as Climate Change, it's important to address the key element of it. Where it all began.
The Climate change movement as we know it was founded by Canadian businessman Maurice Strong. In 1971, with Barbra Ward and Rene Dubos, Strong issued a report titled "Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet." It raised awareness about the supposed detrimental effects humans have caused to the planet and necessary interventions which can be made to prevent further problems. http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.php/strong-stockholm-leadership?showall=&start=1 Mr. Strong went on to work for the United Nations later on in his career, using his position to establish and organize the Earth Summit Movement and Agenda 21 "a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment." http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/?utm_source=OldRedirect&utm_medium=redirect&utm_content=dsd&utm_campaign=OldRedirect
Whilst it may seem heroic in a way, many people forget that, at heart, Mr. Strong is nothing more than an opportunist as shown by his business dealings prior to him joining the United Nations.
In 1986, American Water Development Inc, one of Strong's sought to siphon billions of liters through underground pumps in the Colorado. "The project was portrayed as an environmentally sensitive solution to urban water shortages," but did not factor into account the local areas requirement for groundwater. AWDI were threatening to destroy the local wetlands and sand dune ecosystems. Mr. Strong's pursuit of power and wealth are at the forefront of his agenda and his shambolic business pursuit in Colorado, (and today in China where he works with the Chinese government on carbon credits trade) gives us good reason to be skeptical of his self proclaimed love for the environment. http://www.hcn.org/issues/12/350
"IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995. ch 8." The listed section of the International Panel for climate change presents the second instigator of global warming, Dr. Benjamin Santer, the leader of chapter 8 in the report. When the final draft was submitted for submission and distribution, the report was submitted with mixed views about human contribution to Global Warming. In an interview on "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura" Lord Christopher Monkton states "In goes Santer and crosses out sections disagreeing with man's contribution to climate change and changes them to fit his views and Mr. Strong's views." Later, in an interview with Dr. Santer, he himself does not deny changing certain elements to "make the report more consistent." A sly ploy. Realizing he would receive vast adulation and praise for his efforts from other one eyed viewers such as Kofi Annan who wrote an article titled, "Climate change puts us all in the same boat. One hole will sink us all, Mr Santer sacrificed his integrity for 15 minutes of fame." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/dec/10/kofi-annan-climate-change
The more reading one is able to do into these two men, the more you to realize that Al Gore is merely continuing their legacy of speculation and assumption. British journalist Peter Hitchens sums it up perfectly when he says "If they really believed what they preached they wouldn't leave their house...But you notice these people are often the first ones into the planes and the first ones into the limousines."
2 comments:
I great piece, but two things kind of irk me...Firstly, the first understandings of climate change and scientific research in to global warming were actually in 1895, when the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius discovered that humans could enhance the greenhouse effect by making carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas. His theory is what fuelled research in to climate change and preceded the growing focus on climate change in the 70's.
Secondly, although I have no doubt that Strong (and other global leaders and activists) may have dubious motives or ethics when it comes to practicing what they preach, I think it is important to remember that climate change is a real issue in our world, that although Strong's actions may be questionable, that doesn't mean that the entire scientific community is having us on when it says that we need to change how we live. I think the fact that the NZ Ministry of Environment quoted predictions of world-wide sea levels rising up to 1 meter in the next 100 years, with the potential to displace entire Pacific communities, justifies this. To quote the controversy around the 1995 IPCC Report of Climate Change as evidence to why is may not be an issue is ignoring the last 17 years of scientific research from multitudes of scientific communities within the UN as well as outside of it, and akin to pretending the the earth doesn't revolve around the sun.
Interesting you bring up these points. Fundamentally, it is an introduction to the Global Warming we are all familiar with today. I did not say Mr. Strong was the first person to investigate the effects of C02, I mentioned he was the one who looked for a way to profit out of this "cult" idea. Second, Svante Arrhenius conducted that research to explain the ice ages. If you read his article "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground," you will see that nowhere does he make mention such frightening doomsday prophecies which serve as the main driver for global warming these days. It's very important as well to bring up the controversy because it shows a high level of insecurity of Dr. Santer and Mr Strongs' belief in Global Warming, wanting to remove any views which contravene their own. As for scientific evidence, if you're going to bring that up, you'll have to bring in sides of balance. Why, if Global Warming is incontrovertibly true, is there still disagreement among the scientific community itself about the matter? William M. Gray, head of the Tropical meteorological stated we cannot make such valorous predictions about weather patterns in 50 to 100 years time, when we can't even make valid predictions in one season or years' time. Including rising sea levels as a presage is useless; the Washington Times article "Pacific Islands not sinking from Global Warming" reports the scientific findings. 20 of the 27 Islands grew or remained stable. Only seven shrunk "with the biggest percentage change occurring on Tengasu, which dropped from a tiny 1.7 acres to 1.5 acres." The research which the NZ Ministry of Environment made their prediction on the research by Auckland University researchers mentioned in the article. I will cover the scientific details in a future post.
Post a Comment