posted January 13, 2014 07:27 PM            

1. You don't decide who and who is not a scientist. Don't be ridiculous.
2. There is no "founder" of the IPCC, and therefore your projection that this person wants a one-world government is completely off-base.
3. Scientists that contribute to IPCC do so voluntarily, and are essentially the same as any that do not participate. The work of the IPCC rests upon peer-reviewed scientific work, the same standard for any scientific work in any medium.
4. You don't even specify who your supposed nutjob is, leaving me searching for someone that resembles your half-baked idea. This tells me that you are simply remembering something you once read, and doing so poorly.

The only person I can roughly associate with what you've said is Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change published by the IPCC in 2007, and later the co-chair of working group III Mitigation of Climate Change at the IPCC. He's an economist by training, and his interview was regarding resources (it got misconstrued, perhaps intentionally, by the skeptic camp). Nothing about a world bank, or one currency, or a one world government. It's his job to consider the design of instruments for climate and energy policy, the economy of climate stabilization, social benefit-cost analysis and the theory of sustainability and economic growth.

posted January 13, 2014 09:41 PM            

The refusal to credit the science is not entirely because the scientists might be watching their jobs. It is also very "inconvenient" for politicians to break out to their benefactors and/or public.

posted January 14, 2014 02:10 AM            

I find it unsettling that you find this convincing. Surely he must be a shapeshifting reptilian to be everywhere at once and aiming to rule the world at 80+. He is a go-for from what i can see so far. Hardly a big cheese.

posted January 14, 2014 12:30 PM            

quote:

---

Mischaracterized: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/23/maurice-strong-reacts-to-glen n-beck

---

quote:

---

Brainchild of the IPCC: http://www.hawaiireporter.com/the-corruption-of-the-intergov ernmental-panel-on-climate-change-a-national-peril/123

---

Citing a biased and non-scientific article doesn't further your claim. Your article posts this line out of context: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -Maurice Strong

Look up that line, and you find context: "What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the 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?" - Maurice Strong http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

He's obviously supposing that there might be some backlash by smaller countries against large, industrialized nations for these large nation's contributions to environmental disaster. Taken out of context it appears quite differently from how it was said.

Pure nonsense, Randall.

quote:

---

Father of global warming: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gCf5Y4ryWLM

---

Hello. My name is Randall, and I get my opinion from a show called Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura.

quote:

---

This nutjob's plan for a one world government: http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_31821.php

---

This is an opinion piece. I don't know that I need to fact check everything this person puts forward in order to show the obvious bias, and lack of balance.

This article does reiterate the context I already covered:
According to Strong’s book (novel) idea, each year, world leaders would meet in Switzerland for an economic forum. These leaders would decide that the only way the planet could survive would be for the rich nations to voluntarily agree to reduce consumption. Strong goes on to explain that, in his novel, the rich countries do not sign such agreements, so the world leaders decide the only way to save the planet is to bring down industrialized societies.

quote:

---

Do you at least concede that this power-hungry madman founded the IPCC?

---

I don't know enough about him to even concede that he's power hungry.

quote:

---

Actually, the IPCC was started by UNEP, and UNEP was founded by Strong, so Strong founded the IPCC. Strong was not the first chairman of the IPCC, however. I know how unsettling it may be to Leftists that the green movement and global warming origins are traced to one individual...and an individual with clearly corrupt aims at that.

---

Stop attempting to assign feelings to people. I'm ONLY unsettled by your continued insistence on propping up conspiracy theories over science, and acting as if you KNOW something when you clearly don't show any comprehensive knowledge of the actual data. No organization is "sacred" to me. I don't tend to think in those terms.

UNEP was founded in 1972. The IPCC was founded in 1988. Maurice Strong was Executive Director of UNEP from 1972 to 1975.

Details.

quote:

---

What is the World Conservation Bank? http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_rothschild37.htm

---

More dreaded conspiracy theory.

quote:

---

The IPCC is a political bent on using global warming as a way to transfer wealth, and in his own warped mind, he thought he could usher in a new world order.

---

Except that he never said as much.

quote:

---

And in reference to AG's assertion that there is no founder to the IPCC: Every organization has a founder or founders.

---

It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53. Its mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

The "founders" are WMO and UNEP. UNEP was headed by then (long time) Executive Director Mostafa Kamal Tolba.

quote:

---

Alarmists are quick to point out highs in temps (like Australia presently) as proof of their model, but they ignore record lows as refutation of it.

---

Record lows aren't refutation of it, and never have been.

quote:

---

That's called an irrefutable hypothesis, and that's why these climatologists are pseudoscientists who long ago gave up on real science.

---

That's called spin for when your hypothesis is roundly rejected by the scientific community, and you decide to trust Jesse Ventura over common sense.

posted January 14, 2014 12:47 PM            

1. Maurice Strong provided the first ever global environment report to the UN.

2. Maurice Strong was ELECTED as the first head of UNEP (which, as I mentioned, was short-lived).

3. IPCC doesn't even register on Maurice's Wikipedia page. Nothing speaks specifically to what he was up to in 1988, but in 1986 notable occurrences in Maurice Strong's career were:

• He served as a commissioner of the World Commission on Environment and Development
  
• On December 31, 1986 American Water Development Incorporated (AWDI), a corporation controlled by Strong and his associates, William Ruckelshaus, Richard Lamm, Samuel Belzberg, and Alexander Crutchfield Jr.,[9] filed an application with the District Court for Water Division 3 in Alamosa, Colorado[10] for the right to pump underground water from the lands of the Luis Maria Baca Grant No. 4 and other lands in Saguache County, Colorado in Colorado's San Luis Valley and sell it to water districts in the Front Range Urban Corridor of Colorado. The project was opposed by neighboring water rights owners, local water conservation districts, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, and the National Park Service who alleged the project would affect others water rights and cause significant environmental damage to nearby wetland and sand dune ecosystems by reducing the flow of surface water.[9] After a lengthy trial, Colorado courts ruled against AWDI and required payment of the objectors' legal fees, $3.1 million.
  

posted January 14, 2014 01:52 PM            

I'd send you a book on the IPCC, but alas, it would do no good. You think they are neutral scienists and would be closed to the reality of the organization when presented with facts on their hidden agenda. Suffice it to say that anything to do with the UN is corrupt.