The Jensen Owners' Club A technical and discussion forum for all Jensen enthusiasts It is currently Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:16 pm

General Discussion

How `Climate Change' Was Invented

You can discuss anything here, Jensen related or not. Technical discussions / questions may be moved to the correct Forum.

by AH1951 » Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:35 am

By Christopher Booker, The Daily Telegraph, Dec 5th 2015

Farewell to the man who invented 'climate change’
To this day, global climate policy is still shaped by the agenda of Maurice Strong, a Canadian multimillionaire.

A very odd thing happened last weekend. The death was announced of the man who, in the past 40 years, has arguably been more influential on global politics than any other single individual. Yet the world scarcely noticed.
Had it not been for this man, we would not last week have seen 150 heads of government joining 40,000 delegates in Paris for that mammoth climate conference: the 21st such get-together since, in 1992, he masterminded the Rio “Earth Summit”, the largest political gathering in history. Yet few people even know his name.
Some years back, when I was researching for a book called The Real Global Warming Disaster, charting how the late-20th-century panic over climate change came about, few things surprised me more than to discover the absolutely central role played in the whole story by a Canadian socialist multimillionaire, Maurice Strong.
During the Second World War, having emerged from humble origins in the Great Depression, Strong became convinced that the new United Nations should become a world government, dedicated to ensuring that the wealth enjoyed by the richer countries of the West should be spread out around the world’s underprivileged majority.
In the Sixties, having become very rich himself from Canada’s oil industry, Strong came to see that the key to his vision was “environmentalism”, the one cause the UN could harness to make itself a truly powerful world government.
A superb political operator, in 1972 he set up a UN “Environment Conference” in Stockholm, to declare that the Earth’s resources were the common inheritance of all mankind. They should no longer be exploited for the benefit of only a few countries, at the expense of poorer countries across the globe.
To pursue this, he became founding director of a new agency, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and in the Eighties he took up the cause of a tiny group of international meteorologists who had come to believe that the world faced catastrophic warming. In 1988, UNEP sponsored this little group into setting up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In 1992, now allied with the IPCC, Strong pulled off his greatest coup when he set up another new body, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to stage that colossal “Earth Summit” over which he presided in Rio, arranging for it to be attended not only by 108 world leaders and 100,000 others but also by 20,000 UN-funded “green activists”.
It is the UNFCCC which in effect has dictated the global climate change agenda ever since. Almost yearly it has staged huge conferences, notably those at Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and the present one in Paris. And all along it has been Strong’s ideology, enshrined at Rio in “Agenda 21”, which has continued to shape the entire process, centred on the principle that the richer developed countries must pay for a problem they created, to the financial benefit of all those “developing countries” that have been its main victims.
In 2005, Strong was caught having been illicitly paid $1 million from the UN’s Oil for Food programme, supposedly set up to allow Saddam Hussein to pay in oil to feed starving Iraqis. He retired to a flat in Beijing, where he had been close to China’s Communist leaders back to Mao. It was from there that he returned home to Canada to die,on November 27.
To this day, global climate policy is still shaped by Strong’s Agenda 21, as was highlighted last February when Christiana Figueres, the Costa Rican Marxist now head of the UNFCCC and organiser of the Paris conference, urged that the West should give “$1 trillion a year” to the “developing” world.
But the wonderful irony is that the reason why Paris will fail, like Copenhagen before it, is that those “developing countries”, led by China and India – now the world’s first and third largest “CO2 emitters” – have not the slightest intention of curbing their emissions. It is for the West to do that, for creating “the problem”. Thus, just as he died, Strong’s dream is more than ever falling apart – thanks to those very countries his socialist vision was intended to help.

maurice-111_3519073b.jpg (70.53 KiB) Viewed 8798 times
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

by tdskip » Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:35 pm

Respectfully, not sure this belongs here.
Interceptor III being built up for fast road touring events

(Please excuse poor spelling resulting from frequently being on a mobile device)
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:56 pm
Location: California USA

by AH1951 » Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:25 pm

This is in General Discussion.
It's really a continuation of something on another thread that went off-topic and answers a criticism.

"You can discuss anything here, Jensen related, or not. Technical discussions/questions may be moved to the correct Forum."
:) :) :)
Last edited by AH1951 on Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

by tdskip » Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:58 pm

If you think arguing against basic physics and chemistry is a good use of people's time then have at it I suppose, but then again what does a rational person gain from arguing against basic physics and chemistry?

Or, are you really talking about politics mate?
Interceptor III being built up for fast road touring events

(Please excuse poor spelling resulting from frequently being on a mobile device)
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:56 pm
Location: California USA

by Richie » Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:03 pm

Although both the Welsh and Scottish governments have both declared a climate emergency, (and although Parliament agreed a motion to declare an environment and climate emergency), the UK government hasn't (yet) done so.

But given the compelling overwhelming scientific evidence available, they perhaps should do so.

Or perhaps (ex) Aussie rugby star Israel Folau is right - perhaps its homosexuality that is to blame for the floods and fires etc ... that makes about as much sense as pretending it aint happening.
User avatar
V8 Lover
Posts: 4179
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:08 am
Location: Near Cardiff

by witkowski » Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:32 pm

I suggest that those who would like to read a straight-forward account of the issues involved, might look at the following:
User avatar
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:12 pm
Location: Huntington, New York

by AH1951 » Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:40 am

A Dearth of Carbon.
(Why we need more CO2 not less.)

A Climate Criminal?
Michael Mann made up his 'Hockey Stick' temperature graph.
He lost his court case against Dr Tim Ball. ... costs.html ... 1574213650
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

by witkowski » Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:16 am

The content of the websites recommended by AH1951 is not to be trusted.
User avatar
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:12 pm
Location: Huntington, New York

by AH1951 » Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:18 am

Reading and understanding the sites I have linked to above will make you aware of the greatest political and scientific fraud in history.
Meek acceptance of the lies we are bombarded with on a daily basis regarding 'Climate Change' and the so-called solutions that would be imposed upon us makes us more susceptible to being fleeced, controlled and fooled.
It's actually a serious threat to the West's way of life, and to our freedoms and our prosperity. And of course that's the whole intent.
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

by Chris_R » Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:02 pm

I would hope that Adrian is just being provocative with his postings here. If you search, you will always find someone to support a contrary view despite the overwhelming evidence from many scientists and others who in some cases have spent a lifetime studying their subject.
Dr. Moore, in that first link, is not a qualified scientist in climate change. His degree was in Forest Biology (whatever that means) and his doctorate was for concluding that mechanisms in place to control heavy metal pollution from the local copper mine tailings had failed to prevent unacceptable pollution at Rupert Inlet. The fact that the open mine was so close to the ocean that they had to build a wall to protect the mine and the mine tailings were discharged directly into the ocean might have had something to do with the pollution!
After leaving Greenpeace in 1986 he founded Greenspirit Strategies, an organisation that supports Canadian Oil Sands oil extraction described by National Geographic as "the world's most destructive oil operation". Greenspirit also supports nuclear power. Dr Moore is or has been at one time a paid consultant for the nuclear industry.
Dr Moore is also an advisor on climate and energy to The Heartland Institute, described in Wikipedia as a "conservative and libertarian" think tank. Others would describe that as right wing. Among the Heartland Institutes record was its work with Philip Morris tobacco company to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans. The Heartland Institute also promotes climate change denial and rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.
Dr Moore does not appear to be impartial in his comments.
JOC Member 6116
User avatar
JOC General Secretary
Posts: 5607
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:19 am
Location: South West London

by kenny38 » Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:25 pm

This will only get worse as each side will never listen to the other. Cut off the stream as we will only get suspect data from each side. Adrian you are beginning to sound shrill. Chris, using copious notes from Wikipedia which can be easily edited and biased is noisy debate. We are are going to die of something even if it is man made poverty. kenny38 :roll:
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:24 am
Location: Australia

by AH1951 » Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:30 pm

Calm Down.
This is the Jensen Forum.
We are always polite and civilized here.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Chris, you have made a personal attack on just one man. Dr Patrick Moore.

Yes, Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but its effect in the atmosphere is reduced to close to zero because of the presence of water vapour and other gases.
And we should not trust government funded scientists to report impartially on Global Warming because their future employment depends upon there being Global Warming.
At school I was encouraged to think for myself.

If we were not bombarded relentlessly, daily, with propaganda from the BBC, CNN, politicians, Xtinction Nutters gluing themselves to trains, Greta Thunberg, Preachy hypocritical Celebrities, Preachy hypocritical Royals, and others, there is nothing in your everyday life which would lead you to believe there is anything wrong with the climate. Because there isn't.
The tiny amount of warming there has been over the last 140 years of only one Centigrade degree is insignificant. And there's been no warming over the last 23 years.
Even the conclusions reached by the IPCC are much exaggerated by the UN.
None of those computer models projecting future temperatures are accurate.
They are all out by a huge amount.
The fraudulent behavior of many 'Climate Scientists' undermines their case.
The answer seems always to be to tax, tax and tax again.
Mechanisms such as Carbon Allowances, Cap & Trade, Carbon Credits & Carbon Offsets do nothing for the environment.
If anything, they make the (imaginary) problem worse by encouraging industry to move to low-cost countries such as China where emissions controls and environmental standards are worse than in the West.
Hundreds of billions of dollars are being transferred, wasted and pocketed by some very clever people.
And unfortunately, I'm not one of them.
:( :( :( :( :( :(

I've made my case.
This is MY last comment on the matter.
Over & Out.
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

by felixkk » Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:21 pm

And we should not trust government funded scientists to report impartially on Global Warming because their future employment depends upon there being Global Warming

Respectfully Adrian, that is complete nonsense. Explain please what you think science is, how you think science works- come to think of it, please don‘t. To think that scientists are politically motivated, that they have a (deep state) agenda, please!? That‘s conspiracy theory.
Felix Kistler C-V8 112/2454, 541DL 2223849
"You Secret Little Monkey"
JOC 9465
Secretary/VP JCC Jensen Car Club of Switzerland
User avatar
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:19 am
Location: Zurich, Switzerland

by hemi » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:39 pm

The debate of 'what is climate change' isn't accurate, it's emotive. The question needs to be what outcome do you want and what are you going to do about it.

The argument against Anthropogenic, or man made climate change shows us we need to stop burning fossil fuels. Okay, let's stop and see what we're going to use to generate electricity. Wind and solar are not reliable - great to support coal fired power plants, but insufficient to run heavy industry. What about heating - burn wood? How do we stop the volcanoes spewing stuff into the atmosphere. What about farting cows and sheep?

The disgraceful level to which the argument has stooped is shown in the fear put into the minds of our children. Many kids think we're killing the planet - I can only imagine how the used and abused Greta Thunberg will end up. And the sanctified media and vacuous personalities talking down to the commoners who rely upon industry and transport to earn a living is appalling. It's becoming a third to the forbidden topics of discussion, Politics, Religion and Climate Change.

Everyone's an expert, an advocate or a denier, but no-one is providing a viable, realistic answer - perhaps because there isn't a problem. We're all going to die and the earth will adapt to our passing as it has to human evolution.

If people want to feel better by not using coal fired generated electricity, not using petrol/diesel, and not travelling abroad on aeroplanes or ship, then fine but stop telling me how to live my life.


PS. I hear Coldplay have postposed their world tour because of the impact it will have on the environment Thank goodness.
Interceptor II, 123/3936
User avatar
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:55 pm
Location: Australia

Return to General Discussion