Let us assume one actually believed in the man made globel warming stuff – one should then DETEST this man.

His corruption (and general degenerate behaviour) has put “The Planet” at risk – at least if one believes in globel warming case.

Instead the BBC praise him.

This is the same BBC whose first comment about Sarah Palin (after this lady was picked as a candidate for Vice President) was that she was “close to the oil industry” – this of someone who was famous for being TOUGH on the oil industry.

I make no judgement as to whether being tough on the oil industry is good or bad (as a libertarian I am not over the Moon about squeezing tax money out of any industry), however please note that what the BBC said was not an intellectual error – any more than saying nice things about this corrupt U.N. person is an intellectual error.

It was not that they did not know something (and so failed to broadcast it) – they made something up. And they do so all the time. They lie – they say things they know not to be true, BECAUSE they not true.

I keep saying “they are bad people” – but I say this because they are bad.

No doubt they were not born evil – perhaps it took many years of brainwashing (via the “education system” and so on) to turn them into the creatures they are today.

But this does not help matters.

When a bad man is trying to rip your throat out it is pointless to engage in long intellectual examination about what made him bad – one has to concentrate on defeating the attacker.

The BBC and the rest of the msm must be defeated – as a matter of self defence.

Neither am I. A quick review of the political history of Mr Maurice Strong

The point at contention is not my personal views but the ease with which the left can claim an underlying malign capitalist influence on mitigation efforts.

The main focus for socialists before 1970 was industry. In Britain they sought and achieved the goal of nationalising the commanding heights of the British economy. Planners loved industry and wanted to rebuild Britain with a Le Corbusier vision. It’s only after Callaghan that mainstream Socialism changed its focus.

The modern green movement grew up alongside a pre-existing conservation movement, but it was influenced more by world events like Earth Day, Silent Spring, Limits to Growth, ban DDT etc. It was regarded as ridiculous by the left in the 1960s. It was only after the failure of socialism (particularly the fall of the Berlin Wall) that leftists turned on mass into Greens.

That’s not to say that if Green roots are not leftist they must have been Tory – this isn’t a binary decision.

Maurice Strong started in oil and gas and advises several major corporations. The man was involved in the oil for food scandal.

His desire for industrialism to collapse may put him in the green left camp today but that’s not true from a historical perspective. Recall that classic Marxism loves industrialisation. That only ended when the failure of Russian style communism became self evident and Mao supplied an alternative Agrarian vision.

Maurice strong will be a gift to leftists in 50 years time.

In short, the capitalist society (in this case, a major natural gas producer) was, more or less, pressured into playing nice with the Greenies… until recently (today) when it seems a majority of the world doesn’t buy the AGW premise. Capitalism always plays to demographics, and in this case the risk of portraying poor judgement in supporting a sinking ship (Cap and Trade) far outways a plunging number of “protect the poley bears” types.
Cheers,
The Worm

Another point of interest, is that the Green Party grew out of the Environmental Party which itself grew out of an organisation called “People” (?) which was composed (mainly) of disaffected Conservatives.

I’m not too convinced by this…”

Neither am I. A quick review of the political history of Mr Maurice Strong ““Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” ( Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme) shows him in a financial arrangement with many key players.

Blame it on the Tories ? You can if you like, buts it’s an inconvenient truth, that is ignored by the MSM, that many trillions of carbon credit dollars are going to go in one way only…

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-skeptics-cant-relax-yet-%e2%80%94-real-fraud-is-measured-in-dollar-signs-not-degrees/?singlepage=true

So too Durbin, the maker of the Channel 4 anti-global warming film is a leftist

They quite correctly point out that Margaret Thatcher was a prime mover in the AGW bandwagon, appointing Houghton. Some on the left see this as part of Tory anti-miner policy.

Another point of interest, is that the Green Party grew out of the Environmental Party which itself grew out of an organisation called “People” (?) which was composed (mainly) of disaffected Conservatives.

I’m not too convinced by this. It’s easy to draw a history which points a certain way if you highlight certain facts and ignore others. In contrast, I’m reminded that when Marx and Engels were alive their brand of Communism defeated the Pastoral Socialists, who opposed the dehumanising effects of industrialisation and sought a return to an imagined rural idyl of people living in harmony with nature. This was about the 1840s but can still be seen in William Morris’ brand of Socialism. Incidentally, Jonathan Pearce’s comment about reactionary Tories being Greens is very close to historical fact. According to Watson’s review of Socialist literature, there was a definite strain of Toryism within Pastoral Socialism.

The modern movement is a gift to the left. We have ex-Enron guys selling carbon credits in league with most of big business. Every business that showed itself to be environmentally aware in the past few years is providing another irrefutable fact to show that Action on Climate Change is just a Capitalist plot.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qll1r/Profile_Rajendra_Pachauri/

What a puke inducing piece of puff, eh?

Pointing out that the various “anti globel warming” policies all seem to be designed to benefit General Electric.

General Electric would seem to be a nice target to put up for the left to denounce.

It is involved in everything (from banking, to manufacturing, to television broadcasting) it is in bed with governments around the world (“other corporations have customers, General Electric is the partner of governments – we are creating the world of the future” as the head of European operations put it) and it is very political.

Basically it acts as if the “Resident Evil” films were documentaries and that it thought the “Umbrella Corporation” had a good business plan.

It should not be that difficult to get the left to believe that “globel warming” is a plot to increase the power of General Electric.

It might even be the case that it is.

Although I make no judgement on that.

As for the capitalist angle, Brian, there are financiers, investment funds and entrepreneurs who are trying to make a living by being Green: such as those folk angling for contracts under a cap-and-trade carbon market, for instance, or folks making those modern windmills that are becoming an ugly eyesore across many an open landscape and coastal estuary. There is a lot of money now in all this, just as there is now a lot of money being made by IT firms connected to things such as the Database State.

Another bubble waiting to burst?

Surely the political approach is to start at the ground floor. Can party activists (in any or all parties) make a proper skepticism about the abuse of science by Warm-mongers into an issue in candidate selection?

You would think so, wouldn’t you Alice? Unfortunately, us Brits are so politically lazy that we’ve allowed the candidate selection process to become centralised to the point of absurdity and candidates are either parachuted in to a constituency or must be part of an approved list. This list, of course, consists of ‘minority’ candidates. Yes, Dave is once again fighting the last war.

There are other factors militating against any show of independence from a new Tory MP. The Prime Minister has so much patronage in the form of government jobs that any MP who speaks out is cutting him/herself off from a large pension, salary and expenses increase, as well as losing all the cachet that being a government minister provides, even if it is only Minister for paperclips. Then there’s the fact that the carbon scam is being lobbied for by those same nasty capitalists that Brian mentions in his post, and, to top it off, there’s Europe, the great corrupting influence on British politics which, as Richard North is amply documenting, is up to it’s neck in the whole stinking mess.

No, unfortunately we’re left with the elder statesmen of the Tory party, the likes of my Lords Tebbit, Monckton and Lawson, who have little left to lose, to point out the nakedness of the Emperor. These brave old soldiers are doing a good job, but for the moment they’re being ignored.

No, the only way to get them to notice us is to vote for ‘none of the above’ and take the consequences, but given the aformentioned political decadence of the British electorate I don’t hold out much hope on that score either.

Not that I’m a regular reader of their stuff, but I tend to wander by once a year or so.

Besides them, I’ve come across quite a few sceptical lefties; interestingly either “old labour” union types or the more old fashioned socialists; the middle class nulab sorts seem much more likely to be thoroughgoing warms.