Climate Change: An Inconvenient Globalist Scam Saturday May 05th
2007, 2:40 pm
Rajendra Pachauri and the United Nations have issued a solemn
3deadline2 on 3climate change,2 otherwise we face 3a worldwide
disaster,2 according to the Telegraph. Ban Ki-Moon, the recently
installed secretary general of the UN, dispatched envoys to the
four corners where they seek 3advance agreement from heads of state
on the principles of a post-2012 climate change treaty, negotiations
for which begin at a meeting in Indonesia in December,2 resulting
in a cobbled together 3son of Kyoto2 treaty.
Of course, you and I will not have a say in this treaty, as it will
be determined behind closed doors by the likes of Rajendra Pachauri
and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC
reports, issued by a 32,000-strong network of UN scientists and
energy experts2 (i.e., they are bankrolled by NGOs, foundations and
corporations) are 3authoritative2 and 3widely cited in almost any
debate related to climate change.2
Naturally, these 3scientists and energy experts2 know best, and so
it makes sense IPCC meetings are open only to members of the World
Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment
Program. As usual, the United Nations will be dictating to us, the
squalid (and over-populated) commoners.
Well, this commoner has big problems with the United Nations, the
IPCC, and its gaggle of bureaucrats and scientists sucking on the
foundation grant teat. First and foremost, the United Nations is
dedicated to world government, thus any solution to any number of
problems, more than a few contrived in advance, will necessitate
more globalism, more authoritative government, more orders haughtily
issued from on-high. Second, the IPCC9s scientists, to my satisfaction,
have yet to demonstrate climate change is the result of human
activity and carbon emissions.
3Those of us who study the pre-human history of the Earth find the
current debate over global warming difficult to fathom,2 writes
Martin Keeley, a geologist. 3To expect permanent stability in climate
patterns displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the
complexity and instability of weather
. If the global climate were not getting warmer, it would be getting cooler; stasis is not an option.2 Keeley takes issue with the IPCC9s 3hockey stick2 temperature curve for the last millennium, a set of statistics the IPCC used as the foundation for Kyoto.
3In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously
accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and
initial skepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism
and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does
it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the
public at large,2 writes John L. Daly. 3This never happened with
[Dr. Michael] Mann9s Hockey Stick9. The coup was total, bloodless,
and swift as Mann9s paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical
approval from the greenhouse industry. Within the space of only 12
months, the theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy.2
Al Gore used this 3hockey stick2 data in his film, An Inconvenient
Truth. It is now widely accepted as gospel truth, never mind schlocky
research passed off as fact, even though two Canadians with expertise
in statistical analysis, Stephen McIntyre and economics professor
Ross McKitrick, 3found considerable errors in the way the data was
collated,2 according to the Cooler Heads Coalition.
McIntyre and McKitrick, in a paper published by Geophysical Research
Letters, 3were unable to replicate Mann9s results either by re-running
his calculations once the errors were corrected or by constructing
their own data set from the original sources. Their reconstruction
of the Mann et al. data set from the original sources shows clearly
that there was a period of greater warmth than the last century in
the 15th century, and that the spike is not unprecedented. They
have suggested that Mann should account for the discrepancies.2 In
response, Mann accused the Canadians of engaging in a 3political
stunt2 and dismissed their research.
As Bjxrn Lomborg discovered, criticism to this entrenched orthodoxy
will not be tolerated. Lomborg is adjunct professor at the Copenhagen
Business School and a former director of the Environmental Assessment
Institute in Copenhagen. Lomborg authored The Skeptical Environmentalist:
Measuring the Real State of the World, a book arguing that certain
aspects of the global warming orthodoxyincluding overpopulation,
declining energy resources, deforestation, species loss, water
shortages, and a variety of other global environmental issuesare
unsupported by analysis of relevant data. In response, the IPCC9s
Rajendra Pachauri compared Lomborg to Adolph Hitler.
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, notes that taking a
stand against the IPCC dominated orthodoxy can be a career killer.
3Twenty years ago, climate research became politicized in favor of
one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study
of the effect of greenhouse gases,2 Calder writes for the Times
Online. 3As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative
and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their
research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at
least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who
doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay
of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate
research go almost unreported.2
Of course, the 3rebellious spirits essential for innovative and
trustworthy science2 are not invited, as the point here is to
stampede people into accepting global government, lest we all fall
victim to 3a worldwide disaster2 of biblical proportion. 3For
complete control of the masses a dictatorship is not necessary,
although it does expedite the process. The collective moulding
begins early in life, sustained and refined throughout one9s formal
education; a universal curriculum of manipulation can transform and
achieve a complete paradigm shift for a whole generation,2 writes
Terry Melanson.
Climate change, now making the rounds with increasing urgency and
no shortage of fear mongering, represents a 3control of the dialogue2
that will ultimately lead to the 3inevitably to hegemony; defined,
succinctly, as the power of ideas exercised by a dominant or
privileged social group over subordinate social groups. Hegemony
is the aftermath of the Hegelian Dialectic, the outcome of the ends
justify the means9 maxim. The people have not submitted to this
power, they consent to itthough it is clearly not in their own best
interest. Hegemony is a form of control in which those who have
power maintain their position, not through force, but through the
elaboration of a particular ideology or world view. This form of
social control is long lasting, it is an effective, and patient,
tactic,92 Melanson continues, citing the late Antony Sutton.
Mary Burdman is a bit more blunt: 3The real agenda of what can only
be called climate terrorism,9 will be using this hoax to impose the
kind of 9state of emergency9 used when the Nazis took power in
Germany, as the German newspaper Die Welt has just warned. This
crew is not only after everyone9s pension; they are using green
propaganda to target a generation of children, as Godzilla was used
to frighten young Baby Boomers about the atomic age. The Scotsman
reported Feb. 23 about a recent study which revealed that half of
over 1,000 British children between the ages of 7 and 11 lose sleep
because of exaggerated fears about global warming. It is no coincidence
that the British government is sending Al Gore9s film hoax An
Inconvenient Truth,9 to all schools in the country.2
Quoting the UN9s Biodiversity Treaty, Tom DeWeese writes: 3The goal
of Sustainable Development is to transform the world into feudal-like
governance by making NATURE the central organizing principle for
our economy and society
. The plan is to change your way of life to fit into the new global society. According to Sustainable Development policies, air conditioning, convenience foods, single-family housing and cars are among the products, habitats and modes of transportation that have already been determined to be unsustainable9
There has never been a single vote in Congress to create Sustainable
Development. It9s all done through cleverly rearranged wording of
existing programs and budgets, using UN treaties as guidelines.2
Steven Yates adds:
Agenda 21 is the bible of the sustainable development movement. A
horribly written, longwinded tract consisting of 40 chapters of
various lengths covering everything from land, water and waste
management to urban planning to biotechnology, it purports to offer
a comprehensive new paradigm for life on planet Earth. The basic
idea behind sustainable development was spelled out back in 1987
by the little-known Brundtland Commission. The Bruntland Commission
definition: 3development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.2 This innocent sounding phrase came to carry with it the
implication that there are too many people living and working in
an environment of finite resources to permit 3unsustainable2 economic
freedoms. Behind the idea of sustainable development is the idea
that we have a choice:
adopt 3voluntary2 central planning (with the UN at the helm) to
integrate economics and ecology within a globalist perspective or
face ecological disaster a few decades down the pike
According to Angus Reid, all the scary propaganda, much of it based
on junk science (as noted above), is working like a charm, although
not fast enough for green careerists over at the World Wildlife
Fund, an NGO that receives funding from the Ford Foundation, a
3philanthropic2 organization connected to the CIA.
3Many adults in the United States are willing to make some economic
sacrifices in order to help reduce global warming, according to a
poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 75 per cent of respondents
would pay more for electricity if it were generated by renewable
sources like solar or wind energy,2 the polling organization reports.
3In addition, 92 per cent of respondents favor requiring car
manufacturers to produce cars that are more energy efficient, but
only 38 per cent support an increased federal tax on gasoline.2
3They are the biggest culprit and they are the biggest offender of
climate,2 complained World Wildlife Fund member Stephan Singer.
3The United States should take climate change seriously.2
No doubt most of us here in America will 3take climate change
seriously2 after we are crowded into Malthusian 3sustainable2
ghettoes resembling something out the dystopian science fiction
film Soylent Green.
Addendum: Sunday, May 6
I admit borrowing the 3Soylent Green2 analogy from Alan Watt and
Cutting Through the Matrix. Alan releases more or less daily audio
3blurbs2 on a variety of subjects, mostly related to the ongoing
and long term effort to impose world government on an unsuspecting
and dumbed-down public at large. Below is a link to his talk
containing the 3Soylent Green2 reference.
Please visit Alan9s web site and give him your support: Cutting
Through the Matrix.
Public Starvation, April 27, 2007:
No comments:
Post a Comment