The inception of the climate change movement.
Chris
Jan 23, 2020
Climate change… you don’t dare deny it. If you do you risk being labeled as a “climate denier” which may as well be a synonym for MONSTER! But when you start to peel back the layers of this supposed "environmental movement" you find corruption in the movement’s inception, deception by world elites, and real science being censored and throttled to the darkest places of the internet. This week, in a long-form blog, we’ll break this topic into smaller parts, launched one day at a time, to bring you an in-depth look on the global groups responsible for the movement, the critics and their skepticism, the activists and their hypocrisy, the solutions proposed by alarmists, and what risks those solutions place on both developing and developed countries.
There are three distinct groups of people surrounding the topic of climate change. The first group is made up of scientists who mostly believe the earth is warming due to the emittance of carbon into the atmosphere. These scientists are included in Working Group 1 of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I will address the IPCC in more detail including how the IPCC was formed, what individuals or groups are involved, and the significant delinquencies in their research and reporting.
The second group consists of scientists with skepticism that climate change is 'man-made or dangerous to the survival of life on earth'. They proclaim that there are many reasons why climate changes and science doesn’t fully understand each of these factors, like effects of the sun, wind, clouds, and orbital variations of the earth. Many of these scientists have been involved with the IPCC and can explain the massive flaws in their conclusions, and we’ll explore these testimonies because you will not hear this information in the mainstream media.
And that is because the third group is made up of politicians, environmental activists, and the media. The reason the debate is propagated on one side and censored on the other is because of this group. Global warming, or climate change alarmism, gives this group of people the things they want most:
· Politicians get money and power,
· Environmentalists get money for their organizations & confirmation of their near-religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon nature, and
· Media gets money and headlines!
(Richard Lindzen, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT, one of the world’s leading climatologists)
The solutions proposed by this group of politicians, environmentalists, and media are unrealistic and hazardous and said solutions are being ordered by, but not followed by, the elite class who continue to virtue signal but don’t appear to be making any significant advances or sacrifices of their own.
The Inception of the Climate Change Movement
The environmentalist movement has been going on for hundreds of years but was taken on by the Club of Rome in 1968. The Club of Rome consists of United Nations bureaucrats, politicians, economists, scientists, and business elites from around the world and has been described as a “crisis think tank – which specializes in crisis creation”. Their apparent objective, to push a political agenda that encompasses more socialist policies than environmental ones.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers, of course, will be caused by human intervention that will require a global response.”
(Page 104-105, The First Global Revolution, A Report By The Council Of The Club Of Rome, Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, 1991.)
The Club of Rome’s main purpose was to “formulate a crisis that would unite the world and condition us to the idea of global solutions to local problems,” presents Ann Bressington, South Australian politician and Legislative Council. The Club of Rome uses “Malthusian Trap” as their thesis which suggests that global populations cannot be sustained at exponential growth. And believe that in order “to avoid further collapse of environmental, political and socio-economic systems, urgent leadership is required now from governments, industry and citizens.”
Why would action against climate change save the collapse of a political system? Taken from their website’s “Climate Emergency Plan” goals like the socialist idea of wealth redistribution, provides clarity that this environmentalist movement is a rouse for a political plan to redistribute wealth and implement socialist policies globally.
Maurice Strong, Club of Rome Member suggests, “we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” This means the elites of the world consider it necessary to send developed countries back into a stone age and halt developing countries from becoming economically viable. We’ll dissect what this collapse means for everyday Canadians in Part IV of this blog.
You can read in the footnotes the other prominent positions that Maurice Strong held and why he is significant. One of those positions was Founder and first Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1972. The UNEP was one of two organizations responsible for the creation of the IPCC; the other was the World Meteorological Organization, another UN specialized agency tasked with being the “authoritative voice on the state and behaviour of the Earth’s atmosphere, its interaction with land and oceans, the weather and climate it produces and the resulting distribution of water resources.”
The IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a body of the United Nations established in 1988 to “provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation plans,” as per their website (link in footnotes). Some of the plans you may have heard of are Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030.
United Nations Agenda 21 was developed in 1992 and was worded as more of a “suggestion” for countries to follow as a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” In order to bring this dated plan back into the spotlight, it was rebooted as Agenda 2030, a more detailed plan launched in 2015 with sustainable development goals to be accomplished by the year 2030. The goals (illustrated in the infographic below) include many policies for change, not just for the sake of climate alarmism.
The corruption and deceptions go beyond the “Sustainable Development Goals” of Agenda 2030. The way environmental science data is collected, analyzed, reported, and communicated has all come into scrutiny and for good reason.
In a November 2009 article by The Telegraph (UK), it was reported that email threads were discovered showing IPCC scientific leads “for years [have] been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.” Additional incriminating emails even instruct scientists to delete data – a criminal offense if discarded after a freedom of information request has been received. Furthermore, data manipulation was discovered (which is only the tip of the iceberg… bad pun) and evidence of discrediting peer expert skepticism and inquiry in an effort to silence scientific debate. You can do some independent digging on one such claim of “97% consensus on global warming” by watching the video, The In-depth Story Behind a Climate Fraud (link found in footnotes).
Another common manipulation of the numbers has to do with the first year recorded on many graphs. In a number of cases it was found that if a graph shows a warming period starting in 1983 for example, the data from years immediately preceding (ie. 1980-1982) would demonstrate unfavourable data inconsistent with the theory the scientist is attempting to prove valid.
As if those scandals are not enough to deter you from blindly believing in the IPCC’s propaganda, according to a Forbes article from November 2011, five-thousand emails were leaked which proved that IPCC scientists were actively promoting that humans are responsible for the global warming crisis regardless of the fact that many of those scientists admitted the science was weak. In addition to those emails showcasing that data was being concealed and deleted, it also demonstrated that scientists were referring to global warming as a “political cause” which shows all the true colours of what this cause was intending to achieve.
There are also assertions of temperature records being distorted, photographs of the same diseased polar bear being falsely promoted as an endangered, starving animal, and fires breaking out in Alberta, California, and Australia which have been determined by authorities to be started by arson. It seems ignorant for governments (including Canada) to put any stock, investment, or policymaking efforts into this preposterous activism after knowing all this. The claws of the IPCC are sunk deep into our federal government by way of participation in UN Agenda 2030 (thanks to Prime Minister Harper), a cabinet member title change, Minister of Environment and Climate Change (thanks to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau), and implementing tax levies on the mere usage of the very energy source that government was responsible for bringing to the people at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
The IPCC provides the “so-called” assessments on climate change. The Paris Agreement, or Paris Climate Accord, is the agreement under the United Nations to “combat climate change and to accelerate and intensify the actions and investments needed for a sustainable low carbon future.” The central aim is to respond to the alleged threat of climate change by keeping our rise in global temperature below 1.5 degrees Celsius. All participating nations are required to report regularly on emissions and implementation of the Paris Agreement efforts. The Conference of the Parties (COP) serves as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement.
In a Canadian Taxpayers Federation news release, the hypocrisy of the Canadian Government took place at the one global event they should have demonstrated such environmental conservatism. COP25, the 25th United Nations Climate Change Conference was held in Madrid, Spain over twelve days in December 2019. Canada sent the second-largest convoy of bureaucrats to attend (the largest from North America) flying 156 delegates across the Atlantic. This was twice the number of American delegates that attended.
Even Canada's “Climate Change Minister” admitted that the COP25 summit yielded a disappointing result as it was reported from within the conference that nearly every country who attended was missing firm plans for more ambitious emission-reduction goals. Not only did Canada burn a bunch of carbon (and more importantly tax dollars) at COP25, but it also appears that the entire conference was a waste and failure too. Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, or “Trading Rule Book” was postponed to the next climate summit due to making little progress after “marathon negotiating sessions among almost 200 countries”. This was not the first time the Government of Canada practiced environmental hypocrisy. Canada sent an oversized parade to the Paris Accord conference in 2015, it’s a habit for our government to send as many virtue signallers as possible to these ridiculous events.
Many people know very little about the Paris Climate Accord, other than the fact that President Trump withdrew the United States of America from the agreement. While media claims Trump withdrew because “orange man bad”, what they aren’t telling you is that the US was targeted to subsidize the program in order to incentivize other countries to join the agreement.
The Paris Accord is the front-end system or “PR Machine” of the carbon credit system through the IPCC. The United States was being forced by the IPCC to create a green fund of $100billion which would go to influencers of other countries (like China and India) to persuade them to join the Paris Accord. Without this promise of monies, these countries had no interest in joining the Paris Accord, as it was a system to charge countries for their carbon usage in the form of purchasing carbon credits. This is explained by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, MIT PhD, scientist, engineer, and entrepreneur in his Youtube video illustrating the Paris Accord (link in footnotes).
Other key takeaways from Dr. Shiva’s video include how countries like China are lined up to double their carbon emissions by 2030 while Canada is supposed to diminish their emissions by 30%, plus the clarity of who will reap the economic benefits from such a plan where nearly 200 countries are buying carbon credits. Spoiler, the IPCC gets rich and lines the bank accounts of global elites.
To recap:
1) The Club of Rome developed a fabricated crisis as a means to invoke a global response to an imaginary enemy (climate change)
2) Club of Rome Member, Maurice Strong becomes the Founder and first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1972
3) The UNEP in conjunction with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988
4) Agenda 21 was the result of a United Nations General Assembly called to “devise strategies to halt and reverse the effects of environmental degradation” and was put in place in 1992 (Maurice Strong held the role of Secretary-General at the Conference)
5) Agenda 2030 is a reboot of Agenda 21
6) The Paris Agreement or Paris (Climate) Accord is the front-end system for the concept that countries should pay for carbon emissions in the form of carbon credits, distributed by the IPCC who will collect trillions of dollars from this scam
7) The IPCC propagates misleading, falsified, and manipulated data and reportedly have been caught concealing, discarding, and censoring in an attempt to obstruct a debate
Is there any truth to this nonsense? Yes, a splinter. Let’s convene where we agree, with some aid from Richard Lindzen:
1) The climate is always changing
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth would not be possible
3) Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing (in parts per million or ppm) since the end of the last ‘Little Ice Age’ which occurred approximately from 1300-1850 CE
4) Over the last two centuries, earth’s mean temperature has increased, however, carbon emissions have only been sufficient enough to contribute to that factor since the 1960s
5) No confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made
In a 2007 IPCC report, the claim is made that “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” If IPCC scientists can admit their predictions are whack, and we know not even local weather patterns can be predicted with certainty even five days in advance, then why are we even giving this alarmism the time of day? Because, as put so eloquently by Richard Lindzen, “Doomsday scenarios sell!”
You can read more on the IPCC, UNEP, Club of Rome, and the “BIG GREEN SCAM” by checking out the amazing and thorough thread written by @greg_scott84:
To be continued tomorrow, Part II, The critics, and their pesky facts
>>>
About The IPCC
IPCC Fact Sheet
The Club of Rome Climate Emergency Plan
World Meteorological Organization, Who We Are
The Telegraph: Climate Change this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation (Christopher Booker)
Forbes: Climategate 2.0 new emails rock the global warming debate (James Taylor)
Government of Canada: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Encyclopedia Britannica: Little Ice Age
Youtube: Climate Change What Do Scientists Say?
Youtube: The In-depth Story Behind a Climate Fraud
Youtube: Climate Graph/Data Manipulation
United Nations: What is the Paris Agreement?
Youtube: Who profits from “climate change”?
American Policy Center: Agenda 21/Agenda 2030 There Is No Difference
Quadrant.Org: Climategate and Post Normal Science
Canada Free Press: A Brief History and Description of Agenda 21
Maurice Strong
- Born April 29, 1929, died November 27, 2015
- Canadian oil and mineral businessman
- Diplomat, served as Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
- Club of Rome Member and Founder, First Executive Director of UNEP
- First President of newly-formed crown corporation, Petro Canada (ties with Trudeau Sr)
- Headed Ontario Hydro
- National President and Chairman of the World Alliance of YMCAs
- Headed American Water Development Incorporated
- Commissioner, World Commission on Environment and Development
- President of the Council of the University of Peace
- Honorary Professor at Peking University (China), honorary chairman of its Environmental Foundation
- Chairman, Advisory Board for the Institute for Research on Security and Sustainability for Northeast Asia
“It is clear the current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen, convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles, small electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong