Climate Change: An Inconvenient Globalist Scam


Richard Moore

Original source URL:

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 IPCC¹s scientists, to my satisfaction, have yet
to demonstrate climate change is the result of human activity and carbon 

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 weatherŠ.
If the global climate were not getting warmer, it would be getting cooler; 
stasis is not an option.² Keeley takes issue with the IPCC¹s 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] Mann¹s ŒHockey Stick¹. The coup was total, bloodless, and 
swift as Mann¹s 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 Mann¹s 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 Bjørn 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 orthodoxy‹including 
overpopulation, declining energy resources, deforestation, species loss, water 
shortages, and a variety of other global environmental issues‹are unsupported by
analysis of relevant data. In response, the IPCC¹s 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 one¹s 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 
Œends justify the means¹ maxim. The people have not submitted to this power, 
Œthey consent to it‹though 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,¹² Melanson continues, citing the late Antony 

Mary Burdman is a bit more blunt: ³The real agenda of what can only be called 
climate Œterrorism,¹ will be using this hoax to impose the kind of ¹state of 
emergency¹ used when the Nazis took power in Germany, as the German newspaper 
Die Welt has just warned. This crew is not only after everyone¹s 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 Gore¹s film hoax ŒAn Inconvenient Truth,¹ to all schools in the 

Quoting the UN¹s 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 societyŠ. 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 Œunsustainable¹Š There 
has never been a single vote in Congress to create Sustainable Development. It¹s
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 pikeŠ

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 Alan¹s web site and give him your support: Cutting Through the 

Kyoto¹s Crisis Creation = Conservation = Capital¹s Elation and Public 
Starvation, April 27, 2007:

Posting archives:
Escaping the Matrix website:
cyberjournal website:

Community Democracy Framework:

Subscribe cyberjournal list: •••@••.•••  (send blank message)

cyberjournal blog (join in):

Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)