I felt that these issues were divergent from my limited understanding of science (I am not a qualified scientist), but also from what seemed to me to make any kind of sense. It also struck me, increasingly, that any kind of debate or questioning of this issue was being 'discouraged' (to put it laughingly mildly) by government, the main stream media (MSM) and the scientific community. There was a whif of dead rodent in the air it seemed to me, and so I started looking a bit more cloesly at the issues.
What I learned surprised and frankly scared me: that people we are brought up to hold in high regard, to trust and to look up to, are actually involved in a global conspiracy that has very little to do with controlling the climate, and a great deal to do with controlling our lives - all of us.
Let's start with (and get out of the way) the science of 'man-made global warming'. Actually the campaigners seem recently to have dropped the term AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) and instead have started using 'Climate Change' in all correspondence, media etc. So they've dropped the 'warming' thing, and also the 'man-made' thing. Erm, so if it's not warming and not man-made, what the fuck (technical scientific term) are they campaigning about? And what the fuck do they think we can do about it if we are not causing the problem and, anyway, the problem doesn't exist?
Where we are now in terms of the science is that the surface temperature of the planet has not been warming for at least 17 years and 10 months. Some scientists put the fiigure at 19 years which, if accurate, would mean that the earth hasn't been warming (and has in fact been marginally cooling) for about the same amount of time as it was previously warming (1977 - 1997) in it's entirely predictable and cyclical way, which is driven by the activity of the sun - sun-spots, solar flares etc.
In either scenario, the fact is that by the time Mr Gore was creating his mockumentary An inconvenient truth in 2006, the same year that our very own Lord (Nicholas) Stern produced his doom-laden Stern Review the planet had in fact not been warming since 1997. And yet Mr Blair was persuaded to describe AGW as 'the biggest threat facing our planet today' and we have latterly (Mr Miliband as Energy Secretary in 2008) committed the UK to cutting levels of CO2 output to 1990 levels by 2020 - or by 80% in real terms. Still neither man has ever been in the slightest bit worried about facts getting in the way of policy.
Despite a continued rise in levels of CO2 in the atmosphere - the gas that is a building block of life on the planet as it is 'plant food', but also, accordning to President Obama in a speech made yesterday, 'pollution' - temperatures have not been rising. And the dire predictions made from 2006 onwards, about ice caps melting, polar bears dying out, sea levels rising, increased incidence of extreme weather events simply haven't arisen. Gore predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013.
The thing is these predictions were (and have been ever since), based on the use of computer models to predict what would happen on the planet. Models designed to come up with a pre-ordained result and which make use only of CO2 as a driver, ignoring all of the other factors and influencers on our highly complex planet and eco-system. The reality, in the form of real evidence, measurements of what is really happening, as opposed to what these AGW-funded scientists have been predicting, simply does not match up the theory with the reality.
To the extent that I don't really feel the need to carry on with this denunciation of the completely discredited climate science community. This is almost an accepted 'result' these days and whilst a few, within the industry and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) still maintain their dreary old rubbish, most people in the world have woken up to the reality and, frankly, have moved on. You can read much more on the science (by me but with links to real scientists) here if you need more detail.
And yet, and yet. At this week's New York Climate Change summit, this discredited pseudo science is not only being celebrated and pushed down our throats, it is actually being used to try to force governments around the world to change their energy policy (and therefore industrial and development policies) as if the AGW science was correct and proven beyond doubt (when the exact opposite is true). There have been well-attended climate marches around the world - which always makes me shake my head and smile ruefully - this movement has been so powerful as to get people to attend marches to promote a campaign that will give governments more control over their lives and see them paying considerably more of their hard-earned money in taxes. That is quite an achievement I have to say.
And the BBC, the MSM and our government still maintain that 'the science is settled' and will brook no counter argument or entertain any kind of debate on 'the biggest issue facing our planet today'. If nothing else rings alarm bells in your mind, this certainly should.
In one of my first blog pieces on AGW (here) I looked at the issue in terms of following the money - always a good place to start on almost any major issue I find. And all roads led back to the 1992 UN Conference on the Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, also known as the 'Earth Summit'. This was preceded by the Earth Summit (1972) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (1973), the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I) (1976), and the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) (1983). All of which were about environment, land ownership etc, but it was Rio in 1992 where the real nature of the UN-backed concept started coming to the fore.
All of these events and programmes were and are designed to enable greater control by governments of their populations and were created by the UN when it was facing an existential crisis - what was it for? What it became for (following the fall of the Berlin wall and an end to the cold war) was to try to establish a single world government - an initiative which has since become known as Agenda 21 - literally an agenda for the 21st century to create a single world government.
In order to take forward their aims, the UN needed a single issue that affects everyone on the planet and could provide a means of raising taxes, exerting more control over people's behaviour and which would lead, eventually, to an essentially socialist world in which private land-ownership, food production,where people live and how they behave, could be controlled by a single global organisation. The issue they chose was 'climate'.
When I first identified Agenda 21 I was somewhat hesitant to make too much of it as it smacks of 'conspiracy theorist' - the desperate mantra used by some to dismiss anyone who holds opposing or questioning views. And very effective it has been over the years. But I think those days are now over. People are, thanks largely to social media (let's face it if we had to rely on the MSM or our elected representatives we'd still be in the dark about this) becoming more and more aware of Agenda 21 and its campaigns which are often run under the heading of 'Sustainability' - a term with which is hard to disagree at face value, but which actually hides a multitude of highly sinister policies.
Sustainability is about land ownership, population centres (where people are effectively 'coralled to live), food production (making use, in particular of GM foods), energy and use of resources. All big issues as the world's population increases of course, but ones that are being addressed behind our backs rather than in an open and honest way. You have to wonder why that is?
Every US president since 1992 has signed up to Agenda 21: The European Union is a major player in the movement and our own government is also a fully paid up advocate, even though they do not make this clear to us in any way. On the ground, organisations like ICLIE (Local Government for Sustainability) founded in 1990 is now active across the globe, albeit in a clandestine way, recruiting government and local authorities to its sustainability agenda. There are well over 100 UK authorities that are now signatories - and financial contributors - to the ICLIE organisation - more on ICLIE here if you're interested.
In addition organisations/movements including 'Common Core' in the US and 'Common Purpose' here are also key delivery vehicles in the Agenda 21 / ICLIE sustainability agenda. Both of these organisations train leaders of the future to lead, as they put it 'beyond authority' snd through 'behavioural modification'. Or as I would translate it, beyond the law and beyond the agreement of the populations they should be serving.
Despite the science being a busted flush, the UN is too far down its single world government pathway to stop now. So even when the tools of control - the over-stated threat of climate change and the frankly ridiculous notion that man can control the earth's climate - there still seems to be no way of stopping this frankly Marxist future that is being prepared for us.
Call-me-Dave is a Common Purpose 'Graduate' as were most of the leaders of Rotherham Council and it's local police force. Before the latest scandal arose in Rotherham, the people who stopped UKIP supporters from fostering children in the city, but subsequently ignored the hideous child sexual grooming activities going on on an industrial scale, were Common Purpose Graduates. This is not some background, ineffectual shady organisation. It is shady yes, but it is having a significant impact on real people's lives and this will only grow if it is left unchecked.
I don't know how we stop this unwelcome situation; how we might regain some level of control of, or representation by,
these people who should be working for us but are in fact pursuing their own agenda 'beyond authority'.
I do however think that the more people know about it, and the greater the numbers of people who can be informed and encouraged to wake up to what I think is a massive threat to our freedoms, the better.
Which is why I'd like to finish by saying:
Thanks for reading and please share if you feel the urge.
No comments:
Post a Comment