By Dr. John Happs
“Searching for truth at the United Nations is like looking for kernels of wheat in a mountain of horse dung.”
Attributed to: “A playground for the vile and dangerous.” By Piers Akerman, Daily Telegraph, September 30, 2009)
Perhaps Piers Akerman was a little harsh over his criticism of the United Nations (UN) although there is no doubt that current climate hysteria had its origins within that organisation.
To its credit, the UN initially focused on nuclear arms control, disarmament, the protection of human rights, securing the independence of colonized countries and the economic development of poor countries.
Starting its journey for world peace and human rights, the UN has now morphed into a massive unelected socialist bureaucracy that attempts to interfere in the business of nations worldwide on just about every aspect of their lives. The UN now sees itself as a quasi-world government with global socialism as its raison d’être.
Rational people want to lift everyone out of poverty, yet many selfish advocates would deny those in developing countries access to the things we take for granted. The UN wants to see constraints on industry and human progress, arguing that the world can only be “saved” by stifling economic growth.
So-called “climate summits” have little to do with global climate. They are smokescreens for the UN’s intent of changing the world and how it is governed. The UN wants to see the suppression of capitalism, but who would be made to pay for the universal welfare system they crave?
Developing countries would receive on-going payments from those countries that are developed and successful whilst those successful countries would be expected to lower their standard of living to meet the UN’s demands.
As Roger Franklin observed:
“Given that the UN is a spigot of innovative ideas for emptying the pockets of, well, everyone, not just the rich, and the paucity of proof that it has ever achieved anything worthwhile… .”
Australia would be expected to pay “climate compensation” for damage to developing countries, allegedly caused by extreme weather.
The UN has a Commission on Global Governance and this is seen as central to global control:
“Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.”
Investigative journalist Donna Laframboise warns:
“Communication goes in one direction only. From them-on their high thrones in Geneva-to us. This is an anti-democratic institution and since we didn’t vote them into office, we have no ability to turf them out. We have no means of objecting, no way of insisting that UN priorities are not our priorities.”
THE UN WANTS YOUR MONEY
In short, the UN strives to achieve global governance whilst controlling the re-distribution of wealth from developed countries that have earned it to poor countries that simply want it. More likely, we would see the transfer of money from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries.
One goal would be to persuade western nations to provide climate compensation of $100 billion a year by 2020 to the UN with a commitment to pay 1.5% of their GDP annually.
Paragraph 33 of annex 1 reads: “By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least USD 67 billion] [in the range of USD 70-140 billion] per year.”
UN officials realise that to get nations to cut back on their economic growth and transfer their wealth to developing countries, they must somehow persuade politicians from developed countries that the planet is heating up dangerously because of their industrial carbon dioxide emissions. The UN would build on this feeling of guilt to penalise them financially.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) 2008 meeting in Poland discussed the management ofa UN Adaptation Fund that would transfer money into “climate protection.” Unfortunately, many politicians believed the IPCC’s global warming alarmism and the need for global reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. They also thought that paying the UN was justified, with Australia’s then Foreign Minister Julie Bishop announcing in 2014 that the Federal Government would contribute 200 million taxpayer dollars to the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF).
To his credit, Australia’s current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, made clear that no further funding would be forthcoming, saying:
“Nor are we bound to go and tip money into that big climate fund; we’re not going to do that either.”
“So I’m not going to spend money on global climate conferences and all that sort of nonsense.”
Other politicians were not fooled by the UN’s goals. Canada’s former Prime Minister Stephen Harper said: “Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.”
WHO IS BEHIND THE UN’s DECEPTION?
The IPCC’s Dr. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber wants to link “sustainability” with global governance, saying:
“Either the Earth System would undergo major phase transitions as a result of unchecked human pressure on nature’s capacities and resources or a “Great Transformation” towards global sustainability would be initiated in due course. Neither transitions nor transformations will be manageable without novel forms of global governance and markets… “
Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007. Edenhofer hasn’t even tried to hide the UN’s ideological goals goals, saying:
“The climate summit in Cancun —- is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”
He reiterated what the UN intentions are: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
This then became“The Cause.”
In an interview with Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (Nov. 14, 2010) Edenhofer confessed: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
Another UN official,Connie Hedegaard said she doesn’t care about scientific facts or that people would face higher energy costs: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”
Hedegaard doesn’t seem to care about the thousands worldwide who are already suffering and dying because they can’t get access to an inexpensive, reliable electricity supply.She added:
“I think we have to realise that in the world of the 21st century for us to have the cheapest possible energy is not the answer.”
In 2014, Christiana Figueres replaced Yvo de Boeras the Executive Secretary to the UNFCCC,the body responsible for the annual Conferences of the Parties (COPS).
When Figueres, was head of the UNFCCC, she freely admitted that the goal of the UN was never about preventing ecological calamity. Rather, it was about changing the global economic model:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
And: “Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.”
Figueres went on to say that democracy is getting in the way of the UN’s objectives.
Economist Dr. Dan Mitchell reflected on the main goal of Figueres and the UN as being to: “Make the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.”
FOOLING THE MASSES
But firstly, the UN had to convincingly demonise atmospheric carbon dioxide and persuade a largely scientifically-challenged population, the drama-seeking media and pliant politicians that the trivial amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide (400 ppm) was the root cause of “imaginary” climate chaos. It mattered not that atmospheric carbon dioxide has never driven global temperature at any stage over the last 500 million years. See for instance:
There are now more than 1,300 peer-reviewed, published papers promoting skeptical arguments against climate alarmism.
Such evidence would be completely ignored by UN officials since they knew that few members of the public would check and understand the science. They also knew that the media would promote the imaginary greenhouse problem whilst politicians would simply accept it – especially if they thought that the majority in their electorates believed it.
So how was this deception kick-started?
In 1979 the first World Climate Conference warned nations about (imaginary) carbon dioxide-driven global warming and associated dangers such as ice sheet and glacier melt, extreme weather, sea level rise, spread of disease, ocean acidification and any number of imaginary dangers that simply haven’t happened.
In 1985 the Villach conference concocted the following statement:
“As a result of the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, it is now believed that in the first half of the next century a rise of global mean temperature which is greater than any in man’s history could occur.”
This would completely ignore the many previous, well-documented beneficial warming periods “in man’s history” that took place well before industrialization. Carbon dioxide had to be made into public enemy number one for “The Cause.”
The Villach conference targeted government policies:
“While some warming of the climate now appears inevitable due to past actions, the rate and degree of future warming could be profoundly affected by government policies on energy conservation, use of fossil fuels, and the emission of greenhouse gases.”
The UN was moving the science into the political arena and had to convince the public and politicians that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) was a real threat to the planet. Senator Timothy Wirth, former US undersecretary for global affairs, made clear his political stance. Apparently Wirth cares not one jot about the evidence. He said: “We have to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong.”
The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) deception had its origins with Maurice Strong (1929-2015) whose central aim was to achieve world governance by the UN. He promoted the global warming hysteria and the UN’s Agenda 21 with its deceptive aim of sustainable living, saying:
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”
Strong went on to say:
And: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that the threat of global warming would fit the bill… . the real enemy, then, is humanity itself… .we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or one invented for the purpose.”
It was here that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming was “invented for the purpose.” Strong was a founding member of the Club of Rome, established in the 1960’s and inspired by the 1798 essay by Thomas Malthus: Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus incorrectly linked the geometric progression of growing populations with the arithmetic progression of food production leading, as Malthus thought, to population outstripping food supplies, starvation and deaths.
As Elaine Dewar explained in her book Cloak of Green after spending five days with Strong at the UN: “Strong was using the UN as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and his Global Governance Agenda.”
So the unfounded scare of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming would be the vehicle for socialist reform and a number of scientists who continue to support The Cause for their own selfish reasons, knew they would have to be economical with the truth. Dr. Stephen Schneider thought it acceptable to bend the truth for environmentalism:
“We need to get some broad based supportto capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios,make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balanceis between being effective and being honest.”
Dr. Paul Ehrlich took up the Malthus argument in his 1968 book The Population Bomb, with his ridiculous prediction that: “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970’s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.”
Ehrlich ramped up his foolish predictions and went on to say: “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.”
And: “Between 1980 and 1989, four billion people, including 65 million Americans, will perish due to lack of food and other resources.”
Many other UN bureaucrats think that evidence is unimportant when promoting The Cause, as Richard Benedik explained:
“A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”
In 1989, Noel Brown, when a senior environmental official at the UN and Director of the New York office of the UN Environment Program, also started to ramp up climate alarmism. Brown said:
“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”
And: “Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees” threatening political chaos and governments have a 10 year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.”
THE UN’s TROJAN HORSE
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) felt there was a need for a scientific assessment of the claims that increasing emissions of carbon dioxide would impact the Earth’s climate and life on Earth.The WMO proposed the setting up of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This would be advertised as an independent authoritative scientific vehicle with an expert team of climate scientists carefully looking at all available climate literature to provide reliable advice on climate change.
To convince the media and politicians that the Earth is warming dangerously and that a looming climate catastrophe is fast approaching, the UN established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. This would be the Trojan Horse, invented to persuade the gullible that we face a climate emergency.
UN officials knew that few would read the IPCC technical reports, produced in good faith by contributing scientists. They also knew that, if easy to read report summaries were made available to the media and politicians, those summaries could be “massaged” by UN officials and made sufficiently alarming to convince the media, the public and politicians that we face a climate crisis.
More importantly, the UN knew that many gullible politicians would eagerly pull that particular Trojan Horse into their parliament and climate legislation would follow. UN goals would be achieved and taxpayers would pay the price.
Perhaps Piers Akerman was right after all.
Dr. John Happs M.Sc.1st Class; D.Phil. John has an academic background in the geosciences with special interests in climate, and paleoclimate. He has been a science educator at several universities in Australia and overseas and was President of the Western Australian Skeptics for 25 years.