Guest opinion by Viv Forbes –
What great cause could unite Prince Charles, President Obama, the Pope, the Arab Oil sheiks, the United Nations, the European Union, the Russians, the Chinese, Pacific Island Nations, most undeveloped countries, the glitterati of Hollywood, left-wing politicians, unrepentant reds, government media, the climate research industry, Big Oil, Big Gas and the Green Blob. It must be something posing a clear and urgent danger to all humanity?
No, the crusade that unites them all is the War on Carbon Fuels, focussed mainly on that most vilified target, coal.
The biggest group, and the generals in this war on carbon, have no real interest in the facts or science of global climate change – they see climate alarmism as a great opportunity to achieve their goal of creating an unelected global government. They have even laid out their plans in a document called Agenda 21.
This group naturally includes the United Nations and all of its subsidiaries, the EU, and left wing politicians and media everywhere. At a news conference in Brussels recently, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but “to change the economic development model” ie destroy what is left of free enterprise and private property. See:
The next big group of carbon warriors is the anti-western failed states who see this as their big chance to enrich and entrench their ruling classes with “climate reparations”.
Then there are the enviro-entrepreneurs forever seeking new crusades to energise their supporters and get the donations rolling in – Greenpeace, WWF, Get Up etc…
In the dark corner are the anti-human Malthusians and the Deep Greens who want to get rid of most of us other people – personified by the rich and powerful such as Prince Charles and Maurice Strong. They know that carbon fuels support millions of people by cultivating, harvesting, transporting, processing and storing most of the food that supports the cities of the world. Killing the use of carbon fuels will certainly achieve their goal of reduced world population.
See:
Naturally, government media usually support a bigger role for government, and all media like a scare story. Truth or logic does not matter greatly for most of them – just so long as they can coax a looming disaster story from someone. The daily diet of natural calamities soon heightens climate anxiety, which then motivates politicians to be seen to be “doing something”.
And then there are those who see that fighting carbon fuels also suits their pockets. As someone said “When placing a bet, the best horse to back is the one called ‘Self-interest’ – at least you know he is trying”.
For example, Shell, with its massive gas interests, was caught campaigning against coal fired power, the main competitor of gas in electricity generation. See:
Arab Oil interests were caught funding a film attacking their competitors – shale oil fracking in America. See:
http://dailysignal.com/2012/09/28/matt-damons-anti-fracking-movie-financed-by-oil-rich-arab-nation/
And a Russian oil company was exposed funding US anti-carbon green groups. See:
The Chinese of course are great supporters of green energy as long as it is installed elsewhere – eg they supply the machines and solar panels and then welcome the factories forced from the host country by soaring electricity prices.
Gas, nuclear and hydro power will be the greatest long term beneficiaries of the war on coal. Initially they will be needed to provide base load and back up for intermittent green power like wind and solar. Then as green subsidies are withdrawn to appease angry tax payers, the green play-toys will fail and grown-up generators will step easily into full time electricity production.
Finally, the government bureaucracy and the research grants industry justify their existence by “solving community crises”. They love “The Climate Crisis” because it can be blamed for any weather event anytime, anywhere. It is unlikely to be solved, no matter how many dollars are thrown at it – a problem that does not exist can never be “solved”. And the sinister “Greenhouse Effect”, like any good ghost, is invisible, mysterious in operation, debatable, and allows anyone to produce their own scare story.
Opposing this coalition of climate alarmists and opportunists is a rag-tag army of stressed tax payers and electricity consumers and a scattering of sceptical scientists and media researchers.
But the imposing alarmist empire has a hollow heart – the globe has refused to warm, the alarmist “science” is crumbling, their climate models are discredited, some researchers have been caught manipulating records and results, and the costs of green electricity are becoming obvious and onerous. The public is growing restive, governments can no longer afford the climate industry cuckoo in the public nest and the ranks of sceptics grow. Groups like UKIP in UK and the Tea Party in US have abandoned the war on carbon.
The climate revolt is spreading.
Disclosure: Viv Forbes is a shareholder and non-executive director of a small Australian coal exploration company. His views are not shared or supported by most Big Coal CEO’s.
Not only have some “researchers” been “caught manipulating records & results”, but their ringleaders have been observed conspiring to keep genuine science from seeing the light of day, & succeeding.
The quote about ‘backing self-interest’ was made by Australian PM Paul Keating. Whether he originated it I can’t say.
Anything to push their socialist misanthropic agenda:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/energy-east-pipeline-judge-rejects-french-language-challenge-1.2959775?cmp=rss
The green alarmists will use any useful idiots they can find…
Useful idiot – that’s the first time I have ever seen Jug-ears Charlie described as useful! Although he seems to have made good job of siring his older son – I guess that must be Diana’s genes!
Spot on!
Agenda 21, which incorporates socialist climate change hysteria as just one part
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/EvidenceThat_AGW_PartOf_UN_Agenda21.pdf
is a dream come true for socialists and wannabe dictators.
We are so fortunate that we have the UN dictators to save us from climatic armageddon!
For a minute I thought I was reading the Onion. When you guys jump the shark, you do it in style.
Unfortunately yes.
The article really should stock to the proven facts – the discovery of compromised funding for green movements (Russia and Saudi Arabia) is based on evidence and is worth discussing.
The global conspiracy of the UN, EU, the British Royal Family and the Lizardmen is more suited to a Left Behind dramatization. Embarrassing.
But surely you’re aware of the ‘dichotomy’ in this “climate” debate, which has split the protagonists into two groups according to their political and economic beliefs. The warmists tend to be socialists who favor re-distribution of the world’s wealth and privilege. The skeptics tend to be conservatives who favor national fiscal responsibility and strong national security.
So, IMHO, it is really more of a debate about politics and economics, with climate used merely as an excuse to wield power and exert influence.
… and you appear to be somewhat of a rara avis, a socialist climate skeptic. You may be starting a new, fashionable trend. :-]
Re Prince Charles, the Erlich paper says what it says, and the Prince did indeed endorse it. Who’s embarrassed now?
The perfect explanation for Prince Charles (the most egregious of them all) is that he is just stupid; in his case, peak stupid.
D.J. Hawkins. Read the perceptive comment of johnrmcd at February 17, 2015 at 2:35 pm.
I agree entirely.
And I fear His Royal Highness accordingly.
johnrmcd
I just gots ta steal that phrase, “Peak Stupid”. The increase in Stupid to date I find quite alarming. I will celebrate the day when Peak Stupid passes and we can get back to running and developing a sane world.
The problem is Stupid seems to come from a unfathomable well of ignorance that supplies endless quantities of misunderstanding, blindness and the misapplication of what little knowledge we have. All the combined lights in the Universe have yet to overcome the Universe of Dark that encompasses us.
I agree, we should definitely stick to the facts.
So when politicians, local Councils, and the judiciary, all admit they are implementing local legislation based upon the provisions of Agenda 21, why continue to pretend it is voluntary and is not happening? This just drags the debate down to a ridiculous level of naivety.
None are so blind as though who will not see!
What parts of the post do you find egregious & why? Thanks.
This is a fine example of tin foil hat thinking……
“They have even laid out their plans in a document called Agenda 21.”
..
Flashman is right
@rodmol…I guess I have a tin foil hat then and didn’t know it, because Agenda 21 to me looks like a carefully laid out plan to gain control over everyone through the auspices of a global bureaucracy….http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
Bold words from a man in a stained trenchcoat…
That’s what I was going to ask, too. Content-free hit ‘n’ run posts like that just clutter up the comments. State your specific objection.
No, this is far too insane to try and discuss seriously but I just couldn’t resist the comment. The only advice I will offer is that publishing material like this is why climate “skeptics” are not taken seriously by anyone, except in your own world. Anyway, you win, I am done here for good, rejoice.
I’m with Sir Harry Flashman here.
When you say that there’s a secret paper (Agenda21) that describes how the British Royals and the UN are planning to kill most of mankind then you are not going to be taken seriously.
Left Behind tells the same story – with a more understandable motivation for the villainy (being the Antichrist).
It is also very unpersuasive.
Sir Harry, this is as serious as it gets. But sometimes it does inspire non linear thoughts. For example, my recent paper “Planet wide reanalysis shows high temperature rise” shows the most carefully laid out logic about global warming.
Stick lumps of coal in your eyes and fingers in your ears if you must, “Sir Harry”, but nothing you say rises above the level of nefarious drivel.
But here’s where I’m going to get really serious on you–it is people like you who are committing genocide on the world’s poor. You and everybody that adheres to inane policies that make it difficult for the poor to survive are guilty.
You’re responsible for millions of deaths and incalculable suffering.
Why?
You’ll have to answer that damning question yourself, but no respectable human could justify what you and your ilk are doing to other humans.
None whatsoever.
So be smug in your indefensible position if you want; impose unjustified criticism on truth-seekers if you must; but know this–you are guilty.
You mean this type of catastrophic alarmism spread by the BBC … http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/2/17/our-consensus.html
Agenda 21, on the other hand, is truly, a catastrophic threat to Mankind.
Wow this article really brought out the trolls in force.
Since you like onions so much I will give you a taste. After you have tasted it see more examples.
You see Sir Harry oil and gas companies like a reduction in fossil fuels – just not their’s, that’s why they love these climate conferences. They know they’ll be protected by the climate alarmists they help fund.
Looks like Rosa Korie is not going to join in the discussion about UN Agenda 21 so I will post what I think is her best video explaining it. Well worth listening to and it’s entertaining too:
Does Agenda 21 actually exist? Seems from what I have read from both right and left, that it is in reality a “conspiracy theory.”
Yes, it does exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
Ooh, following the links from Wikipeia.
Voluntary action to fight poverty?
And the Bush administration was in on it?
I don’t think this Agenda is exactly what you think it is.
I agree, and I as I suspected, Agenda 21 isn’t related in any way to Viv Forbes’ post here.
I don´t need to speculate. I know how it´s used by statists in my government & other regimes.
It´s not all the British royals, but just the jug-eared, hare-brained heir apparent. There need not be secret meetings of global conspirators, just like-minded tyrants, taxers, terrorists, torturers & assorted other enemies of humanity flocking together & flying in the same direction.
The UN calls it voluntary but does all it can to impose its taxation & strictures upon the people. The sooner the UN & other multinational entities are tossed in the trash can of history the sooner. Along with any so called nation state with more than at most 50 million people, where true representative democracy becomes a sham. Polities of ten million are better & no more than five best of all. Not that you can´t have a police state with just five million subjects, witness Tudor England.
Britain’s a good example. There is no culture in Britain or anywhere else with 50 million practitioners. Same for France & any other of the oldest nation states.
It’s only “voluntary” if the people themselves adopt it. As it stands, a bureaucratic organization set up a socialist framework (based on Marx’ principles, no less) for controlling world wealth, and all of the equally socialist leaders happily “signed on.” It is exactly what we think it is, you from the left excluded. It is a plan to redistribute the wealth of the world to those in need… and the already fabulously wealthy. That’s how socialism works
Mark
PS: call it socialism, fascism, communism, Marxism, whateverism, it is a plan for collectivist (the collective, e.g., society, is more important than the individual) control that takes power from the individual (read: the people) and gives it to the privileged. It is about control, it is tyranny. Agenda 21 is very real and very dangerous, the illiterati simply don’t understand. Rather than quoting Wikipedia, MCourtney, why not do something less disingenuous and quote the actual document.
Mark T, I did quote the actual document.
I followed the link form Wikipedia to the actual document.
I apologise if I was unclear.
I hope you will do the same.
Not only does it exist, governments admit climate change (CAGW) is just one part of Agenda 21
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/EvidenceThat_AGW_PartOf_UN_Agenda21.pdf
Agenda 21 exists at UN website – all 351 pages of it https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
Yep, I know. Printed out all the pages.
It is evil incarnate.
Mark
My initial message jammed in ether. Apologies if this is posted twice. It’s worth going directly to the source: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
jaakko,
Many thanks for this link.
It is very much worth going directly to this link.
Possibly one of the most important documents posted here for a long time.
I’ve downloaded, and saved – but [not ‘Plan A’, perchance?] my eyes glazed over in the Preamble.
Seriously high-flown language [I am a native English-speaker, and it’s pretty legalese, with a bad case of idealist running through it, and intricate icing by Oxonian, I suggest].
I ought to get to terms with this.
Possibly we all should do so.
A Bummies’ Guide would be useful. I don’t do D’s. Or Copyright . . . .
With the best will in the world, it’ll take me a week to finish that [Plan A . . . .?] – even with a following wind.
Auto
Are you so blind you cannot see http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/local-agenda-21-community-planning-and-neighbourhood-renewal
Such claims come from those responsible for implementing Agenda 21…..those who prefer to shut the public debated down.
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/AustralianGovernmentSupportsAgenda21.pdf
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/Agenda21Facts.pdf
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/ICLEI_AG21Sustainability3.pdf
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/COAG_Democracy_Agenda21.pdf
After all, when national governments, state governments, local councils, and the judiciary, all admit they are implementing AG21 (without any democratic choice), why argue?.
No question, the oil interests diverge from the coal interests. With the price of oil and natural gas plunging to prices not seen in over seventeen years, it now becomes a tussle in the marketplace. This is especially true for natural gas, prices of that energy commodity having plumetted in recent years to the point where it is competitive with coal for power generation.
So don’t be surprised to see the oil companies making common cause with the global warmers, at least with respect to the “nastiness” of coal as a fuel.
Very good point. Normally I wouldn’t bother saying that as I hope people can make up their own minds without being guided.
But as you are talking about economics rather than fruitbat-ery your comment is off-topic for most of this discussion.
But it shouldn’t be. Because you are right.
In the U.S. you will find the United Mine workers, Boilermakers, and other labor groups opposing the establishment “consensus”. This is very much a working class issue.
Three comments of mine are awaiting moderation at once.
This comment is going for my personal best!
But I won’t wait around to find out.
Ditto … something is running off the rails.
I knew this site was about science, but I didn’t realize it was about POLITICAL science.
“About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts”
Yes Latitude, it most certainly is puzzling why this article was published here.
(Latitude, give rodmole a small break. I don’t think what you quoted has sunk in yet.8-)
This article is an insult to political science.
Political science is still evidence based (if also speculative and tentative).
[tips cap]
rodmol@virginmedia.com, the sad reality is that these climate conferences are not about reducing co2 to save the planet. They are about politics and energy economics. That is why you see activist groups and oil companies there.
First sentence of Agenda 21:
Agenda 21 – Chapter 1
PREAMBLE
1.1. Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities
between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy.
Note that poverty has been reduced, the number of the hungry has been cut about in half, ill health has been reduced, and literacy has improved in just the 23 years since this was written. So the entire reason for being of Agenda 21 has vanished, or never existed.
Got it in one.
So, why do you think this voluntary agenda is being pursued?
If there was a plan to prevent industrialisation that was being followed by 3rd world countries I would oppose it. It would increase poverty.
But even fundamentalist states want industrial power. As it helps preserve military and economic power. All elites with any power grab at the opposite of Agenda 21.
It isn’t a real thing. And the desperate straits that may make someone try to realise it?
They don’t exist.
I think you’ll find that there is such a plan. All the talk about “Climate funds” misses a salient but not often expressed point. The funds are only available to those developing nations if they do not increase their CO2 output. If the CO2 goes up, the money stops.
The only way to stop the CO2 going up is for the nation to not develop. But the international money will serve to keep the ruling elites in poor nations in a very nice lifestyle.
So why are national governments, state governments, local councils, and the judiciarly continuing to implement AG21 using public money?
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/AustralianGovernmentSupportsAgenda21.pdf
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/Agenda21Facts.pdf
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/COAG_Democracy_Agenda21.pdf
I thought you would have no answer!
More from Agenda 21:
“1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries..”.
That should give a warm glow to about 175 Presidents, dictators, and other beneficiaries of the money flow as they contemplate their holdings in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands,
Of course, according to the socialists at the UN the capitalist countries owe an ongoing debt to socialists and dictators. Call it climate finance, sustainability or AG21 finance, or transfer of resources, According to UN plans the West will be a very long time paying their debts! And who will be the administrator? And who will be the recipients? Mugabe for one…
http://www.un.org/en/ga/65/meetings/generaldebate/Portals/1/statements/634209412147500000ZW_en.pdf
@Sir Harry Flashman
Skeptics will kill AGW this year and Agenda 21 before the end of this decade. You can thank us then.
How soon can we kill the UN?
With luck the EU may be unraveling. Can the UN be far behind?
http://green-agenda.com/agenda21.html
Agenda 21 is real, here is the UN document
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
Anytime you hear about sustainable development, especially in local land use actions, look underneath and you will see agenda 21, see
http://www.icleiusa.org/about-iclei/faqs/faq-iclei-the-united-nations-and-agenda-21
and
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/iclei-when-they-say-local-they-mean-it.html
There is no big conspiracy, as those who post above fear and lampoon, but a host of multiple interacting sometimes opposing conspiracies, that’s what makes it so complicated.
Not all conspiracies are hidden. This one is a big conspiracy, right out in the open. Not all conspiracies are evil, either: two buddies discussing plans for an evening out on the town are conspiring, but the only things that suffer, perhaps, are their own livers or their wallets. Some conspiracies,e.g. Agenda 21, however, hide very evil intent. That is why they are so open, so brazen, because they can claim “it’s not like we didn’t openly post our plans,” though they always leave out the “to control you” part. These conspiracies succeed because well-meaning and otherwise intelligent, albeit foolish, individuals, such as MCourtney, are afraid (or incapable of) looking the truth in the eyes to see what is really being done (and how, sometimes the HOW is more important to understand).
Mark
The word “sustainable” makes me cringe everytime I see it.
“sustainable” isn’t.
Section 33 lays out what kind of money we are talking about.
“33.13. … Developed countries reaffirm their
commitments to reach the accepted United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of GNP…”
“33.18. The secretariat of the Conference has estimated the average annual costs (1993-2000) of
implementing in developing countries the activities in Agenda 21 to be over $600 billion, including
about $125 billion on grant or concessional terms from the international community…”
For the 175 recipients of this largesse, that works out to about 3 billion per year. Not bad for keeping one’s retinue in Porsches, private jets, trips to Rio, Bali, Cancun, Paris–oh, wait, the IPCC already blazed that trail.
Agenda 21 is the parent of the IPCC and the current climate madness.
See my blog at http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com to read about an example of how Agenda 21 works, looking good on the inside but horrifying when you discover the detail and background.
Big oil has never been on the side of us realists. What business can ever turn down the prospect of higher prices which equals increased margins and reduced need to supply.
If the green movement has its way, the price of carbon based fuels will get beyond the use of normal people, but as this increases the profit margin
Big Oil will be richer than ever.
A good book on the subject of Agenda 21 “Totalitaria” by Ian Wishart. Google it, its easily available online.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Ultimately, that is the failure of the “Big Oil” argument – they stand to gain huge profits from this nonsense.
Mark
I’m a tea party member and a Libertarian and have not given up on fight against progressive socialist.
http://youtu.be/W8TtafXtiwc
power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely
A must-see look at how our betters think of us peons. Thanks, Robertv – a keeper!
Now that is scary. She wants to lead a group who can come into the “playground” and teach and help the children within that playground, the children being all the rest of us who are not one of them. Gee, what could go wrong there?
Unbelievable!!! The UN will actually instigate more war and poverty, not less, with that attitude. Any power grab beyond your boarder will result in backlash. If the UN, in its laughable benevolent mindset, ends up engaged in a power grab (“global governance” is a power grab), they will be no worse and no better than ISIS. Whoever this chick is in this video might as well have a square mustache under her nose.
Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The post-modern corollary:
“Power is wonderful. Absolute power is absolutely wonderful!”
“Beware those who openly seek power, and be fearful of those who seek it clandestinely.” *
* spdrdr 2015.
Pamela, as scary as that picture is ( her with a moustache) you hit the nail square on it’s head. And as someone else said about power making people corrupt, I add that same conclusion, the same observation. I have nothing against someone starting a business and getting him or her better off and so helping others as a result ( I can buy into their ideas or their products freely, my decision) but when people like her, that haven’t contributed one Iota to ” the so called improvement of us” other than words, I get Po’d. They are using our money, they are leeches!. It must be wonderful using Other Peoples Money.
Thank you Pamela, thoroughly agree. We don’t need more conspiracies or more ideals and more agenda driven cliques and controllers.
I’m happy to cut all of those people adrift and support none of them, as they will over time only work against all of us. These are the sorts of people who spill stupid all over the face of the planet and others are left to continually run around after them and clean it up and set things straight.
Why encourage or enable any of them to harm others? The less power they have the better.
CO2 “pollution” and Global Warming are a cause that many have jumped on because it “stuck against the wall”. Many have joined “The Cause” because they still believe in it. Many have joined “The Cause” for personal profit. Sometimes that profit is monetary. Sometimes that profit is short-term political gain. Sometimes that profit is long-term ideological gain.
So what did bring these strange bedfellows together?
It certainly wasn’t the science.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396872/davos-climate-conferences-massive-carbon-footprint-brendan-bordelon
The answer is simple… it is opportunity…
Kings once bowed to the Church now Science is the new Religion and it will enslave us all if we let it.
Post-normal science is the new religion , it misappropriates the name .
They want us to leave science and instead bow to policy based science, Proggresive enlightened liberalism/socialism
“The climate revolt is spreading.” Only because natural variability is proving to be the driver of climate and not because anyone is listening to the skeptics. But that’s OK….I’ll take wins anytime. As far as Agenda 21 is concerned you should read the document before making comments. It reads like a socialist/fascist primer on how to consolidate wealth and power into one world governing body that will disseminate everything, teach everything, and the UN is ready to take on that task. The agenda isn’t hidden and it’s spelled out ad nauseam for 352 pages. If you still believe the UN remains viable to promote world peace you need to read Agenda 21 and see if you feel safe.
Fascism is not voluntary.
Agenda 21 is a Voluntary UN guideline on how to mitigate harm to the poor during industrialisation.
You may not agree with the how but it is not compulsory.
Voluntary Fascism? Tell me how you think that can be.
“Voluntary Fascism? Tell me how you think that can be.” I don’t remember the electorate voting in carbon taxes in America…..but they’re here. Nor did the people of Italy vote for the Brown Shirts to start terrorizing their citizens either….but they did. No one votes for anything the UN charters except the people of the UN….no one. Not even the people that populate the UN are elected. They’re picked to further the UN agenda and nothing more. Just because Agenda 21 document states “voluntary” throughout it doesn’t mean the people have a say in it. How about all those nifty paragraphs/sayings in the document about “non conforming” countries and how they can/should be “brought into line”? You haven’t read it, have you.
People vote for deceiving candidates that swear are not socialists. That’s how.
The elected finds out socialism is too difficult and turns to fascism.
This is happening in Venezuela since 1998 and the ascent of Hugo Chavez.
Maybe it works like this:
In two years…Search-and-Replace – “Voluntary” for “Suggested”
In four years…Search-and-Replace – “Suggested” for “Recommended”
In six years…Search-and-Replace – “Recommended” for “Agreed Upon”
In eight years…Search-and-Replace – “Agreed Upon” for “Mandatory”
Who knows, and would a gradual change in wording be noticed/reported?
Bureaucracy tends to wear down people in opposition to it and who has the time to march in the streets anyway.
It is in no way “voluntary.” Even in the twisted view that you hold, people do not really get to choose one way over another. Their leaders pick the path, consequences be damned. You are either completely ignorant, or something I’d rather not say… for shame, MCourtney.
Mark
“Agenda 21 is a…”
MCourtney now you believe in Agenda21 ? I thought you didn’t a few comments ago … what makes you so unsteady?
MCourtney,
We are told it is voluntary, but my country has already volunteered on my behalf and so most likely has yours. Agenda 21 is demonstrably in our law, in our local government and our education system and most likely in many other places.
You really need to read this book http://www.amazon.com/Totalitaria-What-The-Enemy-State/dp/0987657356
Everything in it is referenced and a large proportion supports my own research that was carried out before the book’s publication.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
JFFM, I believe in the documented evidence that I quoted.
I don’t believe in the covert plan to control all mankind and then to depopulate it by James Bond villains keen to promote a Monarchist Marxism.
Because the Agenda 21 of this article doesn’t exist. It is ridiculous.
There are covert actions by Government. For evidence there is evidence for secret service agencies infiltrating subversive groups and discrediting them from the inside.
And this article is more suggestive of that than the loony paranoia it openly about.
MCourtney, nothing is voluntary when we talk about government. When I can choose where my money/time will be spend on, that is voluntary (ie: free market capitalism). When someone else makes the decision (usually because they feel like “I don’t know better” ) that’s imposition, and that’s government in a nutshell.
So don’t come here and give me that BS about “voluntary” guideline. If you believe that Agenda21 talk here is conspiracy BS, fine, I can understand that, but I’m not that stupid to believe in “voluntary” BS coming from government agencies (and neither are you).
How can Agenda 21 be voluntary when countries are required to send compliance reports to the UN, and the politicians and the judciary are busy writing the provisions of AG21 into local laws?
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/SignatoriesTo_IGAE_AcknowledgeConstitutionIsOutdated.pdf
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/COAG_Democracy_Agenda21.pdf
Check the facts for yourself.
http://youtu.be/cNoKdzQLps8
We must remmeber, while Agenda 21 is the over-arching (arch-enemy of industrial scoiety?) document, the actual implementation strategy is to bypass the existing legislative structure at the national level, to exert influence over those gullible State (in the US of A) and Local elected officials. See:
http://www.icleiusa.org/about-iclei/members
New Mayor of the local town, and don’t really know how to address re-zoning issues? ICLEI has a plan (based upon the tenets of Agenda 21) ready for you to implement locally. City Council-person, trying to figure out how to provide basic infrastructure for that new subdivision? ICLEI (implementing the basics of our friend, Agenda 21) has a few off-the-shelf, ready to implement, Agenda 21 language for you to insert into your new local plans. Thereby implementing the plan, surreptitiously at the local level effectively bypassing the everyday voter…..just read it, that’s all i ask – and come to your own conclusions. Interwoven, intricate, deceptive…and here today.
But it’s all in my head, it doesn’t really exist, right??? WRONG>
MSR
Great article Viv
“The IPCC is a classic example of a post-normal scientific activity”. Mike Hulme,2009, of Climategate infamy.
and further along in the interview –
“The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved…It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come”.
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2010/03/18/wanted-for-premeditated-murder-how-post-normal-science-stabbed-real-science-in-the-back-on-the-way-to-the-illusion-of-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/
Yesterday Bernie Sanders said to us, “Switching to renewable, sustainable energy will stimulate the economy, create jobs, save money and clean up the environment”. Notice that Bernie’s initials are BS.
The merits of pointing the climate of corruption that pervades this social madness of CO2 obsession is completely lost, in my opinbion, when UN agendas and one world government is invoked. It is like a giant Godwin’s law fail.
I would ahve required Viv Forbes to do a rewrite prior to publishing it here.
With all due respect it only makes WUWT look less than serious.
Agreed. Being ridiculous is OK., The Daily Show and the Simpsons are ridiculous but they set the agenda as they are also serious.
I agree entirely, hunter. But I think the phrase you are looking for is,
“With all due respect it only makes WUWT look silly.”
Both “less serious” and “silly” apply, but it’s one of the reason this place is entertaining.
No sane person listens to your insane socialist rants except to mock them, MCourtney.
Mark
MCourtney February 17, 2015 at 3:05 pm says;
Agreed. Being ridiculous is OK., The Daily Show and the Simpsons are ridiculous but they set the agenda as they are also serious.
This explains a great deal. You really ought to broaden your information sources.
“With all due respect it only makes WUWT look silly.”
I know who I think looks silly. Refute the questions posed to you. I see a lot of links people have posted in response to your testiculations. And none from you, but your word.
David Ball, I am British and so have been asleep. It is easy to do if you’re not paranoid.
I didn’t give my word. I quoted the Agenda 21 document. The one that points out it is voluntary. I didn’t link to it as others had.
You should read the original document and then think about it. This article is silly. It is either designed to discredit WUWT or it is incompetent.
MCourtney,
You seem to miss the actual point of what I wrote:
The climate community reeks with corrupt practices and self-serving hype.
The social madness of the climate obsessed is dangerous.
Anything that distracts from that is not helpful.
hunter, I thought I understood those two points from your first post.
This article would be unwise even if it were correct.
If you really want to get into the background of Agenda 21 look to the Club of Rome.
The concept of ‘environmental sustainability’ was first brought to widespread public attention in 1972 by the Club of Rome in their book entitled The Limits to Growth. The official summary can be read here. The report basically concluded that the growth of the human population, and an increase in prosperity, would cause an ecological collapse within the next hundred years.
Read the rest of the article HERE
“Quotes” from Club of Rome website:
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
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 are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
It’s goals hiding in plain view.
You can get some background from this fellow as well.
Maurice Strong
Maurice Strong is a senior advisor to United Nations’ Secretary General Kofi Annan. Annan has appointed Strong to lead U.N. reforms, positioning him to be the next U.N. Secretary General. But placing Strong in charge of U.N. reform could pose a significant threat to the American way of life as Strong has used his position to centralize power in the U.N. at the expense of national sovereignty.
Strong, a native of Canada, grew up during the Great Depression and lived in poverty. He was able to escape poverty and became a successful businessman. During the 1950s and 1960s, Strong was involved in the oil and utility industries and was quite successful. By the time he was 35 Strong was president of a major holding company, the Power Corporation of Canada. As successful as he was, Strong nonetheless felt the need to embellish his achievements. According to National Review, Strong claimed to have had a $200,000 salary when he left the Power Corporation of Canada. But the magazine was informed by an official with the Power Corporation of Canada that Strong’s salary was in fact $35,000 upon his departure.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/DossierStrong.html
First thing I knew about Agenda 21 was that our local council used it in the 1990’s to bring in draconian environmental laws in our local area. Those local laws effectively took the use rights of our 40 acres of land. For an example of use rights – in the draft proposal they were going to ban the use of wheeled vehicles on certain zoned areas of our land. In the final version they just got away with extreme confiscations of use. While we were allowed to keep two cows on our ex-dairy farm we would have had to put in and have passed a Development Application to keep two horses or more cows.
I suffered at first hand the totalitarian and private property hostility of Agenda 21 long before I became aware of a thing called “Global Warming”.
Agenda 21 is not a “conspiracy theory” it is a document that has been used for the last 20 years to confiscate private property and increase government control over people. That is why our local councils all over the place love it. PS I am from Australia and I believe local councils in NSW at least use it to guide their planning laws.
The decrease in land value over just one property would be easily close to a million dollars.
Plain Jane, Agenda 21 is voluntary.
If your local council used it to push something you disliked then the fault is with your councillors. They didn’t have to do it.
Vote them out. Or accept that you are not the majority and the democratic will of your local council’s electorate overpowers you.
But don’t blame a conspiracy of global forces. It’s your neighbourhood’s problem.
You just don’t get it do you MCourtney ?
Show me an Authority that will not Voluntarily sign up to something if it gives them MORE POWER.
Agenda 21 is being used to invade and control all forms of development, local planning and even the recreational use of public lands and National Park’s.
Now even if you own your land freehold you must adhere to strict controls of what you can and can’t do upon it or face fines. You can not even build on your own Rural land without jumping through a multitude of hoops and paying multiple fee’s despite owning it outright.
You say it is Voluntary but no-one I know ever voted for it to be introduced here in Australia and hardly any-one is aware of it’s existence.
You yourself seem to think it is some fairy tale conspiracy theory, go read it for yourself.
Wow, such cluelessness is unbelievable.
Mark
You can’t vote them out. Most of the ICLIE development people and groups are unelected – check with Rosa Koire…
Wrong again Mcourtney.
Domestic legislation deliberately based upon the provisions of AG21 is enforceable, as you SHOULD know.
When the politicians and the judiciary admit they have constructed local laws to enforce the provisions of AG21 why do you argue with them?
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/SignatoriesTo_IGAE_AcknowledgeConstitutionIsOutdated.pdf
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/Agenda21Facts.pdf
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/ICLEI_AG21Sustainability3.pdf
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/COAG_Democracy_Agenda21.pdf
It’s incredible, people call it conspiracy and we are living the nightmare unwittingly. We live in a boiling frog society.
Jane, It is happening everywhere, just in the past 3-4 months AFTER an election for local council, they added a ” Alternative Proposal” to spend a a lot of money outside the budget to purchase property not needed and in dispute legally anyway ( but that is a longer story), As it is this proposal is a bureaucratic maneuver that voters have very little control over. It sounds great: voters have a month to gather 10% of registered voters to object and defeat the proposal. That would be around 1000 votes, but seeing that only 27% registered voters voted in the regular election ( amounted to 2500 votes), you see the problem, the numbers are skewed. The opposition voters should have been able to defeat this purchase with 10% of the 27% which should have been 250 votes. The other thing that is REALLY worrisome is that a normal election is a secret ballot but this vote you have to sign your name, address etc as you hand it in call me 1984 but you get the picture. I have written letters to papers but gee they just don’t seem to get there. ( So thanks WUWT)
I feel for you. At least here in the USA, an attempt to re-zone your property in that manner would likely trigger an eminent domain legal case. If the best use of your property was its current use (eg dairy farm) and the restrictions would change that to a lower value use (eg open land), you’d be owed the difference in value by the municipality.
Wow, you can sure tell when a WUWT article hits too close for the Leftist’s comfort. They come out in droves and put on every sock puppet they own to fill it’s comments with drivel. “Agenda 21 is a conspiracy theory.” “This isn’t science.” “this is too insane to try and discuss.” And the more they post, the less they actually have to say. It all comes down to “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” They’ve been caught out and they know it, and their only hope is that if they shout loud enough and long enough that there’s nothing to see here, then maybe nobody will look to close.
So you think Prince Charles and the UN are planning to kill most of humanity? Really?
How monarchist is the UN anyway?
There really is a level of ludicrousness that is not worth arguing with.
Look behind this curtain and you will find more and more smoke and mirrors until all you see are the fancies of the imagination and your own prejudices.
[Trimmed, as requested]
What, Prince Charles doing it personally? No, of course not, that’s just another silly fake question from a Leftist trying to hide behind their curtain.
Perhaps you could go back and read from a few of those Agenda 21 sites linked to above that Leftist keep trying to claim don’t exist. It’s all right there for all to see. Of course, maybe you’re one of the true believers who can’t connect statements about greatly reducing world population, or severely reducing resource consumption, with the obvious outcome.
More likely you know precisely what the UN’s plan would entail, and are trying desperately to draw peoples attention from them. Just as the giant floating head of OZ tried to distract Dorothy from the man behind the curtain.
Getting a might uncomfortable back there, is it?
Sigh, only the first line should have been a quote.
[Fixed. .mod]
Planning to kill them? Probably not. However when you have a group of powerful people who think the ideal planetary population is less than 1 Billion many things become possible.
Delaying the development of those “teeming millions” so that they don’t have decent sanitation, clean water or health facilities means that a good plague or ebola outbreak can do the job for you. Haven’t you ever noticed that a part of the answer to any looming “ecological crisi” has always been for the third world to stop developing? From global cooling, acid rain, ozone hole, you name it one part of the “solution” always remains the same.
Prince Charles: 100 months to save the world
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/4952918/Prince-Charles-we-have-100-months-to-save-the-world.html
MCourtney obviously didn’t get the memo.
It’s not the end of the world, but, you can see it from there.
The man behind the curtain has baggy pants and a bag of candy.
Shame on you Courtney, especially being British, you should remember Prince Charles own father said he wanted to come back as a virus to kill as many people as possible.
Nobody in the public get’s to vote on anything produced by the EU & the UN and you know it.
You should really pay attention to what is said in the News for instance.Prince Charley has said and I quote “there are [too] many people on this planet and we have to cull some”. He also said” if he came back from the dead,he wanted to come back as a Virus” You Lefties really live in another world.
Because MCourtney is a socialist that apparently didn’t get the message: it failed, it has always failed, and it will continue to fail forever.
Mark
MCourtney “So, why do you think this voluntary agenda is being pursued?”
Because our local goverment says that it is using Agenda 21 as a rationale to increase its control over me, confiscate my property, and sterilise my land from productive use, ie farming (land was used and zoned as farming) to Agenda 21 purposes (environmental zoning).
“It isn’t a real thing. And the desperate straits that may make someone try to realise it? They don’t exist.”
Uuuummm, so you are saying my life didnt exist? That what happened to me didnt happen? That what is written in the local council records didnt happen either? That I really am better off financially because when I did sell my land I got more money for it and it didnt take me as long to sell as it did and I didnt have to sell my land in the first place to buy differently zoned land elsewhere to continue farming?
Like I said, I knew about Agenda 21 long before I knew about Global Warming.
No kidding. Ultimately, socialism (any collectivism) only results in handing over control of the self to those that are “better equipped to deal with it.” At least they can’t really take your thoughts, though George Orwell had some discussions about that (oddly, he hated capitalism, too).
Mark
Juts give me that quote, would you, where the Pope declares that he is part of the War on Carbon.
Please distinguish between:
What the Pope says.
What other people in the Catholic Church have said
What other people claim the Pope has said. (There’s an awful lot of this around, as the article above demonstrates.)
***Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis is funded by Rockefeller.
14 Feb: Renew Economy: Tim Buckley: UK major parties vow to shut down coal, Australia should follow
The UK’s political leaders have seen the writing on the wall and are moving ahead of the inevitable carbon bubble and stranded asset crunch. This is increasly being accepted by key global financial analysts including Goldman Sachs, Macquarie Group, Deutsche Bank. Bernstein and Citigroup,” said Mr Buckley…
(Tim Buckley is the Director of Energy Finance Studies, Australasia for the ***Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. He has 25 years of financial markets experience, including 17 years with Citigroup culminating in his role as Managing Director and Head of Australasian Equity Research.)
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/uk-major-parties-vow-shut-coal-australia-follow-80721
COMMENT by Joe: Tim, I’m not sure it’s your remit as you’re not the site editor but I would argue that the headline is deliberately misleading. Unfortunately, as the article makes clear, we aren’t shutting down ‘coal’, merely ‘unabated coal’. I’m sure all involved know the difference here. Whilst the headline becomes less clickable with the word ‘unabated’ in there I would argue that this information is key. Interesting also to note that when I searched for this story via google UK to find the info from a UK news outlet there was absolutely nothing apart from this Reuters article.
13 Feb: Reuters: Susanna Twidale/Alister Doyle: British leaders pledge climate push, curb on coal plants
No deadline given for phasing out plants.
The leaders of Britain’s three main parties have pledged to end power generation from coal plants that don’t use emissions-capturing technology…
Coal-fired power generators, which emit almost double the amount of carbon dioxide as gas-fired generators, provided a third of Britain’s electricity in the first half of last year…
“This will be of international significance because the UK is now the first major economy to make explicit its commitment to end the use of unabated coal,” said Matthew Spencer, director of think-tank Green Alliance, which brokered the pledge along with environmental groups including Greenpeace and WWF…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/14/britain-politics-climatechange-idUSL5N0VN4KC20150214
Rockefeller Family Fund: Rockefeller Family Fund: Since 2006, RFF has focused its Environment program almost exclusively on climate change…
This pilot project started at RFF in 2007 and has since become its own non-profit organization, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. The Institute’s reports, which have prompted federal and state investigations of coal activities, and its training sessions for advocates have added a new dimension to the fight against coal…READ ALL
http://www.rffund.org/programs/environment
When I have the option to move from this globe to another, they can have global governance. Until then, I am not on board.
We’re watching the Cloward Piven strategy and Rules for Radicals play out every day. Anyone, or any group, that seeks to manipulate people the way our own governments and the UN do deserve to be pointed out and held accountable.
Marx saw socialism as a stepping stone to global communism, countries all needed to turn socialist first. Well, what about those of us that don’t want to live in a socialist or communist society? We’re out of luck?
W. W. Hay (a strong believer in anthropogenic warming) in his book “Experimenting on a small planet” referred to a quote by Cesare Emiliani that “there are just too many people” (p. 934) when dealing with issues of anthropogenic climate change (aka global warming. One of Hay’s points is that population growth and associated human activity have contributed to increase CO2 in the atmosphere possibly leading to anthropogenic climate change (aka global warming).
A recent analysis suggests, however, that the population growth of the 20th century is declining. A combination of global urbanization and industrialization is contributing to the reducing the rate of population growth. In Germany and Russia, this has reached serious levels. Three maps are included which show that this trend will spread globally by 2100.
Here’s the link:
https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/population-decline-and-great-economic-reversal
mc_cid=a0f058f040&mc_eid=3ce703ee15
If this trend continues and actually comes to pass, will it lead to a self-regulation and diminishment of anthropogenic CO2 and thus self-mitigate anthropogenic climate change (aka global warming)?
Expressed in another way, the problem of so-called “anthropogenic global warming” may solve itself!
Nature seems to be doing a good job of handling this perceived problem.
Even if the average temp of the world increases by several degrees there is no proof that this condition would be harmful to mankind.
re Tim Buckley, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis:
Aug 2014: ABC Australia: Corrections & Clarifications: Tim Buckley
AM and News24 : On 29 July, when reporting on the proposed Carmichael coal mine in Queensland, the ABC included comments from Tim Buckley from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. However, the ABC did not provide additional context to show that Mr Buckley is also Managing Director and Portfolio Manager at Arks Investment Management, a clean energy fund.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-22/tim-buckley/5689338
concern about data!
16 Feb: RTCC: Gerard Wynn: China’s carbon emissions: did they really fall in 2014?
Reports suggest the world’s largest carbon polluter could be close to an emissions peak. But can we trust the data?
Emerging data suggest that Chinese coal consumption may have fallen in 2014, for the first time since 1998, as the country invested in renewable energy, GDP growth slowed, and air quality topped the political agenda…
For China’s emissions to stand still, never mind fall, the carbon intensity of the economy (carbon emissions per unit of GDP growth) would have to fall by the same amount as the economy grew in 2014, i.e. by 7.4 percent…
I decided to investigate. I calculated historical changes in carbon intensity, using annual carbon emissions data from the energy company ***BP, and annual GDP from the World Bank…
Today, the main concern is air quality in the country’s cities from burning coal, and a big target has been less efficient coal-fired power plants; in 1998, it was the closure of inefficient coal mines…
Another question is over the quality of the data, and a word of caution.
Research by the Oslo-based Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO) shows that ***BP has repeatedly revised its 1998 data for Chinese coal consumption (see chart below).
Originally, there was a much bigger dip, perhaps because of initial mis-reporting by provinces anxious to show that they were meeting targets to shut coal mines. Over time, ***BP has revised upwards actual coal consumption in 1998, as more accurate data emerged…
http://www.rtcc.org/2015/02/16/chinas-carbon-emissions-did-they-really-fall-in-2014/
You might want to check with Rosa Koire regarding UN Agenda 21. She has many Youtube videos and 2 websites, etc. Some links to her websites have already been posted.
She is a liberal/progressive who “saw the light” regarding this stuff. I’ll post her book here, so she doesn’t have to “self promote”:
http://www.behindthegreenmask.com/
I emailed Rosa Koire in hopes that she would join in the discussion here…
I’d guess the Arabs are hoping for the world to cool, as it would make their deserts verdant.
Verdant like in 1910?
Thanks, Viv Forbes. Good article.
Viv, got it in one, but its important to begin to attack the moralistic underpinnings of this cult to deprogram some of the adherents. Part of this is to shift business off the lip service to global warming. If the mods would indulge, could you please send Viv my email address. Viv email me, I have some good strategies for you to use – particularly as an exec director.
[Done. ~mod.]
I guess you have to be a socialist to still buy; “We are from the govt, here to help you.”
Good post Viv Forbes.
When I first saw Al Gore’s movie and started digging into CAGW, I dismissed statements such as this lead post.
Conspiracy rubbish.
However the deeper I dug and the more I pursued “THE SCIENCE” which my government spoke of at great length, but did not document and could not produce at written request, the more the institutions seemed complicit in brutal spin, deliberate non truths.
Then came Climate Gate, pretty pathetic people these IPCC experts in their own words, but that was nothing compared to the studied disinterest and appallingly inept “investigations” that followed.
Bureaucracy is a cancer on the fabric of civilization, unchecked it grinds productive activity to a halt.
Elected persons are supposed to ensure bureaucrats are kept under control.
How do we control the UN?
My government “defers” to the findings of the UN IPCC.
This is the stock bureaucratic answer to very important questions.
Zero accountability.
So who signed off on the findings of the UN IPCC as good enough for government policy?
So when activities are coordinated for a cause, but claimed to be necessary due to coming disaster and the remedy sought is to impoverish and diminish citizens. And they widely acknowledge the great plan..
is it still a conspiracy?
I see CAGW/CC or whatever you want to call the meme of the magic gas as an orchestrated attempt to steal from the productive to reward the parasites.
This nonsense was created by, promoted by and is still being protected by our bureaucrats working in collusion through the United Nations.
For this is the dream of bureaus chiefs, absolute power with zero consequence.
Is it not the parasites dream to have the host cater to their demands?
Hence the campaign for UN agents to be held immune from criminal prosecution by any national government.
Hammer, Nail, ….. you hit the nail, ……thanks, ( they never ever, ever use their own money and as you said absolute power with no consequences, I won’t even go into how they have their collective asses covered, there was a short book “CYA” about the Canadian bureaucrats about 15 years ago it has disappeared since).
Questian, what does climit sci, big gov, and big oil have in commen.
Climit Sci, Reduce gas usage by keepng prices high
Big Gov, Keep Prices high to raise more taxes on gas
Big Oil, Reduce demand to stretch supply, and keep prices high
Money can make for strange bed exc…
No.
Big Government demands artificially high oil prices to deliberately restrict oil use, to be able to control the people ..
The same Big Government Lauds and praises the gains made when oil prices go down because that leads to economic growth that THEY can then use to get re-elected, and to justify all of their other programs.
Big Oil offers a product that everybody needs. That everybody has to buy, almost at any price demanded by Big Government (At 100.00 per barrel, 4.00/gallon (US) about 74% of the price of oil and gasoline is government taxes and fees and license money. Of the rest, about half is salaries for the people producing the product, about 1/4 is capital investment and infrastructure (buildings, tanks, pipes, refineries, ships, trucks, etc) to produce the product. Some 5% is profit back to the people and companies and unions and pension funds that have spent money buying the oil company stock. (Remember, of the 10% “profit” supposed made, half of that is taxed (already included in the 75% above), and of the dividends sent to the stockholders, half of that is taxed as well. If any oil stock is left over after death, Oboma has re-stated the death tax on that money as well. )
Leftists’ war on “Carbon Pollution” has been an unmitigated disaster, with almost 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being emitted over just the last 19 years, with absolutely no global warming trend to show for it.
Leftists’ war on Capitalism has, however, been a resounding success with $trillions/yr of unnecessary business rules and regulation compliances costs being heaped on corporations, $10’s of trillions corporate of profits looted by Leftist governments over the last couple of decades, 100’s of millions of people per year are being paid NOT to work and about $100 Trillion in global national debt has been added to ledgers of Leftist governments’ around the world, while Leftist governments “print” bogus money to finance the madness…
The collapse of the world economy from Leftists’ successful war on Capitalism, will likely coincide with the collapse of the CAGW hypothesis as both are the manifestations of Leftists’ delusion that governments can control both man and nature through tyranny and the barrel of a gun.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you.
Indeed, the “voluntary” system MCourtney keeps touting. It is not voluntary if you do not get to vote for it, it is not voluntary if you have a gun to your head. In general, it is simply not voluntary.
Mark
Mark T–
You’re right.
Even elected politicians have very little control over the rules, regulations and mandates concocted and implemented by unelected bureaucrats. The bureaucrats’ primary goal is to expand the size, scope and power of the bureaucracy.
This reality will never change unless a sledgehammer is taken to the existing bureaucracy by eliminating 75% of all regulation compliance costs and eliminating all departments and agencies that aren’t explicitly sanctioned as enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and about 75% of the bureaucracy wouldn’t pass that litmus test: Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Transportation, EPA, HUD, Energy, Education, Homeland Security, etc. should all not exist.
The States, if they so choose, are empowered to handle these matters (under Amendments 9 & 10), or some could be merged with Constitutionally legitimate Federal Departments.
@ Samurai,
“This reality will never change unless a sledgehammer is taken to the existing bureaucracy by eliminating 75% of all regulation compliance costs and eliminating all departments and agencies that aren’t explicitly sanctioned as enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and about 75% of the bureaucracy wouldn’t pass that litmus test: Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Transportation, EPA, HUD, Energy, Education, Homeland Security, etc. should all not exist..
i have a better use for the “sledgehammer” approach , breaking rocks to “stimulate” highway construction by said bureaucrats using them, I just wonder how loudly they’d cry about blisters and for how long. Oh BTW cutting them and the regulations down by 75% is a nice start.
The common interest for all these strange allies is threefold: public righteousness, private profit and a free hit for jealously and envy. No wonder it’s so popular.
Communism is patient… this is known. Communism is no different, except in perhaps detail of implementation, than any other form of collectivism. Agenda 21 is about collectivism. Communists saw the destruction of their personal pet projects in the latter half of the 20th century and had to endure the declaration that “Socialism is dead,” proclaimed by many former supporters of the socio-economic system. It failed, as every collectivist system has always done. But they are patient. They do not mind waiting, slowly infiltrating every means of control (list a professional society, or any other organization, nearly all corrupted by collectivist goals). They are activists, but not so open as to expose their individual motives (even though their grand plan is spelled out in the open via Agenda 21). They rise to the top, control every form of communication possible. They slowly overtake a willing population that sees the “evil” of capitalism (the same population that fails to recall that the only system that ever actually worked was capitalism, and their lives were actually better off before the myriad controls were put in place). Gruber was also right, the population is stupid, on average, and they fall for the promise of the greener grass on the other side. Unfortunately, under any collectivist system, there is no greener grass, the only “change” is that every other person is equally destitute, barring the elite few that control everything.
If we do not wake up, if smart people like MCourtney do not shed their programming, the future is not so bright, rather, it is bleak, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Mark
Mark T “Barring the elite few that control everything ”
Mark there’s not to many at doing what they do then the Rockefeller Family. “The House of Rockefeller is not just a wealthy and successful family. Instead, it is an Empire. No other family has deliberately sought control over so many institutions which affect every facet of American life. Whether it is government, business, energy, banking, the media, religion or education, at the apex of the power structure you will find Rockefeller money and Rockefeller front men and agents. Such total persuasiveness, influencing every important aspect of American life, cannot be happenstance.”
http://educate-yourself.org/ga/RFcontents.shtml
Should read , Mark there’s not to many as good at doing what they do then the Rockefeller Family
This goes all the way back to the Frankfurt School. In effect, it is more productive to advance Marxism through media;education than through politics. If you start to change and eliminate certain words you can actually alter peoples behavior . Successive generations begin to lose the independent thought process.
Children sit in groups at school for example rather than as individuals in separate rows. The 2 smart kids at the table do most of the work while the other 5 kids shut off their thinking caps.
Think about it, no new groundbreaking technology has been developed since the sixties. Everything that we have now is just a modification to old technology. The greatest minds came from a time when religious beliefs and individualism were part of everyday life. The early to mid 20th Century.
Survival of the fittest can be a “green” game; a dirty game; a hypocrite’s game.
I pray for his mommy to survive him, and be succeeded directly by William.
As much as he is “likeable”, he is from the same cloth.( You know “the apple” does not fall far from the tree?)
I don’t think the Agenda 21 conspiracy nutjobs understand what the term “global governance” means.
Whenever you guys start ranting about “unelected global governments” and such, you sound as crazy as those that pop up around here every so often complaining about Mexicans, gun control, etc.
Just saying.
,Whenever anonymous people start telling us that we are “ranting” about non- existent issues, then my ears perk up.
You managed to get in a few attacks against the WUWT readership, but had nothing substantive to say.
Back up your statements or buzz off.
Alan Robertson, I have backed up my comments with reference to the Agenda 21 document. The real one not the fantasy.
And the response? “Oh well Bush and Co may have agreed to a voluntary aim but it’s really all being controlled by a tiny minority of rich, business-owning Communists and they lied about the voluntary bit (only the voluntary bit)”.
Where on earth is the evidence for that leap of faith?
As a member of the WUWT readership I feel that the entrapment by this article is bringing ridicule on us.
It makes us all look like crazies who believe the Rockefellers, Windsors and Bushes are planning to slit our throats in our sleep so as they can rule the remainder more easily. As though the rich have trouble at the moment.
This is the least sceptical article I have ever read.
Sceptical is not a synonym with gullible. Or delusional.
MC-
I wasn’t talking to you and so far, hadn’t read anything you’d written in this thread. Glad You called my attention to what your posts…
By all means, keep talking.
Ps It’s laughable that you publicly state that you are swayed by the opinions others might have of you, because of the words of some third party.
It’s even funnier that you think that we need concern ourselves with what you “feel”
And who are you to tell anyone to buzz off? Endearing, you are, like a child.
I’m here because I agree on some issues (skepticism of “climate change”) not because I agree on everything.
And, at times, some of the issues raised are patently absurd.
Alan Robertson – Actually it is now plain to see you WERE in fact talking to M Courtney, he just forgot to put his Sock Puppet back on before replying.
Problems, MC? Did Toto pull back the curtain for a second there?
I’m rather tired of reading collective conspiracy theories and incidental innuendo.
The facts and data are enough. I think we would do very well to stick to those and disregard the narrative of propaganda-ism, and the growing disappointing tendency for bloggers to revel in it and accentuate it.
Personally I do not want being scientifically skeptical associated in any way with the conspiracy theory mongering cohort.
I think that would be a terrific mistake and our guards should always be up against it.
“Conspiracy theory mongering cohort“. There’s a word for you- reminds me of the laughable propaganda which one used to see from the likes of Pravda and Tass.
Hmmm.
You know, I’d really like to know how many of these odd single word named posters that all sing from the same hymn book of “conspiracy theory” have M Courtney behind their curtain.
You may as well give it up, MC. Your cries of “but it says it’s VOLUNTARY!” just aren’t that convincing next to the reams of evidence of it being used to the contrary. You’re little different then one of the useful idiots that constantly quoted the pretty words of Stalin, Pol Pot, or Chairman Mao, and ignored their actions.
schitzree
I often disagree with my son but on this occasion I come to his defence because he is being subjected to untrue and unfair attacks; i.e. smears.
For example, you write
I strongly oppose Agenda21 but point out that MCourtney cited and quoted the actual Agenda21.
He does not need to be “convincing” when he states that Agenda21 is a voluntary proposal because the actual Agenda21 document clearly and unambiguously states that Agenda21 is a voluntary proposal. And there is no “evidence” of any kind which can refute that Agenda21 is other than it says it is.
Importantly, you attack MCourtney for telling the truth by asserting he is “little different then one of the useful idiots that constantly quoted the pretty words of Stalin, Pol Pot, or Chairman Mao, and ignored their actions”. NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! The “useful idiots” are people such as you and others in this thread who pretend Agenda21 is other than it is. When activists say we MUST abide by Agenda21 because we are “signed up” to it then the truth is that Agenda21 is voluntary so we can choose to abide by or ignore any or all of it, and we need to proclaim that truth when people say we MUST adopt it.
Your insults and bluster disguise the obvious reality that you are assisting activists’ impositions of Agenda21 by opposing the truth of Agenda21.
Richard
“..Agenda21 is a voluntary proposal because the actual Agenda21 document clearly and unambiguously states that Agenda21 is a voluntary proposal.”
After you read the Agenda 21 document be sure to add naive to your resume. It uses all the heart tugging words to show it is pure with its intentions to provide a better world for all the disenfranchised by preying on the success of the “developed” countries and if you just join you can be part of it. It’s a sandbox created by unelected ‘One World Order’ people who think they have found the secret to happy life on earth for all. If you don’t play by their rules you will be ostracized and coerced to comply through trade (dis)agreements, withholding of natural resources (materials and labor), or access to anything controlled by the central (mis)management…..which should be everything according to them. It’s only voluntary if you dare and despite the initial fervor to sign up countries are realizing what it will cost them. The scheme won’t work if any large countries are non participants because it relies on large successful capitalist countries to pay penance/renumeration for their sin of success. It maddens me to think any organization has the hubris to believe they can successfully accomplish the plan laid out in Agenda 21.
markl
OK, so you don’t like Agenda21. As I said, I also don’t like it.
However, other than unfounded insults aimed at me, do you have anything to say about what I wrote, or can I take your post as being an endorsement which says you cannot fault my comment?
Richard
I answered in my post. You defended it being called ‘voluntary’ because ‘they say it’s so’. Sorry if the word naive offends you but it’s true.
Climate change is the most useful, biggest and risk-free bogeyman every invented irresistible to politicians, carpet baggers, junk scientists and moral crusaders alike.
“The climate revolt is spreading.”
Viv, it’s not about a reactive “revolt”. We are not going to scream, chuck a wobbly and storm the barricades. Mostly we sip a coffee and tap a keyboard and have a read and some scientific discussion and tangential humour. And although the IPCC and various political crooners are very annoying people, with dubious processing capacity and ethics, it isn’t the end of the world if they are deluded and can be demonstrated to be talking rubbish, and don’t like science much.
The discussion and debate has been enormously damaged and undermined by politics and political speakers. More of it is not the answer. That stuff is in fact almost all of the ‘problem’. We need less politics and mind games and systematically challenge the people who lead others astray with baloney.
“The discussion and debate has been enormously damaged and undermined by politics and political speakers. More of it is not the answer. That stuff is in fact almost all of the ‘problem’. We need less politics and mind games and systematically challenge the people who lead others astray with baloney.” In case you haven’t noticed the warmists have been successful in squelching all discussion and debate. Science has been undermined to the point that it’s no longer part of the equation. How do you suggest the problem be addressed? More scientific proof in blogs read only by the interested and concerned? For everyone that thinks Agenda 21 is a conspiracy theory I would like to know what you would do. MSM has ignored any and all skeptic views with some organizations openly stating they will not print/air the skeptic rebuttals and viewpoints.
I’d like to point out that from the voluntary agenda 21 we are at the stage of expecting “binding agreements” on climate change in Paris later this year. I suspect that it has taken 20-odd years to make this much progress is a cause of some disappointment to the proponents of agenda 21.
How long before we see “binding agreements” on resource usage, population and redistribution?
Who is going to enforce the binding agreements on national governments when they change their minds when the going gets tough?
I can’t see any situation where another layer of governance over the top of national governments could possibly be a good thing. And that includes the EU.
Malthus has a lot to answer for.
Economic boost as Russia’s largest coal mine opened in Siberia
As much as two billion tonnes can be extracted from open-cast site over the next 167 years with hopes it can transform rural region.
———-
The rest here: http://siberiantimes.com/business/others/news/n0118-economic-boost-as-russias-largest-coal-mine-opened-in-siberia/
I’m somewhere between amused and bemused by some of the commentary on this topic.
Facts regarding Agenda 21 have been provided in V. Forbes’ article (and ensuing commentary), as well as supporting its influence on the politics of AGW on a national and local level. It is also widely recognized that the idea of AGW is largely driven by politics/media, although I haven’t seen a claim of consensus on that issue (sarc).
I have seen the “crazy conspiracy” argument used again and again in discussions on this topic, and it’s nauseating. This is the nasty logical fallacy of bulverism. Rather than discussing of what gov/politicians/business/media are saying and doing, and it’s relation to AGW funding, proposed control, etc.–discussion is instead steered away, shut down, scoffed at and derided as irrelevant, when in fact it’s central to the issue.
If the intent is to squelch discussion, then that’s just lame. If one doesn’t want to be associated with these claims, then feel free disassociate. Feel free to refute.
I read this blog to learn from open discussion. If that is shut down, I’ll move on. When discussing a topic as nebulous as “climate change,” where definitions are often open to interpretation, facts are often ignored, it is critical to discuss who is driving the meme, and why. While the scientific discussions are the primary reason I read here, this site is also important to me in dispelling the disinformation campaign in progress concerning climate. Society is being ‘Gruber’ed on a large scale, and needs to put down the coolaid, wake up, and smell the coffee. I, for one, am grateful to Mr. Forbes for the article, and thankful to Mr. Watts for the forum.
Quite simply there is hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, so there is a bidding process for such monies. I mean as a result of the RET in Australia we are sending billions of dollars to Qatar for the privilege of having renewable energy.
There have been some useful contributions to this blog, however some contributions continue to be characterised by denial or naivety.
For instance, of course the original AG21 document described itself as ‘voluntary’. Is anyone silly enough to expect the UN to state it is compulsory and must be implemented by every country in the world immediately?
Open your eyes and look at the facts.
In Australia, as I have already stated, the provisions of Agenda 21 are being written into local laws right around the country. If you care to look this is confirmed by politicians, local councils, and te judiciary, as you can see here.
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/Agenda21Facts.pdf
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/ICLEI_AG21Sustainability3.pdf
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/COAG_Democracy_Agenda21.pdf
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/SignatoriesTo_IGAE_AcknowledgeConstitutionIsOutdated.pdf
All those who value freedom need to open their eyes and check the facts for themselves.