Guest post by Dr. Tony Brown
“Personal carbon rations would have to be mandatory, imposed by Government in the same way that food rationing was introduced in the UK in 1939… Each person would receive an electronic card containing their year’s carbon credits …see the Tyndall Centre’s study on “domestic tradable quotas”… and their recent establishment on the political agenda…the card would have to be presented when purchasing energy or travel services, and the correct amount of carbon deducted. The technologies and systems already in place for direct debit systems and credit cards could be used.”
(Environmental Audit Committee minutes-House Of Commons-London)
Preface. This is a factual account of the highly politicised concept of catastrophic man made climate change. The views quoted above are supported in principle by the UK govt but said to be ahead of their time. However, the means to achieve them are now being quietly introduced into main stream thinking through the systematic use of a political agenda that uses the alarming notion of catastrophic man made climate change as the means to force through a measure of social engineering unequalled in the UK in modern times.
In promoting this notion, alternative and well researched views that oppose the science lying behind the unproven hypothesis are stifled, and derision heaped on those pointing out previous well documented warming and cooling periods that occur in, as yet, little understood cycles throughout our history.
This is a long and complex document so it is suggested that a read through of the text that can be seen on your screen should serve as a useful introduction to the highways and byways of our political and scientific establishments. Additional information is provided in many of the links-some deserving of considerable time- so a second much more leisurely examination of the account will enable the reader to acquire a deeper knowledge of the subversion of science in pursuit of political objectives.
Crossing the Rubicon: An advert to change hearts and minds.
Finnish Professor Atte Korhola said:
“When later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st century as an embarrassing chapter in history of science. They will wonder our time, and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten as the actual research topic — climate change — turned into a political and social playground.”
An advert on “climate change” – aired for the first time in Oct 2009 – is part of a long term £6 million campaign to “change the hearts and minds” of a mainly sceptical British public. This form of communication is known as “ad-doctrination.”
It was shown at peak time on one of the mainstream British TV stations, with the message that it is unacceptable, indeed irresponsible, to be a climate sceptic, as there will be catastrophic consequences for your grandchildren if you don’t get on board. This chimes with the Governments declaration that it is also ‘anti social’ to oppose wind farms.
There is a British govt department who were behind the rationale for this advert that is known as The ‘Dept of Energy and Climate Change’ which is a 2008 spin off from a longer established dept called Defra. At this point it is useful to backtrack a little to see when the UK government got turned on to climate change and exchanged rhetoric and ‘warm words’ for action.
Margaret Becket headed Defra .from June 2001 to May 2006 with the brief;
“To lobby for the UK in other international negotiations on sustainable development and climate change.”
Defra have been key in shaping and promoting climate policy and the Hadley Centre (for Climate research) is largely funded to the tune of many millions of pounds through Defra’s Global Atmospheric division. Additional resources come from the Ministry of Defence and European Commission. Tony Blair’s fervent conversion to the climate cause seems to have led directly to Steven Byres organising the ‘Stopping Dangerous Climate Change’ conference at Hadley (Met office) in Jan 2005.
5.1 Alignment of the Climate Prediction Programme with Defra’s business and science objectives
The Climate Prediction Programme was not an academic research programme; its work plan and deliverables was driven by Defra’s requirements for science to inform UK government policy on climate change mitigation and adaptation. As the policy requirements changed, so did the research programme objectives. In this section we show how the work described in the CPP Annexes contributed to one or more of the science and business objectives and issues, as published in the Global Atmosphere section of the current strategy for the Climate, Energy and Environmental Risk (CEER) Directorate for 2003-2006. The full strategy can be seen at:
Our convoluted story starts with Defra:
Here is Defras “Communication strategy scoping report” which directly led to Futerras “new rules of the game.” Futerra is a very high powered “sustainability communicator” (or Environmental PR Agency)
“This work has contributed to a shared understanding of the vision for environmental behaviour to underpin ‘one planet living’
“As part of our mapping of Defras work we drew up an initial set of ‘desired’ behaviours”.
This scoping report was the original basis for the advert on British TV through implementing Futerras “New rules of the game”.
These are their Directors and credentials:
These are some of their clients:
Which includes the BBC.
Extract from Futerra web site:
“Various BBC teams have enjoyed training sessions on communicating sustainable development. Participants have ranged from producers for EastEnders ( a popular soap) to researchers on the CBeebies channel.” (The latter a Childrens’ channel)
The BBC appears to have shown reporting bias on the subject for several years and perhaps the genesis for this attutude lies with their being indoctrinated with the ‘right’ message at one of these meetings.
Further information on the background of the activities of Futerra and related research by an organisation called the Institute for Public Policy research is given below.
The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) is a leading left of centre think tank, which seems to have a revolving door with Labour. That the climate message should not be seen as “too alarming” was a message carried by the BBC as can be seen here:
This is a report by Richard Black environment correspondent for the Corporation, concerning IPPR acting on advice provided by Futerra.
“The style of climate change discourse is that we maximise the problem and minimise the solution”
Solitaire Townsend, Futerra
Richard Black is already very knowledgeable on Earth matters, so may not have felt it necessary to have attended one of Futerra’s training sessions on “communicating sustainable development.”
Part of Defra metamorposed in October 2008 into;
The already mentioned “Department of Energy and Climate Change”
The Four principals involved are Ed Miliband, Lord Hunt, Joan Ruddock, David Kidney.
Joan Ruddock’s work focuses largely on “how we can change behaviour across UK society and reach an ambitious global agreement to reduce our carbon emissions in a fair and effective way”.
Joan needs no introduction to British readers.
For years she was chair of CND (Campaign for Nuclear disarmament) Eventually moved to Defra and ended up in this new dept.
Ed Miliband is a senior Labour Govt figure. His father was Ralph Miliband, the Marxist political theorist, one of the most influential left-wingers of his generation. Ed’s girl friend is an environmental lawyer.
Britain likes to think of itself as a long time leader in climate action, but the EU and the G8 only got on board in 2005 with this matter:
or as a pdf
“The UK Prime Minister Tony Blair defined climate change as ‘probably, long-term the single most important issue we face as a global community,’ and made climate change one of his priority topics during the UK’s G8 Presidency, along with Africa. Climate change was also made a priority for the UK’s EU Presidency (1 July 2005 – 31 December 2005). In a keynote speech on climate change, Tony Blair set out three ambitious targets for the UK’s G8 Presidency in 2005:
“To secure an agreement as to the basic science on climate change and the threat it poses, to provide the foundation for further action;
“To reach agreement on a process to speed up the science, technology and other measuresnecessary to meet the threat;
“To engage countries outside the G8 who have growing energy needs, like China and India.”
To put this information into context we need to examine the run up to key events in 2005, as this led to the step change increase in the political promotion of climate change. As the British have been leaders, so it is fitting that the next part of our story – which preceded the events in link 12 and 13 – takes place at the Mother of Parliaments with the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons.
The EAC had met regularly for some years and report their findings in detail after examining memorandum and questioning some of those they viewed as ‘expert witnesses.’ The relevance of this particular report of the EAC cited here, is that it was written just before the UK took over EU presidency AND the chair of the G8 in 2005. These are two very influential positions that fell to Tony Blair who was getting ‘on message’ with climate change and saw the opportunity to cement Britain’s pre eminence in this field-the Americans being decidedly “off message” and out of the picture through the refusal of George Bush to ratify the Kyoto agreement.
The report, intended to shape international policy on climate change during that influential year, has a tone that is decidedly apocalyptic That the science is settled is a recurring theme (this was prior to the IPCC assessment in 2007) with no mention of natures contribution to co2 levels, the overwhelming importance of water vapour, nor of cyclic variations in our climate. Indeed, no other information was being considered that would show that the science was not as settled as the protagonists claimed.
At this point we take this next series of links concerning this particular report of the EAC as part of one story and return to the link numbering system just before number 17, when we conclude our examination of this report and continue with the piecing together of the wider political climate change jigsaw.
This report of the Environmental audit committee is subtitled
“Fourth report of session 2004/5 published March 2005”
The next few extracts come from “Conclusions and Recommendations” at the start of the document. However the whole piece is well worth reading. The footnotes in particular give some interesting snippets of information on who is informing UK policy.
Item 26: “In the context of the G8 the UK could pursue a broader range of complementary policies including the need for greater coordinated effort low carbon research (sic) the scope for developing forms of international traction and in particular the need to embed environmental objectives more firmly within a range of international organisations.”
Item 27: “It is simply not credible to suggest that the scale of the (co2) reductions which are required can possibly be achieved without significant behavioural change.”
(Note: The term used, “significant behavioural change,” is similar to that used in the extract at link 2.)
Item 28: It can be seen that the highly alarmist viewpoint detailed here echoes the recent comments about “thermo dynamic crimes”*.
(Note: *The increasingly frenetic tone of the climate debate in the UK can be seen in this comment from David Mackay that was made public just before the first airing of the advert.)
“Setting fire to chemicals like gas should be made a thermodynamic crime,” he said. “If people want heat they should be forced to get it from heat pumps. That would be a sensible piece of legislation.”
Who is David Mackay?
(From the same link above) “Speaking last week on his first day as chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, MacKay set out a vision of how Britain could generate the threefold increase in electricity it needs, with nuclear power at its heart. DECC is the govt dept that is the successor to Defra in climate change.”
Mackay has also been an expert witness in front of this EAC committee.
Those individuals and organisations who presented information for the report that we are examining in detail here are listed in this document:
All the minutes on the fourth report of the EAC are here:
The next extracts are taken from this document and for reasons of space are by no means exhaustive, but are reasonably representative.
Question 133 onwards from Friends of the Earth giving witness in a Q and A format.
“Do you think there needs to be a different approach to the setting of the targets? It seems to some of us that the targets have been set as some sort of political horse-trading.”
Miss Worthington: “Yes, absolutely.”
Q137 Chairman: “Do you have any idea how that process might be reformed?”
Miss Worthington: “Anything would be an improvement. Essentially it was exactly horse-trading, where countries simply went into a darkened room and beat each other up. We had no methodology attached to it at all.”
Q137 Chairman: “Do you think that the way in which, for example, most of the allocations were handed out free in the European Union scheme, has hindered or helped matters?”
Miss Worthington: “Practically, it has meant that it can get off the ground. Environmentally, it certainly breaches the polluter-pays principle quite spectacularly. We would advocate a move towards 100% auctioning. Not only would that give government a revenue stream upfront which you could then redirect, but it would stop all the horse trading around projections which are causing everybody complete nightmares, both over in Defra and DTI and other parts of government at the moment.”
(Questions 40-61 on 17 Nov 2004 are particularly interesting.)
Q41 Mr Challen: “I was just thinking of Winston Churchill’s comment that democracy is a bad way of organising society but all the other alternatives are worse. Picking up from your submission, is that your view about emissions trading systems?”
Mr Lanchbery: “Yes, it probably is. A lot of claims are made for emissions trading, for example that it provides certainty. No, it does not provide certainty unless you have got an absolutely rock-crushing compliance regime.”
“Each government, would you agree, should look at how they can get their public on board directly rather than simply saying this is an objective for our policy makers in Whitehall.”
Mr Lanchbery: “It is an appealing concept. It was mooted some time ago. I remember having a meeting with the European Commissioner at which it was mooted. I think it is a matter of practicality really though. Although most well-educated people again would be okay with it and you could see them using their carbon credit, it might be difficult for an elderly person to take any advantage of it. I can see the appeal of it, I just wonder about the practicality of it.
“It is an interesting question. Getting the public on board and using fiscal instruments to do that are not necessarily the same thing and your natural response is to think fiscal instruments doing anything is likely to alienate the public, but I think probably of all the mechanisms available the notion of per capita allowances that can be traded electronically through a credit card system—and I know the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research has done some investigation of this—is quite appealing if it is technically feasible because as well as being economically efficient it is also socially progressive in that a person who does not have many means and does not travel very much at least has an asset that they can sell to an affluent person who does wish to travel more. It has some social progressivity about it, too. It is quite an appealing way. There are obviously other fiscal measures, taxation in particular, and we would all be in favour of a variety of fiscal measures for achieving different purposes, so we argue, for example, for a well-to-wheel carbon tax on vehicle fuels.
“Do you think that without such measures as that—and that is music to my ears on DTQs by the way—we could achieve any more stringent or radical post-Kyoto targets because, after all, the domestic sector in this country contributes about 40% of our emissions.”
Dr Jefferiss: “I think that there are other policy mechanisms for driving reductions in the non-industrial sector. It is really a question of whether the Government will have the political will to implement them. Certainly, as you indicated, energy efficiency measures in the domestic sector in particular could achieve significant cuts but the fear, naturally, is a political one and the fuel poor in particular will be adversely affected. Our response to that would be that it would be much more politically expedient and effective to tackle fuel poverty head on and remove that as an obstacle to introducing a rational taxation system for energy or for carbon use. I think it is really a question of not whether there are other policy influences but whether there is the political will to deploy them. The same with fuel duty on transport.”
(Note: This link gives an explanation of DTQ’s [Domestic Tradable Quotas].)
To continue: Appendix 7 “Memorandum from the Green party” makes fascinating reading.
“However, much of the carbon dioxide that is presently produced is wasted in transporting goods from one market to another. Trade should be reduced so that it returns to being a means of obtaining goods that are not available locally, according to the principle of trade subsidiarity.
“Proposal: The Committee should investigate the possibility of creating a new global currency for carbon trading. Such a currency would need to be backed by and administered by the UN.”
(The suggested carbon quota per capita are mentioned in table 1, 2, and 3)
“The IPCC, the RCEP and more recently the UK government have accepted the need for global CO2 reductions of 60% by 2050. However, if these global reductions are to be made in an equitable fashion, the higher-polluting countries like the UK must make bigger reductions. This would translate into a UK target more like 90% by 2050 at the very latest, with clear and definite targets at stages along the way.
“We would also propose, as a short-term measure en route to a full system of eco-taxation, the reintroduction of the fuel tax escalator, which was removed for reasons of political expediency that ignored the requirements for CO2 reductions.
“The national road building programme must be scrapped, and the resulting £30 billion saving invested in a package of emissions-reducing policies including 20% traffic reduction within 10 years.”
Appendix 12 “Memorandum from Institute of Policy Studies” (This highly influential body is also mentioned in the main body of this story)
“Attention therefore needs to be given beyond these solutions towards measures of sufficiency, of social and institutional reform, and of modifications to lifestyles with much lower energy inputs and lower carbon emissions.
“The only logical way (to cut CO2) is by the introduction of personal carbon rationing, which would cover the 50% of total UK emissions which come from household energy use and personal transport, including international air travel. (The Tyndall Centre study on domestic tradable quotas discusses methods of ‘rationing’ the remainder of emissions in the economy). Personal carbon rations would have to be mandatory, imposed by Government in the same way that food rationing was introduced in the UK in 1939. A voluntary alternative to carbon rationing would be highly unlikely to make significant savings as recent history suggests that individuals would be unwilling to start taking action for the common good unless they saw others doing likewise—and the ‘free-rider’ would have far too much to gain. Appeals to reason and conscience have not been effective in achieving major changes in our irresponsible consumption patterns. In circumstances such as this, when the wider public interest is at considerable risk and the fact that the changes are made is of critical importance to the welfare of the community and, in this case, future generations, Government intervention is in our view imperative.
“The administration of carbon rationing should be simple. Each person would receive an electronic card containing their year’s carbon credits (see the Tyndall Centre’s study on ‘domestic tradable quotas’ and their recent establishment on the political agenda in Colin Challen’s Private Member’s Bill). The card would have to be presented when purchasing energy or travel services, and the correct amount of carbon deducted. The technologies and systems already in place for direct debit systems and credit cards could be used.
(My highlighting and emphasis)
21. Personal carbon rations offer a positive, fair and effective way of making the carbon savings necessary to prevent “potentially disastrous climate change”.
Of course attendance at this committee can be an entirely different thing to exerting actual influence, but the obvious bias to those from the environmental groups-who appear to be pushing at an open door- and against the representatives of industry such as Shell and BAA can be seen when following the full transcripts.
We now revert to our main narrative. The following year was the first meeting of the ‘ad hoc group’ to set up integrated action betwen the EU, G8 and the IPCC working groups. Both these parties and the UN (who sponsor the IPCC) are following ‘Agenda 21’ In the case of climate change that relates to the work of the IPCC whose findings are endorsed by those countries following the agenda, and who therefore subsequently have a legal obligation to implement that agenda. This includes teaching climate propaganda to our school children through Sage 21.
Agenda 21 is linked to the AD Hoc working group of the IPCC negotiations that are leading to the Copenhagen summit in December 2009. The group has five chairs, of whom several have been termed green activists. Several of them have openly written of the need for a new world governance. The SAGE21 education agenda from the UN clearly sets out to influence schools.
The Agenda 21 aims has been endorsed at UK Govt level, and councils and govt bodies have been instructed to follow this agenda.
Below is the first session of the AD Hoc group in 2006, which is the prelude to the meeting of world leaders in Copenhangen in December 2009 to sign a treaty to combat “dangerous climate change.”
Good resumé of events below:
These are the minutes and action plan of latest meeting in April 2009
This is the ad hoc working group composition and its aims, that have fed into the UN report above. There are many individual sections worth exploring as they concern negotiating points and amendments for the Copenhagen summit.
These are the key chairs:
Harald Dovland Norway –chair minister for environment http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-180526631.html
Mam Konate of Mali Vice chair http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop11/enbots/enbots1704e.html
Chan Woo-Kim Republic of Korea http://184.108.40.206/search?q=cache:py3_vPi45-wJ:www.unescap.org/esd/environment/mced/singg/documents/Programme_SINGG_Final.pdf+chan-woo+kim+republic+of+korea&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Ms Christiana Figueres Costa Rica http://figueresonline.com/
Nuno Lacasta Portugal http://www.wcl.american.edu/environment/lacasta.cfm
Brian Smith New Zealand
Marcelo Rocha Brazil http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file50347.pdf
This is the ‘information note’ (Background) for the meeting
It appears to be a UN document to substantially re-shape the world through the medium of the threat of catastrophic climate change.
Whilst readers should scrutinise each line for themselves in order to see what many had always believed was an agenda behind the IPCC, some highlights are;
Page 6 item 17
Page 8 item 25 and 27
Page 9 item 34
Page 10 item 37
Page 14 item 60
Conclusions on p15
Here is the effective draft of the Copenhagen treaty produced by the Ad Hoc working group.
(Click on PDF once linked in)
Page 67 and 122 are of particular interest. This from p. 122:
16. [Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures [shall][should] be addressed by proper economic, social and environmental actions, including promoting and supporting economic diversification and the development and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, paying particular attention to the needs and concerns of the poorest and most vulnerable developing country Parties.]
Alternative to paragraph 16:
[Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures shall be addressed by various means, including but not limited to promoting, supporting and enabling economic diversification, funding, insurance and the development, transfer and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, such as cleaner fossil fuel technologies, gas flaring reduction, and carbon capture and storage technologies.]
17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees
(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.
In comparing the draft to the overall aims of Agenda 21 (in Link 23), it can be seen the logical progression that has been taken in order to implement Agenda 21 through the means of the dangerous climate change hypothesis .
Internationally Agreed Development Goals & Climate Change:
“Internationally agreed frameworks and goals have set an agenda for integrating climate change and sustainable development. Agenda 21, which addresses climate change under its Chapter 9 (Protection of the atmosphere), recognizes that activities that may be undertaken in pursuit of the objectives defined therein should be coordinated with social and economic development in an integrated manner, with a view to avoiding adverse impacts on the latter, taking into full account the legitimate priority needs of developing countries for the achievement of sustained economic growth and the eradication of poverty.”
Both Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) assert that the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the key instrument for addressing climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, which entered into force on 16 February 2005, sets binding emission reductions targets for industrialized countries for the first commitment period 2008-2012.
Britain has always liked to see itself at the forefront of the fight against ‘dangerous climate change’ and the subject has been highly politically charged since Margaret Thatcher decided to promote it as a reason to favour Nuclear over coal and made a speech on the world stage about the subject in 1988. She then opened the Hadley Centre in 1990 who ever since have-through Defra – offered considerable practical and financial support to the IPCC.
It helps that the Chief Scientific Advisor to Defra and Director of Strategy at the Tyndall Centre for “Climate Change Research”, is an old friend and advisor of ex-VP Gore, namely Professor Robert Watson.
He was IPCC chairman before Pachauri and when asked in 1997 at Kyoto about the growing number of climate scientists who challenged the conclusions of the UN, that man-induced global warming was real and promised cataclysmic consequences, Watson responded by dismissing all dissenting scientists as pawns of the fossil fuel industry. “The science is settled” he said, “and we’re not going to reopen it here.”
These links show Watson as representing Defra and Tyndall. The second is newer.
Provides some interesting background.
The nature of Defra support is described here in this DEFRA staff document relating to the Nobel Prize award for IPCC and Al Gore: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/news/2007/December/Defra-IPCC.aspx
“Defra provides financial support to the co-chairs and their supporting secretariats. As such the UK has provided underpinning funding for almost one-third of the major scientific reports produced by the IPCC, which the Nobel committee believes have ‘created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.’ ”
Link 27. The full strategy can be seen at:
5.1 Alignment of the Climate Prediction Programme with Defra’s business and science objectives
“The Climate Prediction Programme was not an academic research programme; its work plan and deliverables was driven by Defra’s requirements for science to inform UK government policy on climate change mitigation and adaptation. As the policy requirements changed, so did the research programme objectives. In this section we show how the work described in the CPP Annexes contributed to one or more of the science and business objectives and issues, as published in the Global Atmosphere section of the current strategy for the Climate, Energy and Environmental Risk (CEER) Directorate for 2003-2006. Defra and now the dept for energy and climate change, see AGW as being the vehicle to promote ‘one planet living’ “
From the Met office web site
Three events occurred in 1988 that assisted greatly in bringing the issue of man-made climate change to the notice of politicians:* A World Ministerial Conference on Climate Change in June hosted by the government of Canada *A speech in September by Margaret Thatcher where she mentioned the Anthropogenic climate change and the importance of action to combat it. * The first meeting of the IPCC in Geneva in November 1988. Delegates from various countries agreed to set up an international assessment of the science of change, together with its likely impacts and the policy options.
In December 1988 the UK Government announced it was committed to extending its influence internationally to provide information about climate change and to supporting appropriate research. Discussions were held with the Department of the Environment to strengthen climate research at the Met Office. This led, in November 1989, to an announcement of a new centre for climate change research in the Met Office — then called the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Margaret Thatcher opened this in 1990; it has since moved-as part of the Met office- to Exeter.”
The wheel has turned full cycle as the science becomes irrelevant to the politics. Observations that things aren’t as the models predicted are ignored, the planet has failed to read the script by inconveniently cooling for nearly a decade, whilst sea levels stubbornly refuse to rise beyond natural variability. The effects of the Jet stream is little understood and historic precedents for cyclic variability in our climate dismissed. Far from the ‘science being settled’, it is very poorly understood as yet. Even the Met office admit they have no idea –despite being world leaders- as to how much sea level will rise and its relationship to melting ice sheets, as this recent advert shows:
Polar ice-sheet modelling scientist
Salary: £25,500 + competitive benefits, including Civil Service Pension
Generic Role: Senior Scientist
Permanent post at the Met Office, Exeter
Closing date for applications: 11 June 2009
A significant uncertainty in future projections of sea level is associated with dynamical changes in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and a key aspect of this uncertainty is the role of ice shelves, how they might respond to climate change, and the effect this could have on the ice sheets. The goal of the post is to contribute to improved scenarios of sea-level rise, which is an important aspect of climate change, with large coastal impacts.
Specific job purpose
Incorporate a model of ice shelves into the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model to develop a capability to make projections of rapid changes in ice sheets, thereby leading to improved scenarios of future sea-level rise.”
So the poitics that started this all off have come back to the fore with the TV advert. This time through a Labour govt who have a penchant for control, taxes and an idealistic view of the world. Clearly they share this idea.
“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,
(premier environmental think-tank, with numerous high profile and influential members)
This is not to say that anyone in this complex saga has done anything illegal in following and promoting their own particular world view through the message of collective social responsibility, woven into the apocalyptic notion of catastrophic man made climate change.
However, the nature of the highly convoluted linking of dedicated and sincere organisations and individuals with their own interpretation of the science, means the process is not at all transparent, dissenting voices have been ignored, and there is an element of “group think” in order to conform secure desired outcomes. In effect public money has been used to promote a politically inspired ideology subject to substantial mission creep, in order to meet political aims.
Politicians and the media who share the “one world living” viewpoint have probably not been as assiduous as they should in questioning the science (because many want to believe it) Many others who may not share this world viewpoint have been equally as guilty in nodding through what has been put in front of them. The taxation, social, and cost elements of “environmental”policies has also not been clearly spelt out to the population, and are of fundamental importance to everyone as they will have a dramatic impact on their way of life, basic freedoms and finances.
“H.L.Mencken wrote: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
The science behind the IPCC has always been debatale at best – but never openly debated. It has now become the means to persuade the populace to follow broader social objectives in a “one world” scenario.
” ‘Jacta alea esto,’ Let the die be cast! Let the game be ventured!”
That was the famous declaration of Cæsar when, at the Rubicon, after long
hesitation, he finally decided to march to Rome,
With the airing of this advert a political line has been crossed. The die is cast.