Maurice Newman, the chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s Business Advisory Council, has accused the UN of attempting to subvert democracy, of attempting to establish a worldwide authoritarian regime, with political power concentrated in the hands of UN officials.
According to Newman;
Why then, with such little evidence [for dangerous global warming], does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?
In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”
In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.
Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.
Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or disagreement.
Newman’s comments have stirred significant controversy in Australia, and a lot of calls for him to resign. However, in my opinion, it is Christiana Figueres who should face questions, regarding her bizarre statements about “revolutions” and “new economic development models”.
Christiana Figueres is the Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the official in charge of the UN’s environmental effort. According to CNS News, according to the UN itself, Christiana Figueres did say what Maurice Newman claims she said, about centralised economic transformation.
I don’t remember voting for a politician whose manifesto included a policy of “centralised transformation” of the global economy to a new economic model. I certainly don’t remember voting for Christiana Figueres.
Ultimately our elected politicians control the purse strings of the UN. Its about time our representatives demanded a little accountability and clarity, from the UN organisations which they so lavishly fund.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks for this insightful essay.
After 45 years working as a development economist in 15 countries, I have come to believe that it is not possible to reduce CO2 emissions significantly without destroying modern industrial civilization both in the developing world and the developed world. Nor do I think climate mitigation is necessary. Adaptation is cheaper and more politically acceptable.
I see a reasonable case for skepticism about the need for climate mitigation policies, while accepting conventional climate science. Mankind has a minor role in climate change but natural factors internal to the climate system have been underestimated. In any event, the risks associated with climate change are not symmetrical. Historical evidence indicates that adverse consequences of warming are much less than the adverse consequences of cooling.
As for climate change during the last 60 years or so, the people of the world have never had it so good and, apart from places where there are civil conflicts, the general trend is to improved health and welfare.
It makes no sense whatsoever to maintain that business-as-usual will bring doom and gloom. And even if it were true that we risk doom and gloom, it makes no sense to blame capitalism or democracy. To paraphrase Winston Churchill. The only virtues of Capitalism and Democracy are that all the other systems are worse, and usually much worse.
Tell me about it!
I have worked in several countries with socialist systems and a few with autocratic but capitalist systems. A country can have great resources, but under socialism that people of that country will be poor. Under autocratic systems, the elite of a country will become rich whether the system is socialist or capitalist.
Europe has several Democratic Socialist parties that are not socialist in the sense of being opposed to capitalism per se, although some members and leaders are closet communists. In my opinion, the German government has laid the foundations for economic disaster mainly because of the influence of closet communists from the former East Germany.
America does not have a significant socialist party, not does Canada. Both the US and Canada have populist parties who ride on the widespread quasi-religious yearning for Utopia to be achieved by social engineering by the state.
Populists have on and off been a significant political force in the US since at least as far back as Andrew Jackson and as far back in Canada as Tommy Douglas. I once heard Douglas explain the position of his party: We regard the economy like a farmer regards his cream separator. The machine has a little lever that adjusts for the amount of cream extracted. Our party is not opposed to capitalism. All we want to do is adjust the little lever. (Paraphrased) That is what Douglas meant by “democratic socialism”.
The climate alarmists seem to have captured the populist movement, at least in the medium term. But it is unlikely that the alarmists can fool enough people to succeed in the long run. Not when jobs and pensions are at stake. Unfortunately, the US two-party system is so rigid that climate-alarmists need only capture a small percentage of the vote to dominate the executive branch and to gridlock the Senate.
Mr. Obama is determined that Senate gridlock will not stop him. It therefore remains for the Supreme Court to determine if the President can bypass Congress in making new law. We will soon know if the President of the US is empowered by the Constitution to “…intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model…” öf the USA.
The Supreme Court must decide how much power the President has to change the US economic model, with or without legislation by the Congress.
It is time for the U.S to get out of the UN and for the UN to get out of the US. These people are enemies of liberty and must not be given aid and comfort U.S. taxpayers.
Mike Hamblet you are very wrong I have known Maurice for years and he says what he believes…
he follows no one else at all. A nice honest guy really!
Add world government to the coming cashless society and you may need to worry. Dissidents could find their credit card money supply cut off. Hypothetically, of course.
Can’t decide which of the commenters on this site is the wierdest idiot on the planet. All seem to be bonkers, paid for writing or perhaps work in a coal mine? Thankfully science, new technology and (most) governments are working to reduce carbon output. And anyone who gives a damn about the next generation supports that effort.
mike hamblet
Everyone who cares about future generations rejects expensive and pointless efforts “to reduce carbon output”. Instead, we who actually do care about the next and subsequent generations promote the use of the cheapest and most efficient energy supplies.
Concern at “carbon output” is only shared by cranks who fear the beneficial global warming which stopped nearly two decades ago may start again.
Richard
Can’t eat or drink money. Climate change is happening now – checkout Alaska, California, Greenland, Australia, Africa, Hymalayas. Need to stop worrying about your wallet and look at the bigger picture……?
mike hamblet
Yes, climate change IS happening now. It always has happened and it always will happen, everywhere.
But the recovery from the Little Ice Age known as global warming stopped nearly two decades ago. Global temperature provides no indication of rise or fall discernible with 95% confidence. This global temperature stasis will end with further global warming or global cooling but nobody can know which and when until it happens.
You pretend to care for “the next generation” while calling for their wealth to be squandered and providing them with energy poverty. And you make those calls for no valid reason. We who actually do care for the next generation will do all in our power to defend them against the calls of you and your ilk.
Richard
Mike
You might find the present and future climate less frightening if you knew more about the past climate.
Can I suggest a book like ‘climate, past present and future’ by the great Hubert lamb might help you to put today’s climate into its proper historic context? Extremes were worse in the last thousand Years than today and today’s benign climate is remarkable given the rigours of such periods as the little ice age
Tonyb
Australia, I live there. I have not seen any climate change in my lifetime here. So when will it happen?
To “mike hamblet”,
I understand your first sentence; it is for you to decide, or not. The other three are just WRONG: allow me to explain.
All comments here are personal opinion and none is “paid” unless they themselves are in the pay of the bedwetters’ society a.k.a. EPA, HMGov., LocalGov., WWF, (and other “quangos”) all of which are directly in tow of the UN.
Government does NOT work to reduce any so-called “carbon output”: it has jumped on the UN band-wagon of ignorance and monetary greed. (If you disagree, just check the massive list of payments Govt. makes to research entities / universities / reporters / BBC etc., in respect of the so-called “climate change” money-squandering religion. You may need to vomit part way through it).
You obviously misuse the word “carbon” so please read the website “carbon-sense.com ” by Viv Forbes, Australia: it will explain all you need to know using plain English.
If you really wish to reply, kindly acknowledge to everyone here, that carbon-dioxide is NOT a pollutant, thank you. (If you believe it is a pollutant, we shall all be interested to know your words, or not).
There are some real crazies on here though aren’t there. Seems to be a lot of brainwashing – all spouting the same anti EU, anti government, no need to change anything rhetoric. Is this anarchy? If youre all unable to accept change i’d like to know how you get on with no government to maintain the complexity of modern society.
You could say that anything that is harmful to man is a pollutant. Too much oxygen would kill us; too much Co2 will (is alreay
…(is allready) causing huge problems. I’ll leave it there; I know of the climate changes and their repercusions; its measured and videoed, recorded and there are first hand accounts of suffering, sea level rise etc. Ignore it if you want, but dont inteffere
For the answer to your question Mike, simply look in the mirror.
Evidently you cannot bring yourself to admit that carbon-dioxide is NOT a pollutant: you have evaded my simple question.
END OF CONVERSATION.
https://youtu.be/nq4Bc2WCsdE
A mirror might solve your confusion.
Thankfully, Mike, we are very sensible, & all look & study the science and data and see for ourselves what is correct and what is not and what needs more research, and non are paid for anything. But, do there best to show and find the real truth and in that way help mankind find the best way forward.
As someone has said before was the EU founded (foundered might be more appropriate) as an experiment to test the feasibility of a World Government?
Europe is a continent with widely divergent countries, economies, wealth customs etc The EU started as a “Common Market” which to me seemed sensible because it encouraged trade which in turn produced jobs, wealth and greater consumer choice with cheaper goods due to removal of taxes on foreign goods.
The Common Market by stealth became The European Economic Community and finally the European Union, with a flag and common laws that have to be accepted by all the countries within it. This is why we in the UK have a ridiculous energy policy, because we would pay huge fines to the EU if we don’t lower CO2 emissions.
The EU has insisted that water is to be a precious commodity due to AGW and needs storing correctly, priced accordingly and future needs provided by desalination plants. They learned from 1930’s Germany that if there is a common threat (the J*ws then, AGW and the fact that since the EU’s formation there have been no wars in Europe (false logic) ).
A WG would base itself on this model, all countries must be united against a common perceived threat and then ruled by a stealthy encroaching series of laws that transcend individual national governments laws because they are “better” for the common good. Rule would be from an elite which everyone thinks is democratic, but in fact is not (EU parliament which votes on laws made by the EU commission).
The EU is scared stiff that Greece will leave and the Greek government are calling their bluff, which is interesting but also shows that a “one size economy for all” does not work.
The prospect is frightening, but at least we now have a government which will challenge the EU.
andrewmharding
You ask
No.
The origin of the EU was the European Coal & Steel Community (ECSC) that is accurately described by wicki here where it says
The ECSC operated to enable that “regional integration” during its 50-year life that ended in 2002.
As wicki says
But, and importantly, the ” regional integration” of the ECSC and the Agencies it absorbed during its operation was the sharing of activities, information and resources by industries.
The EU’s economic and political institutions were additions to the industrial purposes of the ECSC but were – and are – said to be part of the ECSC’s objective of preventing future war between countries of Europe.
Richard
PS Declaration of possible interest by RSC. I was a Technical Advisor of the ECSC.
Thanks Richard, personally i think war between European countries is highly unlikely and a non-aggression treaty between all the European countries with each one defending every other one if war does break out.
andrewmharding
You may be right. I was answering the specific question that you posed.
If – as I understood you to be suggesting – the EU is being used by some as a model for obtaining a world government then opposition to their actions requires proper understanding of how the EU evolved to become what it is.
I again commend the wicki link about the history of the ECSC. And if I have understood your suggestion then perhaps you may want to copy and save that wicki page because such inconvenient truths as it states tend to get altered on wicki.
Richard
The Euro was first proposed by economist Francois Perroux in 1942 as the currency Hitler would put into use Europe-wide after he won WWII. Unfortunately, Perroux (who was a Pétain enthusiast and one of the most famous economists of the 20th C) was never translated into English. You need to be able to read French. Modern French historian Bernard Bruneteau wrote “‘L’Europe Nouvelle’ de Hitler—Une illusion des intellectuels de la France de Vichy” in 2003, one of the books that explains it. Around p. 194.
The purpose of the Euro was to be Europe-wide, but planned to impoverish the south European and Eastern European countries by taking away their sovereign currencies. Without their sovereign currencies, they could not denominate their debt in their own currencies. Germany and France, therefore, would prosper and rule. Don’t forget that before the Euro became official in 2000, Germany had horrendous debt and was in financial trouble. The Euro cured that; of course it would: the people living in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece, etc. are paying for it.
MRW
If what you say is true then it is good we won WW2 so the 1940’s plans for Naz11sm were not implemented.
Richard
@richardscourtney,
Well, not here. But Europe has adopted them. Took them ages to do it (until 2000). Francois Mitterand privatized the banks in 1981, which caused Guy de Rothschild to swear and accuse the French government of doing to his family in 1981 what the Pétain government did during WWII. He huffed off to NYC for six years to party and complain (in my view, he was right). His cousin, Baron Edmond de Rothschild (Geneva), was far more strategic, and far more savvy about how dough worked globally. He created the Global Warming movement in 1987 with Maurice Strong, and announced it with Maurice Strong and David Rockefeller at an invitation-only five-day meeting after the Fourth Worldwide Wilderness Congress.
mike hamblet says:
There are some real crazies on here though aren’t there.
Yes indeed. Read what Bruce C wrote above. So you’d better start walking toward high ground, mike. Accelerating sea level rise, ya know. Might getcha.
********************
MRW, andrew & Richard,
Thanks for those comments. I learned something from each one. I didn’t learn anything new from Richard’s critique of Wiki though. I’ve seen the same revisionist history.
And MRW’s comment didn’t mention the most famous and astute economist in French history; Fred Bastiat <–[Merican English spelling & punctuation], who ripped his newfangled socialist countrymen a new one (sorry Richard, but it's true… or at least, that’s how I see it).
MRW
Sorry, but I don’t accept your assertions that the euro is adoption of a 1940s Naz1 plan. There are many criticisms that can be made about the EU. Such criticisms are hindered by assertions such as yours that don’t concur with reality.
You say the US has not adopted a universal currency for all its States?
Perhaps you could say which States don’t use the $ as their currency?
And all of the EU has not adopted the euro: the UK has kept the £.
Germany has tried to bail out Greece with massive loans.
etc.
Richard
@richardscourtney,
No, I didn’t. Where did I say that?
If Greece had retained the drachma, it wouldn’t have needed them.
OK. Fine. Read the work of Dr. Alain Parguez if interested. He was in the actual meetings when these things were being decided.
MRW
You wrote
I understood your “here” to be the US. If that is not so then I apologise.
Other than that, what I wrote is simply true.
Richard
“Its about time our representatives demanded a little accountability and clarity, from the UN organisations which they so lavishly fund”
This is not likely to happen as long as those so-called representatives are working diligently to implement those same UN organizations’ policies. Can anyone suppose that these representatives are not aware of the true climate situation? as aware as any informed person? The question is ‘what’s in it for them?’ What does the POTUS get out of it for instance? a cushy UN position with life tenure perhaps?
Offtopic question: since climate is a regional phenomenon how does it make any sense to talk about “global climate change”? All climate change is regional.
chris moffatt commented:
“The question is ‘what’s in it for them?’ What does the POTUS get out of it for instance? ”
There’s a strong following for Marxist/Socialist ideology. They truly believe that collective poverty is better than individual ability to prosper. In their minds equality between people trumps all else. They say this despite the fact that….although they claim otherwise….there plan always includes an unelected ruling elite to which they aspire.
brainfart…..should be “their plan”
markl. There was an item today on the news where the Labour Party spokesman said that they had lost the election because it was all about taking money from the rich and giving it to the “deserving” as state handouts. This was because Milliband is very left wing. He then went on to say that if they had used the word “aspiration”, which is the cornerstone of Conservative policy, the result may have been different. Left wing socialists want everyone the same, but at a lower level than the ruling elite
@chris moffatt
POTUS is clueless. He is not a nuanced thinker, and he has no way of knowing he is being played by his advisors.
@markl,
Lay off the “There’s a strong following for Marxist/Socialist ideology” horses**t. Most people on this blog are incapable of using the term “socialism” accurately. Ditto: Marxism. (Everyone I see flailing it around here got their definition from social cues or blogs; they’ve never read Marx.) The Number One best explainer of capitalism is, in fact, Marx. This is widely recognized by economists and political scientists of all political stripes. It’s just that Marx came to specious conclusions, which the West does’t accept.
You give the current POTUS too much intellectual strength. He doesn’t’ think about individual abilities…or collective poverty for that matter. He’s thinking about his legacy, and he thinks he has smart people around him to help him create that posterity. He has zero clue how the federal monetary system works, jut like most people on this blog. That’s why he hired Jacob Lew, a lawyer, as Secretary of the US Treasury. An absolute idiot.
MRW,
I agree with you… for whatever that’s worth. I’ve read Marx, too. It’s not easy. But one thing comes across clearly: Marx had no real understanding of human nature. And I don’t care what label they apply, I am opposed to statism by any name. They all want power and they all want their kind to be in charge, whether it’s the Left or the Right. But all most folks want is to be left alone.
You are right about Obama’s legacy. He might be surprised though. And not in a good way.
@dbstealey,
Marx did not agree with capitalism, so he had to explain it thoroughly so that he could debunk it. His explanation was expert. The best that has ever been written. Historians, economists, political scientists, all agree.
But if you live in a country that describes itself as a state, or a nation, then there are rules for the state or nation. That goes without saying. Otherwise, you have anarchy and mayhem. Real chaos.
I don’t like chaos.
I prefer to live in the US. The list of state rules here suit me. I can function within them, and I am cognizant that the rules are meant to benefit the many. Some I like, some not. But on average, this country is the best for how I choose to live my life.
What I don’t like in this country is the failure, or willingness, of the average citizen to recognize and learn how state (nation) accounting actually works. So we vote in people who are harming us.
How many people do you know, dbstealey, who recognize that the $1.7 trillion in treasury securities that China had in October 2008–parked in the NY Federal Reserve, btw–represented the money that US citizens gave China for goods China produced and we bought from them? Why wasn’t that money spent on US goods? Why wasn’t that money retained here, and in the bank accounts of US businesses?
MRW,
You’re asking questions that I can’t answer. I buy Merican when it’s available, after that, Japanese. They learned Deming well. No Chinese, though. They’re not our friends, for one thing.
The only ones I would put below China would be the UN, if they produced anything. But all they’re good for is taking:
http://www.agenda21course.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Biodiversity-Map.jpg
@dbstealey,
I don’t understand the purpose of the map.
MRW,
It’s part of Agenda 21. If you click on it you can see it more clearly. You can certainly see what their intentions are. They want to take away all that land and give it back to the prairie dogs, snakes and mosquitoes.
It’s just another reason to evict the UN from our shores — if you need any more reasons. It is infested with the most corrupt bureaucrats on earth, and they hate America (but they love dollars, because they’ve always got their hand out for more. And Uncle Sucker gives it to them.)
BTW, Marx didn’t ‘debunk’ capitalism. If you look at the results, you will see the immense benefits of a free market society. Also BTW, the U.S. hasn’t had real capitalism since before Andy Jackson was elected.
Figueroa is potty. China the best model? China is one of the most polluted countries in the world, as were the East Bloc countries of Soviet Europe and for that matter any other centrally planned economy. To put such up as example to emulate is idiotic, to expect it would improve things is insane.
Ed,
Christiana Figueres is the alien next to Dr. Smith:
http://moonbattery.com/graphics/Dr-Smith_Christiana-Figueres.jpg
This subject needs more press. I came at this debate years ago understanding less about the science and much more about the power politics. Both sides of the coin are needed to truly quantify the values underpinning CAGW, although one will inform the other. It seems that the alarmists are employing this method, digging for the dirty funding and mal intentions, the human weakness behind true skepticism; and we on the other end have not wanted to dirty our hands. Why not, some speculation, while not proof, can lead to understanding. A game I play from time to time: when I hear or read of a person vehemently pushing policy or industry into global hegemony… I check the Bilderberg attendee’s list, usually the name of the Globalist in question can be found therein. From that point on I begin referencing their relationships, partnerships and affiliations. What I have come to understand is that their does exist a very powerful group of global centralists who need to implement a global tax, a global carbon tax in order to properly fund their growth. Problem, reaction, solution.
Here’s a summary, in case you missed it for the last (few) years : ;.
Newman just figured that out? Most people with half a brain realized that 30 years ago when the issue was first raised. Global warming is just the “hook of the day”, although it has had really good legs. Like previous hooks such as economic justice, save the children, disarmament, gun control, world peace, etc. etc., AGW is the latest ploy for the international left to try and run the world the way they see fit. To do so, the US and other western nations, the protectors of freedom and bringers of unprecedented human prosperity, must be brought down.
Ed, there’s a big difference between someone figuring it out and the press reporting on it. Press recognition comes from citizen outrage that their voices are being silenced.
Here is the documented Agenda.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&nr=23&type=400
Figueres is one of those individuals that has no respect for democracy. IIRC she, after the mess of Copenhagen, basically said that they, the prospective rulers of Earth, would get on with their ‘project’ without the backing of all that ‘people based nonsense’.
Hitler, Stalin and Figueres. Give them enough power and all of a sudden your view counts for nothing. She is the end of the UN. Do not ever give her independent funding or an army, her storm troupers will be marching through your town two minutes later.
“Maurice Newman, the chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s Business Advisory Council, has accused the UN of attempting to subvert democracy, of attempting to establish a worldwide authoritarian regime, with political power concentrated in the hands of UN officials.”
Ending the nation-state and attaining world peace and organic brown rice for all. I have heard this somewhere before. Where was it…
Ah yes, my entire life, that is where I have heard all of this before.
Result: Figueres’ environmental Fatwas, and a European Union flag, anthem, euro, and Armed Forces.
In a few years, when global cooling begins to bight, the bureaucrats will have nowhere to hide and Maurice Newman will stand out as a human of heroic proportions.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050815-751831-christiana-figueres-visits-australia-maurice-newman-warns-country.htm?p=full
ironicman,
IBD has some other good articles tying in the UN and the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/011211-559681-editorial-climate-change-junk-in-junk-out.htm?ntt=global%20warming%20religion&p=full
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/030515-742253-epa-chief-cannot-answer-global-warming-questions.htm?ref=SeeAlso&p=full
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022615-741140-climate-chief-rajendra-pachauri-resigns-from-united-nation.htm?ref=SeeAlso
And to think, certain posters continue to whine every time someone makes the claim that CAGW is a leftwing plot.
It is.
Its not just a left wing plot, the money and power, the thinktanks backing the CAGW movement lay out the red carpet to all potential power players. Remember it was Bush who helped the North American Union gain a heavy legal foothold. Its so strange to imagine a Conservative presence in all the fear mongering and profit taking. When did consevatives ever whip up a fear campaing, maybe im being unfair? And yet, peel back the onion…guess how many Big Conservative Gov players have attended Bilderberg, or have ties to CFR, or the World Bank? Liberals do not own the “Be afraid and centralize” space.
MarkW
The CAGW scare was deliberately created by Margaret Thatcher a generation ago and is now promoted by David Cameron.
If you think that is a “leftwing plot” then you must be having a laugh or you are deluded.
Richard
Nah! Monckton suggested that she be cautious during his time as science adviser up to 1986. The speech in 1989 to the UN was, primarilly, written by Crispin Tickell who used a bit more extreme language. As you know this was to promote nuclear power in favour of killing off coal, and the “Dirty man of Europe” lable the UK had at the time. Of course, we now know this was complete bullcarp!
Patrick
I am getting fed up with your fact-free distortions of the history of Thatcher that you promulgate at every opportunity.
Those who want to know why and how Thatcher started the global warming scare for reasons of her own personal political advantage can read here.
Richard
Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, Thatcher DID NOT *write*, now I stress the word *WRITE*, that speech she gave to the UN in 1989. Tickell wrote it, laced with alarmist nonsense! She was not the creator of the CAGW scare/meme. It was already well established however, as a significant figure in world politics, the UN needed her, shall we say, “approval”? That’s exactly what happened!
“richardscourtney
May 10, 2015 at 11:04 am
MarkW
The CAGW scare was deliberately created by Margaret Thatcher a generation ago…”
Now I am quoting you. We will simply have to agree to disagree!
Patrick
As usual, you present your assertions that are evidence-free while I provide evidence and analysis. Yes, of course we “disagree”.
As I said to you, those who want to know why and how Thatcher started the global warming scare for reasons of her own personal political advantage can read the link I provided to you. Clearly, as usual, reading is too much of a strain for you.
Richard
History and fact proves you wrong. She did not START the cagw scare, she just endorsed it in front of the UN. The CO2 driven climate change “scare” started WELL before 1989! But lets not put histroical facts in the way of a rant. LOL…
Patrick
Read the link – if you are sufficiently literate – and you will learn how and why Thatcher deliberately started the global warming scare during the decade before 1989.
I did not mention Thatcher’s speech in 1989, YOU DID. That was long after she had created the scare.
I provide evidence and analysis. You rant, and your evidence-free assertions inform about you and nothing else.
Richard
A link to an article you wrote?
BTW, notice how I have not labelled you a troll or illiterate. But thanks anyway!
Patrick
Yes, as you would know if your literacy were sufficient for you to have read the essay then you would know the information is from an an analysis conducted in 1980.
The essay’s introduction explains
You see, Patrick, those of us who have studied the subject know you are ‘blowing smoke’.
Richard
Can’t see any evidence Thatcher “CAUSED” the CAGW scare in that post.
Or are you saying her “sceince” advisers in the 1980’s were…rubbish?
Patrick
Try to read the article at the link. If it is too hard for you then ask Mummy to explain it for you.
Richard
“Louis LeBlanc May 8, 2015 at 9:04 pm
Figueres, the selected head of the UNFCC, comes from power, wealth, Swarthmore, social anthropology, high-profile appointments among the politically powerful class seeking one-world control, dictated by themselves. The perfect choice for the UN job. No science education or experience,”… but
“politics is in her blood—her dad, Jose Figueres Ferrer, three-times president of Costa Rica, fronted the country’s 1948 revolution, and her mom was a New York-born student activist. Following a career in diplomacy,
” she and her husband, World Bank bigwig Konrad von Ritter (they met at the LSE), moved to D.C. to bring up their two daughters.
fastcompany.com/1648639/crib-sheet-christiana-figueres-climate-change-chief-un-not-trashy-romance-novelist
figueresonline.com/christiana_resume.pdf
It has certainly turned into a left-wing plot to grab power and control.
Maybe it didn’t start out that way, but it rapidly morphed.
wallensworth
Global warming is certainly NOT a “left wing plot”; e.g. the new Tory government in the UK today appointed its new Minister for Climate Change and Energy.
The issue is a ‘left vs right’ issue only in the US and nowhere else.
Richard