The goal isn’t saving Earth from climate disaster – it’s changing the world order
David Wojick, Ph.D.
People complain all the time about UN jargon. But the technical language of the Katowice, Poland climate summit is actually very revealing. It is all about changing the world order.
Words exist because there is something important to talk about. Words also embody basic beliefs. In this context, it is very useful that the ever-green Climate Change News has published a Glossary of the 32 technical terms they think are most important in Katowice.
Analyzing this list tells us a great deal about what is really going on there this week. To begin with, not one word on the list addresses climate or climate change. That means calling this a “climate summit” is just a semantic smokescreen. These folks are designing a New World Order. The primary focus is how the world will be changed and who is going to pay for it – and who is going to be in charge.
In fact, the largest group of terms includes those that refer to the various political alliances at the New World Order design table. There are twelve such groups, plus the term “negotiating group” itself. These are groups of countries that feel they share enough of a common interest to team up. Thus a full 41% of the technical terms refer to interest groups.
The largest negotiating group by far is called the G77 + China. Despite the old name, this group has 134 member countries. I have no idea why China gets special mention, except it is by far the most powerful member.
These are the countries that stand to benefit immensely from the new world order, because its central feature is enormous, never-ending payments from the so-called developed countries to the developing countries.
(I say so-called because the USA is still developing. It’s also important to recognize that the more these rich developed nations are forced to reduce their fossil fuel use, de-industrialize and pay money to developing countries like China, the less developed and wealthy they will become, the lower their living standards will be, the less they will be able to make the never-ending payments.)
Africa has its own group, since those countries stand to make more money per capita then any other region. (Most likely, though, most of that money will go to their kleptocratic ruling elites.)
The United States is part of something innocuously called the Umbrella Group, which includes many developed countries outside of the EU, which is a group of its own. Brexit appears not to have happened here, because the UK is not listed separately from the EU.
The avowed Socialists from the Western Hemisphere even have their own group of eleven countries, further demonstrating that this Katowice business is all about a New World Order, not climate change. Mind you these Socialists are not the only anti-capitalists at the table; far from it.
The next largest language group comprises five wealth transfer terms. The definition specifically says that this is “a central element” of the New World Order (which it calls “international cooperation,” which presumably alludes to the “international community” and “civil society”).
One of these terms is “climate finance.” However, it is not about financing climate, whatever that might mean. It is about the developed countries paying for everything the developing countries do in the name of stopping, or at least adapting to, supposedly human-caused climate change. Annual payments of $100 billion (!) are supposed to begin in 2020, but may well rise thereafter if developing countries decide they need (and will demand) more, which they no doubt would. The more they demand or receive, the more money they will expect to get.
But this $100 billion a year is by no means the big ticket when it comes to payments. That honor belongs to something called “loss and damage. This is basically “compensation for” all of the damage allegedly caused by climate change – which now appears to include all bad weather. Every hurricane, drought, wildfire, snowstorm and flood is now attributed to human-caused climate change, not to mention sea level rise. All must be compensated.
The Paris Accord acknowledges loss and damage, but stops short of requiring the developed countries to pay for it. That they do pay is certainly part of the New World Order agenda. The tentative figure put out by the UN is $400 billion a year, but it could easily get much bigger. There is a lot of bad weather in the world.
One of the sneakier wealth transfer terms is “technology transfer.” In the US, this term is widely used to mean the licensing of new technologies to companies, who then move them from the laboratory to widespread use. At Katowice, the term means something entirely different, including the unlicensing of technologies.
The idea is that companies holding patents will waive them, to allow developing countries to manufacture the patented stuff free of charge. It can even mean that these companies build manufacturing facilities and train the workers, also for free. I am not making this up.
Then there are various important words referring to other aspects of the New World Order, as well as to specific actions to be taken along the way. Chief among these are the “Nationally Determined Contributions” (NDCs), which are what each country (sort of) promises to do to reduce its emissions and the scourge of “dangerous manmade climate change.”
The NDCs are defined as “climate targets,” but of course they are not target climates. They are milestones on the way to the New World Order. As with most of this UN summit language, “climate” is a code word. The NDCs are to be renewed every five years, including in 2020, so this is another hidden agenda item in Katowice.
In short, what is on the table at Katowice is moving toward a New World Order, in the name of dealing with supposedly human caused climate change. One of the central elements is a vast wealth transfer from the developed countries like the USA to the developing countries. Another is the reduction or elimination of national sovereignty, in favor of control and decision-making by the United Nations, international community, “negotiating groups” and New World Order.
This is something the UN has always wanted to do, and the climate change scare is their grand chance to do so – or so they think anyway. Tens of thousands of national negotiators from around the world are hard at it in Poland.
The language is deliberately deceptive. But once you understand it, things get pretty clear. Language is like that.
David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science and logic in public policy.
Go back to the earliest Climate summits in Rio and you will find the terms “contraction and convergence” with the clear goal of reducing the economies of the western world to strengthen the third world.
“All the world’s governments – Saudi included – agreed the 1.5C report and we deserve the truth. Saudi can’t argue with physics, the climate will keep on changing.”
Those dastardly Saudi’s.
Arguing that the climate wont keep on changing.
Want to play a game of guess the age of the pippet that said that……
27 i say,……….said Camilla Born, from climate think tank E3G.
Camilla is a Senior Policy Advisor in E3G’s Climate Diplomacy team based at our London office. E3G’s Climate Diplomacy programme focuses on how to construct high leverage political interventions which can shape transformational international outcomes.
I’m beginning to notice a little self, so my age guess is now 47.
And now the motherload.
Camilla has a Bsc in Geography from the University of Edinburgh. She took a particular interest in Communist cultural memory and engaged in a number of projects on post-communist Europe with other European youth.
Alongside her work at E3G Camilla is a trustee with Climate Outreach.
Looks like a sure prescription for starting a world war.
I’ve been looking at who the delegates are at COP24 and the fact that they are building a political edifice on shaky foundations.
As an index of a country’ political concern about climate change, I have used the number of registered participants at COP24. Similarly, as an index of a country’ participation in efforts to quantify the impact, I have used the number of climate stations per country taken from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) web site. For each country and for each year I totaled the number of months with data and divided by 12; it is equivalent to the number of stations operating full-time. The data are at:
http://www.climatedata.info/blogger/
The three parties with the largest number of participants are: Guinea with 406, Ghana with 111 and Gambia with 93. Not one of these has a climate station in the GHCN data set. In fact, over 20% of the participants come from countries that provide no climate data to the GHCN.
Looking at the figures the other way around, in terms of climate stations per representative, the USA is in a class of its own: 1017 stations and only 44 delegates – a ratio of 23.1 stations to one delegate. (Kudos to the USA.) The next highest, but still much lower, was Argentina with a ratio of 4.5. In all only 19 countries had more, or the same number, of climate stations as delegates. The select group includes Russia and China; in might be a coincidence but almost half of this group are former socialist countries. All the others countries had more conference delegates than they have climate stations. The full details are given in the table below.
A perpetual grievance of the climate change lobby is that they are unable to convince the world’s politicians to pay more than lip service to their concerns. Yet, the table on my web site shows clearly that those who express the most concern are often those who do least to provide the data necessary to substantiate their fears.
P.S. I made a similar post earlier but my name with a different post appeared elsewhere.
So, is now the right time to get the cast iron enameled Dutch oven I’ve been looking at?
Works quite well on either a gas burner or in the gas-fired oven on a slow heat.
Just trying to keep my carbon level up there in the clouds to upset these con artists as much as I can.
Here is a thought. I just noticed a story headline “GOP leaders rushing to pass border wall, Trump’s justice reform bill before handing House to Dems”.
So why are the heads of the R Party suddenly willing to fully back Trump’s policies with such urgency? Is this an attempt to get Trump to sign on to the Paris Agreement, and other similar propositions?
“So why are the heads of the R Party suddenly willing to fully back Trump’s policies with such urgency?”
Even if all the Republicans back funding the southern border Wall, they still need 60 votes in the U.S. Senate in order to pass the legislation and Republicans only have 52 votes in the Senate, and they need Democrats to vote with them.
Senate Majority Leader McConnell could alter the Senate rules to allow a simple majority to pass legislation instead of 60 votes. That’s about the only way the Republicans could pass the border wall funding by themselves without Democrat help. It is doubtful McConnell will change this rule.
Do you remember how Tillerson advocated for a carbon tax, and for staying in the Paris Treaty? That is why a wonder if there is a cabal within the R Party who also want to see carbon taxes/Paris Treaty implementation. There is so much money to be made by the insiders, if the US were to fully back AGW related regulations on a full steam ahead basis.
I hope that Trump does shut the government down versus giving in to what the Democrats are now asking for. Schumer already has shown that the way to force Trump into the Paris Treaty/carbon taxes may be to tie all of that in with the next budget. The Ds may consider giving Trump his wall money as an enticement.
Being of partly Ukrainian ancestry I share with Camilla an interest in Communism. I’d be willing to bet any person of Hungarian, Polish, Cambodian, Czech, or Albanian ancestry shares that same interest.
I think where we might diverge from Camilla or any other dimwitted propagandized undergrad Westerner is that most of us probably don’t think very highly of it.
Would love a proper citation for the Ottmar Edenhofer quote above if possible, TIA>
PS it’s okay, found verbatim extracts from the interview with NZZ am Sontag on Quora:
“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…”
Everything is about the wealth transfers.
Even windmills are just window-dressing. Has your company ever had an electrical cost savings initiative? Did it include things like, “turn out the lights when you exit a room?” Do you know how much money that aspect of the cost savings plan can save? You can round it UP to zero. The reason for including that item is not to save money — it’s to remind people of the cost savings initiative.