Environmentalism: Evidence Suggests it Was Always and Only About Achieving World Government

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

It is common sense to protect our environment, but what has occurred for 50 years is exploitation of that idea for a socialist agenda. We wasted 50 years believing that humans are not natural, and everything they do is destructive. We wasted and continue to waste trillions of dollars on unnecessary policies and useless technologies, all based on false assumptions, pseudoscience, and emotional bullying.

We now know 50 years later that every single prediction concerning the environmental demise of the Earth and the people made in the original Earth Day Report was wrong. We also know that every additional claim, such as overpopulation, global warming, sea level rise, desertification, deforestation, and sea ice collapse, among many others, were wrong. I challenge anyone to produce empirical evidence that proves anything happening today is outside any long-term record of natural activity.

Convince the people that the entire world is threatened, and you can convince them that no nation can save it. It is then easy to convince them that a world government is the only way to save the planet. The trouble is that none of it is true. The World is in good shape, and people are living longer and healthier lives in every nation.  

Like the majority of people, Elaine Dewar assumed environmentalists were commendable even heroic people. She began research for a book singing their praises. It didn’t take long to learn the basic premise was wrong. Following the traditional and proper methodology, rarely seen these days, Dewar identified the duplicitous characters involved in the Canadian environmental movement and laid them out in her book Cloak of Green. She spent five days at the UN with Canadian Maurice Strong arguably the world architect of official environmentalism. He was praised excessively, as in this article, “The World Mourns One of its Greats: Maurice Strong Dies, His Legacy Lives On.” Another article recognized the evil he personified, “Who is Global Warming Propagandist Maurice Strong?” After the five days, Dewar concluded,

“Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

The environmental movement as the basis for a socialist world government was in the minds of people like Strong and fellow members of the Club of Rome in the late 1960s. However, it was launched on the world on April 22, 1970, by a small group centered at Stanford University. The date is critical because it was the first Earth Day. It is also very important to know the choice was deliberate because it is the birthday of Vladimir Lenin. The environmental movement was a deliberate program to impose communism on the world.

The underlying theme of the environmental movement makes the following false assumptions.

  • That almost all change is a result of human activity. The UN claim, using computer models, that 95%+ of temperature increase since 1950 is due to human-produced CO2. This works because they don’t consider most natural causes.
  • That humans are unnatural. The 1990 “Greenpeace Report on Global Warming” says CO2 is added to the atmosphere “naturally and unnaturally.”  Yes, that unnatural production is from humans.
  • That we are not part of nature. Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) comment explains.

“Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” “If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”

  • That we should be eliminated or dramatically reduced in number. In May 2015, the Pope produced Laudate Si an Encyclical about his view of the state of the Earth. It is a socialist diatribe, but that is not surprising since the main contributor was Hans Schellnhuber, a pantheist. This group believes the world population should be below 1 billion people.
  • That if the western world reduces levels of CO2 production, the rest of the world will follow. China has 2,363 coal plants and is constructing 1,171 more. The US has 15 and is not constructing any.   

The US can build as many clean-burning coal plants as they want and burn coal pollution free. They don’t have to worry about CO2 because it is not a pollutant and is not causing climate change. No significant environmental problems are threatening the world. All the stories about impending environmental doom are fictions deliberately created to make people surrender control to the government.  It is time to break the emotional stranglehold of those who used the environment to create global socialism.

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 27, 2019 10:36 pm

But, but, but … what about the giant swirling plastic patch in the Pacific? And what about micro plastics that are invisible to the human eye … but have now been discovered in EVERY living organism in the world!!! Ohhhh mammmaaa … more environmental degradation that cannot be seen … but is KILLING every organism. The INVISIBLE things … like Co2 … and micro plastics are ruining the planet. How convenient. Invisible things that must be “believed” on “faith” … and computer models.


Reply to  Kenji
May 28, 2019 1:16 am

Ya but but but all this invisible pollution is actually visible for some :

Great (sorry Greta) planet savior guru can SEE HOW TO (rip off gullibles) !

Reply to  Kenji
May 31, 2019 5:39 am

yes need to deal with plastic but stop you’re Pavlovian response to co2

John Johnston
May 27, 2019 10:41 pm

Can I please get the source information that shows China has 2,363 coal plants and is constructing 1,171 more? I wish to use it to argue against NZ emissions targets.

Reply to  Ben D
May 28, 2019 11:23 am

This must be testified in Congress. Bring on the questions. Get them on the record to pull the rug out from under those who wish to continue to contribute to and steal our money in furtherance of this travesty.

Reply to  Ben D
May 29, 2019 5:49 am

We cannot fall on our swords. As long as China, India, etc puke out pollution it would not change the metrics if the US ceased all emissions except the rest of the world would starve.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Mark
May 29, 2019 10:10 am

Stop. Never accept the lie in order to present a counter argument. The metrics are mythology not science. There is no science backing CO2 at 400 parts per million or even 4000 parts per million warming the planet to catastrophic levels. There are only hypothetical backed by Computer Models

And for those religious believers, just keep in mind that I can program a computer to produce any result I predetermine. Aside from computer models the horror story breaks down continuously.

Finally CO2 is NOT pollution. Stop looking at their articles depicting pictures of smokestacks spewing smoke as if depicting CO2 which is invisible. Don’t give them their base argument sans science in order to argue that well if other people do it we should too. It only adds weight to their lie.

Reply to  Bill Powers
May 30, 2019 3:49 pm

They’re usually not “smokestacks” but rather cooling towers discharging visible water vapor, that often evaporates to invisibility within a few dozen feet of the discharge, with the photo converted to a negative to make the white vapor dark.

Reply to  Ben D
May 28, 2019 1:19 am

Ahem…must be patient, sorry for double post.

Reply to  Ben D
May 28, 2019 5:37 am

Here, here!

Reply to  BallBounces
May 28, 2019 6:57 am

There, there

Reply to  BallBounces
May 28, 2019 11:40 am


Now, Now.

Reply to  BallBounces
May 28, 2019 5:36 pm

Tsk tsk

Reply to  Ben D
May 30, 2019 11:28 am

“The UN claim, using computer models, that 95%+ of temperature increase since 1950 is due to human-produced CO2.”

I thought I read the IPCC wild guessed that “over half” of the warming “after 1950” was man made, and they claimed to be 95% confident of their “over half” wild guess?

Most alarmists act as if they are 100% confident, maybe even 102% confident, if that’s possible, but I thought the 95% number was their alleged non-scientific, “feeling” of confidence, probably determined by a show of hands, after a few drinks?

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 3, 2019 8:18 am

They call it “expert judgement” and they are the experts.

Reply to  Ben D
May 28, 2019 4:57 pm
Reply to  John
May 29, 2019 10:23 am

Bloomberg? Really? Oh my, they say China is ahead of us in electric buses! Thank the Green Gods.

Reply to  John
May 29, 2019 12:47 pm

Here’s the reality instead of the fake Bloomberg news. Please, get a clue:

Reply to  John Johnston
May 28, 2019 12:14 am

Hopefully, Dr Tim Ball will provide the source. It doesn’t take much of a search to find that China has and is building a lot of coal plants, but the numbers are generally in Gigawatts not number of stations. Around 2 stations per Gigawatt is I think about right, but in any case Gigawatts is a more meaningful measure. China is also building a lot of coal fired power stations outside China, as are many other countries, which may be of interest.

Bob Saneish
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 28, 2019 7:07 am

Gigawatts would be difficult for most people to quantify whereas # of new and existing plants is easy.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 29, 2019 2:26 pm

Mike J

Correctamundo. The Chinese are building 4 generating units in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan. One is already on line, replacing a creaking old Soviet one.

There is another in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, sitting next to the creaking old one (which blew up last year on the coldest day in decades). The new one is only used for heating in winter – both electricity and for the district heating system (hot water).

Everywhere you look in Asia there are Chinese coal-fired power plants popping up. Modern, compact, low emissions and able to burn the local coals. Cooking cutter coal combustors.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
June 3, 2019 8:22 am
Reply to  John Johnston
May 28, 2019 1:08 am
Reply to  John Johnston
May 28, 2019 8:58 am

Not only that but it managed to hit 3.87 billion tons of coal use and has 370 Million new supplies ready plus a slight increase for this year. So the China 2019 coal use will be a staggering 4.4 billion tons of coal or 4 times the peak of USA ever reached.


However ask any green socialist and they will tell you China is committed to climate change policy.

Brian RL Catt CEng, CPhys
Reply to  LdB
May 29, 2019 10:26 am

Yes it is, replace coal with nuclear and hydro as their core strategy.


They are even replacing coal boilers with nuclear fission gas cooled reactors on existing super critical coal fired power stations, same heat exchangers , generation kit and grid connection.


The renewables bit is being rolled back and remains as a token to sell the solar PV and windmills to mad Western countries who don’t understand energy engineering and cover the excessive costs by forcing consumers to pay more for the inefficiently produced renewable energy.

Reply to  John Johnston
May 28, 2019 11:27 am

Further to John J’s request for a link, I’d like request one for Dr Tim Ball’s statement “The UN claim, using computer models, that 95%+ of temperature increase since 1950 is due to human-produced CO2”. In fact, the IPCC’s actual 2013 claim was that “Human emitted greenhouse gases are extremely likely (at least 95% CHANCE) responsible for MORE THAN HALF of Earth’s temperature increase since 1951.” This is a very different statement from Tim’s [and I happen to disagree with both of them, btw.] While I often concur with Tim’s opinions, to which he is entitled, he is NOT ENTITLED OT HIS OWN FACTS! You need to try harder, Tim, your credibility suffers from errors like this.

Reply to  stonehenge
May 28, 2019 2:47 pm

That “extremely likely” does not cut it with me. The 1910 to 1940 warming rate, and amount was the same. Thus it is “extremely likely” the the warming was natural.

The statistically indistinguishable warming from ~1920-1945 was not man made as per IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM figure 8.2.

Whatever caused the earlier period warming could have also caused the later period warming. And whatever caused the ‘cooling’ from 1945-1975 may be causing the pause in warming this century. And since this century comprises ~35% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958, the link between CO2 and warming is at best tenuous.

Flight Level
May 27, 2019 10:49 pm

More money, more better. More power, more money. More power, more better.

How come voter’s can’t get it figured already? A fool and his freedom are quickly parted ?

Reply to  Flight Level
May 28, 2019 4:20 am

Because they’re voters. They can’t see the scam that goes even deeper than just climate fraud and has been going on for over 2000 years.

I just want to add to Dr Ball’s line:

“It is time to break the emotional stranglehold of those who used the environment to create global socialism”

..and lock them away forever in a prison of their own minds, created by the very fears they have engendered within others.

Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
May 28, 2019 6:58 am

Paranoia much?

Tom Foley
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
May 28, 2019 7:54 am

Shouldn’t that also apply to Dr Ball and others who are trying to engender fear of environmentalists, socialism and world government in others?

Really, how credible is ‘world government’? Government is very hard, even on a city, state or nation scale, by socialist and non-socialists. What’s the likelihood of the Venezuela system taking over the world? What’s the likelihood of the USA getting all its citizens to support any single political party? What’s the likelihood of China keeping control in the long run of all its land and diverse people? It’s much more probable that humans will go on the way they always have, arguing, fighting, never coming together under one single religion, or political movement.

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 28, 2019 9:00 am

I’m inclined to agree with Tom’s observations here.
The world can’t even agree on a universal generic range of plumbing fittings (and how hard could that be?)

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 28, 2019 9:00 am

As some economist once put it, in the long run, we’re all dead.
So what if the communists in China aren’t in power in the long run. In the short run they killed millions of people and enslaved millions more.

In any conflict, if one side has a plan, and the other side ignores the other. The side with the plan will always win.

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 28, 2019 9:01 am

Only took 1 election result to frighten politicians in Australia.

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 28, 2019 9:56 am

“Really, how credible is ‘world government’?”

More a coalition of like minded sustainables piggies spread right across the global animal farm coming together regularly to share control tips and strategies with each other at the UN, EU, COPs etc.

Reply to  observa
May 29, 2019 5:03 am

For now, yes. Just waiting for the next step. It´s coming…

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 28, 2019 11:37 am

Tom, look at Brexit.

People don’t want a ‘one world government’.

Imagine that the old USSR had created ‘one world communism’, when it collapsed then what would remain to help out? Diversity is the key.

I don’t hate China or The US, we are all better for having diverse worlds. When one goes to the wall … there is always an alternative out there.

Reply to  3x2
May 29, 2019 4:03 am

It´s not a question of what people want. It´s what people are going to get.

Imagine USSR as failed test. Imagine they have learned something…

Diversity is the key, but not for humans. It´s biodiversity. It doesn´t care who you don´t hate or love. In the final you will love big brother. And that will be the end.

If you don´t see, try to think… Harder. Everything is visible to those who can see.

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 28, 2019 11:52 am

You can empirically demonstrate that socialism cannot work.

Nevertheless, it has been implemented over and over, and has killed well over a hundred million people in the last century or so.

That something does not work unfortunately does not prevent people from trying it. Isn’t that worth some concern?

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle (@DeHavelle)

Tom Monfort
Reply to  Tom Foley
May 28, 2019 12:14 pm

What other reason would the UN continue to exist if not as a base to set up global control?

Reply to  Tom Monfort
May 29, 2019 3:12 am

That is the reason. We can only wait and see. Time is not a problem, because “they” are winning.

If someone can´t see it, they should think a bit more.

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 28, 2019 12:18 pm

“How credible is World Government . . . . .” ?

Not at all, but they will shove it up our arse (if they can) with the intermediate, pre-failure result of genocide, religiocide, politicide and whatever other cide that results in mass graves.

I don’t think you have paid proper attention . . . .

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 28, 2019 1:28 pm


“…. What’s the likelihood of the USA getting all its citizens to support any single political party? …. ”

“All its citizens” …. not likely . A one time majority of one? … possible. Politics is kind of like ‘steal the flag’ and destroy the game and players before they have a chance to respond.

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 28, 2019 4:24 pm

By force.

Paul of Alexandria
Reply to  Tom Foley
May 28, 2019 4:30 pm

A low probability of success won’t stop people from trying.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Tom Foley
May 29, 2019 8:05 am

“others who are trying to engender fear of environmentalists, socialism and world government in others”

Only people ignorant of history are not terrified of that trio. Do some study. Start with:

“The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression” by Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Nicolas Werth, & Stéphane Courtois

“As the death toll mounts―as many as 25 million in the former Soviet Union, 65 million in China, 1.7 million in Cambodia, and on and on―the authors systematically show how and why, wherever the millenarian ideology of Communism was established, it quickly led to crime, terror, and repression. An extraordinary accounting, this book amply documents the unparalleled position and significance of Communism in the hierarchy of violence that is the history of the twentieth century.”

Perhaps something more literary:

“The Gulag Archipelago”by Aleksandr Isaevich Solzhenitsyn

Or just read this: “Heaven on Earth: The Rise, Fall, and Afterlife of Socialism” by Joshua Muravchik

“Socialism was man’s most ambitious attempt to supplant religion with a doctrine claiming to ground itself in “science.” Each failure to create societies of abundance or give birth to “the New Man” inspired more searching for the path to the promised land: revolution, communes, social democracy, communism, fascism, Arab socialism, African socialism. None worked, and some exacted a staggering human toll. Then, after two centuries of wishful thinking and bitter disappointment, socialism imploded in a fin de siècle drama of falling walls and collapsing regimes. It was an astonishing denouement but what followed was no less astonishing. After the hiatus of a couple of decades, new voices were raised, as if innocent of all that had come before, proposing to try it all over again.”
“What gives the book its value is the sound it gives out; the harsh roar give out by a wise and experienced animal as a warning that the herd is in danger” (Rebecca West Sunday Telegraph)

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 29, 2019 10:57 am

Not the first time some minority tribe plowed over a lot of other tribes and imposed their will by the force of arms. This eco-propaganda is part of the psy-war arm of their “globalization” operation.

Just who are these usurpers? Inquisitive minds want to know.

Reply to  Tom Foley
June 3, 2019 8:34 am

The UN proceeds to Global Governance, (they distinguish it from “government”, sounds nicer), by continually producing regulatory treaties and getting them incorporated into domestic national legislation.


“Global governance encompasses the totality of institutions, policies, norms, procedures and initiatives through which States and their citizens try to bring more predictability, stability and order to their responses to transnational challenges. Effective global governance can only be achieved with effective international cooperation. Neither the existing proposals to strengthen global governance nor the global rules to support development are fully satisfactory; they have also not received sufficient attention by the intergovernmental processes addressing the development agenda for the post-2015 era.”

Check out “United Socialist Nations” – http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/un-progress-governance-via-climate-change

Reply to  Flight Level
June 6, 2019 7:30 am

The EMOTION DRIVEN “sheep” of the ALT-LEFT are simply not programmed to think pragmatically or rationally. Notice how everything (from the “Coming ICE AGE” of the 1970s to the “Disappearing Atmosphere of the 1980s and even to the “threat” of Y2K of the 1990s.

To the EMOTION DRIVEN – absolutely EVERYTHING is a catastrophe. This is what the ALT-LEFT relies upon.

Just pay attention to how much Government GRANT MONEY these “expert scientists” receive.

**“In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”**
{COMMENTARY BY: Stephen Moore @StephenMoore
Stephen Moore is the Distinguished Visiting Fellow for Project for Economic Growth at The Heritage Foundation.}

Climate Change and Global Warming is a HUGE SCAM. Just keep putting the information out there. It may eventually penetrate.

May 27, 2019 10:49 pm

Dr Ball, I believe I’ve read everything everything you’ve posted on WUWT and appreciate your work. But, I’m sorry the sky is falling theme doesn’t work for me whether from you or climate alarmists.

Can you substantiate your statement….”The The environmental movement as the basis for a socialist world government was in the minds of people like Strong and fellow members of the Club of Rome in the late 1960s. However, it was launched on the world on April 22, 1970, by a small group centered at Stanford University. The date is critical because it was the first Earth Day. It is also very important to know the choice was deliberate because it is the birthday of Vladimir Lenin. The environmental movement was a deliberate program to impose communism on the world. movement as the basis for a socialist world government was in the minds of people like Strong and fellow members of the Club of Rome in the late 1960s. However, it was launched on the world on April 22, 1970, by a small group centered at Stanford University. The date is critical because it was the first Earth Day. It is also very important to know the choice was deliberate because it is the birthday of Vladimir Lenin. The environmental movement was a deliberate program to impose communism on the world.”

Pieter Folkens
Reply to  muskok12
May 27, 2019 11:55 pm

Muskok12: Here is a quote from the Club of Rome publication, “The First Global Revolution” . . . “A common advisory to organize an act together is a necessary motivation. We must find it to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy. It need not be a real one, but it can be one invented for the purpose. . . . New enemies, therefore, have to be identified, new struggles imagined, new weapons developed. In searching for a new reality, a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famines, and the like would fill the bill.”

If one studies the propaganda of Marxist Socialism, key phrases are in that statement.

Also, When Ottmar Edenhoffer was elevated to co-chair the IPCC Working Group III (with a Cuban Communist Economist), he stated publicly, “Climate change policy has almost nothing to do with environmental protection anymore. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economic summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated . . . One must say clearly that we redistribute defacto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

The Communists are playing the long game. It is evidenced in the writings of folks associated with the IPCC.

Reply to  Pieter Folkens
May 28, 2019 12:36 am

Thanks for quoting from Club of Rome but exactly how does that substantiate Dr Ball’s statement?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Muskox12
May 28, 2019 6:11 pm

Check out quotes on ending western civilization from Maurice Strong who created the UNEP, UNFCC, IPCC, Kyoto,,,,Musk, you have been to sheltered to be starting this far back.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 28, 2019 10:32 pm

Thanks Gary. Got em bookmarked. Still looking for substantiation of Dr Ball’s claims.

Reply to  Pieter Folkens
May 28, 2019 12:53 am

Confected for the gullible and the willfully ignorant, but takes an actual sceptic about three clicks to debunk.

Reply to  Loydo
May 28, 2019 1:30 am

In that case you should be able to debunk it immediately.

The environmental scare was confected for the gullible and willfully ignorant like you.

Reply to  Loydo
May 28, 2019 7:00 am

Once again, Loydo makes it up as he goes.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Loydo
May 28, 2019 8:34 am

What he means is that it takes about three clicks to find a site that will tell you different.

In his world, that’s ‘debunked’.

Reply to  Pieter Folkens
May 28, 2019 1:27 am

the club of rome quote is not a quote!!!
The real quote:
The common enemy of humanity is Man
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.
In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes.
All these dangers are caused by human intervention In natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself

Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 28, 2019 6:35 am

I don’t see a substantial difference.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 28, 2019 9:44 am

If you really believe that your very existence is harming the planet, then there is really only one ethical action you can take. If you are an ethical person, that is. So, by your participation here, you either don’t really believe that mankind is an existential threat to the planet, or you are not an ethical person. Which is it?

Joel Snider
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 28, 2019 12:33 pm

Well, ‘half-runt’ as a member of humanity, I declare you an enemy of humanity.

You greenie progressives have ALWAYS been just that.

Good to know who everybody is.

Flight Level
Reply to  muskok12
May 28, 2019 1:14 am

An ideology that levels all towards the low by legally binding wealth distribution is socialism.

Rationed energy, transport limitations, reduced mobility, imposed lifestyle, and so on… It has happened many times in history with dire consequences.

Which is what environmentalism is actually all about.

I have a bumper sticker saying “My other ride is a [pictogram of a twinjet]” .

And I often get remarks for being a capitalist pig by long haired youngsters and young ladies with round glasses and raw wool jackets.

That’s how deeply they are conditioned, not even the taught that this is my job, just a knee-jerk reaction to wealth.

So my Dear mustok12, evidence in one thing, crashing into it is another. Your choice.

Reply to  muskok12
May 28, 2019 6:43 am

It is a misconception that the U.S. “won” the Cold War, epitomized by Ronald Reagan’s 1987 speech in which he exhorted “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”. A few years later, in December of 1991, the Soviet Union, ostensibly surrendering to a greater power, collapsed and formally dissolved itself. No tanks, no siege mentality, no blustering, they simply disappeared from the world stage, without a whimper.

In fact, the Cold War didn’t really end, it just went completely underground. The Soviets had long realized that they could not compete, economically or politically, as an external entity, against the might of the free Western world. So, they had already planned to continue the struggle by exploiting the West’s greatest weakness, freedom, which allowed them to infiltrate easily into every stratum of Western society: education, politics, commerce and religion.

I.e. ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’. The goal: a global socialist makeover, making the 21st century a century of a new human renaissance for humanism and social justice.

It has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

You want proof of these substantiations? That’s easy. Does this look like the man who lost the Cold War?

Reply to  muskok12
May 28, 2019 7:25 am

After forty years in and around the modern environmental movement, actually from its inception, the majority of environmental leaders I met and got to know very well were all liberal but most far left politically. Even in the early days of the movement they saw the USA as the primary problem for all things they considered bad in the world. In their minds we indeed were a disease. They looked at a full disc view of the Earth at night and made the analogue with a petri dishes full of bacteria and fungus colonies. They believed that the majority of humans were incapable of functioning without clear and precise directions from some supposedly all knowing elite (them). Since they saw what they believed were the evils of capitalism everywhere and uncontrolled unenlightened people everywhere they only solution was some form of world government. Several though not all believed some form of draconian population reduction was necessary either through war, deliberately exposure to disease, or “re-education” camps.

Having spent my life dedicated to protecting the environment and an idealist in my early days it was a bit of a shock, a sad realization, that the modern environmental movement cared more about power and control than they cared about the environment. Many leaders knew little about the environment but spouted would they were told, never checking the facts.

Reply to  Edwin
May 28, 2019 9:02 am

“They believed that the majority of humans were incapable of functioning without clear and precise directions from some supposedly all knowing elite (them)”

I believe the proper term for this is “holier than thou”.

Environmentalism has indeed turned into a religion (“Climatism”), and its upper echelon are “priests” who take criticism as blasphemy. Their beliefs cannot be falsified because they are based on authority (the Hallowed Ninety Seven Percent), not reason or fact.

For example, if you ask a Climatist to list the “benefits” of Global Warming, they will react as if you had asked a Christian to list the benefits of Satan.

Reply to  muskok12
June 3, 2019 8:51 am

United Socialist Nations – http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/un-progress-governance-via-climate-change

“NGO’s are firmly part of the long term UN sustainable development process and were intended to be so from the start of modern environmentalism, with the first Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972, chaired by Maurice Strong. Without that launch pad, organisations such as Greenpeace and WWF would not have thrived and prospered as they have. At that Summit, Strong said:

’We must add a new dimension to the discourse between governments and peoples, engaging the best technological and managerial abilities of the entire world. The global environment has a global constituency. The community of the concerned is now no less than the world community.”

The Stockholm summit gave birth to the United Nations Environmental Program, with Strong as its director. In Geneva, in 1973, Strong launched the “World Assembly of NGO’s concerned with the Global Environment”. He realized, that for his ambitions of a new world order under the UN to become reality, he needed the vast networking opportunities offered by the NGO’s, these days sheltered under the misnomer of “Civil Society”.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCC, was born out of the second Earth Summit in Rio, held in 1992, which was built around the 1987 Brundtland Report, “Our Common Future”. The result was the insidious and powerful Agenda 21, which has taken over so many aspects of local and national life the world over and was a triumph for the long-term aspirations of the environmental movement. It has now morphed into Agenda 2030.

In 1987, the Brundtland Report, headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, former prime minister of Norway and former vice-president of the Socialist International, led to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, which led to Agenda 21 and the Millennium Development Goals. The principal draftsman was Mr. Nitin Desai, UNCED’s deputy secretary-general and currently a “Distinguished Fellow” at Rajendra Pachauri’s TERI organisation. [in 2010]. William D. Ruckelshaus, the first EPA Administrator, was a member of the Brundtland Commission with Maurice Strong.”

Joel O'Bryan
May 27, 2019 10:57 pm

The US has 15 and is not constructing any.

The number is wrong, that we are not constructing any I’m not sure.
(Don’t try to use Wikipedia on this subject unless you like one-sided propaganda)

As of 2017, the Energy Information Administration listed 359 coal-fired power plants in the U.S.
That’s down significantly from 593 when the Obama Maladministration started in 2009.

Even in Alberta Canada alone, there are currently 18 coal-fired power plants.

High Treason
May 27, 2019 11:13 pm

The only thing “social” about Socialism is the word “social” contained within the word “socialism.” Other than that, there is nothing social about Socialism.

Club of Rome, Fabian Socialists, UN Socialists are terminally anti-human. They are total traitors to their species and really need to be punished accordingly. Even a stark raving lunatic does not behave as treacherously as these calculated traitors.

Reply to  High Treason
May 28, 2019 1:48 am

All those socialists from Hagel to Marxists, Leninist, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, Stalinists, Maoists, Fabian Socialists, UN Socialists, Club of Rome, etc.,etc., have always fretted about population control, some local many global.
Each time the socialist elite gain power they wish to impose a tic-toc rigidity on society, reducing ordinary citizens to numbered automatons, who’s lives mean so little that before their end is due, they should be eased. ‘Final Solutions’, ‘The Great Leap Forward’, ‘Mercy killings’, Euthanasia, Assisted suicide, Abortions, genocides — the socialists invented many of them and use and abused them all to exterminated millions of lives — and some people still think socialism is about being ‘humane’.

Socialism is the great cancer on the human condition.

Reply to  tom0mason
May 28, 2019 5:22 am

why do you believe we should breed like rabbits?


Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 28, 2019 6:36 am

Why do you think we do?

Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 28, 2019 7:00 am

Where in his statement does he preclude rational choices about preventive pregnancy control? Socialism is 100% about obtaining control over others.

Reply to  john
May 28, 2019 7:03 am

Like most socialists, ghalfrunt is convinced that people aren’t capable of running their own lives. So they have to be controlled by people like him.

Reply to  john
May 28, 2019 8:47 am

sounds as if you have already imbibed the brawndo

Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 28, 2019 7:02 am

Why do you believe that the only option to government mandated population control is breeding like rabbits?

Joel Snider
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 28, 2019 9:22 am

Why do you believe you have any say so?

Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 28, 2019 1:17 pm


The west has a population crisis looming, not because we are breeding too much, but because we are breeding too little, thanks to prosperity.

What is the socialist solution to this? After all, socialism dictates that we should all be living off the state, provided for by the hard work of people working for the state, including the elderly who don’t work and contribute, but who require lots of youth to keep them safe and warm.

This is not a problem for our generation, this is the real problem for our children and grandchildren. As they grow old, there will be insufficient financial provision for pensions, health care, welfare etc. because the threshold of our current economic models is two children per family unit and Japan, for example, is now at 1.4 children per family unit. The west is a bit better, but not much.

Once again, you people have been hoodwinked to the real problems facing humanity by the idiotic contention that we can somehow control the climate.

The climate isn’t the problem, falling populations are the problem and we have all been out manoeuvred by organisations like the Club of Rome Eugenicists who are delighted to watch population decline occurring under cover of a false climate crisis.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 28, 2019 2:45 pm

Facts vs. opinions

World population: 7.6 Billion at end-2018

There are too many humans in this world.

Understand the difference.
And if you want the moral thing to do if you are of the opinion there are too many people, then lead by example.

No? I didn’t think so.
Progressives/Malthusians/Marxists always expect others to make the sacrifices they demand.

Reply to  tom0mason
May 28, 2019 10:14 am

Well said

Tom Foley
May 27, 2019 11:14 pm

“We wasted 50 years believing that humans are not natural, and everything they do is destructive. ”

It is quite possible to be natural and destructive at the same time: termites, beavers. In particular, species that move or are moved from one place to another are particularly destructive to the ecology of their new place of residence: rabbits, cane toads, goats, argentine ants.

Humans fall into this category too, destructive of the original ecology of counties they moved to. Ironically when humans introduced agriculture based on Eurasian crops and domestic animals to the Americas, Australia and NZ , they then had to cope with the destruction caused to that agriculture by other species that had accompanied them: rabbits, fruit fly, rust.

PS Cancer is natural, so calling humans a cancer is still recognising humans as a part of nature.

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 28, 2019 1:37 am

You missed or ignored the difference between being SOMETIMES destructive, and ALWAYS destructive. Termites and beavers -to use your examples – build, as well as destroy. Their environment is modified by their activities, but removing them is not a solution unless you define those modifications as “bad”, and by what standard do you do that?

Eating is a destructive process. It destroys structures and organisms in order to utilise their component parts. All animals eat . So what?

So no, you have not rebutted the criticism of those environmentalists who claim that humans are uniquely or consistency destructive.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  PeterW
May 28, 2019 4:13 am

Foley – May 27, 2019 at 11:14 pm

It is quite possible to be natural and destructive at the same time: termites, beavers.

And May 28, 2019 at 1:37 am

. Termites and beavers -to use your examples – build, as well as destroy.

Why are you two “badmouthing” the beavers …… when they are probably the only “true” environmentalist of the Animal Kingdom.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Beavers are ……. “Builders of better environments” ……. that improves the lives of most every creature that inhabits the locale of their dam building activities.

Cheers, Sam C, ……. a long time student of the natural world around us.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
May 28, 2019 6:39 am

“Beavers are ……. “Builders of better environments” ……. that improves the lives of most every creature that inhabits the locale of their dam building activities.”

Yeah, even when they dam up the creek near your house and flood it. And you can’t do anything about it because regulations.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 28, 2019 4:11 pm

Jeff Alberts – May 28, 2019 at 6:39 am

Yeah, even when they dam up the creek near your house and flood it.

Sorry bout that, Jeff Alberts, ……. but the next time you build or buy a house, …. pick a location other than a “flood plain”.

By the way, Jeff, just who would you blame iffen a “flashflood” originated in the headwaters of that creek near your house …… and washed your house right off its foundation and ripped it to smithereens?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 29, 2019 6:28 am

SSS. Shoot, Shovel, shut up.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 31, 2019 11:18 pm

Sammy, I don’t live on a flood plain. I was relaying things than have happened to others. And, living near a creek isn’t exactly a flood plain.

Tom Foley
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
May 28, 2019 7:05 am

Yeah, I shouldn’t have picked on beavers. And indeed, termites destructiveness has benefits as well – breaking down dead (and living wood) enriches the soil.

But how can you call either ‘the only true environmentalists’? The beaver’s dams may improve the lives of ‘most’ creatures in the immediate vicinity that benefit from ponds of water, but perhaps not for those downstream whose water supply is reduced or cut off. The phrase ‘the only true environmentalists’ is meaningless on every level.

What has been demonstrated however is the importance of balance: kill off the predators to stop them destroying (eating) their prey, the prey species multiply, eating out the vegetation they depend on, and then the prey species die. Out the predators back, and the vegetation recovers, and the prey population is kept at a level where it doesn’t eat itself out of food. The system can change over the long term, due to geological shifts, climate etc., bringing local destruction but creating new opportunities for new species and ecologies to develop.

There is plenty of evidence that humans have upset the balance of various ecologies by their actions over the short and medium-term, even though the actions could be interpreted, on different criteria, as destructive or constructive or both. A lot of what we do now, in agriculture for example, is because of a need to redress problems that our past actions have caused, such as introducing animals or plants to new ecologies where they become pests, pests to us as much as to the original ecology. Living in Australia (in my case 100k from a road quarantine barrier) we are very aware of the effort and money spent on controlling the pests that humans introduced, with both external and internal quarantine (https://www.interstatequarantine.org.au/travellers-map-landing/).

Basically my reply was along the lines of an earlier comment: ‘ I’m sorry the sky is falling theme doesn’t work for me whether from you or climate alarmists.’ If the climate alarmists over-the-top rhetoric doesn’t convince you to change your mind, why would you expect your opposing over-the-top rhetoric to influence them? Standing at 20 paces with fingers in our ears and hurling conspiracy theories at each other gets us all precisely nowhere, except at war.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Tom Foley
May 28, 2019 4:13 pm

Foley -May 28, 2019 at 7:05 am

The beaver’s dams may improve the lives of ‘most’ creatures in the immediate vicinity that benefit from ponds of water, but perhaps not for those downstream whose water supply is reduced or cut off.

Living in Australia (in my case ……..

Uh, uh, uh, ……Tom, ….. me thinks maybe you have been “watchin n’ believin” too many American made Cowboy/Western movies wherein the ….. bad ole evil ranch owner dams up the creek, stream or river to prevent any other ranchers “downstream” from having any water for their cows and horses.

GETTA clue, …… Tom Foley, the only way a beaver family could “reduce or cut off” the outflow of their expertly constructed dam would be to convince Mother Nature to quit raining anywhere upstream (catchment area) from where their dam is located.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  PeterW
May 28, 2019 11:56 am

To create, one must destroy.

May 27, 2019 11:21 pm

After have read the 2 documents a couple of years ago:

– “The First Global Revolution” from “The Club of Rome”
– “The Eandangered Atmosphere” Conference

I was convinced!!

Whats more. Searching the internet for these documents with Google will not work. Google is supporting the climate scam. I am not sure if Al Gore still is on the board for Google.
Boycott Google!!!!!!

2 quotes that I like:

”If you don’t do your own thinking, others will do the thinking for you – it’s called fascism”
— Jacque Fresco
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
— H. L. Mencken

D. Patterson
Reply to  Ingvar Engelbrecht
May 28, 2019 2:05 am

Startpage.com found those publications. Wikipedia has an article. You can purchase “The First Global Revolution” from “The Club of Rome” on eBay, albeit at a hefty price.

May 28, 2019 12:42 am

If you view the world as a ruling class and a capitalist system exploiting the workers then it must be an easy sell to convince you that this ruling class and system is also exploiting nature, especially farmers with their chemicals and oil companies with their fossil fuels. A good history of how this all came about is the book “The Age of Global Warming” by Rupert Darwall:


Robert Lyman
May 28, 2019 12:45 am

I have seen this theme developed more fully by James Delingpole in his book, “Watermelons, How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children’s Future”. there is enough evidence about the intentions and work of Maurice Strong to demonstrate his globalist and wealth redistribution goals and his influence on the United Nations institutions. Conspiracy theories, by their nature, however, depend upon acceptance of claims that there are not only hundreds pf highly influential people secretly collaborating to bring harm, but also thousands if not millions of fellow travellers who are well intentioned but so foolish that they go along. This is extremely difficult to prove and it rests partly on the presumption that most people have bad intentions. There are simpler explanations (e.g. follow the money), that go a long way to explaining the positions of the proponents of radical climate action. However, as in the case of debating with an individual adversary, it seems more credible to attack the weakness in the argument than to launch an ad hominem attack. The latter is the preferred tactic of the radicals.

May 28, 2019 2:12 am

Be careful.

Consider the proposition that as became relatively true in the soviet union, socialism is not the end game, its merely a way to destroy self reliance gain acceptance of vassalage from the people. The power brokers and the people who run the power game are not interested in socialism: they are interested in elimination competition to their status and privilege and cementing their dominance.

Policy is viewed in simple terms

– how much does it destroy any cultural concepts around which opposition might emerge? No more nuclear family, religion, shared moral code. Instead promote relativism and multiculturalism.

– how much does it justify centralisation of power and elimination of opposition? Global crises are ideal in this context and Green is just the handy one right now.

Let’s face it, if you found yourself a very rich person you would be mad not to take every precaution to ensure you stayed that way.

Marxism toppled the old rich.

It has been neutralised and modified to serve the interests of the nouveau riche.

May 28, 2019 2:33 am

I suspect Dr. Ball has a huge problem with the only source of world government lurches – the British Empire’s various minions. The omission of Cecil Rhodes or Bertrand Russells clear statements on this is glaring.

See just for example http://canadianpatriot.org/box-1-cecil-rhodes-calls-for-the-recapturing-of-america/

Karl Marx after all was a London project run by David Urquhart of the British Library.

Why the straw-dog of “socialism”? This is very well docmented over decades.
Here : http://canadianpatriot.org/why-has-the-west-destroyed-its-own-industrial-base-the-case-of-maurice-strong-revisited/
Here : http://canadianpatriot.org/maurice-strong-and-the-imperial-attack-on-atomic-energy-2/

Reply to  bonbon
May 28, 2019 7:07 am

Ah yes, if it’s evil, it’s somehow tied to the British.

Reply to  MarkW
May 28, 2019 9:03 am

One word, Griff …. we rest our case your honor.

Reply to  MarkW
May 28, 2019 10:54 am

Perfidious Albion.

Drake Cherry
Reply to  MarkW
May 28, 2019 11:28 am

Yes, the evil British gave the world the Magna Carta , British common law, and basically the rule of law, not of kings or despots. This eventually led to individual freedom and freedom of religion as per the US constitution.

Nothing a socialist hates more than individual freedom. They really do know better than anyone else what is best for you.

Want a 32 oz soda and a functional straw, NOPE. Want to use a plastic bag to bring home you groceries, NOPE, want to pick your own doctor, or what your insurance covers, NOPE. It never ends when do-gooders get control. That is what socialism is always about, control.

May 28, 2019 2:48 am

Where did you find this quote by Maurice Strong???

“Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” “If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”

There is no footnote as to where this came from…Please…He’s the agenda 21 guy.

Reply to  Jon P Peterson
May 28, 2019 4:14 am

That’s from Ingrid Newkirk, above.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Jon P Peterson
May 28, 2019 5:52 am

The quote, as he noted just above it, is from Ingrid Newkirk.

“That we are not part of nature. Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) comment explains.”

(Perhaps he should have ended it with a colon (“…comment explains:”) instead of a period?)

Reply to  Gunga Din
May 28, 2019 6:39 pm

Yes, A colon would have helped. I thought it was a quote by Maurice Strong.
Thanks for the clarification…GD

old construction worker
May 28, 2019 3:05 am

Government X, ruled and administered by the unelected. Will my great grandchildren be born into a “class” with never the opportunity fulfill their potential? Is that what the future holds? Just wondering.

Robert of Ottawa
May 28, 2019 3:58 am
May 28, 2019 4:01 am

Amazon.ca has “Cloak of Green” on sale for upwards of $797 CAD ($592 USD).

May 28, 2019 4:27 am

Statements from frothing mouths such as Maurice Strong (weak), Prince Philip (virulent) , Al Gore (fatuous), Bolton (‘stached), AOC (nutty) … are all versions of Voltaire’s attack on Leibniz’s Best of all Possible Worlds.

What causes most convulsions is that Benjamin Franklin, Hamilton, knew full well what they were doing when they included Leibniz’s “Pursuit of Happiness” in the US Preamble, and Declatation of Independence.

The oligarchs and their Voltair scribblers (NY Slimes) would shape their one world regime instead to Property, after Locke. The Confederates chose exactly that tactic in the war of secession, supported from London alone.

Free will is only possible in the Best of all Possible Worlds, never in One World – notice the clamp down on Assange and free journalism. We are, still, free, or rather moved, to right the wrongs as much as we can.

May 28, 2019 4:43 am

It’s understandable that many would see this as yet another reactionary conspiracy theory about the evil socialists. (Certainly those on the left would guffaw at such an old trope). Yet, it’s a bit like criticising Israel’s appalling human rights record against the Palestinians, and then automatically being viewed as anti-Semitic. It’s this binary thinking that characterises so much of the fanaticism of global warming-based climate science and its unfortunate fusion of environmental activism. Nonetheless, the basic premise of the article is correct, though simplistic.

To all intents and purposes, we already have a world government and have done for quite sometime. To say its a socialist or world state conspiracy is not entirely untrue, but it somehwat belies the true nature of this entity.

There is an eclectic mix of occult theosophy, old school Fabianism and marxisim which paralleled the popularity of eugenics, humanist science and the industralist designs. There is also the 19th Century romantic tradition of eco-fascistic “blood and soil” eventually updated with great gusto by Third Reich – all of which has given rise to this burning desire to shepard and condition populations toward a singular perception of reality which has always been around to some degree or another. Authoritarianism only has a foothold when enough authoritarian followers are scooped up behind a sufficiently compelling ideal. enter global warming and its affiliates.

So, rather than just the structure of global governance or a globalist belief, it is ultimately an ambitious bid to exert complete control over matter and mind – once and for all. If we can call it a “conspiracy” it is one that is characterised by psychopathology which has become normalised but easy to discern if you learn the langauge. In that sense, it’s hidden in plain sight. The same corruption that’s going on in climate science is repeated across society – in the current economic model, education, medicine and agribusiness. It’s this pathogenic “infection” by certain individuals which seem to pollute otherwise genuine ideals and precepts and then aggregate toward the same desire to inhibit genuine creativity and its solutions.

It’s for this reason the reality of climate change as a natural and complex phenomena (and likely to manifest as rapid and extreme cooling over the next decade) has been distorted to focus on anthropogenic global warming as that fits neatly into an overarching template for resource, land, and infrastructure transformation. Using the instinct of fear and well-intentioned desire for environmental protection provides the emotional capital to move toward a blend of social and environmental laws and legislation which will dove-tail into the parallel advances in artificial intelligence and SMART society.

United Nations Agenda 21 directives and an Eco-Smart infrastructure transformation is taking place according to a gradualist agenda rather than the tactics of shock via an increase in induced social chaos, though this certainly plays a large part in furthering this ambitious vision of “remaking the world”. These social/ecological directives are said to be voluntary yet they are being implemented by stealth all the same.

It’s also interesting that such a “hidden agenda” has relatively little to do other than to make sure its trajectory stays online, as it were. Thus a few tweaks at specific junctures are all that’s needed.

So, what I wanted to remind folks who might consider this hypothesis more than possible, given what we know about the corruption of science and the power of human belief to be led by the nose, it doesn’t really matter whether we label it world state socialism or predatory corporatism, globalism or what have you. Ultimately, it’s about psychologially deviant people desiring total control – as Hollywood as that may sound.

And when you have the measure of crowd psycholoogy at your finger tips and the technologial means to enforce it then it’s extraordinary how easily one can move the mass mind toward specific aims, sometimes several decades in advance. And if you read history correctly, there is always the ebb and flow of these pathological patterns which are seeking unfettered dominance. And such individuals and groupings often operate unconsciously at the behest of these psychopaths, who have made considerable progress in weakening the human spirit and the ability to read reality as objectively as possible.

The truth is that they are also blinded by the unpredictable nature of our world. They loathe that which they can’t control. I think it’s there that such ambitious designs will come unstuck. When you attempt to artificailly force compliance and reject a natural evolution, the effects of rejecting the precautionary principle will always come into play. Similarly, when you’re in love with your own wishful thinking you are cannot see past your subjective choices.

Climate modelling has certainly shown us that.

Reply to  M.K. Styllinski
May 28, 2019 5:35 am

The truth is that they are also blinded by the unpredictable nature of our world.

Evolution deals with that by making many mutations, most of which die. An occasional mutation produces something which is better suited for the environment as it exists. Capitalism does the same thing. Most businesses fail. Some businesses produce something which is valuable for the economy and thereby thrives.

The reason capitalism has outperformed planned economies is simple. In the face of a chaotic and unpredictable world, total planning is impossible. “We plan, God laughs.”

WRT the current story. Dr. Ball is essentially correct. After the publication of the Gulag Archipelago, and the collapse of the USSR, Marxism was totally discredited. What we have is the leftists disguising their Marxism in postmodernism and social justice and identity politics. link They’ve taken over our universities and are taking over our justice system. It’s called the long march through the institutions. Environmentalism is just another false flag. It’s not paranoia, we have the written statements of the perpetrators.

Reply to  commieBob
May 28, 2019 6:18 am

Dr. Ball is not essentially correct – he avoids the root of the lurch to world government – the British Empire.
The entire “socialist” diversion (it exists only for bailed-out banks) is an attempt to cover for the Fabian Roundtable, Cecil Rhodes (scholarships), Milner, RIIA, documented in my comment just above. Canada is directly at the forefront of this old problem (older than Marx).

Anyway Trump will be in London in June (maybe will actually meet Ms.May?) with a list of 9 questions from Rep. Nunes (CA) basically detailing when, how, and who attempted a coup in the US. Trump tweeted that the UK, Australia, and Ukraine are all to be investigated.

Note it was not the “Soviets”, nor “Russia”, nor, nor “Marxists”, nor “Cubans”,nor “Iran”, nor”Communists”, that attempted a coup in the US – it was that good ol’ special relation.

Reply to  bonbon
May 28, 2019 7:11 am

The British Empire died over 50 years ago.
You really should find something new to blame all your problems on.

Reply to  bonbon
May 28, 2019 7:44 am

Dr. Ball’s main point:

It is common sense to protect our environment, but what has occurred for 50 years is exploitation of that idea for a socialist agenda. We wasted 50 years believing that humans are not natural, and everything they do is destructive. We wasted and continue to waste trillions of dollars on unnecessary policies and useless technologies, all based on false assumptions, pseudoscience, and emotional bullying.

Your theory is interesting but doesn’t invalidate his main point. Your theory also doesn’t invalidate the point that the postmodern Marxists have taken over the humanities and are spreading their nasty tentacles into the law.

We now have many Human Rights Commissions which can penalize you if you inadvertently hurt the feelings of some supposedly marginalized group.

There’s no proof postmodern Marxist social justice warriors are sponsored by any foreign country. They are an own goal.

The world is a complicated place. Even if your theory is true it doesn’t invalidate Ball’s point. More than one thing is usually happening at the same time.

Joel Snider
Reply to  bonbon
May 28, 2019 11:49 am

I would actually identify the root of the lurch to progressive academia.

Reply to  M.K. Styllinski
May 28, 2019 7:10 am

I’ve always found it fascinating how some people conclude that the refusal of the Israeli’s to die on command becomes a human rights violation on their part.

Equally fascinating how the actions of the Palestinians to kill as many Jews as possible is either excused or ignored.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
May 28, 2019 9:42 am

That’s progressive for ‘tolerance’.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  M.K. Styllinski
May 28, 2019 9:33 am

“It’s also interesting that such a “hidden agenda” has relatively little to do other than to make sure its trajectory stays online, as it were. Thus a few tweaks at specific junctures are all that’s needed.”

Hari Seldon wrote Agenda 21?

Reply to  James Schrumpf
May 28, 2019 5:22 pm

Hari Seldon wrote Agenda 21?

Lol. Nice one

Reply to  M.K. Styllinski
May 28, 2019 11:47 pm

M.K. Styllinski wrote:
“Ultimately, it’s about psychologically deviant people desiring total control…”

Well said!

The primary objective of radical greens is total control – totalitarianism. It’s never really been about the environment – that is just a green smokescreen to mobilize the gullible and the ignorant – of which there are many.

As I wrote in my recent essay, located here:

9. Conclusion

The evidence strongly supports my hypothesis that “Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age”.

The number of deaths and shattered lives caused by radical-green activism since ~1970 rivals the death tolls of the great killers of the 20th Century – Stalin, Hitler and Mao – they advocate similar extreme-left totalitarian policies and are indifferent to the resulting environmental damage and human suffering.

May 28, 2019 5:00 am

“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”

Wow, such a simple solution to “social” problems. Don’t bother fixing the problems, just get rid of the “social”.
The corollary is to solve environmental problems by destroying the environment.

This approach can fix anything:

Stop infant mortality : don’t stop babies dying, much easier to stop them living in the first place.
Stop senile dementia : kill everyone over 50.
Stop humans killing animals: kill everyone.
Stop animals killing animals : nuke the whole planet to oblivion.

Absolute genius, why has it taken us so long work this out?

I’m always in favour of ‘lead by example’ , so I’ll wait to see these misanthropic zealots do what gave us the modern use of the word zealot. When I wake up and read they have all killed themselves I’ll give it some serious consideration.

Reply to  Greg
May 28, 2019 5:09 am

Zealots defined the modern usage when, rather than capitulate the last stronghold at the end of the failed Judean uprising against Rome, they all committed suicide.

I doubt the human extinction movement have that kind of balls. They probably expect everyone to go first and will then change their minds and have the place to themselves.

Reply to  Greg
May 28, 2019 6:48 am

Judean People’s Front, Crack Suicide Squad.

May 28, 2019 6:42 am

April Fool’s Day was almost two months ago.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  willem
May 28, 2019 9:57 am

Yes, I agree – you are two months late. Now go away until next April.

May 28, 2019 6:52 am

I’ve enjoyed this essay by Dr. Ball.
The observation that the ideal number of humans on Earth at around a billion. I’ve run into this by a radical some years ago.
My Uncle Norm came out of the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1970 as an aeronautical engineer with the rank of a Col. Wanting to keep active he became head of the airline pilots union and eventually became politically radical. Living in Vancouver, he got himself appointed as an “elder” advisor to the Suzuki Foundation.
Over lunch one day, he was going on about the threat of too many people and I, in seeking perspective, asked his number which may have been 2 billion. Then asked how he and Suzuki proposed to obtain the number.
Angrily, he said it was impossible.
I asked, then what his solution was?
He glared at me and said “We have to control them.”
While never senile he was authoritarian until passing away at age 93.

RT Rider
May 28, 2019 6:54 am

I couldn’t agree more that environmentalism is a part of a global socialist agenda, just not for the masses. As we’ve witnessed since the early 70’s the clear beneficiary of all the welfare and regulatory programs put in place across the world, are the ruling class. The money is flowing upwards, not downward.

I also disagree with using the term Capitalism. What does that mean now? Do you call a global banking cartel, with the power to counterfeit money at will and lend it at interest to connected cronies, capitalism? I don’t – I call state-condoned, criminal racketeering.

Central Planning for the global economy, today, has nothing to do with the old socialist-style (communist) micro-planning – it’s all about high level control through monetary policy and debt-enabled, government spending to social engineer outcomes, both culturally and economically. This includes, among many, environmentalism. Then, once, in place they are protected by law to solidify the power and wealth of the insiders.

The multi-trillion dollar bailout of the banking cartel, since 2008, should convince everybody who doubts, who are in charge. In the US, the top 5 TBTF banks, since 2008, have paid upwards of $40 Billion in fines for what amounts to criminal racketeering yet, other than a few fish, the Dons of the outfit never see a courtroom let alone jail. I call this a State protection racket, where as long as the State gets their cut of the vig, the perps are allowed to carry on with their rackets.

Maurice Strong was a long-time, made man and bagman for these racketeers. I met Strong once when he was chairman of Ontario Hydro, and I doubt a more oleaginous, slime ball than him could exist. He was the type of individual who gave the you creeps shaking his hand, and after checking your wrist to ensure your watch was still there, you’d run to the loo and wash your hands.

When he was made chairman of Ontario Hydro, he in his crew moved and set to work maneuvering the finances and operations so they could make out like bandits, in the planned privatization of the crown corporation. An example, was using public money to buy tracts of land in Costa Rica for promoting carbon sequestration (via trees) and preserving rain forest. I’m sure it was coincidental that these land were proximate to his own property.

And who was the front man for his placement, as well as the placement of a host of socialist grifters from across the country, in almost all agencies where money was to made from the public purse? Why none other than Ontario’s first proclaimed socialist – Bob Rae, leader of the Ontario NDP at the time, and elected premier of Ontario by some electoral fluke, with only 37% of the vote.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think all political parties are filled with grifters and bagman, but the socialists are particularly hypocritical, as they purport to be on side with the little guy – not. Unfortunately for Strong, all his plans were sabotaged (by Hydro employees, presumably) as the press were fed information about his shenanigans, and Rae was sufficiently embarrassed to call off the privatization plans. Restructuring of Hydro would have to wait, until the next grifter took control of government – Mike Harris.

Mr. Strong, and his cohort, departed Hydro and took their skimming operation to other fields, most notably the global warming scam.

Reply to  RT Rider
May 28, 2019 8:06 am

Harris was a rare premier of the Province of Ontario.
He tried to reintroduce the concept of limited government.
Which including the shocking attempt to reduce the power of the teachers’ monopoly.

Reply to  RT Rider
May 28, 2019 3:52 pm

“I also disagree with using the term Capitalism. What does that mean now? Do you call a global banking cartel, with the power to counterfeit money at will and lend it at interest to connected cronies, capitalism? I don’t – I call state-condoned, criminal racketeering.”

Sorry to break the news to you Pollyanna, but this is the face of capitalism since at last the 1870s when the great industrial cartels were created, led by the Rockefellers. By 1900 virtually every industry is controlled by 3-4 mega corporation or “trusts” as they were called back then. That’s pretty much the case today and is exactly the world designed and preferred by the Apex Predator Class. They own “Big Government” which does the dirty work for “Big Business”.

I’m amazed that there are hordes of adults who have some child-like, fairy tale image of “capitalism” that, in fact, never really existed except maybe competing hot dog stands on street corners or dry cleaners. So pathetic.

May 28, 2019 7:27 am

Way back when the Baby Boom was booming, as little nippers we all got something called the Facts of Life. We got ’em as issues came up, and the syllabus was usually complete by the age of six. In no particular order:

(1) People are born, grow up, get married, have kids, get old, have diseases, and die. Animals, too.
(2) There’s weather we like, weather that’s uncomfortable, weather that’s fun, weather that causes harm. We don’t control ANY of the weather.
(3) Animals eat plants and each other, people eat both plants and animals. Yes, we have to kill the animals to eat them. It’s pointless to feel guilty about any of this. Biblical explanations optional.
(4) You have to make a living doing something for money when you grow up; job NOT optional.
(5) Most people want to eventually have families with children of their own; this is right and good.
(6) The Earth is very big; we’re not in control of much. We didn’t make the dinosaurs go extinct.
(7) The Biggie: We don’t know everything. We only know what we think right now. It will change a LOT.

A kid who accepted the above (ca. age 6, remember!) was what we called, “Well-Adjusted.” Meaning, you accept the lived reality of nature and society as received and learn to find a comfortable place in it.
The types who were NOT well-adjusted, the Woody Allens who were always going to therapy, we kind of dismissed as damaged.

I believe this still describes most “normal” people today. “Activists,” like those who’d rather the whole human species went extinct than live the (very long and comfortable) life most people enjoy today, are mentally ill, damaged souls filled with self-hatred because they can’t control nature and mankind. Well, I say we start ignoring them instead of blowing them up into celebrities and maybe WE can be the change we want to see.
Let’s wrest the narrative from the crackpots and return the fate of humanity to the well-adjusted!

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Goldrider
May 28, 2019 10:02 am

Well said sir.

Reply to  Goldrider
May 28, 2019 11:02 am

(2) There’s weather we like, weather that’s uncomfortable, weather that’s fun, weather that causes harm. We don’t control ANY of the weather.

And all of it was a surprise. Weather forecasting was junk 60 years ago. Every day was a surprise.

(3) Animals eat plants and each other, people eat both plants and animals. Yes, we have to kill the animals to eat them. It’s pointless to feel guilty about any of this. Biblical explanations optional.

We kill the plants, too. I am amused by moral vegetarians who claim they don’t want to kill to eat, but their plant meals were just as much alive as animals. Killing baby peas for food is not morally different from killing a pig for food.

Reply to  Goldrider
May 28, 2019 12:47 pm

That is a far better commencement speech than the ones I have had to suffer through this spring so far.

Joel Snider
May 28, 2019 8:03 am

Well – it helps to arrive at that conclusion since they’ve been SAYING so all along.

John Robertson
May 28, 2019 8:40 am

All hail the Kleptocracy.
If you are on the right side it sure beats working.
Dr Ball is correct,the likes of Maurice have been lusting for power and control forever,Mr Strong unfortunately had all kinds of help from the Canadian Political structure.
CAGW is an open assault on the citizen.
Blatant ,naked powergrab by our Bureaucracy.
“Civil Servant” indeed.
Unionized parasites in reality, Confederated Canada is broke and broken thanks to the fine work of all the Maurice’s raised up amongst us.

Perhaps Maurice Strong will leave a legacy, the breakup of Canada,due to the destruction of all vital civic institutions, for corruption of these institutes is essential to establish a big lie.
So far they are doing real well.
Truth is NOT a defence against a Human Rights Tribunal.
Private Law is a real thing (See Restore CSA), Supreme Court Ruling 23 May 2019.
Speech is being throttled.
controlling this medium is being legislated.
Our media is being bribed with $600 million per year.
A tax on air,(includes everything transported anywhere)but not a tax when in court.

Dr Ball is not wrong.

May 28, 2019 8:54 am

Whenever the global Marxist/Socialist movement is tied to AGW there’s people that quickly attribute it to conspiracy theory and any supporting evidence is ignored, discounted, or ridiculed. That just shows you how effective the propaganda is and how easily people are duped.

May 28, 2019 9:19 am

If Reality Backs A Climate Change Apocalypse, Why Do Elections Change Politician’s Minds? Climate Change Is and Always Will Be A Non-Scientific Political Issue

If Climate Change is really going to end life on earth, why do the Climate Alarmist Politicians abandon the issue once its Political Liability becomes apparent? Are these Politicians suddenly interested in ending all life as we know it, including their own, or are they simply proving what most people have known all along, that Climate Change was and is nothing more than the latest in a long line of Progressive Hoxes to fool the public into voting away their freedoms and empowering the Government?

May 28, 2019 9:34 am

Tim Ball. Please stop holding back. Tell us what you really think. LOL😁

May 28, 2019 9:45 am

There is only one way to look at this. These people are crazy.

May 28, 2019 9:53 am

You state, “I challenge anyone to produce empirical evidence that proves anything happening today is outside any long-term record of natural activity.” The empirical evidence doesn’t exist. Likewise, where is the empirical evidence that any additional carbon dioxide will affect the earth’s temperature. It was discovered in the early 1900’s that CO2 absorbed infrared radiation. It was also determined the frequency bands of infrared radiation that CO2 absorbed. There are satellites that measure radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and there are ground based stations that measure radiation, but I have been unable to find data that specifically covers outgoing long wave radiation at the TOA and down welling long wave radiation at the earth’s surface in the CO2 absorption bands and their changes over time. The whole concept that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will impact climate depends on the ability of the carbon dioxide to trap infrared radiation and if that cannot be measured, the the impact must be minuscule.

Reply to  Bruce
May 28, 2019 10:27 am

Yes, the science on the absorption bands is understood. We know that CO2 absorbs sunlight and then emits some of that energy at the infrared, thus causing a small amount of warming. The action of “trapping” heat as it’s so often repeated, means that CO2 would also need to be an insulator, just as Styrofoam is an insulator. I’ve yet to see an explanation of how CO2 traps heat like Styrofoam in a freely convective atmosphere. The glass in a greenhouse traps heat by putting a stop to convection, thereby, trapping heat. To accurately portray CO2 as a greenhouse gas, CO2 would have to limit convection. Again, I’ve never seen an explanation of how CO2 exhibits this property.

May 28, 2019 10:13 am

But… You’re just an anti-science denier steeped in denial rhetoric about denial. You even deny denial, which just goes to show how much of a denier you are.

Andrew Klavan made a great comment recently when talking about the green meme of 10-12 years left before… something. They keep saying we have to act now or we’re going to die. We have to act now before time runs out. Klavan said, and he’s right, that’s what you hear at the end of every used care salesman’s pitch about the car he’s attempting to sell you. It’s an attempt to get you to act out of fear and when we act in haste out of fear, we make mistakes. Again, he’s right. It’s just a heavy-handed attempt at controlling people through fear. Unfortunately, the intelligence of the average person is, well, average. I’m not sure the average person would spend more than a moment of thought on this issue or take the time to research both sides of the argument. National polls seem to reflect this very thing.

My own thoughts here; we have a government that works (or doesn’t sometimes) through a system of checks and balances. We have coequal branches of government providing oversight over each other as a means of limiting the power of government. We also have the scientific industrial complex, as it were, often funded by government money. Those in favor of creating radical green policy use a great deal of the science produced by this government funded money, but there’s no actual oversight of the product of these scientists. Yes, peer review is supposed to act as an oversight mechanism, but we know that peer review, especially in climate science, often turns out to be pal review. We know there’s a problem with science due to the reproducibility crisis we’re currently experiencing. Creating policy without this oversight means that any insidious ideology could creep in and corrupt the science, therefore co-opting and creating policy based on this corrupted science. How would you stop this corruption once it’s started? We need to overhaul the way we peer review science in a way that ideology can’t corrupt. If we don’t do this, we’ll be dead in 10 years. Or 12.

May 28, 2019 10:38 am

The most-overlooked factor in the cause of temperature increase since the depths of the Little Ice Age is the rise in water vapor. A top-down analysis can be a do-it-yourself project on a personal computer. The analysis at http://diyclimateanalysis.blogspot.com shows the water vapor increase caused about 70% of the temperature increase since 1909

May 28, 2019 11:08 am

‘It is time to break the emotional stranglehold of those who used the environment to create global socialism.’

True. But . . . .

Success will NOT end global socialism. They will exploit anything they can to gain a foothold. Especially to destroy Western Civilization. They are currently exploiting environmentalism. End that, and they will just find something else to exploit.

They aren’t going away. There is no finish line.

Reply to  Gamecock
May 29, 2019 6:12 am

Think again…

May 28, 2019 11:51 am

The point I think is this: it doesn’t really matter what label we give to this bid to control through AGW climate science or eco-smart agendas or postmodernism in universities, marxist resurgence or cartel capitalism etc. – it’s all part of the same package, albeit with factional interests. It’s whatever ideology is most useful in providing camouflage for what is essentially predatory behaviour of psychopaths.

In that sense, there is no conspiracy, only two types of human being: one with the capacity for conscience the other with no such capacity. Then the blood and carnage of history begins to make sense, not least the endless diet of tribalist beliefs creating the perpetual noise of division so useful to any manipulator. Regime change, shock doctrine economics or goldman sacs investing in cap and trade – It’s all rooted in the same patterns of pathology to which much of the global population has been normalised.

May 28, 2019 2:06 pm

“Andrew Klavan made a great comment recently when talking about the green meme of 10-12 years left before… something. They keep saying we have to act now or we’re going to die.”

It’s like that store that’s been “Going Out of Business!” for 25 years. That pitch works only on folks who haven’t lived here very long.

May 28, 2019 3:45 pm

The Founders of the Club of Rome are Aurelio Peccei, David Rockefeller and Alexander King… These are the Apex Capitalist Predators, along with the likes of Maurice Strong and many, many more.

Right wing skullduggery that emanates from the likes of Tim Ball are claiming in essence, that the Global COMMUNIST CONSPIRACY is run by these same Apex Capitalists. Apparently Ball and his claque are oblivious to this anomaly. Their claims are childish and naive at best. They have not a clue how politics really works and who is really in charge. Pathetic.

Reply to  Sarastro
May 29, 2019 6:13 am


Tomato/Tomaato. Left/right political labels are not that relevant. The threat is totalitarianism.

No one is claiming that Marxists are intelligent – they clearly are not. The leadership (brutal psychopaths, aka Groucho Marxists) seize onto any notion that will disrupt peaceful society, create poverty and chaos and thus give them total control. Their followers, (imbecile minions, aka Harpo Marxists) will follow anything that moves and sounds good – this describes about the lower third of human intellect – people who are far too stupid to vote – but they do.

Marxists (aka Progressives) can only be described as insane – they want to repeat the horrors of the 20th Century, with over 200 million innocent lives destroyed by the likes of Stalin, Hitler and Mao, and lesser psychos like Pol Pot and most Tin Pot leftist dictators in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America – most recently Chávez and successors in Venezuela.

In fact, the radical greens have already destroyed the lives of almost as many people as their 20th Century counterparts. This green carnage is described in my essay “Hypothesis: Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age”.

Radical greens are a reboot of the old Marxists, the “useful idiots” in the West who used to support the failed Soviet Union – they seem to think it will all go better this time – it won’t.

May 28, 2019 9:41 pm

It’s been with us longer than that. I find it interesting that in 1864 George Perkins Marsh wrote:

Man is everywhere a disturbing agent. Wherever he plants his foot, the harmonies of nature are turned to discords.

George Perkins Marsh (1864). “Man and Nature: Or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action”, p.36, New York : C. Scribner and Sons

Tom M
May 29, 2019 5:57 am

That no predictions in the last 50 years made by environmentalists have come true tells the tale. Anyone can make predictions about the environment. You don’t need some fancy degree. The latest prediction by AOC, a true dimwit in her own right, and certainly not a scientist, has the earth dying off in 12 years due to global warming. Good luck with that one. Even the totally non-scientific high priestess of trash compacting, Al Gore, made epic predictions that have never seen the light of day. Species come and go and man is a species. So if the earth needs to do something to survive, man may become the next victim in that process. The earth will be around for another few billion years with or without man. Any number a natural or even several man induced catastrophes , could end the existence of man. The liberals would then be able to die happy instead of living with such insanity and unhappiness and worry. We have no control over mother nature, our existence or our inevitable futures. Just ask the universe.

May 29, 2019 7:58 am

Every year when they celebrate Earth,
The green socialists generate mirth,
Trying not to betray
The true aim of “Earth Day,”
Which from Pig Latin translates as “dearth.”

Steve Bishop
May 29, 2019 11:06 pm

Here’s the proof demanded. Professor Richard A Muller is a climate change scientist. Like Watts, he didn’t believe the IPCC findings and conducted his own research using 14 million temperature readings going back further than the IPCC. He was amazed to find his results were stronger than those of the IPCC. https://www.nytimes.com/…/the-conversion-of-a-climate…

Reply to  Steve Bishop
May 30, 2019 1:15 am

Muller was never a skeptic.

December 17, 2003
“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” –

“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic“



May 30, 2019 12:18 pm

CO2 is a resultant of, not a driver of, climate change! Dr Richard Alley of PSU analyzed multiple (1,000’s) of ice cores from Greenland and Vostok! His results show that:

CO2 concentrations always lag Earth’s temperature changes:

Lagging by 400-800 years as the Earth warms
Lagging by 400-2,000 years when the Earth cools!

Lagging process parameters are NEVER drivers of the process!

They’ve known this relationship[ for 30 years but never talk about it because you can’t gain power, money or a new world order if you tell the truth! Especially since there are so many scientifically illiterate people in the world who will believe almost anything from “People in Authority!”.

May 30, 2019 7:01 pm

The thing is if you really believed the earth had a fever why would you keep using fossil fuels
in your daily life ?
Maurice Strong , Canadian diplomate , senior UN Representative,and later a Chinese resident admitted
climate change fear mongering was the tool used to pursue the globalist agenda .
Is it a coincidence that the Canadian Liberal Party leader is a kiss ass China worshiper and Canada has twice the number of immigration offices in China as any other country . Is that balanced immigration ?
How did $billions and $billions of Chinese laundered money take over the Vancouver real estate industry
while Liberal governments turned a blind eye . Pure coincidence … not .
Lets see in November if Canadians like Australians and others will send these preachy virtue signalling commies packing . They should be so lucky ?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights