Understanding the Climate Movement Part 2: Noble Cause Corruption.

Dr Paul Rossiter

In an earlier posting (WUWT https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/26/understanding-the-climate-movement-the-impotence-of-science/) I referred to the work of Douglas Murray (The Madness of Crowds) in helping to understand how the climate debate was just a Trojan horse being exploited for a much wider social change agenda being pursued by globalists and the socialist Left. In that article I alluded to some of the drivers that are enabling the movement, including Noble Cause Corruption and personal or corporate financial gain. Here I explore further the role of Noble Cause Corruption. While regular followers of WUWT will be familiar with some of the content, I think that pulling it together makes a compelling case.

First, some background. The term Noble Cause Corruption was coined by Edwin Delattre in 1989 in relation to police officers using unethical means to achieve an outcome that was perceived by them to be in the public good. Such actions placed the outcome ahead of everything else. It was OK to lie or break the law for the public good and such action was realised by everything from confirmation bias through to outright dishonest behaviour like forced confessions and planting or tampering with evidence. The “Noble” aspect of it comes from a moral commitment to make the world a safer place.

In that context, the behaviour is contrasted under two competing ideas in the world of ethics (www.policeone.com):

The Deontological Ethical System
The deontological ethical system is grounded in the belief that how and why you do something is more important than the result(s) your behavior produces.

The Teleological Ethical System
The teleological ethical system takes the opposite perspective. Under this belief system, the consequences of your behavior are the most important concern, not whether your actions were inherently positive or negative.

Neither of these has any particular moral ascendancy. However, if the means used to obtain the result in the teleological system are unethical or illegal, this behaviour is classed as Noble Cause Corruption.

The precursors to the current global environmentalist movement probably go back as early as 1962 to Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring. In considering her case against the widespread use of insecticides, it has been argued that “her science was dubious, she selected only data that supported her case, that insecticides were bad, industry was bad and any scientists who did not support her views were bad” (http://21sci-tech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html). I’ll leave it to others to argue how many deaths were caused as a result of the banning of DDT in the USA in 1972 and later on in the world, but the clear winners were the emerging environmentalist movement, the Environmental Defence Fund and ultimately the formation of the EPA in 1970.

Also in 1970, the Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP) conference was told that emissions from the engines of the proposed supersonic transport aircraft (SST) would destroy the ozone layer, leading to all sorts of human catastrophe. This claim had no rigorous supporting science, but it lead to the creation of the $21 million CIAP research programme. In 1971 the US Congress rejected any further funding for development of the SST, though this may have also been influenced by other economic issues.

The ozone cause was taken up in 1974 when Molina and Rowlands claimed that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) destroy the ozone layer. This precipitated an increasing number of experimental studies right through to the mid 1980’s, with the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole and suggestions of a similar event in the opposite hemisphere. However, as would become the norm, the science backing up the claims was never verified, some of the data was questionable, the modelling did not agree with observations and natural fluctuations were not considered. It did however lead to the Montreal Protocol in 1987 and the banning the use of CFCs. Much more detail about these events given in Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin.

Other causes that have followed a similar path include the nuclear winter, acid rain, GM food, vaccination and more recently Glyphosate. However, while they all have the same features of questionable science, fears for human existence and finally political fixes, I don’t want to get into their pros and cons, but rather go back a little in time and trace some of the events running in parallel with the above that ultimately combined into the current rise of global environmentalism as a powerful social and political force. In so doing it needs to be kept in mind that other influences were often in play affecting actions and outcomes. In particular, competition between the nuclear and coal lobbies in Europe and the USA and the OPEC oil embargos in 1973 and 1979 significantly influenced the public and political perception of these vital sources of energy (see e.g. Rupert Darwall: The Green Tyranny). Along the way I hope it will become apparent that Noble Cause Corruption became the accepted modus operandi .

To trace some of the origins of the globalist movement it is necessary to go back to the Club of Rome that was founded in 1968 by members of the original Morgenthau group during a meeting at Rockefeller’s private house in Bellagio, Italy. That meeting was organized by Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist who had close relations to the Olivetti Corporation and Fiat. He claimed to have solutions for world peace and prosperity, which could be accomplished through a “New World Order”.

It initiated a number of primitive computer modelling exercises, supposedly demonstrating that resources were going soon to run out, leading to prediction of a total social breakdown. The findings were published in 1972 in the report The Limits to Growth that went on to sell around 30 million copies.

Also in 1968, Bert Bolin from Sweden suggested to the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) the idea of having a UN conference to focus on human interactions with the environment. ECOSOC passed a resolution supporting the idea and in 1969 the General Assembly Resolution decided to convene a conference in 1972. It mandated a set of reports from the UN secretary-general suggesting that the conference focus on “stimulating and providing guidelines for action by national government and international organizations facing environmental issues”. Preparations for the conference were extensive, lasting 4 years, including 115 governments, and costing over $30,000,000.

UN Secretary-General U Thant subsequently invited Canadian Maurice Strong to lead it as Secretary-General of the Conference, in acknowledgement that the Canadian diplomat (under Pierre Trudeau) had initiated and already worked for over two years on the project. Accordingly, in 1971 Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet, co-authored by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos. The report summarized the findings of 152 leading “experts” from 58 countries in preparation for the Stockholm meeting. This was the world’s first “state of the environment” report.

The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was finally held in Stockholm, Sweden, from June 5–16 in 1972. Embedded in the numerous proclamations are comments on the environment and man’s role, including:

“We see around us growing evidence of man-made harm in many regions of the earth: dangerous levels of pollution in water, air, earth and living beings; major and undesirable disturbances to the ecological balance of the biosphere; destruction and depletion of irreplaceable resources; and gross deficiencies, harmful to the physical, mental and social health of man, in the man-made environment, particularly in the living and working environment”.

There was mention (principle 6): “The discharge of toxic substances or of other substances and the release of heat, in such quantities or concentrations as to exceed the capacity of the environment to render them harmless, must be halted in order to ensure that serious or irreversible damage is not inflicted upon ecosystems”.

The Stockholm Conference finally established the environment as part of an international development agenda. It led to the establishment by the UN General Assembly in December 1972 of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, and the election of Strong as Executive Director. As head of UNEP, Strong convened the first international expert group meeting on climate change.

The IPCC was set up in 1988 by two UN organisations, UNEP and the World Meteorology Organisation (WMO), and was dedicated to the task of “providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts”.

This sounds like an admirable aim, but in fact the UNEP agenda was already clearly set out and by 2003 this task had been amended to “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaption and mitigation”, shifting the focus entirely to “human induced climate change”.

The IPCC provided the ideal platform for NGOs like Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, Friends of the Earth, the David Suzuki Foundation and the Environmental Defence Fund to push their Green/Left agendas, either through lobbying or direct involvement of personnel. The first assessment report was completed in 1990 and the Summary for Policymakers provided in the report states that they are:

“.. certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface”.

Also in 1988, the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural resources held an inquiry into climate change under the direction of Democratic Senator Al Gore. Star witness James Hansen (who subsequently became science advisor to Al Gore) stated unequivocally that “Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming…It is already happening now” and “The greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now…We already reached the point where the greenhouse effect is important.” Hansen said that NASA was “99% confident that the warming was caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and not a random fluctuation”.

So far, on the surface at least, it all still seems to be about the environment and saving the planet.

However, in 1991 the Club of Rome produced its second report: The First Global Revolution by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider. The stated goal of the report was to “outline a strategy for mobilizing the world’s governments for environmental security and clean energy by purposefully converting the world from a military to a civil economy, tackling global warming and to solve the energy problem, dealing with world poverty and disparities between the northern hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere”.

While the report covered many threats to the environment, global warming due to CO2 received specific mention. However, the real globalisation strategy, camouflaged under the banner of environmentalism, was finally laid bare:

“It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose”.

“The common enemy of humanity is man”.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself”.
“The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation”.
“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.

In the meantime, Stephen Schneider recognised the dilemma for scientists and was quoted in Discover Magazine (October 1989 vol. 10 no.10):

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.
On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

In 1992 the UN organised a Conference on Environment and Development (The Rio Summit, leading to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC) with Maurice Strong as the Secretary General. The whole tenor of the meeting might best be summed up by the statement in his opening speech:

“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?… In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” (https://www.azquotes.com/author/14256-Maurice_Strong)

The Kyoto protocol (concluded in 1997) built upon the Rio UNFCCC framework to seek commitment of state parties to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO2). The lead U.S. negotiator was Timothy Wirth (former US Senator from Colorado) who said:

“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

That is surely Noble Cause Corruption writ large, as are the following:

In 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, said:

· “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” (https://www.azquotes.com/author/30831-Ottmar_Edenhofer)

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, expressed a similar sentiment:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.” (https://www.azquotes.com/author/32264-Christiana_Figueres)

In 2019, a more overt link to the global socialist agenda was described by Richard Lachmann of the Democratic Socialists of America:

“Climate change is an issue around which people can unite across borders in opposition to both fascists and neoliberals. It provides a framework in which socialists can bring together domestic and foreign policy, the ideological and the practical, the personal and the political, and loudly challenge all those who don’t care”.

“Climate change will create an opening for socialist politics by breaking the link between capitalist growth and political legitimacy”. (https://www.dsausa.org/democratic-left/climate-solidarity-and-resistance/).

The UN continues its call to take wealth from developed countries and give it to third world countries under the pretext of climate change and in 2019 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) report continues the mantra that:

The threat of global warming requires immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize the Earth’s climate. Recent studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United States Global Change Research Program, among others, have made it clear that if we fail to change course, we are only a few decades away from disastrous climate-driven losses”.

This, it argues, can only be solved under a new Global Green New Deal that demands: new controls on money movements; more action from developed nations, targeting sovereign wealth funds and a minimum tax rate for multi-nationals. This is globalisation UN style.

George Orwell was very prescient in his book 1984:

“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship”.

At the coal face, the dishonest behaviour used to propel the global warming/climate change juggernaut has largely been through appeals to emotion: fear campaigns involving Polar bears facing extinction, islands disappearing below the sea, extreme heat and droughts, glaciers and ice caps disappearing, hurricanes, tornadoes, corals dissolving in an acid ocean and all kinds of pestilence and damnation. In the few cases where any data is presented to support the claims it is invariably cherry-picked or simply based upon modelling that might have high fidelity in the model world, but little proven relevance to the highly complex real world. These behaviours and the dishonest manipulation of data to suit the catastrophic global warming/climate change agenda by individuals (think Climategate 2009), universities and organisations like the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, the Australian BOM, to name just a few (all well-documented on sites like WUWT) are further examples of noble cause corruption on the local scale: prostitute the science to ensure continued funding, all for the noble cause of ensuring the welfare of the planet.

It is clear that the major players cited above all share the “noble cause” of globalisation, either under the socialist banner or some specific authoritarian organisation like the UN, tearing down successful industrial economies and redistributing their wealth in the process. The fraudulent action taken to achieve this outcome is the claim of saving the environment through identification of CO2 as a pollutant and implementing strategies to mitigate the supposed consequential catastrophic global warming/climate change. The immediate collateral damage being accepted for the greater cause includes severe eco-anxiety, particularly in children, discontinuation or termination of employment of whistle blowers and diversion of wealth away from worthy human causes to green manufacturers and carbon traders. In the longer term it is the integrity of science. Ultimately it is democracy and the wellbeing of much of the world population.

Any agencies that remain true to the environmental cause have often just latched onto the funding coat tails and in so doing have provided an obliging virtuous “shop front” to deflect attention away from the larger agenda. Those that have morphed into political organisations have simply become part of the whole movement. The unethical treatment of the supporting “science” has just been the fraudulent means to the end.

Any police officer carrying on in such a blatantly corrupt way would be immediately stood down and possibly even prosecuted. It is past time for individuals, organisations, politicians and governments to get some backbone, stand up and call out the corrupt behaviour for what it is.

My background:

PhD in Physics from Monash University.

Over 60 scientific publications in refereed journals, 4 book chapters in scientific tomes and a book for Cambridge Press.

Was Head of the Department of Materials Engineering at Monash, then Deputy Vice-Chancellor in charge of Research and Development at Curtin University of Technology. I have run my own consulting company and also a small manufacturing business.

Was Fellow of The Australian Institute of Physics and Fellow of the Institution of Engineers, Australia.

Now retired.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sweet Old Bob
October 2, 2019 10:14 am

More like Nobel cause corruption …..

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
October 2, 2019 10:39 am

Interesting you should mention that. I was just thinking about Dr. Mann (who claimed falsely that he had won the Nobel Prize). Am I right in thinking that the window for him to appeal the Mann v. Ball ruling has passed without him appealing?

Reply to  commieBob
October 2, 2019 2:06 pm

I think it will take a mighty effort by Mann and his lawyers to account for his lack of effort and diligence; along with a promise to be more responsive.
BC Court decision Mann vs Ball.

“With respect to prejudice, such prejudice is presumed unless the prejudice is rebutted. Indeed, the presumption of prejudice is given even more weight in defamation cases: Samson v. Scaletta, 2016 BCSC 2598, at paras 40-43. The plaintiff has not filed any evidence rebutting the presumption of prejudice.

[14] Moreover, the defendant has led actual evidence of actual prejudice. The evidence is that the defendant intended to call three witnesses at trial who would have provided evidence going to fair comment and malice. Those witnesses have now died. A fourth witness is no longer able to travel. Thus, in addition to finding that presumption of prejudice has not been rebutted, I also find that there has been actual prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay.

[15] Turning to the final factor, I have little hesitation in finding that, on balance, justice requires the action be dismissed. The parties are both in their eighties and Dr. Ball is in poor health. He has had this action hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for eight years and he will need to wait until January 2021 before the matter proceeds to trial. That is a ten year delay from the original alleged defamatory statement. Other witnesses are also elderly or in poor health. The memories of all parties and witnesses will have faded by the time the matter goes to trial.

[16] I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay.

[17] Before concluding, I wish to note that the materials that have been filed on this application are grossly excessive in relation to the matters in issue. There are four large binders of materials filed by the plaintiff on the application to dismiss, plus one additional binder from the defendant. The binders contain multiple serial affidavits, many of which are replete with completely irrelevant evidence. In my view, this application could have been done and should have been done with one or two affidavits outlining the delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice.

[18] Those are my reasons, counsel. Costs?

[19] MR. SCHERR: I would, of course, ask for costs for the defendant, given the dismissal of the action.

[20] MR. MCCONCHIE: Costs follow the event. I have no quarrel with that.

[21] THE COURT: All right. I agree. The costs will follow the event, so the defendant will have his costs of the application and also the costs of the action, since the action is dismissed.”

Case is dismissed. Looks to be case dismissed with prejudice and Ball is awarded costs.

Given Mann’s failure to respond to the court’s rulings, Mann will have to provide an amazing reason why the case deserves an appeal.
I doubt any other BC Court judges want any part of someone who uses lawsuits to penalize defendants in costs and time.

Reply to  ATheoK
October 2, 2019 3:29 pm


Wasn’t this the case where Mann was held in contempt for refusing to provide data to the court?

Reply to  HotScot
October 3, 2019 1:23 am


Michael Ozanne
Reply to  ATheoK
October 3, 2019 8:15 am

The judgement was filed an Aug 22 with a 30 day window for lodging an appeal. Unless his brief can convince a higher court to re-open the case it’s over….

October 2, 2019 10:24 am

Greta Update:

Zero Hedge just did an article on her. Included is a photo of her parents. Make note of that.


I just learned that here parents were reported to Swedish Child Services…

Greta’s Parents Reported to Child Services in Sweden This Morning!


Earlier today, a private person posted pictures of their concern report about Greta Thunberg for child abuse by the parents. The report was allegedly sent to the Kungsholmen’s district administration in Stockholm and is being taken very seriously.

“We have an obligation to assess within 24 hours,” the childcare unit told Swedish local News agency samnytt.se

Here it is:


steve case
Reply to  john
October 2, 2019 11:39 am

john October 2, 2019 at 10:24 am

Greta’s Parents Reported to Child Services

You sure it’s not Fake (aka B.S.) News?

Reply to  steve case
October 2, 2019 2:55 pm

Seems legit. I do admit I am unfamiliar with Sweden media but pulling her from school and pulling this stunt only seems to enrich the parents (who will promptly blow the money after this 5 min of fame), having her subjected to ridicule and god knows what else happens behind closed doors at their home (these special needs children can be a handful) .

What the authorities do with it is another story. Child actors don’t seem to do well in life, especially here.

Her father and his parents are actors, her mother is an opera singer.

steve case
Reply to  John
October 2, 2019 5:06 pm

A simple search on
Greta’s Parents Reported to Child Services
doesn’t come up with anything that looks like a legitimate news outlet.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  John
October 13, 2019 8:51 am

According to freedom of press –

– what kind of legitimacy do you await from press: steve case October 2, 2019 at 5:06 pm

“A simple search on
Greta’s Parents Reported to Child Services

doesn’t come up with anything that looks like a legitimate news outlet.”

Craig from Oz
Reply to  steve case
October 2, 2019 8:09 pm

There is ‘legit’ and there is actually being meaningful in real terms.

Flags to observe are the words ‘a private person’. Who is this private person? I think I am safe in saying there are billions of private persons all around the world, all with a wide spread of personal views on the issues of the world.

Remember reporting people to departments, writing to the PM or ranting on Twit isn’t actually that hard. Had the report claimed that the parents of Nordic Thanos were being invested by Swedish police for child abuse then we might be onto something.

So while I personally believe Greta is a horrible human being, this all looks a bit click bait. Remember we are trying to establish facts, not impeach a president.

Not calling it fake news, just simply pointless.

Michael Burns
Reply to  john
October 2, 2019 11:56 am

Ah, the manufactured Saint Greta…a personal interest of mine.




Make your choice, I have left three sources for the disclosure of this dirty business — as usual, it is the ‘usual suspects’…

I have had my own feelings about Greta, she is autistic as am I, and so one is torn in a way at her social and emotional inabilities as compared to her intelligence. Her naivete’ gets in the way of the truth for her and the heightened sense in her vagal system that keeps her in a fight/flight dichotomy, emotionalizes any truth that would seep into that immature and disinformed mind.

She is a tyrant in the making…

Greta is heading for a fall and the bastards that exploited this poor child are beyond repute, they are despicable and will use any means in their cult of climate change; their religion of socialism to gain the high ground.

Putin is a zero-sum game master and not to be trusted in this instance or any other, his particular aim for his career has been the seeding of socialism worldwide.
Although I cannot prove it and have no evidence as yet I would suspect he is in here somewhere planting seeds or financing western subversion of climate truth and western democracy in general — paranoid as he is, he still believes that the west brought down the USSR.

One in particular — a snake if there ever was one — is Al Gore. The man has made an ocean of money from this hoax.

Ketil Mortensen
Reply to  Michael Burns
October 2, 2019 10:43 pm

You are right Michael. Cory have done a lot of research about GT and when you read it, the penny drops. Interestingly, the school strikes were planned at the Youth Summit in May 2015 by Plant=for=the=Planet Foundation where Frithjof Finkbeiner is one of the leaders. He happens to be Vice President for the German Chapter of Club of Rome. The link below is in German, but there is always Google Translate. https://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.com/category/klimawandel/

Reply to  Michael Burns
October 3, 2019 4:08 am

If Greta had not been invented, we would have to invent her.

Michael Ozanne
Reply to  john
October 3, 2019 8:10 am

Michael Ozanne
Reply to  Michael Ozanne
October 3, 2019 10:34 am
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Michael Ozanne
October 3, 2019 7:09 pm

How could you possibly make a mistake like that with the YouTube URLs being so explicit and explanatory?

Mike Ozanne
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 3, 2019 10:28 pm

it must have run on just before I clipped it… don’t work and indulge in sarcasm at the same time… 😛

October 2, 2019 10:26 am

What a great expose Paul. Puts the whole CAGW construct in sharp focus.

October 2, 2019 10:30 am

Clear and powerful essay.

Reply to  Bob Hoye
October 2, 2019 3:47 pm

Excellent essay – thank you Paul.

See also:

References for the quotations are here:

paul rossiter
October 3, 2019 6:37 pm

thanks for your kind comment. I was going to do a follow-up essay on the consequences, but I think that you have already got it covered in your recent posting on the subject:

Daniel B Hudson
October 2, 2019 10:58 am

Dr Paul Rossiter, I can’t thank you enough for this article. A perfect summary of how our global governance has deteriorated to the mess we are experiencing today. Wow.

Joel Snider
October 2, 2019 11:01 am

At this point, it’s just corruption.

steve case
October 2, 2019 11:32 am

It is past time for individuals, organisations, politicians and governments to get some backbone, stand up and call out the corrupt behaviour for what it is.

I’m not holding my breath.

Kevin Kilty
October 2, 2019 11:38 am

“The common enemy of humanity is man”

I agree. Only, not in the way they intend.

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
October 3, 2019 3:22 pm

“We have met the enemy and he is us.”

October 2, 2019 11:56 am

Great read and spot on analysis of what’s happened and happening. Optimism that the ship would right itself was my general attitude for a long tine. It still may but the push back required for that to happen seems to be increasing almost by the day. Somehow we must concentrate the strength to defeat this beast. Many anti communists went to their graves believing we were going to lose. We didnt …yet.

God give us the courage to fight and the strength to win

October 2, 2019 12:02 pm

I am reading the Douglas Murray book at this very moment. His last one ”The Strange death of Europe’ is a must read for any European, or indeed anyone from the west, as it points the way the west is heading after the liberal opening of the gates to widespread immigration and the subsequent dramatic shift in demographics.

Murrays current book is of course not the first tome with that title.

With extraordinary foresight we can note that title was originally penned by Charles Mackay (27 March 1814 – 24 December 1889) who “was a Scottish poet, journalist, author, anthologist, novelist, and songwriter, remembered mainly for his book ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. ”

He wrote:
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” –

Bearing in mind his reference to delusions and madness which chime so well with todays mass climate hysteria, it appears that sadly, we appear to have learnt nothing in two centuries.


Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  tonyb
October 2, 2019 5:29 pm

The Left refuse to read history books, so they can never learn from past experiences. They are forever trapped with the same mindset never able to understand how it is destructive to society.

Michael Burns
October 2, 2019 12:06 pm

Very good article, well put together Paul. concise and to the point.

We in Canada are about to go the polls on the 21st and put out of office the devil spawned from Pierre Elliot and that cabinet that gave us the infamous Maurice Strong.

The apple did not fall far from the tree and it will be good to see Justine get ousted and maybe serve some time?… Nah the later part of that will never happen. But he will fall on the 21st.

Although I am not confident about who replaces him.

Andy Pattullo
October 2, 2019 12:14 pm

Thank you. Masterfully organized and written, you have put into a clear narrative so many bits and pieces that have come to me through diverse sources over many years. I will save this and share it liberally with friends or the addle-brained who need deprogramming as the situation warrants.

I am an optimist and believe that even this world-wide contagion of baseless fear will not stop forward human progress. I believe however that the turning of the tide will happen incrementally, repeatedly in various locations and sometimes in the wrong direction, but largely propelled by the feeling of loss and injury felt by individuals when they realize what they are now expected to give up, or have already had taken from them in a futile attempt to control the weather.

B d Clark
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
October 2, 2019 3:07 pm

Agree Andy, “bits and pieces ” what we have felt seen and been on the receiving end of, knowing something is wrong yet not seeing the full picture,Paul along with Allan have brought together all these bits and pieces.

October 2, 2019 12:20 pm

I hate the term “Noble Cause Corruption”. The people who use it do not seem to see a difference between the “Noble” part and the “Corrupt” part. Here we seem to have an editorial which argues both sides of the street.
I would like to return to the example of the police officer, which opened this editorial.
An example clarifies.
Case 1:
Police officer plants evidence and gives false testimony to obtain a conviction. The officer has arrested the suspect on many occasions, they are on a first name basis. The wrongly convicted (in this case) is a known bad actor. The officer does this to keep the community safer. Noble Cause Corruption.

Case 2:
Police officer plants evidence and gives false testimony to obtain a conviction. The officer knows the suspect did nothing wrong, does not care. The officer pursues arrests and convictions to increase his department effectiveness ranking. With higher rankings, he gets promotion and the higher salaries which go along with it. The officer is keenly aware that higher salaries will equate to larger pension payouts. The officer often refers to his street level activities as his “Retirement Plan”. Sometimes noises are made about “keeping the community safe” at press conferences and the like. Corrupt Corruption.

Often I see the worst of outright corruption, and people will say “Noble Cause” as if to give total corruption some veneer of respectability, as if there was a moral justification. There is no justification, call corruption for what it is.

Reply to  TonyL
October 2, 2019 4:11 pm

“call corruption for what it is.”


Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  TonyL
October 2, 2019 5:39 pm

In Case 1, the officer may, or may not believe the man is guilty. Either way, the officer doesn’t care as he’s already made up his mind.

In Case 2, the officer also doesn’t care. The talk about promotion and retirement is excuse and waffle, not related to the cause. The officer doesn’t care is the cause.

In both cases lack of care by the officer is his operating procedure. But the lack of oversight and management by his superiors is the failure within the system.

The failure of CAGW is the media; lack of oversight and lack of investigative journalism.

James Clarke
Reply to  TonyL
October 2, 2019 8:49 pm

I understand why you don’t like the phrase ‘noble cause corruption’ Tony, but it is not a phrase created to make the corruption seem less repugnant. It is was created to answer the question: “How the hell did this horrible thing happen?

Noble cause corruption is not a type of corruption. It is a method or system to persuade normally incorruptible people to do corrupt things. It is extremely important to understand how this is done, for all of history’s most notorious despots used noble cause corruption to gain power and commit unspeakable atrocities. Here is the 5-step method:

1. Adopt a noble cause. The more noble and universal the better.
2. Exaggerate the threat to the noble cause
3. Provide the ‘one-and-only solution’ to end the threat to the noble cause
4. Demonize all opponents of your solution as being against the noble cause
5. Call for a sacrifice from the people (wealth, freedom, and so on) to eradicate the supposed threat.

(Note: There is obviously nothing wrong with a noble cause. Steps 2-5 are the fingerprints of noble cause corruption. Ironically, implementing steps 2-5 does more harm to the noble cause than the advertised threat, as explained below!)

This method has been used from Hitler right on down to a parent trying to get their child to eat vegetables. It is being used now to mobilize the Deep State against Donald Trump! It is used so much because it is very effective at consolidating power under one’s grasp, and getting people to do what you want them to do!

History tells us this method is a very successful way to get power, but it also tells us that it is extremely detrimental to the noble cause. Put it simply, PEOPLE PERSUADED TO DO SOMETHING CORRUPT IN THE NAME OF A NOBLE CAUSE, INVARIABLE DESTROY THE NOBLE CAUSE THEY WISHED TO SAVE.

Hitler’s noble cause was to save the Fatherland. The people choose to do corrupt things to implement Hitler’s solution, and the Fatherland was destroyed. The Soviets wanted to eradicate poverty and were willing to do corrupt things to achieve that noble goal. Instead, poverty became universal under their regime. Pol Pot built a following with the promise of ending corruption, then turned them into an army that epitomised corruption by murdering over a million innocent people. History is so filled with examples, that there is no doubt those willing to be corrupt in the hopes of saving the environment, will inevitably do unimaginable harm to the very environment they sell their souls to protect.

When Tim Wirth said: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”, he obviously did not understand the inevitable results of noble cause corruption. Using lies to save the economy and the environment will result in great harm to both. In fact, that is already happening, but not nearly as much as it will happen if the climate change corruption continues.

In order to stop the train wrecks created by noble cause corruption, everyone must be educated in what noble cause corruption is, and understand that when they are tempted to do something ‘wrong’ for a noble cause, that their actions will inevitably hurt that noble cause is a way that they cannot foresee. With this knowledge they have a better chance of resisting the corruption.

The new headlining movie on Netflix called, ‘In the Shadow of the Moon’, glorifies noble cause corruption. Unfortunately, it is a pretty good movie, and most will watch it without any idea that they are being indoctrinated with the idea that it is good to do bad things for a noble cause. It ends with everything turning out just fine and wonderful, but a realistic sequel would depict the unforeseen global nightmare inadvertently resulting from our heroes actions.

The biggest threat to the environment, economy and the well-being of the human race, are those using noble cause corruption to save the environment, the economy and the human race. That is the lesson of history and, if we remain ignorant, our inevitable future doom.

I believe Dr. Paul Rossiter’s two excellent articles on this subject are the two most important articles ever published on this website! A more widespread awareness of the methods and consequences of noble cause corruption is our best hope at avoiding untold suffering in the future.

October 2, 2019 12:21 pm

Exploring these concepts helps.
Noble Cause applies, to some degree. But I think there is a bigger picture. It is that the advocates of man-made global warming who believe that our regular democratic governance systems need to be ignored or overturned are motivated by a different mind-set: seeing the world in Black and White, Good and Evil.

My general idea is that the Marxists have gotten people interested in their ideas, and reeled them in further, by appealing to the motivation of most of us to be on the “good” side of an issue, lest we see ourselves as “bad.” Marxism is, overall, a world view of the good versus the bad – oppressors versus oppressed. So, it is easy for them to read this into everything.

But can all of us really be “evil?” They have developed a couple concepts for this. First, the “cultural hegemony.” the oppressors establish not just economic exploitation systems, but use their power to set up our values and beliefs. Judeo-Christianity, “Protestant Work Ethic,” and our various moral ideas such as don’t be irresponsible to commit crimes or do drugs, are ideas cultivated by the cultural hegemony so that the vast group of us oppressed peons believe in the prevailing power structure, and work to sustain it.

So, when I believe in Christianity, it is not what I think this is, but it is me following the religion, which has developed this religion in order to sustain their place in the prevailing culture. Hegemony: our culture embraces Judeo-Christianity in many ways, such as opening Congress with prayer, and swearing-in rituals, so that these two institutions – govt and religion – reinforce each other as principle institutions of the hegemony.

We little people are hard on petty crime and soft on white collar crime – again, this sustains the hegemony – we little people thus value us keeping each other down as the powerful institutions remained in power.

To further their world views, they have developed the “good / bad” world concept. Civic issues such as pollution are not all various and sundry; rather, they are aspects of the world as controlled by our oppressors, the Cultural Hegemony.

So, there are: Bad Guys, Good Guys, and Ignorant Guys Buying What the Bad Guys Are Selling.

So, we have what we used to call “Consciousness Raising,” and now call “Being Woke.” White people being informed about their white privilege, etc.

There are so many pieces of rhetoric that we cannot keep up. Sandwiches are racist, soda straws are killing the planet, meat is murder, etc. Do you all remember the short-lived issue of phantom power? That LED light on when appliance was off, and how that was killing the planet? Do you remember the short-lived “SUVs are bad because in a car crash they hurt people in Honda Civics” issue?

But behind all of this is the idea: Are you following The Evil People, even if unwittingly, or are you following the Good People?

Thus, we arrive at: Virtue Signalling. Tattoo, nose ring, “Orange-Man Bad” joke, recycle, drive a Prius, etc. We have to demonstrate that we are “with” the Good People.

In short, these people are using our natural desire to not be “bad” against us. They use any and every issue that they can. All they hav eto do to get us on board with an issue, or a candidate, or a policy, is to indicate whether it is from the “Bad” people or the “Good” people. And, having already bought in to the idea at modest issues, we continue to follow right along.

Now, the suspension of regular democratic processes: Given that we are not just having discussions about how much federal budget to devote to Guns-Or-Butter (a classic way of capturing lib-vs-conservative issues), the Heirs of Marx believe that anyone opposed to their views is Evil. And, you cannot fight fair with Evil. Facing Evil, they are warranted in ignoring parking signs, social niceties, laws against violence, etc. Fighting Evil legitimates their “any means necessary” view.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
October 2, 2019 2:49 pm

Post Modern Marxism is being promoted primarily by Academicians financed by the 1/10 of 1% Ultra-wealthy. It is my opinion the these 1/10 of 1% are not the subjects of oppression. I have no actual proof of this, but I believe I am correct in this.

Instead, it seems just remotely possible to me…that by subjecting the masses to the whims of Unaccountable, Unelected, Globalist Authoritarian International Socialists…that the Globalist Ruling Class will be the oppressors…AGAIN…with re-education camps, followed quickly by the death camps.

I think that I will remain opposed to ACTUAL OPPRESSORS rather than considering OPPRESSORS to be people like the older white retired UAW worker living down the street.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  DocSiders
October 2, 2019 8:22 pm

“Post Modern Marxism is being promoted primarily by Academicians…”

Pretty much.

The thing to remember when analysing Marxism is that Marx was not a worker. He wasn’t a factory owner either. Yet for the ‘good of the worker’ he was willing to overturn the entire establishment and then ‘humbly’ step up in order to help administrate the new Worker’s Paradise.

Also remember that in a Worker’s Paradise you are still JUST a worker. You may now own the methods of production, but you still need to clock on at the same time each morning.

Marx and his followers want to kick over the sandbox they themselves don’t actually live in. If their plan works? They get to be king… sorry, chairman…. sorry, chairperson of the sandbox. If not? Well hey, they don’t actually live there. Not like they no longer have means to feed their family or anything dramatic like that.

James Clarke
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
October 2, 2019 9:39 pm

Right you are, LastDem. The old archetypal stories had their own ideas of good and bad; sins and virtues. They were largely derived from untold generations of human experience. When the old stories were discarded, so were those particular ideas of good and bad. New stories are currently being created, along with new ideas of good and bad. These new ideas do not come from experience, but from the minds of those who struggled most under the old ‘sins and virtues’ paradigm, and from those who think themselves wise.

Michael Knowles recently made an interesting observation about this very thing, and Isaiah warned about it in his 5th chapter about 2,700 years ago. I don’t think this is going to end well.

Rod Evans
October 2, 2019 12:31 pm

Thanks Paul for the concise overview of how we arrived at the political scientific impasse we have today.
We know real science does not support the climate alarm being driven into the public’s mind, for ulterior purposes. We also know the political priority, is to break capitalism/consumerism and any method no matter how false its credential, will be deployed to take the world into totalitarianism by the increasingly collective socialist establishment.
“The Long March Through the Institutions”, continues to exhibit its progress and influence.
There will be push back. The rational majority in the developed world, who recognise this climate alarm movement for what it is will not simply capitulate/submit to this nonsense. The longer this march towards totalitarian authority continues towards its dangerous objective, the greater will be the fight to restore normality and political sanity in the world.

October 2, 2019 12:46 pm

The concept of the ends justifying the means is much older and amounts to the same thing.
That concept is the source of much evil and billions of unnecessary deaths.
The 1960s loss of confidence in western style democracy has much to answer for and many of the useful idiots from that time are now in positions of power.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 3, 2019 12:39 am

Bingo, just like Noble Cause Corruption.
The means reveal the nature of that ‘John Doe” much more even than his “goal”.
I always look at a person’s actions over their words.

No doubt plenty of Dark Greens have been made to believe they are saving the Globe – by destroying Western civilization through all kinds of diktats. Many Eastern civilizations are too totalitarian to allow Green diktats as they have their own (fake) Red ones, so they play act a bit.

Ron Long
October 2, 2019 12:48 pm

Good posting, Paul. Two comments: 1. I took a Sociology class in University in 1970, and it included a session on “Crowd Conduct” as having its own collective set of morals, almost always much worse that the average of the participants, and 2. you are obviously onto a lot of the truth because I just heard Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi say, during the impeachment explanation press conference, that one of President Trumps crimes was failure to deal with Climate Change.

Smart Rock
October 2, 2019 12:54 pm

Well written piece, very comprehensive review of the birth, growth and maturing of the global warming monster.

No mention, though of the role of Margaret Thatcher in directing large quantities of public money at research designed specifically to prove the thermal effects of CO2, including founding the Hadley Centre and the CRU at UEA. It was part of her battle against the coal miners’ union and its very red leader, Arthur Scargill. She was also promoting nuclear power as a better alternative to coal for electricity generation (but went off it later because of the cost factor, plus the arrival of large amounts of oil and gas from the North Sea).

The role of Hadley and the CRU in giving a (supposedly) solid scientific basis for AGW has been immense, as all regular visitors at WUWT can’t fail to know. Their failure to do really objective work is a direct consequence of being founded in order to reach two pre-ordained conclusions: (1) human-generated CO2 causes global warming and (2) global warming is bad.

Thatcher, despite being highly regarded by many conservatives, has a lot to answer for. Her other really negative contribution to history was a policy of promoting a vision of the UK as a country whose main economic activity would be moving money around instead of having factories that made things (because trade unions again).

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Smart Rock
October 3, 2019 7:35 am

Smart Rock,

What you say about Thatcher is true except that she had a much more important personal reason for starting the AGW scare than her war on the National Union of Miners (NUM). However, her political party (the Conservative Party) were willing to go along with the scare because it did ‘attack’ the coal industry and, thus, the NUM.

Anybody interested in this history can read it here


October 2, 2019 12:57 pm

Actually, going back considerably earlier in time, there is Eric Hoffer’s famous conclusion:

‘Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.’

Taken from “The Temper of our Time” published in 1967.

Hoffer’s studies of mass movements goes back considerably before that, to 1951 when he published his first book, “The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements”.

October 2, 2019 1:06 pm

Before a certain age in the USA, sexual relations involving a young girl are illegal. I’m thinking that the scale of social relations being pushed on this little girl might warrant a similar consideration.

In the former instance, such questions as, “Is a child old enough to realize the full impact of her actions?”, come into play. “Is the child old enough to understand what she is doing?” “Is she old enough to comprehend the maturity of the decisions that she is being coached and scripted to portray?” “Is her mind being manipulated in a way that disregards her undeveloped maturity?”

And then there’s her autism too. Does this not up the importance of the adult considerations about her mental well being and her childhood quality of life? Also, there’s public exposure to disapproval — is it right to make her a target for people who differ in the extreme from the viewpoints that she has been coached to enact?

She clearly seems to be used as a puppet, as I see it.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
October 2, 2019 2:08 pm

Many of gretas followers are well below the age of sixteen and are demonstrating over something they know nothing about.

Greta effortlessly demonstrates why votes at sixteen is a bad idea.


Reply to  Tonyb
October 2, 2019 4:27 pm

I’m thinking that the vote shouldn’t be granted to anyone until the total in income taxes that they pay (counted since their first full time job) exceeds their yearly income.

Reply to  MarkW
October 2, 2019 7:39 pm

If your refund exceeds the amount you actually paid, then that subtracts from your total income taxes paid.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Tonyb
October 3, 2019 8:10 am

The founders originally limited voting to male property owners. That indirectly included an age requirement as well since to become a property owner, unless you inherited it you had to work your butt off for many years.

Personally I think the minimum voting age should be upped to 30, and be limited to property owners (i.e. people that have skin in the game). From what I have seen no one is really accepted in business until they reach that age. It’s assumed they have not yet had sufficient experience to fully trust their decisions on most matters. While there are exceptions, I think anyone who has seen interviews that ask simple U.S. history or government organization questions of college students would have to agree.

Reply to  Joe Crawford
October 3, 2019 6:26 pm

Another point is that most taxes back then were property based. So property owners pretty much the same people who were paying to fund government.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  MarkW
October 4, 2019 7:31 am

In other words, you couldn’t vote unless it impacted your pocket book? I think you’re right, and the founders were right as well. It always amazes me how man can totally screw things up ‘one small step at a time.’ Makes me wonder whether it’s incompetence, nefarious intent, or a little of both.

F. Ross
October 2, 2019 1:40 pm

Very interesting and illuminating essay by Dr. Rossiter

October 2, 2019 2:00 pm

If it were not for the internet and online access, we mere mortals would have no chance to assess for ourselves just how corrupt this whole business has become. In the beginning, in the late 1960s, “eco disaster in the making” was ONLY promoted through publication in paper-based media and on TV. Anything that refuted it or proved it to be exaggerated was dismissed as preposterous.

Well, things have changed enormously, haven’t they?

In the 1930s, things were different and we know what charismatic leader rose to power because he could make a rousing, fiery speech without reading it to his audience. His hatred of a specific ethnic group led him into what followed. (Yeah, there was other stuff going on, but you get the drift.) HE controlled the media.

In the late 2010s, which is NOW, a 16-year-old girl with a handicap is being pushed into that kind of position without her understanding what is really going on. Micheal Burns is correct: (see above) she is heading for a fall and will be discarded as no longer useful.

Those People cannot control the media or how people think. They may daydream about it, but things have changed drastically. If that weren’t so, China would not be polluting its own land the way it does.
This is part of a cycle, and every cycle has a beginning AND an ending. Not sure when this will end, but it will as more and more fraud is exposed, and more and more people are no longer suckered into falling for the hysterics and lies.

Awareness is the best defense and most solid weapon in this conflict. Without electronic media, We’d still be in the dark.

Good article, thanks for publishing it. I blame Woodrow Wilson for the entire mess, because his “14 Points” were the basis for his idea of a single world government, the New World Order. There are not enough bad words in the world…..

October 2, 2019 2:40 pm

Dr. Rossiter Thank you for chronicling the birth of the climate hoax and the end of any sort of conscience in academia. We are in a world where the end justifies the means and any individual is given the right to ascertain the validity of their particular end just as long as it passes the politically correct test. Of course the end result is the destruction of the rule of law.

October 2, 2019 2:59 pm

In the term “Noble Cause Corruption”, the “Noble” part is purely fictitious and spurious while the “Corruption” part is very real and highly active as well as rewarding to the participants.

October 2, 2019 3:37 pm

Noble Cause Corruption would require that those persuing it are primarily interested in the outcome and are willing to use means that they would otherwise not use.

In this case the purported cause is to “save the planet”, the means is world socialism and a totalitarian world government.

I would humbly propose that it is infact the means that they most want, the started end is just an excuse to justify it to the population.

Rather than Noble Cause Corruption, I’d think of it as Ignoble Means Corruption, or just Tyrany.

Ken Davis
October 2, 2019 3:54 pm

The wikipedia talk page on the Club of Rome is interesting – seems to suggest that the quotes used are taken out of context and are re-edits BUT the intent of others to follow this line of reasoning remains pretty clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Club_of_Rome

October 2, 2019 4:13 pm

It’s interesting to see how Right-wing activists are taking advantage of so-called Liberals and Democrats (of USA variety) and other Letfist «radicals» silly propositions about Climate Change… But then, as Vladimir Ulianov once wrote, «Leftism is the childish disease (disorder) of Communism»… Apparently, China’s leadership has been vaccinated against such a disease.

October 2, 2019 5:00 pm

The UN bangs on about the dates 2020, 2030 and 2050 for a good reason — it’s their timetable.
‘2030 Agenda’ document is so named for a reason.

China, Russia, India and some developing nations are laughing all the way to the bank, while Europe and to some degree the USA are loosing their footing in international trade and political influence.
The ‘New Great Game’ has been running for quite a time, and Wikipedia is quite wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Great_Game), the ‘game’ is about the UN winning Global Governance, the shift to Far Eastern manufacturing, just like ‘Climate Change™’ are a distractions from the main aim — The UN as a New World Government.

October 2, 2019 6:36 pm

The noble cause fallacy in climate change:
Pls see paragraph#8 here …


Tom Foley
October 2, 2019 7:13 pm

George Orwell was very prescient in his book 1984:
“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship”.

That was the motive for the American revolution? Was it successful, do you think, in establishing a dictatorship in the USA?

So the whole climate thing is a socialist front. Maybe. But maybe we shouldn’t dismiss it because of that. It might just turn out to be true. Conceding climate change to the socialists now, may make it harder for non-socialists to influence the direction and types of response later. You don’t want to let the devil get away with having all the best tunes!

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Tom Foley
October 3, 2019 10:36 am

Tom Foley,

You say,
“So the whole climate thing is a socialist front. Maybe. But maybe we shouldn’t dismiss it because of that. It might just turn out to be true. Conceding climate change to the socialists now, may make it harder for non-socialists to influence the direction and types of response later. You don’t want to let the devil get away with having all the best tunes!”

I cannot agree with that!
A more clear example of a call for noble cause corruption is hard to imagine.

If AGW is wrong then it should be opposed. AGW is wrong and I do oppose it.

Please note that I am a left swing socialist (of the traditional British kind). I can see what needs to be done without being blinkered by politics and ideology: such vision is not difficult.


Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 3, 2019 6:28 pm

A socialist is someone who is so moved by other people’s problems, that he’s willing to tax someone else to pay for a solution.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2019 10:58 pm

An idiot who tries to reduce any discussion to politically motivated nonsense is someone who hides behind the pseudonym of Mark W,

Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 4, 2019 3:14 pm

Translation: I can’t refute him, so I’ll insult him.
Socialists are people who are so proud of how much they care, that they are always willing to put someone else’s money where there mouths are.

BTW, are you still claiming that using government to take money from those who work promotes freedom?

Tom Foley
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 4, 2019 4:34 pm

If AGW is right then it should not be opposed. AGW is right and I do not oppose it. I think action should be taken to stop it going too far, if possible, and to adapt to it.

That seems as legitimate a stand as yours. We just disagree about whether AGW is right or wrong, although I’d prefer the term real or not real rather than the moral judgement of right or wrong.

Please note that I’m rather apolitical, middle of the road, though I like bits of both right and left. I am a scientist who has worked in palaeoenvironment and also a historian. I am possibly influenced by a family member who has had a long career in petroleum geology, and whose view is that AGW is real and the resource industry has known this since the 1980s. I suggested he write something about this, but he thinks there’s no point.

PS My previous comment was intended to be ironic. I could add (ironically) 11111111that many of the comments here seem to be a good demonstration of the madness of crowds.

Juan Bimba
October 2, 2019 7:45 pm

Excellent well written and researched essay which exposes the true motives behind the corruption and evil of this movement.

Clearly explains the motive for the high level that science has been corrupted and co-opted by a certain political class.

As an earth scientist with 40 years of experience, I have had a difficult time understanding how highly educated scientists (especially earth scientists) at high levels could support such a blatantly flawed precept which flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

It also explains the desperate hysterical movement to remove the stone in their collective shoe, President Trump, who has stood up to this evil scheme.

The precept of a “Man-made global warming Disaster” has been flogged in the same fashion that used car salesmen flog an imperfect ride. “This deal is only for today, then the price will double. You have to act quickly otherwise you’ll lose out”.

It is my impression that the urgent and imminent deadlines for disaster that are heaped upon us, are done in order to get the “Green carbon free” energy plan into place in order to beat the approaching cooling phase. If they cannot achieve the “Green New Deal” before the next cooling phase, they will certainly have a hard time flogging it in the face of a cooling earth; at which point the evil and blatant lies and corruption that were foisted upon the entire world’s population will be exposed.

Hopefully, they will then be judged for their lies and manipulations, then collectively thrown into the “hoosgow” where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I am very thankful for your effort. Keep up the good work.

Muchas Gracias

October 2, 2019 8:50 pm

The climate prophecy is a means to an end for special and peculiar interests that hope to secure redistributive change of trillions of dollars annually.

John in NZ
October 2, 2019 9:39 pm

Excellent post.

Also liked the use of Machiavelli’s portrait at the top.

He said something like “He who cannot dissemble cannot rule.”

Reply to  John in NZ
October 3, 2019 5:17 am

He also, in reference to the King of France, said that disarming the citizenry to control them required important foreign military to defend the kingdom. (Art of War)

Betty Luks
October 2, 2019 11:17 pm

Dr. Rossiter,

You write, The UN continues its call to take WEALTH from developed countries and give it to third world countries under the pretext of climate change and in 2019 United Nations Conference on Trade and

This, it argues, can only be solved under a new Global Green New Deal that demands:
• new controls on MONEY movements;
• more action from developed nations, targeting SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS
• and a minimum TAX RATE for multi-nationals.

Let’s come down to earth. All three UN policies involve MONEY SYSTEMS – although the One-Worlders try to give the impression they are ‘socialists’ and opposed to ‘capitalism’.
Do they mean Marxist-Leninism ‘political socialism’ i.e., Communism, and what about ‘capitalism’? Do they mean ‘Industrial-Capitalism’ or ‘Financial-Credit-Capitalism’? What is meant by WEALTH? Is the term ‘wealth’ being confused with the term ‘riches’ or money?

Before our industries were carried off to China, Australia had a form of Industrial-Capitalism – even free enterprise capitalism at times, and China a Communist-controlled state, is now known as a State-Capitalist nation.

But as for ‘Financial-Credit-Capitalism’ that system has been further and further centralised for the last 300 years. The present intention is to eliminate all notes and coins and make the centralisation and control complete – if we let them do it!

Do your readers know? Do they understand that certain private banks have the power to create our nation’s credit-money supply ‘out of thin air’? Don’t take my word for it, look up the material yourselves.
“. . . Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks: Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits . . .”

Source: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

If our notes and coins in Australia are withdrawn from circulation – and the Commonwealth government is responsible for notes and coins – would that mean we will be controlled by the ‘Finance-Credit-Capitalists’ and their policies?

Look up “The Money Trick” for futher reading, also
Under Which King? The Social Crediter, July-August,1978

Reply to  Betty Luks
October 3, 2019 4:49 am

A bank creating money is not some unauthorized magic of some central bank, with magic scurrilously hidden from the rest of us.

When I took a regular economics class in undergrad, this was one of the basic concepts taught, since it is central to the economy.

You save $10,000 per year in cash, and hide it in your mattress. In the 10th year, you deposit it in the bank. The bank now has 100,000 to lend.

The bank must keep “reserves” to cover calls on deposits. So, they lend out let’s say $80,000 of that to someone to start a new business. That guy deposits the 80,000 in his account, and proceeds to begin spending.

Now, you have $180,000 in the bank. The second guy’s bank holds back 20% in reserves, so holds back $16,000, and loans out $54,000 to yet another guy to buy a bass boat. That guy puts the $54,000 in the bank until the bass boat arrives from the custom bass boat shop. There is now $234,000 in bank ledgers.

This is the “money multiplier effect.”

This is hard to follow, but all is normal. Assume eventually that all loans are paid back.

What we have had happen is that wealth has been created from wealth. No one was harmed along the way. No one was sold into slavery. No one was victim of some vast Jewish conspiracy to control our lives via the money system.

What happens is that we benefit from not having to wait when future earnings seem fairly likely; we can use the power of future money to use it now.

I myself have debt, but have very powerful earning power, and a steady job. We can all wait for the money to come in before I exert my demand for goods and services, or we can bank against the likelihood that it is sure to manifest in the next few months, and I can buy on credit.

This all works as long as most of the expected money comes in, so that loans can be paid back. All of this system can tolerate a certain portion of loan repayment failure. The farther we get out past some expectable rate of loan failure, the worse that different parts of our economy will suffer. If it gets bad enough, we all suffer to some degree. Tax revenues fall, areas of the economy dry up, etc.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
October 3, 2019 6:03 pm

Surely wealth creation involves creation, that is, bringing into use something that was not there before. I count the discovery of new mineral deposits as a clear case of wealth creation. I do not believe it can be done by paper transfers of money. Geoff S

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
October 4, 2019 5:12 am

Sure it can. It happens every day. You need to read again.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
October 6, 2019 8:07 am

Geoff, I tend to agree with you. As has been stated here before, the only way to create wealth is to dig it, grow it or make it.

October 2, 2019 11:28 pm

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.


As always, ask yourselves who is this ‘we’?

Those responsible for 75% of emissions, those whose emissions are growing fastest, are not setting themselves any such task. There is no evidence the Chinese, Russians, Indians, or any of the developing world actually believe in Global Warming.

The cult is confined to the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, parts of Scandinavia, and Australia. It is remarkable by its absence in most countries and jurisdictions. You will not find any action to reducing emissions in China, for instance – on the contrary, the Chinese are going all out to increase their use of fossil fuels, both internally and in export projects.

I don’t think there is any real evidence this is a sort of conscious planned conspiracy – though some of the quotes above are rather troubling. It is probably simply only one of these irrational cults to which we as a species are subject.

One of the ways to see this is to ask, and keep asking, who has to do what? Who is supposed to be embarked on doing it?

And you will find out that it is not, as the activists claim, a global issue. Its a very culturally specific and geographically limited mania, whose advocates, did they ever succeed in getting their agenda adopted, would not, in their own terms and according to their own theories, actually succeed in doing anything that affects the climate..

Countries doing only 25% of global emssions cannot do that. So now ask yourself the real question: why don’t they see that? What can they really be after, if its not global warming?

October 2, 2019 11:41 pm

This explains the normalization of selective-child, clinical cannibalism, political congruence, diversity or color judgments (e.g. racism, sexism, genderism), the rise of anti-nativism, social justice, post-normal science, and other quasi-religious (“ethical”), faith-based, sociopolitical constructs.

October 3, 2019 1:03 am

Ah, the “good” people… So very Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, including: wicked solutions, witch trials, warlock judgments, scientific myths, and other monotonic divergence, that has accelerated over the past 12 trimesters.

October 3, 2019 1:25 am
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 3, 2019 6:29 pm

Great minds think alike.

Robert Austin
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 6, 2019 1:08 pm

Good article. So nothing has changed, the noble cause corruption juggernaut continues unabated. But the question arises as to whether pumped up rhetoric resulting in vastly increased grants is noble cause or the five letter “f” word. We have certainly seen examples of the witch hunts for contrary scientists threatening the grant golden goose.

October 3, 2019 2:14 pm

About a year ago 58 people were shot dead and hundreds more injured as Steven Paddock fired on the crowd attending a country and western music concert in Las Vegas.


This was a hate crime against what the shooter saw as redneck right wing Trump supporting climate skeptic C&W fans.
It seems no-one in the police really wanted it to end. The shooting went on for almost an hour, with the hotel staff aware from an early stage which high room he was shooting from. Only after Paddock had shot himself and the shooting ceased did the police “storm” (LOL) the room.

October 3, 2019 2:46 pm

This post attributes the beginning of the current environmental movement to Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, 1962.

Another starting point might be 1945, with the book “Must Destruction be Our Destiny,” by Harrison Brown.

If not that, then the follow-up, 1954’s “The Challenge of Man’s Future.” That was before my time. But judging from TV shows such as Twilight Zone, this theme of man destroying his mother planet, was well entrenched in the populace by the mid-1950s.

Brown was a nukelar scientist and part of Manhattan Project. The story goes that seeing the power of the Atomic Bomb shocked these guys, including Brown, into understanding that Mankind holds the power to wipe out all of Humanity. Brown and others decided to advocate for international governance over nukelar power.

Brown went on to ponder other ways we might be killing ourselves or the planet. Overpopulation was one of his concerns

Understanding the work he did with Clair Patterson and others to develop Lead-lead dating, and so guesstimate the age of the universe, is very difficult, advanced reading. But these two books noted are very much for general public consumption. Very digestible. Not beyond Reader’s Digest level.

In 1958, he was given the Lasker Award for his advocacy of population control as a means for controlling the risk that we humans pose for causing the environment to crash.

The pollution fear arose out of the general concept that we are going to overload the planet and kill it or us or both.

Science Czar John Holdren, co-author of the notorious 1977 text, “Eco-Science,” which advocated for considering policies such as spiking the drinking water with Birth Control chemicals, was literally smitten with H Brown.

So, from H Brown to the zeitgeist of the times, including a direct link with Holdren circa 1970s.

R Carson’s book notably grabbed the public’s attention in a big way. But the environmental-collapse trend was already underway.

“The feeble-minded, the morons, the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons in our society are outbreeding the superior ones at the present time. … Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs. … A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates.” –The Challenge of Man’s Future


Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
October 3, 2019 3:01 pm

Oh- The Lasker Foundation – racist eugenicists going farther back – to the 1930s. Ms. Lasker was part of board of Margaret Sanger’s organization that was the forerunner of Planned Parenthood. Their concerns were not that humanity overall would over-run the planet; they were merely concerned that if the wrong people (low-class and/or Negro) out-reproduced us regular people, then the human race would spoil. This is a major theme of eugenics from turn of century up beyond Hilter regime, but became VERY subdued after Hilter and the Final Solution were exposed by our WWII efforts.

“In 1937, Mary Lasker, known then as Mary Woodward Reinhardt, was secretary of Sanger’s newly formed Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA). According to Lasker’s website, Mary ‘made a donation to the American Birth Control League and subsequently joined its board.’ ”

“To obtain the funds [for the Negro Project] Sanger, Reinhardt and Sanger’s secretary, Florence Rose, drafted a report on ‘Birth Control and the Negro,’ skillfully using language that appealed both to eugenicists fearful of unchecked black fertility and to progressives committed to shepherding Black Americans into middle-class culture, according to New York University’s website for the Margaret Sanger Papers…”



Tom Anderson
October 3, 2019 3:28 pm

First, thank you Dr. Rossiter for a very concise and focused summation.

No matter at what level they begin, every drive for New World Orders has a totalitarian pedigree, starting with post-French-Revolution reactionaries Sorel, St Simon, later, German Werner Sombart and their progeny. Sorel, like his successors, abominated the West’s congenital affliction – “the revolt of the individual against the species.” Sorel had a place in his own new order for everyone, including incorrigibles who were to be “treated like cattle.”

Its form established, the new order evolved inevitably into Marxist-Communism, Nazism (the National Socialist German Workers’ Party), Fascism, and a covey of tin pot utopias (“no place” in Greek, of course). It demands and copiously receives unquestioning faith from a frame of mind cozier with Marx, Nietzsche, Lenin and the Cultural Marxists than with the West’s Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman foundations, its Renaissance and later flowering in the English and Scottish enlightenment (Hume, Locke, Smith, Mill). It is this latter tradition from which sprang our system of self-government and personal morality.

Fighting the new/old totalitarians is possible, absolutely. Corruption is rightly their surname. The West still has ample moral and political raw ore. The point is to dig out and use it, Perhaps it’s time to beat plowshares back into swords.

Clyde Spencer
October 3, 2019 7:29 pm

It may be my paranoia showing, but I think there is one more point to be made. Lest there be a minority of people who see through the propaganda, and attempt to resist with arms, it is imperative that everyone who is not under direct control of the government be disarmed. Europeans (with the exception of the Swiss) have long found it difficult and expensive to own personal firearms. The next step was to disarm the ‘colonies’ such as Australia and New Zealand. Having made a good start on that project, the US has to be subjugated to the UN Small Arms Treaty and relieved of the types of armament that US v. Miller (1939) specified Militia members were expected to report bearing, should Congress call forth the Militia. First, to implement the UN Small Arms Treaty, it is necessary to register all the guns in America so that the government knows who has what.

The irony of any such thinking, if it is an unstated goal of liberals, is the example of the storming of the Bastille. Unarmed citizens soon were as well-armed as the soldiers they killed. There was far more blood shed than there might have been if the peasants and middle-class were a sufficient threat to the throne to prevent the excesses that caused the cake to crumble.

Betty Luks
October 7, 2019 8:33 pm

Thank you Dr. Rossiter for your articles on another facet of what I know as the agenda for a New World Order. Over the last century there have been many who sought to warn their fellow countrymen about what was happening in the world around them.

I would point you and your readers to the work of Douglas Reed and his “The Grand Design of the 20th Century” published in 1977.

Found here – https://alor.org/Storage/Library/PDF/Reed%20D%20-%20The%20Grand%20Design.pdf

As another South African journalist, Ivor Benson, wrote in the Introduction:

“His [Reed’s] experience before World War II, as the London Times’ Chief Foreign Correspondent in Europe, his familiarity with all the principal actors in the unfolding dramas and tragedies of those years, left him in no doubt that politicians, as a rule, are activated always by motives which they take the greatest care to conceal.

Like so many before and after him Reed had merely rediscovered a piece of ancient wisdom which the Romans had summarised in two words pregnant with meaning: Cui Bono? Or, as we would say when trying to unravel some political mystery: Who stands to benefit? . . .

Reed concluded his historical summary with the following words:

Thus I awaited my closing years in South Africa. Already, many years before, one of the enormously wealthy “peace” endowments in America (the Carnegie one) had produced a battle plan, complete to the last ballistic detail, for an attack on South Africa by air, sea and land. This open involvement of America in the Communist conspiracy has hung over South Africa ever since it was published in 1965.

From my personal eyrie, overlooking the turbulent scene, I saw in it the co-ordination of another holocaust, the essential third stage in the conspiracy to bring about the super-slave-state. At the age I have reached, my personal interest in the great melodrama is only to see to it, if I possibly can, that any tombstone of mine shall have the inscription, “He survived!” My ambitions are modest, and for more than that I do not hope. The conspiracy has progressed so far that it will not, possibly cannot stop now. Too many leading men are enchained to it for that. While they are in power over us, we shall all continue to be Gadarea-bound, and the new age of darkness is nigh upon us.

When that comes we shall all need to start again and work for another renaissance. Many good men and true are preparing now for that, and tomorrow’s day will be theirs. The perjurers and their kept press will call it the counter-revolution. Its proper name will be The Conspiracy Of Truth.”

Surely that time has come?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights