It is likely it all began with an 18th century historian and economist Thomas Malthus. He earned a masters degree at Cambridge University in 1784 and in 1805 became a professor of history and political economy at the East India Company’s college at Hailybury. Malthus became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1819.
His most famous publication was “Essay on the Principle of Population”, first published in 1798. This work contained his famous argument that human populations tend to grow faster than agricultural output, resulting in famines and crises. Later editions proposed that moral constraint could slow population growth. So basically his theory was that the supply of food could not keep up with the growth of the human population, inevitably resulting in disease. One other publication criticised England’s Poor Laws and argued that aid to the poor would encourage them to have more children than they would otherwise.
According to Malthus, population grew in geometric progression. This means in a sequence of numbers there was a common ratio. So we could have 2, 6, 18, 54, 162 etc. The ratio of one number to the number just before it is 3. He also stated that food production increases through arithmetic progression. So we could have 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc. So this time there is a common difference between numbers and that difference in the above case is 2.
Malthus argued that since the population will be larger than the food supply, many people would then die due to shortage of food. He theorised that this correction would function through natural checks and preventative checks. These checks resulted in the Malthusian catastrophe, bringing the population down to a sustainable level. So for the first time we hear of a preventative check to reduce the population. These included celibacy, late marriage, and family planning. Natural checks could be by earthquakes, floods, wars and famines.
Malthus dire predictions haven’t played out in the real world. Populations have grown and food production has risen as well due to technological advancements. In fact, food production has increased dramatically thanks to multiple technological advancements. In many case food production has increased more rapidly than the population growth. A country can now trade goods and services for food.
Although his theory continued to influence economists like John Maynard Keynes, the advances of the industrial revolution allowed agricultural production to be ramped up to far greater levels than the subsistence farming of the days of Malthus. Later advances in farming techniques, chemical fertilisers, and genetic modifications have allowed food production to continue to scale up wards.
The Club of Rome
In 1965 the Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei gave a speech about the dramatic scientific and technological changes happening in the world. A British scientist Alexander King arranged a meeting with Peccei. The pair shared a lack of confidence that the problems faced by the world could be solved by development and technological progress. So in April 1968 the pair convened a small international group of people from the fields of academia, civil society, diplomacy, and industry and they met in Rome. However, the meeting was described as a flop. After the meeting, Peccei, King and two others, Jantsch, and Hugo Thiemann, decided to form the Club of Rome, named for the city of their meeting.
For a brief period the Club’s ideas held sway within the OCED thanks to King’s efforts in promoting the group’s work. In 1968, the OCED held a symposium in Italy, in collaboration with the Rockfeller Foundation. The symposium focussed on the dangers of exponential growth.
The Club of Rome stimulated considerable public attention with the first report of the Club, The Limits to Growth. Published in 1972 its computer simulations suggested that growth of production and consumption could not continue indefinitely because of either resource depletion, or unmanageable levels of pollution. This caused a rift with the OCED which had set a course on unfettered growth.
Meanwhile, anthropologist Margaret Mead organised a 1975 conference in North Carolina. The conference concluded that anthropogenic (human caused) carbon dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life. The idea was to sow enough fear of man-made climate change to force cutbacks in industrial activity and halt third world development.
In 1988 the intergovernmental panel on climate change was formed by the United Nations. The IPCC was to prepare a comprehensive review and make recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change, the social and economic impact of climate change, and potential response strategies. Since 1988 the IPCC has delivered several assessment reports. Each assessment report has fed directly into international climate policy making.
We had Maurice Strong founding UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme, and he had a hand in the formation of the IPCC. The IPCC was to study only human CO2 driven causes of climate change. Here are two statements he made: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about (UNEP):
Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable. (Rio Earth Summit)
Strong was using the UN as a platform to sell a global environmental crisis and the global governance agenda.
Then we had Ingred Newkirk a co-founder for the ethical treatment of animals, making this statement: “Mankind is a cancer, we are 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 of earth dwelling species. Phasing out of the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
(This is a ridiculous suggestion. Dominant animals would wipe out weaker species and so many animals would become extinct. It could be too that in some areas there would be so many animals that food supply would run out. Today we have culling where necessary to avoid animal overpopulation.)
In 1991, the Club of Rome published The First Global Revolution. It analyses the problems of humanity. It notes that, historically social or political unity has commonly been motivated by enemies in common. The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy. This is a key point. With an outside enemy all parties in Parliament need to work together to overcome this common enemy.
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite we (The Club of Rome), came up with the idea of global warming as well as others like pollution, water shortages, and famine. 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.
So the idea was to unite every government around the world against the common enemy global warming. The cause of global warming was settled on - carbon dioxide. The increase in carbon dioxide caused by human activities only was causing global warming.
In 2008 the Club moved its headquarters to Winterthur in Switzerland from Hamburg.
In March 2019 the Club of Rome issued an official statement in support of Greta Thunberg and the school strikes for climate, urging governments across the world to respond to this call for action and cut global carbon emissions.
Of course the Club of Rome had its critics. Economist Thomas Sewell in his 1995 book, The Vision of the Anointed, describes the club of Rome and its associates with the term “the Anointed.” Saying they were utterly certain in their predictions, yet completely disproven empirically. According to the National Review, he describes them as “Promoters of a worldview, concocted out of fantasy, impervious to any real world considerations.”
In 1973 an interdisciplinary team at Sussex University’s Science Research Unit reviewed the structure and assumptions of the models used and published their analyses in Models of Doom. They found that the forecasts of the world’s future are very sensitive to a few duly pessimistic key assumptions. The Sussex scientists also wrote that the methods, data, and predictions were faulty. That their world models (and their Malthusian bias), did not accurately reflect reality.
So we have a totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of saving the planet. The motives of the UN and its affiliates are no different from those of the radical zealots of the 1970’s. They despise capitalism, development, growth and freedom with the misguided fear of over-population, a principle driver. Their solution is to use the emotive issue of “climate change” to pursue a radical transformation in cultural, economic, and political structures across the globe.
Dr Ottmar Endenhoffer, a member of the IPCC said this at an interview in 2010: “We (The UN/IPCC) redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is climate policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
This is what the UN climate change boss Christiana Figueres said at the 2015 climate conference in Brussels:
According to Malthus, population grew in geometric progression. This means in a sequence of numbers there was a common ratio. So we could have 2, 6, 18, 54, 162 etc. The ratio of one number to the number just before it is 3. He also stated that food production increases through arithmetic progression. So we could have 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc. So this time there is a common difference between numbers and that difference in the above case is 2.
Malthus argued that since the population will be larger than the food supply, many people would then die due to shortage of food. He theorised that this correction would function through natural checks and preventative checks. These checks resulted in the Malthusian catastrophe, bringing the population down to a sustainable level. So for the first time we hear of a preventative check to reduce the population. These included celibacy, late marriage, and family planning. Natural checks could be by earthquakes, floods, wars and famines.
Malthus dire predictions haven’t played out in the real world. Populations have grown and food production has risen as well due to technological advancements. In fact, food production has increased dramatically thanks to multiple technological advancements. In many case food production has increased more rapidly than the population growth. A country can now trade goods and services for food.
Although his theory continued to influence economists like John Maynard Keynes, the advances of the industrial revolution allowed agricultural production to be ramped up to far greater levels than the subsistence farming of the days of Malthus. Later advances in farming techniques, chemical fertilisers, and genetic modifications have allowed food production to continue to scale up wards.
The Club of Rome
In 1965 the Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei gave a speech about the dramatic scientific and technological changes happening in the world. A British scientist Alexander King arranged a meeting with Peccei. The pair shared a lack of confidence that the problems faced by the world could be solved by development and technological progress. So in April 1968 the pair convened a small international group of people from the fields of academia, civil society, diplomacy, and industry and they met in Rome. However, the meeting was described as a flop. After the meeting, Peccei, King and two others, Jantsch, and Hugo Thiemann, decided to form the Club of Rome, named for the city of their meeting.
For a brief period the Club’s ideas held sway within the OCED thanks to King’s efforts in promoting the group’s work. In 1968, the OCED held a symposium in Italy, in collaboration with the Rockfeller Foundation. The symposium focussed on the dangers of exponential growth.
The Club of Rome stimulated considerable public attention with the first report of the Club, The Limits to Growth. Published in 1972 its computer simulations suggested that growth of production and consumption could not continue indefinitely because of either resource depletion, or unmanageable levels of pollution. This caused a rift with the OCED which had set a course on unfettered growth.
Meanwhile, anthropologist Margaret Mead organised a 1975 conference in North Carolina. The conference concluded that anthropogenic (human caused) carbon dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life. The idea was to sow enough fear of man-made climate change to force cutbacks in industrial activity and halt third world development.
In 1988 the intergovernmental panel on climate change was formed by the United Nations. The IPCC was to prepare a comprehensive review and make recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change, the social and economic impact of climate change, and potential response strategies. Since 1988 the IPCC has delivered several assessment reports. Each assessment report has fed directly into international climate policy making.
We had Maurice Strong founding UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme, and he had a hand in the formation of the IPCC. The IPCC was to study only human CO2 driven causes of climate change. Here are two statements he made: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about (UNEP):
Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable. (Rio Earth Summit)
Strong was using the UN as a platform to sell a global environmental crisis and the global governance agenda.
Then we had Ingred Newkirk a co-founder for the ethical treatment of animals, making this statement: “Mankind is a cancer, we are 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 of earth dwelling species. Phasing out of the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
(This is a ridiculous suggestion. Dominant animals would wipe out weaker species and so many animals would become extinct. It could be too that in some areas there would be so many animals that food supply would run out. Today we have culling where necessary to avoid animal overpopulation.)
In 1991, the Club of Rome published The First Global Revolution. It analyses the problems of humanity. It notes that, historically social or political unity has commonly been motivated by enemies in common. The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy. This is a key point. With an outside enemy all parties in Parliament need to work together to overcome this common enemy.
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite we (The Club of Rome), came up with the idea of global warming as well as others like pollution, water shortages, and famine. 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.
So the idea was to unite every government around the world against the common enemy global warming. The cause of global warming was settled on - carbon dioxide. The increase in carbon dioxide caused by human activities only was causing global warming.
In 2008 the Club moved its headquarters to Winterthur in Switzerland from Hamburg.
In March 2019 the Club of Rome issued an official statement in support of Greta Thunberg and the school strikes for climate, urging governments across the world to respond to this call for action and cut global carbon emissions.
Of course the Club of Rome had its critics. Economist Thomas Sewell in his 1995 book, The Vision of the Anointed, describes the club of Rome and its associates with the term “the Anointed.” Saying they were utterly certain in their predictions, yet completely disproven empirically. According to the National Review, he describes them as “Promoters of a worldview, concocted out of fantasy, impervious to any real world considerations.”
In 1973 an interdisciplinary team at Sussex University’s Science Research Unit reviewed the structure and assumptions of the models used and published their analyses in Models of Doom. They found that the forecasts of the world’s future are very sensitive to a few duly pessimistic key assumptions. The Sussex scientists also wrote that the methods, data, and predictions were faulty. That their world models (and their Malthusian bias), did not accurately reflect reality.
So we have a totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of saving the planet. The motives of the UN and its affiliates are no different from those of the radical zealots of the 1970’s. They despise capitalism, development, growth and freedom with the misguided fear of over-population, a principle driver. Their solution is to use the emotive issue of “climate change” to pursue a radical transformation in cultural, economic, and political structures across the globe.
Dr Ottmar Endenhoffer, a member of the IPCC said this at an interview in 2010: “We (The UN/IPCC) redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is climate policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
This is what the UN climate change boss Christiana Figueres said at the 2015 climate conference in Brussels:
This is what the caption under the photo says: UN CLIMATE CHIEF SAYS COMMUNISM IS BEST TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING. THE UN’S REAL AGENDA IS A NEW WORLD ORDER UNDER ITS CONTROL.
(Doesn’t that say it all?)
Figueres went on to say: “The fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement. 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 economic development system that Figueres talks about is capitalism. The UN is attempting to transform that to global socialism governed by the United Nations.
At the conclusion of a meeting of environmental groups in Venezuela it was proclaimed : “We Must end capitalism to save the world from global warming. The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current capitalist hegemonic system.”
In a series of conferences over the past few years, the UN has been trying to get signatories into a legally binding treaty on climate change in which countries promise to decrease carbon dioxide emissions and western countries agree to pay huge sums to developing countries (through the sticky fingers of UN officials), to save those developing countries from the imagined ravages of global warming.
What then is the UN’s weapon of choice for rapid deindustrialisation? It’s called renewable energy, but actually the name should be unreliable energy - wind and solar. Token gestures to the folly of green madness designed to force us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animals and windmill power.
The World Economic Forum (WEF)
The WEF was founded in January 1971 by German Engineer Klaus Schwab. The foundation’s stated mission is “improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”
In 2018 Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave the keynote speech, becoming the first government from India to deliver the inaugural key note for the annual plenary at Davos. Modi highlighted climate change, terrorism and protectionism as the three major global challenges, and expressed confidence that they could be tackled with a collective effort.
At the 2019 conference, environmental concerns like extreme weather events, and the failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation were among the top ranked global risks expressed by WEF attendees.
Topics at the 2022 annual meeting included the Russian invasion of Ukraine, climate change, energy insecurity and inflation.
In the beginning of the 21st Century the forum began to increasingly deal with environmental issues. The environmental initiative covered climate change and water issues. The UK Government asked the WEF to facilitate a dialogue with the business community to develop recommendations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The theme of the 2020 WEF annual meeting was, “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World.” Climate change and sustainability were central themes for discussion. Many argued that fossil fuel subsidies should be stopped. Many of the participants said a better capitalism is needed. Al Gore summarised the ideas in the conference as: “The version of capitalism we have in our world today must be reformed.”
( So here we see signs that capitalism must be done away with.)
The forum proposed a plan for a green recovery. Among the mentioned methods there is green building, sustainable transport, organic farming, urban open space, renewable energy, (wind and solar), and electric vehicles.
In May 2020 the WEF and the Price of Wales Sustainable Markets Initiative launched “ The Great Reset” project – a five-point plan to enhance sustainable economic growth following the global recession caused by the Covid 19 pandemic lockdowns.
(Remember: “ Never let a good crisis go to waste!”) The WEF are taking advantage of the pandemic to try and bring about major changes, one of which is to destroy capitalism, as we know it.
According to the founder Schwab, the intention of the project is to reconsider the meaning of capitalism and capital. The forum defines the system it wants to create as “Stakeholder Capitalism”.
In an essay written by Ida Auken in 2016 for the WEF she coined the phrase: “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” The future suggests that urban residents would rely on shared services for many expensive items such as appliances and vehicles. During the Covid pandemic the phrase went viral, but the WEF responding to criticism, denied that that it had a goal to limiting ownership of private property.
The formation of a detached elite referred to as “Davos Man” applies to a global group whose members view themselves as completely international. The term refers to people who “have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elites global operations.”
Ideologically, the liberal western model was no longer considered a universal role model that other countries strive for. (With China’s digital totalitarianism or the traditional absolutism in the Persian Gulf as counter proposals, all of which were represented by government members in Davos.)
According to the European Parliament’s think tank, critics see the WEF as an instrument for political and business leaders to take decisions without having to account to their electorate or shareholders. Since 2009 the WEF has been working on a project that plans to replace a recognised democratic model with a model where a self-selected group of stakeholders make decisions on behalf of the people.
Critics emphasise that the annual meeting of the WEF is counterproductive when combating pressing problems of humanity such as the climate crisis. (Except there isn’t a crisis.) Even in 2020, participants travelled to the WEF annual meeting in Davos on around 1,300 private jets while the burden from transport and accommodation were enormous in their view.
Back to the UN
Without access to fossil fuels, every tree on the planet would be cut down by now to provide heating, cooking, and industry. The greatest threat to humanity is not affluence but poverty.
If the UN and fellow climate alarmists get their way on restricting carbon dioxide, the poor will soon be getting poorer - very much poorer. It is possible that many will die of starvation, cold, and more. The devastation will be particularly severe amongst the less well off. Earth’s would-be rulers don’t seem to care. The radical UN plan to fight “climate change”, as outlined by the global body amid the implosion of the man-made global warming theory, would dramatically curtail available energy supplies. The scheme would grant unprecedented power over people, businesses, and governments to planetary bureaucrats. On top of this honest scientists say that the plan would have virtually no effect on climate. Indeed all the UN climate models have already been thoroughly debunked, as global warming stopped some years back. But the agenda was never to stop, global warming, global cooling or even climate change, so it is hardly surprising that the UN is nowhere near ready to give up on its vision of complete planetary dominance.
So what is the purpose of the global warming/covid scare? The idea is to create a crisis so that the public will become dependent on their government to fix the crisis for them. You hand a lot of power and control to respective governments.
Rahm Emanual speaking at a conference hosted by the Wall Street Journal in November 2008 said this: “ You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” The idea is to try and use disasters as opportunities to achieve liberal, progressive or socialist goals. If the crisis is big enough then both political parties become involved. The big problem now is that the people do not have an effective opposition.
Climate science has been hijacked by special interest groups pushing ideological societal change, rent seekers wanting to profit from taxpayer subsidies and politicians looking for new ways to tax citizens.
The earth’s climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Historical empirical evidence shows there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current temperatures or weather events. The lack of vigorously tested evidence has allowed governments to create policy that is permanently damaging our once cheap and reliable energy system. Our manufacturing industries are disappearing overseas, families are struggling to pay their exorbitant power bills, and a once reliable electricity system is on its knees due to intermittent wind and solar. Even our children are not safe from this alarmism, with eco anxiety finding its way into the innocent world of our children. All climate based policies should be rescinded. The consequences of this alarmism has cost each country untold millions of dollars - money that should be used for productivity and growth.
There is no empirical evidence that shows carbon dioxide is the direct cause of any change in climate.
Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.
(Doesn’t that say it all?)
Figueres went on to say: “The fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement. 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 economic development system that Figueres talks about is capitalism. The UN is attempting to transform that to global socialism governed by the United Nations.
At the conclusion of a meeting of environmental groups in Venezuela it was proclaimed : “We Must end capitalism to save the world from global warming. The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current capitalist hegemonic system.”
In a series of conferences over the past few years, the UN has been trying to get signatories into a legally binding treaty on climate change in which countries promise to decrease carbon dioxide emissions and western countries agree to pay huge sums to developing countries (through the sticky fingers of UN officials), to save those developing countries from the imagined ravages of global warming.
What then is the UN’s weapon of choice for rapid deindustrialisation? It’s called renewable energy, but actually the name should be unreliable energy - wind and solar. Token gestures to the folly of green madness designed to force us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animals and windmill power.
The World Economic Forum (WEF)
The WEF was founded in January 1971 by German Engineer Klaus Schwab. The foundation’s stated mission is “improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”
In 2018 Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave the keynote speech, becoming the first government from India to deliver the inaugural key note for the annual plenary at Davos. Modi highlighted climate change, terrorism and protectionism as the three major global challenges, and expressed confidence that they could be tackled with a collective effort.
At the 2019 conference, environmental concerns like extreme weather events, and the failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation were among the top ranked global risks expressed by WEF attendees.
Topics at the 2022 annual meeting included the Russian invasion of Ukraine, climate change, energy insecurity and inflation.
In the beginning of the 21st Century the forum began to increasingly deal with environmental issues. The environmental initiative covered climate change and water issues. The UK Government asked the WEF to facilitate a dialogue with the business community to develop recommendations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The theme of the 2020 WEF annual meeting was, “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World.” Climate change and sustainability were central themes for discussion. Many argued that fossil fuel subsidies should be stopped. Many of the participants said a better capitalism is needed. Al Gore summarised the ideas in the conference as: “The version of capitalism we have in our world today must be reformed.”
( So here we see signs that capitalism must be done away with.)
The forum proposed a plan for a green recovery. Among the mentioned methods there is green building, sustainable transport, organic farming, urban open space, renewable energy, (wind and solar), and electric vehicles.
In May 2020 the WEF and the Price of Wales Sustainable Markets Initiative launched “ The Great Reset” project – a five-point plan to enhance sustainable economic growth following the global recession caused by the Covid 19 pandemic lockdowns.
(Remember: “ Never let a good crisis go to waste!”) The WEF are taking advantage of the pandemic to try and bring about major changes, one of which is to destroy capitalism, as we know it.
According to the founder Schwab, the intention of the project is to reconsider the meaning of capitalism and capital. The forum defines the system it wants to create as “Stakeholder Capitalism”.
In an essay written by Ida Auken in 2016 for the WEF she coined the phrase: “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” The future suggests that urban residents would rely on shared services for many expensive items such as appliances and vehicles. During the Covid pandemic the phrase went viral, but the WEF responding to criticism, denied that that it had a goal to limiting ownership of private property.
The formation of a detached elite referred to as “Davos Man” applies to a global group whose members view themselves as completely international. The term refers to people who “have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elites global operations.”
Ideologically, the liberal western model was no longer considered a universal role model that other countries strive for. (With China’s digital totalitarianism or the traditional absolutism in the Persian Gulf as counter proposals, all of which were represented by government members in Davos.)
According to the European Parliament’s think tank, critics see the WEF as an instrument for political and business leaders to take decisions without having to account to their electorate or shareholders. Since 2009 the WEF has been working on a project that plans to replace a recognised democratic model with a model where a self-selected group of stakeholders make decisions on behalf of the people.
Critics emphasise that the annual meeting of the WEF is counterproductive when combating pressing problems of humanity such as the climate crisis. (Except there isn’t a crisis.) Even in 2020, participants travelled to the WEF annual meeting in Davos on around 1,300 private jets while the burden from transport and accommodation were enormous in their view.
Back to the UN
Without access to fossil fuels, every tree on the planet would be cut down by now to provide heating, cooking, and industry. The greatest threat to humanity is not affluence but poverty.
If the UN and fellow climate alarmists get their way on restricting carbon dioxide, the poor will soon be getting poorer - very much poorer. It is possible that many will die of starvation, cold, and more. The devastation will be particularly severe amongst the less well off. Earth’s would-be rulers don’t seem to care. The radical UN plan to fight “climate change”, as outlined by the global body amid the implosion of the man-made global warming theory, would dramatically curtail available energy supplies. The scheme would grant unprecedented power over people, businesses, and governments to planetary bureaucrats. On top of this honest scientists say that the plan would have virtually no effect on climate. Indeed all the UN climate models have already been thoroughly debunked, as global warming stopped some years back. But the agenda was never to stop, global warming, global cooling or even climate change, so it is hardly surprising that the UN is nowhere near ready to give up on its vision of complete planetary dominance.
So what is the purpose of the global warming/covid scare? The idea is to create a crisis so that the public will become dependent on their government to fix the crisis for them. You hand a lot of power and control to respective governments.
Rahm Emanual speaking at a conference hosted by the Wall Street Journal in November 2008 said this: “ You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” The idea is to try and use disasters as opportunities to achieve liberal, progressive or socialist goals. If the crisis is big enough then both political parties become involved. The big problem now is that the people do not have an effective opposition.
Climate science has been hijacked by special interest groups pushing ideological societal change, rent seekers wanting to profit from taxpayer subsidies and politicians looking for new ways to tax citizens.
The earth’s climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Historical empirical evidence shows there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current temperatures or weather events. The lack of vigorously tested evidence has allowed governments to create policy that is permanently damaging our once cheap and reliable energy system. Our manufacturing industries are disappearing overseas, families are struggling to pay their exorbitant power bills, and a once reliable electricity system is on its knees due to intermittent wind and solar. Even our children are not safe from this alarmism, with eco anxiety finding its way into the innocent world of our children. All climate based policies should be rescinded. The consequences of this alarmism has cost each country untold millions of dollars - money that should be used for productivity and growth.
There is no empirical evidence that shows carbon dioxide is the direct cause of any change in climate.
Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.
4 comments:
What a brilliant essay Ian. I was aware of some of your research but not all. You have cleverly laced together historical and current events confirming the greatest lie ever told. This has never been about science but political manipulation through stealth and propaganda. The target market are the ignorant and docile public that obediently comply without question. How these charlatans and influences we call politicians, with globalist leanings, have lied about “our nuclear moment” and “net-zero” nonsense paying homage to the Paris Agreement. We are being lied to people. Push back is long overdue.
If you feed 'davos stooge' to pigs-'you'll own pork and be happy'
While I know much of what you have written, you have put it together brilliantly. I bet no alarmist would debate with you. Well done Ian.
Ever since learning about Malthusian theory (as a first-year geography student in 1986) and how it never matched reality, I have been constantly baffled by those whose dire predictions of catastrophe have used similarly flawed logic.
Post a Comment