Arvid Pastor
Now, almost everyone knows that “the world is warming,” and the mainstream media tells us over and over again that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), primarily but not limited to carbon dioxide (CO2). This claim is largely due to the efforts of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The history of this institution is very illuminating as its roots can be traced back to the Club of Rome (must read https://climatism.blog/2018/12/19/draconian-un-climate-agenda-exposed-global-on-warming Fear is a tool for political and economic change that has nothing to do with the actual climate / Jamie W. Spry).
I quote this reference extensively in parentheses below […]:
[The Club of Rome was a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked. The Club of Rome’s 1972 environmental best-seller “The Limits To Growth”, examined five variables in the original model: world population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion. They noted that “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that…the threat of global warming…would fit the bill…the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Not surprisingly, their study predicted a dire future for mankind unless we ‘act now’: “We are unanimously convinced that rapid, radical redressment of the present unbalanced and dangerously deteriorating world situation is the primary task facing mankind…Concerted international measures and joint long-term planning will be necessary on a scale and scope without precedent…This supreme effort is…founded on a basic change of values and goals at individual, national, and world levels…”(Arvid’s bold italics)
Around the same time, influential anthropologist and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Margaret Mead, gathered together like-minded anti-population hoaxsters at her 1975, North Carolina conference, “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering”. Mead’s star recruits were climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak George Woodwell and former AAAS head, John Holdren (Obama’s Science and Technology Czar). All three of them were disciples of Malthusian catastrophist Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb”.
The conference concluded that human-produced 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 global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development.
The creator, fabricator and proponent of global warming alarmism, Maurice Strong, founded the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and its ‘science’ arm, the UN-IPCC, under the premise of studying only human (CO2) driven causes of climate change.
Strong’s, and the UN’s, ‘Climate Change’ agenda was clearly laid out before the ‘science’ of climate change was butchered and tortured to fit the Global Warming narrative…
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Program (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.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“ – Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP
Why Did They Choose CO2 as the Villain?
Atmospheric physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examined the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that drives the man-made climate change agenda. His summary goes to the very heart of why carbon dioxide has become the center-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:
“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonize it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
Energy rationing and the control of carbon dioxide, the direct byproduct of cheap, reliable hydrocarbon energy, has always been key to the Left’s Malthusian and misanthropic agenda of depopulation and deindustrialization. A totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of “Saving the Planet”.
STANFORD University and The Royal Society’s resident global warming alarmist and population freak Paul R. Ehrlich spelled out in 1976 the Left’s anti-energy agenda that still underpins the current ‘climate change’ scare:
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University/Royal Society fellow ]
(End of article cited by Spry)
The introduction to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should prepare readers with anticipation for their political debate. However, in order for their position to be successful, they must have some scientific basis behind their denigration of CO2.2. This “science” had already been predicted by the French Joseph Fourier in 1824, with evidence provided by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. ) showed evidence in 1896. quantitative predictions of global warming. [Names/dates from Wikipedia, e.g.- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science ]
Using this scientifically proposed mechanism as a means to discredit carbon dioxide2the IPCC competition begins! The United Nations and many national research institutions in many countries provide funding to study this topic. As academics and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) scientists realized how much money was needed, the topic swelled. The United Nations has formulated the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN-FCCC), to which almost all countries in the world are “parties”.
The IPCC holds an annual meeting attended by more than 30,000 government, academic, non-governmental organizations, media and other interested parties. These conferences are usually held in very nice, expensive places because they are so large that only certain cities can host them. Some noteworthy Conferences of the Parties (COPs) are the 3rd (Kyoto, Japan, 1997), the 15th (Copenhagen, Denmark, 2009), the 16th (Cancun, Mexico), and the 21st (Paris, France, 2015) and the 24th (Katowice, Poland) 2018). I list these five because I will describe some of their output, as well as some telling, often off-camera comments from attendees about the true purpose of these meetings.
Official participants in the Conference of the Parties (government representatives, not the media or NGOs) developed plans, many of which became “treaties” signed by states. For example, at the third Conference of the Parties in Kyoto, it was agreed that the world should reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As Wikipedia says [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol ]…
“The Kyoto Protocol achieves the goal of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to reduce the occurrence of global warming by reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to “a level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” ( Article 2). The Kyoto Protocol applies to the six greenhouse gases listed in Annex A: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), and perfluorocarbons (PFC) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).[6]
The Protocol is based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: it recognizes that countries have different abilities to respond to climate change due to different economic development, and therefore empowers developed countries to reduce their current emissions based on their historical emissions. obligations.
So, you immediately see that this push was attributed to the “developed countries” (pronounced the United States), and this slogan became the basis for the subsequent “climate compensation” agreement (the United States and other developed countries attributed all these terrible of greenhouse gases blamed on “climate compensation”).2 into the atmosphere).
Bill Clinton, then president of the United States, agreed to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, even though it was legally binding on the United States and required Senate approval. When George Bush became president in 2001, the Senate refused to ratify the protocol, so, for all intents and purposes, it became invalid.
Not to be defeated, the IPCC keeps pushing every year to get everyone involved. Each time, they raised their demands on developed countries. The term “loss and damage” became a rallying point for “developing countries” who could claim that developed countries caused the climate problems they faced (d), which they could then sue (the United States).
At COP 15 in Copenhagen, “the parties”, inspired by the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States in 2008, agreed on a (to me) mind-boggling wording. If we sign this agreement, the United States will agree to submit to a “government” made up of over 100 other countries, including giving this “government” the ability to tax the United States to pay “reparations” for burning fossil fuels; allow Taxing our GDP up to 2% per year; and various other insults!
I put the word “government” in quotation marks because that is the word actually used in the proposed Copenhagen Treaty.
Meanwhile, at that COP, the media captured some very candid comments from attendees:
Jacques Chirac said the Treaty of Kyoto (1997) was “the first building block of a truly global government”. In the words of EU Environment Commissioner Margaret Wostrom, “This is about creating a level playing field for big companies around the world.” Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart commented, “ “Whether or not the science is false, global warming policies will still have collateral environmental benefits”… “Climate change offers the greatest opportunity for justice and equality in the world.” [Leo Johnson, Understanding the Global Warming Hoax, 2009, Red Anvil Press, Oakland, CA, Page 65]
How damn is this? Now we know for sure that we had the right idea…the goal is not to “reduce global warming”…but to control the world.
Furthermore, in a candid 2007 interview with Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III and lead author of IPCC AR4 (Assessment Report #4), later at the Cancun COP, he was quoted as saying:“…Climate policy has almost nothing to do with environmental protection anymore.”
“…the World Climate Summit in Cancun is actually an economic summit, during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” [http://www.cfact.org/a/1858/Do-you-believe-in-magic—-climate-numbers?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cfact+%28CFACT%29 ]
And it gets worse. In 2015, at the 21st Conference of the Parties in Paris, the UN climate chief said: “For the first time in human history, we have set ourselves the task of consciously changing the model of economic development within a set timeframe. . [https://citatis.com/a34446/077687/ ]
My question is: The “economic development model” has worked for 150 years… why change it now? It was very successful.
However, at COP24 in Poland in 2018, the United Nations doubled down on its efforts, with the UN climate chief saying…
“Failure to act would be catastrophic.” “We need a profound transformation of our economies and societies.” “The impacts of climate change are increasingly difficult to ignore.” [ http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/12/03/un-climate-chief-has-solution-to-urgent-climate-threat-we-require-deep-transformations-of-our-economies-and-societies/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateDepot+%28Climate+Depot%29 ]
When much of this international shenanigans occurred, the United States was under President Obama's regime, which fully embraced this socialist doctrine. He knew that none of these UN “treaties” would be approved by Congress. He also found there was no chance of getting any carbon tax or carbon “cap and trade” agreement. So he let the EPA do the dirty work.
EPA successfully gets court to rule CO2 It's “pollution”. Many lawsuits were filed over this “discovery”, eventually reaching the Supreme Court. Supreme Court allowed findings against CO without any scientific background2. Now, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA could wreak havoc.
They tried to do this many times. For example, in 2011, they issued new regulations on carbon dioxide. “Using their own numbers: They say the new regulations will cost $78 billion a year.” [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/13/how-much-would-you-buy/ ]
EPA Administrator (Gina McCarthy) said these regulations are expected to reduce global average temperatures by 0.006 to 0.015°C by 2100. absolutely trivial) by the year 2100.
What on earth were they thinking? You'll see later…
In 2015, the EPA issued new regulations aimed at bankrupting the United States. These new regulations are cheaper than the 2011 version, costing us only about $2.5 trillion. Each degree of warming cost $125 trillion. Then, when questioned, the head of the EPA (Gina McCarthy) said that the global cooling effect would be less than 0.02F, but What matters is that we do this to set an example for the world!
Really…will America go bankrupt and set an example for the world?
Then, in 2016, under a Senate inquiry, the truth finally emerged: “…She said the rule was intended to “drive investment in renewable energy…,[and] Advancing our ongoing clean energy revolution”. McCarthy said, “This is what … reshaping the global economy looks like.” https://www.climatedepot.com/2016/05/12/epa-chief-concedes-no-climate-impact-from-climate-rule-its-about-reinventing-a-global-economy/]
McCarthy must be some kind of special kind of fool, or an angry socialist, or both!
At this point, I don't even need to understand the abysmal “science” used by the IPCC and then completely swallowed up by the crappy media. I could talk about it until the end of the world, but it will certainly not help.
Many people who have access to world-class computers have testified to the absurdity of the IPCC's attempts to “control global warming.” Some examples are as follows:
“If the United States follows through on President Obama’s ambitious rhetoric throughout the century, global warming will be delayed by about eight months by the end of the century.”
Costs of UN Paris climate agreement likely to continue $1 to $2 trillion per year.'
A 2013 analysis showed…
“…if the United States as a whole stopped emitting all carbon dioxide immediately, the ultimate impact on projected global temperature rise would be a reduction or ‘saving’ of approximately 0.08°C by 2050 and 0.17°C by 2100…regardless of intent and For all purposes, this amount is negligible.
I hope you understand…if America “disappeared completely” it would not stop global warming.
UNIPCC Conferences of the Parties continue to be held in major locations around the world, from COP-22 in Morocco to COP-28 in Dubai (see https://unfccc.int/process/bodies/supreme for a complete list) – Bodies/Cops – police).
At each meeting, world leaders come together to debate thorny issues and try to push for a “final” deal. The two main issues are (1) trying to end the production and use of fossil fuels, and (2) implementing a “loss and damage” approach whereby those countries deemed to have contributed most to global warming through fossil fuels would be given the maximum amount of compensation. compensation is affected by “climate change”.
In Dubai in 2023, attendees all but agreed to end the use of fossil fuels. The closest they can come to “stopping” fossil fuels is by agreeing to “phase out” their production and use. This is most unsatisfying to the most vocal climate alarmists. “However, many countries have withdrawn from the negotiations in frustration at the lack of a clear call for fossil fuels to be “phased out” within this decade, and a “serial litany of loopholes” in the text that could enable the production and consumption of coal. , oil and gas will continue. [ https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop28-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-dubai/ ]
On the second topic…” Despite early breakthroughs in setting up a fund to pay for “loss and damage” caused by climate change, developing countries are frustrated by the lack of new financial commitments to transition away from fossil fuels and adapt to climate impacts. ” [ https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop28-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-dubai/ ]
At the same time, greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide2 Even as thousands of megawatts of renewable energy come online, emissions of methane and methane are increasing inexorably. Global temperatures have been slowly rising. Alarmists and the liberal media continue to clamor for “change.”
Relevant
