Ushering in the new (socialist) world order, one crisis at a time

The UNFCCC has always been about turning the UN into a redistributionist world government

  • UN HQ

The U.N.’s latest climate alarmist meeting in Doha, Qatar experienced somewhat of a different sort of man-made crisis in December in the form of a typhoon named Christopher Monckton, the third viscount of Benchley, advisor to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and climate realist. Temporarily purloining a vacant microphone assigned to a delegate from Burma, he gave the entire audience some very terrifying news…announcing that “in the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming at all.”

If that was not scary enough, amid boos and heckles, Monckton blasted the congregation, uttering the utter blasphemy: “If we are to take action [the sort they always propose], the cost of that would be many times greater than the cost of taking adaptive measures later. So our recommendation, therefore, is that we should initiate very quickly a review of the science to make sure we are all on the right track….”

For starters, let’s flash back a few decades before there was any of that new science, and review a little history dating back to the 1970s and early 1980s when Third World countries, by force of numbers, and European socialist Green parties, through powers of aggressiveness, seized control of the United Nations. They soon began calling for a New International Economic Order.

In the late 1980s, a scare based upon theoretical and primitive climate models that predicted man-made carbon emissions were causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming perfectly served these goals. In response, The UN rapidly established a Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) to organize conferences, along with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to conduct “scientific” reviews….

Kicking Off The U.N.’s Climate Crisis Clamor

Opening remarks offered by FCCC’s Environment Program Executive Director Maurice Strong who organized the first UN Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, expressed an underlying priority very candidly: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?

Strong left no doubt about where to place blame for global problems, stating in the conference report: “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class…involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, ownership of motor vehicles, golf courses, small electric appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable…A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, joined Maurice Strong in addressing the Climate Summit audience.  He said: “We have 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….”

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department, agreed that the Kyoto Protocol should be approved whether it had anything to do with climate change or not: “A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.” ….

Enron’s Leading Kyoto Promotion Role

Between 1994 and 1996, after Senator Wirth became undersecretary of state for global affairs in the Clinton-Gore administration, he began working closely with Enron to lobby Congress to grant EPA the authority to control CO2….

Senators Wirth and John Heinz (R-PA) had recently cosponsored “Project 88” to provide a pathway for converting environmental issues into business opportunities. Media-fueled alarm about acid rain had provided a basis for legislation to create markets for buying and selling excess sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide emission credits, and Project 88 became the Clean Air Act of 1990.

Since Enron had become a big SO2 market cap-and-trade player, this led that company and others to wonder… why not do the same thing with CO2? Since natural gas is a lower CO2 emitter than coal, that development would certainly be a profitability game changer. But there was a problem. Unlike SO2, CO2 wasn’t a pollutant — at least not then — and the EPA had no authority to regulate it.

A September 1, 1998, letter from Enron’s CEO Kenneth Lay to President Clinton requested that he “moderate the political aspects” of the climate discussion by appointing a “Blue Ribbon Commission.”  His intent was clear: to trash climate crisis disbelievers and cut off debate on the matter. Lay had direct contact with the White House earlier when he reportedly met with President Clinton and Vice President Gore on August 4, 1997, to prepare a U.S. strategy for an upcoming Kyoto climate summit that December. Kyoto presented the first step toward creating a carbon market that Enron desperately wanted Congress to support.

In late 1997 Enron lobbyist John Palmaisano wrote excitedly from Kyoto: “If implemented, [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside restructuring of the [electricity] and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States…The endorsement of emissions trading was another victory for us…This agreement will be good for Enron stock!!”

Sadly (for Enron), that was not to be. In a rare spirit of solidarity, the Senate unanimously passed (95-0) a bipartisan Byrd-Hagel U.S. Senate Resolution (S Res 98) that made it clear that the United States would not be signatory to any agreement that “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States”. Then-President Clinton, no stranger to political pragmatism, got the message and never submitted a necessary U.S. approval request for congressional ratification.   [Source:  My article, “The EPA’s and Enron’s End-Runs of Congress”, Larry Bell http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/29/epa-enron-greenhouse-gases-opinions-contributors-larry-bell.html]

Although the U.S. never signed up, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997, and has been in force since 2005. The signatories agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions relative to 1990 levels.

It would be a colossal understatement to suggest that Al Gore has been disgruntled about the U.S. not joining Kyoto along with subsequent failures to get cap-and-tax legislation passed. In 2004 he co-founded Generation Investment Management LLP (GIM) with three partners — former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management David Blood and two others from that firm. GIM is a London-based firm that invests money from institutions and wealthy investors that are “going Green.”  Bloomberg reported in March 2008 that the investment fund had hit a hard cap of $5 billion, and had been turning away investors.

Political Science Lessons from the IPCC

In 2006, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), a think tank that actually supports CO2 cuts, [reported that climate change] …  is typified by an inflated or extreme lexicon, incorporating an urgent tone and cinematic codes. It employs [a] quasi-religious register of death and doom, and it uses language of acceleration and irreversibility.” The IPPR concluded that “alarmism might even become secretly thrilling”…effectively a form of what they referred to as “climate porn….”

Much of the scary climate stuff gleefully trumpeted by the global media comes from the UN’s IPCC, a highly politicized organization that does not actually carry out any original climate research. Instead, it simply issues assessments based upon supposedly independent surveys of published research. However, some of its most influential conclusions that are summarized in its reports have neither been based upon truly independent research, nor properly vetted through accepted peer- review processes.

One example is a 1966 IPCC report that used selective data, doctored graphs, and featured changes in text made after the reviewing scientists approved it and before it was printed. The many irregularities provoked Dr. Frederick Seitz, a world-famous physicist and former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, and Rockefeller University, to write in the Wall Street Journal: “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than events that led to this IPCC report ….”

Another former global warming alarmist who is now a fierce IPCC critic is Dr. Fritz Vaherenholt, a socialist founder of Germany’s environmental movement who headed the renewable energy division of the country’s second largest utility company. His recent coauthored book, The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Disaster Won’t Happen, charges the IPCC with gross incompetence and dishonesty, most particularly regarding fear-mongering exaggeration of known climate influence of human CO2 emissions.

Vahrenholt isn’t the only significant German scientist to find that IPCC’s global warming projections are exaggerated. Another is Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who serves as the German government’s climate protection advisor. Schellnhuber coauthored a paper refuting reliability of Global Climate Models upon which their alarmist 2001 projections were based, concluding that the CO2 greenhouse gas trends were clearly overestimated.  Schellnhuber has also recently admitted in a speech to agricultural experts that: “warmer temperatures and high CO2 concentrations in the air could very well lead to higher agricultural yields.”

When appearing on Fox Business News with Stewart Varney in January 2011, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore agreed that benefits of any global warming, to the extent that this is occurring for any reason, are greatly underrated: “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food …. ”  [Source: “Environment Greenpeace Founder Questions Man-Made Global Warming”, Jonathan M. Seidl, January 20, 2011, The Blaze, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/greenpeace-founder-questions-man-made-global-warming/]

The Global Wealth and Power Grab

While there can be no doubt that manufactured climate crisis drives multi-billion dollar science and EPA energy regulatory industries, the UN has far more ambitious goals. As Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment, speaking before editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald in 1998, said, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

And as IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted in November 2010, “ … 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 ….”

If you have any doubt about this, some highlight events that took place during the UN’s 2010 Cancun, Mexico, climate conference should be illuminating. After developing countries demanded that rich ones provide many billions of dollars to them for damage to the climate, U.S. and European representatives expressed willingness to provide their “fair share,” pledging $10 billion per year from 2010 to 2012. This offer was rejected as an insufficient insult, representatives of several undeveloped countries walked out of the meetings and angry riots broke out in the streets.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton then came to the rescue, offering to up the ante with a $100 billion annual contribution from the United States and our more prosperous friends to the “poorest and most vulnerable [nations] among us” by 2020. Where it would actually come from no one knew, including Hillary and her boss. (Any guesses?)

Yet judging from the tumultuous standing ovation following a speech from Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, one might have imagined that he was going to provide all that money. But this was not so. Instead he had aroused general agreement in the audience regarding where to lay the blame for the world’s social, economic and climate problems: “Our revolution seeks to help all people…Socialism, is the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet; capitalism is the road to hell.… Let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.”

Viewed from an even larger perspective, the global warming rubric has provided an ideal platform to accomplish exactly what Chavez has in mind…to enable the UN to advance large transformational visions of socialism, wealth redistribution, and ultimately, global governance.

If this sounds a bit too conspiratorial, consider the words spoken by former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev recognizing the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives, stating in 1996: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” This may well have seemed like the last hope for that agenda following the U.S.S.R.’s economic and political collapse in 1991.

Also think about words of a speech delivered by then-President Jacques Chirac of France supporting a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

IPCC Summary for Policymakers reports offer prescriptions for distribution of wealth and resource redistribution, including regionalized (smaller) economies to reduce transportation demand, reorienting lifestyles away from consumption, resource-sharing through co-ownership, and encouraging citizens to pursue free time over wealth.

So, are you ready? Welcome to the climate alarm-founded ant farm they have in mind!

Excerpted from “The U.N.’s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson,” as published in Forbes Online, January 22, 2013; http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/22/the-u-n-s-global-warming-war-on-capitalism-an-important-history-lesson-2/

Categories

About the Author: Larry Bell

Larry Bell

CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston. He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He is also the author of "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax."

One Comment
  1. enquiries

    The fundamental assumption of the greenhouse effect is that back radiation has warmed the surface from 255K to 288K. But this assumption is itself based on a false assumption.

    So why should anyone be “puzzled” that climate is not racking carbon dioxide levels?

    Roy Spencer (in his post about Greenhouse misunderstandings) claims in his point (6) that the atmosphere would have been isothermal at 255K in the absence of any GHG.

    An isothermal atmosphere in a gravitational field would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which reads: “An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system”

    In isothermal conditions there would be more potential energy (PE) in eash molecule at the top, and, because kinetic energy (KE) is homogeneous, molecules could “fall” downwards and do work in the process. hence it was not an equilibrium state, let alone one of maximum entropy, as is required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics has to be obeyed. So (PE+KE) has to be homogeneous, because otherwise work could be done, and so the system would not be at an equilibrium with greatest entropy, as the Second Law requires. In the process of reaching such equilibrium it is inevitable that molecules at the bottom have more kinetic energy, and there are more of them in any given volume, and so that does give a measure of higher pressure, yes. But the whole column could still cool down, maintaining the same gradient and pressure.

    So pressure does not maintain temperature. The relationship in the ideal gas law only applies in adiabatic conditions, but the atmosphere can radiate heat away. If you “turned off” the Sun, Venus atmosphere and surface would eventually cool down.

    We need to consider how the thermal energy actually gets into the Venus surface, especially at the poles. The facts are ..

    (1) the poles receive less than 1W/m^2 of direct insolation.

    (2) the atmosphere 1Km above the poles is at least 9 degrees cooler, and not absorbing much insolation either. It could have at most 1W/m^2 coming back out of the surface, which (at 0.5 absorptivity) would raise it to a mere 7K.

    (3) Rather than being 7K, the lowest Km of the Venus atmosphere is around 720K, just a few degrees less hot than the surface.

    If all convection (resulting from absorbed incident insolation at various altitudes) only went down the thermal gradient (ie towards space) how would enough energy get into the surface, especially if it were even just 1 degree hotter than the base of the atmosphere?

    My answer is that the sloping playing field (the thermal profile) becomes a level playing field due to gravity, so all energy absorbed in the atmosphere (mostly incident insolation) spreads out in all directions, creating convection both up and down, and also diffusion and convection right around the globe producing equal temperatures at equal altitudes, but higher temperatures at lower altitudes. Then intra-atmospheric radiation reduces the magnitude of the net gradient by about 10% to 15% on Venus, (as best I can work out) but by about a third on Earth. Some of the extra reduction on Earth. though, is probably due to release of latent heat.

    Here’s a thought experiment. Construct a perfectly insulated sealed cylinder filled with pure nitrogen gas. Suppose there are two insulating dividers which you can now slide into place one third and two thirds up the cylinder, thus making three equal zones. Warm the middle zone with a heating element, which you then turn off. Allow equilibrium to establish with the warmer nitrogen in the central zone. Then remove the dividers. Those molecules which move to the top zone will lose some KE as they gain extra PE, whereas those which fall to the lowest zone will gain KE as they lose PE. Hence, when the new equilibrium is established, the highest zone measures a lower temperature than the middle zone, and the lowest zone measures a higher temperature than the middle zone. Hence the highest zone measures a lower temperature than the lowest zone. QED.

    So there is no need for any greenhouse effect to raise the surface temperature, simply because gravity cannot help but do so, because the atmosphere must obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

0 Pings & Trackbacks