Tuesday, 4 October 2011


pronounced the IMF recently, leading to banner headlines in newspapers around the globe.   Why the West only?  Does this mean the IPCC is beginning to achieve its declared programme?

  • “Maurice Strong, first director of UNEP, said (Wood. 1990) and 1992 in Rio:  ‘Isn’t the only hope for this planet the total collapse of industrial civilisation?  Is it not our responsibility to ensure that this collapse happens?’ ” [1]

  •  “Prof. Dr H. Stephen Schneider, lead author in Working Group II of the IPCC (said in 1989): ‘For these reasons we have to announce terrifying scenarios,  make simplified, dramatic statements with no mention of any doubts whatever which we might have.  In order to attract attention, we need dramatic statements leaving no doubt about what is said.  Every one of us researchers must decide how far he would want to be honest rather than effective.’ ” [1]

Research funds promptly flowed to those ‘researchers’ resulting in what must be the largest example of pure Lysenkoism ever, considering the combined multibillion-dollar research and public relations funds to achieve an unprecedented Gleichschaltung of this manufactured consensus in politics and the media. [2]

As Schopenhauer wrote:  There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted.”   But the Brothers Grimm also wrote their “Die Sonne bringt es an den Tag” which idiomatically translates to “Truth will out”. [3] [4]

·         To leave no doubt, in an interview published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 14 November 2010, Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III and Deputy Director and Chief Economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research (PIK), said  “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. one must say clearly that de facto we redistribute the world's wealth by climate policy….  One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns.”

When further prompted by Bernhard Pötter, the interviewer:   „So far, when discussing foreign aid, people usually equate it with charity“, Edenhofer replied:  „That will change immediately as soon as global emission rights are distributed. ...“

Estimates of the carbon trading market were reported by Joanne Nova quoting Commissioner Bart Chilton, head of the energy and environmental markets advisory committee of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with his prediction that “I can see carbon trading being a $2 trillion market,”  which other quoted sources describe as “the largest commodity market in the world.” [2] ibid.

Edenhofer continued: “…When that happens on a per capita basis, then Africa is the big winner, and large sums will flow there.  This has enormous consequences for foreign aid policy.  And, of course, the question  arises whether these countries would at all be capable of using so much money wisely.“ [5]

While not the only recipient region in the world where dangers might lurk, Africa is a whole continent teeming with countries and fiefdoms where gene, meme, and resource based reasons fuel internecine power struggles which copious large sums flowing there will intensify while the distribution wadis would ensure that these sums never actually reach those in need.  cf. [9]

Niall Ferguson in his recent TED Talk outlined the requisite fundamentals that are needed for stable development [6], and for which he gives the historical background in his latest book [7].

The West stands, of course, not for a geographical entity but for a concept which in the Age of Reason should reside anywhere to get the world’s work done, which in the words of Buckminster Fuller is “…to render the total chemical and energy resources of the world, which are exclusively preoccupied in serving only 44% of humanity, adequate to the service of 100% of humanity at higher standards of living and total enjoyment than any man has yet experienced.”  [8]

[1]  Hartmut Bachmann:  Die Lüge der Klimakatastrophe  (the ‘Lie of the Climate Catastrophe’), Frieling, Berlin, 5th edition 2008 (p.28),    my translation

[2] Joanne Nova:  Climate Money – The Climate Industry:  $79 billion so far – trillions to come,

 SPPI Original Paper, 21 July 2009.

[3] Ivar Giaever, Physics Nobel Laureate, resigns from the American Physics Society

[4] Helmut Schmidt:  The Responsibility of Research in the 21st Century,  the  former German Chancellor’s  address to the Max Planck Society on its Centenary Ceremony on 11 January 2011 Berlin:

[5]  http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/hintergrund/wissenschaft/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu_1.8373227.html     my translation and emphasis, with thanks to John McLean for this link

[7] Niall Ferguson:  Civilisation  The West and the Rest, Allen Lane,  London 2011

[8] Richard Buckminster Fuller:  Design Science Decade 1965-1975, proposed to the International Union of Architects, Paris 1963, resulting in The World Resources Inventory [six volumes], Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, USA , 1963-1967.

[9] “EU carbon trading rocked by mass killings”  http://joannenova.com.au/

a late arrival on 24 March 2014:
Retweeted by Climate Realists
Diane ‏@Diane400  Mar 24
@ClimateRealists See info on President Clinton's 1997 UN Agenda21 "global warming" speech
26 March 2014 07:54

another late arrival on 14 May 2014  --  A voice from the past:

Double A Publications Inc
Phoenix Arizona, 1994

Is this how the world’s biggest ever Ponzi scheme got started?
30 May 2014 07:48

a further voice from the past:
Basic Books, New York, 1999
04 June 2014  06:15
new link:
07 July 2014  11:21

and further recent addition:
Comment #9 at:

The BBC doing what the BBC does? Faux surprise. Really, absolutely no surprise here. As follows may draw some explanatory lines between the dots. UN Agenda 21 rears its head, the EU merely a proto-global governance model. Follow the money – an oft used catch phrase here.
EU paid the BBC €6,100,987 last year, Friends of the Earth (in all its incarnations) €4,188,230, WWF €5,344,641 and the RSPB €3,802,544. What is also of very great interest is that the EU subsidised UN institutions to the tune of nearly €140 million.
But illustrating the incestuous relationship between the NGO “community”, we see several of the “usual suspects” on the list. The European Climate Foundation turns up with $879,317, the ClimateWorks Foundation with $533,842, the Energy Foundation with $330,000, the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC with $325,000, Climate and Development Knowledge Network with $251,911, the Climate and Land Use Alliance with $497,941 and Water Conservation International $249,697.
Of global agencies, the United Nations Environment Programme is also represented, contributing $542,990. The World Bank gives $366,076. Charities are also represented, with the Robertson Foundation giving $500,000 and the Rockefeller Foundation $326,000.
The question is, of course, is why these bodies, with so many governments involved, are giving money to a private US charity, for activities which include preparing the ground for an inter-governmental agreement in 2015, fronted by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat."

see also:

Addition on  19 OCT 2015 -- the chart topper for several months:

No comments:

Post a Comment