CLIMATE CHANGE DOOMSDAY - THE 'BOGEYMAN' ADVANCING GLOBALISM (PART 2)

Climate Change Doomsday The Bogeyman Advancing Globalism It is true that the environment needs to be properly protected. However, CO2 emission reduction policies will have no impact on the climate when 97% of global CO2 emissions are naturally generated. Yet, the dense barrage of forecasts, most of which have proven to be false, regarding the doomsday catastrophe caused by global warming is turning the issue of climate change into something apocalyptic or religious, as if the world were about to end. Behind this scenario lies a different driving force and an entirely different story. This global environmental protection movement has involved numerous thinkers, politicians, scientists, social activists, media professionals, and so on. There are three groups responsible for doomsday environmentalism. The first group consists of scientists adhering to the Malthusian population theory. They believe there are too many people in the world, that overpopulation is a reality, and that everyone needs to consume less and procreate less. The second group comprises journalists, who themselves are often exaggerators of the narrative. The press is incentivized to do so, but many among them possess a far-left political background which they attempt to validate using science. The third group includes activists like Greta Thunberg and groups such as Extinction Rebellion. These three groups combine to weave a terrifying narrative. The late Natalie Grant Raga, an expert on Soviet affairs who extensively researched disinformation warfare, once wrote, protection of the environment has become the principal tool for attack against the West and all it stands for. Protection of the environment may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to undermine the industrial base of developed nations. It may also serve to introduce communist values by lowering the standard of living of developed nations and to achieve the goal of disruptive harassment. Former Czech Republic President Václav Klaus stated, environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection. Behind their people and nature-friendly terminology, the adherents of environmentalism make ambitious attempts to radically reorganize and change the world, human society, our behavior, and our values. They consider us dangerous and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them. I used to live in a similar world called communism, and I know it led to the worst environmental devastation the world has ever experienced. However, environmentalists continue to present us with various catastrophic scenarios with the intention of persuading us to implement their ideas. Their recommendations would dictate a return to an era of statism and restricted freedom. The ideology will be different. Its essence, nevertheless, will be identical. The attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of the common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice man and his freedom in order to make this idea reality. It is not about climatology, it is about freedom. Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, a scientist, attended the Copenhagen Climate Conference and reported an experience vastly different from what the mainstream media conveyed to the American public. In the Cornwall Alliance newsletter of January 2010, he wrote, we were a tiny band, about 30 or 40, in the midst of a sea of protesters, almost all on the other side, perhaps 20,000 or more in downtown Copenhagen, waving signs, chanting slogans, etc. The largest groups appeared to be the Communist Party, yes, their signs said so, the international socialist youth movement, radical climate activists, and Greenpeace. When the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez spoke, the crowd fell silent, as he said there was a silent and terrible ghost in the room, capitalism. But when he stated that socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that is the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell. Let's fight against capitalism and make it obey us. The crowd of official delegates gave him a standing ovation. President Donald Trump stated in his opening remarks at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, in January 2020, but to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday's foolish fortune tellers, and I have them, and you have them, and we all have them, and they want to see us do badly, but we don't let that happen. They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the 70s, and an end of oil in the 1990s, Mr. Trump continued. These alarmists always demand the same thing, absolute power to dominate, transform, and control every aspect of our lives. We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck our country, or eradicate our liberty. This denial by the 45th President of the United States, resonating with several other scientists, politicians, and national leaders, was instantly dismissed as the rambling of a deranged mind, of a grotesque clown, much like most of his other statements, many of which have now been proven to be true. Environmentalism So Radical It Borders on Terrorism Environmentalism, influenced by the left wing, has been quite radical since its inception. The slogan, No Compromise in Defense of Mother Earth, belongs to the Earth First group. These movements are often so extreme that they devolve into violence and lawbreaking. In 1992, its more radical members initiated a splinter group called the Earth Liberation Front, ELF, utilizing arson as a tactic. By late 2000, nine luxury mansions on Long Island, USA were burned to the ground overnight. The reason was that they were built in a natural peach orchard. The Earth Liberation Front, this notorious eco-terrorist organization, as per their usual modus operandi, brazenly left a message on the ground after the arson. If you build it, we will burn it. In 2005, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, declared the Earth Liberation Front the top domestic terrorism threat in the United States, citing it had committed over 1,200 criminal incidents, causing more than $10 million in damages. Environmentalist Michael Schellenberger stated, And then all the status and virtue signaling you see is people wanting to feel better about themselves for psychological reasons as well as political reasons, by condemning others for eating meat, flying in airplanes, driving cars, or using plastic straws. I think the most powerful driver is that environmentalism has become the dominant secular religion of educated people who no longer believe in God, people who are not religious in a traditional way. And when you don't have that, you start looking for ways to essentially condemn the whole world. So there is something about the apocalyptic environmental narrative that is profoundly depressing. It is very negative and filled with genuine anger and hatred toward the incredible wealth and civilization we enjoy today. Is environmentalism making people depressed? Or are depressed people attracted to environmentalism? I think we have to reconsider that. Paul Watson, a co-founder of Greenpeace who left the organization in 1977, once described the secret to the success of David McTaggart, former Greenpeace chairman, as the very secret to Greenpeace's success itself. It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true. You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth and a myth-generating machine. Patrick Moore, another co-founder of Greenpeace who dedicated immense effort to environmental protection, later resigned from his position at Greenpeace. The reason was his realization that the organization was no longer purely environmental. It had taken a left-wing political turn, morphing into an extremist group with a political agenda, where its policies were based more on political objectives than on scientific evidence. The Billionaires Club, the primary funder of radical environmentalism. Much of this extreme environmentalist behavior is utilized to justify inequitable policies. For instance, in the past, the World Bank and other development banks funded by national contributions financed bridges, roads, irrigation systems, and fertilizers for poor countries to develop. Today, those funds are diverted into various green energy sources, solar panels and batteries that do not provide the energy these nations require for development. This is highly alarming. There are undoubtedly massive financial interests behind this, such as industrial wind and industrial solar energy. These companies require three to four times more land to generate the same amount of electricity as a natural gas or nuclear plant, and they impose severe negative environmental impacts when batteries reach the end of their life cycle and are disposed of. In reality, the vast majority of climate research funding stems from the federal government and left-wing organizations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, government and international organization funds are exclusively directed toward research that advances the global warming regulatory agenda. The more severe the research findings, the more dire the warming forecasts, the greater the spending by governments and international organizations on carbon emission reductions. The more money spent, the faster a certain group enriches itself. The enormous influx of money from wealthy governments and international bodies poses a far greater threat to scientific integrity. According to the Science and Public Policy Institute, the U.S. federal government, which would wield unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation were passed, has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989. That is a smaller amount than the funds that oil and gas companies and utility companies have contributed to research. Historically, these corporations have funded both sides of the debate. For example, according to a study by The American Spectator, Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, has received approximately $6 million, primarily in government grants, including $500,000 in federal funds spent to defend him when under investigation regarding emails tied to his Climatigate scandal. Despite claiming to be watchdogs, media outlets like The Times have overlooked the government's outsized role in directing research. And they have ignored millions in contributions from left-wing organizations, contributions that, much like government funding, seek to derail the debate. In the summer of 2014, a minority report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works provided detailed information about the Billionaires Club, a network of opaque charitable foundations distributing billions of dollars to fuel climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits like the Energy Foundation and the Tides Foundation have channeled billions into far-left green groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council. This council, in turn, funnels staff into the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, which directs federal grants back into these green groups. Despite such opacity, the mainstream media largely ignored this report. Redistributing the world's wealth through climate policy, falsifying temperature records, and relocating thermometers will have zero effect on global warming. But they will have a political impact. Political regulations will not meaningfully affect CO2 worldwide in any way, because 97% of the Earth's CO2 emissions are naturally generated. The equatorial Pacific Ocean alone produces 72% of the planet's emissions. Human emissions are minuscule, and millions of years of geological evidence prove that greenhouse effect does not lead to climate change. Therefore, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent pursuing an environmental policy for nothing, and which would be detrimental if it could actually do something. Unless you believe that money was rightfully spent on political regulations serving an ulterior motive. In 2010, a leading official of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, stated, one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore. Otmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group 3 and a lead author of the IPCC's fourth assessment report 2007, said it is no longer about saving the environment, but about redistributing wealth. We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. He continued, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community, and so they must have their wealth expropriated and redistributed to the victims of their alleged crimes. Zealous UN advocates are seeking to impose a global climate reparation tax on everything from airline flights and international shipping to financial transactions and fuels. Edenhofer told a German news outlet, NZZ Amsterdam, that the Cancun Climate Summit was not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. The Cancun agreement established the Green Climate Fund to assist poor nations suffering from floods and droughts caused by global warming. The European Union, Japan and the United States spearheaded a pledge of $100 billion per year for poor countries by 2020, plus $30 billion in immediate aid. Chris Stewart, Canada's Minister of the Environment from 1997 to 1999, stated, no matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world. 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. Tim Wirth, former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs and a primary architect of Climate change is the pretext for globalism, another form of global socialism. Under the guise of environmental protection, environmentalists have drastically ramped up propaganda and the enactment of environmental legislation. As the number and scale of environmental conventions rapidly expand, environmentalism has become the primary tool to restrict the civil liberties of various nations, strip away national sovereignty, and constrain and attack free Western societies. The negotiation of environmental treaties and other international instruments increased significantly following the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. Examples include the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Furthermore, numerous calls for the establishment of a global environmental organization have fortunately not materialized. To this day, almost all international organizations have incorporated environmental protection and sustainable development issues into their working agendas. The UN has been involved in environmental concerns since the 1960s, and most UN specialized agencies have assumed environmental protection responsibilities. A host of other formal international organizations have also engaged in environmental issues, even if they primarily operate in other domains. E.g. the World Trade Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Most regional organizations are similarly involved in environmental matters. This is precisely the process of globalization, characterized by the emergence of new types of international organizations, setting various international treaties and political agendas, restricting national sovereignty, and gradually transferring sovereign power to international bodies. While international regulatory methods, rules, and structures transcend national jurisdictions, they begin a comprehensive infiltration into the social, cultural, and political lives of nations. Centralized managerial power pivots towards something akin to a global government international structure, trending toward the evolution of a world mega-government. It erodes national sovereignty, undermines the traditional moral and faith-based foundations of human society, destroys traditional culture, and subverts normal international norms. It remains a complex puzzle for medium-term economic growth prospects. You've been watching Unseen Ledger, where we turn data into insight and insight into advantage. Tell us in the comments what stories or topics you'd like us to explore next. Your perspective helps shape our next episode. If today's report gave you a new way of seeing the market, please like, share, and subscribe so you never miss what's hidden behind the numbers. Unseen Ledger, where the numbers speak, we make them confess.