The UN is using climate change as a tool not an issue

Christiana FigueresChristiana FigueresIt’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It’s not surprising.

We have been subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years.

In January 1970, Life magazine, based on “solid scientific evidence”, claimed that by 1985 air pollution would reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth by half. In fact, across that period sunlight fell by between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. In a 1971 speech, Paul Ehrlich said: “If I were a gambler I would take even money that ­England will not exist in the year 2000.”

Fast forward to March 2000 and David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, told The Independent, “Snowfalls are now a thing of the past.” In December 2010, the Mail Online reported, “Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain”.

We’ve had our own busted predictions. Perhaps the most preposterous was climate alarmist Tim Flannery’s 2005 observation: “If the computer records are right, these drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia.” Subsequent rainfall and severe flooding have shown the records or his analysis are wrong. We’ve swallowed dud prediction after dud prediction. What’s more, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which we were instructed was the gold standard on global warming, has been exposed repeatedly for ­mis­rep­resentation and shoddy methods.

Weather bureaus appear to have “homogenised” data to suit narratives. NASA’s claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record was revised, after challenge, to only 38 per cent probability. Extreme weather events, once blamed on global warming, no longer are, as their frequency and intensity decline.

Why then, with such little evidence, does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?

In Brussels last February she said, “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.”

In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.

Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or ­disagreement.

Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travellers. As Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says: “Even if the ­(climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

Having gained so much ground, eco-catastrophists won’t let up. After all, they have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House. They have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media (the ABC and Fairfax in Australia) to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.

They will continue to present the climate change movement as an independent, spontaneous consensus of concerned scientists, politicians and citizens who believe human activity is “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming. (“Extremely likely” is a scientific term?)

And they will keep mobilising public opinion using fear and appeals to morality. UN support will be assured through promised wealth redistribution from the West, even though its anti-growth policy prescriptions will needlessly prolong poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy for the world’s poorest.

Figueres said at a climate ­summit in Melbourne recently that she was “truly counting on Australia’s leadership” to ensure most coal stayed in the ground.

Hopefully, like India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Tony Abbott isn’t listening. India knows the importance of cheap energy and is set to overtake China as the world’s leading importer of coal. Even Germany is about to commission the most coal-fired power stations in 20 years.

There is a real chance Figueres and those who share her centralised power ambitions will succeed. As the UN’s December climate change conference in Paris approaches, Australia will be pressed to sign even more futile job-destroying climate change treaties.

Resisting will be politically difficult. But resist we should. We are already paying an unnecessary social and economic price for empty gestures. Enough is enough.

Maurice Newman is chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council. The views expressed here are his own.

Source

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (8)

  • Avatar

    Will Scribe

    |

    “…Computer models
    Cannot possibly predict,
    The physics not sorted
    To allow that edict;
    But that is ignored,
    You could say it’s denied,
    (Isn’t that the term used
    If you haven’t complied?)…”

    In the land of the blind the one eyed politician is king, read more: http://wp.me/p3KQlH-CL

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    The UN is nothing but a disparate collection of corrupt tyrants, thugs, and con men.

    Now they tell us we should trust them to “solve” climate change as we accept a new world order with them in charge.

    At least Hitler could make the trains run on time… These incompetent fools couldn’t organize a one-car funeral parade!

  • Avatar

    Stale Snipsoyr

    |

    Just look at our recent history. You don’t have to be a scientist to see that there has been some major climate changes, not so long ago. First, something must have brought forth the melting from the last ice-age, 10 to 11 000 yeas ago. Then we had the roman warmth period, some 2000 years ago, the medeaval warmth period, for about 1000 years ago and the little ice-age, that so called ended about just 250 years ago. I mean that the little Ice-age is still with us, and the warming in the 80’s and 90’s was just a step from recovering from the little ice-age. What the former coldspell, warmth/climate change alarmists does, is pure bullshit. Of cause there are climate change, always been, allways will. The ideal is tropical climate all over the globe

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The Australian (Maurice Newman ) has got it absolutely spot on .

    The Climate Hustle is pure and simply a play to put $$ Trillions in the hands of the UN
    (or it’s soon to be named subsidiary ).

    Australia will have a lot of other country allies
    to tell the Climate Conmen to take a hike .

  • Avatar

    victoria

    |

    This article is as incendiary as he claims of the opinions on climate change.

    Any biological system has proven more complex than our scientific methods have allowed for.

    Because Newtonian physics doesn’t explain the story and quantum physics seems to provide different answers doesn’t mean we throw out the concept of gravity.

    Same applies to economists who typicallyare highly inaccurate at predicting economic events.

    Likewise climate change is complex so he is throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this article. Because some predictions havent been accurate doesn’t mean we don’t have a global climate event going on.

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      The totality of your statement means nothing more than my opinion is at least as good as yours. Were you trying to say something ? It’s amazing how few of you understand logic and rhetoric.

      • Avatar

        DrewskiI

        |

        Yes Jaypeeing,
        All (as in every single one) of the world’s space, atmosphere and earth science organizations PLUS all of America’s defense organizations PLUS hundreds of university presidents are complete idiots in regards to logic.

        Clearly, they don’t understand the logic of saying that “hundreds of billions” means something completely different.

        • Avatar

          Me

          |

          PPM Coolwhip, Power Prestige, and Money. If that doesn’t motivate people to do what they do then they are natural saints. 😉

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.