COP27: Who Voted For Wealth Redistribution To Save The Planet?

Politicians of all stripes and in all Western countries have been obediently parroting the official IPCC line that Climate Change science knows best and that we must prepare for the worst.

But as COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh (I refer to it as Sham in Chief) comes to an end (November 18), it’s worth noting that it was a cloaking device for the real agenda. [emphasis, links added]

As long ago as November 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, then co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, openly admitted what that agenda is. He is quoted by the Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

‘Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.’

So was the next … and the next … and the next … and the last.

Delegates are told on the COP27 Sameh Shoukry’s Presidential page that: ‘Globally, the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events are impacting the lives and livelihoods of millions of people. Rising global average temperature and rapid global warming are causing alarming consequences on human beings and all other forms of life on earth.’

All this without evidence.

The ‘Targets’ set out for COP27 in the Presidential Vision include the following:

‘A transformative adaptation agenda is needed now, one based on science and is responsive to the actual needs of countries and communities in climate vulnerable situations.

‘Action to clarify support for loss and damage, with the increasing impacts of more frequent extreme weather events, and speeding slow onset events. It is time to respond to the calls and needs for effective mechanism that delivers on the needs for action and support, in particular for those who are most vulnerable to the climate change impacts.

‘Providing, mobilising and delivering climate finance for developing countries is an urgent priority.’

It’s worth noting the dubious tactic of regurgitating claims about ‘more frequent extreme weather events’ since the IPCC itself debunked that notion – way back in 2011 – noting that man-made warming effects on climate extremes will be swamped by natural climate variability.

But who cares? Who will fact-check the COP27 President?

It was always the real agenda of climate activists to change the world for the better by redistributing income from wealthy capitalist nations to impoverished nations of the Third World.

Some, like sly old China, are actually first-world powers, but hunger for victim status when it comes to ripping off the West.

This raises a consequential question for politics: given that political campaigns and major policy decisions are regularly made – at considerable social and economic pain viz energy, etc – based on the (unproven) scientific assumptions about the dangers of ‘climate change’, are politicians incompetent and ignorant of the facts?

Or perhaps they are complicit in the sleight of hand with policies that are not about curbing global temperatures (if it were a true premise) but about making western nations poorer and weaker?

In other words, are policy decisions made on false pretenses? Did the electorate vote on the redistribution of wealth via climate and energy policies?

Or on the (laughably) false belief that we are saving the planet from overheating? The big lie or the big stupid?

I believe that politicians are feeble and incompetent rather than so massively corrupt (dishonest) as to hoist this agenda on an innocently ignorant voting public who never signed up for it.

But time’s up and political advisors should begin devising new advice based on the known facts, so voters are not misled so egregiously.

‘Save the planet – vote for wealth distribution.’

‘Vote to be poor so the world’s poor can get richer.’

Of course, it is not only Australian politicians (of all parties) but the politicians of the whole Western world who have been sucked into this sham.

The special irony for Australia, though, is that if it is fossil fuel emissions that are the danger, ours is the least relevant, at around 1 percent.

So even if you were convinced that carbon dioxide (emitted when making energy) is a pollutant and warms the planet, with just a few years left of life on Earth … you can’t seriously believe that our drastic economy-destroying policies can be justified?

The total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.04 percent. Man-made carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is about 0.0012 percent; Australia’s contribution to that is 0.000012 percent.

You don’t have to be a mathematician or a scientist to realize that our coal has nothing to do with the climate changing.

While 30,000 ‘Climate Change’ activist industry delegates swarmed to Sharm el Sheikh, blinded by faith and hope for change, elsewhere, the real world was hunkering down to cope with energy shortages and inflation, and the coming northern winter.

The false assumption about fossil fuel emissions as the driver of warming has been sold with spectacular if fateful success. And a large dose of dishonesty.

Read more at Spectator AU