There IS a Climate Crisis - it Just Isn’t What You Think It Is.
Part 3 - The Real Crisis
From the IPCC’s inauguration, Bert Bolin and his team worked hard to get The First Assessment Report (FAR) published in 1990 in time for a meeting of the UN General Assembly.
The report of Working Group 1 said everything the believers in global warming could have hoped for. It was not only certain that there was a greenhouse effect but that it was enhanced by emissions from human industrial activities which would require an immediate reduction. It went on to talk in detail about temperature change rates. It was all fairly dramatic. However, it also went on to admit that the 20th Century temperature rises were largely due to natural variability which appeared to contradict what it had earlier said. To add more confusion, it further said that natural and other human factors could have offset a larger human-induced warming. Finally, it conceded that it would not be possible to reach a firm view for a decade or more. One passage said that although the evidence points to a real but irregular warming over the last century…
‘A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific portion of the recent smaller warming to an increase of greenhouse gases.'
However, none of this uncertainly was contained in the Summary for Policy Makers.
Professor Richard Lindzen reviewed the report in 1992 and this was a central criticism he made. He noted how it was startlingly different from the scientific content. He had this to say of the Summary for Policymakers:
‘It largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science.’
He went on to make more criticisms, particularly of the computer models used which were inadequate in his view because they took no account of cloud cover and completely ignored water vapour which is by far the most abundant and effective of the greenhouse gases. The models used agreed far more with each other, even after tuning, than any of them did with the real world.
None of this stopped the bandwagon rolling on towards the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. If Bolin had been in the driver’s seat moving towards the IPCC, the Earth Summit was very much the child of Maurice Strong. As a lifelong believer in World Government and the need to redress the balance between the rich and poor nations it was perfect for his belief that environmentalism, in particular climate change, would be the ideal tool to further his aims because he thought the world’s poorer nations would be the hardest hit by it.
The world had never seen anything like the gathering in Rio for the UN Conference on Environment and Development. Although it also included biodiversity it was, in the main, the ‘global convention’ on climate change called for by the UNEP and WMO at the Villach conference in 1985. The leading environmental campaign groups lent their influence. Greenpeace, Friends of The Earth, WWF and so on were all there, many of them having received UN funding to drum up interest and support. It worked. More than 20,000 activists turned up and politicians from 172 countries flew down to Rio, including no fewer than 108 Prime Ministers and Presidents from George H W Bush to Fidel Castro. Prior to the summit, the Prince of Wales hosted a reception onboard the Royal Yacht Britannia for influential delegates, including the President of Brazil. Ten thousand representatives from the media turned up for the shindig. It was the largest political get-together in history by far.
Politicians from 154 countries queued to sign to sign the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which would commit industrialised countries to reduce their future CO2 emissions. Whilst it was voluntary at this stage it was envisaged that a future series of treaties or protocols would set mandatory targets. For Strong it was a historic moment for humanity. For the campaigners against global warming, it was a heady moment. Everything they had worked for had been raised to the top of the global political agenda in barely four years since the campaign had begun in earnest. And, let us not forget, it was from this that UN Agenda 21 was born.
Thus was the world set on the road to the Kyoto protocol and the continuing series of annual meetings known as the Conference of the Parties (COPs) which aim to keep the pressure on governments to implement the supposedly necessary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change propaganda became a part of everyday life as governments across the world saw to it that the message appeared everywhere: in the news; in companies’ policies and advertisements; in television and radio documentaries and in dramas; in universities and colleges and in schools from the earliest age.
It became virtually impossible to escape it as every organisation, both public and private, rushed to be seen to have an acceptable climate policy. Supra-national organisations from the UN to the World Economic Forum and various billionaire foundations disseminated their climate propaganda direct to local governments and businesses. We now have a generation around the world who have been assailed by this climate propaganda for their entire lives. As the climate campaigners moved on to calling it a ‘Climate Crisis’ and claiming that there are ‘only ten years to save the planet’ it is no surprise that many young people are showing signs of serious psychological damage. Some of them really believe that they don’t have a future and they will be dead before long. The activities of such billionaire-funded protest groups as Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil and the performances of Greta Thunberg keep many of them in a state of fear.
During the ‘Climate Change Age’ we have seen governments in Western countries encourage and preside over huge increases in third-world immigration, the 'dumbing-down’ of education and increases in house prices to levels which all but makes them unaffordable to many young couples. In turn there has been an adverse effect on family formation and birth rates are below replacement. From 2008 until recently it has been at a time of unprecedentedly low interest rates, which have encouraged many to take on levels of debt they could not have supported in earlier decades, and which have fuelled a dramatic increase in property prices.
All the while it was against a backdrop of enduring financial crises and huge increases in national debts, made much worse by the policies followed during the Covid years. At the same time the rise of the internet age has made information about anywhere in the world available to anyone in the world. This has provided a significant impetus to the desire of many people to migrate. All these factors have come together to create a ‘polycrisis’ in the developed Western nations – just as they were intended to do. Chief among them are the series of crises that are a direct result of the UN’s climate change campaign.
The first, and the major crisis, is that the widely adopted policy of Net Zero CO2 emissions has led to an energy crisis. It is not the war in Ukraine that has brought this about but decades of misguided energy policies of Western countries in response to the demands of the UN IPCC.
In the United Kingdom, we have failed to ‘frack’ for the natural gas which lies under our very feet; we have closed coal mines and refused to allow new ones; we have not only closed coal-fired power stations, we have demolished them; we have failed to give the go-ahead for the network of small modular reactor (SMR) power stations proposed by Rolls Royce; we have embarked on the ending of North Sea oil and gas extraction. The United Kingdom could be energy independent. It is not remotely going to be under Starmer and Miliband.
Second, the folly of the widespread adoption of wind and solar power, both of which always require gas-fired or nuclear back-up, is ruining the beauty and utility of countless square miles of our islands, off-shore and on-shore. Called ‘renewables’ by the government, a more appropriate collective name would be ‘unreliables’. They are an environmental disaster. They require energy from oil, gas and coal to manufacture them. The wind turbines have the area around them cleared of wildlife before construction; their bases are enormous blocks of ferro-concrete which will be in the ground forever; they kill countless numbers of birds and bats; they cannot be re-cycled at the end of their 20 to 25-year lives – they go into landfill.
Solar panels require rare earth metals in their manufacture. As they degrade over their 25 to 40 year lives, and through manufacturing defects, heavy metals such as cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, tin, and zinc can be released into the environment. Even if a Solar Farm is removed from land, the assumption that the land can easily be converted back to agricultural use is not always valid. Soil fertility will need to be restored, a check conducted for heavy metal levels that might limit plant growth, and the soil checked for hardpans. It may take many years. To be fair, ‘agrivoltaics’ may offer a solution. This is an arrangement in which the panels are mounted high on gantries to allow stock grazing and/or crop growing to take place beneath them. However, it doesn’t seem to have caught on in Britain yet and, besides, the corporate interests seeking the land for solar farms call the shots.
The third crisis which is related to the above is that green taxes to subsidise the so-called ‘renewables’ are distorting peoples’ household economics and reducing their opportunities for work and life because energy bills are far higher than they need to be. Our electricity costs in the UK are more than twice that of the USA.
Fourth, because of these ‘green taxes’ wealth is being transferred upwards in subsidies for the renewables which would not be economically viable without them.
Fifth, wealth is also being sucked upwards through the closure of small and medium-sized businesses during the Covid episode. They were seriously disrupted, and many could not afford the increased energy charges. Their places in the markets have been taken by the major corporations. New small businesses – the main route to economic independence for most people - find it difficult to start.
Sixth, constant talk of climate change is fuelling migration. Although it is not the only thing doing so, some people see this as sufficient motive to move from their own homelands and settle in other people’s homelands. Those who don’t migrate think they can demand financial compensation from the countries deemed to be the main causers of that climate change.
Seventh, and related to the sixth, there is little or no fossil-fuel-powered development for Africa. This will have a disastrous effect on millions, maybe in the future billions, of African people whose development will be denied and many of whom will continue to endure illness-plagued short lives because they must burn wood inside their huts and houses for cooking and warmth at night. This will provide even more impetus for migration for a better life.
Eighth, because of the deliberate dumbing down of education at all levels so many younger people are so poorly educated. They have not been taught how to think; they have been told what to think, even at university level. Thus, too many lack the ability to think critically, do their own research and draw their own conclusions. Not all, thankfully, but far too many fit this description and live their lives within a world of comfortable group-think.
Ninth, outrageous psychological damage has been done by ‘climate crisis’ propaganda to countless young people across the West who have been convinced that their lives will be cut short. Many believe they should not bring their own children into a world which has but a short time to exist thus contributing to our declining birth rates.
Tenth, and last, there is not a single government in the democratic Western world which views the whole business in a sceptical manner let alone in a realistic, factual one.
Those, dear readers, are the real climate crises, the result of a United Nations driven, unholy marriage between extreme wealth and international Marxism.
It is not about the climate. It never was, really. If it were, would the absurd, over-theatrical figure of the child Greta Thunberg ever have been introduced? Climate is merely the tool for something far more sinister. If you doubt me, here again are some of the rogues in their own words.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised nations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about….” Maurice Strong, UN IPCC funder and Canadian communist, 2012.
“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, trying to change the economic development model (free market capitalism) that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution….” Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2018.
“One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. (What we are doing) has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy de facto to redistribute the World’s wealth….”
“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which redistribution of the World’s resources will be negotiated…” Dr Ottomar Edenhofer (Co-chairman, UN IPCC Working Group III) 2018
There you have it.
I’ll give the last word to the late Baroness Margaret Thatcher who recanted from her original position in her 2002 autobiography:
“The doomsters’ favourite subject today is climate change,” she wrote. “Clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.”