Science Meets UN Agenda 21, Eugenics and Population Control
Scientists, like other professionals, are increasingly aware that the UN, man-made global warming and forced mass human sterilization have long been lumped together in the name of “sustainable development.” That there is growing concern about this cannot be dismissed as mere conspiracy theorizing – it is based in fact. Indeed, no less than 178 nations gathered in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro at the first ever UN Conference on Sustainability and the Environment and rubberstamped the UN’s proposals on this.
More than 20 years on and the scientific arguments appear irredeemably tainted by politics. In this article we address some of the key issues and present the basic facts hoping it may serve as a guide for more informed rational discussion.
In essence,Agenda 21 is a UN program that references fears about our global environment as the rationale to advance three key UN policy documents: the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests; and Agenda 21. Here the United Nations defines Agenda 21:
“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”
Not only is Agenda 21 of increasing concern to libertarians and many civil rights supporters it is having an impact in the scientific community as well. In 2009, as Lord Christopher Monckton revealed, global warming science had become the chosen vehicle to compel nations to cede their democratic sovereignty to the UN. Monckton warned that nowhere does the UN refer to the words “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” and independent scientists saw little, if any, merit in those scientific arguments that were touted as the catalyst for wholesale reforms of our modern industrial lifestyle.
Government (politicized) scientists argued that the proper metric for “sustainable development” is not just how many people are alive but about the amount of carbon dioxide each individual will be permitted to add “unnaturally” to the environment. Implicit in all this is an assumption that humans are somehow “unnatural” agents in the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. It is by thus by sophistry that you buy into human “unnaturalness” and become sold on the proposition that adding more CO2 by way of industrial emissions will, in turn, supposedly causes global temperatures to rise dangerously. But as the tens of thousands of emails leaked during the Climategate scandal showed, the preponderance of government science is not necessarily trustworthy. Most, if not all, is conducted behind closed doors, ‘pal reviewed’ in secret by faceless journal officials and deeply mistrusted by independent scientists who adhere to the traditional scientific method that demands openness and transparency over bold scientific-sounding claims.
A growing bugbear for unaligned scientists is the questionable key assumption built into the so-called ‘greenhouse gas theory’ telling us that releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere will cause higher temperatures. However, the preponderance of the actual evidence from scientists shows levels of CO2 only rise AFTER temperatures rise. Thus, the rise in atmospheric CO2 cannot be the cause of the warming – it is merely a natural after effect (e.g. warming oceans are shown to give off more CO2 into the air).
Regardless of the failings in the science, governments and the UN have pressed ahead with imposed CO2 reduction and those most embroiled in the battle over Agenda 21 are wealthier western nations. Notable among governments pressing for such policies are the UK and Australia (closely followed by the U.S.). While nations such as Canada have, say cynics, “wised up” and pulled out completely from such “sustainable” policies because they are seen as anti-competitive, unpopular and “solutions” to a non-problem.
Critics of Agenda 21 have been most effective in the blogosphere where there is more open discussion than seen in the mainstream media. Doubters have been successful in pinpointing where Agenda 21 is likely to worry many people. Among them is the imposition of limits on private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately-owned farms.
Defenders of the UN position assert that Agenda 21 is carefully drafted to assuage such fears and insist nothing should be taken out of context. Pointedly, UN spokes persons claim Agenda 21 is “not even an ‘agenda.’” However, cynics retort that if Agenda 21 isn’t truly an agenda then why could the UN not fix the name. Here’s a taster of what the UN says:
“It is kind of hard to find anything controversial in there because the document very deliberately eschewed controversy. And nothing in this document compels a state, local or national government to do anything. It is not treaty and it has no force of law.”
Nonetheless, few people are buying such assurances. Instead, they are looking more closely at what the leading figures in the Agenda 21 movement are saying. One such figure is Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chair of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), and Clerk of the Circuit and County Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Ruvin has gone on record to state that “individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” in the process of implementing Sustainable Development, hardly words of comfort. “Collectivism” is a buzz word for communism and is either another poor of terms or betrays the true intent of the UN hierarchy.
In 1987, Vice President of the World Socialist Party Gro Harlem Brundtland published a UN report entitled “Our Common Future,” that advanced the cause of un-elected, one-world government. Critics say that the growth of ICLEI and the creation of Agenda 21 is a step toward bringing Brundtland’s ideas to life. After all, the term “sustainable development” was first coined by Brundtland.
Mass sterilization fears reared their ugly head again in the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief in which the big question for the UN was:
“What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?”
The document makes an inextricable link between the (discredited) science of CO2 warming (aka: the ‘greenhouse gas theory) and population control.We see this laid out in great detail in the UN Population Fund annual State of the World Population Report for 2009 entitled “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate” and tells us:
- “Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time.”
- “No human is genuinely “carbon neutral,” especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way.”
- “Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns.”
One independent science body, Principia Scientific International, (PSI) has proven that the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) was widely accepted as being junk by mainstream scientists even before 1974. Indeed, as far back as 1951 one of the best authorities on the subject, the American Meteorological Society (AMS). in it’s Compendium of Meteorology, dismissed the very idea of any GHE as “discarded.” [1]
Somehow, perhaps due to it’s political usefulness, the “theory” came back into favor among government climatologists in the 1980’s.
The Role of Government Science Advisers
From the 1980’s the rise of ‘post-normal’ science has brought with it the claim that when the science is unclear it is to scientific authority (i.e. government science) we should trust. In this regard a leading spokesman for the environmental movement, James Lovelock (creator of the Gaia hypothesis), pushed hard for that cause. Lovelock made it clear that for the UN to achieve it’s objectives then “democracy must be put on hold” and the people bow down to the rule of a chosen few.
Today few would doubt that of those in ultimate authority is President of the United States, Barack Obama. Obama has appointed John P. Holdren, as his topscience adviser and Holdren has set about pursuing science policy that fits the Agenda 21 plan he detailed in his co-authored textbook entitled “Ecoscience” (1977). The plan is stated as mass sterilization, compulsory abortion, a one world government and a global police force to enforce population control.
On page 837 of Ecoscience, compulsory abortion will be made legal under the U.S. Constitution….
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
On pages 942 and 943 Holdren calls for a “planetary regime” that would control the entire global economy. Holdren stated: “The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade.”
But if the world is to embrace authoritarian science andf forego the old fashioned ideals of openness and verifiability set out by traditional scientists such as Karl Popper, we should be most mindful of who is put in charge.
Among those who founded the Agenda 21 movement and who remain active in seeking its full implementation is controversial billionaire Maurice Strong. Mr. Strong is wanted by Canadian authorities on criminal charges but fled to China to evade prosecution.
Because of concerns about how government science is conducted and of the character of those leaders who implement it, independent scientists such as those at PSI insist proper safeguards must be in place. One such safeguard is to apply the strict code of the traditional scientific method as set out by Popper and actively championed by Principia Scientific International. It is necessary that a free world has such sentinels of science so that political zealotry and bias will find it more diffcult to sustain a scientific-sounding but flawed narrative to unjustly and immorally impose eugenics and population control on us.
Related articles:
ICLEI Agenda 21 the Debate Continues (boomerblaze.com)
Rep. Herger is wrong about Agenda 21 (junkscience.com)
Agenda 21 – ICLEI Citizens Have their Say (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
Agenda 21, sustainable development is not what you think, part 2… (wdednh.wordpress.com)
Agenda 21, Donna Holt (mountainrepublic.net)
Agenda 21: The End of Western Civilisation (junkscience.com)
Obama’s Seizure of the Heartland, Executive Order 13575, Laying the Groundwork for Agenda 21 (xoutsocialism.wordpress.com)
Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot (climate-connections.org)
Professor Explains Why Planners Have to Take Agenda 21 More Seriously (treehugger.com)
Paranoia strikes deep: GOP exposes ‘dangerous’ U.N. sustainability plot (grist.org)
Trackback from your site.