The Political Origins Of The ‘Climate Change’ Scam

Written by Lynne Balzer on August 18, 2023. Posted in Current News

A Canadian oil magnate and friend of David Rockefeller, Maurice Strong [pictured] set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1992

Strong had been chairman of the 1972 Earth Day UN Conference, at which he advocated population reduction and the lowering of living standards in the interest of “saving the environment.”

Strong asked:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

He also boldly claimed:

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

Strong had helped found the Club of Rome in 1968, which incorrectly believed that Earth’s population was out of control and using up resources too fast.

Their beliefs stemmed from the mistaken idea advanced by Thomas Malthus in his 1798 essay that the world’s population would outgrow the food supply.

In his 1968 book, “The Population Bomb“, Paul Ehrlich revived Malthus’ idea.

Ehrlich predicted:

“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines.

Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.”

Although Ehrlich’s forecasts proved incorrect, many people, some of them billionaires, still believe the world’s population should be as low as one billion – not the current 7.5 billion. (Bill Gates stated this explicitly in a Ted Talk!)

They’re afraid that if Third World people get the energy they need to raise their living standards, the Earth’s population will rise further.

This couldn’t be more untrue. History has shown in every instance that when a population’s living standards increase, the birth rate decreases. This principle is known as the Demographic Transition.

The Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, stated:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill…

All these dangers are caused by human intervention…

The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Here they had hit on something to make people feel guilty for.

A well-known strategy for grabbing power that has been known and used for a long time is:

PROBLEM → REACTION → SOLUTION

Those in power create a problem or crisis that is real or imagined.

They sell this “problem” to the people using thousands of reports and articles – cleverly contrived propaganda.

The public begs for a solution, which is then handily provided by the people in power.

These solutions almost always require more regulations, more restrictions on civil liberties and freedoms, and more power given to governments.

Because global warming is a worldwide “problem”, the “solution” is too difficult for nation-states by themselves to handle. Thus, the solution to this particular “problem” is nothing short of totalitarianism on a global scale.

Just as in the book, 1984, a common enemy against which the entire planet could rally had been found. Environmentalism has been taken over and used by those who benefit from it.

The ruling elite could care less about the environment, as evidenced by their huge mansions and trips in private jets to exotic places for climate conferences.

Taking the moral high ground, the power seekers cleverly hijacked the environmental movement by claiming that only those willing to take action against climate change care about the earth.

As assistant secretary-general of the United Nations, Strong organized the IPCC and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit at which the globalist-inspired UN Agenda 21 (now “Agenda 2030”) was also conveniently established.

When asked why he didn’t run for office, Strong responded that he could get his agenda accomplished much more easily at the UN, where he could get all the money he needed, appoint anyone he wanted and push his ideas forward without interference.

An unelected bureaucrat thus created a dangerous chapter in history!

In 1995 Hubert Lamb, founder of the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia, concluded:

“Strong prefers to operate in the background. He, perhaps more than any other single person, is responsible for the development of a global agenda now being implemented throughout the world…

The fox has been given the assignment, and all the tools necessary to repair the henhouse to his liking.”

To create the science he needed to advance this political agenda, Strong set up the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would provide policy recommendations for politicians. Climate scientists were used to provide the scientific authority for the policy reports.

These IPCC scientists were permitted to consider only the IPCC’s definition of the term “climate change”, which was defined as:

“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is, in addition to natural climate variability, observed over considerable time periods.”

Notice that this definition says nothing about natural causes of climate variability.

IPCC scientists were not allowed to consider any cause of ‘climate change’ other than the human emission of CO2. In their 1995 report summary, they truthfully acknowledged that there was no clear evidence of this.

Despite their conclusion, however, the final IPCC policy report by Dr. Ben Santer reads:

“These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”

Santer completely disregarded the conclusions reached by the IPCC scientists.

Although many IPCC scientists are competent and truthful, few have had any influence over the report’s conclusions.

Their work is cherry-picked line by line by political appointees, many of whom are not scientists but activists from groups like the World Wildlife Fund.

These unscientific procedures prompted Dr. Frederick Seitz, a world-famous physicist and former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, and Rockefeller University, to write:

“In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

Several other top scientists have protested its unscientific practices, incompetence, and dishonesty in its gross exaggeration of the influence of human CO2 emissions on the climate.

See more here climatechangedispatch

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.