U.N. Can’t Quit The Climate Apocalypse
Last summer, scientists announced that they had discovered more coral on the Great Barrier Reef than at any other point in the 36 years since they started measuring it.
It was an awkward moment for those who had been prematurely proclaiming the Reef’s death for over three decades.
Well, the apocalyptic powers-that-be weren’t having it.
Yesterday, a United Nations report announced that science schmience, the Reef was “in danger” and had to be protected from… the Australians.
“The mission team concludes that the property is faced with major threats that could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics, and therefore meets the criteria for inscription on the list of World Heritage in danger,” said the U.N. report authors.
Declaring the Reef a “World Heritage in danger” is viewed by many Australians as a pretext for the U.N. to demand control over it.
“Yes, climate change is a risk to ecosystems like the Great Barrier Reef,” said its environment minister, “but that means it’s a risk to every reef globally. There is no need to single the Great Barrier Reef out in this way.”
The U.N. is quickly turning into a Bond movie villain. It spreads misinformation about climate change.
It is trying to get rich nations to pay poor nations not to develop.
And it is trying to rapidly slash the use of nitrogen fertilizer around the world.
It’s enough to make one wonder what beneficial purpose the organization, beyond the Security Council, actually serves.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Header image: Rajya Sabha
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.
Charles Higley
| #
It is clear that, along with the jab population decrease program, they want to decrease the food supply. With the economic and inflationary trends they have created, the world will be poorer and more people will starve or succumb to disease. In the UN’s eyes, dying of starvation and/or disease is entirely acceptable. War is good but too local for them.
Reply