UN’s Climate Agenda is so extreme its experts can’t defend It
idly became involved in policyrelevant research, a purpose to which she remains committed today. She has assisted in national, European and international policy development relating to combating stratospheric ozone depletion, acid deposition, eutrophication, and ( since 2002) climate change. In particular, her former work at the NOAA Environmental Research Laboratories provided evidence on the environmental acceptability of CFC substitutes, leading to inclusion of fluorocarbons in the Kyoto Protocol, winning the NOAA Aeronomy Laboratories Outstanding
“As the above description makes clear, we are not dealing with a ‘ denier’ or a ‘ stooge for Big Oil’ here. Warren is a leader among scientists who are advising governments on various policies through which they can intervene in the market to reduce emissions from businesses.
“Given her background, it is extremely revealing to see that Warren [and co-authors] have a 2018 paper titled, ‘The Economics of 1.5 C Climate Change.’ Now because I know just how ludicrous (given standard modeling assumptions) this latest UN target is, I was curious to see how Warren and her co-authors could possibly try to justify it.
“The reader can hopefully appreciate my shock when I read
abstract of their paper: ‘ The economic case for limiting warming to 1.5 C is unclear, due to manifold uncertainties. However, it cannot be ruled out that the 1.5
“Believe it or not, the authors — including a lead author on the
UN special report which advises governments on how to hit the 1.5 C limit — are arguing that because we understand this area so poorly, for all we know the UN target makes economic sense.
“Is that the slam- dunk ‘ consensus science’ that citizens have been assured undergirds the suggested power grabs? Hardly.
“This is profoundly disturbing. If the lead author of the IPCC’s report on 1.5 C warming cannot justify the policy goal, why is the UN led by the secretary general forcing it down the throat of the whole world with talk of a climate apocalypse?
“Where are the scientists who will defend the UN’s climate agenda against scientists who believe the contrary. And why won’t Secretary General Antonio Guterres convene a meeting (summit?) of scientists, both pro or contra its climate agenda, to discuss conclusively the facts and myths behind the climate controversy?”
Goal is to destroy capitalism
also on record saying that the real goal of the climate agenda is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism.
The government leaders and activists who are attending COP 25 in Madrid this December do so under the illusion that they are working to save the world or the environment. This is the standard narrative.
Critics contend that the UN climate agenda is really about power and wealth. More precisely, it is about getting the power to redistribute global wealth — through carbon taxes, carbon pricing, carbon trading, and carbon regulation, etc. UN
At a news conference in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC), admitted that the UNFCCC has a goal not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually:
history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of
period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
She is not alone. Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, a name in climate policy circles, says frankly, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
From 2008 to 2015 Dr. Edenhofer was co-chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on “Mitigation of Climate Change.”
In an interview in 2010, Dr. Edenhofer candidly declared, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole… We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
All this makes plain that all the talk about man-made global warming and climate change is about politics — socialist, collectivist politics — masquerading under the false labels of science and environmental concern.