Politicians of all stripes and in all Western countries have been obediently parroting the official IPCC line that Climate Change science knows best and that we must prepare for the worst. But as COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh (I refer to it as Sham in Chief) comes to an end (November 18), it’s worth noting that it was a cloaking device for the real agenda.

As long ago as November 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, then co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, openly admitted what that agenda is. He is quoted by the Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

‘Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.’

So was the next … and the next … and the next … and the last.

Delegates are told on the COP27 Sameh Shoukry’s Presidential page that: ‘Globally, the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is impacting the lives and livelihoods of millions of people. Rising global average temperature and rapid global warming are causing alarming consequences on human beings and all other forms of life on earth.’ All this without evidence.

The ‘Targets’ set out for COP27 in the Presidential Vision includes the following:

‘A transformative adaptation agenda is needed now, one based on science and is responsive to the actual needs of countries and communities in climate vulnerable situations.

‘Action to clarify support for loss and damage, with the increasing impacts of more frequent extreme weather events, and speeding slow onset events. It is time to respond to the calls and needs for effective mechanism that delivers on the needs for action and support, in particular for those who are most vulnerable to the climate change impacts.

‘Providing, mobilising and delivering climate finance for developing countries is an urgent priority.’

It’s worth noting the dubious tactic of regurgitating claims about ‘more frequent extreme weather events’ since the IPCC itself debunked that notion – way back in 2011 – noting that man-made warming effects on climate extremes will be swamped by natural climate variability. But who cares? Who will fact check the COP27 President?

It was always the real agenda of climate activists to change the world for the better by redistributing income from wealthy capitalist nations to impoverished nations of the third-world. Some, like sly old China, are actually first-world powers, but hunger for victim status when it comes to ripping off the West.

This raises a consequential question for politics: given that political campaigns and major policy decisions are regularly made – at considerable social and economic pain viz energy etc – based on the (unproven) scientific assumptions about the dangers of ‘climate change’, are politicians incompetent and ignorant of the facts? Or perhaps are they complicit in the sleight of hand with policies that are not about curbing global temperatures (if it were a true premise) but about making western nations poorer and weaker? In other words, are policy decisions made on false pretences? Did the electorate vote on the redistribution of wealth via climate and energy policies? Or on the (laughably) false belief that we are saving the planet from overheating? The big lie or the big stupid?

I believe that politicians are feeble and incompetent rather than so massively corrupt (dishonest) as to hoist this agenda on an innocently ignorant voting public who never signed up for it. But time’s up and political advisors should begin devising new advice based on the known facts, so voters are not misled so egregiously. ‘Save the planet – vote for wealth distribution.’ ‘Vote to be poor so the world’s poor can get richer.’

Of course, it is not only Australian politicians (of all parties) but the politicians of the whole Western world who have been sucked into this sham. The special irony for Australia, though, is that if it is fossil fuel emissions that are the danger, ours is the least relevant, at around 1 per cent. So even if you were convinced that carbon dioxide (emitted when making energy) is a pollutant and warms the planet, with a just a few years left of life on earth … you can’t seriously believe that our drastic economy-destroying policies can be justified.

Total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.04 per cent. Man-made carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is about 0.0012 per cent; Australia’s contribution to that is 0.000012 per cent. You don’t have to be a mathematician or a scientist to realise that our coal has nothing to do with the climate changing.

While 30,000 ‘Climate Change’ activist industry delegates swarmed to Sharm el Sheikh, blinded by faith and hope for change, elsewhere, the real world was hunkering down to cope with energy shortages and inflation, and the coming northern winter.

The false assumption about fossil fuel emissions as the driver of warming has been sold with spectacular if fateful success. And a large dose of dishonesty.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/11/who-voted-for-wealth-redistribution-to-save...

I wonder if Stanley Johnson has inadvertently blurted out a #NetZero future reality:

'If that means, actually, some of us are told, well you can't go on a plane, that's fine. That's part of the national plan.' via
@GBNews

https://mobile.twitter.com/CarterCarter/status/1591496186049036301


Schwab and the World Economic Forum

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is an international non-governmental and lobbying organisation[1] based in Cologny, canton of Geneva, Switzerland. It was founded on 24 January 1971 by German engineer and economist Klaus Schwab. The foundation, which is mostly funded by its 1,000 member companies – typically global enterprises with more than five billion US dollars in turnover – as well as public subsidies, views its own mission as "improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas"

Membership
The foundation is funded by its 1,000 member companies, typically global enterprises with more than five billion dollars in turnover (varying by industry and region). These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and/or country and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and/or region. Membership is stratified by the level of engagement with forum activities, with the level of membership fees increasing as participation in meetings, projects, and initiatives rises.[49] In 2011, an annual membership cost $52,000 for an individual member, $263,000 for "Industry Partner" and $527,000 for "Strategic Partner". An admission fee costs $19,000 per person.[50] In 2014, WEF raised annual fees by 20 percent, bringing the cost for "Strategic Partner" from CHF 500,000 ($523,000) to CHF 600,000 ($628,000).[51]



The Great Reset
Main article: The Great Reset
In May 2020, the WEF and the Prince of Wales's Sustainable Markets Initiative launched "The Great Reset" project, a five-point plan to enhance sustainable economic growth following the global recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.[119] "The Great Reset" was to be the theme of WEF's Annual Meeting in August 2021.[120]

According to forum founder Schwab, the intention of the project is to reconsider the meaning of capitalism and capital. While not abandoning capitalism, he proposes to change and possibly move on from some aspects of it, including neoliberalism and free-market fundamentalism. The role of corporations, taxation and more should be reconsidered. International cooperation and trade should be defended and the Fourth Industrial Revolution also.[121][122]

The forum defines the system that it wants to create as "Stakeholder Capitalism". The forum support Trade unions.

Undemocratic decision making
According to the European Parliament's think tank, critics see the WEF as an instrument for political and business leaders to "take decisions without having to account to their electorate or shareholders".[148]

Since 2009, the WEF has been working on a project called the Global Redesign Initiative (GRI), which proposes a transition away from intergovernmental decision-making towards a system of multi-stakeholder governance. According to the Transnational Institute (TNI), the Forum is hence planning to replace a recognised democratic model with a model where a self-selected group of "stakeholders" make decisions on behalf of the people.[149]

Some critics have seen the WEFs attention to goals like environmental protection and social entrepreneurship as mere window dressing to disguise its true plutocratic nature and goals.[150] In a Guardian opinion piece, Cas Mudde said that such plutocrats should not be the group to have control over the political agendas and decide which issues to focus on and how to support them.[151] A writer in the German magazine Cicero saw the situation as academic, cultural, media and economic elites grasping for social power while disregarding political decision processes. A materially well-endowed milieu would in this context try to "cement its dominance of opinion and sedate ordinary people with maternalistic-paternalistic social benefits, so that they are not disturbed by the common people when they steer".[152] The French Les Echos furthermore concludes that Davos "represents the exact values people rejected at the ballot box".[153]

Corporate capture of global and democratic institutions
The World Economic Forum's "Global Redesign" report suggests to create "public-private" United Nations (UN) in which selected agencies operate and steer global agendas under shared governance systems.[6] It says that a globalised world is probably best managed by a coalition of multinational corporations, governments and civil society organizations (CSOs),[6] which it expresses through initiatives like the "Great Reset"[7] and the "Global Redesign".[9]




Let's all oder a pizza with Deliveroo....