Deliberate actions to propagate a false narrative about “dangerous anthropogenic warming” were written into AGENDA 21 by Maurice Strong and other motivated globalists at the second Earth Summit in 1992. This set up an important question — how to promulgate a credible narrative based on an unsubstantiated assumption that human activity emissions are “dangerous”?
The answer for the United Nations (UN) was and remains the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Although there are many other avenues of deception to be addressed in future columns, the formation of the IPCC made it the central vehicle for advancing the narrative and achieving de facto power. For the 166 countries that signed on, the IPCC validates the existing climate science while, at the same time, creates fear by demonizing carbon dioxide.
Let me explain.
The IPCC was formed in 1992 to provide periodic assessments, lengthy reports, and analysis by legitimate scientists writing about topics in their “section.” In fact, scientist Ken Green, a Fellow of the Fraser Institute and frequent science resource on CBC (who has edited many of my Commentaries), contributed to the Third Assessment. He assures me the content is accurate. This legitimizes the IPCC and allows the UN to claim its science is unassailable.
However, (just to help us along), the UN also publishes a “Summary for Policy Makers”, a 30 page or so “interpretation” of the assessment which follows, often months later. The intelligent and deceptive folks at the UN quite rightly assume that neither politicians nor media would ever slog through the lengthy detailed reports, often highly technical. So, (out of goodness of their agenda driven hearts) the summaries are loaded up with evocative language, fearsome forecasts, imminent catastrophes, and so forth.
This is what gets reported, influencing public opinion, and impacting climate policy.
Clever, insidious, and reprehensible.
The summaries are political documents crafted in a large hall with every country which signed on present, approving every sentence. Can one imagine 160+ politicians doing that? Excerpts of an Economist magazine article in the May 10, 2014, issue entitled “Inside the Sausage Factory,” the process was described by a participant as “exceptionally frustrating,” and by another as “one of the most extraordinary experiences in my academic life.”
Further from the Economist (a climate crisis believer), “It works as follows. The authors write a draft summary. Each sentence of the draft is projected onto a big screen in a giant hall. Officials then propose changes to the text; authors decide whether the changes are justified according to the full thousand(s) page report. Eventually a consensus is supposed to be reached, the sentence is approved or rejected, the chairman bangs the gavel and moves on to the next sentence.”
Robert Stavins, a professor at Harvard University, a lead author on the chapter in the main report dealing with international cooperation, wrote to the report’s chairman to “express my disappointment and frustration,” and as he pointed out, “any text considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations (the forthcoming Paris Accord in 2015) was treated as unacceptable.” The requirement of unanimity resulted in three-quarters of “his original draft rejected, and what remains is a list of disconnected facts, not a guide to the state of knowledge.”
Another professor, John Broome of Oxford, had his assessment work “Badly mauled and their content much diminished.” He described himself as “angry at the delegations and astonished by the process.”
“Dr. Stavins remarked ‘having a report reviewed by officials who are themselves interested parties’ created an irreconcilable conflict of interest.”
Donna Laframboise, a Canadian journalist, has written two entire books about the IPCC. She adamantly confirms the obvious fact that the summaries are political documents written by politicians or officials of every country present. The science is valid; the process is nefarious.
Do we need a United Nations that deliberately misleads member countries? This audacious scheme has been the single most significant reason that much of the world takes, as a given, that there is a “climate crisis.”
People should be afraid, alright, as governments, especially the United Nations, seek to control our lives and beliefs. The real fear has nothing to do with the climate.
Socialists are smart, brazen, persistent, and a real threat to our freedom and prosperity.