Their World, You Just Live in it

The key to understanding the global political situation at the moment appears to be rooted in events which occurred in the late Sixties and early Seventies, in particular in David Rockefeller’s, Club of Rome, and Trilateral Commission. Says author Patrick Wood:

Wood : … let me back up to the Trilateral Commission itself. This is a group that was founded by David Rockefeller, … and … Zbigniew Brzezinski was the first executive director ….  [i]

More on the Trilateral Commission and Zbigniew Brzezinski as we move along. But first the Club of Rome, which sponsored an influential book on resource consumption entitled Limits to Growth,  [ii] published in 1972. This was the first attempt at using computer simulations and projections of resource consumption and production undertaken for the Club of Rome by MIT’s Jay Forester.

In Limits to Growth the authors took an important commodity, the known unmined resources in the ground at the time, factored in the then current consumption rates and projected population growth – and ran it through the computer simulation program to project consumption into the future … and out came a graph of annual consumption and, importantly, the date when the commodity would be expected run out. They then ran the same program for a number of other key commodities, copper, lead, zinc, tin, nickel, oil, gas, coal, …   and they ended up with an “end of world” scenario, whereby all the world’s major resources would be expected to be depleted at around about the same time; that is, around the year 2000. The idea was very simple, and although the computer algorithms used were simplistic in the extreme, they were considered cutting edge at the time, and gave hard copy printouts that were convincingly authoritative.

 

In 1972, I was certainly convinced! I was one of the many deeply impressed by the Limits to Growth when it was first appeared and thinking back, it became what I would call one of my four, “Great Environmental Scares” of the early seventies.  [iii]  The biggest scare was probably the threat of a Nuclear Winter, [iv] the second Rachael Carlson’s Silent Spring, [v] and the third Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb.[vi] As it has turned out, all of these environmental scares have proved to be without foundation (so far, at least), and “Limits to Growth” and resource depletion has more or less followed on from those.

A contemporary television program screened in 1973 by Australia’s public broadcaster – the Australian Broadcasting Commission provides an excellent introductory summary of Limits To Growth, and gives some idea of its impact at the time. (for link see endnote  [vii])  Not surprisingly, the fear of resource depletion predicted in Limits to Growth essentially kicked off the whole 1970’s conservation movement, the recycling movement, and the whole “sustainability” agenda.  “Sustainability” is the key word here.

Based on the computer simulations in the Limits to Growth, the “movers and shakers” behind the Club of Rome produced the authoritative argument that major global resources would soon be depleted, and the whole of civilization would become unviable and collapse.  In order to avoid that scenario, so they told us, society would have to be totally transformed into a new “sustainable” form.  That would require a whole new set of political thinking, a whole new global polity; one that could enforce more sustainable commodity usage on an unwilling, general population.  It would necessitate the replacement of laissez faire capitalism with a totally new economic system based on resource allocation. Laissez faire capitalism, so they argued, allows the market too much freedom to decide resource allocation by the simple signals of supply and demand.  That cannot be allowed to continue. Instead, a new world economic order would allow a scientific technical elite to decide on a price of each resource which would factor in its importance and the finite nature of that resource, and allocate the resources to the most appropriate uses.  All to save the planet. The alternative, in their mind (apparently) would be complete Armageddon.

Whether they (The Club of Rome) actually believed these resource projections, or saw them simply as a means to an end for wresting political power to themselves, is a moot point. But the solution that they envisaged was essentially a command economy by another name. Of course, it is they, and only they, who should have control over all the levers of power, and ultimate control (i.e. ownership) of all the resources to make this scenario possible.

Of course, the simulations failed to predict the huge success that mining companies would have in finding more resources, the technological advances in material replacements, and new efficiency innovations, so they were way out in their timing.  But that does not appear to have lessened their resolve to effect their desired total global transformation.

In fairness one could accept the Club of Rome’s premise that there was a genuine crisis of resource depletion looming – and the perceived need for genuine global action.  However, when one reads the Club of Rome’s actual reports one is left wondering with grave doubts about what was really driving what.  Consider that David Rockefeller (founder of The Club of Rome) is reported to have said …

We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis. [viii]

Was their perceived need for a “global transformation”, predicated on a predicted, future “major crisis” – or were they, in fact, confecting a “major crisis” as an opportunity to effect their desired “global transformation”? A transformation to the end of laissez faire capitalism? A move to total control over mineral resources?  An end to representative democracy?  A move to “one world government”?  The establishment of a “New Economic Order” … with them in control?   Patrick Wood described the Club of Rome’s sister organisation, the Trilateral Commission also founded by David Rockefeller, also calling for a “new international economic order”.

Wood: We didn’t really understand it back then, but all of the literature of the Trilateral Commission, and they had an international membership by the way, Europe, Japan, and the United States, back in North America, but mostly the United States, they had as their mission to create – “a new international economic order.” That was their phrase. That was their buzz phrase – a new international economic order.  [ix]

Almost immediately, one begins to see the powerful reach of David Rockefeller, his Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission on the international stage.

Wood: The next year in 1974, the United Nations issued a general resolution from their plenary session oddly enough it was called – The Establishment of a New Economic Order. Same phrase (as used by the Club of Rome) – nobody noticed it back then. The exact same phrase.  So they (The Club of Rome) fed this to the United Nations lock stock and barrel.  [x]

Yes, to put the best possible spin on this, one could say that there did at least appear to be a genuine need for a global transformation.  However, more importantly, what the Club of Rome had realised was that what they needed was a plausible crisis, a plausible environmental crisis would fit the bill, a crisis which they could leverage up to create the conditions necessary for the suspension of democracy, allowing them the opportunity for the immediate implementation of the foreseeably unpopular, though (in their eyes) absolutely necessary, remedy  –  the end of free-market capitalism and total control of all global resources:

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 … and thus the real enemy, then, is humanity itself … believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or … one invented for the purpose. — The Club of Rome, 1991  [xi]

Humanity is the cause of resource depletion, therefore humanity must be reformed/transformed, whether we like it or not. To the Club of Rome, humanity itself is the enemy.

But it would appear that it was their agenda to  “realize world government” that was driving the need to identify or, indeed if necessary, create an “environmental crisis”, rather than the need for a “world government” to address a perceived genuine “environmental crisis.”   The end appears to be “world government” and the environmental crisis, fake or real, is seen simply as a means to that end.

The actual “crisis” to be fixed on is/was not really important – “a real one – or one invented for the purpose” – anything that would credibly spread panic and justify their use of force to bring about the transformation would do.

As other threats, the “Population Bomb”, resource depletion, Nuclear Winter, Acid Rain, Ozone Holes, all failed to hold the general public’s imagination, Global Warming (and then shortly afterwards, Climate Change) emerged as the crisis of choice. In truth, this was not so much “invented” by them because global warming/climate change had actually been raised as a potential environmental problem in its own right at the time – but definitely one that had been picked out from the suite of potential issues – and then USED by them – leveraged out of all proportion to the dangers that climate change actually represented, simply to create a panic. [xii]  The goal was to transform society around the globe, and effect one world government using concerns over the environmental as the lever.

The sweetener was that it was all ostensibly to redistribute wealth / to make resource consumption more “equitable” and “sustainable” (that word again), all under the guise of solving an environmental crisis.  Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC and UN bureaucrat speaking at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, explained the situation most clearly and explicitly …

One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  [xiii]

It is worth looking closer at the United Nations, 1992, Rio conference.  At the conference a UN study group named the Brundtland Commission presented its report, “Our Common Future,” which ultimately became the basis for the UN’s Agenda ‘21.  Perhaps not surprising, the executive chairman of the Brundtland Commission, Gro Harlem Brundtland, was  “a member of the (David Rockefeller) Trilateral Commission.“  [xiv]

And much of the rhetoric in her report was draw directly from earlier David Rockefeller / Club of Rome publications.

Wood: She created the doctrine that got fed into Agenda ’21, a resource-based economic system.  It looked exactly like technocracy from the 1930s with some of the names changed, that’s all. Not to protect the innocent, but you understand the names were changed for the sake of marketing because they couldn’t sell technocracy to anybody. So they called it “Sustainable Development”, they called it “Agenda ’21”, they called it other things since, “Natural Capitalism”, they called it “Green Economy” – they got all kinds of synonyms, but it’s the same old garbage coming straight out of the 1930s designed to capture the resources of the world for a small global elite group to control.  [xv]

The influence of the Technocracy Movement [xvi]  on David Rockefeller seems quite obvious while the influence of the David Rockefeller, Club or Rome and Trilateral Commission on the United Nations agenda is also unmistakeable.

 

At this point we can begin to step through some significant quotes that connect the beginnings of this political agenda and its evolution into its current incarnation of today. The end point is, of course, the agenda of the World Economic Forum. Just to introduce the WEF …

Wood: … the World Economic Forum had been around since, what, 1971 I think it was founded originally? Now that was just during that period of time when the Trilateral Commission was getting going …  [xvii]

Wood: The World Economic Forum has been saturated with members of the Trilateral Commission over the years – attendees.  [xviii]

The consistency of the agenda over 50 years, as expressed by a variety spokespeople and prominent, well-placed political figures is quite clear. (my emphasis)

1/  (In 1992) Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed:

“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”  [xix]

2/  In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald:

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” [xx]

3/  In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance the new global world order”:

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” [xxi]

4/ Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in The Hague, then-president Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective:

“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.” [xxii]

5/ Here is an interview, given by a CSIRO ‘scientific director’ to AAP at the Planet Under Pressure conference in London in March 2012, raising the prospect of totalitarian, global government, presumably in this instance one assumes, he acts as a spokesperson for his employers, the (Gillard) Australian Government. They never contradicted him, and seemingly neither has the Opposition. Is this really Australian Government policy that we electors simply haven’t been informed of? From Quadrant journalist extraordinaire, Tony Thomas:

Dr Stafford-Smith gave an interview from the conference to AAP on March 29 (2012):

Mark Stafford Smith, scientific director of CSIRO’s climate adaption flagship, says it’s no longer enough for individual nations to try to be sustainable.

Rather a new ‘planetary stewardship’ is needed, he says. ‘Something like a sustainable development council … in the UN system which has the same level of authority as the security council and which can drive a much more integrated approach’, Dr Stafford Smith told reporters via a phone hook-up from London…

There was now a need for a ‘constitutional moment’, like that in the 1940s which saw the establishment of the World Bank and other institutions, including the International Monetary Fund, to drive the new UN council, he said. 

After the conference, CSIRO’s Dr Smith told CSIRO interviewer Glen Paul more about his dreams for a supra-national UN council backed by the authority of the dictatorship-laden UN General Assembly. The council would assemble some sort of ‘triple helix’ as he put it, to combine economic, environmental and social engineering. This would lead to ‘a suite of universal sustainable development goals’, he said.   [xxiii]

“Social engineering.” Hmmm?   Perhaps that part hasn’t been put to the Australian electorate just yet?  One could note. however, that what Dr. Smith is suggesting provides a direct link between The Club of Rome, The Trilateral Commission and the current DEI/ESG agendas of the modern era.

 

6/         Germany ‘Sliding Head Over Heels Into Eco-Dictatorship.’

Germany’s green government advisors admit frankly that decarbonization can only be achieved by the limitation of democracy – both nationally and internationally.

 When it comes to environmental and climate policy, Germany’s Scientific Advisory Council on Global Environmental Change (WBGU) is an influential advisory committee for the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The chairman of the council is Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

All nations would have to relinquish their national interests and find a new form of collective responsibility for the sake of the climate: ‘The world citizenry agree to innovation policy that is tied to the normative postulate of sustainability and in return surrender spontaneous and persistence desires. Guarantor of this virtual agreement is a formative state […].’

This strong state provides, therefore, for the ‘social problematization’ of unsustainable lifestyles. It overcomes ‘stakeholders’ and ‘veto players’ who ‘impede the transition to a sustainable society.’  [xxiv]

 ‘Social problematization’ of unsustainable lifestyles.’ What they appear to be saying here is – you will “surrender your spontaneous and persistence desires” … and woe betide any “ ‘stakeholders’ and ‘veto players’ who try to  ‘impede the transition to a sustainable society.’

One can safely assume the “formative state” is a synonym for one-world governance.

 

And, as we arrive at the present day, we can note that the David Rockefeller, Club of Rome, itself has, in essence if not in fact, morphed through several iterations over time into the privately run, World Economic Forum. It is the same personnel, and the same agenda. From journalist Brandon Smith:

The exact same objectives the Club Of Rome outlined in the 1970s are the driving policies of the UN and the World Economic Forum today. The “sharing economy” concept that Klaus Schwab and the WEF often proudly promotes was not thought up by them, it was thought up by the Club Of Rome 50 years ago. [xxv]

Nor should one ignore the on-going influence of the David Rockefeller-founded Trilateral Commission, an affiliation of politicians and corporate executives which runs in parallel with the Club or Rome.  One should note that the Trilateral Commission is explicitly apolitical, but features politicians of all persuasions joined in promoting the same “global governance’ project. Its primary features are more in keeping with Bernie Sanders’ “Washington establishment” or Donald Trump’s “swamp” and brings to mind features of the so-called Uniparty.

Wood: Ronald Regan got elected, his running-mate was George Bush (Senior), he was a member of the (Trilateral) Commission. Then came Bush himself. He was President for four years. Then came Bill Clinton and Al Gore, both members of the Trilateral Commission, and they stuffed their cabinets with people too. Then you got into the George W. Bush administration in 2000. His running-mate, Vice President Dick Cheney was one of the most powerful members of the Trilateral Commission in that day. And the story goes on.  [xxvi]

Nor should one ignore the Trilateral Commission’s global reach :

Wood: So, eight out of ten of the Presidents of the World Bank, starting from back there going forward, were members of the Trilateral Commission. Eight out of ten!   The other position, important … was the US Trade Representative, the person who wrote all the treaties. You know, the economic agreements and stuff …. Nine out of twelve of the US TRs, even up in modern days, have been members of the Trilateral Commission   [xxvii]

And remembering (from above) …

Wood: The World Economic Forum has been saturated with members of the Trilateral Commission over the years … attendees.  [xxviii]

What we are looking at then is the origins of the World Economic Forum in its current form, and as we have seen above …

All nations would have to relinquish their national interests and find a new form of collective responsibility for the sake of the climate: ‘The world citizenry agree to innovation policy that is tied to the normative postulate of sustainability and in return surrender spontaneous and persistence desires. Guarantor of this virtual agreement is a formative state […].’

This strong state provides, therefore, for the ‘social problematization’ of unsustainable lifestyles. It overcomes ‘stakeholders’ and ‘veto players’ who ‘impede the transition to a sustainable society.’  [xxix]

The World Economic Forum could not have stated its own agenda for its vision of a new global “formative state” better. Welcome to their vision of the future.

And just to give an example of how important the “transformation” of society is to these people, remembering from above that “humanity is the enemy”, and also just how keen they are to resolve the “social problematization of unsustainable lifestyles”, in other words, just how far they are prepared to go in “transforming” us all, consider Maurice Strong, senior advisor to Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary-General who chaired ‘U.N. Conference on Environment and Development’ in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and who was responsible for putting together the Kyoto Protocol with thousands of bureaucrats, diplomats, and politicians, who stated :

We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse … isn’t it our job to bring that about?  [xxx]

This is the Great Reset agenda as proposed by the World Economic Forum, and it is nothing more than a reworking of the original, David Rockefeller/Club of Rome, global transformation agenda, and reworked again through the UN’s  Agenda ’21, Sustainable Development, The Green Economy, or simply, “the establishment of a new economic order”.

Out of necessity (apparently) the old economic order of free-market, laissez faire capitalism, and the old political order of representative democracy, run by weak politicians and controlled by unruly mobs of voters, needs to be to brought to the point of collapse, if need be, and then replaced by an unelected scientific and corporate elite who are better positioned to come up with brilliant solutions to global problems, and arrange for the fair and equitable distribution of the remaining resources.

 

Perhaps I’m just an old sceptic, but the whole idea of a clique of oligarchs meeting in Davos for the whole purpose of saving the planet just does not pass the sniff test. If actions speak louder than words, then the actions of these people seem to suggest a completely cynical attitude to any real threat of climate change, and that they don’t believe in any of their own rhetoric at all! There they all are, a collective of multi-billionaire oligarchs, flying into Davos in their private jets from in their private yachts or private islands, for meetings in an exclusive Swiss resort town, and then working on their grand plan for the equitable redistribution of the world’s resources to the poor and needy! Are we really expected to believe that Ottmar’s “redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy” includes the willing redistribution of the estimated 99% of the global wealth that is currently in the hands of this 1% of the population, the very 1% who control those global resources, and are all part of this Fly-in Fly-out, billionaire Davos set?  [xxxi]

♦ Thus the World Economic Forum’s agenda relies on the suspension – let’s face it – the end of democracy, and its replacement by rule by a scientific elite – but we can already see that it will be a rule by the billionaires’, oligarchic elite based in Davos in Switzerland. A new global, feudal aristocracy is being formed.

♦ Thus the World Economic Forum’s agenda of getting rid of private ownership – They want to decide what you can own so they can control all resource use. They want to get rid of the middle class, privately owned businesses, privately owned farms, so they can control all aspects of resource production and consumption.  It’s all about “sustainability” and all for the good of the planet.

♦ Thus the World Economic Forum’s agenda of – “You will own nothing and be happy” – is the scientific elite’s solution to the distribution of valuable irreplaceable resources, eking them out, preventing frivolous use, and ensuring they are only put to the most productive uses. But of course at the end of the day someone has to own all those resources, and if its not us, then who?  It would appear that the underlying WEF agenda is to actually move all the land, all resources, all means of production, into the hands of the oligarchic elites themselves.  For sure, you will own nothing, but they will own everything. A new feudal system.

♦ Thus the World Economic Forum’s agenda is the replacing of capitalism with a new economic order based on the value of resources. The value of the resource input of all things (that is, the value to the oligarch elite who own them) is used to calculate its price, rather than leave it to market forces / supply and demand.   “Sustainability” is the key.   The elite will be able to decide what each item should cost and who can buy them.

♦ Thus the World Economic Forum’s agenda of basing the cost of any item or service on the carbon footprint of the item or service – and of course there will be a capped monthly emission allowance for you and me. The oligarchs, with their multiple mansions, their private yachts, and their private jets – perhaps not so much.

♦ Thus the World Economic Forum’s agenda of a universal basic wage – you won’t need more because you won’t have anything to spend it on except entertainment (bread and circuses), and renting those things that you are allowed to rent, or those items of food that you are allowed to buy. Forget meat and three veg, think mealworms.  [xxxii]

♦ Thus the World Economic Forum’s agenda is to reduce the population down to only those people who are truly “useful”. This is the most efficient way of reducing unnecessary resource use.  There is a lot of eugenics behind the thinking of the World Economic Forum.   No need to feed useless mouths. Think AI and robotics – less mouths to feed.

There is no “conspiracy theory” here. As commentator Patrick Wood asked: Can it be a conspiracy theory if you are only repeating what they themselves have been writing over the last 50 years, and which already exists in the public domain?

Wood: “This is not a conspiracy theory – although we were called conspiracy theorists by these people back in the 70’s, but we only reported on what they had written. …  But people believed them – Oh, they are conspiracy theorists. Now, today, when you see Klaus Schwab speak out, he’s saying exactly the same things we said in the 70’s. And he’s just open. And it’s like – There it is! In your face!”  [xxxiii]

And we can already see that this agenda is already happening now.  The Global Warming scare has played its part, and no doubt will continue to play its part – expect a lot of emphasis on “carbon footprints” and the resolution of the “ ‘Social problematization’ of unsustainable lifestyles.”  Brandon Smith again:

If they are not stopped by the public, totalitarian carbon mandates will become the norm. The next generation, living in engineered poverty, will be taught from early childhood that the globalists “saved the world” from a calamity that never really existed. They will be told that the enslavement of humanity is something to be proud of, a gift that keeps the species alive, and anyone who questions that slavery is a selfish villain that wants the destruction of the planet. [xxxiv]

Don’t expect any sympathy for the “selfish villains that want the destruction of the planet.”

 

[i] Delingpole, James, 2020. Delingpole Interviews Patrick M. Wood. Part 1.  The Delingpod. 24/11/2020.

https://podcast.app/patrick-m-wood-e122631205/?utm_source=ios&utm_medium=share

[ii] Meadows, et al., 1972. “Limits to Growth : A Report for THE CLUB OF ROME’S Project on the Predicament of Mankind.”

https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/the-limits-to-growth/

[iii] There was no shortage of catastrophes predicted around that time.  See Mark Perry’s top 18 at Perry, Mark, 2020. 18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Made Around the Time of the First Earth Day in 1970, Expect More This Year. Carpe Diem 20/4/2020.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

[iv] The fear of a “Nuclear Winter” was built on a fear of a nuclear war. A late 1970s prediction that widespread firestorms would follow a large-scale nuclear war which would result in a severe and prolonged global climatic cooling effect termed a “Nuclear Winter.”  Well, we have dodged that bullet so far.

[v] Carlson, Rachael, 1962. The Silent Spring.  Houghton Mifflin. “The Silent Spring” turned out to be the first environmental beat-up, …

“Carson’s ‘Silent Spring” fails test of time.” New York Times (6/6/2003)

[vi] Ehrlich, Paul. 1968.  The Population Bomb.  Sierra Club/Ballantine Books

“Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the ‘Great Die-Off.’ ”    (from Perry, 2020. op. cit.)

Ehrlich got that one “spectacularly wrong” –  the second big environmental beat-up.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

[vii] Australian Broadcasting Commission – television.  https://youtu.be/cCxPOqwCr1I  from Smith, Brandon, 2023, The Club or Rome: How Climate Hysteria Is Being Used to Create Global Governance.  Alt Market. 19/5/2023.  https://alt-market.us/the-club-of-rome-how-climate-hysteria-is-being-used-to-create-global-governance/?ref=corybernardi.com.au

[viii] David Rockefeller speaking at a UN Business Conference, Sept. 14^th, 1994.

https://www.askideas.com/62-best-internet-quotes-and-sayings/we-are-on-the-verge-of-a-global-transformation-all-we-need-is-the-right-major-crisis-and-the-nations-will-accept-the-new-world-order-david-rockefeller/

[ix] Delingpole, James, 2020, op. cit.

[x] Delingpole, 2020. op. cit.

[xi] King, Alexander, and Schneider, Bertrand, 1991. The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome.        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Global_Revolution

[xii] Of course, the “science” actually oscillated between Global Warming and an impending Ice Age for quite a while before finally “settling” on Warming …(from Perry, 2020, op. cit.)

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

And, of course, “global warming” morphed into “climate change” when warming stalled, and to make sure all bases were covered and prevent embarrassment over unexplained cooling.

 

[xiii] Ottmar Endhofer, 14th November 2010.

https://www.azquotes.com/author/30831-Ottmar_Edenhofer

[xiv] Delingpole, 2020, op. cit.

[xv] Delingpole, 2020, op. cit.

[xvi] Perhaps a re-reading of my essay …  at this point to re-fresh the memory of the significance of the Technocracy Movement.

[xvii] Delingpole, James, 2021. Delingpole Interviews Patrick M. Wood. Part 2. 3/2/2021. The Delingpod.

https://podcast.app/patrick-m-wood-e127855508/?utm_source=ios&utm_medium=share

[xviii] Delingpole, 2020, op. cit.

[xix] Bell, Professor Larry, 2013,  In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their ‘Science’, Forbes Magazine (5/2/2013)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=537f0c3b68a3

[xx] Bell, op. cit.

[xxi] Bell, op. cit.

[xxii] Bell, op. cit.

[xxiii] Thomas, T., 2012. The CSIRO Sold Us a Pup. Quadrant Online. (9/9/2012)  

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2012/09/the-csiro-sold-us-a-pup/

[xxiv] Vahrenholt, Fritz, 2011, Germany ‘Sliding Head Over Heels Into Eco-Dictatorship’ Die Welt, May, 2011    https://antioligarch.wordpress.com/climate-fraud/

[xxv] Smith, 2023, op cit.

[xxvi] Delingpole, 2020, op cit.

[xxvii] Delingpole, 2020, op cit.

[xxviii] Delingpole, 2020, op cit.

[xxix] Vahrenholt,  op. cit.

[xxx] Bell, op. cit.

[xxxi] Mercola, Dr. Joseph, 2021. Who Owns Big Pharma + Big Media? You’ll Never Guess.  The Defender, Children’s Defence Fund.  18/06/2021.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/blackrock-vanguard-own-big-pharma-media/

[xxxii] 100 Dutch schools forced to serve insects.  The Netherlands has become a testing ground for the globalist Great Reset being pursued by the World Economic Forum. In the process, people’s diets are being switched to insects. After most farmers in the Netherlands were officially ruined by suspect “nitrate laws”, insects are currently being introduced in schools.

https://freewestmedia.com/2022/10/20/100-dutch-schools-forced-to-serve-insects/

[xxxiii] Delingpole, 2021, op. cit.

[xxxiv] Smith, op. cit.