The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser is saying that climate change is a ‘ruse’ led by the United Nations to create a new world order under the agency’s control. This statement coincided with a visit from the UN’s top climate negotiator. More on this later in the article.
Before reading this article, please keep in mind that I am not denying climate change. I am simply presenting information that you will not hear from mainstream media. I wanted to make this article more so about the politicization of climate change science and let people know that if you feel this way, you are not alone.
What I take issue with is the use of the climate change debate, among other real world problems, for the satisfaction of global elitist agendas. This is far from a mere ‘conspiracy theory,’ it’s an opinion that is backed by evidence in the form of documentation, scientific research, and statements from undeniably credible sources. Again, I am not denying climate change here, just presenting information you will probably never hear from mainstream media.
Perhaps the most potent example of the influence of politics over scientific publications is a recent episode involving Genetically Modified Maize. Monsanto published a study a few years ago which purported to demonstrate the effects of GMO maize on rats over a 90 day period. They reported no ill effects on the rodents from this diet. Given the fact that there are no long term studies examining the health risks associated with GMOs, independent researchers then decided to conduct the same study, with one difference: their study lasted over a year rather than a mere three months. Researchers found instances of severe liver and kidney damage, as well as hormonal disturbances, alongside the development of large tumors and mortality among the treatment groups. The study was published in November of 2012, in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, and then instantly retracted. After hundreds of scientists condemned the retraction, the US did not publish it. The study was then re-published in multiple peer-reviewed scientific journals (in Europe last year ), like Environmental Sciences Europe. This is why it shouldn’t be a surprise that so many countries in Europe have banned the growing of genetically modified crops. Many also have bans and/or severe restrictions on importing GM products, citing health and environmental concerns.
What also points to the politicization of science when it comes to GMOs is the fact that the United States has aggressively pursued foreign policies in food and agriculture that benefit the largest seed companies. They (covertly) promote agricultural biotechnology, even over the opposition of the public and government, while completely disregarding other, more sustainable agricultural policy alternatives. Wikileaks cables (yes, there are classified documents pertaining to our food) show that the State Department was lobbying all over the world for Monsanto and other major biotech corporations. They reveal that American diplomats requested funding to send lobbyists for the biotech industry to meet with politicians and agricultural officials in “target countries.” These included countries in Africa, Latin America, and Europe. WikiLeaks revealed the Bush administration drew up ways to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use genetically modified seeds. You can read more about that story here, and you can see the actual Wikileaks document here.
This politicization of science has also been demonstrated by statements from leading scientists around the world. For example, Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor in Chief of The Lancet – considered to be one of the world’s most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world — has stated outright that “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” He also alluded to the corporate hand that dictates science.
Harvard medical school lecturer and current Editor in Chief of The New England Medical Journal, Marcia Angell, has said much the same thing. She stated that “it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”
Harvard Professor of Medicine Arnold Seymour Relman was also disgusted by the fact that “the medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry.”
New real world examples of this type of fraud are emerging every day, making it clear why experts, like the ones quoted above, are risking their livelihoods to speak out against this corruption. The latest known example of a pharmaceutical company manipulating research happened recently with the drug Paxil. This is an anti-depressant supposedly used to treat depression, and it has been heavily marketed despite the fact that it was known to cause harm to teenagers.
The list goes on and on, and I really just wanted to offer a snapshot of this problem. Science today is not what it used to be. I used the example of GMOs because they are intertwined with climate change (as illustrated below), but the same thing is going on throughout the scientific world.
The Politicization of Climate Science
“The problem we haven now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist.” (source)
The above quote comes from Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climatologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, and winner of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction. Bengtsson, along with four of the world’s top climate scientists, recently had their research rejected for suggesting that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC. He was appalled that a paper might not be published based on political grounds alone, stating that “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.” (source)
As expected, he came under fire, despite the fact that many scientists echoed his sentiments in support, including a former senior member of the UN’s climate change advisory board, Mike Hulme. Hulme is currently a professor of climate and culture at King’s College London. (source)
Professor Joanna D. Haigh, a British physicist, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, former president of the Royal Meteorological society, and a fellow of the Royal Society, has done the same. (source)
These are a just a few of many examples of experts with very impressive backgrounds in the field who have spoken out about this issue. So, just as we’ve seen the manipulation of medical science, which is undeniable, the very suggestion that climate science could be somewhat ‘off’ is still something you could be harshly criticized for.
Again, a more recent example of the confusion surrounding this topic comes from the Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser (man used in the cover photo for this article), who is saying that climate change is a ‘ruse’ led by the United Nations to create a new world order under the agency’s control. This statement coincided with a visit from the UN’s top climate negotiator.
He claims that the UN is using false models which show sustained temperature increases for the reasons of ending democracy and imposing authoritarian rules.
“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 percent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. . . . The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.” (source)
He also stated that the UN is against capitalism and freedom and wants to create a new world order.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (which Professor Lennart Bengtsson was part of) was a think tank designed to challenge what they considered to be damaging, harmful, and expensive policies and scientific conlusions. Over the years they have presented information, research, and theories that drastically challenge ones which are widely accepted by governments today.
We are talking about sane people here, conducting independent research, who are being completely ignored by mainstream media. Isn’t that a sign that we should listening to them? It can be hard, given the fact that mainstream media wants to make anybody who questions just how big an impact human activity has had on global temperatures looks like a fool, similar to questioning vaccinations.
And why are corporations like Exxon Mobil sponsoring these climate talks every single year when they knew about climate change almost 40 years ago and said nothing? What is going on here?
Why did NASA recently publish a study saying the Antarctic is gaining more ice than it’s losing? Not long ago, NASA was even blasted by approximately 50 of their own personnel regarding their global warming stance. (source)(source)
Below is a video of Dr. Vandana, Ph.D., an international activist, scientist, and expert in environmental technology, bringing up some more important issues related to the talks happening right now about climate change. One really important thing to take away, I believe, is the fact that politics and climate change are being used to increase corporate power, forcing us to accept their solutions when there are other solutions that work better.
The Union of Concerned Scientists reminds us that GM crops are not guaranteed, despite what is promised by company advertising. These crops still fail to produce promised yields, and farmers are not permitted to save seeds because this would be in violation of the company’s patent on the seed. As a result, entire communities can be pushed to the brink of starvation.
You might be surprised to learn that every person on the planet can feed themselves with just 100 square feet of well managed land. In 2008, the UN Conference of Trade and Development supported organics, saying that organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and is more likely to be sustainable in the long term. You can read that full report HERE.
So ask yourself, are GMOs necessary? Why aren’t climate activist billionaires like Bill Gates looking into over-unity technology (like THIS)?
The New World Order
It is amazing to me that someone as high profile as the Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has said this is all one big step towards a planned new world order. It certainly seems that way, and it’s a shame that these kinds of potentially unifying crises are being used to take away our rights and hand more power over to big corporations. One very recent example of this in action is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP).
I really wouldn’t be surprised if climate change was being used in the same way. And the unfortunate reality is that this manipulation doesn’t just extend to the scientific world, but rather to all arenas of import in our world. A number of high level politicians and academics recently gathered at what is called the International Conference on the New World Order. There, it was discussed how terrorism is being used, funded, and manufactured by the Western military alliance to bring about a new world order.
So, as you can see, it’s not just global issues like climate change and GMOs, it’s also terrorism (and who knows what else). We continue to identify these problems, some of which are created by the same people we charge with stopping them, without ever seeing actual progress being made. So what is really going on here? Is this really an issue which has inspired our political leaders to gather and discuss how to change it, or is there some fraud going on here in order to push along the new world order agenda? Are all those who are in attendance even aware of this agenda? Or only a select few?
One thing is for certain, our ways of generating energy, our meat consumption, and our modes of transportation all have to change. We are destroying our environment and it’s obvious we can do things better here. In fact, this has been abundantly clear for a very long time, and solutions have existed for decades. If we continue to rely on the same people to solve our problems, it’s most likely that history will keep repeating itself and we will be having the same discussions at the next climate summit.