4.3.HIDDEN AGENDA

«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. It's a great way to redistribute wealth», Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998

From what has been explained in the previous section, none should be surprised of the existence of a hidden agenda.

While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven't been so good at hiding their real motivation. We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different. If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

«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» Ottmar Edenhofer342 .

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and did not really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated." Get it now? If you have still have a doubt listen to what Christiana Figueres343 said in February 2015 «This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution. This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history». At the same time and not fearing conflict of interests or mental contorsions, Figueres served as Senior Adviser to C-Quest Capital, a carbon finance company focusing on programmatic CDM 344 investments. She was the Principal Climate Change Advisor to ENDESA Latinoamérica, the largest private utility in Latin America with operations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru. She was also Vice Chair of the Rating Committee of the Carbon Rating Agency, the first entity to apply credit rating expertise to carbon assets.

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish -- because, as Edenhofer said, "in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they " have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community" he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that some have even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming. The goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

Naomi Klein is typical of these authors considered as influential opinion makers who have no training nor experience in the matter they discuss but run a well organized hidden agenda. She hasn’t got the slightest scientific background nor does she demonstrate any knowledge of economic science, but as her ideas align with the mainstream nobody dares question her credential or the rationale of her arguments, whereas ad-hominem attacks are immediately directed against those who do not conform (to the consensus). She knows that capitalism will destroy climate and as her communists grand-parents taught her parents who inspired her, she must be a beacon for mankind showing us the way forward into full speed “backwardation” and misery. Klein's third book, «The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism» (2007) argues that the free market policies of Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of

342Ottmar Edenhofer co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate

Change from 2008 to 2015. 343Christiana Figueres was Executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change (2010-2016) and completed her second term as Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC on 6 July 2016. 344The Clean Development Mechanism allows the Annex I countries to meet part of their emission reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol by buying Certified Emission Reduction units from CDM emission reduction projects in developing countries.

Economics are implemented by taking advantage of certain features of the aftermath of major disasters, be they economic, political, military or natural. The book appears to claim that these shocks are in some cases intentionally encouraged or even manufactured. The book has led The New Yorker to judge her "the most visible and influential figure on the American left like Noam Chomsky was thirty years ago». In Naomi Klein's fourth book,"This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate" (2014) Klein argues that the climate crisis cannot be addressed in the current era of neoliberal345 market fundamentalism, which encourages profligate consumption and has resulted in mega-mergers and trade agreements hostile to the health of the environment. "What if global warming isn't only a crisis?" Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. "What if it's the best chance we're ever going to get to build a better world?" In her mind, the world has to "change, or be changed" because an "economic system" -- meaning freemarket capitalism - has caused environmental wreckage. «This Changes Everything» had become a touchstone of progressive climate activism. “It's the single strongest statement we have for why carbon-fueled capitalism (or 'extractivism') with its imperative of relentless growth and exploitation, is fundamentally incompatible with ecological sensibility and climate justice”. The book puts forth the argument that the hegemony of neoliberal market fundamentalism is blocking any serious reforms to halt climate change and protect the environment. Questioned about Klein's claim that capitalism and controlling climate change were incompatible, Benoit Blarel, manager of the Environment and Natural Resources global practice at the World Bank, said «that the write-off of fossil fuels necessary to control climate change will have a huge impact all over" and that the World Bank was "starting work on this". One must remember that the founders of the World Bank were John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White.

This is how the global warming alarmist community thinks. «It wants to frighten, intimidate and then assume command. It needs a "crisis" to take advantage of, a hobgoblin to menace the people, so that they will beg for protection from the imaginary threat. The alarmists' "better world" is one in which they rule a global welfare state. They've admitted this themselves» (Jackson, 2015).

The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled. Demonstrating an anti-rich and anti-capitalist stance is nothing new as Jesus said «it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God» (Matthew 19:24). Hopefully, the belief that the economy could be a growing global pie turned out to be revolutionary has it enabled growth based on credit, and the book «The Wealth of Nations» published in 1776 by Adam Smith was probably a strong foundation to this new way of thinking.

The first theme in «The Wealth of Nations» is that regulations on commerce are ill-founded and counter-productive. Another central theme is that this increased productive capacity supporting a positive vision of the future and thereof the rationale for credit rests on the division of labor and the accumulation of capital. This is made possible contrary to Jesus’s and all later anti-capitalist’s beliefs in general. Smith’s third theme is that a country’s future income depends upon this capital accumulation346. A fourth theme is that this system is automatic and the market is self-regulating. Where things are scarce, people are prepared to pay more for them: there is more profit in supplying them, so producers invest more capital to produce them. But the system is automatic only when there is free trade and competition. A further theme of «The Wealth Of Nations» is that competition and free exchange are under threat from the monopolies, tax preferences, controls, and other privileges that producers extract from the government authorities and in that respect the policies enacted in the wake of the UN/climate change do not escape the criticism. For all these reasons, Smith believes that government itself must be limited. Its core functions are maintaining defense, keeping order, building infrastructure and promoting education. It should keep the market economy open and free, and not act in ways that distort it. At yet, by showing how the freedom and security to work, trade, save and invest promotes our prosperity, without the need for a directing authority, «The Wealth Of Nations» still leaves us with a powerful set of solutions to the worst economic problems that the world can throw at us (Smith, 1776). As Harari (2015) reminds us «Smith’s claim that the selfish human urge to increase private profits is the basis for collective wealth is one of the most revolutionary ideas in human history – revolutionary not just from an economic perspective , but even more so from a

345 With the meaning used in Europe, of neo-capitalism. 346Countries fighting capital accumulation with a wealth tax of whatever kind to promote «social justice» will impoverish themselves as evidence has shown, e.g. France (1981-2020) and this is why the Nobel price in economic sciences awarded to

Esther Duflo (together with Abhijit Banerjee and Michael Kremer) is unwise; her first public appearance was for a full reinstallment of the wealth tax in France. Why, if the measure was efficient, did it not obtain any result fighting poverty over the very long 1981-1986 and 1988-2017 period?

moral and political perspective. What Smith says is that greed is good, and that by becoming richer I benefit everybody, not just myself. Egoism is altruism».

The most economic important resource is trust in the future and this is where science and capitalism have made a sacred union. Science provides the belief that future will be better than the present and has shown its ability to make it such and capitalism provides credit for the entrepreneurs to make it happen, thanks to the fractional-reserve banking system. Banks and governments print money, but entrepreneurs and scientists foot the bill in the end. Of course, liberals and activists of all sorts, including climate activists usually fight both and also oppose the fact that the governments cannot freely print money and must borrow it on the markets (they have simply forgotten the bankruptcy of the Weimar republic, in 1919, one loaf of bread cost 1 mark; by 1923, the same loaf of bread cost 100 billion marks. The value of the Papiermark had declined from 4.2 Marks per U.S. dollar in 1914 to one million per dollar by August 1923).

In today’s world, «If the Chinese are such high performers and so innovative, it is because, like the Indians and the Russians, they have faith in science: they have faith in the ability of science to embellish their future and to create a better world. In Europe, there was a time when we, too, had faith in science; and faith in an evolution of our societies that would rest on science. Today we have not only turned our backs on science, we are choked and infantilized by bureaucrats who suck the living forces of the old continent» (Markó, 2017) interviewed by (Watts, 2017).

One should remind that climate is, in fact, the consequence of an incredibly complex interaction of massive and diverse forces, from variations in solar radiation intensity, to eccentricities of Earth’s orbit, axis precession, and rotation, atmospheric absorption and reflection, convection and advection, to ocean heat absorption, mixing currents, and thermohaline circulation, volcanism and even plate tectonics creating mountain belts influencing the location of monsoons and the global atmospheric circulation and many other massive forces interacting. The agenda by climate alarmists to claim that this entire spectrum of massive forces is somehow insignificant next to a change of a mere 0.007% over 250 years in the concentration of a trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere that in total represents just 0.04% of the atmosphere, is prima facie absurd. This gas is essential for life, and has at other stages in Earth’s history been as much as ten times more in concentration without any ill effect. In fact, times of higher concentration are times of incredibly lush, vibrant, and diverse plant and animal life whose fossilized carbon remains actually created the vast oil and gas reserves we today depend on to fuel human civilization.

Would the Anthropic Global Warming Theory have remained a discussion among scientists we could and would have had heated exchanges between proponents of various theses, but climate change has long been hijacked by some activists, be they scientists, bureaucrats, NGO leaders or even more seldom politicians who claim knowing better than the remaining of us and know what to decide for the good of mankind. Sometimes, aides and scientific and political advisors bear a heavy responsibility for drafting speeches that commit their leaders, even up to Heads of States, pushing them to venture into scientifically uncharted territories, making spurious statements, for example François Hollande (the former French President) stated (in French) at 70th session of the UN General Assembly in New York, on September 28, 2015 that tsunamis and earthquakes will be the result of uncontrolled anthropic global warming (Hollande, 2015b). He was obviously deluded by his own entourage who certainly ensured him that no doubt remained, that science was settled and the alleged urgency would require to further force the line in this presentation to maximize political impact. How could Heads of State know? With their hectic lives, meeting all the time people and traveling around the world, they must trust their advisors and rely on the work prepared by their staff.

This is how, on Thursday 26th of February 2015, for his opening of the COP21 forum in Manila entitled « Towards COP 21: Civil Society Mobilized for the Climate» he stated (Hollande, 2015a): «Yet there are scientific experts who have made all the demonstrations, who have shown all the information, such as Jean Jouzel, the vice-president of the GIEC, who is among us. They do not elaborate on theories or doctrines. They speak of reality. Today, climate change is a scientific fact. And the GIEC has gone very far, indicating that if we do nothing in the next years, it will not be a global warming of 2 degrees that we will see at the end of the century, but of 3, 4 or 5 degrees. And with consequences such as tsunamis, earthquakes, rising of the sea level, the inexorable loss of biodiversity, and what we know to be the impact of these catastrophes: thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands of displaced persons, considerable destruction, the impossibility of living by the sea, disappearance of islands, these are what we already know and what is currently taking place.» Do the advisors and the staff who prepared the speech realize the seriousness of their assertions? Do they imagine, as any reasonable scientist always does, that they could be wrong? But what world leaders should remember is that the aides and advisors will long be gone and have vanished whereas their speeches will remain and be evaluated by History.

Obviously, as long as some special interest groups (including climate-illusionists) will have a direct interest in selling a catastrophic storytelling (to justify their existence) and will keep running the game (and benefiting of taxpayer's monies) science will have to remain in a back seat. More recently, after having ruined their countries for SARS-CoV-2 and imposing lock-down to half the world population bringing economies to a halt and pushing hundreds of millions of people on the verge of bankruptcy, all for a disease showing a very low death rate and a median age of the dead of 83 years, talking heads and influential people encouraged by all climate activists, extremists and lobbies feeling the time has come for action, have started to announce that if nonsensical measures could have been taken for COVID-19 to save lives (this remains to be demonstrated) the same and more could be done for climate change! Everybody should feel the jitters in the spine and be frightened.

Ecrooklogists, opportunistic politicians, bureaucrats, climate-illusionists, anti-capitalists and all ideologists want our modern civilization to go back to the cave and if the public opinion does not rapidly and strongly fight and revolt against these lunacies, sooner than you believe they will enforce by law their (not so hidden) agenda. The outcome will be devastating for our civilization and our children who instead of living in their better world will see their standard of living fall as never in the pursuit of those chimeras.

If we go back to the beginning of the «Climate Xtremism» movement, the man who invented climate change was not a scientist, he was rather a big government ideologue and socialist. The Father of «Climate Change» or as climate has always changed rather «CX» is Maurice Strong, a Canadian multimillionaire passionate not in science but in wealth distribution and who could sense the power that wielding the environment banner and using the United Nations to his own profit could provide him. As a result Strong skillfully taped on weak climate change science, attacking fossil fuels, to form the leverage for a New World Government, or New World Order347. Therefore, from the start and continuing today the UN/IPCC supports the pseudo-science of demonizing life giving CO 2, which has “nothing to do with the environment” because this is the road to a new global wealth distribution.

The complete story is reminded to us by Brooker (2015), in 1972 Strong set up a UN Environment Conference in Stockholm, to declare «that the Earth’s resources were the common inheritance of all mankind. They should no longer be exploited for the benefit of only a few countries, at the expense of poorer countries across the globe». To pursue this, he became founding director of a new agency, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and in the eighties he took up the cause of a tiny group of international meteorologists who had come to believe that the world faced catastrophic warming. In 1988, UNEP sponsored this little group into setting up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In 1992, now allied with the IPCC, Strong managed to set up another new body, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to stage that colossal “Earth Summit” over which he presided in Rio, arranging for it to be attended not only by 108 world leaders and 100,000 others but also by 20,000 UN-funded “green activists”. It is the UNFCCC which in effect has dictated the global climate change agenda ever since. Almost yearly it has staged huge conferences, notably those at Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and Paris (United Nations, 2015). And all along it has been Strong’s ideology, enshrined at Rio in “Agenda 21”, which has continued to shape the entire process, centered on the principle that the richer developed countries must pay for a problem they created, to the financial benefit of all those “developing countries” that have been its main victims. In 2005, Strong was caught having been illicitly paid $1 million from the UN’s Oil for Food programme, supposedly set up to allow Saddam Hussein to pay in oil to feed starving Iraqis. Strong, a member of the Club of Rome 348 was dismissed from the UN for the Iraqi Oil for Food programme scandal and since had taken refuge in Beijing where he traded in emission rights of Chinese origin according to the Clean Development Mechanisms of the Kyoto treaty, Beijing where he had been close to China’s Communist leaders until his death in 2015. The scientists he indirectly enrolled were on a mission and misbehaved by fudging the data to make the climate seem warmer than it was, see the ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2009), (Wegman et al., 2006; 2010) and climategate (Storch von, 2009), (McIntyre, 2010), (Montford, 2010), (Costella, 2010). As soon as the politicians like Al Gore usurped the science they declared a fake consensus demanding public acceptance that the science is settled not open to debate. Close to the end of his life, Strong (2012) did not hide much his longstanding agenda when he stated «The change of course called for at Rio in 1992 requires radical changes in our current economic system. This will need to be led by those countries, mostly Western, which have dominated the world economy during the period in which our cumulative damage to the Earth’s life-support systems, its precious biological resources and its climate, have occurred and have monopolized the

347It is funny to see that 2 articles are provided by wikipedia on the subject, one immediately referring to the notion of "Conspiracy

Theory" and its links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism. So NWG or NWO must be one more taboo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory) 348https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

economic benefits of this. I am sure that you will all agree that Rio+20 must support the increase in the status of UNEP to that of a specialized agency. This could lead to the establishment of World Environment Organization as some have proposed. This Symposium will, I trust, provide strong impetus for this».

So the logic is simple and is not new as it reminds the catholic indulgences, you committed a sin and are guilty and the only way to redeem your fault is to accept the unjustifiable penalties that we will impose on you, via the carbon demonization policies, as you have «damaged the Earth’s life-support systems and its climate» as Strong (2012) put it.

But following the quote heralded on Strong’s own website «Everybody's actions are motivated by their inner life, their moral, spiritual and ethical values. Global agreements will be effective when they are rooted in the individual commitment of people, which arises from their own inner life» it will be hard to obtain the individual commitment of people once they discover that they are the victims of a scam, rooted in the primary objective which is to use a pretext to transfer wealth from those who created it to their supposedly victims.

But, beware the wreck train is moving fast and unless a necessary awareness of the peoples happens, they will run over us. What will happen if a small group of world leaders establishes that the essential risks for Creation are those of the lifestyles of the rich countries and that the only way out for the survival of humanity is the contractual reduction of the burden on the environment and of our standard of living? Will we do it? No rich countries will not want to change their consumption habits! To save the planet anyway, the group of influential figures will decide the complete destruction of industrial civilization. Is it not our responsibility to watch over this destruction? This group of influential figures has agreed to wreck the economy.

You believe I am exaggerating?

This theme of the necessary seizure of power by "climate experts" with a "muscular" world government endowed with dictatorial powers is illustrated by countless texts and by the draft international treaties drawn up by the bureaucracy of the UN. For example the text of 2011 «Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation» or Social contract for a Great Reset (446 pages) of the German WBGU, (WBGU, 2011) is calling for a state of emergency and the suppression of constitutional freedoms (Vahrenholt Von, 2011). The WBGU (Wissenschaftliche Beirat der Bundesregierung für Globale Umweltveränderungen) was established and is funded by the federal government in 1992 for the United Nations Rio Conference on Environment and Development, as an "independent scientific council". The same ideas were published in "Scientific American" of March 2012: "Human societies must change their trajectory and move away from the tipping points and runaway of the climate which could bring about rapid and irreversible changes. International institutions towards more effective governance ... This new world government must have transnational powers based on force and the exercise of force ... What institution will be able to bring into mind a mentality of permanent crisis for decades and even centuries ... it is necessary to have recourse to techniques of management of human behavior (i.e. behavioral economics) ... ".

It is as we sees a totally Orwellian program (Orwell, 1949), with monolithic bureaucracies, armies of civil servants to ensure the power of these bureaucracies and techniques of “mass management” inspired by the communist propaganda of the years 1918-1990 and the Nazi propaganda of the years 1930-1945. These power and money-hungry fanatics, worthy heirs to Maurice Strong, are obviously much more dangerous than their supposed global warming (1975-1997), which has been gone for more than 18 years now.

If you think that your constitutional freedoms cannot be taken away easily from you, that a quick vote for a state of emergency cannot achieve that, think twice at what happened to you when you were locked-down during the inflated COVID-19 crisis (Durden, 2020). Do not forget to be grateful to Neil Ferguson and his junk computer programs that predicted millions of deaths in the UK alone, and do not think that this will remain a lone occurrence of the most devastating software mistake of all time (Richard and Boudnik, 2020). Climate science computer programs will enable decision makers to go far beyond what we have gone through so far. You can be sure that they will not flatten the «unemployment curve» as they cannot care less about it, they all have secured safe jobs working for universities, research bodies, governmental or better inter-governmental organizations while you will feel very hard the pain of their deranged policies.