DUBAI — “The transformation is unstoppable,” declared giant electronic billboards overlooking the UN COP28 “climate” summit. It was a common refrain, not just from the UN but even from countless American officials at the summit. But what “transformation” are they talking about? Based on comments from leading UN officials and scientists, experts say the goal is clear: transformation toward technocracy and away from liberty, sovereignty, and self-government.
Top leaders at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for instance, openly demanded the power not just to study the “science,” but even to prescribe “climate” policy at the international level. Even more alarming, some of the IPCC “scientists” asked for the power to oversee the implementation and enforcement of their policy prescriptions. Critics, however, warned that not only were the demands unscientific, but they would undermine self-governance while ushering in an “insane” totalitarian technocratic form of government. That seems to be the plan.
Speaking to the U.K. Guardian, one of the largest newspapers in the British Isles and perhaps the most alarmist on “climate” issues, almost half a dozen IPCC officials suggested that these UN “scientists” needed vast new powers. The supposed goal: Save humanity from itself and carbon dioxide (CO2), known to scientists as the “gas of life” despite being demonized as “pollution” by global-warming theorists.
“At some point we need to say that if you want to achieve this aim set by policymakers then certain policies need to be implemented,” explained UN IPCC Vice Chairman Sonia Seneviratne, who has served as coordinating lead author of the UN “climate science” body for more than a decade. “As climate change becomes worse and worse, it is becoming more difficult to be policy relevant without being prescriptive.” By prescriptive, she means handing governments and nations their marching orders based on “the science.”
Leading scientists in the field, however, ridiculed the calls when asked about them by The New American. Princeton University physics Professor Emeritus Will Happer, who served as climate advisor to President Donald Trump and is a vocal critic of the UN’s alarmism, paraphrased well-known conservative pundit William F. Buckley, telling The New American he would “rather have climate policy set by the first 1,000 people in the telephone directory than by IPCC ‘scientists.’”
Top astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon with the independent Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) was similarly dismissive of the proposed IPCC power grab. Dr. Soon, who recently worked with dozens of scientists to publish three scientific papers in peer-reviewed literature showing that observed warming could be explained by changes in solar activity and the “urban heat island effect,” was appalled at the IPCC power grab. “This is a rather appalling, [though] not unexpected, development for all the ‘humble’ scientists at [the] UN IPCC to now call for IPCC to violate its own founding 35-year principle for their reports to never be policy prescriptive but merely policy relevant,” he told The New American.
“The bad weather and extreme climate were all imagined in those scientists’ computer climate model toys,” continued Dr. Soon, who retired last year from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. “It is sad and dangerous for those non-elected scientists to go this far to stretch their daily dramas to the epic levels that they can literally now be permitted to stop anyone from enjoying a fine filet mignon or cooking their food with gas. This is what the ‘power’ to prescribe policy that they have demanded means.”
For her part, Seneviratne of the IPCC expressed “shock” about what The Guardian referred to as the “discrepancy” between the supposedly “scientific” findings of the scandal-plagued (and frequently wrong) UN climate body and the policies being pursued by governments around the world. “It’s very difficult for us to understand as scientists because it doesn’t seem to make any sense,” she was quoted as saying, lamenting that the “transformation” they are seeking has so far not materialized despite the ever-escalating alarmism pumped out by the IPCC.
Global Decimation
The policies that Seneviratne and other IPCC leaders said the UN climate body should be allowed to dictate are enormously significant. They would alter the lives of everyone on the planet. For example, one she mentioned was phasing down or even eliminating humanity’s use of “fossil fuels” (hydrocarbon energy such as oil, gas, and coal). Those sources currently provide more than 80 percent of all the energy people use around the world. In short, the UN climate body would become the global master of all energy use, with deadly implications, critics observed.
Asked about “fossil fuel” elimination in 2019, Greenpeace co-founder and former Greenpeace Canada President Dr. Patrick Moore, an environmental scientist, said eliminating hydrocarbon energy would be a “recipe for mass suicide.” “It’s amazing that somebody in government would propose that we eliminate all fossil fuels in 12 years,” he told The New American, saying that if done globally it would result in the “decimation of the human population” and the cutting down of virtually every tree on Earth for cooking and heating.
Speaking of the IPCC being allowed to dictate and even enforce policy under the guise of stopping climate change, Patrick Wood, author of several books on technocracy and the leading critical expert on the movement, warned of disastrous consequences. If such a scheme were to move ahead, it would mean the end of freedom and the emergence of a new form of government dreamed up almost a century ago and pushed by David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission. The year 2023 was declared by the Trilateral Commission to be the first year of the New International Economic Order, and what that means is slowly becoming more apparent.
Wood was not surprised, but blasted the plan. “That a single group of deluded technocrat scientists should declare themselves to be the sole enforcers of their own ‘science’ is patently insane,” he told The New American. “If they are not summarily stopped, it will give them the dictatorial power to implement every facet of Agenda 21, the UN 2030 Agenda, Global Biodiversity Assessment, and more — in other words, total scientific dictatorship.”
Wood noted that when the idea of “technocracy” — rule by scientists and experts — was originally hatched by scientists at Columbia University in 1932, they had a vision similar to that hinted at by the IPCC. “They basically called on FDR to declare himself dictator, to summarily dismiss Congress and to appoint scientists to run all of society,” explained Wood, noting the parallels with what the UN’s own “climate” body is now openly calling for.
Pointing to the infamous Club of Rome’s 1991 book The First Global Revolution, Wood also noted that these would-be tyrannical technocrats openly discussed “searching for a common enemy,” as they put it. That led to the idea of “the threat of global warming,” ultimately allowing them to claim the “real enemy” was “humanity itself.” “In other words, it was a scam made up as a pretext for implementing Technocracy,” Wood said.
Commenting on the IPCC scientists’ calls for more power, Climate Depot editor Marc Morano, one of the world’s leading “climate skeptics,” suggested there was a link between their latest pronouncements and governments’ Covid power grabs of recent years. “The UN scientists were jealous when they saw how public health officials could implement authoritarian policies during COVID and now they want Fauci-like powers!” he argued, describing the advocates as “scientist dictators.” Biden’s climate czar John Kerry seemingly confirmed the premise when he declared at the summit, “The climate crisis and health crisis are one and the same.”
As if to confirm that yet again, another IPCC coordinating lead author, Gert-Jan Nabuurs, blasted the fact that governments and people — often through democratic mechanisms such as voting — were still able to resist and even withstand the UN body’s “scientific” demands. “The IPCC’s critical, independent and guiding roles seem to be less and less evident,” he said. “As they decline, countries seem to be exerting a larger and larger influence.”
If “countries” should not be exerting influence, the alternative would be the increasingly aggressive UN or its legions of IPCC scientists acting in defiance of nations and their governments, of course. For Nabuurs and other IPCC “experts,” the problem is that “we can’t be policy prescriptive.” In other words, they cannot make demands and “hard statements” about what should be done.
Nabuurs lamented that, despite the UN continuing to produce “assessment reports” warning of imminent doom, governments are not doing what he believes is required. “We already know that in five to six years’ time the message is not going to be very different, the problem will still be there, emissions will still be going up, there will be more evidence of impacts and less time to try to stay under 2 degrees Celsius [of warming],” he complained.
And yet, in reality, the IPCC has consistently been wrong. Noting failures ranging from debunked predictions about Antarctic ice and snowfall to outlandish “climate” models predicting massive warming and sea-level rise that never happened, numerous scientists have told this magazine that the UN body cannot be trusted. In a 2018 interview with The New American, former UN IPCC sea-level scientist Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, chairman of the geophysics and geodynamics department at Stockholm University, suggested that the IPCC was deliberately lying. “There is no big sea-level rise going on, and there will not be,” said the late scientist, widely considered one of the top experts in his field before he passed away. “On the contrary, if anything happens, it will go down a little bit.” When Dr. Mörner tried to force the IPCC to remove its demonstrably fraudulent claims from its “assessment report,” the IPCC refused, so he resigned, he explained.
As has become typical, the IPCC did not respond to multiple requests for comment or interviews from The New American — requests made both in person and by email — until after a version of this story was published online. Then, the IPCC said it did not have anyone available but that questions could be sent by email. However, a statement provided to The Guardian said, “It is important to note that the IPCC assessments are policy relevant but not policy prescriptive: they may present projections of future climate change based on different scenarios and the risks that climate change poses and discuss the implications of response options, but they do not tell policymakers what actions to take.”
But as the UN and its members are becoming more and more extreme in their demands, a global rebellion of sorts is brewing. In the United States, recent polls show the vast majority of Americans do not even believe the man-made global-warming theory underpinning it all. During the COP28 summit, Tucker Carlson — the most significant voice in U.S. media today by far, with shows on X viewed by tens of millions — slammed Biden climate czar John Kerry and the whole climate agenda.
What Should Be Done
As the 80,000 or so attendees at the climate summit were buzzing around Dubai working on “solving” the alleged crisis, U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a bill to get the United States out of the UN entirely. Calling his bill the “DEFUND” (“Disengaging Entirely From the United Nations Debacle”) Act, Senator Lee said the UN is an “enemy of Judeo-Christian beliefs,” a “usurper of sovereignty,” and a “voice for Marxism” costing U.S. taxpayers almost $20 billion per year for its “anti-American agenda.”
“No more blank checks for the United Nations. Americans’ hard-earned dollars have been funneled into initiatives that fly in the face of our values — enabling tyrants, betraying allies, and spreading bigotry,” Lee said in a news release. “With the DEFUND Act, we’re stepping away from this debacle. If we engage with the UN in the future, it will be on our terms, with the full backing of the Senate and an ironclad escape clause.”
Pushback is growing internationally, too, as political leaders from the Netherlands and Argentina to Brazil and the United States threaten to upend the whole agenda. Trump has repeatedly referred to the man-made warming hypothesis as a Chinese Communist Party “hoax.” And House Republicans have been working on bills that would strip some or even all of the UN’s various funding streams on multiple issues for months. Nobody at the summit wanted to talk about any of that. Instead, they put on an air of invincibility.
With pushback growing, the UN and leaders of the climate movement were sounding more and more autocratic, claiming that nothing could stop them now. And it was not just the UN banners on giant screens around the conference boldly proclaiming that “the transformation is unstoppable.” When Kerry was asked at COP28 about the prospect of Trump coming back to power and derailing the “progress” made on “climate,” he responded arrogantly. “They’re not going to stop this,” he told the world after making faces. “This economic transformation is going to be the biggest transformation in human history — it’s bigger by far than the industrial revolution — and it is going to happen.”
Climate guru Al Gore, meanwhile, went on a tirade about “algorithms” and people around the world being able to find alternative information. “If you have social media that is dominated by algorithms that pull people down these rabbit holes that are a bit like pitcher plants, these algorithms, they are the digital equivalent of AR-15s,” he said, obviously upset that people were accessing information contradicting the alarmist narrative while demanding “reforms” for the sake of “democracy.” “They ought to be banned, they really ought to be banned. It’s an abuse of the public forum.”
U.S. lawmakers were also beyond arrogant. The New American asked the delegation of U.S. senators at the UN summit about the prospect of Trump’s return to power and the fact that polls show most Americans reject the man-made global-warming theory, with just over a third being willing to pay even one single additional dollar on their electric bills to “fight climate change.” Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) stated just as confidently as Kerry that nothing could stop the agenda.
Boasting that the “Inflation Reduction Act,” described as the largest “climate” bill in world history, had already hooked conservative states with tens of billions of tax dollars, he painted it all as unstoppable. “Am I suggesting that were the former president to be our next president that everything would be fine? Not at all,” he said. “But I am saying that there is broad enough and deep enough support for continuing investments to combat climate change and for the Inflation Reduction Act and bipartisan infrastructure law in particular that we will continue — we’ll continue to move forward regardless.”
Read the rest of the article at The New American.