Climate control debate hijacked by influencers

Here is a quote from the Club of Rome from 1991:

‘Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, new enemies must be identified. In 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 it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.’

The main objective of this letter is not to prove anyone right or wrong. It is to highlight not just that the anthropogenic global warming theory lobbyists have become infested with political and financial interests, but the danger that this group and possibly the environmental lobby in general have been hijacked by those with an ulterior motive which involves the surrender of national sovereignty, loss of democracy in societies, and a reduction in the freedoms and rights of individuals. Whatever your take on climate change, there can be no doubt the debate has become politicised and influenced by the ‘what’s in it for me’ brigade. I don’t pretend that there are no vested interests amongst those who oppose the claims of man-made global warming, but I do not see the same numbers of roads leading to one door as I do with the AGW theory group.

When I read quotes such as the one above from the Rockefeller-founded Club of Rome, and others from David Rockefeller himself and other elite bankers from the 1990s and early 2000s, which when put together convey the clear message ‘the way to achieve the desired objective of a one world government is to depict an enemy common to all nations, and environmental issues such as pollution, water shortages and man-made global warming fit the bill nicely’, and then the threat happens and those most cited in evidencing that enemy are all effectively funded or influenced by the Rockefellers and banking elite, I can’t help but be sceptical – especially when over 1,000 scientists whose fields are climate-related are on record as saying that the fearmongering claims are unfounded.

Unfortunately, the argument that any damaging climate change either doesn’t exist or exists but is down to natural causes such as solar activity does not offer the same financial and political opportunities as the AGW theory.

I suggest therefore that the debate has historically suffered from a gross imbalance, especially at high level, and that both sides should be heard properly and fairly before adopting some of the extreme measures being mooted and in some cases already introduced.

Also by transferring guilt to the ordinary man in the street and conveying the message that he is guilty of either causing or failing to remedy an environmental catastrophe (the real polluters are of course the industrial giants, chemical factories and power stations), governments and other organisations persuade him to more readily accept increased control over his life by them.

So I’m not saying we should pollute the planet or not follow green policies in the general sense. But based on the independent evidence I have seen to date, suggestions coming from some quarters like ceding national sovereignty, surrendering freedoms and rights or paying extra taxes or that there should be more surveillance of the public are all steps too far.

The above letter is a summary of my article which adds to and backs up what I am saying. The amount of scientists who are opposed to the AGW theory will surprise many I think. It is entitled Climate change: historical times or hysterical times? and can be found online here:

https://mattvocallocal.wordpress.com/.

MATT WATERMAN

Flat 2,

3 Burnt Lane,

St Peter Port,

GY1 1HL.