U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

Written by news.investors.com

Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this. christiana figueres

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

“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,” she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “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.”

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.

Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work. “If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page,” notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3RPyGBcqz 
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Comments (11)

  • Avatar

    Stephen Apple

    |

    My issues are purely data-centric. I do not know if the earth is warming or cooling. When I graduated HS- they were saying it was cooling. Now warming. They do this on the basis of quoting a temperature rise of 1.1. degrees in 100 years. I ask what they measured temperature with 100 years ago that was accurate to 0.1 degree- let along 1 degree. We cannot get that accuracy with the instruments we use in processing facilities. Were these instruments calibrated to NIST standards? And what was the wet bulb temp? It’s really heat content that counts. Not temperature. So, where’s the thermodynamic calculations to back this temperature theory? And how many places were they measuring temperature 100 years ago? What about the middle of the Atlantic or arctic wilderness? And as I watch my local news channel, they report temperatures across the region that vary by 10 degrees within a few miles- which one of those do they use? And what point temperatures did they use? Daily high? Daily low? An average of the two (we know how inaccurate that can be)? And how did they compensate for artificial heat effects out doors of air conditioning systems and heat systems in city environments? And don’t even get me started on their measurement of CO2…
    Look- I’m an engineer- just tell us when you want to give up the Evian plastic bottles, and the heating and A/C, and the titanium-framed bikes (do they know the energy it takes to make those?), and washers and dryers, and just live in a cave next to a stream. Heck- we’ll even find a way of making that more comfortable for them. But until they select that lifestyle for themselves, please stop using the very technology we developed for you to complain about how convenient we’ve made your lives and how much longer you live. I doubt they’d have time to complain if they had to kill their dinner, gather their water, and dispose of their own waste every day.

  • Avatar

    CleanEnergyPundit

    |

    “To leave no doubt, in an interview published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 14 November 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, said “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. one must say clearly that de facto we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…. One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns.” Full story at: http://tinyurl.com/q4rtmvf

  • Avatar

    FauxScienceSlayer

    |

    The ruling robber baron elites hatched this eugenics plot a century ago and had no problem finding pseudo-science charlatans to carry their evil water. Since the elites OWN the major industries, media and government puppets, they have prevailed, in the recent past, but soon Truth will prevail.

    “Piñata Planet Syndrome” a Satrie on these elitist games, at FauxScienceSlayer site.

  • Avatar

    Derek Alker

    |

    What is the greenhouse effect theory?
    PSI states there more than 63 versions, from various authors. True.

    However, the only one that matters is the UN one. The others are merely noise. Yes / No?

    But, I would suggest there are four main (official) versions, or deliberately stepped types of the UN “theory”. These have been used to deliberately build the AGW scam. Which is after all is said and done, HOW we are supposed to be affecting the “greenhouse effect”, ie, intensifying it with our CO2 emissions.

    1) “Old” heat flow GH “theory”.
    Greenhouse / blanket analogy.
    2) “New” simplified energy flow “theory”.
    Earth radiates 480W/m2, to answer various and obvious criticisms of heat flow version. But it does not answer those criticisms, AND it distracts from the unphysical starting point of the “theory” in any version of P/4.
    3) “New” complex energy flow “theory”
    Global energy budgets.
    4) Radiative transfer “theory”.
    ie, Miskolczi, which is as near to a flow diagram of what is modeled as we have been given so far.

    To me at least, this offers a better way to view the overall “theory”, and explain the various versions, why they have been produced, and what they were used for.

  • Avatar

    Knut Rellsmo.

    |

    The largerst politicial swindel ever…

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    Ok… what were those famous words of the then all powerful UNEP supremo, Maurice Strong??? Oh yes…

    “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse” … and then elaborated on the idea of sustainable development, which, he said, can be implemented by deliberate ‘quest of poverty . . . reduced resource consumption . . . and set levels of mortality control.’

    Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Issues at the time, seconded Strong’s statement:

    “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.”

    And let’s also not forget Richard Benedick, a deputy assistant secretary of state who headed policy divisions of the U.S. State Department at the time, who stated:

    “A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

    Christine Figueres is simply overseeing the implementation of Maurice Strong’s ‘Masterplan’ … and AGENDA 21.

    • Avatar

      Hans Schreuder

      |

      Thanks Mervyn! Yes, the scientific method is systematically and regularly crushed for political purposes. Equally shameful behaviour is noted when so many skeptical “scientist”, professors amongst them, try to explain and defend the greenhouse effect and give a “climate sensitivity factor” to CO2. Best analysis by Reynen (see http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-REYNEN_vacuum.pdf) gives a near-zero sensitivity of just 0.03C for a doubling of CO2; a statistical number of no consequence in the real world. As PSI we must stand firm else we ourselves will be crushed.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    In Jan 2014 UN Spokesman Christiana Figueres reportedly said communism is superior to capitalism to save the Earth from CO2.

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/15/un-climate-chief-communism-is-best-to-fight-global-warming/

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17650-climate-alarmists-push-chinese-communism-population-control

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/16/un-climate-chief-declares-communism-best-for-fighting-global-warming/

    The jig is up. The cat is out of the bag. Skeptics were right all along. They are vindicated and to be congratulated. It really was all a deliberate hoax. The perpetrators should be prosecuted and punished.

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    The left have infiltrated so many institutions, Governments, Universities, and private organizations that it has become irreversible.
    Take for example the Rockerfeller Foundation.
    John D. made his money as a capitalist and the left wing socialist money managers weaseled their way in and have taken over the disbursements. Guess who gets huge contributions? Green Energy; WWF Greenpeace; Sierra Club etc., etc,. etc,.
    John D. would rollover in his grave if he knew…

  • Avatar

    Hans Schreuder

    |

    Will the UK bureaucrats now repeal their silly Climate Change Act? Am not holding my breath.

Comments are closed