Agenda 21 og FN-systemet - sitater i sammenheng

[seoto]

FN, gjennom IPCC, har forsøkt å skremme verdens befolkning til lydighet ut fra frykt om verdens undergang, slik at de kunne gjennomføre sine lenge planlagte ideer. Disse ideene og planene ble visualisert gjennom Agenda 21. Selv i dag har folk flest liten eller ingen kunnskap om Agenda 21, og om bakgrunnen. Takket være Internett blir imidlertid flere og flere vanlige mennesker også opplyst om virkeligheten som MSM ikke liker å skrive om.

Er Agenda 21 det rette verktøyet til å få en bærekraftig verden? Eller er Agenda 21 et finurlig verktøy til å slavebinde verden i et nytt system? Jeg antar svaret er avhengig av hvilken vinkel man ser det fra. Hadde jeg vært blant verdens mektigste, ville jeg muligens vært egoistisk og omfavnet det. Som et helt alminnelig, laverestående vesen (i de mektigstes øyne) vil jeg selvsagt stritte imot at noe slik skal gjennomføres.

Her har jeg begynt å samle noen uttalelser og sitater om saken, og håper flere kan og vil følge opp. Dette kan gi oss en nærmere forståelse av hvordan overklassen tenker, for det er tross alt de som har makten over oss, i hvert fall så lenge vi tillater det.


Agenda 21
Joanne Nova har et fint innlegg (11.06.12):
Agenda 21: Alabama may have outfoxed it. Why you should care.
(Litt leting på Internett har vist at det er flere stater enn Alabama som har valgt å stå imot, bl.a. Tennessee og Texas.)

"Agenda 21" sounds like a daft-but-harmless-idea you can ignore. I found it hard to get enthused, but I was wrong, and no one sums this up better than James Delingpole in "Watermelons" (aka "Killing the Earth to Save it"). To paraphrase James's brilliant work (forgive me James) from page 190:
Some of you still aren't convinced that you need to worry about Agenda 21 because you are thinking:

a) Agenda 21 sounds way too much like Area 51, (you know Aliens and the Roswell incident). Nut job stuff.

b) It was signed in 1992. If it was that bad, we'd have heard by now. Surely?

c) What sovereign nation would be so insane as to sign itself up for a binding treaty?

James explains that it's real, it's important (like an anti-magna-carta), and its' a wolf in sheep's clothing. Governments could sign up because it was "voluntary", but then those voluntary rules are scrupulously and doggedly enforced by the "labyrinthine, democratically unaccountable behemoth that is the United Nations."

The New American har, i samarbeid med The John Birch Society, i  utgitt en PDF, Agenda 21 and You, en svært grei oversikt over hva Agenda 21 vil bety for den vanlige borger.

Utdrag fra filen:

Rising prices, high electric bills, water shortages, and a scarce supply of gasoline at the pump. These are but a few examples of some of the conditions that the United States has faced in the past, but just for one moment imagine how you would feel if the next time they happened they were a direct result of government policy.

The commission that authorized the report was chaired by its namesake - Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Director-General of the World Health Organization and the first female Vice President of the World Socialist Party. Using the framework provided by the Brundtland Commission, the United Nations is seeking to have implemented in your local town or city its agenda - Agenda 21. This is the official name of the United Nations program on "sustainable development" and it is also what will change your life, home and town as you know it.

... sustainable development is the UN's Agenda 21 program for the global control and restriction over your daily life, including your private property, individual rights, and civil liberties ...

What is Communitarianism?
Not too dissimilar from communism, which is founded on the premise of the dictatorship of the proletariat or working class, communitarianism is founded on the belief of the dictatorship or supremacy of the community. As a result of this supremacy, the individual is subservient to needs of the "greater good" of society.
"... communitarianism is founded on the belief of the dictatorship or supremacy of the community."

[attach=1]

[attach=2]


Jacques Cousteau (1910-1997)

In November 1991, Cousteau gave an interview to the UNESCO Courier, in which he stated that he was in favour of human population control and population decrease. Widely quoted on the internet are these two paragraphs from the interview: "What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It's a wonderful idea but perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement it we may jeopardize the future of our species...It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable".[11]

In 1992, he was invited to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for the United Nations' International Conference on Environment and Development, and then he became a regular consultant for the UN and the World Bank.

Paul Ehrlich (1932-)

Giving society cheap, abundant energy ... would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun
—Paul Ehrlich, "An Ecologist's Perspective on Nuclear Power", May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report

"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions." - - Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

Stephen Schneider (1945-2010)

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989. For the original, together with Schneider's commentary on its misrepresentation, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.[7]).

Ottmar Endenhofer (1961-)
the co-chair of working group III Mitigation of Climate Change at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Sitert på WUWT 29.01.12 i artikkelen Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup:

"... we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore ...
"

Ted Turner (CNN) (1938-)
Fra InfoWars: (25.10.12)

However, Turner has repeatedly voiced his wish to see billions of people wiped off the planet via population reduction programs.

Ted Turner's satisfaction at U.S. troops committing suicide takes on a different context when you understand that Turner is a neo-eugenicist who routinely advocates massive population reduction.

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal," Turner stated in 1996.

In the third world, Turner has contributed a billion dollars to fund population reduction, namely through United Nations programs.

(Det kan også nevnes at Ted Turner selv har 5 barn.)


Maurice Strong (1929-)

If we don't change, our species will not survive... Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.
Maurice Strong, September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine

På Wikipedia:

In the early 1970s he was secretary general of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and then became the first executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme.

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Secretary General a/the UN's 1992 Earth Summit.

Aktivt Club of Rome-medlem.


David Ross Brower (1912-2000)
(Brower was named the first executive director of the Sierra Club in 1952)

"Overpopulation is perhaps the biggest problem facing us," he said, "and immigration is part of that problem. It has to be addressed." Some of his views with regard to population control were quite controversial. For example, he once stated that, "Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license ... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

(Hadde selv 4 barn.)


Dette får være nok for i dag. Kanskje noen har flere kjente sitater og uttalelser? Fyll gjerne på.

[Jostemikk]

Jeg følger ikke opp tråden nå, seoto. Men takke deg, de kan jeg. Flott at du startet denne tråden, og et spørsmål jeg stiller til alle er om de har fundert særlig over hvilken måte disse menneskene skal bli kvitt noen milliarder av oss? Vi vet jo hvem de er de som ønsker dette. Vi vet at det er blant verdens mektigste mennesker. Vi vet at våre egne og mest kjente politikere er med på dette. Alt dette er å lese svart på hvitt. Men hvordan skal de drepe oss? Hvem skal stå for utvelgelsene? Hvor skal de gjøre av så mange lik?

Uten mitt vaksineprogram vil verdens befolkningsproblem aldri kunne løses.
Bill Gates

Det er rett og slett mange skremmende mennesker tilknyttet FN-systemet. Når man også kan kjøpe seg plass ved å slenge inn en milliard, er det vel bare en ting å si? Hvorfor kan ikke jeg hoppe bukk når Ted Turner?

[Amatør1]

Professor Mike Hulme - (Professor of Climate Change) University of East Anglia

Han har skrevet boka Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity



På side 326 i denne boka kan vi lese (min uthevning):

"The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.".

Lyder dette som en vitenskapelig eller som en politisk målsetting?

[seoto]

Alt handler om politikk, makt og penger - ikke til beste for verdens befolkning, men for de få "utvalgte". Hadde jeg tilhørt en religiøs gruppe, ville jeg sannsynligvis forenklet det til å si: "Det vi ser er satans verk. Satan har narret oss til å forkaste Gud og tilbe Satan."
(Se, barndommens religionsundervisning sitter fortsatt i meg. Det vi lærer som barn blir med oss resten av livet. Så hva lærer dagens barn i skolen?)

[Amatør1]

Ja enig i det. Og jeg regner med at det sitatet gjenkjennes som et pervertert sitat av John F. Kennedy sitt berømte sitat ved innsettelsen i 1961:


John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961


And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

[Amateur2]

Gjengen mangler totalt det som heter skamvett

[Spiren]

Margaret Thatcher og Klima/globalopvarming.

Hun spillet givetvis en rolle gennom et par taler i 1989 og 1990, hvor hun bl.a. udtaler:

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817

"We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.
Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones."

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108237

"I want to pay tribute to the important work which the United Nations has done to advance our understanding of climate change, and in particular the risks of global warming. Dr. Tolba and Professor Obasi deserve our particular thanks for their far-sighted initiative in establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Et offentliggjort kommuniké fra G7 topmøde i Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_G7_summit Thatcher havde en bachelor i kemi, så hun havde et rimelig fundament for at udtale sig. Det er dog interessant, at hun omtaler CO2 som forurening (pollution)

Hun omtaler "carbon dioxide" og "sulphur oxides" (svovl oxider) i samme sætning.

Margaret Thatcher oprettede http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/resources/hadley  i 1990.

Thatcher udgav en bog i 2002 med titlen "Statecraft", hvor hun bl.a. skriver:

"The doomsters' favourite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method."

[ebye]

Et offentliggjort kommuniké fra G7 topmøde i Tokyo 5th G7 summit  Thatcher havde en bachelor i kemi, så hun havde et rimelig fundament for at udtale sig. Det er dog interessant, at hun omtaler CO2 som forurening (pollution)

Hun omtaler "carbon dioxide" og "sulphur oxides" (svovl oxider) i samme sætning.

Så det er her Klif og Finansdepartementet har det fra, at CO₂ er en forurensning? Klif har det faglige ansvaret for å legge grunnlaget for å avgiftsbelegge fossilt utslipp av CO₂. Men hvilken hjemmel som ligger til gunn for avgiften er ikke Klif's bod! Det bordet er det Finansdepartementet som har. Dette er det siste som kom på Ellen's blogg før huns startet luftbåren pendling Oslo - Trondheim - Oslo, med ditto CO₂-utslipp

Jeg kommer tilbake!

http://blogg.klif.no/Ellens-blogg/2013/Jeg-kommer-tilbake/


            

[seoto]

Margaret Thatcher og Klima/globalopvarming.

Thatcher udgav en bog i 2002 med titlen "Statecraft", hvor hun bl.a. skriver:

"The doomsters' favourite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method." [min uth.]

Takk for innlegget, Spiren

I sitatet jeg har klippet ut ovenfor, dukker ordet "supra-national socialism" opp, og jeg gjorde noen søk. Når man søker dukker det opp så mangt, og det ene søket fører til det andre til man nesten glemmer hva man egentlig var på jakt etter Men jeg skal ta med de første sidene jeg fant.

Det finnes en artikkel på Wikipedia: Supranational union

Vel, den sier ikke særlig mye om "supra-national socialism", men for å få til det må de sannsynligvis begynne i det mindre med "Supranational Union" og jobbe derfra. Hitler ønsket nasjonalsosialisme, og i dag kan det virke som om man ønsker "supra-national socialism", der det neppe er særlig plass til eller ønske om det folk flest oppfatter som demokrati.

På siden fant jeg en link til
List of supranational environmental agencies

På denne siden oppdager jeg at de prøver å løsrive IPCC fra UNEP, ved å legge IPCC under "Other". Det var uansett UNEP som opprettet IPCC. Det jeg også oppdaget, var noe som heter "World Nature Organization". Det interesserte meg, så jeg gikk videre på Wikipedia.


World Nature Organization (WNO)


Deres offisielle språk skal være engelsk, tysk og fransk. Målet er å være verdensomspennende. WNO er altså en IGO (Intergovernmental Organization), og her kommer dette med "supra-national" inn igjen, for det er jo det det handler om. WNO er enda ikke avtalefestet i FN, men det kommer nok snart. Deres formål er: "Environmental and climate protection". Foreløpig befinner de seg i Sveits, som så mange andre tilsvarende organisasjoner.
Her er deres hjemmeside: World Nature Organization (WNO)

Når det gjelder det som skjer i dag, gjennom bl.a. klimasaken, kan det virke som om mange mennesker har problemer med å se de store sammenhengene. Det ser ut for at mange står foran et tre, og studerer enkeltvis noen få av bladene, uten å legge merke til at alle bladene er festet til samme tre.

[Jostemikk]

Sjekk årstallet for når Thatcher dro i gang underbruket av klimasenteret på Hadley, sitat Spiren:

Margaret Thatcher oprettede http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/resources/hadley  i 1990.

Når dro Gro Harlem Brundtland i gang GRID Arendal og CICERO? Jo sannelig, og litt av en tilfeldighet, det skjedde i 1990! Som Gro Harlem Brundtland selv har sagt, alt henger sammen med alt.

[Jostemikk]

Når det gjelder det som skjer i dag, gjennom bl.a. klimasaken, kan det virke som om mange mennesker har problemer med å se de store sammenhengene. Det ser ut for at mange står foran et tre, og studerer enkeltvis noen få av bladene, uten å legge merke til at alle bladene er festet til samme tre.

Dette er dessverre en like god beskrivelse av en gjennomsnittlig norsk "klimaskeptiker" som av noen andre.

[Amateur2]

Sagt på en annen måte: Man ser ikke skauen for bare trær

[Spiren]

Margaret Thatcher: Gudmor 'global opvarmning?

Thatcher åbnede i 1990. Hadley Centre, til gengæld bidraget til at producere den primære datasæt, som blev brugt af den nyligt grundlagte IPCC for at "vurdere observerede globale opvarmning". Under ledelse af engagerede Warmist Sir John Houghton, Hadley var også ansvarlig for at vælge kundeemnet forfatterne til IPCCS videnskabelige arbejdsgruppe (arbejdsgruppe jeg) — forfattere, som det behøver næppe siges, pålideligt ville skubbe IPCCS rapporter i den "korrekte" alarmerende retning.

En af teorierne er, at Mrs. Thatcher vedtagelse af "klimaændringer" spørgsmålet var forankret i Realpolitik. Efter udfordringen af hendes magt som 1984 minearbejdernes strejke, hun ønskede at sikre, at aldrig igen kunne Storbritannien holdes som gidsel af den nationale Union af minearbejdere. Forklædt som et global miljøproblematik  kunne hun listigt reducere Storbritanniens afhængighed af kul uden at provokere yderligere konfrontation med minearbejdere.
Hvad mere er, hun kunne bruge CO2-reduktion – lige som den svenske statsminister Olaf Palme gjorde i midten af 70 ' erne — som en undskyldning for at retfærdiggøre den ellers upopulære atomenergi.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100211031/margaret-thatcher-godmother-of-global-warming/

Olof Palme statsminister 1969.

FN til Stockholm efter invitation fra regeringen i Sverige. Lederen af konferencen var Maurice Strong "Secretary-General of the Conference".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Conference_on_the_Human_Environment

Maurice Strong omgås mange af de helt store ledere i Verden og er bl.a. nær ven af en tidligere præsident for Verdensbanken. Maurice Strong er i klimasammenhæng kendt for.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Summit  Rio 1992, 20 år efter Stockholm 1972, og Rio+20 i 2012.

Maurice Strong Speaks - Agenda 21 -

http://www.americanalertnews.com/mauricestrongspeaks1992.htm

Maurice Strong har baggrund i olieindustrien, han har assisteret FN i forhandlingerne om at fjerne kernekraft fra den koreanske halvø og få lagt gasledninger ind fra Sibirien. Pipeline_Korean_Peninsula_Paik.pdf  se nederst på side 25 og side 31.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea

Maurice Strong bruger meget tid i Kina, Verdens største og i høj grad kul-baserede udleder af CO2, hvor han bl.a. er Honorary Professor ved Peking University.

Bemærk Maurice Strong der har meget at gøre med Earth Summit i Stockholm og Rio i mere end 40 år, altså også samtidig arbejder for at fjerne kernekraft (som ikke udleder CO2) og erstatte det med gas (der udleder CO2).

[seoto]

Maurice Strong omgås mange af de helt store ledere i Verden og er bl.a. nær ven af en tidligere præsident for Verdensbanken. Maurice Strong er i klimasammenhæng kendt for.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Summit  Rio 1992, 20 år efter Stockholm 1972, og Rio+20 i 2012.

Jeg ser at Maurice Strong har mottatt "Prisen for frihet fra nød". Det er selvsagt lett å forstå, for Maurice Strong har nok aldri lidd noen nød.

[Spiren]

Thatcher, og hendes rolle i klimakampen og hvornår hun sagde hvad.

Omkring årskiftet 2012-2013 blev der på bloggen, The Lukewarmer's Way, publiceret en serie indlæg med titlen "The Climate Scientist's Story". Videnskabsmanden, Marty, lidt af historien om klimakampen (climate wars), som han husker den over de seneste årtier.

Marty bl.a. kom ind på, hvilken rolle f.eks. Margaret Thatcher og James Hansen spillede set fra hans synspunkt. Det skabte veldig meget uro med trusler og lign., bloggens ejer,  måtte fjerne indlæggene.

Idag er det bare en Editorial note på bloggen med nogen interessante kommentarer, ikke mindst for et publikum med interesse for klima.

Idag findes det bare "Chapter 3" af historien på nettet:

The Climate Scientist's Story: Part 3 - How climate science became such a mess. Chapter 3

Muligvis findes de første to kapitler af historien et sted på nettet?

Del 1 var en introduktion af forfatteren, Urban Heat Island (UHI) problemet og "nuclear lobby" og CO2. Del 2 om Thatcher og NASA og militære interesser.

Indvendingene mod historien gik på nogle detaljer omkring Thatcher,mulig det i virkeligheden handlet om informationene omkring James Hansen, der ikke tålte dagens lys. Marty erindringer:

I renewed my contacts at NASA's Goddard center on climate. Several researchers there were analyzing climate variables looking for long and short cycles. I visited there in 1988 after Hansen delivered his famous testimony to congress. Since Hansen was officially the director of the center, global warming naturally came up. The most senior climatologist got up and closed the door. I got an earful. There was a cycle based prediction that predicted warming in the 90's and Hansen was well aware of it.

In 1991, I was again looking for money and climate science seemed to be giving it away. A colleague gave me a stack of papers by Phil Jones and others on the Urban Heat Island effect. After a sleepless night, I came to the obvious conclusion. They were cooking the books. Up until this point I mostly gave the global warmers the benefit of the doubt. But here they were deliberately minimizing surface effects on climate in order to exaggerate the warming due to CO2. This bothered me. But what I did not realize at the time is that these papers bothered hundreds of others. I think that the origin of climate skepticism can be traced to a response to these papers written between 1989 and 1991. This is when others started to ask for data and calculations and to file FOI requests. These requests eventually led to Climategate. (See Tom's book.)

During this period, the conservative pundits were still firmly behind global warming. To the best of my memory, I don't remember them changing sides until 1995-96. I sure don't remember any fossil fuel money.

One of the arguments frequently heard is that we should leave the science to the experts. When the experts on UHI effect were telling Phil Jones's "team" what they didn't want to hear, they simply ignored all existing literature on the subject and wrote their own, even though they didn't have any experience in it. This pattern was repeated with tree rings, glaciers, and sea level.