You can read the two previous installments of “Is this How it Happened?” here and here.
~~~
A: Good news – it now looks as though Southern Ireland will be amongst the first countries to properly implement our Agenda 21!
B: What’s that?
A: Just another of the United Nations Action Plans. You know, the ‘Sustainable Development’ one for the 21st century. Started at the Earth Summit in Brazil in 1992 and it’s been updated several times since, so that it’s now it’s Agenda 30.
B: Sustainable Development??? What does that actually mean?
A: Control, of course! With the world’s population growing and gobbling everything up, somehow we have to get the numbers down and make sure that everything people use is ‘sustainable’. Good word, that. Sustainable fuel supplies, sustainable food supplies. We use it over and over again and since everyone likes to virtue signal these days, what government in the world is going to vote against it in the UN?
B: But how did you persuade them all that this ‘sustainable’ stuff was necessary?
A: Ah, that was the clever bit. We invented Global Warming. Back in the 70s some idiot scientists thought up the idea that the world was shortly going to go through another Mini-Ice Age, like that in the 17th century. Nonsense, of course. But we turned the idea on its head and produced proof (computer stuff, you know) that the reverse was happening. We blamed the West for producing increasing amounts of carbon-dioxide through their use of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution. We said that very soon the Earth would be like a greenhouse with closed windows, where the heat was unable to leave the atmosphere and the Earth would fry – no crops would be able to grow and there would be no water to drink. Worked a treat. The eco-loons soon got coal, gas, oil and even fracking to become dirty words. We nudged them to think of wind and sunlight as alternatives to produce the electricity is needed throughout the world if society is to survive. Luckily, once these people get an idea stuck in their minds, it is almost impossible to alter it so now we have windmills everywhere and huge areas of what could have been arable land, set aside for solar power arrays. ‘Renewables’ they call it, ‘Clean Energy’.
B: And have all countries signed up to this Agenda?
A: Not all, unfortunately. For instance, China is still opening coal mines, but on the other hand Britain, as well as other countries such as Ireland, has just agreed to create a legally binding net-zero carbon target for 2050 in spite of the fact that it will probably cost the country something like £1 trillion pounds
B: But that sum is vast and will ruin Britain and any other countries which signed up to the Agenda, so surely it would be better for them to withdraw from it?
A: Since it is termed ‘non-binding’ they naturally think they can if they wish to (Hah, some hope!). But it is supposed to be implemented at local level first, then build up through national and global levels, by which time it will be impossible to withdraw.
B: So what has Ireland agreed to do at the moment?
A: Well, to start with, by 2050 the Irish Government intends to ban all petrol or diesel vehicles from their towns and cities and even force private cars off the roads since they are considered the worst offenders for carbon emissions. (You will notice that I said ‘carbon’ and ‘not carbon-dioxide’ since carbon makes people think of nasty black stuff.)
B: So how are people going to get around?
A: Ah, that’s the point, they won’t! The Government is going to import another million migrants to add to their 4 million or so population and create what they call high-density cities. These ‘vibrant’ areas will then be totally transformed by changing the population’s behaviour and encouraging them to adopt new technologies in order to prevent our so-called ‘climate catastrophe’. It will obviously need carrots and sticks: tax hikes but incentives, regulations but a lot of good public relations information. The Government’s Prime Minister says this will change how his country’s homes and workplaces are heated, the way they travel, and how food is grown. Good globalist, that man.
B: But if this attitude becomes wide-spread, it will not only bring down the standard of living in the industrialised nations but also prevent the growth of the less developed countries. The world economies will crash. Millions of people will die!
A: Exactly! As I said, the world’s population is already far too huge and will grow exponentially. And at the moment, it can’t be controlled. Better that the world’s population is reduced than it is completely destroyed…
B: …by Global Warming? Which you all invented?
A: Absolutely. Thank goodness for the hot summer we are having at the moment, here in the Northern Hemisphere!
B: But if you remember, we have just had a very cold and snowy winter, especially in the USA where one skiing area apparently won’t close until the 4th July.
A: Luckily, people have short memories.
B: But suppose those ‘idiot scientists’ of 1970s were right and that the coming winters are the same or worse? As someone once said: You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
On Friday 28 June the The Times had an article on page 12 about how aircraft contrails are leaving a trail of climate destruction. They claim the net warming effects of the clouds they create have a greater impact than the CO2 emitted. This is absolutely a classic example of the contrary claims of the warmers. The opposite is actually the case.
The high level clouds actually easily emit any warmth quickly to space, they also reflect a small amount of the Earth’s emissions to space BUT they reflect a lot more of the Sun’s energy back into space. High level cloud cover always cools the Earth. They are spouting the contrary because it suits their agenda to demonize global air travel and reduce its availability to humanity at large.
150 years ago, people like this were called Luddites, nowadays many don’t know any better because they have been educated to believe this nonsense.
Yes I’m afraid I’m one of those amateur sooth Sayers who is prepared to mouth off about subjects in which I have little or no professional qualification and in fact with no university degree, Mackey mouse or otherwise as a qualification to be a member of our controlling chattering elite.
So I applaud Sonya, she always writes a good article anyway.,full of common sense approach to what in this case is an awful agenda and carried out on a global conspiracy basis (I’ll not go into Coudenhove -Kalergi and all that has followed since at this juncture).
I will comment economically however (household budgets and scars); I would put a few bob into a company growing “carrots and sticks”, that’s of course if there is sufficient land left available after these made international mullahs have built their new “High Density Vibrant Areas” (should do well in fracking locations).
So Ms Porter have to any relevant science/technology qualifications that makes you a fit person to comment on these matters?
Or are you just seeking fame among fellow ignoramuses?
Harold. Do you think that we must all be so compartmentalised as to be able only to comment on matters within our relevant compartments and further only by those in the compartments who hold formal qualifications? Do life experiences and observations, and research count for nothing?
Take a rocket scientist, would he/she and other similar persons be the only ones qualified to decide or comment on the uses to which rockets may be deployed?
Society would not function efficiently or at all, if this was the case, science for example could not be funded unless the financial people were all qualified scientists also, and the vast majority of politicians would be totally redundant.
Sonya has produced an article which is not highly technical but based on observation that could be followed by any reasonably intelligent and interested person. If you do not agree with her why don’t you refute her points specifically instead of gratuitously insulting people you know nothing about? But that’s the modern way isn’t it, don’t let facts and the discussion of them get in the way of emotives.
By the way, the idea that the earth was to enter another mini ice age was real among scientists in the 1970’s.
When you get half wit journos commenting on topics they don’t have the slightest knowledge about then you need to worry.
These people are desperate to be read so they say controversial things.
They usually end up employed/published by the likes of the Daily Mail/Express, writing fiction/drivel for the equally uneducated.
Would you ask a journalist to fix your teeth? No, you go to an expert for advice and treatment
Regarding your last paragraph, yes, scientists believed that an ice age was approaching back in the 70’s.
When it became obvious it wasn’t happening, the thinking changed tp what we have right now.
(Google Milankovitch and get better yourself informed.)
The vast majority of politicians are thick as pitch but have massive egos and hubris.
Journalists are not far behind. They write stories that people want to hear. As 99% of them have zero relevant education, most of what they write is total fiction. People like to read stories that reinforce their existing beliefs.
As with this article.
Science is about facts, not fantasy from the ill-educated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
‘As 99% of them have zero relevant education…’ I hope I’m in the 1 percent Harold!
Harold, one doesn’t need to be a scientist to smell a rat. Or even a rocket scientist, or if you really want to up the ante, a rocket ENGINEER.
For the last THIRTY years they’ve been telling us, at regular and fairly frequent intervals, that ‘we’re all gonna fry’ (from increasing temperatures), and/or ‘drown’ (from rising sea levels due to melting ice) ‘in TEN years’.
The Cortez female in America has just been the latest to join this long queue of doom-mongers although I believe she’s the first to say “we’ll ALL be dead in 10 years!”.
(Perhaps she actually believes it and is genuinely scared!)
In other words, all one needs is logic.
And the ability to write well.
Oh and Harold, Milankovitch won’t be a problem for several hundred years or more if Zharkova is correct. (But I hope she’s wrong and here’s why.)
https://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zharkovas-expanded-analysis-still-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum-2020-2055/
You could also have mentioned the campaign to reduce the consumption of animal products and promote veganism, involving shoving the supposed virtues of a plant-based diet down the public’s throat at every available opportunity.
The major obstacle to this propaganda campaign is the growing number of ex-vegans testifying that veganism wrecked their health, which could only be restored with liberal quantities of….those evil animal products.
I speak with some knowledge here, having been a long-term victim of the pro-vegan agenda.
Brilliant! I especially liked the ‘idiot’ scientists bit at the end. That was really cool.
University of east anglia !
According to the BBC we are ” World Leaders ” ( in anything and everything pointless )