Of course, you and I will not have a say in this treaty, as it will be determined behind closed doors by the likes of Rajendra Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC reports, issued by a “2,000-strong network of UN scientists and energy experts” (i.e., they are bankrolled by NGOs, foundations and corporations) are “authoritative” and “widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.”

Naturally, these “scientists and energy experts” know best, and so it makes sense IPCC meetings are open only to members of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. As usual, the United Nations will be dictating to us, the squalid (and over-populated) commoners.

Well, this commoner has big problems with the United Nations, the IPCC, and its gaggle of bureaucrats and scientists sucking on the foundation grant teat. First and foremost, the United Nations is dedicated to world government, thus any solution to any number of problems, more than a few contrived in advance, will necessitate more globalism, more authoritative government, more orders haughtily issued from on-high. Second, the IPCC’s scientists, to my satisfaction, have yet to demonstrate climate change is the result of human activity and carbon emissions.

“Those of us who study the pre-human history of the Earth find the current debate over global warming difficult to fathom,” writes Martin Keeley, a geologist. “To expect permanent stability in climate patterns displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the complexity and instability of weather…. If the global climate were not getting warmer, it would be getting cooler; stasis is not an option.” Keeley takes issue with the IPCC’s “hockey stick” temperature curve for the last millennium, a set of statistics the IPCC used as the foundation for Kyoto.

“In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial skepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the public at large,” writes John L. Daly. “This never happened with [Dr. Michael] Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann’s paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the greenhouse industry. Within the space of only 12 months, the theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy.”

Al Gore used this “hockey stick” data in his film, An Inconvenient Truth. It is now widely accepted as gospel truth, never mind schlocky research passed off as fact, even though two Canadians with expertise in statistical analysis, Stephen McIntyre and economics professor Ross McKitrick, “found considerable errors in the way the data was collated,” according to the Cooler Heads Coalition.

McIntyre and McKitrick, in a paper published by Geophysical Research Letters, “were unable to replicate Mann’s results either by re-running his calculations once the errors were corrected or by constructing their own data set from the original sources. Their reconstruction of the Mann et al. data set from the original sources shows clearly that there was a period of greater warmth than the last century in the 15th century, and that the spike is not unprecedented. They have suggested that Mann should account for the discrepancies.” In response, Mann accused the Canadians of engaging in a “political stunt” and dismissed their research.

As Bjørn Lomborg discovered, criticism to this entrenched orthodoxy will not be tolerated. Lomborg is adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. Lomborg authored The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, a book arguing that certain aspects of the global warming orthodoxy—including overpopulation, declining energy resources, deforestation, species loss, water shortages, and a variety of other global environmental issues—are unsupported by analysis of relevant data. In response, the IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri compared Lomborg to Adolph Hitler.

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, notes that taking a stand against the IPCC dominated orthodoxy can be a career killer. “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicized in favor of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases,” Calder writes for the Times Online. “As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.”

Of course, the “rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science” are not invited, as the point here is to stampede people into accepting global government, lest we all fall victim to “a worldwide disaster” of biblical proportion. “For complete control of the masses a dictatorship is not necessary, although it does expedite the process. The collective moulding begins early in life, sustained and refined throughout one’s formal education; a universal curriculum of manipulation can transform and achieve a complete paradigm shift for a whole generation,” writes Terry Melanson.

Climate change, now making the rounds with increasing urgency and no shortage of fear mongering, represents a “control of the dialogue” that will ultimately lead to the “inevitably to hegemony; defined, succinctly, as the power of ideas exercised by a dominant or privileged social group over subordinate social groups. Hegemony is the aftermath of the Hegelian Dialectic, the outcome of the ‘ends justify the means’ maxim. The people have not submitted to this power, ‘they consent to it—though it is clearly not in their own best interest. Hegemony is a form of control in which those who have power maintain their position, not through force, but through the elaboration of a particular ideology or world view. This form of social control is long lasting, it is an effective, and patient, tactic,’” Melanson continues, citing the late Antony Sutton.

Mary Burdman is a bit more blunt: “The real agenda of what can only be called climate ‘terrorism,’ will be using this hoax to impose the kind of ’state of emergency’ used when the Nazis took power in Germany, as the German newspaper Die Welt has just warned. This crew is not only after everyone’s pension; they are using green propaganda to target a generation of children, as Godzilla was used to frighten young Baby Boomers about the atomic age. The Scotsman reported Feb. 23 about a recent study which revealed that half of over 1,000 British children between the ages of 7 and 11 lose sleep because of exaggerated fears about global warming. It is no coincidence that the British government is sending Al Gore’s film hoax ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ to all schools in the country.”

Quoting the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty, Tom DeWeese writes: “The goal of Sustainable Development is to transform the world into feudal-like governance by making NATURE the central organizing principle for our economy and society…. The plan is to change your way of life to fit into the new global society. According to Sustainable Development policies, air conditioning, convenience foods, single-family housing and cars are among the products, habitats and modes of transportation that have already been determined to be ‘unsustainable’… There has never been a single vote in Congress to create Sustainable Development. It’s all done through cleverly rearranged wording of existing programs and budgets, using UN treaties as guidelines.”

Steven Yates adds:

Agenda 21 is the bible of the sustainable development movement. A horribly written, longwinded tract consisting of 40 chapters of various lengths covering everything from land, water and waste management to urban planning to biotechnology, it purports to offer a comprehensive new paradigm for life on planet Earth. The basic idea behind sustainable development was spelled out back in 1987 by the little-known Brundtland Commission. The Bruntland Commission definition: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This innocent sounding phrase came to carry with it the implication that there are too many people living and working in an environment of finite resources to permit “unsustainable” economic freedoms. Behind the idea of sustainable development is the idea that we have a choice: adopt “voluntary” central planning (with the UN at the helm) to integrate economics and ecology within a globalist perspective or face ecological disaster a few decades down the pike…

According to Angus Reid, all the scary propaganda, much of it based on junk science (as noted above), is working like a charm, although not fast enough for green careerists over at the World Wildlife Fund, an NGO that receives funding from the Ford Foundation, a “philanthropic” organization connected to the CIA.

“Many adults in the United States are willing to make some economic sacrifices in order to help reduce global warming, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 75 per cent of respondents would pay more for electricity if it were generated by renewable sources like solar or wind energy,” the polling organization reports. “In addition, 92 per cent of respondents favor requiring car manufacturers to produce cars that are more energy efficient, but only 38 per cent support an increased federal tax on gasoline.”

“They are the biggest culprit and they are the biggest offender of climate,” complained World Wildlife Fund member Stephan Singer. “The United States should take climate change seriously.”

No doubt most of us here in America will “take climate change seriously” after we are crowded into Malthusian “sustainable” ghettoes resembling something out the dystopian science fiction film Soylent Green.