Last edited: October 31, 2023 12:29am EST

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Continued from Part 9

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve.

—Minority Report: H.L. Mencken’s Notebooks (1956)

Document: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf (Copy: http://www.canadianliberty.com/documents/Agenda21.pdf )

---

CLIMATE CHANGE

The man-made Climate Change doctrine and its resulting policies are an important component of Agenda 21.

In addition to the points made in Part 4 and Part 1 about climate change, we can also find agenda items on this topic throughout the Agenda 21 document, including Chapter 9, “PROTECTION OF THE ATMOSPHERE.”

Section 9.2 mentions the 1992 Climate Change treaty–parallel to Agenda 21–the “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”:

It is recognized that many of the issues discussed in this chapter are also addressed in such international agreements as the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer as amended, the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and other international, including regional, instruments. In the case of activities covered by such agreements, it is understood that the recommendations contained in this chapter do not oblige any Government to take measures which exceed the provisions of these legal instruments. However, within the framework of this chapter, Governments are free to carry out additional measures which are consistent with those legal instruments.

Note that the nature of Agenda 21 itself is not the same as the treaties described which are referred to as “legal instruments.” Agenda 21 is a softer type of document.

The term “soft law” is used to describe action plan documents like Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is one of the examples given in the Wikipedia article on this topic–see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_law:

Soft law instruments are usually considered as non-binding agreements which nevertheless hold much potential for morphing into “hard law” in the future.

In the Canadian context, Agenda 21 has already morphed covertly into multiple laws over the years depending on how you interpret the origin of those laws, but one example that stands out is the federal Sustainable Development Act. “Sustainable Development” is a frequent Agenda 21 term I have highlighted throughout this series.

“Climate change” is mentioned throughout the Agenda 21 document.

Word Counts Related to Climate Change:

climate change(s): 33 instances
climate: 56 instances
climatic: 10 instances
greenhouse: 7 instances (in the context of “greenhouse gas(es)”
atmosphere: 34 instances
atmospheric: 22 instances
carbon: 8 instances
global warming: 1 instance
sealevel: 10 instances
sealevel rise: 7 instances
sea level (sea-level): 2 instances
sink(s): 7 instances
flood(s), flooding: 17 instances
drought(s): 85 instances (some of these in context of “climate change”)
desertification: 77 instances
deforestation: 6 instances
anthropogenic: 6 instances

Water vapour is also a “greenhouse gas” and is a much more significant part of our atmosphere than carbon dioxide. It would seem ridiculous, however, for someone to declare war on water vapour, claim there was “too much” of it, or claim that it was harmful.

Both carbon dioxide and water vapour are good for plants.

The “Second World Climate Conference” is mentioned in 18.83. For more information on the World Climate Conferences and various related programs, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Climate_Conference. The first of these conferences was held in 1979, the second in 1990 (Agenda 21 was 1992), and the third in 2009. All of these took place in Geneva, Switzerland.

18.87 refers to United Nations bodies and programs related to climate, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) and the World Climate Programme (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Climate_Programme):

Monitoring of climate change and its impact on freshwater bodies must be closely integrated with national and international programmes for monitoring the environment, in particular those concerned with the atmosphere, as discussed under other sections of Agenda 21, and the hydrosphere [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrosphere], as discussed under programme area B above. The analysis of data for indication of climate change as a basis for developing remedial measures is a complex task. Extensive research is necessary in this area and due account has to be taken of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the World Climate Programme, the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and other relevant international programmes.

I mentioned “monitoring” and surveillance earlier in this series and it’s one of the major aspects of Agenda 21. The future, supposedly utopian, society written about by H. G. Wells and Bertrand Russell was to be a “scientific” society–or scientifically controlled society–often referred to as a scientific dictatorship or technocracy.

This is not something we should want, but here are these international organizations being set up to collect data, which will be interpreted according to the biases of whoever is paying the salaries, which leads to advising governments, which leads to decision-making.

Who has the authority and the right to collect and interpret data for the planet–for every nation–as in a science fiction movie? This has been going on already.

And it is not just about collecting data from nature. It is also about interacting and interfering with nature using technology. I covered the topic of vaccines already, and there is also a whole chapter of Agenda 21 on biotechnology.

Carbon dioxide is not mentioned in this document, but there are references to carbon in the context of climate change dogma:

11.13.d refers to “carbon reservoirs” and “carbon sinks” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink). This is a reference to photosynthesis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis] and how trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide.

However, there is a lot going on in nature as far as emissions of carbon dioxide, and that includes, for example, decaying plant matter in forests. See my study here which covers many issues with the climate change doctrine, which demonizes carbon dioxide and methane, etc.

Carbon dioxide is essential for trees and plants, and thus for life.

Our minds are poisoned by all kinds of propaganda on many topics that are intended to affect our attitudes and lifestyles–in order for a class of people to achieve greater control.

It is a degrading for all of us that people like this take advantage of ignorance and docility using repetition, reputation, celebrity, omission of facts, fear, money, intimidation, demonization, control over the education system and media in order to carry out their social engineering and political agendas.

Carrying out revegetation in appropriate mountain areas, highlands, bare lands, degraded farm lands, arid and semi-arid lands and coastal areas for combating desertification and preventing erosion problems and for other protective functions and national programmes for rehabilitation of degraded lands, including community forestry, social forestry, agroforestry and silvipasture [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture], while also taking into account the role of forests as national carbon reservoirs and sinks;

11.14.e refers to their dogma again, also with respect to forests:

Compiling and analysing research data on species/site interaction of species used in planted forests and assessing the potential impact on forests of climatic change, as well as effects of forests on climate, and initiating in-depth studies on the carbon cycle [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle] relating to different forest types to provide scientific advice and technical support;

11.15.b mentions “carbon sequestration” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration].

17.101 refers to this concept of “carbon sink” again, as if carbon dioxide (not explicitly mentioned) is a bad thing:

Recognizing the important role that oceans and all seas play in attenuating potential climate change, IOC [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Oceanographic_Commission] and other relevant competent United Nations bodies, with the support of countries having the resources and expertise, should carry out analysis, assessments and systematic observation of the role of oceans as a carbon sink.

17.125 is the only reference to “global warming” and one of several references in Agenda 21 to the “sealevel rise” scare, which is part of climate change dogma:

Small island developing States have all the environmental problems and challenges of the coastal zone concentrated in a limited land area. They are considered extremely vulnerable to global warming and sealevel rise, with certain small low-lying islands facing the increasing threat of the loss of their entire national territories. Most tropical islands are also now experiencing the more immediate impacts of increasing frequency of cyclones, storms and hurricanes associated with climate change. These are causing major set-backs to their socio-economic development.

It’s important to note this claim that there is “increasing frequency of cyclones, storms and hurricanes associated with climate change.”

In my view, based on accepted science, the climate has always changed, and there are regular cycles of change such as solar cycles (even according to Julian Huxley) and there are major changes in climate that are not so climate. It would be better if everyone were aware of this.

There are, especially in recent years, more and more media messages claiming that every major storm is due to man-made climate change.

I think there has always been disastrous weather. I doubt that human day-to-day, industrial or automobile activities have any effect on the weather at all. I don’t believe that there is, even now, “increasing frequency of [storms].” Prove it!

It is a different topic to say that geoengineering is affecting the weather and creating storms in some cases. That is a possibility in some temporary instances case by case, but overall I don’t think anyone can easily show that weather is crazier compared to past history.

I think that people are trained through media and other influences to perceive apocalyptic scenarios because that is how we are softened up to accept agendas that take power and resources away from us.

---

Some of the references to floods are in the context of climate change fears about sealevel rise, for example 18.82:

There is uncertainty with respect to the prediction of climate change at the global level. Although the uncertainties increase greatly at the regional, national and local levels, it is at the national level that the most important decisions would need to be made. Higher temperatures and decreased precipitation would lead to decreased water-supplies and increased water demands; they might cause deterioration in the quality of freshwater bodies, putting strains on the already fragile balance between supply and demand in many countries. Even where precipitation might increase, there is no guarantee that it would occur at the time of year when it could be used; in addition, there might be a likelihood of increased flooding. Any rise in sealevel will often cause the intrusion of salt water into estuaries, small islands and coastal aquifers and the flooding of low-lying coastal areas; this puts low-lying countries at great risk.

Notice all the fears that are listed as part of their climate change doom-saying. “Climate change” is one excuse for a grab at power (see my quote from the Club of Rome) along with all the other excuses and fears spelled out in this kind of document.

The formula is, “humans everywhere have problems, therefore we need to impose solutions.” What gives them the right? Who are they anyway? It’s about power.

Notice the uncertainty: “there might be a likelihood.”

Some of the references to droughts and floods are in the context of man-made climate change, for example, 18.1:

18.1. Freshwater resources are an essential component of the Earth’s hydrosphere [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrosphere] and an indispensable part of all terrestrial ecosystems. The freshwater environment is characterized by the hydrological cycle, including floods and droughts, which in some regions have become more extreme and dramatic in their consequences. Global climate change and atmospheric pollution could also have an impact on freshwater resources and their availability and, through sea-level rise, threaten low-lying coastal areas and small island ecosystems.

The hydrological cycle is mentioned, also called the “water cycle.” It means that water doesn’t leave the planet. It evaporates and it comes back down to us again. We don’t run out. The mention of this concept contradicts the constant efforts at creating a sense of scarcity and crisis in this document. There are variations all over the world in terms of resources and human beings have already been finding creative ways to deal with resource problems for thousands of years. We don’t need United Nations, corporate, or military power grabs conducting invasive biotech, microwave and artificial intelligence “solutions.”

Other fears include desertification and deforestation. These topics are not always attributed to or in the context of anthropogenic climate-change.

The word “anthropogenic” is sometimes used in the context of the man-made climate change theory, for example, 9.8.d:

Cooperate in research to develop methodologies and identify threshold levels of atmospheric pollutants, as well as atmospheric levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, that would cause dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and the environment as a whole, and the associated rates of change that would not allow ecosystems to adapt naturally;

9.20.a.i. calls for:

The reduction of atmospheric pollution and/or the limitation of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases;

Notice how “pollution” and “greenhouse gases” are put together in the same sentence as if “greenhouse gases” is equivalent to what we normally think of as pollution.

I am sure that many people think that “greenhouse gases” refers to smog or visibly black carbon soot, because this is the effect of one-sided emotionally-laden propaganda that omits information necessary for proper understanding.

However, the main gas being demonized in the media for this climate fear-and-tax agenda (power grab) is carbon dioxide (not mentioned by name in Agenda 21), an unavoidable product of combustion processes and respiration (breathing), which is a non-toxic gas, necessary for plants and hence necessary for all life.

If people would just start to look into the “other side” of “climate science” the whole thing collapses. It doesn’t survive objective examination.

I am glad that a large number of people apparently do question climate change. Whether it’s a majority or not, I don’t know.

However, I believe that the reason for resistance to questioning climate change–or other mainstream doctrines–is that people view the government, the education system, corporations and the media as parent-like figures, as religious figures in a sense who can not lie on a large scale.

Our sense of reality can be threatened by questioning these institutions and their dogma.

Many think that such vast and dominating deceptions are impossible.

However there are countless occasions in life to learn otherwise if we are not distracted, if we can open our eyes and ears and engage our critical thinking.

An effect of electronic media and “virtual worlds” and endless entertainment of all kinds is to prevent us from engaging with the real world, which is also part of the larger agenda. Entertainment as a distraction is referred to in Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited by Aldous Huxley.

There are other techniques besides immersive entertainment (including drugs and propaganda) described in Brave New World.

If we add burdensome chronic illness and economic concerns to the time we spend on distracting entertainment–the money and debt system–the time we spend on our jobs and our anxieties about paying bills, we might notice that our world seems designed to make us not participate, to make us not feel responsible for decisions being made, to make us not engage with dogmas that place new burdens and limitations on all of us.

Let me quote a UK Ministry of Defence document from 2010 which describes some core aspects of the agenda very succinctly:

“The developed world is likely to experience a degree of transformation as it moves from a consumerist society based on freedom of choice to a more constrained, sustainable societal model that provides financial and social rewards to encourage greener practices and discourage waste.”

This topic of “financial and social rewards” raises the wider picture of how this new form of dictatorship–also called technocracy–is planning to operate. (To start exploring that massive topic, see https://wrenchinthegears.com/.)

---

To be continued in Part 11

---