The Best Available Science
I’m sure that you’ve questioned the validity of ‘science’ for a while. Certainly since the arrival of the scamdemic. And there just might be a very valid reason as to why that is. Let’s kick off with a report; ‘ICSU and Sustainable Development: 1991 - 2006 and beyond‘, which was released by the ICSU themselves.
I first became aware of the ICSU, when I discovered the SCOPE 3 report about a month back. To put it mildly, reading that report confirmed that not only was the state of global surveillance as bad as I thought, it was in fact worse, with initiatives I hadn’t even thought of, actively debated back around the time I was born. In fact, SCOPE launched following the 1968 Use and Conservation of the Biosphere conference.
But - imagine my surprise - when I discovered that not only did the ICSU found SCOPE, but they in fact also founded the International Biosphere Programme in 1964, and their output sure came in handy at that conference in 1968 -
Thing is, those two - SCOPE and IBP - are not the exception, but rather the rule.
As for the report, it’s subtitled ‘From ASCEND 21 to CSD‘, and while many will have heard of the CSD - the ‘Commission on Sustainable Development’ - ASCEND 21 is a somewhat different matter. I’ve trawled a lot of documents, and I never heard of that one before - and all search engines and archives appear to agree with me.
‘A key role for ICSU is to inject the scientific dimension into policy discussions at the global level, particularly (but not only) within the UN system‘
Already right here I have a problem. I didn’t vote for them. Neither did you. Yet they have direct access to top-level conferences with impunity.
‘The UN formally invited ICSU, which already had its established research programmes on environmental issues, to act as principal scientific adviser to the dedicated secretariat tasked with the preparations of the Rio conference.’
And cut - setting aside another stroke of luck, let’s just remind ourselves who the UNCED Secretary-General in fact was. Any guesses?
Yes, it was none other than Maurice Strong himself. Same chap who commissioned SCOPE’s first report on global surveillance in 1971 in preparation for Stockholm, 1972.
’This entailed ICSU’s participation in a large number of official and unofficial preparatory meetings. In addition, the ICSU responded by convening, in November 1991, a conference to define the Agenda of Science for Environment and Development into the 21st century (ASCEND 21). In so doing, the Council used its extensive networks to link with many national and international scientific bodies and secure the participation of key individuals, representative of informed scientific opinion, from 70 countries.’
Again, next issue. Who gave the ICSU the global mandate to prepare this report, and which scientists did they communicate with? Those who agreed, no doubt.
’The outcome, as documented in the highly-cited, ASCEND 21 Report, committed ICSU to contribute to the UNCED follow-up, both in terms of continued development of the scientific agenda and in terms of ensuring the incorporation of science into policy discussion‘
Again, no democratic oversight, and… after spending well over an hour, I have not been able to track down that report in whole. I finally found an old copy on Amazon, which I’ve ordered. I look forward to reading it in 3 weeks, when I’ve moved on from this topic
‘The formal action plan that was agreed by governments at the Rio conference was called Agenda 21. …, it included several chapters to which ICSU had provided substantive input, including specific chapters on science for sustainable development and the role of the scientific and technological community. Overall the outcome of UNCED overlapped considerably with the positions taken at ASCEND 21. … it confirmed ICSU’s ability to impact the policy agenda.’
… in some ways, it’s just a tad weird. Because here’s this super-secretive organisation, which spawns other groups, which then fabricate ‘the science’ to be used to push through the next initiative. And yet, they release this report, practically owning up to sidestepping democratic principles entirely.
’Agenda 21 also confirmed the status of the scientific community as one of the nine ‘Major Groups’ that should be consulted with regards to development issues (see ahead, re. CSD).‘
More on that in a bit -
‘In order to improve scientific information for policy making in the post-UNCED era, it was recognized that observations of the atmosphere, the oceans and the land had to be developed in a more systematic and holistic manner in order to accurately monitor the general state of the globe. To this end, ICSU formed partnerships with several UN bodies to develop the three Global Observing Systems – climate (GCOS), the oceans (GOOS) and terrestrial (GTOS).‘
You must be kidding me. The ICSU also were a major driver behind the global surveillance system, then, because those eventually merged into GEOSS, which form the backend of contemporary global surveillance.
‘At the same time ICSU stepped up its support for international research collaboration on global environmental change. In addition to continued sponsorship of the International GeosphereBiosphere Programme (IGBP) and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), ICSU partnered the International Social Science Council (ISSC) in sponsoring the International Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Programme (IHDP). Then in 2000, it joined several of its own members and other sponsors, in providing additional support to DIVERSITAS, an international programme of biodiversity science.‘
And there’s the link to the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, and they even highlight a programme I haven’t yet commented on; the IHDP. Oh, and provided support to DIVERSITAS as well?
Is there actually a ‘science’ program anywhere not directly impacted by the ICSU?
At this stage, it actually feels as though they’re bragging.
‘ICSU, in partnership with the World Federation of Engineering Organisations, was invited by the UN to take the lead in marshalling input from the science and technology (S&T) community. This was the first time that the S&T community and other selected “Major Groups” (see ahead, re. CSD) had been directly involved in developing a world summit agenda, normally the exclusive preserve of governments.‘
At this stage (2002), the merger of international politics, business, and ‘science’ is complete, in other words. Early stage, sure, but complete.
‘At the Summit itself, ICSU organised a strong science presence at the major sessions, to underline the importance of the scientific dimension for sustainable development and particularly for the ‘wehab’ areas: water and sanitation, energy, health and the environment, agricultural productivity, and biodiversity and ecosystem management. ICSU also led a parallel forum on science, technology and innovation for sustainable development, at the behest of the South African Government and in collaboration with the UN.‘
In fact, you could argue that it’s even worse, because they ran a parallel event. I’ll see if I can track down the proceedings, but let’s get real. They’re hard to find for a reason.
‘All this constituted a major investment of effort by ICSU to integrate science and technology into the sustainability agenda – scientific knowledge being essential both for understanding the parameters of sustainability and for delivering strategies to achieve sustainability‘
Oh, and we sure are all appreciative of your democratic efforts.
‘The essential roles of science and technology in moving towards sustainable development are clearly recognized in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation adopted by WSSD. ICSU, …, signed the Ubuntu Declaration, which called for a greater global emphasis on education in reaching sustainable development goals and stressed the need to integrate a sustainable development focus into the curriculum at all levels‘
Just take that in. The reason why your kids are being brainwashed in school in regards to all the climate ‘science’ and sustainable garbage is because a private science organisation deemed it should be so.
You can find the Ubuntu Declaration over here. I’ll run through it at the very bottom.
‘Funding for ICSU’s contribution to the Johannesburg Summit and the CSD ICSU successfully sought grant funding from several Foundations (Packard, $500k; Rockefeller, $30k; UN Foundation, $35k) to support activities…‘
I know, I know - shocking, just shocking.
And let me skip down to -
‘Following a recommendation from the Advisory Group on S&T for Sustainable Development in 2005, ICSU is exploring how to develop an effective ongoing mechanism for ‘multi-stakeholder’ dialogue on priorities for scientific information and technological innovation related to sustainable development.‘
Wait, so we’re now at the stage that we effectively live in a corporate technocracy?
Who the hell gave them the mandate to act in any capacity but advisory???
‘“Good science is necessary for good decision-making and policy development at the local, national and international levels”. This is one of the key messages that ICSU communicated to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 and it is fully integrated into the Council’s future strategy.‘
In the strategy goals it follows -
‘to ensure that science is integrated into policy development at the international and national level and that relevant policies take account both of scientific knowledge and the needs of science‘
Wait, what - so ‘the needs of science’ are now top priority? That is a technocracy.
‘The example described here concerns injecting science into the UN summits and commissions focused on sustainable development.’
This essentially mirrors Health-in-all-policies and equivalents, which seeks to integrate completely unrelated topics in all policies for sakes of… control.
’ICSU and its Interdisciplinary Bodies play an important role also in providing scientific input to international conventions pertinent to environmental protection and sustainable development, such as the UN Conventions on Climate Change and Biodiversity, and to other intergovernmental fora, such as the UNEP Governing Council.’
I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.
’ICSU was an institutional partner in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which involved thousands of scientists across the World in generating a comprehensive map of the status of the Earth’s ecosystems, and was published in 2005. A major challenge for the future will be ensuring that the outcomes of this very rigorous assessment are integrated into future scientific and policy agendas.‘
I haven’t yet covered the MEA, but either way, I’m pretty sure no-one voted for this, and few requested these to be integrated into future scientific and policy agendas.
Before moving on, let’s clarify a few things here. First off, of the very, very, very few documents I found with any level of referencing of ASCEND 21, this Canadian PhD thesis from 1997 is one -
‘In looking at the lead-up to UNCED, it appears that as global environmental research picked up steam, the fitting of such research into palatable forms of global govemance became a prime concem of major states from both the developed and developing worlds.‘
‘As the executive director of ICSU put it, Agenda 21, the blueprint for environmental action into the next century, "can be viewed as an instrument through which scientific knowledge was transformed into a uniquely U.N. frame of reference”‘
This is an interesting quote, and I will get to why in a minute.
‘The most direct input of the scientific community came from ICSU, whom Maurice Strong invited to serve as the conference's official scientific advisor.‘
Confirmation of the above. It’s the Maurice Strong again. Let skip forward -
‘Although ASCEND 21 recommendations stuck closely to the promotion of scientific ativity, some policy-relevant themes stood out such as a focus on population and carrying capacity, consumption pattems, and a strong endorsement of the Precautionary Principle‘
Um… yeah. Those interests are strongly aligned with a foundation which comes up repeatedly in these papers.
Rockefeller.
So the question here is - who delivered said quote above? That would be none other than Julia Marton-Lefèvre. Here’s an outline, courtesy of TEEB, aka ‘The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity’ -
‘Earlier offices held by Ms. Marton-Lefèvre include the Executive Director of LEAD International, a programme established by The Rockefeller Foundation to bring together and train mid-career leaders from all parts of the world and from several sectors to improve their leadership skills around the issues of sustainable development.‘
Ah right.
‘As a policy fellow, selected by The Rockefeller Foundation she plans to begin a writing project during 2015 at the Foundation’s Bellagio Center, and in 2016 she will be the Edward Bass Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Environment at Yale University‘
Colour me surprised.
‘Ms. Marton-Lefèvre was born in Hungary, educated in the United States and in France, and having lived in several continents, considers herself a global citizen.‘
Oh trust me, I think we all worked that one out by now.
So the next issue is LEAD. Let me dump a few links here.
Sure, Rockefeller funded, with a Program Review Task Force headed by a Rockefeller Foundation representative, and -
‘She is also a member of the China Council for International Cooperation in Environment and Development, and a Trustee of Earthwatch Europe and the Earth Council…‘
The Earth Council? Maurice Strong.
And finally -
‘The Agenda of Science for Environment and Development into the 21st Century, which was a major document prepared for the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.‘
Aka ‘ASCEND 21’, though I can’t find it in whole under that name either. Here’s the best copy I’ve managed to dig up, but it’s a preview version.
A few pages are visible, however, and… first off -
Why the hell is Gro Harlem Brundtland and Maurice Strong attending a Science Forum?
Either it’s a science forum, or a policy forum. This is supposed to be the former, but here with extremely relevant senior politician participation. But, not content with stopping there -
‘The participants of the ASCEND 21 Conference were invited individually after selection by the Advisory Committee from over a thousand proposals made by the co-sponsors, UN bodies, and other relevant organisations.‘
In other words - it was not open to the public, it was an invite-only event, and whoever sat on that Advisory Panel no doubt only cherry picked ‘scientists’ useful to the narrative.
… and I will also loop in Menon’s address, because it answers the question in regards to Maurice Strong above -
‘For this reason, Mr Maurice Strong, Secretary General of UNCED, requested ICSU to act as principal scientific advisor, and to organise this International Conference, at which we are all present today‘
And there you have it.
Maurice Strong called on the ICSU to organise the conference, front running the ‘science’ prior to the Agenda 21 outline, which itself drew heavily on the outputs from this conference - ie, ASCEND 21, which apparently isn’t for public consumption.
How is this democratic?
Sooo… for how long did Julia occupy top spot at the ICSU? Well, I located an old CV of hers over on UPEACE. 1989-1997. Or at least according to her CV. Unsure if that’s trustworthy, given the ‘science’ output during her tenure. And the one further thing that stand out apart from what was previously discussed… the Club of Rome-linked Global Footprint Network.
And at this stage, I will call it a day. I have plenty of material, because it’s pretty obvious what’s been going on.
The entire process of international science has been corrupt, for probably no less than 2 generations. Probably more. Perhaps that’s a driver behind the ‘replication crisis’?
Either way - the ICSU launched around… oh yeah, a year after the BIS. Not that those are necessarily related. But then again, perhaps they are. After all, both can be linked through Rockefeller.
-
And here’s the Ubuntu Declaration. There’s nothing unexpected in there, which is probably the most depressing thing about it.
