The World Climate Conference
The ‘carbon consensus’ was implicitly established at the 1979 World Climate Conference, organised by foundation-funded ICSU who conveniently ‘forgot’ to invite those of dissenting opinion. And this ‘forgetfulness’ developed into a template repeated continuously ever after - especially in the field of alleged climate science.
This 1979 event was a crowning achievement, establishing a claim without even the backing of a (semi-credible) ‘scientific consensus’ - and it paved the road to Rio.
About 15 years ago, I bought into the climate change narrative. Used to have discussion after discussion with my now departed father, who used to always laugh at my indoctrinated beliefs about the veracity of ever-changing models, only with a comforting, yet authoritative voice to ultimately state that this is about progressively milking people dry. I tried to 'educate' him by sending him books on the topic, of which one was on peak oil - which I similarly used to buy into - to which he sarcastically quipped ‘will there be a test on the subject at the end?’
And up until recently, questioning the topic did make me rest somewhat uneasily. Because all those people can't be wrong, right? And although the message frequently does appear to be delivered somewhat speculatively ahead of empirical observation, one does fundamentally still prefer to 'trust science' - especially if one has a 'hard science' background as I do.
Then came the alleged pandemic. And those doctors were CLEARLY wrong, CLEARLY lying right in my face. In spite thereof, most - highly educated - contemporaries, friends and colleagues would just mindlessly agree and go along with it. And progressively, you come to realise that most people - even those you consider highly intelligent - in general just agree with the 'consensus' presented. To me, that was a major wake-up call, not only because it was impossible to convince many in spite of the narrative clearly not only being severely flawed, but also because you’d be labelled a heretic should you have the nerve to call out said obvious flaws. I described this experience of mine in my first (proper) substack post back in June, 2023.
Up until recently I hadn't genuinely looked into the climate narrative. But once you actually start investigating the story leading up to 1979 - which is when the implicit consensus' was established - you realise that it's virtually all complete speculation. Beyond a few isolated experiments in a lab, there were absolutely no signs of impending apocalypse, and global temperatures had been as unpredictable as ever - and this only changed the very second the 'consensus' came in.
And should you decide to read the conference proceedings from 1979, it's clear that's something’s not quite right. Because not only do preciously few papers deal with the actual matter at hand, but virtually all deal with planning for the future of impending apocalypse, and that, with an impressive level of contemporary detail and relevance. And given that their 'main guy', Bert Bolin, in front of the US Congress only few years prior stated that they knew virtually nothing (apart from carbon dioxide being plant food), there's just no way that said 'science' could possibly have been 'settled' by 1979. Not in a billion years. Not only was there absolutely no legit 'consensus' outside the circles of the foundation-funded ICSU when that conference was held, but reports released in the run-up to the event reveal that they internally accepted that they knew even less than they believed to know a decade prior. Yet, as soon as that conference completed, the newly estabished carbon narrative was put to use, practically immediately.
The funny thing is - the only counterarguments I've received in response to my 'denial' relate to ‘science‘ produced over the past 20 years. But that materal matters not in the slightest, as it implies that no counterargument to 1979 itself exists, and thus the output 'consensus' was absolutely nothing short of an outright guess, and thus - not science at all.
Because - undeniably - the political course was expressly set on basis of that 1979 'consensus'. Thus, what came down the line was based on flawed assumptions, which were never honestly revisited, nor even properly debated by people capable of representing both sides of the argument. Yet, it led to all sorts of fear-mongering, including bug-eyed claims delivered in the late 80's - leading up to the Rio Earth Summit, 1992 - including Al Gore predicting a 5 degree celsius temperature rise within the lifetime of his children.
Yet, none of said claims came to pass. They never even came close.
You cannot 'trust' 'science' established on a fundament of pure horse manure. And those who disagree - please explain to me the validity of the 'science' relating to the alleged pandemic, as delivered in March, 2020. Because not only were we not allowed to question said ‘science’ either, but that was certainly complete and utter BS just as well, and further - along with the 'carbon consensus' established in 1979 - ultimately expressly delivered for sake of political expedience.
As for the Earth Summit in Rio - not only was the future model of global governance outlined through Agenda 21, but the UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity similarly came to pass, where the former was intensely lobbied by GLOBE Legislators, co-founded by John Kerry and… Al Gore. And that very same Al Gore was further highly influential behind the scenes, ensuring the Convention on Biological Diversity came to pass.
And with that said, let’s taking a second look at the 1979 output document.
World Climate Conference
Geneva, 12-23 February 1979
The conference proceedings1 were previously covered, but I have a number of related comments on second take. And this event saw contributions courtesy of the lead author of SCOPE’s third report on the Global Environment Monitoring System, RE Munn, but further Bert Bolin, whose house testimony some 2 1/2 years earlier prior outlined that they don’t really know much - if anything at all.
Should you compound the IIASA report from 1978 stating they are less confident in their carbon cycle model than they were a decade earlier, it appears somewhat the stretch to discuss adverse outcomes relating to human health, land use, forestry, energy, impacts on the world economy - to finish off with a related declaration. And that’s not forgetting the first overview paper authored by Federov, a Soviet national, of all things discussing climate and public policy - a fact resting somewhat uneasily with me given the US-USSR agreement on environmental protection signed May 23, 1972, which ultimately outlines -
‘joint development and implementation in the fields of basic and applied sciences‘ for sakes of ‘controlling the impact of human activities on nature‘ through the development of ‘legal and administrative measures for protecting environmental quality‘.
Because to whom would said Soviet-drafted public policies apply?
The declaration titled ‘An Appeal to Nations‘ is ansurdly peppered with terms like ‘may’, ‘probably’, ‘can’, ‘possibly’, and ‘might’, thus outlining beyond all uncertainty - yet it also features blanket statements such as ‘there is an urgent need for the development of a common global strategy‘ to which end we must use these… vast uncertainties for sakes of ‘planning for the future development of human society‘, before finally admitting that ‘climate will continue to vary… slow cooling trend in parts of the Northern hemisphere… whether it will continue or not is unknown‘.
In other words - they knew absolutely nothing.
Yet, on the final page, the demands accelerate -
‘The overall purposes of this Programme are thus to provide the means to foresee possible future changes to climate and to aid nations in the application of climatic data and knowledge to the planning and management of all aspects of man’s activities. This will require an inter-disciplinary effort of unprecedented scope at the national and international levels‘
The plan comprise the… global. And while this is set on a prerequisite of ‘peace’, the second to last paragraph completes with -
‘There is an immediate need for nations to utilise existing knowledge of climate and climatic variations in the planning for social and economic developments‘
There was no immediate need to fuse said ‘knowledge’ for sure, because said ‘knowledge’ was hugely incomplete. And the postscript finally calls for technology transfer (which tend to make middle-men very wealthy), and even includes a quote likely originating with the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference (recommendation 3.3), stating that long-term survival requires the balancing of humanity with nature.
And though covered in the previous post, let’s have a very quick look at Federov’s overview paper outlining public policy, titled ‘Climatic Change and Human Strategy’ as we in its final section find this -
‘Several economists and sociologists have recently discussed these questions in a series of papers. One such is that written by a group of social scientists led by the well-known American economist Laszlo.‘
Ervin Laszlo is primarily known as a ‘Systems Designer’, which in context of Jantsch’s 4-level University structure - which fuses the Great Chain of Being with General Systems Theory - relates to translating a purpose into the normative, like codes, standards or… ethics. But he continues -
‘… real goals, which countries have in regard to economic activity by their governments and people, exist within socialist countries which plan and shape their development… In capitalist countries the notion of a goal is absent‘
Indeed, that’s the purpose behind a legal framework - defining the rules of acceptable behaviour, but not defining what one must do, yet -
‘Laszlo calls for the development, adoption and pursuit of some rational obiectives for all mankind, which he calls "a revolution of goals"‘
Per Laszlo, as the Soviet Union does not have this ‘problem’, what this in effect calls for is for the West to turn more… authoritarian. What Laszlo calls for is the application of a socialist top-down approach to all nations.
But no doubt Laszlo will stipulate that he’s totally against all forms of authoritarianism. They always do… as well as declaring themselves ‘Social Democrats’.
Cool story, bro.
The chapter on ‘Climate, Health and Disease’ by Wolf H. Weihe of the WHO - spanning an impressing 56 pages, which must have taken a fair while to put together - further outlines ‘… climate being a cause of disease… investigate the public health aspect, communicable and non-communicable diseases… organisation of health services… provision of vaccines‘
The ink on the Declaration on Alma-Ata was hardly dry, outlining the need for (top-down) primary health care. They really did not waste time.
There is no need for in-depth analysis, as most of this material was previously covered. However, page 655 in the chapter titled ‘Climate and Economic Activity‘ is worth quickly revisiting, if for no other reason but to point out that…
‘Given the inherent uncertainties and possibilities for large errors in measurement… There are large uncertainties (both in sign and magnitude) in the climatic effects of various levels of emission into the stratosphere… Whether this will be counter-balanced by other types of pollutants and to what degree is not known with any degree of accuracy… There are extremely large uncertainties in the translation of tropospheric climatic changes into quantitative biological effects… There are very high uncertainties as to how social communities and the economic system adjust… None of these substantial uncertainties is likely to be reduced to accurate estimates of effects in less than one or two decades… The essential problem is that the relationship between predicted cause and effect is extremely uncertain at this time…‘
… they knew absolutely nothing, especially as most of these are not simply large uncertainties, but compounded large uncertainties.
But one thing not previously covered relates to the final report, and its section on modelling begins by pointing out that… no data relating to oceanic temperatures even existed at this stage. And that’s actualy a major deal, as the vast, vast majority of active carbon is stored in the world’s oceans2.
‘Apart from the atmosphere itself, which shows the greatest variability on most spatial and temporal scales, the role of the oceans was most prominent in discussion. Concern was expressed at the limited amount of oceanographic data available. Meteorologists and oceanographers in their studies of climate need data for various levels of the ocean, not merely at the sea surface‘
And as for even the best models at this stage -
‘However, even the more advanced models do not give predictions of changes in average climate over a year or decade or from, say, one winter to the next.‘
… they are of such ‘quality’ that any future estimate is nothing short of a guess, especially given that -
‘It was argued that there could be some important feedback mechanisms, such as cloudiness or changes in ocean circulations, which were not adequately treated in the models. A consensus seemed to emerge, however, …‘
It’s a joke. A complete and utter joke. They knew absolutely nothing.
‘Furthermore, it was argued on theoretical grounds that a complex, non-linear system could have more than one quasi-stable state and could quite suddenly change from one to another. It was pointed out, however, that if the climate system does possess any actual instabilities, they are extremely difficult to detect‘
… and not only did they know nothing, they also had absolutely no clue if the systemic equilibrium was even stable, nor how to even detect if it was threatening to change through natural causes. They knew absolutely nothing.
‘It was suggested that the high variability of temperature and of precipitation during the 1970's was probably not abnormal but the effects were highly significant because cereal growing regions and major pastoral belts were affected.’
Which entails that farmers would have to plan for this variability, before finishing off with a clincher, which certainly sees strong, contemporary parallels -
’Strong doubts were expressed about statements, frequently made, that the past decade had seen an increase in variability in world climate‘
Look, they knew absolutely nothing, not even whether temperatures were declining or increasing -
‘On a global and annual basis it was difficult to confirm any recent temperature trend one way or the other…‘
… which consequently outlines the absurdity of attempting to answer this question -
‘Some of the most challenging scenarious are those concerned with the possible effects of man's activities on the climate‘
... especially as not even modelling based on history could be considered accurate -
‘The value of scenarios, whether to describe past climate or for projections into the future, was well recognized. It was emphasized, however, that because boundary conditions and the composition of the atmosphere undergo changes, paleoclimatology on its own can hardly be used as a basis for climate prediction.‘
And though there’s more to this chapter, I genuinely cannot be bothered going through much more of this absurdity, but the inclusions here are interesting -
‘The whole range of data requirements is vast, comprising meteorological, oceanographic, hydrological and geophysical data in one category and biological/ecological data and sociological/economic data in other categories‘
Not least because GEMS upon its establishment immediately grew its surveillance data streams - vastly. But as for patching the oceanic data which stratified by depth and location essentially… did not exist -
‘… the need to improve the quality of such ocean data as are available at present and it was pointed out that the standard error of sea-surface temperature measurements is unacceptably high‘
… and what little oceanic data they did have was practically useless.
‘It was suggested that changes in inter-annual variability could be as important as a trend in mean temperature, and the problem of identifying systematic trends was also discussed.‘
… thus, the call relating to ‘global warming’ eventually turned into ‘climate change’.
And in the section on ‘Climate Data’, we see a call for the ‘application of climate data in human activities’ (never mind said data is virtually non-existing), a further call for higher resolution data over oceans (which led to the Global Ocean Observing System3), before issuing even a request for -
‘Further efforts are required for improving satellite observing techniques which, in addition to already developed environmental space observation systems, can be applied to the problem of climate monitoring on a global scale.‘
Does this appear kind of… aggressive to anyone else? Especially considering the priorities further outline locating historical data, assess in terms of quality, ensure data compatibility, add and maintain capacity in areas of climatological stations, ocean observation, hydrological observation, establish a common data system and data formats, and even establish a referral system on data sources.
And… that somewhat clarifying, because INFOTERRA started out as the ‘International Referral System’, and this in a more contemporary context relates to an information clearinghouse. And those are used to control information.
But we also see a call to build capacity in terms of satellites -
‘To promote the development of new observing technology and, in particular, space technology applicable to climate monitoring on a global scale‘
And this is a topic covered rather a lot on this substack, because this satellite capacity was certainly built, starting with GOOS4/GCOS5/GTOS6, leading to GEOSS7, then GEO BON8/GBIOS9, GEOHEALTH10/EO4HEALTH11, even CIT-SCI12 which focuses on using your mobile phone and social media to spy on you, ultimately culminating with the 2019 Canberra Declaration13, relating to live-streaming satellite capacity, currently being established by… Elon Musk’s SpaceX14.
As for goals related to the climate data system, these relate to…
‘Meteorological, oceanographic, hydrological and geophysical data; Biological and ecological data; Sociological and economic data.‘
Well, golly gee, this is really starting to sound rather a lot like the Global Environmental Monitoring System, originally outlined by SCOPE in 1971 and 1973.
There are a few references to GEMS in the document, but tellingly, none in the paper written by RE Munn himself… who was the lead author on SCOPE 3.
What this, in short, suggests is that as soon as GEMS was functionally ready, they launched the call for data up to and including satellite data - which, as it happens, was first piloted in the mid-80s, with full GIS information.
And the following chapter on ‘Application of the knowledge on climate‘ begins by outlining -
‘Climatological information can be applied to a wide variety of planning and operational activities in all nations. The most sensitive are those sectors dealing with food production, water resources, energy and human settlements and health‘
This is a call for global surveillance, pretending to be environmental concern.
But two things stand out - is this the first such call? Well… no. The 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference issued that very same call through recommendation 5, calling for standardised data formats, calibrated methodology, the development of new methods of surveying and monitoring - including remote sensing, which comprise satellite information - and the storage, communication and elaboration of large quantities of data. Recommendation 6 continues, asking for information relating to environmental pollution - even in context of combustion - at a time where for absolutely certain no legit data existed, establishing this as a concern. And this was to be carried out on a worldwide basis, comprising air, water, soil, living organisms… even extending to food additives.
And as for humanity - recommendation 3.2 outlines alleged zoonotic disease relating to environmental disturbance, before 3.3 states that the objective is to establish the necessary balance between man and his environment - a message further carried through to even the WHO Pandemic Agreement still under negotiation.
And it even included a call for systems analysts. Well, slap my bottom and call my Sally.
![WHO Pandemic Agreement [April, 2024]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!HHbL!,w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb69c8066-0498-4924-af63-1344abb2ec85_1206x612.png)
We could further continue with the other recommendations, but I already covered the 1968 conference twice. There’s a reason why I still consider it one of the most important conferences in contemporary times, because so, so, so many contemporary initiatives are directly related to this conference.
The other issue I wish to highlight is that of the ‘World Ozone Network’. Well, I’d never personally heard of this initiative before, however - much to my astonishment - this initiative along with Keeling’s early measurements was also launched during the International Geophysical Year of 1957.
And in 1977, the Rockefeller Foundation (who else) held a conference at the Bellagio (where else) to which not only RE Munn (lead author of SCOPE 3), contributed but further Martin Holdgate, who for 6 years between 1988 and 1994 was the General Secretary of Julian Huxley’s IUCN15.
Oh, and did I mention that Ralph W Richardson of the Rockefeller Foundation provided related data on environmental quality… or that the 1957 Keeling measurements were set in motion by Roger Revelle, who received an at the time gigantic $1m grant courtesy of the Rockefeller Foundation?
And this story further drags in the ICSU, whose foundation funding is well established. And yes, that - of course - includes Rockefeller.
Page 95 of the document states -
‘Finally; reference should be made to a comment heard from time to time that the World Ozone Network is practically obsolete because of advances to satellite technology‘
Well, good thing they didn’t because the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985 was closely linked to data from the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre (WOUDC)16, which is part of the World17 Ozone18 Network19 - and it is they who monitor the present situation20.
And the ozone hole was addressed through the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which introduced the concept of transferable pollution allowances. And this concept was further developed through IPCC WG3 of 1990, discussing tradable carbon emission permits. And while inclusion in the UNFCCC framework document of 1992 was muted (including only language related to carbon sinks and sources), in 1992 the first of two reports relating to ‘Combating Global Warming’ was released by the UNCTAD.
And these documents…
Incidentally, the World Ozone Network also measured so2 levels21. But as I have not been able to locate Bert Bolin’s report on so2 emissions, produced for the 1972 UNCED Stockholm conference, I cannot state if this was an input source.
I did however manage to locate a UNCLOS document from 197522, only declassified in 2002 (as GEOSS was discussed, coincidentally), which outlines the importance of GEMS for the monitoring of ‘global atmospheric pollution and its impact on climate‘.
It furthermore adds food, agriculture, land and water use, terrestrial ecosystems, ocean pollution and marine ecosystems.
Now, feel free to scroll back up to confirm that - apart from forestry - each and every one of those was addressed at the 1979 World Climate Conference - though this, in fairness, also included discussions on public policy and the world economy.
But you should similarly feel free to pop over to RE Munn’s 1973 SCOPE 3 report on the Global Environmental Monitoring System… as this similarly includes pretty much the same outline.
What an extraordinary coincidence.
And though I was counting on this rounding up the carbon consensus, I will leave the chronology for another day23. For now, let’s finish on a quote courtesy of NASA…
‘NASA studies our own planet more than any other‘
(Liked the stack, not the horror show described in the stack...)