Scientific American, a publication I subscribed to when younger and ravenously read in my pursuit of knowledge and information in my younger years, when completely drawn and consumed by the world of science, was one of the main reasons I went to school and studied engineering. Of course, as they began shilling for AGW over a decade ago, publishing one dumb article after another that pushed a political agenda and leftist one government end goal, with consensus, manipulated models, and other such pseudo-science that completely ignored or dismissed relevant information so they could drive the narrative as their proof, I dropped my subscription. I have not regretted that choice, considering the revelations of how corrupt the cult of AGW and those that helped them push their agenda have shown to be, despite the LSM blackout and/or massive attempts at damage control, and I feel vindicated that dropping that subscription was a wise move, since Scientific American has been a willing participant in that campaign of pro-AGW lies.
As most people are wising up and support for the AGW cult’s plans and schemes dwindles, now that more and more of the exaggerations about the dangers of AGW are coming out, and support only remains amongst the true believers and the ones that still want to push the political agenda that fueled the AGW cult, the leftists at Scientific American seem to be moving on to the next narrative to push the same old agenda: bio diversity.
Governments from more than 90 countries have agreed to establish an independent panel of scientists to assess the very latest research on the state of the planet's fragile ecosystems. The decision, which will create a body akin to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was made in Panama City this weekend, after years of negotiations.
The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) will be responsible for producing international scientific assessments on issues such as ocean acidification and pollination, to help policy-makers to tackle the global loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystems.
“I hope that this body will allow biodiversity to be better taken into account in sustainable-development strategies, as the IPCC has for climate change over the past 20 years,” says Irina Bokova, director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), based in Paris.
The themes of the panel's assessments, along with its overall budget, are to be decided at the newly established body's first plenary meeting, which is scheduled for 2013. But the IPBES will begin work immediately on reviewing existing assessments — such as 2005's global Millennium Ecosystem Assessment — to analyze their scope and impact on policy.
No freaking way! Another UN panel populated by a bunch of credentialed marxists and pseudo-marxists hell bent on yet again finding that the answer to some new or old calamity, or series of calamitous events, are caused by man’s use of energy, will soon tell us that the only solution or answer, yet again, lies with a big one world collectivist government, with the power to control access to energy and people’s freedoms through some massive regulation and taxation, while enhancing the power of these elite and the governments they actually shill for. Color me shocked. And if you doubt this is the plan, I point you to this revelation in the Scientific American fluff piece:
Governments will make the final decisions as to which scientists will sit on the panel, but scientific bodies such as DIVERSITAS will be invited to make nominations. Selection procedures have yet to be agreed. “It will be key to have a selection process for nominations based on the highest scientific credentials,” says Larigauderie.
So, the same people that have the most to gain from putting the shills that will declare that without letting governments wield more power and limit people’s access to energy and thus freedom, and have been the big financiers and stakeholders in the AGW cult scam, are now in charge of this project? What could go wrong, or for that matter, be different from what was done to abuse the AGW narrative? We need to save those fragile ecosystems after all!
The problem these shysters had with AGW – that everyone not compromised by the want for their end goal, you know the watermelons that pretended they were concerned about saving Gaia, when what they really wanted was that collectivist expansion of power, clearly saw through – is going to be the same here. The AGW cultists’ argument was destroyed by the fact that temperatures and climate changed. It varied throughout Earths 4.5 billion years of life, long before man and his gas guzzling CO2 producing factories and SUVs came on the scene. There had been warming and warmer times, much warmer I add, both in the immediate and far away past, as there had been cooling and much cooler times. And man had nothing to do with any of that. The sun, the oceans, and a climate system they still lack massive understanding off its inner workings and had been badly modeled, on purpose I add to produce the lies they needed to frighten the rubes, all where ignored, manipulated, or explained away to pretend that this phenomenon was new, caused by man, and could only be stopped by collectivism writ large.
The ecosystem champions will face the same problem. The fact is that Mother Nature is a cruel thing: ecosystems come and go. Adapt or perish is the law of life. There are more extinct species and systems than there are species and systems around now, and that’s not by coincidence. I am not arguing that we should try to preserve some species or ecosystems, but I am going to go bat shit when these morons tell us we need to preserve everything as is, blame man for it all, then tell us the answer to this dilemma is the same crap they wanted when lying about AGW. And have no doubt that no matter how they camouflage it, the end goal remains the same. Here is to hoping this bullshit dies long before it gains any traction, costs us billions, if not trillions, eats up another decade or two of time, while governments everywhere steal more wealth and freedoms under the guise of saving us from ourselves, and harms as many as the AGW lies have. Unfortunately it will not be the last attempt by these shysters to sell their snake oil and I will not be surprised to see Scientific American at the forefront of selling those lies either.