Wednesday, 13 March 2013

The Secret War on the West - Part 2 Agenda 21.

This Post is in two halves. 

Both based on the works of Dr Amy McGrath OAM.

Part 1 The Frauding of Votes(link to Part 1)

Part 2 The Fabian Societies and Agenda 21.

Dr Amy McGRATH, OAM, JP was educated at Telopea Park High School, Canberra and at Sydney University (BA Hons; MA; PhD, 1975). In 1970 and 1971 she travelled to the USA and the UK, respectively, on U.S. State Department and British Council grants, and in 1996 became the founding convenor of the H S Chapman Society, a body established to raise public awareness of the prevalence of electoral fraud in Australia.

Dr Amy’s latest book is about the “Communism by Stealth" organisation the Fabian Society titled "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing" and is available from, Tower Books, PO Box 737, Post Office Kensington, NSW 2033 for $10 plus $5 postage. (or on-line in pdf form - link)

Dr Amy McGrath's latest book is a revelation of Fabianism, George Soros, The Club of Rome, GetUp and Agenda 21. It reveals the plan to use Creeping Communism to take over the World and lead to One World Government. The New World Order Observer wrote on September 3, 2009

The Fabian Society, along with other Secret Societies, work together for the ‘Common Purpose’ of a New World Order... We see this consistently, with denial and delay tactics used in response to complaints by the people and the lies, omissions and twisted truths that spin doctors play to the public in the mass media.  
At the beginning:
It is now 1884 and we find ourselves in Surrey, England observing a small group of these Fabians, sitting around a table in the stylish home of two of their more prominent members, Sydney and Beatrice Webb. The Webbs would be known world-wide as the founders of the London School of Economics. Their home eventually was donated to the Fabian Society and became its official headquarters. Around the table are such well-known figures as George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Toynbee, H.G. Wells and numerous others of similar caliber. The Fabian Society still exists, and many prominent people are members, not the least of which is England’s Ex-Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
Australia has had five successive Fabian Prime Ministers since 1970 – Gough Whitlam, Robert Hawke, Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard plus various deputies.

Why Fabians? The movement is named  The Fabian Society because they favoured gradual change rather than revolutionary change and was named  in honour of the Roman general Fabius Maximus (nicknamed "Cunctator", meaning "the Delayer"). His Fabian strategy advocated tactics of harassment and attrition rather than head-on battles against the Carthaginian army under the renowned general Hannibal.  (Wikipedia)
Fabians are, according to their own symbolism, Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing, and their style is more effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are well established and where people expect to have a voice in their own political destiny. Leninists on the other hand, tend to be Wolves in Wolves’ Clothing and their style is more effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are weak, and where people are used to dictatorships anyway.
Were the Fabians humanitarian?
To give you an idea of the type of world these people would like to “remould” here is a quote from George Bernard Shaw:
“Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner (my emphasis), but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well. In the ultimate ‘nanny State’, with no free will or right to choose, you are owned by the elites and discarded when you are no longer any use.”

As mentioned above, the Webbs were founders of the London School of Economics.
Fabian Society members not only founded the London School of Economics but also the International Court of Justice at the Hague and were largely involved in the creation of the UN and the League of Nations. They are very strong advocates for the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) pseudoscience (my emphasis) because they are the types of people who have hijacked the environmental movement in order to use it to their political advantage. Their intent is to use environmental issues as a means to cause people to unite and demand that the issues be fixed, intending us to demand a global government that has the authority to ‘fix’ global warming because sovereign national governments lack that ability.
The UN’s Agenda 21 is an example of a Fabian Society program that sets international requirements of how people must live, learn, travel, eat and communicate. its sole purpose is control of people, not protection of the environment.
What is Agenda 21?

Agenda 21 is an action plan of the United Nations (UN) related to
sustainable development and was an outcome of the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is a comprehensive blueprint of an action
to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organisations of the UN,
governments and major groups in every area in which humans directly
affect the environment. 
Development of Agenda 21 – 1992
The full text of Agenda 21 was revealed at the Rio de Janiero United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit)
held in Rio de Janeiro on June 13, 1992 where 178 governments
voted to adopt the program. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation and negotiation culminating at the two-week conference. 
The number 21 refers to an Agenda for the 21st century.

All you really need to know about Fabianism and Agenda 21 (according to JB)

In 1993, the Club of Rome published the First Global Revolution. 
According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.” Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies “new enemies must be identified.” In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.The real enemy then is humanity itself.  

DR McGrath quotes an item in Town Hall Magazine (July 7, 2011) by Rachel Alexander:
....The UN has mostly bypassed national governments, using the adoption by Agent 21 of an international Council of Local Environmental initiatives (lCLEI) to make agreements directly with local governments. ICLEI’s presence has grown to include agreements with over 600 cities, towns and counties here, which are now copying the land use plans prescribed in Agenda 21. Some conservatives are trying to attract attention to Agenda 21 by labeling it as a secret conspiracy to create a one world government.
While that will wake some people up, it will turn off others. 
Agenda 21 seeks to promote “sustainability”, the latest revised word for “environmentalism” since Americans have learned too many negative things about it. 
“Sustainability” is just an amorphous concept that can be interpreted to an extreme degree that would regulate and restrict many parts of our lives. When will the level of carbon emissions be low enough? How much must we reduce our consumption of fossil fuels? 
Preserving the environment is a dubious science and what steps are really necessary to protect the environment are anybody’s guess.
!n 1995, Australia issued a report to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNSCD)
Implementation of Agenda 21
 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

Foreword by Prime Minister Keating
As the pressures on world resources continue to grow, the concept
of Sustainable Development becomes an imperative for the global
community. Australia is proud to present its second report to the
Commission of Sustainable Development. This details our nation’s effort
toward implementing Agenda 21. 


Climatologist Dr Tim Ball (Dr McGrath said Jim) had no doubt that Maurice Strong was culpable in an interview with Australia’s renowned 2GB radio host Alan Jones. (link) “He very deliberately did it. He set up the un Environment Program, and then he worked through that with the World Meteorological organisation (WMO) and the international Program of Climate Change (iPCC) was set up by them. That meant that every government weather agency around the world was involved in the IPCC. They appoint the scientists that they want to be on it, and they also of course provide the funding. That has meant that the funding has only got to one side of the debate. Strong knew that. This is why he organised it through the WMO."

the Greatest Fraud perpetrated on mankind 
By Vivienne Skeen

I have been researching Agenda 21 since I first became aware of its existence in 2010. I do not profess to be an expert on Agenda 21, but what I have discovered has exceeded all my worst fears. Agenda 21 is nothing more than world government, world domination and the end of all freedom for all mankind.

My biggest concern is that the public are asleep on this, as I was, until one of my sons asked me if I had heard of Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is the ‘United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda 21’ that is taking over Australia, as it is every other nation in the entire world.

Links: UNEP - Agenda 21 Pages (link)
Michael McLaren speaks with Dr. Amy McGrath on 2GB (link)

Agenda 21 for Dummies:

Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret

Danish Environmental Professor Bjorn Lomborg, writing in the Wall Street Journal, reveals "The Dirty Little Secret" of "Green" Cars. (link

Remember, Sydney's Lord Mayor "10 Leaf Clover" Moore bought 10 of the "Green" Nissan Leafs. (link)
Consumers remain wary of the cars' limited range, higher price and the logistics of battery-charging. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it's truly green, right? Not really.   
...sure, electric cars don't emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.
A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission (13.6 metric tons). The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds(6.3metric tons).
And then, of course, the Electric cars still have to recharge their batteries with, as Lomborg writes - "electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels." 
Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.
Lomborg writes that Clover's Nissan Leafs only have a 73 mile (117 kilometre) range and then need 6 hours to recharge.
To make matters worse, the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. (88k)
Read More at the Wall Street Journal. (LINK)

IPCC really doesn't know Clouds at all.

Bows and flows of angel hair
And ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere
I've looked at clouds that way

But now they only block the sun
They rain and snow on everyone
So many things I would have done
But clouds got in my way

Joni Mitchell admitted that she really didn't know clouds at all and now, a new peer-reviewed paper shows that the IPCC's Climate models don't know clouds either.
    Published in Geophysical Research Letters Vol 39 Issue 21:

    The ‘too few, too bright’ tropical low-cloud problem in CMIP5 models (link)

    1. C. Nam,
    2. S. Bony, 
    3. J.L.Dufresne,
    4. H.Chepfer
    Previous generations of climate models have been shown to under-estimate 
    the occurrence of tropical low-level clouds and to over-estimate their 
    radiative effects. This study analyzes outputs from multiple climate models 
    participating in the Fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison 
    Project (CMIP5) using the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project 
    Observations Simulator Package (COSP), and compares them with different 
    satellite data sets. Those include CALIPSO lidar observations, PARASOL 
    mono-directional reflectances and CERES radiative fluxes at the top of the 
    atmosphere. We show that current state-of-the-art climate models predict 
    overly bright low-clouds, even for a correct low-cloud cover. The impact of 
    these biases on the Earth' radiation budget, however, is reduced by 
    compensating errors. Those include the tendency of models to under-
    estimate the low-cloud cover and to over-estimate the occurrence of mid- and 
    high-clouds above low-clouds. Finally, we show that models poorly represent 
    the dependence of the vertical structure of low-clouds on large-scale 
    environmental conditions. The implications of this ‘too few, too bright 
    low-cloud problem’ for climate sensitivity and model development are 

              I've looked at clouds from both sides now,
                  From up and down, and still somehow

              It's cloud illusions i recall.

                  I really don't know clouds at all. (Joni Mitchell)

The authors write that the response of low-level clouds has long been identified as "a key source of
uncertainty for model cloud feedbacks under climate change," citing the work of Bony and Dufresne
 (2005), Webb et al. (2006), Wyant et al. (2006) and Medeiros et al. (2008). And they state that "the
ability of climate models to simulate low-clouds and their radiative properties" plays a huge role in
assessing "our confidence in climate projections."

What was done
In studying this unresolved dilemma, Nam et al. analyzed "outputs from multiple climate models
participating in the Fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) using the
Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project Observations Simulator Package (COSP), and
compared them with different satellite data sets," including "CALIPSO lidar observations, PARASOL
mono-directional reflectances, and CERES radiative fluxes at the top of the atmosphere."

What was learned
In the words of the four French researchers, "the current generation of climate models still
experiences difficulties in predicting the low-cloud cover and its radiative effects." In particular,
they report that the models: (1) "under-estimate low-cloud cover in the tropics," (2) "over-estimate
optical thickness of low-clouds, particularly in shallow cumulus regimes," (3) "poorly represent the
dependence of the low-cloud vertical structure on large-scale environmental conditions," and (4)
"predict stratocumulus-type of clouds in regimes where shallow cumulus cloud-types should
prevail." However, they say that "the impact of these biases on the Earth's radiation budget ... is
reduced by compensating errors [italics added]," including "the tendency of models to under-
estimate the low-cloud cover and to over-estimate the occurrence of mid- and high-clouds above

What it means
Well isn't that just dandy! We have the leaders of numerous nations forging ahead with energy
policy prescriptions for halting global warming - which has been non-existent for close to two
decades now - based on climate change projections derived from mathematical models harboring
acknowledged problems that are supposedly overcome by compensating errors. If these people
were building bridges, would you want to drive across one of them???

Read More at CO2 Science.