What Will They Think of Next?

The entire edifice of Anthropogenic Global warming is unraveling with amazing speed.  Watts Up With That? has been posing multiple posts daily which document fraudulent behavior by the IPCC and its minions.  Simon at Classical Values offers a nice summary of the metastasizing scandals thus far, and ends with a question:

A Disaster Of Biblical Proportions

The UN's IPCC has just taken a few more torpedoes below the water line.

Well it turns out that the WWF [World Wildlife Fund] is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC's rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they've violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri's watch.

A new posting authored by Donna Laframboise, the creator of NOconsensus.org (Toronto, Canada) shows what one can find in just one day of looking.

Here's an extensive list of documents created or co-authored by the WWF and cited by this Nobel-winning IPCC AR4 report:

I'm not going to reprise the long list. You can find it at the links provided.

...

... they knew it was bad and did nothing. You know, that is not the only fraud uncovered. We may now be in possession of tens of them. So far. In fact it is looking like the whole IPCC enterprise is a fraud. And that doesn't even get to the bottom of the CO₂ emissions trading fraud.

[Among the scandals are those mounting around Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the now embattled head of the IPCC.  Almost all of their dire predictions are coming undone and his financial improprieties and conflicts of interest are receiving attention in the foreign press, though you wouldn't know this from the American MSM, as far as I can determine.]

Simon's conclusion and question:

The good news is that the whole fraud is unraveling. It will be interesting to see what the Watermelons try next.

It looks increasingly likely that the entire AGW scam represents a serendipitous cooptation of some immature science by the international left.  (Hence the derivation of Simon's visual pun.)  After the fall of the USSR, communism and socialism were held in disrepute.  Among other problems for the left was that in every instance it failed to raise the living standards of those who were its nominal beneficiaries.  However, those who support collectivism and leverage envy and hated of those who are successful for their own aggrandizement, were not about to give up on their dreams of dismantling capitalism simply because they had lost the Cold War.  AGW was a perfect fit.  It threatened disaster at some indeterminate future, a disaster that could only be avoided by crippling the world's most developed economies; all directed by those who were uniquely equipped to "save the planet."  It was based on a belief structure that leveraged faith in the new religion of Gaiaism and thus had an already prepared population of worshippers who would fully adopt the dogma and be immune to countervailing data.  As a bonus, it offered the kinds of virtuous self regard that has been a traditional motivator for those who suffered significant guilt over their good fortune to be born and live in materially successful societies.  The international left were quite clear, if not terribly overt, about their desire to use AGW as a weapon to diminish the power of the wealthy nations and transfer large amounts of wealth to the poor (with the wealth first passing through the fingers of the international elites.)  The game is up now on AGW and those who desire above all to create the promised Utopia on earth that only they can envision and produce, must now look to other means by which to introduce such "necessities" as world governance, greater wealth transfers, and enhanced power to the elites.

As it happens, reader/commenter Expat sent me a link yesterday that offers a likely candidate for what's next:

Tax and Spend: U.N.'s Rx for New World Medical Order

A member of a World Health Organization (WHO) panel of experts that is pondering new global taxes on e-mails, alcohol, tobacco, airline travel and consumer bank transactions, has charged that she was given only selective information at group meetings, that deliberations were rushed and that group was "manipulated" by the international pharmaceuticals industry.

All of her charges were strongly denied by the head of WHO's Expert Working Group on Research and Development Financing (EWG), a 25-member panel of medical experts, academics and health care bureaucrats which is due to present a 98-page report in Geneva on Monday, after 14 months of deliberations on "new and innovative sources of funding" to reshape the global medical industry.

...

The executive summary first revealed the possibility of a multibillion-dollar "indirect consumer tax" as one means of financing an epic shift of drug-making research, development and manufacturing capabilities to the developing world that is the central aim of WHO's fund-raising strategy.

Fox News has obtained a copy of the full EWG report, Research and Development: Coordination and Financing, in advance of its publication Monday, which lays out in greater detail the working group's proposals for fund-raising. These include not only indirect consumer taxes but also greater donations by wealthy governments as a percentage of gross domestic product, voluntary individual payments tied to such things as individual mobile phone use, health care lotteries, new commitments from charitable and philanthropic organizations, and the possible diversion of current philanthropic giving from developed-world causes into developing world health care.

...

The tempest created by Lopez Montano's accusations is liable to fade quickly as people around the world — especially Americans, who are far and away the world's biggest funders of medical research and development — absorb the variety of the EWG's revenue ideas and the full extent of WHO's ambitions to reshape the international health care industry in favor of research and development for the "neglected" diseases of developing countries.

The full EWG report lays out in some detail a battery of other possible consumer taxes on citizens of rich countries for such things as alcohol and tobacco use, weapons sales, and airline travel, to create a burgeoning medical R&D industry spread across the developing world.

Click here for the full report.

...

After itemizing all those potential sources of new money, however, the report suggests that only a "balance" of options be selected, which it projects would amount — again, conservatively — to about $4.6 billion a year. That would "nearly triple current research and development funding for neglected diseases in developing countries."

How would all the money be channeled? Mainly, it appears, through institutions that in many of cases have close ties with WHO.

The report that will be released Monday suggests that a global blossoming of developing-world research networks, many of which appear to be rapidly sprouting up in tandem with WHO's efforts to create new ways of financing them, could be "coordinated" via an "effective global health governance structure" by WHO itself — an organization whose 34-member executive board is made up largely of non-elected health bureaucrats from around the world.

...

Not by coincidence, new health research networks like ANDI cropped up in 2008 — at about the same time that WHO's legislative World Heath Assembly adopted a global strategy and plan of action that mandated the organization, as the EWG report puts it, to "play a strategic, central role in the relations between public health and innovation and intellectual property."

Among other things, that meant driving the global health-care agenda "to promote a new approach to innovation and access to medicines, which would encourage needs-driven rather than market-driven research." [Empahsis mine-SW] The aim: "to target diseases that disproportionately affect people in developing countries."

Just for clarity, a UN panel is suggesting raising global taxes to fund a new regimen of of "needs-driven" rather than market -driven research, ie centrally planned versus the much messier, and uncontrolled, decentralized research.  Nowhere in the report is there any mention of the fact that the various poor health outcomes so prominently mentioned, the source of the WHO concerns, are primarily caused by poverty, which is primarily caused by poor governance and the lack of market economies in the developing world. 

To no one's surprise, Lopez Montano's accusations were not related to the dishonesty and misunderstanding evinced in the WHO report but to the fact that the report did not go far enough in attacking the intellectual property rights of the large corporations.

Perhaps what is so remarkable is that at a time when smaller and smaller groups of people and individuals have become more and more empowered by our technology (just ask Scott Brown and Martha Coakley) those who desire nothing more than to exert power and control over everyone are left grasping at straws.  The President appears to be "doubling down" on his current course (which is all about increasing the size and power of the federal government) and the UN doesn't appear to have noticed yet that AGW is no longer working as anticipated.

It is worth pondering what comes next for them because people who believe it is their right to control the rest of us (and to live off of our earnings) will never disappear; they are part of the mosaic that makes up human nature.  As we become more empowered (Tea Party, anyone?) and increasingly realize that we are gaining, moment by moment, increased control over our own lives (although with the current economic straits it probably doesn't feel that way for many) the power of the current and traditional elites to tell us what is best for us can only continue to erode.  The struggle for freedom and power between those elites and the rest of us will be determinative for the early years of the 21st century.