Skip to content
Breaking News Alert 92 Percent Of Kamala Harris' Staff Left In Her First Three Years As VP

U.N. Climate Scientists Want Your Government To Answer To Them Instead Of You

UN flag
Image CreditFDRLST / Canva

A handful of U.N. scientists said they want ‘the right to make policy prescriptions and, potentially, to oversee their implementation.’


Several scientist members of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) want more influence over governments to bring about their radical and potentially deadly climate policies. “Five lead authors of IPCC reports” insisted “that scientists should be given the right to make policy prescriptions and, potentially, to oversee their implementation by the 195 states signed up to the U.N. framework convention on climate change,” The Guardian’s Arthur Neslen reported Thursday.

“At some point we need to say that if you want to achieve this aim set by policymakers then certain policies need to be implemented,” said IPCC Vice-Chair Sonia Seneviratne. The “policies” Seneviratne is referring to are “fossil fuel cuts and phaseouts,” reported Neslen.

“Fossil fuel cuts and phaseouts” is a terrifying proposition. Green energy, such as wind and solar power, has proven to be unreliable and insufficient. And fossil fuels save lives. You’ve probably heard climate fearmongers warn that climate change will cause mass deaths, but climate disasters have been a threat to survival for all of humanity. What has saved people from dying at the hands of the climate has been technological innovation, such as the use of fossil fuels. Energy from fossil fuels provides people with heating, air conditioning, weather warning systems, durable buildings, and mass irrigation. Thanks in part to fossil fuels, climate-related disaster deaths have been reduced by 99 percent compared to 100 years ago. To ditch fossil fuels entirely for green energy right now would leave millions of people at the mercy of the elements, causing climate-related deaths. 

Still, scientists like Gert-Jan Nabuurs, who helped write three IPCC reports, are upset that they don’t have enough authority to implement their disastrous agenda. “The IPCC’s critical, independent and guiding roles seem to be less and less evident,” he complained to The Guardian, before admitting “[a]s they decline, countries seem to be exerting a larger and larger influence.”

Nabuurs is right that governments around the globe have taken a vocal interest in enacting policies in the name of combating climate change. But as long as those politicians travel to climate summits in gas-guzzling private jets, it’s clear they care more about accumulating power for themselves than following their own “environmentally conscious” standards.

During the U.N.’s 2014 climate conference in Paris, U.N. Climate Chief Christina Figueres admitted that the conference aims “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” But industrialization not only saves lives from climate-related disasters, it lifts people out of poverty and raises the standard of living. 

This “change” Figueres is referring to is a transition to fewer freedoms and lower standards of living. Governments already provide tax breaks and other subsidies to mega-corporations eager to profit off the shift to an “eco-friendly” utopia. Under these conditions, journalist Joel Kotkin pointed out in The Spectator, “a wannabe electric-vehicle maker like Rivian, which has negligible sales and consistent losses, can be valued higher than General Motors, which sells almost seven million cars and has $122 billion (£90 billion) in revenues each year.”

Such a system means corporations in crony partnership with the government become richer, and regular people become poorer. Annihilating the fossil fuel industry will cost countless jobs. More people will be impoverished by wildly expensive green energy costs, and some will likely be priced out of traveling or even heating their homes.

All these ideas, from eliminating gas stoves to banning meat, controlling thermostats, and limiting people to three new items of clothing per year, serve to eliminate regular people’s freedoms, not CO2 emissions.

The Guardian article showcases how much climate-crazed scientists and politicians want to be in charge of “solutions” to the supposed “crisis” at hand, because a perceived emergency is an opportunity to centralize authority. Think of the emergence of the post-9/11 security state or the annihilation of civil liberties during Covid. Those incursions upon our civil liberties should be a lesson not to hand the climate cultists the Fauci-like power to implement their draconian climate measures.

Access Commentsx