The Copenhagen Cult, Green Religion, and Money Grabs

In 1982 Professor Robert Nisbet wrote a book called Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary. In his section on “Environmentalism” he said this: “Environmentalism is now well on its way to becoming the third great wave of the redemptive struggle in Western history, the first being Christianity, the second modern socialism.”

He went on to describe the religious and messianic nature of the environmental movement. We are now seeing the full-blown expression of this in the Church of Climatology and the current religious ritual known as the Copenhagen Summit.

The Green zealots and the true believers in man-made climate change have all the fervour and devotion of any religious believer. And we are seeing this all played out big time this week in Copenhagen. And of course the mainstream media choir are following right along with all this.

The MSM is as agog with the Copenhagen Cult as it is silent on Climategate. Fortunately the alternative media has been performing brilliantly as the MSM blackout continues. Melbourne columnist Andrew Bolt for example reports that his blog has gone from 1 million hits a month to 2 million. The upturn came last month, when he started extensively covering the Climategate scandal.

And as the Climategate scandal becomes more and more well known to the general population, we see evidence of a backlash. For example, after the heady week for the Australian Liberals just recently, many predicted a big swing against them at Saturday’s two bye-elections.

We were told that Tony Abbott’s hardline stance on climate change and an ETS would cost him dearly at the ballot box. But nothing of the sort has occurred. The two liberal candidates in Melbourne and Sydney easily won their seats. And the latest Newspoll survey found that Kevin Rudd dropped by 5 percentage points as preferred Prime Minister, while Abbott gained 9 points on Turnbull.

So a spirited fight back against the new Green religion and the Copenhagen Cult seems to be well underway, thanks to the alternative media and Climategate. And the more ordinary people hear about Green hypocrisy, the more they are ticked off with this new religion.

For example, consider this headline from the UK Telegraph: “Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges: Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.”

It gets even worse: “And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to ‘be sustainable, don’t buy sex,’ the local sex workers’ union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate’s pass. The term ‘carbon dating’ just took on an entirely new meaning.”

But on an even more serious note, the key issue to explore is always this: follow the money trail. Who stands to gain from all of this? Brian Lilley from Canada has written a revealing piece asking some hard questions about Copenhagen. What he finds does not sound too good:

“The deal being negotiated at Copenhagen has very little to do with climate change; it may touch on it, but it also uses this issue to put in place a massive worldwide redistribution of wealth. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper still takes flak for calling the Kyoto Protocol ‘a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.’ If Harper were to say the same thing about Copenhagen, he’d be right.”

Of interest is a discussion he had with Australian climate panic monger Tim Flannery: “When I asked Flannery about the notion reported in such climate change boosting newspapers as Britain’s left-wing Guardian, that the deal would mean a massive transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world, Flannery didn’t flinch. In fact he called this essential to the deal.”

This is how Flannery responded: “We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen. We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing towards the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society, our relationship with the developing world, our relationship with the environment as well.”

Wow, what an admission. Lilley continues, “So there you have it, a man who is firmly on the side of climate change, who runs his own council full of business executives who push for a legally binding treaty at Copenhagen, saying this all has little to do with climate change. So what is it all about then?

“It’s about money, plain and simple. While most of the focus in the media is on the attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the behind the scenes negotiations are about how much developed countries will have to pay to developing ones. [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki Moon says that the $150 billion USD in annual contributions to help developed countries adapt to climate change will have to be ‘scaled up.’ That’s a fancy way of saying the bill just got bigger.”

He concludes: “Over the last weekend in October, tens of thousands of mostly young people around the world staged events, some 5,000 in 182 countries, calling for ‘an ambitious, fair, and binding global climate deal.’ Like most people concerned about the environment, it’s doubtful these young people have any idea what is in the proposed treaty. I doubt most world leaders have read it, but if they think this deal is about climate change, they should listen to Dr. Flannery. He’d tell them this is about more, much more.”

Exactly. Lord Monckton was one of the first to warn us about this massive money grab. Many others are now pointing this out as well. It is about time. While our politicians, bureaucrats and rock stars never see a junket they do not like, the rest of us will of course be stuck with the bill – both for getting them there and the mischief they get into while there.

Once again we must thank God for the alternative media. And by now it should be clear that if we want to identify who a future Antichrist might be, just look out for the one who says we must get rid of the Internet. It is surely the Net, along with the rest of the alternative media, which is preventing us from sliding down the path of global dictatorship and one-world government.

[1104 words]

26 Replies to “The Copenhagen Cult, Green Religion, and Money Grabs”

  1. The Copenhagen Conference is about Global Governance. It is not even about science or ‘Global Warming’. AGW is the trojan Horse for the New World Order.

    Who is Prof John Holdren, Obama’s scientific adviser? He is an active Global Govt zealot, who is advocating non-consensual abortion to achieve lower birth rates. See

    This forum is attempting to force carbon as the new ‘gold standard’.

    Even the Saudis are becoming suspicious. See

    So called ‘Greenies’ are the dupes for bringing in the agenda which is a ‘bait and switch’ tactic: the only way the UN can tackle AGW is to bring in the NWO. No carbon will actually be reduced, unless it is in the form of human lives.
    Christians and conservatives are already the ones being branded as the apostates to the New World Religion.
    The New Religion has its own preachers, missionaries, tithing (taxation), mantra, Commandments, worship of Gaia, attacks on unbelievers (apostates) are scathing, it has political will to propel it along as the new acceptable ‘church/state’ religion, its new coinage is carbon, etc.

    Who will be their Saviour, their Lord? It isn’t Inconvenient Al Gore.
    He’s can’t even be said to bear a gospel of Green, unless the green is $US.

    This NWO is getting more serious.

    Finally, the MSM are the anti-gospel writers, no-one may question them. If they can avoid the truth, they will. If they can hide the truth, they will. They will not question or investigate or publish anything contrary to their ‘gospel’. Even google is in on it, resisting.

    Hope the links work.

    Michael Evans

  2. The Greek word for green is chloros. An example from the biblical book of Revelation is from 8:7, which says, “and all green (chloros) grass was burnt up.” But then there is the ‘pale’ horse of 6:8, which says – in the original Greek – “And I looked and beheld a chloros (GREEN) horse.” Why this word, chloros, is translated as pale in this verse only is beyond me. But I know the white, red, black, and green horses are all riding abreast. “And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the Earth to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the Earth.” Yes, it’s a religion all right – the religion of Lucifer and his quest to control all the people of the Earth.
    Kristina Webb

  3. Great article Bill, with some very revealing quotes. I take issue with one small but important point: Christians don’t need to look for “a future antichrist” to know that this global “environmental” scheme is anti-Christian. The anti-human nature of the globalist movement is well known and documented. It seeks to control populations worldwide with sophisticated methodology. Christians need to rally for the freedoms that hang by a thread in this nation and across the West – freedom of religion (Section 116 of the Constitution), freedom to associate, private property and the sanctity of the family unit. These are under sustained and serious assault by the globalists. The recent ‘revolt’ by the Liberal Party members against the ETS was a significant event in what Lord Monckton says should be a world freedom revolution.
    Brent Melville

  4. I like how this blog has moved away from religion and moved into the entertaining arena of half baked conspiracy theories.

    Hands up anyone here with a degree in science?

    What, no one? I thought so.

    By the way if that’s your definition of the Anti-Christ, you need look no further than Jim Wallace from the Australian Christian Lobby who has been lobbying hard for government restriction of the internet.

    Perhaps the ACL has a secret agenda to create a world government too!

    James Beattie

  5. Brent, you said:
    “freedom of religion (Section 116 of the Constitution),”
    but I beg to quibble.

    That clause of the Constitution only prohibits an established church (a la the European & UK model).

    Most of our freedoms are enshrined in earlier documents like Magna Carta, the 1688 Constitution etc., and the various Settlement Acts and Statutes of Westminster which adopted UK law as a corpus into the Australian colonies at various stages.

    John Angelico

  6. Thanks James

    When you speak of “half baked conspiracy theories” I fully agree – that is a good way to describe the gloom and doom brigade and their AGW theories.

    As to science degrees, I have said many times here that I do not have a science background – which would be true of probably 98 per cent of us, including perhaps even you. But if you think us mere peons cannot speak on such issues as Copenhagen, an ETS, Climategate, and so on, because we do not happen to have advanced degrees in science, then you are simply speaking like the very elites we are having so many problems with.

    These issues affect us all, and we are all entitled to be able to debate them in the public arena. That is what we call a democracy James. Or do you prefer a science-ocracy, if I can coin a term, wherein the masses must simply shut up and let all these issues be determined by our scientific elites?

    Strange, but it seems we have been there and done that before. The German scientific and medical community in the 30s and 40s was fully behind the Nazi worldview, and were complicit in Hitler’s killing machines.

    Indeed, this has been the whole problem all along, as Climategate is now so clearly demonstrating. If we leave these matters to the scientific experts alone, then we leave things to those who can be quite willing to lie, engage in cover-ups, manipulate the data, mislead the public, and falsify the evidence.

    Sorry James, I would much rather submit to the wisdom of the common man, if the alternative is to put up with the kind of rogue science we now see everywhere apparent in the climate debate.

    Totalitarian states have always insisted that we must submit to the elites, and we masses must simply kowtow to their ‘wisdom’ and their dictates. Sorry, I am not buying such baloney. But it always amazes me how the secular left is so interested in fostering the heavy hand of statism, simply because they so distrust the masses.

    As to the Anti-Christ, I was clearly being somewhat facetious. But there is of course a huge difference between globalist and statist powers seeking to totally control the spread of information, including the Internet, and those who are concerned to restrict the worst aspects of degrading and dehumanising smut, including child pornography. If you cannot see this distinction, then that simply tells us a bit more about the rationality – or otherwise – of the secular left.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  7. Congratulations Bill, you have managed to tie together Christianity, socialism and climate change. Given both Acts 4 and 5 and the practicle doctrine of stewardship, this is very Biblical.

    This watermelon green Christian cannot help but agree.

    Michael Boswell

  8. James Beattie. I am having a problem with your logic.
    Are you saying that because I do not have a degree in Science I do not have a right to have an opinion?
    Are you saying that unless my thoughts are in total agreement with a more highly educated person, regardless of their worldly experience, everything that I think is just conspiracy?
    Are you saying that because I am a non-educated I do not have the right to have the situation properly explained?
    I was reading an article in the Australian Newspaper where an educated scientist said that we should be taking no notice of the information contained in the leaked e-mails regarding “climategate” because they now believe that the hacking was done by professionals.
    So am I to understand that all information is dependant on the educational standard of the person giving it and on the manner it is collected?
    Can you also expound the science qualifications of Al Gore?
    Jim Sturla

  9. James Beattie, Russian scientists agreed with Lysenko, and German scientists agreed with the Nazi propaganda. Scientists are fallible people. They see themselves as ‘THE GUARDIANS’ but who guards the Guardians? Dawkins and others attack other scientists who believe in a Creator. And as Phillip Johnson argues in courts of law, most scientists don’t understand the scientific method because they are not philosophers.
    Stan Fishley

  10. James Beattie, the global warming issue is not simply an issue in science but also one in morality and politics. A science degree won’t help you in the latter two. There seems no reason to especially value the moral and political views of scientists. The fact that thousands of “rational” scientists spent billions of dollars and roubles during the Cold War producing tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that no rational, sane being would want to use shows that scientists have no special claim to objectivity beyond their very narrow expertise. Furthermore, the fact shows that they can be bought as readily as prostitutes, and for a remarkably small fee.
    John Snowden

  11. James, what “half-baked conspiracy theories” are you talking about? Anthropogenic global warming or world government? The latter is almost in place, so I guess you must mean the former.
    Brent Melville

  12. Hi James,

    I guess your logic can work both ways. For the vast majority of people who do follow AGW how many of them full understand what it is all about? Do I also need a science degree to understand AGW? I do have a science background but not in the area of climatology. Our Mr Rudd and Ms Wong also do not have science degrees. From memory they are Arts and Law yet they are making policy regarding this area. How do they know fact from fiction? I suspect they are to trust the scientist in this area even though some have placed themselves under a grey cloud. How many times has the max temp been revised down now?? I suppose we can also trust those computer models (that are proprietary I might add) that use data of a dubious nature (which until recently has also been kept locked up)?? Science is about having your work scrutinized by others. Why is research into climate so secret and hidden??

    So I ask you, what is the percentage of warming attributable to CO2??

    Ben Green

  13. Yes, I heard about the US EPA criminalizing CO2, a gas that we all expire and that plants need to survive. What we are now witnessing is a global power elite of diverse political allegiances seeking to grab power over humanity – the great socialist/fascist/collectivist/corporatist vision of world empire. Many, if not most, are in it for the money and power offered by a position in a global bureaucratic network. Many probably naiively believe a global green bureaucracy will “save the planet”. My concern is about those at the top of this movement who advocate “population control” – either directly via abortion and euthanasia of the weak and elderly or indirectly via literal fascist social control grids that strictly regulate human behaviour on a daily basis.
    Brent Melville

  14. Copenhagen is being treated with a false seriousness by secularists. It is their secular version of the Council of Trent.

    Copenhagen, like Kyoto, is just another example of the blind faith of the faithless.

    Michael Webb

  15. The response to James Beattie seems adequate but let me add another point. One may or may not need to be a scientist to hold a reasonable opinion on a scientific matter. It depends on the subject matter and one’s resources. Nor does one need to be a professional logician to recognise logical errors in texts, scientific or otherwise, providing you correctly understand the meaning of the texts. Similarly one does not need to be a professional mathematician to recognise misuse of statistics (books like “How to Lie With Statistics” and “The Use and Abuse of Statistics” will serve you well). My view is that there are a lot of credulous laymen out there in the world but there are also some laymen who are intellectually well-armed and scientists who carelessly shoot their mouths off had better watch out.

    Getting back back to logic, has anyone noticed that science graduates sometimes don’t seem to know much about the subject, can’t recognise common fallacies, although logic underpins all science?

    John Snowden

  16. James Beattie, I’m not sure if you were directing your ad hominem attack at me.

    For the record, I have worked in synoptic research at the Bureau of Meteorology in Melbourne, as a technician in cyclone research. It was during a period when the chaos theory was being tested to see if it was valid in observed cyclonic conditions. Did I have a degree then? No.
    But everyone else I worked with did. Was the chaos theory actually observed to work in cyclonic conditions? Not then, and not yet. Science just moves on. Maybe the double-doctorate guys I worked with will go back to test the theory again. Maybe they won’t. I just hope they don’t fudge the figures for media hype, research grants or prestige or whatever. I’m sure they were people of integrity, so they wouldn’t.

    Maths, science, physics and the quest for truth are the domain of every person, not just elitist ‘uni grads’. I have qualifications from two, and haven’t yet completed a third I started. Doesn’t make me any better than the young high-schooler at the supermarket. Maybe it gives me more responsibility, but God views us as the same: made in his image.

    When you buy coffee, James, I hope they don’t overcharge you, stealing from you and your family.
    I hope no-one has tampered with the packaging.
    I hope that the heat source you use doesn’t burn you or your house, or create any carbon ‘footprint’.
    I hope the molecules of coffee remain C8-H10-N4-O2 until you add your hot water, sugar and milk.
    I hope your body metabolises this beverage as it passes through you, and you don’t have an allergic reaction.
    I hope you do emit carbon-based gases and pass organic matter containing carbon to add to your carbon ‘footprint’. You’ll be in trouble if you don’t….
    I hope you do exhale 4% carbon dioxide with each and every breath you take, which is about 100 times the natural concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere..It also adds to your carbon ‘footprint’.
    I hope you don’t scald yourself while drinking your coffee.
    I hope you don’t use up any precious carbon in the washing up process.
    You will be making big, loud, scary footprints with every cup you enjoy, and we don’t want that do we? Enjoyment that is.

    This analogy of ‘Apocalyptic Coffee’ is the type and level of fear.mongering that the AGW evangelists use. to instil fear, make people (especially kids) feel guilty and unworthy to enjoy… a lovely coffee. It could also trickle down to taking away the livelihoods of the coffee and sugar plantation workers, and further impoverish their families.

    So why not sit back and enjoy the smell of coffee beans?

    Falsified data like at the CRU will not benefit anyone. Except those on the gravy train, or those with a mind to turn a blind eye to fraud. Or religious / philosophical zealots. Or haters of empirical science.

    As for the conspiracy theory, the conspiracy is to shut down the Climategate story, abuse, decry, defame, discredit and yell down the opponents or disbelievers of AGW.

    The facts stand for themselves. The whistleblower who uncovered this fraud has done all who seek truth in science a service. Those ‘named and shamed’ are backpedalling and avoiding scrutiny. Some have been stood down. Many scientists are screaming out to be heard, but they sing from the wrong songsheet, so don’t have sympathy from the leftist-leaning, head-in-the-sand about Climategate media.
    The MSM will NOT investigate this issue more thoroughly than Tiger Woods’ latest score card.
    In Australia, Andrew Bolt is one of a handful of exceptions. The internet is actually doing what it was designed to do in this instance, and that is provide accurate (now validated) information, rapidly to the world community.
    Few politicians will make the effort to actually wade through the science themselves to investigate. Senator Steve Fielding (an engineer) did investigate and question the science and Senator Penny Wong.
    Penny was caught out, and tried to dodge direct answers. She finally came up with her legal degree-styled answer: legal obfuscation.
    Nationals’ Senator Barnaby Joyce is a degreed accountant. He smells a rat in the counting house. A socialist taxation rat. One called proletarian internationalism, redistributing the wealth to whomever the Marxists at the UN dictate.
    Tens of thousands of ordinary (I don’t care if they have a degree or not) Australians contacted their elected representatives, and forced a change not only in the political stance of the conservative parties here, but also in effect forced Malcolm Turnbull’s hand.
    Tony Abbott became the new opposition leader. Kevin Rudd is still running from a debate with Abbott on Climategate.
    The public demand an open, honest debate. Not a socialist tax on you because ‘we think you are too ignorant to understand the [fraudulent] science.’

    It’s cold up here in Alice for December, and it’s drizzled most of the day. I might just go and enjoy a coffee.

    Shalom. Michael Evans

  17. Bill:

    Could you explain what the ‘carbon credits’ are all about, and how they will affect individuals? Will we all be given a certain amount of credits (rations?) to use and manage? I read an article about the prime minister of Norway flying back and forth from the summit meetings in Copenhagen, was criticized for it, and said he pays credits at the end of the year to offset his carbon usage (footprint) – as though money will take care of everything.

    Kristina Webb

  18. Thanks Kristina

    While individuals can seek to reduce their carbon footprint and so on, when we speak of carbon credits or carbon trading schemes we are primarily referring to nations or businesses or industry. The system itself is designed to allow the market to work itself out, but there are numerous drawbacks to the system, and indivuals will get slugged with higher energy costs, food costs, and so on, as government pays for such schemes, and/or businesses are forced to raise their costs, thus forced to charge more for their goods and services.

    I will have to write an article on this at some time. In the meantime, economists (in Australia) like Terry McCrann of the Herald Sun have written plenty on all this.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *