Australia PM Adviser Says Climate Change is 'UN-led Ruse to Establish New World Order'

Tony Abbott's business adviser says global warming a fallacy supported by United Nations to 'create a new authoritarian world order under its control'

Note: This article was written in May 2015 when Tony Abbot was still PM of Australia

Please check out the links and comments at the bottom of this article, the links were mostly written within a year or so of this and reveal a frightening scenario.

Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council Photo: AP

By Jonathan Pearlman, Sydney 

Climate change is a hoax developed as part of a secret plot by the United Nations to undermine democracies and takeover the world, a top adviser to Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, has warned.

Maurice Newman, the chief business adviser to the prime minister, said the science showing links between human activity and the warming climate was wrong but was being used as a “hook” by the UN to expand its global control.

Tony Abbott

“This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN,” he wrote in The Australian.

“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.” Born in Ilford, England, and educated in Australia, Mr Newman, a staunch conservative and former chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange, has long been an outspoken critic of climate change science.

He was appointed chairman of the government’s business advisory council by Mr Abbott, who himself is something of a climate change sceptic and once famously described climate change as “absolute cr**” – a comment he later recanted.

In his comment piece – described by critics as “whacko” – Mr Newman said the world has been “subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years”.

“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error,” he wrote.

“The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook. Eco-catastrophists [ ...] have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House.”

Not anymore, thank God!

Environmental groups and scientists described Mr Newman as a 'crazed’ conspiracy theorist and some called on him to resign.

“His anti-science, fringe views are indistinguishable from those made by angry trolls on conspiracy theory forums,” said the Climate Change Council.

Professor Will Steffen, a climate change scientist, told The Australian Financial Review: “These are bizarre comments that would be funny if they did not come from [Mr Abbott’s] chief business adviser.” Mr Abbott’s office did not respond but his environment minister said he did not agree with Mr Newman’s comments.

The article was written by Mr Newman to coincide with a visit by Christiana Figueres, the UN climate change negotiation, who has urged Australia to reduce its reliance on coal. Australia is one of the world’s biggest emitters of carbon emissions per capita.

Since his election in 2013, Mr Abbott has abolished Labor’s carbon tax, scaled back renewable energy targets and appointed sceptics to several significant government positions.

I first blogged of this theory in 2015. Lord Christopher Monkton, British Peer, was the first to publicize the UN's plot, that was in 2014 before any of the events he described happened. 

According to Monckton, a former policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Monday's Canadian election will decide if Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whom he calls the last man standing against the establishment of a 'one world government', will remain against a deliberate international effort to remove him. 

One-World Government if Harper Loses Election - Margaret Thatcher Advisor

The second last, Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott, was overthrown, as predicted by Monckton in 2014, in order to clear the way for this international scheme. 

As Monkton predicted, he was ousted in a caucus coup by Malcolm Turnbull, in Sept. 2015, after a failed attempt in February of that year.

With Harper out of the way, warned Monckton, world governance will finally begin with a successful December, 2015 Paris Climate Conference. 

Justin Trudeau and Malcolm Turnbull both signed the Paris accord after their predecessor refused.

Millions in Foreign Funds Spent in 2015 Fed Election to Defeat Harper, Report

USA's Own Climate Change Rep Ominously Threatens US

Yes, the planet is warming. That it is anthropogenically driven by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is speculation. One thing that is for sure - the rate of hysteria over this subject increases daily, just as the UN want's it.

Suncor CEO Slams Climate Change Deniers, Politicians Who Criticize Them

'I hope some of those politicians get brave enough to stand up and take some different positions,' CEO says

David Bell · CBC News 

'It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and economics have taken on some strange political ownership,' Suncor president and CEO Steve Williams told the audience at a sold-out event Wednesday in Calgary. (Jeff McIntosh/Canadian Press)

The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn and accept it.

Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on climate change has become so polarizing.

"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the science of the left-wing is different than the science of the right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact. Let's get some facts out on the table,'" Williams told the crowd at the sold-out event.

"Climate change is science. Hardcore science. What we have been talking about here is economics. Science and economics. Both very important subjects, not perfectly understood. Periods of discovery go on forever and we keep getting better and better at those things."

Williams said conservation is a no-brainer.

"It makes sense to consume things sensibly. Common sense is not a big part of the conversation that normally goes on on this thing," he said.

"Energy efficiency, the sensible use of what is a finite resource. My belief is that we will run out of these things in the not too distant future, 100 or 200 years, so we better use them very wisely."

Williams didn't hold back on politicians who aim their rhetoric at deniers.

"I find it scary. And I find the current politics of it — where if you want to vote this side of the politics or that side of the politics, you have to be a believer or not a believer — is complete nonsense, and we shouldn't allow that framing of the debate," Williams said.

"And I hope some of those politicians get brave enough to stand up and take some different positions on it."

And this is the biggest problem... that it has become so political and, as such, has become very nearly hysterical. 

Yes, climate change is real; the planet is getting warmer; I have been saying that since the 1980s, and it has been very obvious. But far-left lunatics are over-reacting, using hyperbole constantly, and calling those who doubt global warming, or who doubt the speed of global warming, insulting, immature names. Mind you, some may deserve it for doing the same thing to those who believe in global warming, but it is not helpful to turn science into emotion.

Science, as Mr Williams stated, is on the side of climate change proponents. This makes deniers easy targets for those who have unshakable faith in science, and those who believe themselves to be superior persons. But making fun of those who disagree with you, even when science seems to support you, is not the behaviour of a superior person, but a lesser person - an immature person.

A superior person would ask himself why deniers can't see the obvious? And if he was willing to look closely, he would see why. He would see that there is evidence that the numbers have been cooked. Science requires unbiased research. A true scientist must be willing to accept that the theory he proposes may be completely wrong. Many climate change scientists are simply not willing to look at that possibility. Scientists who are willing to look at other possibilities cannot get funding for research. 

This is literally a conspiracy theory with lots of supporting evidence. It doesn't deny that science supports global warming, but it denies that the science is not unbiased as science must be.

A couple years ago I posted a story from the UK where a British Lord overheard another British politician declare that the next attempt at a climate accord (Paris 2015) would be successful because the two world leaders who refused to sign the Copenhagen Climate Change Accord would be gone. 

Sir David King, UK ambassador to IPCC, stated quite plainly that there would be an election in Canada in 2015 and they and the UN would make sure that Stephen Harper did not win. He also pointed out that Malcolm Turnbull would pull a political coup on Tony Abbott and replace him as Prime Minister of Australia. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Turnbull's middle name is Bligh.

Turnbull replaced Abbott in September 2015 and Justin Trudeau replaced Harper in early November, 2015, just in time for the December Paris accord. Harper and Abbot were the only world leaders who refused to sign in Copenhagen. Was it a conspiracy? What else could you call it? 

There are many reasons why deniers have serious doubts about climate change. These are just a couple. If you want to criticize me for anything I wrote, please do so on the basis of facts and in a civil manner. Let's move this debate to a higher level than name-calling.

Millions in Foreign Funds Spent in 2015 Fed Election to Defeat Harper, Report

In total, 114 third parties poured $6 million into influencing the election outcome and many of those third parties were funded by the U.S.-based Tides Foundation

And those are just the ones we know about. There were possibly many millions more in pre-election donations. 

International interference in the Canadian election was predicted by the UK's Lord Monkton in 2014 (see below). 

This expose of Tides Foundation is just the tip of the iceberg. But our far-left government in Canada is afraid of ice-bergs and there is no way a full-scale investigation into the funding of the 2015 election will occur, although there should be, as there should also be an investigation into the funding of the 2017 British Columbia elections - they smell just as fishy.

Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press, Postmedia News

Foreign money funnelled towards Canadian political advocacy groups affected the outcome of the 2015 federal election, according to a document filed last week with Elections Canada and obtained in part by the Calgary Herald.

The 36-page report entitled: Elections Canada Complaint Regarding Foreign Influence in the 2015 Canadian Election, alleges third parties worked with each other, which may have bypassed election spending limits — all of which appears to be in contravention of the Canada Elections Act.

The Canada Elections Act states that “a third party shall not circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, a limit set out . . . in any manner, including by splitting itself into two or more third parties for the purpose of circumventing the limit or acting in collusion with another third party so that their combined election advertising expenses exceed the limit.”

“Electoral outcomes were influenced,” alleges the report.

The Canada Elections Act also states: “No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate” unless the person is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident.

“Yet the outcome of the 2015 election was skewed by money from wealthy foreigners,” alleges the complaint, submitted by Canada Decides, a registered society with three listed directors — including Joan Crockatt, a former Conservative MP for Calgary Centre, who lost her seat to Liberal Kent Hehr, now the MP for the once long-held Tory riding and the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The other two directors include Chad Hallman, a University of Toronto political science student.

The number of third parties registered during the 2015 general election more than doubled, to 114 compared with 55, in the 2011 election.

Much worse than Russian/US interference

Americans are rightly concerned about Russia hacking into U.S. government emails. Well, this appears to be much worse

In total, the 114 third parties spent $6 million and many of those third parties were funded by California-and New York-based Tides Foundation — which is known in Canada for holding numerous anti-Canadian oil campaigns.

In 2015, Tides Foundation donated $1.5 million of U.S. money to Canadian third parties in the election year, according to the report.

Crockatt’s seat was one of the 29 targeted by an organization called Leadnow through its “largest ever campaign” called Vote Together. The complaint by Canada Decides alleges that foreign money “spawned” Leadnow and helped fund an elaborate campaign to oust the ruling Conservative Party.

Mount Royal University political science professor Duane Bratt says Canadians should be concerned about any kind of foreign involvement in our elections.

“The whole concept and idea of foreign influence in an election is an important issue and is something that Canadians should not tolerate,” Bratt said Monday.

Tides Foundation and Leadnow representatives did not return repeated phone calls and emails from the Herald to respond to concerns raised by Canada Decides.

A December 2015 Leadnow report, Defeating Harper, discusses how effective its campaign was in the 2015 general election. “The Conservatives were defeated in 25 out of 29 ridings, and . . . in the seats the Conservatives lost, our recommended candidate was the winner 96 per cent of the time.”

Leadnow’s Defeat Harper report also states: “We selected target ridings with field teams run by paid Leadnow organizers….”

Crockatt lost her Calgary Centre seat by 750 votes.

Conservative MP Lawrence Toet lost his Manitoba seat of Elmwood-Transcona to the NDP’s Daniel Blaikie by just 61 votes.

THE CANADIAN PRESS / Adrian Wyld

Former Conservative Finance Minister Joe Oliver lost his seat to Liberal Marco Mendicino with a margin of 5,800 votes. Only six per cent of voters in that riding voted for the NDP candidate, who complained of Leadnow’s tactics on Twitter.

Leadnow staff members flew around the country on numerous occasions, as Facebook postings and photographs show, to distribute flyers and put up signs. Also, 57 local polls were commissioned across 37 ridings urging citizens to strategically vote for the most winnable, left-of-centre candidate in order to defeat the Conservative candidate.

There is an $8,788 spending limit per riding for the election. NDP candidates and even CUPE complained about Leadnow’s activities being anti-democratic.

“This is not a partisan issue or a case of sour grapes by Conservatives,” insists Hallman, 20.

“This is a Canadian issue. This affects all Canadians whether you’re an NDP, Green, Liberal or Conservative. You should be very concerned about foreign money being spent in Canada during an election campaign.”

Most Canadians would be very alarmed by this. This happened in the 2015 election

Crockatt, who prior to becoming a Member of Parliament was a journalist, including a stint as an editor with the Calgary Herald, said researchers from Fredericton to Nanaimo worked for 18 months gathering information on this issue.

“Foreign money meddled in a big way in our election and that’s not right,” she added. “Americans are rightly concerned about Russia hacking into U.S. government emails. Well, this appears to be much worse — foreign money, in many cases by very wealthy people — was donated and arguably changed the outcome of our Canadian election. It needs to be taken seriously and investigated.”

In the 2015 annual report of the California-based Online Progressive Engagement Network (OPEN) where Ben Brandzel, one of Leadnow’s founders, currently works, he said: “We ended the year with . . . a Canadian campaign that moved the needle during the national election, contributing greatly to the ousting of the conservative Harper government.”

Just how greatly these foreign organizations and money contributed to interfering in the Canadian election needs to be investigated by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, states Canada Decides.

“The threat to Canadian election sovereignty is real and must be eliminated by the Commissioner as quickly and decisively as possible,” adds the report.

It appears as though Yves Cote, commissioner of Elections Canada, is considering doing just that.

Cote admitted during an April 13 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that an investigation needs to be launched following questions by Conservative Senators Linda Frum and Bob Runciman.

“Issues of significance have been raised . . .” said Cote, during the senate committee hearing, “which in my view deserves Parliament taking the time to looking at the situation, trying to understand what has happened, what is likely to happen and then taking measures . . . to make sure there is compliance.”

Cote added that “the Supreme Court of Canada said the objective of maintaining a level playing field is, for them, a very important objective.”

Senator Frum is planning to introduce a private member’s bill updating the Canada Elections Act to prohibit third parties from accepting foreign funding for domestic political activity.

Canadians can only donate $1,550 to political parties and candidates. Union and corporate donations have been banned completely, and yet in the Senate hearing, Commissioner Cote said that as long as foreign money is donated to a third party six months prior to the election writ being dropped, the amount that can be donated is endless.

Frum made the following observation during the April 13 senate hearing: “I could take a cheque for $10 million from Saudi Arabia, from Iran, from China — I could take any amount of money from a foreign contributor so long as I, a Canadian citizen, am receiving it?”

Cote said as long as funds are received six months before an election “the third party is free to use that money.”

“Most Canadians would be very alarmed by this,” added Frum. “This happened in the 2015 election.”

So, the interference by the American liberal lobby groups may actually pale in comparison to money that might have come in to Canada from other international interests. 

In 2014, only Canada and Australia stood in the way of a global climate accord to be signed in Paris in December, 2015. That year, Lord Christopher Monkton overheard Sir David King, William Hague's (Home Secretary) United Kingdom “climate change ambassador” who was asked by the Environmentalist Committee of the House of Commons (UK) in May 2014 “whether all the nations of the world were in principle ready to sign their people's rights away in such a treaty,” to which he replied “Oh yes, but there are two stand-outs.  One is Canada, but don't worry about Canada.  They've got an election in the spring of 2015 and we and the U.N. will make sure that the present government is removed.”  Monckton recalled his absolute bluntness about the matter.

The other holdout was Australia which was in an arguably stronger position as there was no election until after the 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference.  With Tony Abbott as leader there was no chance that Australia would be signing the treaty. Monckton warned of the need to protect Abbott and the danger from the Turnbull faction, in conjunction with the United Nations, doing their best to remove him ahead of this year’s Climate Change Conference. 

In February this year (2015), barely five months after Monckton's warning, Abbott survived a first attempt on his leadership from the Turnbull faction.  However, incessant negative and biased media coverage influenced the perception of Turnbull by the Australian population, and hence depressed his polling figures. Consequently, a substantial number of government MPs became anxious with an election less than a year away.  In September, as reported by LifeSiteNews, Abbott was replaced by Turnbull 54-44 in a leadership spill ballot.

The above is documented on a post on the eve of the Canadian elections in Oct. 2015: One-World Government if Harper Loses Election - Margaret Thatcher Advisor.

The implication is that this has much less to do with actual climate change and more to do with the UN assuming authority over every country in the world. It would start with climate change but the end result would be 'One-World Government!' At least, that's the theory. And there are arguments to support that theory.

This is one of the reasons Trump's presidency has upset so many people - it is delaying the inevitable, One-World government. It also contributes to the numbers of the  many working to undermine Trump and get him impeached. Lest you get a false impression - I despise Trump and many of the things he is doing or trying to do. But not giving the UN authority over the USA is not one of them.