Although a favorite attack on those — including me — who challenge alarmist predictions of global warming doom is to brand them as “climate change deniers,” no one I know has ever denied that climate changes and has done so for billions of years.

On the other hand, I’m also unaware of any respected climate science organization that claims any ability to confidently predict how much it will change in the future, whether warmer or cooler, much less that any disaster is imminent.

Take, for example, an admission of this inability by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was created to investigate the cause of a decade-long warming trend – this following three decades of cooling after World War II industries had emitted huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

A chapter “Model Evaluation” in their 2001 Summary Report for Decision Makers specifically states: “In climate research and modeling, we should realize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

So, why has IPCC repeatedly warned of a pending “anthropogenic” (human-caused) global warming emergency attributed to fossil fuel CO2 emissions released by developed countries?

As clarified by Ottmar Edenhofer, a lead author of IPCC’s 2011 report, ” . . . one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth. . . “

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the U.N.’s first Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed, “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said, “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

The Kyoto treaty, a CO2 capping global wealth redistribution scam whereby advanced industrial nations would essentially pay prosperity penalties to underdeveloped and developing countries —​ China and India getting free passes —​ had a politically powerful U.S. corporate ally.

Back in the 1990s, Enron owned the largest natural gas pipeline that existed outside Russia, a colossal interstate network.

That fuel was facing difficult market competition with coal.

Media-fueled alarm about acid rain at the time provided a basis for legislation to create markets for buying and selling excess sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide emission credits, and since Enron had become a big SO2 market cap-and-trade player, they determined that since coal was a bigger CO2 emitter than natural gas, a similar Kyoto treaty play would be a profitability game-changer.

Kyoto presented the first step toward creating a carbon market that Enron desperately wanted Congress to support, and national hype about a global crisis advanced by then-Sen. Al Gore’s highly publicized 1988 congressional hearings on the recent warming trend provided a dream opportunity.

An internal Enron memorandum stated that Kyoto would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside the restructuring [of] the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.”

Gore’s theatrical hearing had been co-hosted by Sen. Timothy Wirth who had also previously cosponsored a “Project 88,” which became the Clean Air Act of 1990 . . . a perfect model precedent for Enron’s Kyoto push. Although unlike SO2, CO2 wasn’t then declared a “pollutant,” a supportive Democrat-controlled EPA could gain authority to regulate it anyway.

After Wirth became undersecretary of state for global affairs in the Clinton-Gore administration, Enron’s CEO Kenneth Lay joined with him to lobby Congress to grant the EPA the authority to control CO2.

Lay reportedly met with President Clinton and Vice President Gore on Aug. 4, 1997, to prepare a U.S. strategy for an upcoming Kyoto climate summit that December.

Sadly (for Enron), the Senate unanimously passed (95-0) a bipartisan Byrd-Hagel U.S. Senate Resolution (S Res 98) that made it clear that the United States would not be signatory to any agreement that “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”

Others obviously took U.S. refusal to endorse the climate alarm-premised Kyoto global wealth redistribution badly as well.

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives, “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective, “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

And they’re still trying.

This article is reprinted from Newsmax by the author’s permission.