The final push toward the next and perhaps final phase may be announced this June at the 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
A Scientific American editorial by Gary Stix highlights a policy article written by several dozen scientists that appeared online March 15 in the journal Science.
The conclusions reached by the scientists, as well as the editorial from a staff member of Scientific American are incredibly unscientific and fly in the face of the many thousands of independent scientists and researchers who have refuted the theory of man-made global warming. Regardless, this small group pushes ahead with their suggestions that the only way to combat such a global catastrophe is of course to solve it through global government. And not just any global government, but one that Scientific American suggests should be "heavy-handed (in its) transnational enforcement powers."
The policy paper entitled, "Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance" is one of the most blatantly authoritarian among the incrementally more open policy papers that we are witnessing, as global governance continues on its runaway path in the name of saving humanity from itself.
Opening with a summary, the conclusions and solutions are clear:
Science assessments indicate that human activities are moving several of Earth's sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years (1, 2). Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change (3). This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship. (Source)The full text of the article is available for a fee which we paid for access, and we can tell you that it is centered around the "Building Blocks" that form the foundation for the edifice of a one-world government. These building blocks have been repeated throughout globalist literature, so this is nothing necessarily new, but the fact that they fall within the context of at best a hotly disputed assertion that humans are to blame for catastrophically altering their environment -- namely through climate change -- indicates that their agenda must move forward, factually based or not. (All section titles are paraphrased.)