The Climate Scam

by Richard Hugus

December, 2019

Al Gore, vice president during US/NATO bombing of Serbia, finds religion as huckster for global warming. Art by David Dees.

There have been numerous popular demonstrations and forums to address climate change, but the climate change scare has seemed suspicious from the start. Except for exploiting it, the natural environment has never been a concern of the rich and powerful, yet powerful interests are everywhere behind the many organizations hyping the threat of anthropogenic global warming. This vast theory came to mainstream acceptance far too quickly to be credible. Like so may political initiatives, it was sold to the public through fear -- in this case, fear of human extinction in the very near future. No sooner did we hear of the theory than we were told that "the science is settled." At that point, belief in global warming became dogma, and skepticism became heresy. If one voices skepticism, one is called a "denier." Thus we are not allowed to question. This is the opposite of science. There is no protest against US, Israeli, Saudi, and NATO warmaking in the climate activist platform. In the US, the politics of climate change align with the politics of the Democratic Party, where criminal wars of aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq,  Yemen, and Syria, and constant threats against Iran are not discussed. How can you discuss environmental damage and not mention the largest polluter in the world -- the Pentagon? What follows is a survey of what a number of researchers have said about global warming.

We are told that 97% of the world's scientists agree that human-caused global warming is a fact. According to Ian Tuttle,

"the “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

77 / 79 = 97% How did 77 scientists responding to an online survey become "the world's scientists"?

The science

What about "the science"? In the following 2019 lecture, Dr. Willie Soon discusses the manipulation of data used in models said to "prove" global warming. Dr. Soon's area of expertise is the effect of the sun on earth temperatures -- an obvious factor which climate change theories do not take into account. He coins the phrase "garbage in, gospel out" to describe how data are used to skew climate models so that political views can be confirmed. He describes the tactics as "childish." Michael Mann's famous "hockey stick" graph would be one example. This graph made it appear that global temperatures were in decline for over a thousand years, then rose dramatically in the industrial era. The graph laid the foundation for the global warming consensus, but it was based on data which key scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) refused to release as far back as 2009. In 2019 Dr. Mann lost a court case for once again refusing to provide the data he used to prove an unprecedented rise of temperatures in the last century. Dr. Soon's video is 38 minutes:

In December 2019, in a video titled "Hide The Decline",  Dr. John Robson explains how the famous "hockey stick" model proposed by Dr. Michael Mann and promoted by the IPCC edited out contradictory data showing temperature cooling in the last half of the 20th century. The IPCC's policy was to make sure nothing diluted the message of humanity facing an urgent global warming crisis. See 20 minute video below:

Paul Homewood, in his Climate Change – The Facts, provides alternative views of the main topics of climate change proponents, including global temperatures (which rose by about 1C since the late 19thC), glaciers (began retreating a long time ago), temperatures in the Arctic (same as 1930s), sea level rise (about 10 inches per century), Antarctica's ice (stable), extreme weather (no change), and climate projections (all based on computer models).

On December 4, 2019, James Taylor of the Heartland Institute (not the musician) delivered a 25 minute talk titled, "Debunking Climate Alarmism During COP25 in Madrid." Taylor covers ten areas which the mainstream press reports as emergencies caused by global warming: 1) unprecedented rate of increase in temperature, 2) highest temperatures ever recorded, 3) the migrant crisis caused by crop failure, 4) loss of national security due to crop failure, 5) food and crop crisis, 6) lower level of water in the Great Lakes, 7) increase in hurricanes, 8) increase in tornados, 9) increase in drought, 10) accelerating warming in U.S.

On December 20, 2019, Denis Rancourt and Tony Heller discuss the buying off of scientists and academics which began in the 1990s. After the fall of the Soviet Union,  government control of funding steered science toward the political goal of making people believe the world faced a new global threat. Rancourt is a physicist; Heller is an atmospheric scientist and engineer. Both speak candidly about their peers being forced to keep their mouths shut about any problems with the new paradigm. Their video is 47 minutes.

Wrong Kind of Green

Cory Morningstar of The Wrong Kind of Green collective has written extensively about oligarch and corporate funding of the climate change juggernaut and its offshoot, the "Green New Deal." She is the most important researcher one can find on the political and financial interests pushing climate change. She believes this supposed "emergency" is an attempt by the rich and powerful to rescue capitalism from final collapse. Her work should be read in full. Following is an excerpt from a recent essay by Cory:

As media hypes the global climate mobilizations in perfect synchronicity with a tsunami of “12 years until climate apocalypse” news articles saturating our collective psyches, global climate emergency declarations announced by states, and all levels of government, are indeed soaring. As this series has demonstrated, and as confirmed by the July 4, 2019, high-level roundtable (“Emerging from Emergency – Urgency as a Catalyst for Action and Regeneration”) this feat has been a high-level orchestrated endeavour. Indeed, the stakes could not be higher. Late-stage capitalism is faltering with economic growth in freefall. The climate mobilizations beget the declarations, beget the policy, beget the budgets, beget the finance.

The policy and legislation are instrumental to unlocking the public funds for so-called “climate infrastructure” projects (predominantly in the Global South). Infrastructure and technologies that will be paid by the citizenry, to be owned by the billionaires. We must never lose sight that the terrifying news regarding our rapidly deteriorating natural world is real, but the reason for the media saturation (spectacle) has nothing to do with protecting the natural world nor the climate – and everything to do with rebooting global economic growth and saving the capitalist system itself. Consider the Global Optimist meme shared by We Mean Business: “People are desperate for something to happen.” The message is this: No one can save you but us. Accept our solutions, or die. Another world is possible, but only if that world is designed by the ruling classes that maintain and expand current power structure. One could call this psychological manipulation, or hegemonic coercion.

This is the gentle transition into the new age of neo-feudalism. Social engineering and behavioural change campaigns have been employed to make hierarchical class invisible, in real time.

The environmental NGOs comprising the non-profit industrial complex exist as corporate front groups. They insulate, protect, and assist in the expansion of existing power structures that facilitate capitalism.

Survey of skeptics

Many writers and commentators argue that there are ulterior motives for the climate change scare. A comprehensive analysis comes from Davd Icke who points to a plan by globalist oligarch Maurice Strong and the newly formed Club of Rome as long ago as the late 1960s to use the manufactured fear of a climate catastrophe to create the context for centralized control by the rich and powerful over all of humanity. Strong worked through the UN, which has published "sustainability goals" to be reached in the 21st century, the most important point being 2030. The nice-sounding goals of the UN's Agenda 21/2030 are described by Icke as a smokescreen for steps needed to achieve the New World Order. Icke observes in many of his talks that divide and conquer tactics are widely used by the elite to weaken natural public opposition to dominance and control. The Global Climate Strike is an example of the strategy —  young people have been given the lead, while older people are are blamed for destroying their future. The idea that older people might have some experience with world-class scams, and might be able to provide the young with a different perspective, is not to be mentioned. Young people, being divided from old, are easier to manipulate. Older people, having been demonized, are simply shunned. Our future under an EU-style technocracy is likened by David Icke to the society depicted in the movie, The Hunger Games. Countries will lose their sovereignty and common people will have no role but to serve a super-elite, like serfs in feudal times. See 56 minute video by David Icke below:

In a December, 2018 article on and the disconnect between leftists/Marxists and the Yellow Vest protesters in France, Gearóid Ó Colmáin remarks, "most Marxists believe ‘Big Capital’ is behind climate change ‘denial’. They fail to realize that it is precisely Big Capital which is behind climate change propaganda!" He writes that "leftists are useful idiots of the oligarchy’s three key agendas:

1 Mass immigration and population replacement to turn human beings into capital.

2 The normalization of sexual perversion so as to break down the resistance capacities of the human individual.

3 Global warmingism which will provide the basis for a centralized global state apparatus controlling every aspect of our lives."

His article should be read in full because he outlines so well how the oligarchy found their most amenable dupes among left ideologues while working people -- the majority of the Gilets Jaune -- have enough common sense to see through the ruling class agenda. Indeed, the spark for the protests was a "carbon tax" on gas for cars that most rural people have to use just to get to work.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( He responds to questions about the polar bear population, increases in hurricanes and tornados, sea level rise, and disappearing ice, and says they ain't happening. He also gets into the details of what exactly it would take to replace fossil fuels. This valuable estimate is in a recent article, but in summary he says,

"We face no climate crisis, no unprecedented warming, climate or extreme weather threat – manmade or natural. Equally important, proposals to replace fossil fuels with biofuel, wind, solar and battery power would be far more ecologically destructive than their climate crisis – and would severely harm food supplies, nutrition, jobs, living standards, health and life spans, in rich and poor countries alike."

See also this article by Paul Dreissen on what it would take for proposed Green New Deal solar, wind, and biofuel energy to match current fossil fuel energy -- neither possible, nor practical, nor green.

James Corbett did a short report in 2017 about repeated "only x years left to save the planet" scares going all the way back to Paul Ehrlich in 1968. In his book, The Population Bomb, Ehrlich said that "in the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." There have been many dire warnings since then, none of them coming true. The most recent warning is that an irreversible process of human extinction will begin in 12 years. These predictions are a kind of millenarianism being exploited by an elite who have an agenda of eugenics and totalitarian control. Corbett cites a 2015 statement made by the UN's top official on climate change, Christina Figueres, admitting that her (and the UN's) goal is actually about changing the world economy. Ms. Figueres stated,  "this is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. See 13 minute video by James Corbett below:

For a shorter view, see James Corbett's "10 Climate Myths Busted (in 60 seconds!)":


The writer Xymphora deals with the contradiction of the rich and powerful — many of them made so by the oil industry — seeking to ban fossil fuels and institute a wide range of "progressive" programs. We are familiar with the propaganda technique in which a corporation like ExxonMobil claims to lead the struggle to protect the environment, but Xymphora adds an interesting twist -- in which the polluters add so many laudable social justice goals to their program that, a) it will alienate too many people and cost too much to have any chance of succeeding, and b) that it will reduce “climate justice” to absurdity (as with the gender debate). The powerful know that they are wrecking the environment. They just want to make sure they can continue to do so by leading the opposition, and doing so in such a way to make sure it commits suicide. Xymphora calls this tactic “the mountain of kumbaya.”

The Green New Deal

The Green New Deal Resolution introduced in the US Congress in early 2019  by US Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey is one such mountain. Their resolution states that “human  activity  is  the  dominant  cause  of  observed climate change over the past century” and that it is the duty of the US Federal Government to do the following to address this,  by taking the following steps (here quoting from the resolution):

— to   achieve   net-zero   greenhouse   gas   emissions  through  a  fair  and  just  transition  for  all communities and workers;
— to  create  millions  of  good,  high-wage  jobs  and  ensure  prosperity  and  economic  security for all people of the United States;
—  to  invest  in  the  infrastructure  and  industry  of  the  United  States  to  sustainably  meet  the challenges of the 21st century;
— to  secure  for  all  people  of  the  United States for generations to come— clean air and water; climate  and  community  resiliency; healthy food; access to nature; and a sustainable environment; and  to  promote  justice  and  equity  by  stopping  current,  preventing  future,  and  repairing historic  oppression  of  indigenous  peoples,  communities     of     color,     migrant     communities,     deindustrialized  communities,  depopulated  rural  communities,   the   poor,   low-income   workers,  women,  the  elderly,  the  unhoused,  people  with  disabilities,  and  youth  (referred  to  in  this  resolution   as   ‘‘frontline   and   vulnerable   communities’’) . . .   through  a  10-year  national  mobilization . . .
— reducing the risks posed by climate impacts;  by . . .  meeting  100  percent  of  the  power  demand  in  the  United  States  through  clean,  renewable,  and  zero-emission  energy  sources
— upgrading  all  existing  buildings  in  the  United  States  and  building  new  buildings  to  achieve  maximum  energy  efficiency,  water  efficiency,  safety,  affordability,  comfort,  and  durability
 —spurring  massive  growth  in  clean  manufacturing  in  the  United  States
— supporting family farming by  investing  in  sustainable  farming  and  land  use  practices  that  increase  soil health; and by  building  a  more  sustainable  food  system  that  ensures  universal  access to healthy food
— overhauling  transportation  systems  in  the   United   States   to   remove   pollution   and   greenhouse  gas  emissions  from  the  transportation  sector  as  much  as  is  technologically  feasible—providing    resources,    training,    and    high-quality   education,   including   higher   education,  to  all  people  of  the  United  States,  with  a   focus   on   frontline   and   vulnerable   communities,  so  that  all  people  of  the  United  States  may  be  full  and  equal  participants  in  the  Green New Deal mobilization
— prioritizing  high-quality  job  creation  and  economic, social,   and  environmental   benefits in  frontline    and    vulnerable    communities
—ensuring  the  use  of  democratic  and  participatory  processes  that  are  inclusive  of  and  led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers  to  plan,  implement,  and  administer  the Green  New  Deal  mobilization  at  the  local  level
— ensuring  that  the  Green  New  Deal  mobilization  creates  high-quality  union  jobs  that  pay  prevailing  wages,  hires  local  workers,  offers  training   and   advancement   opportunities,   and   guarantees  wage  and  benefit  parity  for  workers  affected by the transition; guaranteeing  a  job  with  a  family-sustaining   wage,   adequate   family   and   medical leave,  paid  vacations,  and  retirement  security  to  all people of the United States; strengthening  and  protecting  the  right of  all  workers  to  organize,  unionize,  and  collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment
— strengthening   and   enforcing   labor,  workplace  health  and  safety,  antidiscrimination,  and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors with   strong   labor   and   environmental   protections
— to  stop  the  transfer  of  jobs  and  pollution overseas
—  grow  domestic  manufacturing in the United States;  ensuring  that  public  lands,  waters,  and  oceans  are  protected  and  that  eminent  domain  is not abused;   obtaining  the  free,  prior,  and  informed  consent  of  indigenous  peoples  for  all  decisions  that  affect  indigenous  peoples  and  their  traditional   territories,   honoring   all   treaties   and   agreements  with  indigenous  peoples,  and  protecting  and  enforcing  the  sovereignty  and  land  rights of indigenous peoples
—   ensuring   a   commercial   environment  where  every  businessperson  is  free  from  unfair  competition   and   domination   by   domestic   or  international monopolies
 --  providing   all   people of the United States with high-quality health care; affordable,   safe,   and   adequate   housing

The original Green New Deal came from the Green Party in Europe in 2006. It was adopted by Green Party US presidential candidate Jill Stein in 2012. The following demands in the Green Party USA Green New Deal were significantly omitted in the 2019 Democrat version:

-- Democratize monetary policy to bring about public control of the money supply and credit creation. This means we’ll nationalize the private bank-dominated Federal Reserve Banks and place them under a Monetary Authority within the Treasury Department.

-- Break up the oversized banks that are “too big to fail.”

-- End taxpayer-funded bailouts for banks, insurers, and other financial companies. We’ll use the FDIC resolution process for failed banks to reopen them as public banks where possible after failed loans and underlying assets are auctioned off.

-- Restore the Glass-Steagall separation of depository commercial banks from speculative investment banks.

-- Revoke corporate personhood by amending our Constitution to make clear that corporations are not persons and money is not speech. Those rights belong to living, breathing human beings – not to business entities controlled by the wealthy.

-- Protect our personal liberty and freedoms by:

repealing the Patriot Act and those parts of the National Defense Authorization Act that violate our civil liberties;
    prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI from conspiring with local police forces to suppress our freedoms of assembly and of speech;

-- Rein in the military-industrial complex by

    reducing military spending by 50% and closing U.S. military bases around the world;
    restoring the National Guard as the centerpiece of our system of national defense; and,
    creating a new round of nuclear disarmament initiatives

Going by what the Democrats chose to leave out of their Green New Deal, it is clear that the Democrats wish to protect the banking industry, corporations, the police, and the Pentagon. They stole the Green Party's platform and threw out its most important demands. The Democratic Party Green New Deal list of demands seems to satisfy every possible good and worthwhile social justice goal, in the process guaranteeing that none of them will be met.

Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during the rollout if the Green New Deal, was quoted in the Washington Post saying “the interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all . . . Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” Chakrabarty let the cat out of the bag.

Among those interested in the "change the economy thing" are corporations who will be happy to profit by a taxpayer-funded Green New Deal whose cost has been estimated at around $100 trillion. But the corporations are not just standing by waiting for this money to come to them. They engineered the whole show. To paraphrase David Icke, they created the supposed problem (of global warming) so that they could offer the supposed solution (the Green New Deal). This ambitious plan my be their only way of avoiding the real disaster of economic collapse when decades of Ponzi scheme economics and creating money out of thin air can no longer be sustained.

Naomi Wolf does a detailed analysis of the Green New Deal Resolution in which she points out its undemocratic nature -- for example, a board of 15 people making decisions, without oversight, about how to spend huge amounts of money; its lack of specificity about who is going to do what to accomplish all these goals; its underwriting of telecom surveillance by promoting "smart" grids; and ambitious proposals for restructuring American society, which proposals have nothing to do with climate change -- they are economic and social programs. The picture Naomi Wolf paints is of a top-down, highly undemocratic, highly intrusive socialism introduced by fiat through a single piece of legislation.  Her 51 minute video (below) was produced in February 2019, shortly after the Green New Deal resolution was announced.

Involvement of elite financial powers

There is a word for protest movements that spring up out of nowhere and are suddenly adopted by mainstream media, corporate power, the banking industry, and government leaders. The word is astroturf. Astroturf means fake grassroots. Real grassroots movements seldom achieve the rapid success and approval from the establishment that the climate change initiative has enjoyed. Since when did radicals get into bed with bankers? According to Graham Dockery,  “the Climate Mobilization’s call to action has also managed to unite leftists and anti-capitalists with the global elite. Famed for ‘shutting down’ London in April, Extinction Rebellion’s call for “net zero” atmospheric carbon is shared by The World Bank, and a host of neoliberal think-tanks and financiers. Except while the Extinction Rebellion marchers may have taken to the streets in fear of the apocalypse, the financial titans support this movement with a view to getting their grubby hands into public coffers.” Dockery refers us to the Climate Finance Partnership, "formed by [Rothschild banker and now] French President Emanuel Macron and investment corporation BlackRock capital last year, the Climate Finance Partnership sees government-funded carbon reduction as a “flagship blended capital investment vehicle.” Salivating at potential profits in the world’s “developing and emerging markets,” the partnership calls for the “unlocking” of pension funds and government money to finance green industry in the developing world. Only instead of calling our planet’s situation a “climate emergency,” they call it “the climate opportunity.” Dockery continues, "the Blended Finance Action Taskforce - comprised of 50 financial giants including HSBC, JP Morgan Chase and Citi - is even more explicit, calling for a “layer of government and philanthropic capital,” as there are “profits to be had” in “climate-related sectors...across three regions including Latin America, Asia, and Africa.”

Big capital funds a long list of non-governmental organizations -- from the World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, Greenpeace International,, Avaaz/Purpose, ClimateWorks, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, World Resources Institute, Amnesty International, Extinction Rebellion, to The Climate Mobilization. There are too many to list. Hiroyuki Hamada calls them a "Non Profit Industrial Complex. " Hamada wrote:

    What’s infuriating about manipulations by Non Profit Industrial Complex is that they harvest good will of the people, especially young people. They target those who were not given skills and knowledge to truly think for themselves by institutions which are designed to serve the ruling class. Capitalism operates systematically and structurally like a cage to raise domesticated animals. Those organizations and their projects which operate under false slogans of humanity in order to prop up the hierarchy of money and violence are fast becoming some of the most crucial elements of the invisible cage of corporatism, colonialism and militarism.

Big capital operates in the background, but is not hard to find. The £4 million yacht that brought Greta Thunberg to the UN Climate Summit in New York in September 2019 was owned by German property tycoon Gerhard Senft, who bought it from Swiss-French finance group Edmond de Rothschild. She was offered a ride on the racing yacht, skippered by Pierre Casiraghi, the son of Princess Caroline of Monaco. According to Financial News the yacht is normally sponsored by German carmaker BMW as well as by Swiss private bank EFG International (logo below). This is a grassroots movement with very unusual connections.

Image from

In a similar vein, William Engdahl writes, "the links between the world’s largest financial groups, central banks and global corporations to the current push for a radical climate strategy to abandon the fossil fuel economy in favor of a vague, unexplained Green economy, it seems, is less about genuine concern to make our planet a clean and healthy environment to live. Rather it is an agenda, intimately tied to the UN Agenda 2030 for “sustainable” economy, and to developing literally trillions of dollars in new wealth for the global banks and financial giants who constitute the real powers that be. " Engdahl further states::

Make no mistake. When the most influential multinational corporations, the world’s largest institutional investors including BlackRock and Goldman Sachs, the UN, the World Bank, the Bank of England and other central banks of the BIS [Bank of International Settlements] line up behind the financing of a so-called green Agenda, call it Green New Deal or what, it is time to look behind the surface of public climate activist campaigns to the actual agenda. The picture that emerges is the attempted financial reorganization of the world economy using climate, something the sun and its energy have orders of magnitude more to do with than mankind ever could—to try to convince us ordinary folk to make untold sacrifice to “save our planet.”

In a more recent article, William Engdahl ties in climate change with" the Great Reset." He states:

In 2010 the head of Working Group 3 of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Otmar Edenhofer, told an interviewer, “… one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…” The WEF Great Reset is not simply a big idea of Klaus Schwab reflecting on the economic devastation of the coronavirus. It has been long planned by the money masters.

Is there a tie-in between the UN and big capital? It would seem so. At the beginning of the UN climate conference in Madrid in December 2019, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres announced the appointment of Mark Carney as UN special envoy on climate action and climate finance, replacing Wall Street billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Mark Carney is another major player in the financial establishment. He spent 13 years at Goldman Sachs and currently runs the Bank of England. According to a July 2016 article in the Financial Post , Carney described climate change initiatives as "a $7-trillion funding opportunity for capital markets." The article continues . . .

    TORONTO The trillions needed to fund global carbon reduction commitments in the coming years is a big opportunity for investors, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said Friday in a speech to Toronto’s financial community.

    Carney, formerly the Bank of Canada governor, spoke at the Toronto Region Board of Trade with Catherine McKenna, the minister of environment and climate change. He said that given the enormous funding needs for clean infrastructure — he estimated at somewhere between $5 trillion and $7 trillion a year — investment opportunities will abound.

Commenting on this, Eric Worrall at Watts Up With That said, "diverting $5 – $7 trillion per year to address largely imaginary climate risks probably won’t improve the lives of ordinary consumers. But I daresay Mark Carney and his banker mates would stand to make a lot of money, out of a vast surge in climate “compliance” activity which would be associated with the new regulations. Naturally I am not suggesting that green enthusiast Mark Carney is motivated by anything other than a desire to do the right thing, from his point of view."

Banks and corporations aren’t above exploiting children for Agenda 2030 -- the foremost example being Greta Thunberg. The global elite, who have so much power that they feel entitled to engineer all of humanity to fit their view of the world, are not hard to find in the background as promoters of Greta Thunberg and the youth movement she is said to lead.  Freewest Media reports that “behind the world famous 16-year-old climate activist, there is a liberal oligarch and a globalist movement.” Freewest points to Greta Thunberg's apparent minder, Luisa-Marie Neubauer, “who has been captured on numerous images and videos together with Greta when the two direct climate change protests all over the world, [who] belongs to the organisation called ”ONE” foundation. It has several well-known wealthy financiers, including Bono as well as Bill and Melissa Gates. An even more striking name is that of the multi-billionaire oligarch George Soros, notorious for his currency speculation and maybe even more prominent as the father of the global, radical, and left-liberal lobby and activist network “Open Society”, supporting thousands of NGOs.” Soros is a financier of regime change, color revolutions, and large-scale social engineering in every country resisting the New World Order. According to Climate Depot, "the Global Climate Strike received at least $24,854,592 from Soros’ Open Society Network between 2000-2017." Investors do not put their money into adventures that will not bring a profit, nor do they act out of altruism, or the good of humanity. They do, however, sell their exploits in those terms.

One of the most cynical things the powerful have done is to put a child in front of their initiative to whom it would be abuse to ask hard questions, all while abusing that child themselves. Several commentators -- among them Maximillian Forte -- have pointed out that the powerful have used children for propaganda before. Forte reminds us of the cases of  Bana Alabed, the little Syrian girl who couldn't speak English but who argued in perfect English on Twitter for the west to invade and save her country;  Nayirah al-ᚢaba, daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador, she of "throwing babies out of incubators" fame, whose lying tale was used to pave the way for the 1991 attack on Iraq; and twelve year old Severn Cullis-Suzuki, daughter of Green celebrity scientist David Suzuki, who, exactly like Greta Thunberg years later, was used to guilt trip adult leaders at a 1992 UN Summit, supposedly speaking on behalf of all the world's children. Forte had initially been friendly to scientific arguments about climate change, but says that "when I started to see that the authorities who marshalled this science were now actually presuming to speak to us through a little girl, that gave me reason for pause. Why are they resorting to such a crass, infantilizing tactic? It strongly suggested that perhaps their arguments were not so iron-clad after all. "  Forte remarks that "in deploying women and girls as props, using them as human shields, what that usually signals is the approach of either an egregious assault on the rights of others, whether individuals or nations, or a politically bankrupt policy that can find no other means of attracting sympathy."

Tony Cartalucci writes, “Greta Thunberg's story isn't one of inspiration and activism - it is one of child exploitation, one of manipulating public perception, and one of re-entrenched special interests desperately seeking an audience - any audience - still gullible enough to believe in and help reconstruct the facades used to cover up their otherwise transparent and self-serving agenda. The environment needs to be saved, but not by big-business' "Fridays for Future" charade.”

In January 2019, Cory Morningstar wrote, "Thunberg has stated repeatedly that her strike will continue “until Sweden is aligned with the Paris Agreement.” Therefore, by her own statements, this is the singular, overall purpose and goal of the strike. The foundation of the Paris Agreement is the expansion of nuclear, the financialization of nature, further privatization at an unprecedented scale, “large scale CO2 reduction” (carbon capture storage), a desperate attempt to revitalize economic growth, and more market “solutions” that will further perpetuate our multiple crises."

Extinction Rebellion

Cartalucci refers us to’s  "Climate Resistance Handbook" which includes a foreword by Greta Thunberg. He says, “the handbook itself lists zero relevant concerns or actions regarding actual environmental issues and instead is a rehash of familiar CIA-honed tactics used by the US for its so-called "color revolutions" around the globe. The handbook even cites the US overthrow of Serbia and Ukraine as examples for environmental activists to follow.” Extinction Rebellion in the UK acts very much in the manner of Gene Sharp inspired color revolutionistas fighting for the CIA and regime change in other countries. Indeed, according to nowhere news, Gail Bradbrook, who might best be described as the CEO of  Extinction Rebellion, has praised Gene Sharp and National Endowment for Democracy-funded Otpor in its undermining of Serbia in 1999. Nowhere news points out the eerily similarity of raised fist logos in some of the more well known CIA color revolutions (see below). Extinction Rebellion of course has 'XR' its logo. It may be just a matter of time before another faction of  climate change warriors gets their raised fist.

A co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, Stuart Basden, in an article on Medium titled "Extinction Rebellion isn’t about the Climate",  echoes Saikat Chakrabarti above. Climate change becomes a sort of catch-all for hidden agendas. Basden lists a number of delusions mankind will overcome through the guidance of Extinction Rebellion, among them "the delusions of hetero-sexism/heteronormativity [which] propagate the idea that heterosexuality is ‘normal’ and that other expressions of sexuality are deviant." On a list of possible causes of real human extinction, surely the idea of seeing sex between men and women as abnormal would be among them. Like everybody else, Basden also has it in for that universal punching bag, the heterosexual white male. This isn't perversion. This isn't racism. This isn't misandry. This is being a "progressive."

Yet another co-founder of XR© is Roger Hallam who has done numerous talks explaining the need for civil disobedience to stop human extinction. Hallam looks and sounds like an original thinker, but his philosophy has been lifted whole from the theories of Gene Sharp, master of the color revolution. Mass protests in the streets were once the provenance of the poor rising up to fight the rule of the rich.  But banks, corporations, intelligence agencies, and governments can organize protests too. Indeed, they have the funds and infrastructure and personnel to organize them better. Hallam stresses in his talks the need to take the energy of "the kids" who have been mobilized in the thousands by social media, and make sure it is channeled in the proper direction, by the proper leadership. Adults like Bradbrook, Basden, and Hallam act as guides and leaders of this supposed movement, but who chose them? Herein lies the rub. What if this leadership isn't actually working for the future of young people, as they say they are, but are instead using them to hand the rich even more power? Or what if this leadership is simply deluded in believing that a process of human extinction will begin irrevocably in twelve years? The Gene Sharp model, in which the masses are manipulated and organized from above, is a cynical ripoff of genuine uprisings. Gene Sharp an the CIA just studied what real revolutions look like and came up with ways to copy them. The establishment stays in power by absorbing and controlling everything which threatens them.

Extinction Rebellion's has named its enemy -- carbon dioxide. It is not a threat to the establishment, as proven by their coddling by the police in London, where an angry public has recently had to clear them away from stopping trains at rush hour because the police were doing nothing (see video by Alistair Williams). This "movement" is not trying to stop wars in Yemen and Syria. It is not demonstrating against defense contractors profiting from these wars. It is not criticizing the Zionist occupation of Palestine. It is not attacking neoliberal IMF takeovers of governments in South America. It is not trying to stop the ramp-up toward conflict with Iran, Russia, and China. It is not even addressing serious environmental degradation. If it were, it would be dealt with harshly, as true radical causes are. Whether agents or pawns, Extinction Rebellion is working  for the powerful, not against them.

Judith Curry, a climate scientist who writes at Climate Etc. is a good source on the non-alarmist side of the climate change debate. In response to a young person in the UK who is genuinely frightened by dire climate change predictions, Dr. Curry wrote "The toxic rhetoric of climate change." She ends the article with a warning to the most vocal alarmists:

JC message to Extinction Rebellion and other doomsters:  Not only do you know nothing about climate change, you also appear to know nothing of history.  You are your own worst enemy — you are triggering a global backlash against doing anything sensible about protecting our environment or reducing our vulnerability to extreme weather.  You are making young people miserable, who haven’t yet experienced enough of life to place this nonsense in context.

Dr. Curry was forced out of a tenured academic position as a result of her skepticism about CO2-caused climate change. A sixteen minute video presentation of some of the reasons for her skepticism can be seen here.

Below is an excerpt from a 2011 interview of Bill McKibben, founder of Watch McKibben attempt to lie about his actual substantial funding by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. was a major sponsor of the Global Climate Strike.

Kurt Nimmo makes the point that the idea of school strikes focused on climate change did not begin with Greta Thunberg in 2018 but with a global youth summit organized by the Plant for the Planet Foundation three years prior. He describes Plant-for-the-Planet as “partnered” with the Avina Foundation, the Club of Rome, and the Global Marshall Plan. Avina is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, while the Club of Rome, a cabal of the global elite and corporatists, published The Limits to Growth in 1972.  The report, funded by the Volkswagen Foundation, argues in favor of population control and rolling back civilization to save the planet. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968 “during a meeting at Rockefeller’s private house in Bellagio, Italy.” Nimmo reports that “the Club of Rome was established with 75 prominent industrialists, economists and scientists members from 25 nations. The Bilderberg Group and the Club of Rome are the most important foreign policy arms of the Round table, which is led by the Committee of 300… Many of the Club of Rome members were drawn from NATO.”

Graham Dockery put it well when he wrote, “most people who complain about climate protesters don’t hate Greta Thunberg for who she is. They just don’t like being browbeaten into thinking a certain way by the combined forces of activists, corporations, the media and the state, no matter how right or wrong that way is.”

Writing in early 2019, Barbara McKenzie in "The Globalism of Climate: How Faux Environmental Concern Hides Desire to Rule the World" give a thorough history of the Rockefeller-promoted climate agenda going back to the Club of Rome in the early 1970s. In her introduction, McKenzie writes:

The primary function of ‘global warming’ alarmism, aka as the ‘climate crisis,’ is to facilitate a one-world government, administered by the United Nations bureaucracy.

Regardless of the science involved (or lack of it), there are a number of indisputable facts about the background to anthropogenic global warming alarmism:

The long-standing plan for global government by an elite;
The one-to-one equivalence between the globalists and the creators of climate alarmism, represented above all by David Rockefeller and his protégé Maurice Strong;
The manifest intention of UN reports on ‘climate’ and the environment to give more power to the UN bureaucracy and to corporate-owned non-government organisations (NGOs).

There is no question that the industrialization of our modern day has been a disaster for the the planet’s earth, air, water, and living things. And there is no question that something must be done about it. But the last people we want to address this issue are the barons who have made fortunes from this industrialization who are now trying to cover up their path of destruction by getting in front of a “solution” that will make them even more money. This project will be paid for by the labor of working people and the health of our planet and, shamefully, it is being facilitated by a duped Left.

Resources/ updates:

-- "New UN Report on Climate Change – Absolutely Nothing in This Report Is True"BY RHODA WILSON ON APRIL 9, 2022,

-- "Net zero – a grim fairy tale" by Dr Deborah Ancell, April 19, 2022,

Carbon dioxide (CO2) (not ‘carbon’) is not a pollutant. It’s a trace gas and essential for life.  Only 5 per cent of CO2 is man-made and largely through burning fossil fuels; the other 95 per cent is natural from sources such as oceans or volcanoes. More than 450million years ago (long before mankind arrived) it was 5,000 parts per million (ppm). It’s currently about 420 ppm with the anthropogenic share at 20 ppm, in other words minuscule! There is no known harm from CO2. Consequently, there is no enemy to fight to attain ‘net zero’ .


-- "The Mainstream Media is Gaslighting Us About Climate Change" BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | AUGUST 12, 2022.

"In the climate change show, jumping the shark is now a daily occurrence, particularly in the mainstream media. Gaslighting on a global scale is evident as the media push the command-and-control Net Zero agenda."