The Control of Information

How the rich and powerful shape the media and control your mind. By Judith Brown

Jul 24, 2024

“The scientific arena by definition is supposed to be a place where different elements argue amongst themselves about everything in order to refine and understand it. In this matter…there are scientists who have opinions that are different than what is acceptable…” , Responding to climate crisis denial. Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection, 2023.

The Climate Narrative; a story of censorship and narrative creation. Part 1.

Definitions.

According to the UK Meteorological Office (Met Office), climate is defined as ‘the general weather over a long period’. The Met Office states that they usually define a region’s climate over a period of 30 years[i]. Stanford University defines climate science as investigating the structure and dynamics of the earth’s climate system. It seeks to understand how global, regional and local climates are maintained as well as the processes by which they change over time[ii].

Neither the Met Office nor Stanford describe the environment as part of the climate, although clearly climate is one of the factors that affects the environment. The Cambridge Dictionary defines environment as “the air, water or land in or on which people, animals and plants live”[iii]. However, factors other than climate or weather also affect the environment, such as physical changes to the landscape, microwave activity, pollution, war, diversity, political policy, industrialisation, and many other issues, some of which are influenced by human activity.

The dominating narrative.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988 to provide governments at all levels with scientific information so that they can be used to develop climate policies. It is part of the United Nations (UN)[iv]. In recent decades there has been a convergence of the climate narrative by governments and academic institutions worldwide. For example, on the UK government Department of Energy Security and Net Zero website, it is stated that

Climate change is happening and it is due to human activities; along with warming, many other changes are occurring such as melting polar ice cap, rising sea levels and more frequent floods, droughts and heatwaves. (Published 2014, updated June 2023.)

NASA states that 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change[v]. However, this does not take into account editorial decisions of academic journals, where certain perspectives may be preferred and may disadvantage those who cite natural factors as being more influential on climate. A Forbes article investigated the claim of 97% consensus in 2016. It stated that an article by Naomi Oreskes from Harvard University which analysed 928 published papers and said that “none…disagreed with the consensus position of anthropogenic global warming” was very influential in supporting the 97% figure. Other research articles were also quoted in the Forbes article, which concluded that between 80-90% of climate scientists supported this position[vi]. No more recent fact checking articles were found on this specific issue.

History of the narrative.

The influence of human activity on the climate has a long history, but the Rockefellers moved it to a high profile in the 20^th Century. Research by Jacob Nordingrad reveals that the Rockefellers had a depopulation agenda and also found the idea of climate change interesting, and poured a billion pounds into green projects, founding 990 ‘Climate Change’ institutions, foundations, and activist groups. They co-founded the United Nations building in New York, and were instrumental in founding influential groups where the rich and powerful could meet, including the Bilderberg group and the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR). They funded science foundations associated with their interest in climate change, including the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) that systematically cleansed tens of millions of indigenous people living in Africa and the East. They also funded the International Meteorological Institute (IMI). With the assistance of Henry Kissinger, they founded the IPCC in 1988[vii].

The association between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change was first raised by a politician in 1988. The British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made a speech to the UN Assembly in 1989 on this issue, but no specific British policies were bought forward; however, it is significant that her dispute with the miners made her determined to close down UK coal mines which may have influenced her attitudes at that time[viii]. In her 2002 autobiography Statecraft she renounced her former beliefs and regretted the influence that this viewpoint had on anti-capitalist activists[ix]. However, by this time she was retired and had little political influence.

The next politician to influence the climate debate was Al Gore, Vice-President on America from 1993 to 2001. He has written several books and was the subject of a documentary film An Inconvenient Truth. He is the cofounder of a non-profit, The Climate Reality Project which has a worldwide presence[x]. But the next notable influencer was a young Swedish activist Greta Thunberg. Aged 15 in 2018 she raised awareness to publicise climate issues by going on strike and refusing to attend school, and encouraging others to do the same. She was invited to speak at the UN in 2019, and has continued to raise awareness of climate issues since that date with protests, speeches, meeting world leaders and academics, and writing[xi].

There has been a proliferation of NGOs and organisations that support climate action, some funded by the Rockefellers, other members of the super-rich and Western governments, many with a global reach. This includes Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, C40 Cities, Climate Action Network, Climate Justice Alliance, and many others. Many have an educational and lobbying purpose, as well as undertaking specific activities to pursue their interests, such as conservation projects and policy planning.

The Capture of Academia.

Academia has been captured by the huge influx of monies that are associated with research that supports the notion of human impact on climate change. This was illustrated in the documentary released in March 2024, called Climate, The Movie[xii]. The documentary features at least 15 high profile academics, most with professorships from Ivy League or top international universities and one with a Nobel award, who discuss climate science and the way their decision to be honest in their interpretation of data negatively affected them and their careers. Whatever your beliefs in climate, this documentary is worth watching from the point of view of understanding the attack on free speech in the academic world. As described by the Israeli government in the initial quotation at the head of this article, everyone can speak up on climate issues, unless they do not comply with the selected narrative.

Astrophysicist Dr David Whitehouse wrote a review of the documentary and states that it reveals how corrupt some aspects of science have become; just looking at data and relaying what the data reveals, results in censorship and marginalisation[xiii]. The documentary looks at climate science evidence in the first part, and then moves on to the pressure on academia to produce research that meets with the expectation of their funders, the smearing of dissenting academics, the pressure on academic journals, and the adopted ‘Climate Crisis’ policies that are not in the interest of the world’s people, especially developing counties. It also shows that ‘Climate Change’ is extending to many other academic disciplines, such as finance, sociology, and gender studies. Whitehouse states that uncritically following the climate alarm story also stains the media, with its “ready supply of uninformed, tunnel-vision journalists and commentators” who lack the will or ability to examine data for themselves.

For example, in 2024, a World Climate Declaration was prepared by The Global Climate intellligence Group. It was entitled “There is no climate emergency” and has 1940 signatories including 2 Nobel science laureates, and many professors. The stated objections to the current narrative include (1) Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming (2) Warming is slower than predicted (3) Climate policy depends on inadequate models (4) CO2 is plant food and the basis of all life on earth (5) Global warming has not increased natural disasters and (6) Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities. Whether these esteemed scientists are right or wrong, this demonstrates that there is informed dissent form the mainstream narrative that is not reflected by politicians nor the mainstream media[xiv].

Governments introduce new green policies, with green subsidies, and green taxes, these facilitate ‘green’ industries, but restrictions related to the claimed climate emergency also increases governments’ ability to control its citizens. Developing countries that sign and keep to international agreements to restrict their use of fossil fuels cannot reach their potential and hence will not threaten the economic dominance of Europe and North America.

Banking on nature.

Not only is ‘Climate Crisis’ funding influencing NGOs and academia, but a new industry is also developing that depends on the ‘Climate Crisis’ for its business activities. Car manufacturers are building electric cars, although these are losing popularity due to fire risks and battery charging inconveniences. According to Rachel Matthews of the People’s Food and Farming Alliance (PFFA) the Net Zero industry is now worth four billion dollars a day[xv]. Renewable manufacturers are only the tip of a huge decarbonisation industrial complex, which includes high paid employment opportunities for climate consultants, sustainability officers, climate compliance lawyers, climate credit agencies, eco-tourism agencies, and carbon offset advisers.

Another documentary, called The Privatisation of Nature reveals that those managing financial and economic markets claim they can ‘save the planet’. This documentary does not challenge the narrative of the climate crisis, but describes the way that carbon, endangered species and forests are treated as financial products. By putting a value on nature and investing in it, high profits are made. Mitigation banking systems are developing to offset environmental incursions, and a price is put on carbon emissions, or the value of a wild species or a natural environment, so that businesses can develop into new areas and pay for the privilege. In USA there are approximately 900 mitigating banks, with banks deciding which endangered products are to be saved. An organisation called The Ecosystem Market Place invented a matrix which allows the valuation of natural resource products. Compensation is paid by the polluter for diversity loss; the paradox is that those with money can pay to destroy nature, whilst ordinary people using natural resources in order to survive are driven off their land[xvi].

For example, the UAE company Blue Carbon owned by a member of the royal family have bought the rights to 10% or more of the land in Libera, Zambia, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe, plus smaller amounts in other African countries. Altogether the acquired lands are larger than the size of Britain. These grow forests to offset UAE’s own use of fossil fuels, which has not diminished. Prior to Kenya entering negotiations, in Eastern Kenya the indigenous Oglek people were driven off their lands; a common feature of offset projects [xvii].

The Privatisation of Nature documentary reveals the system of mitigation banking has spread from USA to other countries, such as Brazil and Borneo. It claims that the speculation in housing in USA led to the sub-prime crisis, and the same thing could happen the new products of carbon offset assets thus putting the worldwide economic system at risk. A spokesperson from the World Rainforest Movement stated the same banks are investing in natural capital as those that invested in the sub-prime housing market. The film stated that this system has been worked on and shaped for 50 years, but I note the electorate have not been consulted on the marketing of nature, and the focus of the interviewed bankers in this film was on profit not conservation. The banking sector has a powerful lobbying system that influences governments worldwide. The film claims that the banker, the politician and the businessman form a symbiotic trinity that speaks in harmony about the environment.

The documentary gave several examples of decarbonisation projects. One was in Brazil, where the giant mining company Vale is mining for iron in the Amazon area. Vale provides benefits to the local population in the form of employment and train services. The company has also planted 100,000 acres of trees to mitigate its pollution and environmental damage, with 400,000 acres in the pipeline. These new trees are a monoculture of eucalyptus trees that will be used for biofuels after 30 years. In 2012 Vale received the Public Eye Award, a negative award given to irresponsible businesses, as people’s lives have been blighted by heavy pollution from Vale’s mining activities, and the Vale planted monoculture is not suitable as a replacement for the traditional Amazon forest. Yet the financial markets applaud Vale for its green investment.

The film also comments on the 2017 Kyoto Protocol, where signatories to the protocol have a carbon quota, which is distributed to carbon producing industries. If a company exceeds its carbon quota it can mitigate this an offset system by investing in a developing country; the example given was in Uganda. The carbon capture is measured by ‘carbon hunters’ a new type of employment where local people are employed in tree planting and measuring their growth. It also employs rangers ‘with martial arts expertise’ to keep the local population off the land, where they have previously grazed their animals. African farmers criticise this activity and state that they can only develop their agriculture by increasing the use of fossil fuels. In some areas villagers have been expelled and their villages burned to the ground, inferring trees are more valuable than people. In the film, carbon offset credits were applauded by an economist from the Earth Institute at Columbia University and a spokesman from The Nature Conservancy, a non-profit company that founded by the Rockefellers[xviii].

Interestingly, fossil fuel companies also benefit from carbon credit trading. As companies offset their carbon usage in order to reach ‘Net Zero’, coal, gas and oil continue to be sold. . This trend is particularly noticeable in the fossil fuel industry and car manufacturing[xix].

Political change.

The changes that have dominance in Britain and other Western countries can have a dramatic effect on the lives of their citizens. They fall into two main categories (1) Changes in agriculture and (2) changes in urban settings and (3) international purchase of ‘green energy’.

Since the 1940s agriculture has become increasingly industrialised in the West, with a significant reduction of farm workers, and introduction of industrial chemicals to control diseases and pests and to fertilise crops, and modern farm machinery has eliminated the use of farm animals (such as horses) and labour. Farmer Mark Byford stated recent increased bureaucracy also has had a large impact on the profitability of farming. Fuel used by farmers has recently risen from 20p per litre, to £1 per litre. The increased costs caused by bureaucracy and fuel meant that farmers often don’t earn enough by producing food. In UK since 2024 farmers have been offered £250 per acre to stop producing crops on their land, but instead to allow their land to rewild[xx].

In 2030 the Net Zero agricultural policy will be rolled out, although changes heading towards the Net Zero have already has had an impact on agricultural production. This includes phasing out the use of ships and planes to import food, and phasing out beef and lamb production. This seems a dangerous policy as it will reduce the supply of affordable food, and commit British agriculture to artificial fertilisers. Researcher Sandi Adams states a new international system of credits for ‘sustainable’ land use is called Natural Asset Company (NACs). This will enable corporations and foreign governments to take over the management of British land, including privately owned land. Emphasis will be on conservation, land restoration, and sustainable management. Environmental stewardship and profit will take precedence over food production, and governments will have a massive windfall by creating a new revenue source[xxi]. Some financial traders such as the New York Stock Exchange have already stated that they will not take part in this asset class, creating doubt concerning its viability[xxii]. Farmers have already started protests concerning Net Zero policies, although the mainstream media has not given priority to their concerns[xxiii].

Urban planning is also heading for significant change, which has already begun in many parts of UK. Many urban areas are designated as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN). One of the most significant features of this policy is the division it is causing in society. Although surveys show a majority are in favour of such schemes with a large minority against them, if residents were aware that the climate emergency is not currently supported by data, this may alter their opinion of the schemes that restrict their activities and cause inconvenience. Surveys show that car use within LTNs decreases by 6% but this modest decrease could be achieved in other ways, such as offering free, frequent and reliable public transport systems[xxiv].

The LTNs create traffic fines, up by 41%, with 7.5 million penalty tickets issued. They also increase traffic congestion in roads that are allowed to be used, with drivers spending more time in traffic queues. In London some areas have already withdrawn from the LTN scheme, and the Conservative party has withdrawn support, demonstrating that it is a contentious policy. The primary benefit is reduced noise and air pollution, although in roads to which traffic is directed there will be more pollution due to traffic congestion[xxv].

Further restrictions on freedoms have also been suggested in a report by an international think tank that focuses on urban climate policy; C40, headed by London mayor Saddiq Khan, is a partner of the climate group 100RC, a Rockefeller funded organisation. C40 is funded by European governments, large corporations, and philanthropic foundations associated with the rich and powerful. C40 cities are at the forefront of introducing restrictions relating to global warming, for example, London has introduced LTN and ULEZ schemes to reduce traffic flow. In C40’s annual report 2022, its introduction states that to tackle the climate emergency “we know we must continue to galvanise action and go further and faster.”[xxvi] This indicates that further restrictions are likely in the future; the World Economic Forum states that it is developing a Digital Carbon Footprint Tracker, that tracks on the types of food eaten and travel[xxvii]. Travel restrictions were also suggested by the C40, who were heavily criticised as C40 mayors regularly travel the globe to attend meetings[xxviii].

The purchase of ‘green energy’ from overseas is a growing policy, although Natalie Koch from Syracuse University describes it as a spectacular fiction, not a spectacular future. Solar energy farms are an increasing feature of the Gulf states and North Africa. However, these solar farms need considerable water resources in order to wash dust and debris from sandstorms; in the Gulf this is generated from water desalination plants that have a large carbon footprint. Additionally, solar panels also need to be regularly replaced due to the weather conditions. Although desert land is described as ‘wasteland’ by investors, deserts are not barren and lifeless places, and both human and non-human life that exists has to be removed in order to create solar farms. In Morocco this has resulted in massive land grabs and has threatened local water supplies, and the collapse of traditional oasis farming. This project is largely designed to provide energy for Europe. Instead of Europe aiming for sustainability, it is importing energy to meet its own demands. For example, the Morocco-Uk Power Project aims to produce 7.5% of UK’s energy needs. This involves a 2,000 mile submarine connector which will be linked to Devon. This will not only involve the submarine connection but also massive batteries to store power that arrives from Morocco[xxix].

The movement of people from their ancestral lands for decarbonisation and green energy production has potential for creating social unrest. Already some projects have been postponed for political reasons, such as the Saudi Arabia/Jordan/Israeli project to provide green energy for Israel, with the use of Jrdanian deserts and Saudi technology[xxx]. The Morocco deal may involve Europe accepting Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara. Future pollical deals may involve building power installations on occupied West Bank and Golan Heights. These types of developments have created dependency structures which have been called ‘Green Colonial Dependencies’. Some agencies such as Migration Warch directly link increased migration into Europe to what they call climate imperialism[xxxi].

Climate, or long term weather patterns, is not the same as the environment, but the environment is what people observe. People can see the effects of air pollution and industrialisation. These create health risks and a loss of diversity – for example in Britain nightingales, cuckoos, and ash trees are endangered. These observed environmental changes, often caused by human activity, may be wrong attributed to climate change. Even when the weather has not been extreme or unusual for many years, people are still convinced by the global warming narrative. The observed environmental changes may make individuals more likely to believe the narrative that climate change is caused by human activity, although this is still disputed within the scientific world. Of course, the negative effects on the environment, such as air pollution and plastic waste do need action to mitigate the effects, but this does not mean that we are facing a climate emergency. It is difficult to see than the raft of ‘green policies’ that are currently being enacted will benefit the world’s people.

Conclusion.

The decarbonisation industrial complex is extensive, funding academia and spawning a highly profitable industry that creates highly paid jobs. Most significantly banking and financial institutions are buying and selling natural assets in order to create wealth. The current developments in the green movement seem to give a higher value to profits than they do to human and some animal life; indeed the changes envisaged to combat climate change may by themselves cause citizen unrest, poverty, loss of freedom, and serious risk to life and health. This is not surprising given the historic links between eugenicists and the green movement.

The trading of carbon and nature on the stock market has risks. It could create a banking crash, similar to that of the sub-prime housing market in USA in 2008. Given the controversial nature of the value of carbon, values could rapidly fall, which would severely affect financial stability and the assets that have been monetised.

Most significantly academics have illustrated that the climate lobby is censoring speech, thought, and research. Whether alternative views by scientists are correct or not, they have a right to their learned opinions, as science is never settled and should always include diverse opinions, and not just opinions that are acceptable to governments and the decarbonisation industry.

In P

[i] What is climate? - Met Office

[ii] Climate Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[iii] ENVIRONMENT | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

[iv] About — IPCC

[v] Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Science

[vi] Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change (forbes.com)

[vii] The Rockefellers created 990 ‘Climate Change’ institutions, foundations, & activist groups – Climate Depot

[viii] Energy and Thatcher: a tangled legacy (theengineer.co.uk)

[ix] Who drove Thatcher's climate change u-turn? (theecologist.org)

[x] The Climate Reality Project

[xi] Greta Thunberg: How one teenager became the voice of the planet | WIRED