The Truth Behind Climate Change Activism

Hi everyone, I hope you’re all well. Climate change activism is all the rage right now, with Greta Thunberg’s strikes for climate change, and the UN Climate Summit having just taken place. The mainstream media has given it all glowing coverage; presenting these activists as the educated, enlightened class, acting entirely in good faith and willing to risk life and limb to save the planet. Only, as I mentioned in my last video, this is not always the case. While there are certainly many on the cl

imate activist bandwagon whose motivations are pure, there is a particularly insidious element to the group who have much more at stake than just saving the environment. I’ve already covered climate activists do as I say not as I do attitude, and their wanton, unashamed abuse of children, I’ve linked that video in the video description if you’d like to watch it. But that’s not the extent of the bad behaviour of some climate change alarmists. And it is time they were comprehensively called out fo

r all of it. Before we go any further, I would like to state, again, for the record, that these videos are NOT about whether or not climate change is real, or my opinion of the climate change issue. I am a climate centrist, and I am willing to listen to all sides of the debate to find the best possible solution. I’m not planting my stake either way, and I’m not pushing an agenda. What I am doing is highlighting extremism, alarmism, intimidation, and misrepresentation, none of which I condone fro

m anyone, left or right, adult or child. So, under that assumption, let’s continue. It has become blatantly obvious over the past few years that climate change alarmists have a distinct problem with freedom of speech. In the early stages, they simply demonized anybody who was an outright climate change denier as stupid or ignorant, in an attempt to discredit them and intimidate them from speaking. This has augmented morphed into what we have today, which is a complete and often aggressive reject

ion of any debate on the subject, any at all. Nowadays, anybody who is not an alarmist who supports radical action to combat climate change is branded a denier and demonized as not only wrong, but immoral and dangerous. This branding of what are essentially normal people is backed up by a very deliberate change in rhetoric. For example, in May this year, The Guardian updated its house style guide in terms of how it reports on climate change. In order to make everything seem more catastrophic, th

e phrase “climate change” is to be swapped for climate emergency, climate crisis, or climate breakdown. Global warming is now to be known as global heating, and the term climate sceptic is to be abolished and everyone who is not an alarmist is to be called a climate denier. This rhetoric from the Guardian is mirrored by other media outlets, celebrities, politicians, even the Pope. The point of this is to portray anybody who doesn’t support massive overhaul to combat climate change as a danger to

society, because what kind of stupid, evil person wouldn’t act quickly in an emergency or a crisis? The intent, therefore, is to scare ordinary people into jumping on the bandwagon, while intimidating non-alarmists into shutting the heck up. A lot of this seems to be coming from the mainstream media; which is no surprise, as it’s full of climate change alarmists posing as journalists. In fact, over 170 media outlets worldwide have joined an initiative called Covering Climate Now. Publications w

ho pledged to this initiative committed to a week of coverage focussed on climate change, from September 16 th to September 23 rd . Participants included The Guardian of course, AFP, Bloomberg, The Christian Science Monitor, New Zealand Herald, Newsweek, Al Jazeera, and Australia’s own The Conversation. The Conversation is an academic publication, funded by the taxpayer via Australia’s universities. This website is very heavily left leaning and climate focussed, but has recently taken it one ste

p further. Via a statement on September 17 th from Editor and Executive Director, Misha Ketchell, the website is now going to ban so-called climate change deniers from their comments sections. Not only will these deniers have their comments removed, they will have their accounts locked, so keen is The Conversation to avoid any kind of debate on the issue. Now, there are a number of problems with this, most pointedly that this publication receives tax payer funding so probably shouldn’t be puttin

g its stake in the ground this vehemently, but also, this is an academic publication that claims to value free thought and expression. Banning people with opinions that differ from the website’s party line wouldn’t seem conducive to that. What confuses me about The Conversation’s policy, and those who agree with them, is that surely, if they are that concerned about climate change, they would want to hear as many dissenting voices as possible in order to debate them and potentially change their

minds? If climate change is such an existential threat, why aren’t they doing everything in their power to engage with so-called deniers in order to make them understand their perspective? Wouldn’t that be the best thing for humanity? To make as many non-believers proverbially see the light as possible? We all know the regressive left isn’t hot on debate, but climate change seems to be the ultimate sacred cow. And for anyone who continues to wax lyrical that climate change isn’t political; pleas

e don’t be wilfully ignorant. It absolutely is, and it is the political nature of it that influences so many alarmists to be so particularly opposed to debate. So how is it political? Well, first of all, it’s a cause that’s tailor made for the regressive left. It’s a globalist initiative where the individual’s needs are sacrificed for the good of the collective, and it’s morality 101. Since these people love flexing their moral high ground muscles, there is no easier way to do this than acting a

s an environmentalist. Who wouldn’t want to save the planet? It’s morality for dummies. But these aren’t the only reasons climate change is a political issue, specifically for the radical left. The nature of the climate change cause also involves massive government intervention, and what is essentially a giant redistribution of wealth, both domestically and globally. So, let’s put this together. What political ideology involves morality 101, sacrificing the individual for the good of the collect

ive, massive government intervention, and a giant redistribution of wealth? Okay! Just let me back up here. Before anyone starts accusing me of pushing conspiracy theories, or jumping on some kind on radical right wing hysterical bandwagon of shrieking about a Stalinesque socialist takeover based on my own anxiety about losing my apparently massive, ill-begotten, filthy capitalist wealth, that’s not what I’m doing. I promise. All I’m doing is responding to what I have read, heard, and seen of so

me, not all, climate change alarmists. These particular activists are very happy to admit that climate change action is a handy avenue through which to implement socialism. Take, for instance the Democratic Socialists of America. In an article published in the Socialist Forum, which is a publication of the DSA, the tag below the title reads, “Climate change will create an opening for socialist politics by breaking the link between capitalist growth and political legitimacy.” Hello?? You don’t ge

t much more explicit than that. The article goes on to say, among other things, “If we can show that capitalists are asking for bailouts to counteract environmental disasters they themselves caused we can highlight the link between capitalism and climate change. We can harness mass anger to mobilize the public to oppose specific benefits for capitalists." "By redirecting government money from capitalists to the mass of workers we can offer an antidote to the effects of the past forty y

ears of neoliberalism." Okay, comrade. The same is true of the UK Socialist Party, who published an article in their newsletter entitled, ‘Climate Change: what’s socialism got to do with it?’ According to the Party, quite a lot: “Socialism is the conscious recognition of the current situation. Humanity determines the future of the Earth's natural systems. Capitalism is blindly stumbling towards ecological crisis. Socialism would actively seek to implement a plan, rebalancing natural sys

tems to build a harmonious future for all life." The Guardian preaches a similar sermon. In an article by Jeff Sparrow, who is a self-admitted card-carrying member of the Victorian Socialists, he states, “there’s every reason to expect various versions of socialism to play an increasingly important role in discussions about the climate catastrophe.” “Isn’t that the obvious (perhaps only) solution to the environmental crisis – the conscious direction of resources away from fossil energy and

towards planetary repair?” So, already we can see there is a faction of climate activists who are very keen to use the climate change situation to implement the socialist Utopia they have always dreamed of. This is very evident in policy as well. Take the Green new Deal. Alexandria Ocasio’s ex Chief of Staff himself admitted the Green new Deal wasn’t actually about the environment. In an interview published in the Washington Post, he stated in these words, “Do you guys think of it as a climate t

hing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” You can see this all the way through the deal. Along with the noises it makes about clean air and water are policy ideas like, “promoting 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 un

housed, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);” What does that passage have to do with the environment? Nothing; it’s all just jargon about affirmative action and possibly reparations for communities Red Cortez has decided to privilege over others. The deal also speaks of “providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (includ

ing through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to those working on the Green New Deal mobilization;” Again, nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with redistributing capital via government overhaul as an incentive for people to join the ranks. In other words, those who won’t join the regime will receive worse treatment than those who do. It kind of reminds me of George Orwell’s fa

mous phrase from Animal Farm; “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” These policies from the Green New Deal are echoed by many of those striking for climate change. The group Youth Climate Strike, who helped organise the September 20 th marches in the USA, has a list of demands. These include removing the apparently entrenched racial, regional, ability, and gender-based barriers to income and wealth; creating a public bank, eliminating community-level threats, what

ever they may be, via equitably distributed investments to historically disadvantaged communities, and a random passage that demands respect for Indigenous women, Indigenous queer and trans women, women of color, and queer and trans people of color. Nothing to do with the environment, everything do to do with overhauling the economy, social justice, and equality of outcome. This is why climate change alarmists are so violently opposed to free speech. They have been waiting for years for a window

of opportunity to realise their socialist dreams. Now they have one, and they’re not going to let anything sway the public narrative away from it. Even if there is dissent among the scientific community, which there is. For example, 500 scientists, more than the number who put together the IPCC report that people are so concerned about, sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change. The l

etter stated, “The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power. The letter urged the UN to follow a climate policy ba

sed on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.” Again, I’m not putting my stake in any of the science here, but this is evidence that there is disagreement from many qualified experts. However, they are being ignored by climate activists in favour of the alarmist model, because it gives them an excuse to promote socialism as a solution. And may I remind you that socialism has never, ever, EVER worked, no matter whe

re or how it’s been tried. See? Acting in bad faith. I am all for saving the planet. But alarmism, radicalism, and insidious ulterior motives are simply not the way to do it.