Preview of My Chapter from the Upcoming “Canary in a Climate World” Anthology

Originally published on Margaret Anna Alice substack.

These ideas come very slowly into being, and they are also very slow to disappear. Long after their erroneous nature has become clear to cultivated minds, they remain indisputable truths for the masses, and continue to exert their influence on the rank and file of a nation. It is difficult to obtain recognition for a new idea, but it is no less difficult to discredit an idea that has long been generally accepted. Humanity has always been exceedingly loth to abandon its decayed ideas and its moribund gods.

* * *

When an idea, after a longer or shorter period of tentative existence, modifications, deformations, discussion and propaganda, has acquired its definite form and penetrated the soul of the masses, it constitutes a dogma, that is one of those absolute truths which are no longer discussed. It then forms part of those general beliefs on which the existence of peoples is based.

—Gustave Le Bon, The Psychology of Peoples (p. xiii and p. 178)

How It Started

It was 2017. My late beloved husband, Michael, started asking uncomfortable questions.

It began with playing raw footage of Evergreen Spring captured by Benjamin Boyce that May. Protests by shrieking, baseball bat–wielding social justice warriors had erupted at Evergreen College after biology professor Bret Weinstein had dared critique the Day of Absence during which whites were pressured to vanish from campus. In the email that sparked the conflagration, Weinstein stated, “On a college campus, one’s right to speak—or to be—must never be based on skin color.”

This was Michael’s and my first real-world glimpse of Wokeism, and we were appalled by the extent to which students had been ideologically inculcated into a victim mindset that rendered them irrational, emotionally volatile, envious, and enraged—a combustible combination.

Soon Michael began reexamining one long-held progressive belief after another. I thought he was succumbing to right-wing propaganda. I started researching how to deprogram him—not yet realizing I was the one who needed deprogramming and that “right-wing” really meant “liberal,” while those on the radical left were now illiberal.

I thought he was succumbing to right-wing propaganda. I started researching how to deprogram him.

We argued repeatedly. Michael presented logical reasons for his changing positions. I continued to resist.

Subconsciously, however, I was feeling uneasy about my mounting cognitive dissonance regarding issues I had not properly researched and had automatically taken my tribe’s word for.

Michael could not stomach much of the fictional media we previously consumed as he found the social engineering excruciatingly blatant. Having spent much of our marriage as film aficionados, we could no longer watch movies.

I told him, “I feel like I’ve lost my best friend.”

He persevered, playing videos in the background as we worked—political commentaries, lectures, interviews, presentations. Many were exposing the hypocrisies of the Democrat Party, which we had reluctantly switched back to from the Green Party after Al Gore lost the 2000 presidential election.

To my surprise, many of the views presented in the videos Michael played made sense.

I gradually loosened my grip on my emotionally implanted beliefs. I shifted from a state of fearful defensiveness to open-minded curiosity—or from a soldier mindset to a scout mindset, to use Julia Galef’s illuminating terminology.

As my cherished soul–sister Meredith Miller writes in Becoming Whole: How to Prevent Stockholm Syndrome and Transcend Darkness in Your Life and Relationships:

Belief isn’t just thought; it’s architecture. Most of what we believe, we didn’t choose. We inherited it—from culture, family, religion, and trauma. These beliefs form the invisible scaffolding of how we see the world, like an unseen frame holding up what we call “reality.” It feels heavy because we are carrying the weight of the distortions we inherited. And at some level we sense the tension between what we’ve been taught to believe and what actually resonates.

I felt an exhilarating lightness, clarity, and freedom as I embarked on a journey of intellectual discovery.

I started writing a book titled No Longer a Lefty that began:

I used to call myself a progressive because I was anti-authoritarian, anti-war, anti-corporation, countercultural, tolerant of diverse viewpoints, pro-truth, pro–freedom of speech, pro–freedom of choice, pro-justice, and pro-equality for all.

I stopped calling myself a progressive because I am anti-authoritarian, anti-war, anti-corporation, countercultural, tolerant of diverse viewpoints, pro-truth, pro–freedom of speech, pro–freedom of choice, pro-justice, and pro-equality for all.

My core values remained the same. I just figured out political parties and politicians were lying about representing them.

Once I recovered from menticide and began shedding my illusions, I started realizing all the different ways in which I’d been deceived throughout my life. All the false narratives, all the manufactured crises, all the emotional and psychological manipulations of my cognitive biases came into sharp relief against the backdrop of immersive propaganda.

My One Inviolable Belief

There was one belief that remained untouchable, however: Climate change is an urgent, existential threat to all life on earth, and we must rapidly reduce our CO₂ emissions to save the planet.

To question this belief was to jeopardize all life. Only ignorant, dangerous, science-denying Deplorables would be stupid enough to do so.

To question this belief was to jeopardize all life. Only ignorant, dangerous, science-denying Deplorables would be stupid enough to do so.

Gustave Le Bon writes in The Psychology of Peoples:

Each citizen had a number of absolutely inviolable beliefs; none would have thought of discussing received ideas, which were accepted without demur.

Climate change was my inviolable belief.

As a Gen Xer, I had been indoctricated¹ into the global warming narrative beginning in high school. Years later, I imbibed Al Gore’s 2006 An Inconvenient Truth. I believed him when he said, “Within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.”

I was scared, anxious, angry, and galvanized into action. All other issues paled in importance by comparison. My empathy was locked and loaded.

I cared about the environment. I cared about the oceans. I cared about wildlife and humanity. I didn’t want the polar bears to drown and the planet to become uninhabitable within my lifetime.

I would later realize the environmental movement—which exposed genuine toxic harms to water, soil, sky, wildlife, and people by psychopathic corporations—I had been born into in the seventies had been hijacked by the climate change agenda in the late eighties.

The emphasis was no longer on polluting corporations but individuals, who were now freighted with guilt and compelled to save the planet by recycling and minimizing their carbon footprint.

The emphasis was no longer on polluting corporations but individuals, who were now freighted with guilt and compelled to save the planet by recycling and minimizing their carbon footprint.

In this religion, gods such as the United Nations carve out the Ten Commandments in the form of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, VISION 2040, and the SDG7 Global Roadmap for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

Traumatized by sermons citing “sacred texts” (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports) about a fire-and-brimstone future, parishioners can pay tithes on energy bills to offset their carbon footprint—like medieval Christians paying indulgences to the church to absolve their sins.

High-priest philanthropath Bill Gates can try to dim the sun, swap real meat for lab-grown Frankenfoods, and replace mother’s milk with artificial breast milk. In the words of Dr. Vandana Shiva:

He controls the seeds of the world. He finances the Svalbard seed bank, then he creates patent systems, and he destroys the international system that controls the country’s rights to their seeds … so that all the seeds of the world are his seeds, and he can be the new Monsanto on a global scale.… This is the net zero they’re trying to push in the climate discussions. It’s a land grab.

National churches called governments can slash food production, incarcerate citizens in fifteen-minute cities, restrict travel, and ban gas stoves all in the name of holy climate change.

Skeptics are burned at the reputational stake as heretics while fundaclimatists earn rewards in the forms of grant funding, career advancement, and Nobel Prizes for their righteous, planet-saving work.

As University of Melbourne Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences Ian Plimer observed in a March 8, 2026, Triggernometry interview:

This was a religion. It had all the hallmarks of a religion with sin and with redemption, with paying penance, and basically, you have to give up something in your life. “We won’t, as the leaders of the religion, but you have to.”… I could see very quickly this wasn’t science; this was absolute nonsense.… It is the new religion. It’s been embraced with fervor, and it’s going to cost us very, very dearly.

Climategate: Lifting the Veil on $cientific Fraud

In 2017, while I was still clinging to my faith, I started conducting research to corroborate my belief in the climate change narrative. I consulted “authoritative” sources like NASA and perused their evidence, which is buttressed by IPCC reports.

Even though I had several years prior discovered the extensive corruption of nutritional “science” by Food, Inc. after reading books like The Big Fat Surprise and Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health, I still inexplicably Trusted The $cience™ when it came to climate change.

That was before I learned NASA’s James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt had colluded with climatologist Michael Mann to commit the scientific fraud that would produce the notorious hockey stick graph published in Nature on April 1, 1998 (no joke).

First exposed as fraudulent by Climate Audit Founder and Editor Stephen McIntyre and Canadian Professor of Economics Ross McKitrick, this graph was to become what Walter Lippmann calls in his 1922 book Public Opinion a symbol to steer the masses and drive public policy. Lippmann articulates the formula:

[H]e who captures the symbols by which public feeling is for the moment contained, controls by that much the approaches of public policy.

As Climategate’s leaked IPCC emails would uncover in 2009, the hockey stick symbol that ignited our present era of climate alarmism was produced by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period; using the short-centering technique to dramatically enhance the twentieth-century warming signal; and creating “about 0.6C warming from 1850 to 1976 – which they did by altering their own data,” according to Real Climate Science Founder and climate realist Tony Heller.

“Plucked out of Thin Air” & Other Trickery

In a September 6, 2007, email, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) Phil Jones postulated the 2° C ceiling on temperature increase was “plucked out of thin air,” writing:

The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means. Is it 2 deg C for the globe or for Europe? Also when is/was the base against which the 2 deg C is calculated from? I know you don’t know the answer, but I don’t either! I think it is plucked out of thin air. I think it is too high as well.

This is the same Phil Jones who boasted in a November 16, 1999, email:

I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [Briffa] to hide the decline.

The IPCC is fond of tricks. Its coordinating lead author on the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) Jonathan Overpeck wrote:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out [of IPCC reports].

In a September 19, 1996, email, Halliburton Scientific Advisor Gary Funkhouser noted:

I really wish I could be more positive about the … material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that.… I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have—they just are what they are … I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

Anyone intellectually honest who spends even a few hours scanning the Climategate emails will quickly realize the entire terrorizing narrative is based on junk data sets contorted to promote a political agenda.

The entire terrorizing narrative is based on junk data sets contorted to promote a political agenda.

IPCC contributor Mike Hulme confessed:

The debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment.… There are not that many ‘facts’ about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal.

The trickery extends to field measurements as well. In the mid-2000s, Founder and Editor of WattsUpWithThat.com Anthony Watts discovered the temperatures were being cooked to create artificially elevated readings:

Actual thermometers—those stubbornly analog devices—were being placed next to heat sources, asphalt, and buildings.

Follow the Funding

With such rampant corruption of the data, why is it that so many scientists jumped on the climate change bandwagon?

In a 2014 CNN interview, Weather Channel Founder John Coleman answered that question:

The government puts out about two-and-a-half billion dollars directly for climate research every year. It only gives that money to scientists who will produce scientific results that support the global warming hypothesis.

There it is—the old familiar pattern of the government financially incentivizing desired outcomes for political ends.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry said in an August 20, 2025, interview conducted by Hannes Sarv:

If your research funding is tied to agreeing with the consensus, if your salary increase, if your tenure case… It’s really about careerism and resources. That’s what it’s all about. The incentives are all pointing in one direction.

Former climate activist Lucy Biggers has gone from hobnobbing with Greta Thunberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to blowing the whistle on the climate deceptions. In a February 17, 2026, Free Press interview, Lucy said:

I have a responsibility to set the record straight and to counter this fear because I played a part in pushing it. And we’re seeing the impacts now with also just these really poorly thought-out green policies.… There are so many people who make money off this. How do you turn that ship? It’s really, really hard.

Don’t look at the climate models that say, “In ten years, the planet’s going to be this; in thirty years, it’s going to be that.” Those are models that are just computer models. You can put any bit of data in there to get any outcome that you want to prove there’s an Apocalypse, and the scientists who do those models are incentivized to find that outcome, and so they’re not solid science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OybheweZGxw

Exposing the Lie of “Consensus”

Even with such corrupting incentives, a shocking number of courageous scientists of integrity have been diligently exposing the climate lies, including Nobel Laureate Dr. John Clauser; Princeton Professor Emeritus of Physics William Happer; and Steven Koonin, former undersecretary for science in the US Department of Energy under the Obama administration. These and many other highly credible climate skeptics are featured in the compelling 2024 documentary Climate: The Movie.

Michael Crichton presciently warned about the “consensus” cudgel in a January 17, 2003, speech at California Institute of Technology:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” —Michael Crichton

More scientists are joining the mass exodus from the concocted consensus. In a January 12, 2026, X post, former British MP Andrew Bridgen shared “the words of the first 16 scientists of 46 that have left the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) due to the corruption of science within the organisation.” Below is a sampling of the statements included:

Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 ‘scientists’ who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

The Greenshed

At the same time data is being manipulated to create the perception of a climate crisis, the green energy industry is literally harming the planet.

As Ian Plimer observed in the aforementioned Triggernometry interview:

To solve the world’s climate crisis, whatever that is, we are knocking down forests to put in wind turbines. These wind turbine blades have poisonous chemicals in them. They’ve got asbestos in them. And we are cutting swathes of forest, killing off wildlife, doing the same with offshore wind turbines—to save the planet! … We are killing off very large areas of prime agricultural land putting in solar panels, and these are contaminating the ground, these are destroying good farmland.… I think the world’s going through one of its periods of going mad.

It is estimated that wind turbines kill 700,000 to one million birds annually in the United States alone. So many endangered whales have been killed since the introduction of offshore wind vessels, it’s prompted a new Save the Whales movement.

It’s a Shell Game

As if the greenshed and the associated environmental devastation weren’t bad enough, it turns out the entire “green” energy industry is a shell game masking the reality that it ultimately relies on oil, natural gas, and coal. In a January 2026 interview, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright explained:

When it comes to climate change, we just check rationality at the door. Forget it. That doesn’t apply over here. It’s only about decarbonizing and claiming we’re in the middle of an energy transition.

I think we are in the midst of the greatest malinvestment in human history. Ten trillion dollars on a global base has been invested nominally in “fighting” climate change.

What do you get for ten trillion dollars? … We got solar up to 1.2 percent of global energy and wind at 1.4 percent. Collectively, 2.6 percent of global energy comes from these sources that ten trillion dollars of investment’s gone into. And everywhere the penetration level’s high, prices have gone up … and you just move industry. That doesn’t reduce emissions.

If you make it so that a factory closes in the Midlands of England, and it moves to Asia, and it runs on coal now instead of natural gas, and you load the goods on diesel ships, that’s not fighting climate change. That’s deindustrializing your nation and having a government pounding the drum on decarbonization but never doing the math on, “Is it working?”…

Let’s just engage with reality. Oil, gas, and coal are what run the world. Full stop. We can’t make a wind turbine or a solar panel or a nuclear power plant without massive amounts of oil, gas, and coal. That’s how the world works.

A Shocking Twist

In another surprise twist, the uncorrupted scientific data indicates CO₂ is not only not an Apocalyptic threat but rather is necessary for life on earth.

At the Tyler Energy Summit in Texas on March 25, 2025, CO₂ Coalition Executive Director Gregory Wrightstone discussed the findings presented in his latest book, A Very Convenient Warming:

Not only is there not a climate crisis, by almost every metric we look at … earth’s ecosystems are thriving and prospering, and humanity is benefiting from the combination of modest warming and more CO₂.

Wrightstone agrees with the mainstream climate scientists that humans are contributing to atmospheric CO₂, but his research shows this is incredibly beneficial for all life forms. He says, “Every ecological niche is benefiting from this increase in CO₂.”

The Greening of the Earth

Known as the “greening of the earth,” this phenomenon shows greater CO₂ emissions are actually saving the planet by pulling us out of perilously low levels. Plants requires CO₂ for their survival, and the rest of the species in our interwoven ecosystem depend on plants for their survival in turn.

Known as the “greening of the earth,” this phenomenon shows greater CO₂ emissions are actually saving the planet by pulling us out of perilously low levels.

According to remote sensing data published in Uncovering True Significant Trends in Global Greening in the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment (January 2025), beginning in 1982, the planet began experiencing “a striking global greening trend, with a significant portion of the Earth’s terrestrial land surface showing increases in vegetation cover over the past four decades.”

Authors Oliver Gutiérrez-Hernández and Luis V. García note:

Among these significant trends identified using the TST workflow, 76.07% indicated greening, while 23.93% indicated browning. Notably, considering areas (pixels) with NDVI values above 0.15, greening accounted for 85.43% of the significant trends, with browning making up the remaining 14.57%. These findings strongly validate the ongoing global greening of vegetation.

Referencing a chart in his slideshow, Wrightstone explains:

This is probably the most scary chart you’ll see today. This is 140 million years of carbon dioxide data showing the steep and almost linear decline of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And that red line at the bottom is what I call the Line of Death. And what that is, it’s the minimum threshold for plant life to exist. We nearly got there. That’s 150 parts per million. We got to 180 at the end of the most recent ice advance.

Wrightstone elaborates in A Very Convenient Warming:

Rather than being at unprecedented high levels, CO₂ is at one of its lowest concentrations in the long history of the Earth. Recent increases of this miracle molecule are greening the Earth with an astonishing boost in the productivity of plants worldwide—an increase so dramatic that it can been seen by satellites from space. As usual, this good news is just the opposite of what we are being told by those who call themselves “green.”

To demonize CO₂ as dangerously high is an attempt to instill fear so that people will docilely accept drastic and economically destructive policies. Governments now have in place regressive regimes of taxation and regulation to curtail the use of fossil fuels. The policies are scientifically baseless and economically senseless. Their cost in lives and treasure is heavy.

“To demonize CO₂ as dangerously high is an attempt to instill fear so that people will docilely accept drastic and economically destructive policies.” —Gregory Wrightstone

He goes on to quote MIT Emeritus Professor of Meteorology Dr. Richard Lindzen:

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that carbon dioxide from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin.

It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world—that carbon dioxide, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Climate $cientists Are Baffled

Like baffled doctor$ who can’t understand why incidences of heart attacks, cancer, and strokes suddenly started spiking in 2021, climate $cientists are stumped by new evidence from ancient Antarctica ice cores showing CO₂ releases follow temperature increases rather than the other way around published in two Nature articles on March 18, 2026:

• Broadly Stable Atmospheric CO₂ and CH₄ Levels over the Past 3 Million Years
• Global Ocean Heat Content over the Past 3 Million Years

See also: https://x.com/toadmeister/status/2036729843052659029

This Upton Sinclair quote never loses relevancy:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!

How to Create a Collective Delusion

When I first embarked on my journey of awakening to the pseudoscientific collective climate delusion I had been inducted into through 360-degree propagandizing and social conditioning, I encountered no search results for credible voices questioning the narrative.

I didn’t realize that was because the Censorship Industrial Complex had blacked out and fact-choked any competing sources to achieve the simulacrum of consensus.

Fortunately, one of the YouTube channels Michael played in the background while we worked belonged to Tony Heller, whose calm, sensible, and scientifically robust dismantling of the climate catechisms caught my attention.

When the COVID psyop hit, I recognized the same telltale pattern of Orwellian thought control; silencing and smearing of once-respected scientists, doctors, and other counternarrative experts; scientific fraud; gaslighting; and astronomical wealth transfer from the lower and middle classes to the philanthropaths and their fellow cruelites.

Now that I understood the Disinformation Playbook, I could view the unfolding tyranny with a lucidity that enabled me to see through the walls of Plato’s Propaganda Cave and sense when the mind-manipulators were attempting to pull my cognitive and emotional levers.

Another Global Scam by the Cruelites

I could smell the stench of a scam, and the deeper I looked, the clearer the picture became. Con artists use fear, urgency, coercion, and “the greater good” to get people to act against their own interests and relinquish their freedoms and civil rights.

It wasn’t until I encountered the Hudson’s Razor formulated by Nick Hudson that I realized I had intuited this survival knowledge as I became increasingly aware of efforts to corral the public toward one-world totalitarianism:

Hudson’s Razor, stating that anything that is (1) presented as a global crisis (2) admitting only global solutions (3) amid suppression of dissent, is definitively a scam.

Hudson outlines the unmistakable signs of a con as follows:

The general rule of thumb that I believe everybody should adopt is that if any problem is being presented as a global crisis, then it is a scam. And the pattern that we are confronted with is really the fabrication of global crises. The presentation either of nonexistent problems or small local problems as being general global crises. That fabrication followed by the assertion that the only solutions that are permissible are global ones that require a global authority, global control.…

The climate change crisis is another example where we are told that the biggest threat to the world is this molecule, CO₂, and that an increase in the level of this molecule will cause an increase in temperature and that temperature increase will be bad for us and that the only thing we can do is consume fewer fossil fuels and less energy. That’s fitting the pattern exactly.

The other things you can observe is instead of presenting science as an ongoing, evolving activity, it is presented in terms of static knowledge, consensus. And you see the cancellation and censorship of dissident voices rather than engagement with them. These patterns are proof of a scam. That is what people need to understand.

Whenever something is presented as “The Science,” as a consensus, it is a scam. You do not have to go and get engaged in all of the minutiae of all the scientific principles and the models and the measurements at all. You can know with absolute certainty that you are dealing with a scam when dissent is suppressed.

“You can know with absolute certainty that you are dealing with a scam when dissent is suppressed.” —Nick Hudson

Ian Plimer observes the same pattern in the climateers’ use of Scientism to blind the public with “science”:

I realized there is actually a very large body of people out there who are using science to promote scams.… I saw exactly the same thing arise in the late nineties with climate change. I could see exactly the same hallmarks.

In his article Opinion: Geopolitical Context of the Embattled Climate Racket, Dr. Denis Rancourt likens the climate con to a global protection racket, writing:

These delivered generic ideologies became tied to and protected by strong career and institutional interests, but also spun towards absurd and damaging lucrative endpoints.… The thus introduced and evolving ideology of climate change is an ideology centered on a fictitious kind of climate change that is mitigated by good behaviour, large investments using public funds, and industrial restructuring. It is a protection racket with no valid scientific justification.

Why the Big Climate Lie?

The average citizen might wonder why a group of philanthropaths, connivers, and colluders would propagate such a Big Lie as the climate crisis.

The average citizen might wonder why a group of philanthropaths, connivers, and colluders would propagate such a Big Lie as the climate crisis.

They’ve been telling us why for years.

The World Economic Forum’s infamous infomercial visualizing “8 predictions for the world in 2030” explicitly states, “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.”

WEF Founder Klaus Schwab’s mentor Maurice Strong once fantasized:

What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is “no.” The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

In the Rockefeller-funded Club of Rome’s 1991 report The First Global Revolution, Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider write:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together.… All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

David Rockefeller proudly admits in his Memoirs:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

During his January 2026 inaugural speech as the mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani promised to “replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

A March 24, 2026, Brownstone Institute article titled Another Lockdown Coming (or Already Here)? warns the fuel crisis is now being used to justify authoritarian restrictions akin to COVID lockdowns:

[T]he International Energy Agency has released a full plan for global rationing. It involves stay-at-home orders, edicts against driving alone or on days in which you are not permitted, and only essential commercial road traffic. The report also criticizes cooking with natural gas.

Although fact-chokers like Wikipedia claim “climate lockdown is a conspiracy theory,”² radical climatists are enthusiastically promoting the idea.

Green Matters, a website that says it is “for people looking to live more sustainably, fight the climate crisis, and learn about environmental justice,” writes in the 2023 article Will Climate Lockdowns Be Necessary to Fight the Climate Crisis?:

According to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), a climate lockdown would entail the government taking other actions aside from asking people to stay at home. Limiting private vehicle use, banning the consumption of red meat, imposing intense energy-saving actions, and putting an end to fossil fuel drilling, are all examples of potential measures to be taken during a climate lockdown.

The main goal of these actions would be to lower global emissions. As we get closer and closer to reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius — a milestone that would cause the effects of climate change to further worsen — scientists are emphasizing the importance and necessity of staying below this threshold.…

And as we have seen with the pandemic, getting people to work together towards a collective goal isn’t always easy.…

If a climate lockdown becomes necessary, there’s a chance that we could run into a similar problem.

Taking a cue from Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays on crystallizing public opinion to get people to accept an unpopular, tyrannical policy, Matt Gallagher writes in a Green Packs article:

Climate lockdowns are a relatively new concept gaining traction in discussions about environmental sustainability and the urgent need to address climate change. They refer to measures that can be implemented by governments to restrict certain activities in order to mitigate environmental damage.…

A climate lockdown would involve strict regulations and restrictions, including measures such as limiting travel, mandating reduced hours of operation for businesses, and encouraging a shift towards greener practices.…

Implementing such drastic measures, however, raises a broad range of questions regarding feasibility and public acceptance. It challenges the very essence of modern society—our freedom to travel, work, and interact as we choose. So how do you convince a populace used to freedom that they need to accept temporary restrictions for the greater good? The answer may lie in transparent communication of the benefits, underscoring how collective cooperation can lead to significant environmental benefits and a healthier planet in the years to come.…

A climate lockdown represents a courageous and necessary step towards confronting environmental challenges head-on.… A climate lockdown aims to instill a cultural shift toward sustainability, compelling societies to reconsider not just our day-to-day habits but also the very structures that drive our economies and lifestyles. [emphases mine]

“How do you convince a populace used to freedom that they need to accept temporary restrictions for the greater good?” —Matt Gallagher

Climate hysteria is a coup de mâitre for the cruelites. They can use it to justify restrictions on farming that will result in widespread starvation, making people desperate enough to clamor for socialist solutions; curtail our access to energy; and lock us in twenty-minute concentration camps (a.k.a. “Climate-Friendly Areas (CFAs),” “Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities,” “C40 cities,” and “smart cities”) touted as convenient and planet-saving.

Climate hysteria is a coup de mâitre for the cruelites.

The Jig Is Up

There comes a point in every con when the jig is up. That’s when it’s time to cool the mark out. Sociologist Erving Goffman writes about the nature of the con in his 1952 Psychiatry article On Cooling the Mark Out:

Sometimes, however, a mark is not quite prepared to accept his loss as a gain in experience and to say and do nothing about his venture. He may feel moved to complain to the police or to chase after the operators. In the terminology of the trade, the mark may squawk, beef, or come through. From the operators’ point of view, this kind of behavior is bad for business.… In order to avoid this adverse publicity, an additional phase is sometimes added at the end of the play. It is called cooling the mark out. After the blowoff has occurred, one of the operators stays with the mark and makes an effort to keep the anger of the mark within manageable and sensible proportions. The operator stays behind his team‑mates in the capacity of what might be called a cooler and exercises upon the mark the art of consolation. An attempt is made to define the situation for the mark in a way that makes it easy for him to accept the inevitable and quietly go home. The mark is given instruction in the philosophy of taking a loss.

We’re approaching that shift with the climate swindle as awareness of the fraudulent $cience™ spreads. This is the moment at which we must be especially alert to the propagandists’ attempts to cool us out as they prepare us for the next ruse in the cruelites’ long-term march toward the Fabianization of the world. As Nick Hudson warned in a March 2026 speech:

A jarring fact, one that people don’t like at all, is that socialism was founded and promoted by the bankers of the Anglo-American establishment, not for benevolent or philanthropic purposes, but to further their own interests.

This seems entirely implausible to someone. Why would these arch capitalists bay for socialism?

But elite control of governments has been a permanent feature of life everywhere throughout human history, whether one lives under a democracy or a monarchy or tyranny. Through lobbying, media control, infiltration, and bribery, elites have long been able to capture and control governments. And as governments increase in size, the rewards for capturing those governments increase, too. Because banking has long been a transnational enterprise, the notion of the sovereign state is, like the notion of socialism being for workers, largely illusory.

If you are an elite seeking control, it’s far easier to get government to confiscate private assets, bringing them under your control for free, than it is to generate sufficient wealth that would be required to buy them on the open market. So socialism offers financial elites an enormous bounty.

The actions taken by transnational bankers to bring about this situation over a century and a half are not a matter of speculation but are instead documented in excruciating detail, in some cases, even by the very institutions they formed.

“If you are an elite seeking control, it’s far easier to get government to confiscate private assets, bringing them under your control for free, than it is to generate sufficient wealth that would be required to buy them on the open market.” —Nick Hudson

Our only hope of escaping the Matrixian future the cruelites have plotted out for us is for people to become climate apostates and exercise the almighty power of NO.

In the words of R.E.M.’s Michael Stipe:

That’s me in the corner
That’s me in the spotlight
Losin’ my religion …

Consider this
Consider this, the hint of the century
Consider this, the slip
That brought me to my knees, failed
What if all these fantasies come
Flailing around?
Now, I’ve said too much

But that was just a dream
That was just a dream

It is time to awaken from that dream and shake off the mental fetters of climate fantasies that could lead to our physical fettering—unless we lose our religion.

---

📣 #LosingMyReligion

A dear friend with expertise in climate science who reviewed a draft of this article said he thinks this is best article he has read on the topic and that it has the greatest chance of reaching those who are still believers in the climate delusion, particularly those on the left.

Please help me get the word out to those individuals by sharing this post now as well as whenever the topic of the climate con comes up in future. You can use the hashtag #LosingMyReligion and the short url LosingMyReligion.org to aid with your viralization efforts.

Thank you for helping me help others lose their religion.

8:08 PM · Mar 26, 2026 · 2 Views

---

Canary in a Climate World

Below is a sampling of the illustrious contributors I am honored to join:

• Dr. Angus Dalgleish – Oncologist & professor, University of London
• Dr. John F. Clauser – Nobel Laureate in Physics (2022)
• Professor Nir Shaviv – Astrophysicist, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
• Professor Henrik Svensmark – Physicist & climate researcher
• Professor Ramesh Thakur – Former UN Assistant Secretary-General
• Professor Richard S. Lindzen – Atmospheric physicist, MIT
• Professor Ian Plimer – Geologist & professor emeritus
• Professor Ian Clark – Hydrogeologist, University of Ottawa
• Dr. Will Happer – Physicist, Princeton University
• Dr. Willie Soon – Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• Dr. John Christy – Atmospheric scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
• Professor Christopher Essex – Applied mathematician & physicist
• Professor Geoffrey Duffy – Chemical engineer & researcher
• William Kininmonth – Meteorologist, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre
• Gregory R. Wrightstone – Geologist & Executive Director, CO₂ Coalition
• Professor Howard C. Hayden – Physicist, University of Connecticut
• Dr. John Cherry – Hydrogeologist, University of Waterloo
• Anthony Watts – Meteorologist & climate data analyst
• Professor Gernot Rabeder – Paleontologist, University of Vienna
• Robert Lyman – Energy policy expert & former government advisor
• Kenneth P. Green – Environmental policy analyst
• Tom Harris – Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition
• Andrew Roman – Environmental lawyer & legal commentator
• Michael Sangster – Author & technology executive
• Meredith Miller – Health advocate & speaker
• Dr. Michael Rectenwald – Professor & author, former NYU
• Seamus Bruner – Investigative journalist
• Dr. Sam Dubé – Physician & broadcaster
• Vijay Jayaraj – Environmental researcher & policy commentator
• Professor James Allan – Law professor, University of Queensland
• Sir Christopher Chope – 13-term UK Member of Parliament
• Shawn Buckley – Constitutional lawyer
• Rodney Palmer – Former CBC & CTV journalist

Please check out the first two volumes in the series if you haven’t yet done so:

Canary in a Covid World: How Propaganda & Censorship Changed Our (My) World (Paperback, Kindle, Audiobook)

Canary in a (Post) COVID World: Money, Fear, & Power (Hardback, Paperback, Kindle)