Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future (2012)
By James Delingpole - 35 Q&As - Unbekoming Book Summary
In November 2009, sixty-one megabytes of confidential files leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit onto the internet. The emails and documents within revealed scientists at the heart of the global warming establishment manipulating data, suppressing dissent, evading transparency laws, and privately admitting their models didn’t work while publicly insisting the science was settled. This was Climategate – a scandal that should have ended careers, collapsed institutions, and prompted fundamental reassessment of policies costing trillions of dollars. Instead, official enquiries staffed by colleagues and allies found no wrongdoing, mainstream media dismissed concerns as conspiracy theory, and the climate agenda proceeded as if nothing had happened. The question that demanded an answer was not merely whether the science was sound but why so many powerful people had so much invested in ensuring it was never seriously examined.
The answer lies in understanding what the environmental movement has become. “Watermelons” describes people and organisations that are green on the outside but red on the inside – activists who use ecological concerns as a vehicle for advancing an anti-capitalist, anti-liberty political agenda that found a new home in environmentalism after the collapse of Soviet communism. The Club of Rome, an elite organisation whose members include former world leaders and billionaire philanthropists, admitted in its 1993 publication that “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.” The real enemy, they concluded, “is humanity itself.” This is not interpretation but direct quotation from people who shaped the international agreements now governing energy policy, land use, and economic development across the globe.
The stakes could not be higher. Agenda 21, signed by 179 nations, created mechanisms for unelected international bureaucrats to dictate domestic policy on everything from suburban housing to meat consumption. The UK Climate Change Act commits British taxpayers to £18.3 billion annually through 2050. Green energy subsidies destroy jobs, raise electricity prices, and transfer wealth from ordinary households to wealthy landowners. Meanwhile, the DDT ban inspired by Rachel Carson’s discredited “Silent Spring” has contributed to millions of preventable malaria deaths – more than Hitler’s genocide. The climate debate is not ultimately about temperature readings or carbon dioxide concentrations. It is about two irreconcilable visions of humanity: one that sees human beings as creative problem-solvers who flourish in freedom, and another that regards us as a plague requiring management by enlightened experts. This book documents the evidence for how that second vision has captured institutions, corrupted science, and now threatens the prosperity and liberty that Western civilisation has painstakingly acquired over centuries.
With thanks to James Delingpole.
Deep Dive Audio Library (Bonus for Paid Subscribers Only)
This deep dive is based on the book:
Discussion No.188:
Insights and reflections from “Watermelons”
Thank you for your support.
Support Independent Research
This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.
What paid subscribers get: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 180+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions added weekly. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.
[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]
Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com
ANALOGY
Imagine a respected neighbourhood doctor who has been treating patients for decades. One day, whistleblowers release internal documents showing that this doctor has been falsifying test results to prescribe expensive medications in which he holds financial interests, that he has been blacklisting colleagues who questioned his diagnoses, and that his most famous case study – the one cited in medical journals worldwide – was based on manipulated data. When patients ask questions, the doctor dismisses them as “medical deniers” who must be taking money from pharmaceutical competitors. Medical boards convene investigations, but the investigators are the doctor’s former students and business partners; they find no wrongdoing. The local newspaper, whose health editor trained under this doctor, reports that critics are conspiracy theorists.
Meanwhile, the doctor insists you undergo expensive treatments for a condition he diagnosed using the falsified tests. He demands you change your diet, sell your car, and accept reduced heating in winter – all based on his prognosis. When you point out that his previous predictions have been wrong – the epidemic he forecast never materialised, the treatments he recommended proved unnecessary – he accuses you of wanting people to die. Other doctors in town are afraid to disagree because he controls research funding, journal publications, and professional advancement.
This is the situation with climate science. The “doctor” is the climate establishment. The falsified records are the Hockey Stick and manipulated temperature data. The expensive treatments are carbon taxes, renewable subsidies, and economic restrictions. The compliant investigators are the whitewash enquiries that followed Climategate. And you – the patient being told to accept the diagnosis without question – are the citizen expected to surrender prosperity, freedom, and democratic choice based on science that cannot withstand scrutiny. The question is not whether the doctor has credentials but whether he’s earned your trust.
THE ONE-MINUTE ELEVATOR EXPLANATION
You know how everyone assumes environmentalists are just nice people who care about trees and pandas? Turns out the modern green movement – at its highest levels – is something quite different. After communism collapsed in 1989, a lot of true believers needed somewhere to go, and they found a new home in environmental organisations. These people don’t actually care much about nature; they’re using ecological concerns to push for exactly what they always wanted: an end to capitalism, restrictions on personal freedom, and global government run by unelected experts.
The whole climate scare is part of this agenda. Look at Climategate – leaked emails showed top climate scientists fudging data, suppressing critics, and admitting privately that their models don’t work. The famous “Hockey Stick” graph that shows unprecedented warming? It was generated by a statistical method that produces hockey sticks from random noise. Meanwhile, UN organisations like the Club of Rome have literally admitted they invented environmental crises because they needed “a new enemy to unite” humanity.
Here’s what they actually want: something called Agenda 21, signed by 179 countries, which puts unelected bureaucrats in charge of land use, resource consumption, even how much meat you eat. Top environmentalists openly call humans “parasites” and advocate reducing population by ninety-five per cent. The DDT ban – inspired by Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” – has killed more people than Hitler by removing the best defence against malarial mosquitoes.
The debate isn’t really about temperature data. It’s about whether you believe humans are basically good – creative problem-solvers who flourish in freedom – or whether we’re a cancer requiring control by our betters. Every doom prediction from Malthus to Ehrlich has proven wrong because human ingenuity always finds solutions. The green agenda isn’t about saving the planet; it’s about controlling the people on it.
[Elevator dings]
For your own research: look up “Climategate emails,” read about the Club of Rome’s “First Global Revolution,” and search for Julian Simon and the bet he won against Paul Ehrlich.
12-POINT SUMMARY
1. The Watermelon Thesis: Green Outside, Red Inside The modern environmental movement serves as a vehicle for neo-Marxist ideology that migrated into green organisations after the collapse of Soviet communism in 1989. The term “watermelon” describes activists who use ecological concerns as cover for advancing anti-capitalist, anti-liberty, anti-growth political objectives. Joining the mainstream green movement simply because you appreciate nature is like joining the Nazi party for the uniforms – the authoritarian elements are not optional extras but integral to the enterprise. The movement’s core beliefs include curtailment of personal freedom, disdain for humanity, hatred of economic growth, and yearning for global governance by unelected experts. Well-meaning celebrities and ordinary supporters provide cover for an ideology committed to the path most likely to destroy human flourishing under the guise of saving the planet.
2. Climategate Exposed Scientific Misconduct at the Heart of Climate Research In November 2009, leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit revealed systematic manipulation of data, suppression of dissenting research, destruction of evidence to evade Freedom of Information requests, and private admissions that publicly promoted claims were unsupportable. The scientists involved were not marginal figures but sat at the very heart of the IPCC process, personally responsible for alarmist predictions in assessment reports and controlling the data used to make those predictions. Emails showed researchers conspiring to blacklist journals that published sceptical papers, destroy the careers of critics, and “hide the decline” in tree-ring proxy data that contradicted the warming narrative. The scandal demonstrated that the supposed gold standard of climate science was built on a foundation of manipulation and what can only be described as noble cause corruption.
3. The Hockey Stick Graph Was Fundamentally Flawed Michael Mann’s famous graph, showing flat temperatures for a millennium followed by dramatic modern warming, became the central pillar of the case for catastrophic climate change despite being methodologically worthless. The statistical algorithm used would produce hockey-stick shapes from random noise; the tree-ring proxy data relied on one unreliable species; the graph erased well-documented historical climate events including the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. When Canadian researchers Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick exposed these flaws, Mann responded not with factual rebuttal but with smears, credentialism, and invocations of fossil fuel conspiracies. The graph’s continued prominence despite comprehensive debunking demonstrates that within climate science, accuracy matters less than supporting the preferred narrative, and critics are destroyed rather than engaged.
4. Post-Normal Science Provided Philosophy for Abandoning Scientific Integrity Traditional science pursues objective truth through hypothesis testing, replication, and willingness to discard theories that fail observational tests. Post-Normal Science, developed by Jerome Ravetz and Silvio Funtowicz, declared these standards obsolete for situations where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.” This framework provided intellectual cover for climate scientists to manipulate evidence in service of political ends, reasoning that the threat was too severe for the luxury of proper methodology. “The science is settled” became the mantra precisely because settling the science through normal processes might produce inconvenient answers. Post-Normal Science essentially legitimised propaganda in scientific clothing – the pursuit of “quality” (meaning politically effective communication) rather than truth.
5. Foundational Environmental Texts Were Based on False Predictions Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” predicted DDT would cause cancer in “practically 100 per cent” of the population; the EPA’s own hearings found no evidence DDT was harmful to humans, yet the ban proceeded anyway, removing the most effective weapon against malarial mosquitoes and contributing to millions of preventable deaths. Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” predicted hundreds of millions would starve in the 1970s and 1980s; instead, the Green Revolution fed a doubled global population at higher living standards than ever before. James Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis cast humanity as a blight on an otherwise balanced planetary organism. Every prediction of imminent catastrophe has proven spectacularly wrong, yet the false prophets remain honoured figures rather than discredited cranks, because accuracy matters less than advancing the green agenda.
6. The Club of Rome Explicitly Sought Environmental Crises as Political Tools Founded in 1968, the Club of Rome brought together global elites including former world leaders, billionaires, diplomats, and celebrities. In its 1993 publication “The First Global Revolution,” the Club stated explicitly: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill... the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” This admission – that environmental threats were selected for their political utility in advancing pre-existing agendas – received virtually no mainstream attention. The Club’s earlier publication “Limits to Growth” established the template for environmental catastrophism despite its predictions proving entirely wrong. The specific threat matters less than its capacity to justify the Club’s preferred solutions: reduced consumption, curtailed freedom, and governance by enlightened experts.
7. Maurice Strong Built the International Architecture of Environmental Governance Maurice Strong, a Canadian entrepreneur with family connections to Chinese communism, was the single most important figure in translating green ideology into binding international policy. He chaired the first UN Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, became first director of UNEP, served on the Brundtland Commission, and organised the 1992 Rio Earth Summit where 179 nations signed Agenda 21. Strong stated openly that “our concept of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified” and that national sovereignty “will yield... to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” His definition of “sustainability” – that affluent middle-class lifestyles involving meat, fossil fuels, appliances, air conditioning, and suburban housing are “not sustainable” – reveals what the pleasant-sounding term actually entails: unelected bureaucrats determining how ordinary people may live.
8. Agenda 21 Implements Global Governance Through Local Mechanisms Signed by 179 nations in 1992, Agenda 21 operates through stealth, relabelling its prescriptions as “comprehensive planning,” “growth management,” or “smart growth” specifically to avoid triggering public opposition. A UN strategy document explicitly advised that participating in UN-advocated planning would “bring out conspiracy-fixated groups,” so the solution was calling the process something else. Local planning boards implement zoning regulations, wildlife corridors, high-density housing requirements, and restrictions on property rights without residents understanding these originate from international agreements. The document effectively ends national sovereignty over environmental matters, elevates nature above human interests, and creates mechanisms for unelected international bodies to dictate domestic policy through bureaucratic requirements that bypass democratic processes.
9. Julian Simon’s Optimism Was Vindicated Against Malthusian Doom Economist Julian Simon argued that human beings are not merely mouths to feed but minds that solve problems – that population growth drives the innovation which creates prosperity rather than depleting resources. In his famous 1980 wager with Paul Ehrlich, Simon bet that any five commodities Ehrlich chose would be cheaper in a decade; by 1990, every commodity had fallen in price. Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution saved perhaps a billion lives by developing high-yield crops, directly contradicting predictions of inevitable mass famine. Every forecast of resource exhaustion has failed because human creativity consistently outpaces challenges. The historical record supports optimism about human capability while providing no evidence for Malthusian doom – yet catastrophist predictions continue receiving credulous reception while their track record of total failure goes unexamined.
10. Misanthropy Pervades Elite Environmental Thinking Prominent environmental figures have expressed disgust at human existence with disturbing frankness. Ted Turner considers a 95 per cent population reduction “ideal.” Prince Philip wished to reincarnate as a deadly virus to “solve overpopulation.” Club of Rome co-founder Alexander King regretted that DDT “greatly added to the population problem” by reducing malaria deaths. James Lovelock declares humanity has no special status. Teddy Goldsmith called humans “parasites” and “waste.” Harrison Brown compared humanity to maggots on a carcass. The Georgia Guidestones instruct that population should be maintained under 500 million. These are not fringe figures but celebrated environmentalists, titled aristocrats, and billionaire philanthropists. Their statements reveal that beneath the cuddly exterior of the green movement lies a strain of thought regarding human beings as vermin to be culled.
11. The Economic Costs of Green Policies Are Real and Mounting Research from Spain found that for every “green job” created by government subsidy, 2.2 jobs were destroyed in the real economy. The UK Climate Change Act commits Britain to spending £18.3 billion annually through 2050 on decarbonisation. Wind farms produce power only intermittently, require conventional backup, and transfer wealth from ordinary electricity consumers to wealthy landowners hosting turbines. Feed-in tariffs and renewable obligations raise energy bills, creating fuel poverty among vulnerable households while providing no measurable environmental benefit. When economic crisis forces governments to abandon green projects, the damage already done through wasted investment, unnecessary regulations, and market distortions cannot be recovered. The costs are borne by ordinary citizens who never understood what was being done in their name.
12. The Climate Debate Is Ultimately About Freedom Versus Control Two irreconcilable worldviews underlie the climate debate. One holds that humans are creative problem-solvers who flourish in freedom, that free markets generate prosperity, and that human ingenuity will address whatever challenges arise – as it always has. The other views humanity as a menace requiring containment through regulation by enlightened experts operating beyond democratic accountability. Green ideology necessarily leads to restrictions on liberty because its premises – that economic growth is dangerous, resources are running out, and people cannot be trusted with freedom – logically require coercive solutions. There is no middle ground. Even those who want compromise find that the watermelons have ensured none is possible. The choice is optimism or pessimism, freedom or tyranny. One must decide whether humans are assets to be unleashed or liabilities to be managed.
THE GOLDEN NUGGET
The most profound and least known idea in this work is the explicit admission by the Club of Rome – an organisation whose members include former world leaders, Nobel laureates, and billionaire philanthropists – that environmental threats were deliberately selected as political tools because they needed “a new enemy to unite” humanity after the Cold War ended. Published openly in “The First Global Revolution” (1993), the passage reads: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill... the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
This is not interpretation or conspiracy theory but a direct quotation from a freely available book published by one of the most influential policy organisations of the past half-century. The statement reveals that for the architects of global environmentalism, the factual basis of any particular threat matters less than its utility for justifying predetermined solutions: centralised control, reduced consumption, curtailed sovereignty, and governance by unelected experts. Climate change could be replaced tomorrow by ocean acidification, biodiversity collapse, or any other crisis; the prescribed medicine would remain identical.
The implications are staggering. If environmental threats are selected for political purposes rather than discovered through dispassionate investigation, then the entire framework within which climate policy operates is not science but strategy. The debate shifts from “Is the science accurate?” to “What agenda does this science serve?” Most people assume environmental organisations react to genuine discoveries about planetary threats; the Club of Rome admission suggests the opposite – that the agenda preceded the evidence and the evidence was assembled to fit. This inverts the relationship between knowledge and policy that citizens presume governs how democracies function.
35 Q&As
Question 1: What does the term “watermelon” mean in the context of the environmental movement, and what is the central argument about the relationship between environmentalism and political ideology?
Answer: The term describes environmentalists who are “green on the outside, red on the inside” – individuals and organisations that use ecological concerns as a Trojan horse for advancing a socialist, anti-capitalist political agenda. The modern green movement, far from being the cuddly, bunny-hugging enterprise many assume it to be, functions as the new home for collectivist ideology following the collapse of Soviet communism in 1989. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, a new breed of zealots infiltrated environmental organisations, less interested in saving the planet than in destroying the capitalist system and curtailing the freedoms that Western civilisation has painstakingly acquired over centuries.
The eco-Fascistic elements embedded in mainstream environmentalism are not optional extras that can be separated from legitimate conservation concerns. The anti-capitalism, the hatred of economic growth, the curtailment of personal liberty, the disdain for the human race, the yearning for One-World Government rule by unelected “experts” – these are integral to the watermelon philosophy. Joining the green movement simply because you like trees, flowers, and birdsong is roughly equivalent to joining the Nazi party in the mid-1930s for the smart uniforms and efficient train timetables. The well-meaning celebrities and ordinary citizens who lend their support to these causes remain blissfully ignorant that they are providing cover for a thoroughly malignant ideology committed to the path most likely to destroy human flourishing.
Question 2: What was the Climategate scandal, when did it occur, and what did the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia reveal about the practices of leading climate scientists?
Answer: In November 2009, sixty-one megabytes of confidential files – including 1,079 emails and seventy-two documents – were released onto the internet from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, one of the most important climate research establishments in the world. These communications, exchanged by scientists at the very heart of the IPCC process, revealed conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, and private admissions of flaws in public claims. The scientists implicated were not junior lab assistants at some minor research establishment; they were personally responsible for several of the more alarmist predictions in the IPCC’s assessment reports and controlled the scientific data used to make those predictions.
The emails exposed how these scientists worked to suppress dissenting views, blacklist journals that published sceptical papers, and destroy the careers of researchers who challenged their conclusions. One email gloated over the death of climate sceptic John L. Daly, calling it “cheering news.” Others revealed scientists expressing private doubts about their own models – “Basic problem is that all models are wrong” admitted Phil Jones, while another scientist mused, “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably.” The scandal demonstrated that the supposed “gold standard” of climate science was built on a foundation of manipulation, intimidation, and what can only be described as noble cause corruption, where scientists justified deception in service of what they believed to be a higher purpose.
Question 3: What is the “Hockey Stick” graph, who created it, and what criticisms have been levelled at its methodology and the data used to construct it?
Answer: The Hockey Stick is a graph created by Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University, purporting to show how global temperatures changed over the last millennium. From the year 1000 AD until the late twentieth century, the trend appears relatively flat – the handle of the hockey stick – before showing a dramatic upward tick at the end, representing supposedly unprecedented modern warming. This graph became the central pillar on which the case for catastrophic man-made global warming relied, receiving star billing in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, appearing no fewer than five times within the actual report, and featuring as a gigantic backdrop at the media launch. Every household in Canada received a leaflet citing it as proof of historically unprecedented warming.
The Hockey Stick was flawed to the point of uselessness. The chart relied on tree-ring proxy data, but the alarming upward spike resulted from overemphasis on data from one tree species – bristlecone pine – widely acknowledged as an unreliable indicator of twentieth-century climate change. The statistical methodology employed would produce a hockey-stick shape regardless of what data was fed into it; the algorithm was heavily weighted to find hockey sticks whether they existed or not. Perhaps most damningly, the graph effectively erased the well-documented Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age from history – inconvenient climate events that demonstrated the Earth had experienced significant temperature variations long before industrial carbon emissions. The methodology amounted to a statistical sausage machine designed to produce a predetermined result.
Question 4: Who are Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, and what role did they play in challenging the scientific basis for claims of unprecedented modern warming?
Answer: Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mining industry consultant with expertise in statistical analysis, and Ross McKitrick, an economist, were the two individuals who systematically demolished Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick graph. Neither is a professional climate scientist – a fact that Mann and his colleagues used to dismiss their work, deploying credentialism as a weapon rather than engaging with their actual arguments. McIntyre’s patient, painstaking analysis demonstrated that Mann’s statistical methodology was fundamentally flawed and that the algorithm used would generate hockey-stick-shaped graphs even from random noise. Their findings were published in the journal Energy and Environment, which the climate establishment promptly attempted to discredit as a “non-scientific” publication.
Mann’s response to these challenges reveals much about the culture within climate science. Rather than addressing the substantive criticisms with factual arguments, he resorted to smears and appeals to authority, dismissing McIntyre and McKitrick as individuals who “are not taken seriously in the scientific community” and warning journalists against being “fooled by any of the ‘myths’ about the Hockey Stick that are perpetrated by contrarians, right-wing think tanks and fossil fuel industry disinformation.” The pattern of brandishing the word “scientists” as a totem of unquestionable authority, the paranoid invocation of fossil fuel conspiracies, and the belittling of scientific journals that don’t fit the alarmist consensus became standard practice. If scientists like Mann possessed solid, incontrovertible evidence, one might reasonably ask why they couldn’t fight their critics’ supposed errors with factual arguments rather than personal attacks.
Question 5: What does the phrase “hide the decline” refer to, and what does it reveal about the handling of tree-ring proxy data that contradicted the warming narrative?
Answer: The phrase comes from a Climategate email in which Phil Jones wrote: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last twenty years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Defenders claimed “trick” merely meant a clever technique and “decline” referred to something innocuous, but the context reveals a genuine problem. Tree-ring proxy data, used to reconstruct temperatures from centuries past, showed a marked decline in temperatures from around 1960 onwards – directly contradicting actual thermometer readings that showed warming. This “divergence problem” was catastrophic for the entire enterprise: if tree-ring proxies couldn’t accurately reflect known recent temperatures, why should anyone trust them to reflect temperatures from a thousand years ago?
Keith Briffa, the researcher whose data showed this decline, understood the implications. His emails convey an anguished tone as he recognised that his research looked worthless – the tree-ring proxies were demonstrably inaccurate for the recent period and therefore likely inaccurate for all periods. Rather than honestly acknowledge this fundamental problem with their methodology, the scientists chose to splice actual thermometer data onto the end of the proxy record, creating the illusion of continuous warming while hiding the embarrassing decline that would have exposed the unreliability of their entire reconstruction. This wasn’t a minor technical adjustment; it was the concealment of evidence that undermined the foundation of the warming narrative. The phrase captured scientists actively working to suppress inconvenient data rather than follow the evidence wherever it led.
Question 6: What is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and what criticisms have been made about its structure, the qualifications of its contributors, and its use of non-peer-reviewed sources?
Answer: The IPCC is the United Nations body responsible for producing Assessment Reports that supposedly represent the “gold standard” of scientific thinking on anthropogenic global warming. These reports inform policy decisions affecting trillions of dollars in economic activity and justify regulations that touch every aspect of modern life. The organisation’s reports are meant to synthesise the best peer-reviewed science into authoritative statements about climate risks. President Obama described IPCC findings as definitive; governments worldwide cite its assessments as justification for sweeping policy changes. The IPCC’s credibility rests on the assumption that its processes are rigorous, its contributors are qualified experts, and its conclusions reflect honest evaluation of evidence.
Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise conducted a devastating audit of IPCC working practices, exposing an organisation riddled with problems. Many scientists writing the supposedly authoritative Assessment Reports turned out to be barely qualified, inexperienced youngsters in their twenties, chosen more for their commitment to the global warming “cause” than for specialist knowledge. In some chapter reports, more than forty per cent of references came not from peer-reviewed papers but from “grey literature” – propaganda produced by activist groups like the WWF and Greenpeace. Chapter authors were permitted to highlight their own work at the expense of others; deadlines were stretched so that favourable references could be added after review processes had supposedly finished; friendly journals were used to fast-track papers supporting the IPCC’s predetermined conclusions. Significant numbers of contributors were closely affiliated with environmental campaign groups, creating obvious conflicts of interest that went unacknowledged.
Question 7: What is Post-Normal Science, who developed this concept, and how does it differ from traditional scientific methodology in its approach to truth and political ends?
Answer: Post-Normal Science was developed in the early 1990s by Jerome Ravetz, a left-leaning, US-born academic and Communist Party fellow traveller, working with Silvio Funtowicz at Leeds University. Their concept proposed that a new type of science was emerging, one that contrasted with traditional problem-solving strategies including core science, applied science, and professional consultancy. Normal science presupposes that scientists are motivated above all by selfless pursuit of objective truth, that hypotheses must be tested against evidence, and that theories should be discarded when they fail to match observations. Post-Normal Science declared these old-school values of lucidity and logic obsolete, replacing the pursuit of truth with something called “quality” – essentially rhetoric designed to achieve particular political ends.
The framework was explicitly designed to handle situations where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” – circumstances that, conveniently, describe the climate debate as its advocates wished to frame it. Rather than acknowledging uncertainty and proceeding cautiously, Post-Normal Science provided philosophical cover for scientists to manipulate evidence and present it in ways calculated to achieve desired political outcomes. This is the moral philosophy that made the entire AGW enterprise possible. If the stakes are sufficiently high and doom sufficiently imminent, the theory posits, there simply isn’t time for tedious old-fashioned researching and debating. The time for action is now, or preferably yesterday. Post-Normal Science belongs less in a laboratory than the Ministry of Propaganda – it provided intellectual justification for abandoning scientific integrity in service of what practitioners believed to be a noble cause.
Question 8: How has Post-Normal Science influenced the climate debate, and what is meant by the phrase “facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”?
Answer: Post-Normal Science provided the theoretical framework that allowed climate scientists to justify abandoning traditional scientific standards. The “mantram” at its heart – facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent – presupposes that certain scenarios exist in which the values of normal science simply aren’t adequate, and that a newer, more flexible approach is needed to get the job done. For climate scientists convinced that Mother Earth faced the greatest threat in mankind’s history, this philosophy offered permission to cut corners. The stakes were so high, and doom so imminent, that the luxury of careful research, transparent methods, and honest debate about uncertainty became unaffordable. Al Gore’s proclamation that “the science is settled” captured this essence perfectly – the science had segued with indecent haste from hypothesis to political process.
Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre, one of the UK’s leading climate research institutions, explicitly embraced this framework. Climate change, he argued, should be viewed not as a problem requiring scientific solution but as an opportunity to reshape society according to preferred values. The peer-review process, journal editors, and scientists themselves began colluding to prevent publication of results that didn’t serve the politically correct agenda. The Royal Society abandoned its traditional role as an arbiter of scientific truth to become a crude advocacy organisation. Scientists refused to share data, fiddled results, and resorted to ad hominem attacks on those who exposed fraudulent work. What had once been science – the dispassionate pursuit of knowledge about the natural world – became a tool in the hands of those who saw it as a means to political ends. The smart money flowed to scientists willing to serve this agenda.
Question 9: Who was Rachel Carson, what did her book “Silent Spring” argue, and what have been the claimed consequences of the DDT ban that followed her advocacy?
Answer: Rachel Carson was a marine biologist whose 1962 bestseller “Silent Spring” shook an entire generation’s faith in scientific progress and is credited with launching the modern environmental movement. Al Gore wrote that “without this book, the environmental movement might have been long delayed or never have developed at all.” Carson argued that the pesticide DDT would cause a cancer epidemic hitting “practically 100 per cent” of the human population and would wreak unimaginable havoc on Earth’s ecosystem by wiping out bird life – hence her title’s image of a spring without birdsong. The book inspired thousands to join the green movement, led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, and provided the catalyst for DDT’s US ban in 1972. Wildlife reserves, conservation areas, schools, bridges, hiking trails, and environmental prizes have been named after her.
The EPA’s own seven-month hearing, generating more than nine thousand pages of testimony, concluded that DDT was not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to humans and did not have deleterious effects on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. Despite this finding, EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus proceeded with the ban anyway, and many other countries followed America’s lead – thus depriving the world of its most effective pesticide against malarial mosquitoes. Malaria was then and continues to be one of the world’s biggest killers, responsible for over one million deaths annually and countless human suffering. It has been argued that Carson’s book, by inspiring the ban, has been responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler. Yet none of this awkwardness deters greens from celebrating her as their poster child, demonstrating that for committed watermelons, it doesn’t matter whether their heroes get facts right or wrong – as long as the “correct” environmental message is conveyed, any convenient untruth will do.
Question 10: Who is Paul Ehrlich, what predictions did he make in “The Population Bomb,” and how accurate did those predictions prove to be?
Answer: Paul Ehrlich is a Stanford University biologist whose 1968 bestseller “The Population Bomb” terrified an entire generation with apocalyptic predictions of imminent global catastrophe. “The battle to feed all of humanity is over,” he declared. “In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.” He envisioned oceans “virtually emptied” of fish, predicted that toxic pesticides would reduce American life expectancy to just forty-two years by 1980, and foresaw “disastrous” climate change – hedging his bets by warning that either cooling or warming could prove catastrophic. His predictions of mass famine, ecological collapse, and civilisational ruin made him a celebrity and helped fuel the nascent environmental movement.
Every single prediction proved spectacularly wrong. The world’s population has more than doubled since Ehrlich wrote, yet the average human now earns nearly three times as much money, eats one-third more calories, buries one-third fewer children, and can expect to live one-third longer. People are less likely to die from war, murder, famine, or disease. India, which Ehrlich declared “couldn’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980,” became a net exporter of wheat by 1974 thanks to the Green Revolution. Despite this comprehensive record of failure, Ehrlich has never acknowledged error or apologised for the damage his false prophecies may have caused. He remains a respected figure in environmental circles, continues to receive awards and accolades, and serves as proof that within the green movement, being catastrophically wrong about everything carries no professional consequences whatsoever – provided one was wrong in the approved direction.
Question 11: What is the Gaia Hypothesis, who developed it, and what does it suggest about humanity’s place in the Earth’s ecosystem?
Answer: The Gaia Hypothesis was formulated by British research scientist James Lovelock, who proposed that the entire planet functions as one giant living organism. In this model, the biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil constitute a “feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life.” The Earth itself – named Gaia after the Greek goddess – regulates its conditions to maintain habitability, much as a living body maintains homeostasis. This poetic vision of planetary interconnectedness proved enormously influential, lending scientific-sounding credibility to the environmental movement’s spiritual reverence for nature and its suspicion that something in the modern world had gone terribly wrong. Lovelock became a celebrated figure, his hypothesis embraced by those who saw in it confirmation that humanity had disrupted the delicate balance of a living world.
The implications for humanity’s place in this system are deeply unflattering. If Gaia is a self-regulating organism striving for balance, then one of its constituent elements stands out as a disruptive pathogen – and that element is us. Lovelock himself made this explicit in “The Revenge of Gaia,” declaring it “hubris to think humans as they are now are God’s chosen race.” We’re doomed, he proclaimed, and it’s no more than we deserve for being such a filthy blight on Mother Gaia’s otherwise perfectly balanced ecosystem. This view found enthusiastic support among deep ecologists like Teddy Goldsmith, who declared humans “parasites” and “waste” that had “long since ceased to play any useful ecological role.” The Gaia Hypothesis, dressed in scientific language, provided a framework for the misanthropy that runs like a dark current through environmental philosophy – the view that humanity is not the crown of creation but rather a cancer upon it.
Question 12: What is the Club of Rome, who founded it, and what was the significance of its 1972 publication “Limits to Growth”?
Answer: The Club of Rome was founded in 1968 by Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist, and Alexander King, a Scottish scientist who had earlier helped popularise DDT during the war. Operating as a self-described “non-organisation,” it brought together diplomats, industrialists, scientists, and intellectuals who shared concern about humanity’s future. The membership list reads like a Who’s Who of global elites – Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, Bill Clinton, Kofi Annan, the Dalai Lama, and numerous other world leaders, media moguls, and celebrities. The Club operated with calculated discretion, providing “the climate in which new ideas were generated” while maintaining independence from formal structures. Members gathered in agreeable surroundings, enjoyed fine claret, and put the world to rights while their invisible paw-prints spread across every major environmental initiative of the following decades.
“Limits to Growth,” published in 1972, was the Club’s manifesto – a computer-modelled prediction that industrial civilisation would collapse within a century due to resource depletion and pollution. The report sold twelve million copies, was translated into thirty-seven languages, and created the template for environmental catastrophism that persists today. Its predictions proved wildly inaccurate; every resource it claimed would be exhausted by various dates remains available. Nature editor John Maddox published a counterblast the same year calling it “sinister” and noting the authors’ failure to understand that human creativity would find new resources and solutions. But accuracy was never the point. The Club’s influence operated at a deeper level – seeding the concepts of “sustainability” and global environmental governance that would flower into Agenda 21 and the entire international climate apparatus. It was the Club of Rome that first proposed using environmental fear as a unifying political tool.
Question 13: What is the meaning of the Club of Rome’s statement that “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill”?
Answer: This statement, from the Club of Rome’s 1993 publication “The First Global Revolution,” represents perhaps the most candid admission of how environmental crises serve political purposes. The full passage explains that traditional enemies – nation-states, ideological blocs – were proving inadequate for mobilising humanity toward global cooperation. What was needed was a common threat that transcended borders, one that could unite disparate peoples and justify unprecedented international coordination. Environmental catastrophe fitted the bill perfectly: it threatened everyone regardless of nationality, demanded collective action, and conveniently required the sort of centralised global management that the Club’s members had long advocated. The “enemy” was to be humanity itself – or more precisely, human activity in the form of industry, consumption, and population growth.
The statement continues: “all these dangers are caused by human intervention... the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” This admission – that environmental threats were selected for their political utility in advancing a pre-existing agenda – should have been explosive. Instead, it passed largely unnoticed, dismissed when raised as conspiracy theory. Yet the words are freely available in a book published by a respected organisation whose members include former world leaders and Nobel laureates. The statement reveals that for the architects of global environmentalism, the specific threat matters less than its capacity to justify their preferred solutions. Global warming could be replaced tomorrow with ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, or some as-yet-unnamed crisis; the prescription would remain identical: reduced consumption, curtailed freedom, wealth redistribution, and governance by enlightened experts operating beyond democratic accountability.
Question 14: Who is Maurice Strong, what role did he play in shaping international environmental policy, and what has he said about national sovereignty and global governance?
Answer: Maurice Strong, born in 1929 during the Great Depression into a Canadian family with strong socialist leanings, is perhaps the single most important figure in translating green ideology into global policy. His cousin Anna Louise was a Marxist and Comintern member who spent time with Mao and Chou En-Lai during the Cultural Revolution. Strong himself demonstrated two exceptional gifts: making money through ventures spanning fur trading, oil, cattle ranching, and carbon trading, and networking within the United Nations orbit, where he began working in 1947. His main interest, however, was always the idea of global governance by a self-appointed elite. He spotted early that manipulating environmental concern offered the surest path to this goal, once stating: “Our concept of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions, particularly in terms of safeguarding the global environment.”
Strong’s achievements in building the international environmental apparatus are staggering. He chaired the first UN Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, became first director of the UN Environment Programme, served on the Brundtland Commission that popularised “sustainable development,” and organised the 1992 Rio Earth Summit where 179 nations signed Agenda 21. It was Strong who declared that “current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” He has stated explicitly that “the concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” After being implicated in Saddam Hussein’s “oil for food” scandal, Strong retreated to China, where he now advises the government on climate change and carbon trading.
Question 15: What is Agenda 21, when was it created, and what are its stated goals regarding sustainable development, land use, and resource management?
Answer: Agenda 21 is a comprehensive action plan signed by 179 nations at Maurice Strong’s 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Its name derives simply from representing an “agenda” for the twenty-first century. The document opens with apparently innocuous language about humanity standing “at a defining moment in history” and the need for a “global partnership for sustainable development” to achieve “improved living standards for all” and “better protected ecosystems.” What reasonable person could object to such goals? The document runs to hundreds of pages covering everything from atmospheric protection to sustainable agriculture to the role of indigenous peoples. It sounds like precisely the sort of sensible international cooperation that responsible nations should embrace.
Beneath the soothing rhetoric, Agenda 21 effectively ends national sovereignty over environmental matters, elevates nature above human interests, and places restrictions on freedoms ranging from how, when, and where people travel to what they eat. Property rights, suburban housing, private car ownership, meat consumption, air conditioning – all are rendered problematic under its framework. Maurice Strong made clear what “sustainable” lifestyles would no longer include. The document creates mechanisms for unelected international bodies to dictate domestic policy through a network of agreements, treaties, and bureaucratic requirements that bypass democratic processes entirely. As Strong himself admitted, national sovereignty “will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation” – it will yield nonetheless. The apparent voluntariness of Agenda 21’s codes conceals their enforcement through the vast, labyrinthine machinery of the United Nations and its affiliated organisations.
Question 16: How is Agenda 21 implemented at the local level, and what concerns have been raised about its impact on property rights, democratic accountability, and personal freedoms?
Answer: Agenda 21 operates through a technique of relabelling and stealth. A 1998 UN discussion document authored by Gary Lawrence, former advisor to the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, explained the strategy explicitly: “Participating in a UN-advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society.” His solution was simple: “So, we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth.” Lawrence didn’t deny the anti-democratic nature of this UN-advocated process; his sole concern was slipping the One-World Government agenda under the radar of concerned citizens. Local planning boards implement zoning regulations, wildlife corridors, high-density housing requirements, and restrictions on suburban development – all without residents understanding these originate from international agreements their representatives signed decades ago.
The process resembles discovering your local church has been redecorated with pentacles while you were away on holiday. “We put a message on the notice board,” the vicar explains. “We held consultation meetings for anyone who was interested.” The general feeling among the steering committee was that traditional practices were too old-fashioned and a new approach was needed. Property owners find their investment values diminished and rights undermined by regulations they never voted for. Farmers lose land to wildlife corridors. Car usage is penalised; recycling is mandated and policed. Citizens who question the premise of global warming find themselves nonetheless bound by its policy prescriptions. The transformation occurs incrementally, through technical language and obscure bureaucratic processes, enforced by officials who may themselves not understand the larger agenda they serve. This is the passive-aggressive world of global watermelons – socialism hiding behind the guise of environmentalism.
Question 17: What is the concept of “sustainability” as used in UN documents, and how does this definition differ from common public understanding of the term?
Answer: Most people associate “sustainability” with pleasantly sensible notions: patching your favourite cardigan for another year, buying organic vegetables, perhaps installing solar panels. The word evokes responsible stewardship, living within one’s means, not taking more than necessary. This benign understanding allows the concept to pass without scrutiny, creating a sort of semantic Trojan horse. When politicians, educators, and corporate communications departments invoke sustainability, listeners nod approvingly, imagining wildflower meadows and responsibly managed fisheries. The word has been culturally programmed to trigger positive associations, and few pause to examine what it actually entails in the documents that govern international policy.
Maurice Strong’s definition, articulated in his role as Secretary-General of the 1992 Earth Summit, reveals something quite different. “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning and suburban housing – are not sustainable,” he declared. “A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.” In other words, sustainability as deployed by its architects means that unelected bureaucrats from the UN acquire the right to determine how much meat you eat, how much fuel you use, how habitable your office may be in summer, and whether you’re permitted to live in a detached home with a garden. The Green Agenda website describes it accurately: “an all-encompassing socialist scheme to combine social welfare programs with government control of private business, socialised medicine, national zoning controls of private property and restructuring of school curriculum which serves to indoctrinate children into politically correct group think.”
Question 18: What connections exist between Mikhail Gorbachev and the global environmental movement, and what is the Earth Charter?
Answer: Dear Gorby, with the endearing birthmark and the habit of performing folk songs at private fundraisers, did much to make the world safer when he partnered with Reagan and Thatcher to end the Cold War through Glasnost and Perestroika. What receives less attention is his subsequent career as a major figure in the global environmental movement. In 1991, Gorbachev established the Gorbachev Foundation with the motto “Toward A New Civilisation,” describing it as “a think tank whose purpose is to explore the path that global governance should take as mankind progresses into an interdependent global society.” His green activism operates primarily through Green Cross International, which he founded, with thirty-one national affiliates worldwide. Honorary board members include former UN Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar, actor Robert Redford, and media mogul Ted Turner. The organisation’s stated mission is to “help ensure a just, sustainable and secure future for all.”
The Earth Charter, created in 2000 through collaboration between Gorbachev and Maurice Strong, presents itself as a “global consensus statement on ethics and values for a sustainable future,” officially endorsed by the United Nations. It begins with fluffy New Age aspirations – “Respect Earth and life in all its diversity” – but closer examination reveals yet another master plan for global socialist eco-tyranny. Principle ten demands that nations “ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner,” “promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations,” and “ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection and progressive labour standards.” The Charter is ceremonially housed in an “Ark of Hope” modelled on the Ark of the Covenant, accompanied by over one thousand “Temenos Books” containing prayers and affirmations. The religious symbolism is neither accidental nor subtle.
Question 19: Who was Thomas Malthus, what did he predict about population and resources, and why have his predictions been characterised as fundamentally mistaken?
Answer: Thomas Malthus was an eighteenth-century English clergyman and scholar who, in his 1798 “Essay on the Principle of Population,” articulated the fear that has animated environmental catastrophism ever since. Observing “the constant tendency in all animated life to increase beyond the nourishment prepared for it,” Malthus predicted that human populations would inevitably outstrip food supplies, resulting in perpetual cycles of famine, disease, pestilence, and vice. Population grows geometrically, he reasoned, while food production grows only arithmetically; the mathematics of doom were inescapable. His grim prognosis established the template for all subsequent predictions of resource exhaustion and civilisational collapse – the intellectual ancestor of every warning that humanity is approaching carrying capacity and catastrophe looms unless drastic action is taken.
Malthus was talking out of his tricorn hat. The Agricultural Revolution was happening around him in Britain even as he wrote, achieving rapid advances in production through crop rotation, selective breeding, and improved farming techniques. The Industrial Revolution had just begun, and would transform human capacity beyond anything Malthus could imagine. Between 1780 and 1914, Britain’s population swelled more than four-fold while her economy grew thirteen times larger. Standards of living rose accordingly, with almost everyone better fed, clothed, and housed than at any time in history. Yet despite being comprehensively refuted by events, Malthusian thinking never died – it merely hibernated, re-emerging periodically dressed in new clothing. Paul Ehrlich, the Club of Rome, and today’s climate catastrophists all peddle essentially the same prediction Malthus made over two centuries ago. Each iteration has proven equally wrong, yet each new generation of doom-mongers receives the same credulous reception.
Question 20: Who was Julian Simon, what was his “Cornucopian” philosophy, and what was the outcome of his famous wager with Paul Ehrlich?
Answer: Julian Simon was a brilliant US economics professor who earned the title “The Doomslayer” by systematically demolishing the predictions of environmental catastrophists. Simon argued that human beings are not merely mouths to feed but also minds that solve problems – that population growth, far from being humanity’s greatest threat, is actually the engine of progress. The more people exist, the greater the opportunity for division of labour, specialisation of skills, and the creative problem-solving that enables civilisation to flourish. Resources that appear finite become effectively infinite when human ingenuity discovers substitutes, improves extraction methods, or develops entirely new technologies. “Human imagination and human enterprise,” combined with the world’s sufficiently great possibilities, would always ensure that we and our descendants have more than enough for our needs.
In 1980, Simon put his theory to the test in a famous wager with Paul Ehrlich. Simon challenged Ehrlich to choose any five commodities he liked; Ehrlich selected chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten, purchasing $200 worth of each for a total of $1,000. Simon wagered that by the end of the decade, the inflation-adjusted prices would fall. Ehrlich could scarcely believe his luck – surely as populations grew and resources depleted, prices must rise. By 1990, every single commodity had fallen in price, some dramatically. Ehrlich sent Simon a cheque for $576.07, the amount by which prices had declined. Simon admitted he had begun life as a “card-carrying anti-growth, anti-population zealot” before the evidence converted him. He understood what Ehrlich never grasped: that apparent scarcity stimulates the innovation that creates abundance. The Stone Age didn’t end because mankind ran out of rocks.
Question 21: What is the Green Revolution in agriculture, who was Norman Borlaug, and how did his work contradict predictions of mass famine?
Answer: Norman Borlaug was an American agronomist who may have saved more lives – perhaps a billion – than any person who ever lived, yet remains virtually unknown while Rachel Carson is celebrated as an environmental hero. In the 1960s, as Paul Ehrlich was predicting hundreds of millions would starve and declaring India’s food situation hopeless, Borlaug was working in Mexico developing short-stemmed, high-yield wheat varieties that thrived when fertilised. After initial resistance, he prevailed upon the Indian and Pakistani governments to adopt his new strains. Production trebled; by 1974, India had become a net exporter of wheat rather than a famine-stricken basket case. The Green Revolution contradicted every prediction of the doomsayers and demonstrated that human ingenuity could outpace population growth.
Borlaug’s methods – selective breeding of hybrid seeds combined with abundant artificial fertiliser – made him the bête-noire of environmentalists who believe agriculture should return to traditional, organic, “trust-to-nature-and-starve” models. His achievement receives little celebration because it refutes the foundational premise of green ideology: that technology and progress are threats rather than solutions. Without modern farming techniques, every acre of rainforest would already have been cleared just to grow staple crops; instead, improvements in wheat farming alone have spared 100 million acres in India that would otherwise have been converted to cropland. The Green Revolution was not the first such transformation – the Haber-Bosch process for synthesising fertiliser revolutionised agriculture in the early twentieth century – and it won’t be the last. Built into the human species is a survival mechanism so strong and a capacity for adaptation so powerful that no matter what crisis nature throws our way, we emerge stronger.
Question 22: What examples of misanthropic statements have been made by prominent figures in the environmental movement regarding human population?
Answer: The roster of prominent environmentalists expressing disgust at human existence is extensive and chilling. Ted Turner, media billionaire and Club of Rome member, has stated that “a total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95 per cent decline from present levels, would be ideal.” The Duke of Edinburgh wrote in a foreword to “If I Were an Animal” that “in the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” Alexander King, Club of Rome co-founder, confided in his memoirs: “My chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” John Aspinall, the late zoo-keeper and gambler, spoke openly of his hope that Ebola might eliminate enough humans to restore balance. The Georgia Guidestones, a monument erected by an anonymous donor, instructs humanity to “MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000” and warns “BE NOT A CANCER ON THE EARTH.”
James Lovelock declares that humanity has no special status and that doom is our just dessert for blighting Gaia’s ecosystem. Teddy Goldsmith described humans as “parasites” and “waste.” Harrison Brown compared humanity to “a pulsating mass of maggots” covering a dead cow. BBC presenter Chris Packham, when asked which animal he wouldn’t mind seeing extinct, reportedly said he’d sacrifice pandas to save the mosquito – then suggested humans as an alternative candidate. The Optimum Population Trust (now Population Matters) calculates that global population should contract to a maximum of 5.1 billion to be “sustainable.” These are not fringe figures mumbling in obscurity; they are celebrated environmentalists, titled aristocrats, billionaire philanthropists, and mainstream media personalities. Their statements reveal that beneath the cuddly exterior of the green movement lies a strain of thought that regards human beings as vermin to be culled.
Question 23: What historical connections have been drawn between Nazi Germany’s environmental policies and modern green ideology?
Answer: Nazi Germany pursued environmental policies with a commitment that makes even modern eco-enthusiasts look like amateurs. Theirs was the first nation to ban smoking on public transport – Hitler considered tobacco “the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man.” It was the first to champion animal rights, with Göring threatening to send anyone guilty of animal cruelty to concentration camps. The Reich Nature Protection Law of 1935 constituted the world’s first comprehensive national environmental legislation. Himmler obsessed over organic food; Hitler was an on-again, off-again vegetarian. In his December 1942 decree “On the Treatment of the Land in the Eastern Territories,” Himmler prescribed sustainable forestry and organic agriculture for the conquered lands. The ideological foundation – reverence for nature, suspicion of technology, belief in blood-and-soil purity – aligned closely with contemporary deep ecology.
It would be convenient to dismiss Nazi environmentalism as an aberration, a grotesque perversion of otherwise benign values. The authors of “How Green Were the Nazis?” argue otherwise: “The green policies of the Nazis were more than a mere episode or aberration in environmental history at large. They point to larger meanings and demonstrate with brutal clarity that conservationism and environmentalism are not and have never been value-free or inherently benign enterprises.” If you want to create a depopulated, almost Garden of Eden world where small numbers of chosen people live in rustic, de-industrialised, organic bliss, then two questions arise: “Which people?” and “How?” The Nazis answered directly – they identified the Untermenschen, exterminated them industrially, and attempted to repopulate their territory with those deemed fit. Post-war environmentalism has been more circumspect about methods, but the instincts remain little changed, as books advocating sterilisation, population control, and world government attest.
Question 24: Who is John Holdren, what positions has he held in government, and what controversial views on population control has he expressed in his writings?
Answer: John Holdren served as President Obama’s director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, commonly known as the “Science Czar.” This position gave him significant influence over US science policy and funding priorities. Before his government appointment, Holdren was a prominent environmental activist and academic. In 1986, he edited and co-wrote “Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown,” praising Brown’s “The Challenge of Man’s Future” as a book that “should have reshaped permanently the perceptions of all serious analysts.” Brown’s book, recall, advocated for a world authority with jurisdiction over population problems that might “prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies” and “sterilise or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded.” Holdren’s tribute contained no dissociation from these positions.
More troubling still is “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” a book Holdren wrote in 1977 with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. The volume discussed possibilities including compulsory abortion, sterilisation through infertility drugs introduced into water supplies, and the establishment of a “Planetary Regime” – perhaps run under the auspices of UNEP and UN population agencies – with the power to determine appropriate population levels and enforce compliance. This Planetary Regime might require “an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force.” When these passages surfaced during his confirmation process, the White House issued statements suggesting the views were taken out of context and didn’t represent Holdren’s current thinking. Perhaps so. But the fact that someone who once seriously discussed mass sterilisation and global population police became the US government’s most senior science advisor suggests how thoroughly watermelon thinking has penetrated the establishment.
Question 25: What role has the BBC played in climate change coverage, and what evidence has been presented of institutional bias in its reporting?
Answer: The BBC operates under Charter obligations to “ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.” Its reputation as a trusted global institution rests on assumptions of balance and objectivity. Christopher Booker’s December 2011 report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation documented how thoroughly the Corporation had abandoned these principles on climate change. According to Booker’s research, the rot set in decisively on 26 January 2006 at a day-long seminar at BBC Television Centre entitled “Climate Change – The Challenge to Broadcasting.” The chief guest speaker was Lord May of Oxford, former chief scientific advisor, who claimed that a climate change “denial lobby” was funded by tens of millions of dollars from the hydrocarbon industry and compared sceptics to those denying that smoking causes cancer or that HIV causes AIDS. This was the man chosen to brief senior BBC staff on how to cover the issue.
The seminar’s impact was transformative. A handful of activists, working in league with environmental campaign groups and warmist academics, effectively captured the BBC’s editorial policy. The Corporation became a propaganda mouthpiece for the AGW industry, systematically excluding sceptical voices, presenting alarmist claims without scrutiny, and framing the debate as settled science versus ignorant denial. Booker’s 30,000-word report documented specific instances of bias, misleading coverage, and failure to meet Charter requirements. Few people read such detailed technical reports, however; most assume that because it’s the BBC, with its Reithian traditions and institutional gravitas, its coverage must be reliable. This assumption is precisely what makes institutional capture so effective. The BBC just wouldn’t deliberately twist the truth for political ends, people tell themselves. But the evidence demonstrates that on this issue, it manifestly has.
Question 26: How have environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and the WWF influenced climate policy and the IPCC process?
Answer: Environmental NGOs present themselves as plucky Davids battling corporate Goliaths, grassroots movements powered by concerned citizens. The reality involves budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars, professional lobbying operations, and intimate integration with the institutions they supposedly hold accountable. The WWF – probably the most ambitious of these organisations – has been documented attempting to position itself to benefit financially from global carbon trading schemes while simultaneously campaigning for those schemes to be implemented. Friends of the Earth campaign literature explicitly demonises “oil companies,” “airlines,” “supermarkets,” and “petro-chemical firms” while insisting that their opponents’ sole motivation is “Profit” – deployed as if it were the ne plus ultra of evil. The salaries of executives at major environmental organisations frequently exceed $400,000 annually.
The influence these groups exercise over supposedly neutral scientific bodies is more troubling still. Climategate emails revealed WWF’s Adam Markham urging scientists to emphasise alarming scenarios. Donna Laframboise’s audit of the IPCC discovered that in some chapter reports, more than forty per cent of references came from “grey literature” – propaganda produced by activist groups rather than peer-reviewed science. Significant numbers of IPCC contributors were closely affiliated with Greenpeace, WWF, and similar organisations. The UK’s Climate Change Act, which by government estimates will cost taxpayers £18.3 billion annually through 2050, was largely drafted by Baroness Worthington, a former Friends of the Earth activist. Greenpeace’s former international director, Gerd Leipold, admitted in a BBC interview that the organisation had issued misleading statements about Arctic ice – when challenged, he defended this as legitimate because “we as a pressure group have to emotionalise issues.” Science produced under such influence serves political ends rather than truth.
Question 27: What is the “Big Oil funding” accusation against climate sceptics, and how does the funding received by sceptical organisations compare to that received by environmental groups and climate research institutions?
Answer: The accusation that climate sceptics are lavishly funded by fossil fuel interests serves as the primary technique for dismissing criticism without engaging with it. George Monbiot of The Guardian has devoted considerable effort to documenting the supposed scandal, revealing that the Information Council for the Environment spent $510,000 on a campaign in 1991, that the Cato Institute’s Pat Michaels once received $100,000 from an electrical association, and that the Heartland Institute received $676,000 from ExxonMobil over more than a decade. Campaign Against Climate Change claims Koch Industries paid “nearly $50m to climate denial groups” between 1997 and 2008. Adding all such figures together, even with generous interpretation, produces a grand total perhaps reaching $200 million over two decades – funds that went toward conservative think tanks generally, not climate scepticism specifically.
Compare this with the resources deployed on the alarmist side. Between 2003 and 2010, the US government alone spent $79 billion on climate research and technology – and that figure doesn’t include Europe, Australia, the UN system, or private foundations. Environmental NGO executives earn salaries exceeding $400,000 annually; the WWF’s global budget runs to hundreds of millions. EU environment and climate research funding dwarfs anything available to sceptics. As one blogger calculated, the funding ratio is approximately 3,500 to 1 in favour of warmists. The accusation of “Big Oil” funding is not merely hypocritical – it is projection on a massive scale. The real scandal is how thoroughly the “smart money” has flowed to scientists and institutions willing to serve the alarmist agenda, creating a self-perpetuating industry that depends on maintaining public fear. Climate scepticism pays almost nothing; warmism offers grants, salaries, and jobs galore.
Question 28: What economic criticisms have been made of wind farms, feed-in tariffs, and other renewable energy subsidies, particularly regarding job creation claims?
Answer: Politicians promoting renewable energy subsidies routinely tout job creation as a benefit. Lord Marland, the UK’s Energy and Climate Change Under-Secretary, declared in 2010 that wind alone should create 130,000 jobs at a value of £36 billion, calling these “heartening numbers.” Such claims ignore the economic reality that subsidised employment in one sector destroys jobs elsewhere. Research by economics professor Gabriel Calzada Alvarez at Spain’s Universidad Rey Juan Carlos found that for every “green job” created by government subsidy, 2.2 jobs were lost in the real economy as resources were diverted from productive uses. A study by Verso Economics reached similar conclusions for Scotland. In the United States, the Obama administration’s green jobs programme produced outcomes so poor that an economic consultant described calculations showing each position created had cost taxpayers approximately $5.4 million.
Wind farms themselves represent an “alternative to energy” rather than alternative energy. They produce power only when the wind blows at suitable speeds – not too slow, not too fast – requiring conventional backup generation for the majority of the time. Britain lacks the specialist engineers and manufacturing plants to build turbines domestically, meaning much of the economic activity flows overseas, particularly to China. The generous feed-in tariffs and Renewable Obligation Certificates that make wind farms financially viable for their operators transfer wealth from ordinary electricity consumers to landowners wealthy enough to host turbines – David Cameron’s father-in-law reportedly received nearly £1,000 daily from wind farms on his estates. Meanwhile, energy poverty rises as bills escalate to fund the subsidies. The entire edifice depends on maintaining public fear about climate change; when countries face genuine economic crises, these unaffordable luxuries become early casualties.
Question 29: What is the UK Climate Change Act of 2008, who drafted it, and what are its projected costs and requirements?
Answer: The UK Climate Change Act of 2008 commits Britain to reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050 – the most stringent legally binding emissions target of any major economy. By the government’s own official estimates, implementation will cost taxpayers £18.3 billion every year until 2050, a total exceeding £700 billion over the period. The Act requires progressive “decarbonisation” of the economy through mechanisms including carbon budgets, emissions trading, support for renewable energy, and efficiency mandates affecting everything from industrial processes to household appliances to the banned incandescent light bulbs that have been replaced with flickery, headache-inducing alternatives. A handful of MPs voted against it; the overwhelming majority supported legislation whose costs and consequences few had bothered to understand.
The Act was largely drafted by Baroness Worthington, a former Friends of the Earth activist who subsequently joined the House of Lords. Her fingerprints on the legislation demonstrate how thoroughly environmental NGOs have infiltrated the policy process. The costs are not hypothetical future projections but already visible in rising energy bills, fuel poverty affecting vulnerable households, and the competitive disadvantage imposed on British industry. As one observer noted in a BBC Radio 4 documentary, “I suspect the public doesn’t realise how radical this legislation is.” The remark captures the method by which such measures pass: technical language, cross-party consensus manufactured through appeals to environmental virtue, and absence of serious debate about whether the supposed benefits justify the certain costs. By the time the public realises what has been done in their name, the commitments are locked in and reversal politically impossible.
Question 30: What is Margaret Thatcher’s relationship to climate change policy, and how did her position evolve from her early speeches to her later writings?
Answer: Margaret Thatcher’s role in legitimising climate alarmism has been described as “probably the most important fact in the entire global warming issue” because of her scientific background – she held a BSc in chemistry from Oxford. In 1988, at a speech to the Royal Society, she warned of global warming and its potential consequences; at her personal instigation, the UK Met Office established its Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, which she opened in 1990. The Hadley Centre helped produce primary data sets used by the newly founded IPCC and was responsible for selecting lead authors for scientific working groups – authors who would reliably push reports in the alarmist direction. Thatcher’s endorsement provided crucial early credibility for what would become the climate establishment.
The cynical explanation holds that Thatcher’s adoption of climate concerns served political purposes. After the 1984 miners’ strike challenged her power, reducing reliance on coal became strategically attractive; framing this as an environmental issue avoided further confrontation with the National Union of Mineworkers. Additionally, concerns about carbon dioxide provided justification for nuclear energy expansion – useful for upgrading Britain’s nuclear deterrent with the Trident missile system but otherwise unpopular after Chernobyl. Whatever her initial motivations, Thatcher’s later views diverged dramatically. Her 2003 book “Statecraft” contains a passage entitled “Hot Air and Global Warming” in which she pours scorn on “doomsters” who exaggerate sea level rises, demonise CO2, and ignore the Medieval Warm Period’s evidence that warming brings benefits. She argues explicitly that scientific distortions are being used to advance an anti-capitalist political agenda threatening human progress and prosperity.
Question 31: What was the 10:10 “No Pressure” video, who created it, and what does the reaction to it suggest about attitudes within the environmental movement toward dissenters?
Answer: In September 2010, the 10:10 climate campaign released a four-minute film directed by Richard Curtis, the writer and director of beloved mainstream comedies including “Four Weddings and a Funeral” and “Notting Hill.” The video depicted schoolchildren, office workers, and a footballer being asked whether they would commit to reducing carbon emissions by ten per cent. Those who declined were blown up by a teacher or supervisor pressing a red button, spraying blood and body parts across horrified witnesses. A child who hesitated was exploded in front of her screaming classmates. The film concluded with a voiceover noting that “no pressure” was being applied – the whole thing was just a bit of fun.
Within hours of its internet release, the video went viral – but not for the reasons intended. Instead of generating support and donations, it provoked a wave of public outrage. Sponsors including Sony and O2 withdrew; a planned cinema release was cancelled; the team issued a public apology. Sceptics gleefully christened it “Splattergate” and “the gift that goes on giving.” What made the video so shocking was not merely its content but the fact that approximately fifty film professionals, forty actors, and one of Britain’s most bankable directors could remain so blissfully unconscious of how toxic its message actually was. “Wouldn’t it be great,” the video ventured, “if instead of arguing with all those pesky climate-change deniers we could just press a button and kill them?” Suppose a similar “joke” video depicted the righteous extermination of homosexuals, Muslims, or disabled people – such a production would never be made. That it could be made about climate sceptics reveals how thoroughly dehumanised dissenters have become within certain circles.
Question 32: How have sceptical bloggers and independent researchers contributed to challenging the climate consensus, and what tools such as Freedom of Information requests have they employed?
Answer: The internet has enabled a distributed network of amateur researchers to challenge the climate establishment in ways that would have been impossible a generation earlier. Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog systematically deconstructed the Hockey Stick. Anthony Watts created Watts Up With That, now one of the most visited science websites, featuring analysis of temperature station quality, climate model failures, and original research from readers. Richard North’s EU Referendum blog exposed false claims in IPCC reports about the Amazon rainforest. Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford) documented the Hockey Stick saga in accessible form. Donna Laframboise organised crowd-sourced audits of IPCC contributors’ qualifications. Jo Nova provided educational materials explaining climate science and policy. None of these individuals earns significant income from their efforts; most can barely cover hosting costs.
Freedom of Information requests have proven particularly powerful. The UK’s 2000 Freedom of Information Act and similar legislation elsewhere enabled citizens to request data, correspondence, and internal documents from publicly funded institutions. David Holland and Andrew Montford submitted cussedly determined requests that exposed the workings of the climate science establishment – requests that the scientists implicated in Climategate repeatedly attempted to evade or obstruct. When Phil Jones wrote “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone,” he revealed consciousness that his practices could not withstand scrutiny. The patient, painstaking work of citizen researchers, armed with nothing more than internet access, persistence, and the legal right to demand transparency from public institutions, has subjected the “lying liars of the great green eco-fraud” to scrutiny so relentless that the traditional gatekeepers could no longer protect them.
Question 33: What is peak oil theory, who originated it, and what historical pattern of failed predictions about resource depletion does it fit?
Answer: Peak oil theory is most closely associated with M. King Hubbert, a brilliant but strange earth scientist who was a leading light of Technocracy, a 1930s American cult promoting the idea that democracy was a sham and scientists should take over government. Hubbert predicted in 1956 that global oil reserves were far more limited than generally recognised and that US production would peak between 1965 and 1970. When American oil production did hit its peak in 1970, followed by the 1973 oil crisis, Hubbert was hailed as a visionary seer. The theory now enjoys immense popularity among environmentalists who see imminent oil exhaustion as vindication for their demands to transition away from fossil fuels. If supplies really are about to collapse, their programme looks less like ideological green dogma and more like basic common sense.
What peak oil enthusiasts rarely appreciate is that Hubbert was merely the latest in a long line of “the oil’s running out” alarmists, and every one has been proved wrong. In 1922, President Harding’s US Coal Commission declared that natural gas output had begun to wane and oil production “cannot long maintain its present rate.” Similar warnings appeared throughout the twentieth century – and before that, dire predictions about coal exhaustion troubled the nineteenth. Lord Kelvin warned in 1902 that coal supplies would inevitably fail. The mistake every catastrophist makes is ignoring human ingenuity. As resources become scarce, prices rise, signalling entrepreneurs and inventors to find alternatives or develop new extraction methods. Shale gas – an energy revolution as significant as coal in the Industrial Revolution – was dismissed as uneconomical until technology made it viable. Peak predictions keep failing because the doomsters measure reserves against current technology rather than future innovation.
Question 34: What fundamental worldview conflict is described as underlying the climate debate, framed as optimism versus pessimism or freedom versus control?
Answer: The climate debate ultimately concerns not temperatures or parts per million but two irreconcilable views of human nature and destiny. One view holds that humans are essentially beneficial, that within reasonable constraints such as property rights and rule of law we can be trusted to flourish when left to our own devices, and that free markets, free trade, and personal liberty reliably generate progress. This optimistic perspective sees human beings as problem-solvers whose ingenuity consistently outpaces the challenges we face. Every prediction of resource exhaustion has failed because people find alternatives; every forecast of mass famine has been contradicted by agricultural innovation. The appropriate response to uncertainty is faith that human creativity will prove adequate, as it always has before.
The opposing view – the green view – considers humanity a menace requiring containment through ever-greater regulation and control by experts. In this pessimistic framework, people cannot be trusted to make correct choices; left to themselves, they consume recklessly, breed irresponsibly, and destroy the planet. Only enlightened technocrats, operating beyond democratic accountability because ordinary citizens cannot be trusted with such important matters, can save us from ourselves. This view regards economic growth as a cancer, population as a plague, and individual liberty as dangerous indulgence. There is no middle way. Even if you think there is, the people who wish to steal your freedoms in the name of environmentalism have ensured there is not. The choice presented is stark: optimism or pessimism, freedom or tyranny, joy or misery. Two worldviews – one where humans are an asset, one where humans are a liability – with no possibility of compromise.
Question 35: What is the “Big Lie” concept as applied to the climate debate, and why does the persistence of the warming narrative continue despite the revelations of Climategate and other scandals?
Answer: The Big Lie concept, articulated in “Mein Kampf,” holds that small lies are easily detected but truly enormous falsehoods escape disbelief precisely because of their magnitude. Ordinary people tell small lies themselves and therefore recognise them in others, but they cannot imagine anyone having the audacity to fabricate on a grand scale – such distortions seem too implausible to credit. The bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed, because rejecting it requires accepting that major institutions, respected authorities, and vast numbers of professionals are either complicit or deceived. Most people lack the psychological resources for such a conclusion; it’s easier to assume that where there’s smoke there must be fire, that so many experts couldn’t all be wrong, that accusations of wholesale fraud must themselves be exaggerated.
Two years after Climategate exposed one of the greatest scientific scandals in history, Michael Mann was still publishing letters in the Wall Street Journal claiming his Hockey Stick remained valid, that the Climategate scientists had been exonerated by numerous enquiries, and that “deniers” are funded by Big Oil. He could get away with this because readers are predisposed to believe public figures in national newspapers tell the truth, and because his claims matched what the rest of mainstream media reported. The lie is simply too large to see. Telling someone that the entire climate establishment is corrupt, that trillions of dollars are being wasted on an imaginary problem, that their children are being brainwashed in schools – such claims sound paranoid even when supported by evidence. The bastards keep getting away with it because the truth is too enormous for comfortable comprehension, and comforting lies require no effort to accept.
Book: Medicalized Motherhood: From First Pill to Permanent Patient
Available as a free download. 123 interventions documented across six phases—from pre-conception capture through postpartum surveillance. Includes practical tools: birth plan template, provider interview questions, quick reference card, and a new chapter on interrupting the cascade. Download it, share it with someone facing their first prenatal appointment, their induction date, their cesarean recommendation. The cascade works because women don’t see it coming. This book makes it visible.
Support Independent Research
This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.
What paid subscribers get: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 180+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions added weekly. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.
[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]
Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com
Bitcoin: 3Q6BK8x8zjoPaXykQggzvoJxg5FiEbkb3U
Ethereum: 0x4CB0d39d8466a34609318FC1B003B745893788b3
New Biology Clinic
For those of you looking for practitioners who actually understand terrain medicine and the principles we explore here, I want to share something valuable. Dr. Tom Cowan—whose books and podcasts have shaped much of my own thinking about health—has created the New Biology Clinic, a virtual practice staffed by wellness specialists who operate from the same foundational understanding. This isn’t about symptom suppression or the conventional model. It’s about personalized guidance rooted in how living systems actually work. The clinic offers individual and family memberships that include not just private consults, but group sessions covering movement, nutrition, breathwork, biofield tuning, and more. Everything is virtual, making it accessible wherever you are. If you’ve been searching for practitioners who won’t look at you blankly when you mention structured water or the importance of the extracellular matrix, this is worth exploring. Use discount code “Unbekoming” to get $100 off the member activation fee. You can learn more and sign up at newbiologyclinic.com
A brilliant thesis, at great depth, addressing so many of the lies regarding climate change, but also deeply flawed. The case that banning DDT lead to millions of deaths in the war against malaria is just more of the same agenda from the Club of Rome and their globalist accomplices. DDT, a chemical agent of war, was repurposed to serve the medical cartel in their the ongoing war against nature and humanity. The standard coverup, so we do not give attention to the real issues, the living conditions of the people who are 'infected', the poverty, malnourishment, exploitationn, displacement, and consequently heavily vaccinated by the likes of Bill Gates, the UN and the WHO, which only perpetuates the lie of infectious disease and the deaths without end. The covid scamdemic of 2020, orchestrated worldwide, is all we need to know about this agenda and like the malaria psyop is just another weapon in their arsenal by those who promote the scams of climate change, geo-engineering, and mass vaccination. Until this linkage is seen we remain blind to the real agenda, transhumanism, scientism, and medical tyranny as the central means of mass traumatic mind control. Even as we uncover all the lies revealed in this article, we are keeping the core lie going, so that we keep on spraying poisons, injecting ourselves with the next 'miracle drug' or vaccine, and do not address the elephant in the room, the medical cartels, corporate interests who we still think are our allies in this war, even as they continue to poison the world. It's the old strategy, construct a problem, cause a reaction through propaganda by the 'experts', and the offer 'the solution'. But the solution is just another form of the same 'problem'. One feeds the other. If we don't understand that with every agenda there is a deeper agenda, perfectly constructed to hide the lie within the lie. Covid19 was the same retelling of this lie. And now we have many who have only partially uncovered one layer of this lie and overlooked the deeper lie, who have rejected the mRNA vaccines but still believe in viruses that must be fought by other means. The war continues and we always lose. DDT along with other neurotoxins was likely the cause of the so-called polio epidemic of the 1950s, but quietly phased out as the vaccine was introduced and hailed as 'the solution'. Even with many side effects and deaths attributed to the vaccines, it was put aside as collateral damage acceptable in war. We cannot only partially wake up from this nightmare, but fully awaken, not only to the lies we are told, but to what natural health really is. Our healing will not come through more poisons, but understanding that all illness is the body's attempt to heal and assisting in that process.
although i agree with most of Delingpole's basic tenets, there are so many details i think are totally wrong that i don't even have the time to enumerate them. . . just one example: his extolling the virtues of DDT, one of the worst pesticides which has been highly implicated as a cause of nervous system diseases such as polio.. . and actually i think Rachel Carson was largely correct about the decimation of insects and birds - but she only knew half of the story (meaning pesticides & herbicides). The part she didn't foresee was the impact of massive ubiquitous wireless radiation which didn't ramp up substantially until the mid 1990s.
Now we see a disastrous decline in bird and insect populations all over the world according to many reports. Just in the tiny rural N CA area i live in, the amount of insects, reptiles, amphibians and birds has decreased drastically in just the last 6 years i have been here. From my observation starting at an arbitrary 100%, we are now at roughly these levels: insects ~10% of that 100% or less; some are entirely absent. reptiles (lizards) are maybe 20%, frogs about 1% (almost none), and birds 20 to 30% of the original amount 6 yrs ago, depending on season with the birds.