The Climate Religion
The approach of the new climate morality is Goebbelsian in its simplicity, and perhaps for this reason (and because it is repeated ad nauseam) it enjoys such a high reputation: everything that happens is abnormal, alarming, and also the fault of climate denialism, understood in this context as any approach that does not abide by the following parameters as universal laws. First, we must accept that climate change is anthropogenic and necessarily catastrophic. At this point, it is practically impossible to ignore this idea with which we are tortured by land, sea, and air at all times, but just in case, you can read the "information" offered to us by the United Nations here. This first point poses a major conflict, since the climate has been changing since long before humans populated the Earth, and sometimes more abruptly. The Earth has warmed and cooled cyclically for as long as we have been aware, so the "anthropogenic climate change" narrative already poses some problems. A more difficult issue to justify is the one concerning the catastrophic consequences.
The second parameter that must be accepted as an act of faith is that climate change, being anthropogenic, is also reversible, or at least can be stopped to a greater or lesser extent. Therefore, the salvation of the
planet depends on individuals doing the right thing, adhering to a panoply of redemptive measures whose observance will determine whether our species survives a catastrophe that "science" already takes for granted. These acts and rituals are of dubious real utility and certainly questionable from a factual and epistemic perspective, similar to those already discredited during the pandemic. The reader will undoubtedly recall the whole litany of measures such as masks, social distancing, lockdowns, quasi-forced inoculations with fraudulent products, and, of course, the balcony police who ensured the proper observance of pandemic morality. Superstitions elevated to the status of science, which, while not serving their intended purpose, proved indispensable in sowing the precious scientific totalitarianism we suffer today. But today isn't a pandemic, today is a false environmentalism.
The Liturgy
Let's look at the paradigmatic example of plastic. Plastics, which in the 1950s came to save us from massive logging and subsequent deforestation, have today become a major ecological problem, which, however, does not merit more far-reaching measures from our legislators than keeping the caps glued to the bottles, while, on the contrary, deforestation not only has not occurred, but we apparently have an excess of forests . However, sins for plastic can be atoned for by throwing part of the plastic we continue to accumulate uncontrollably into the yellow bin, for the greater glory of Ecoembes , a generously subsidized waste recycling company to which we provide the raw material with which they do business, always protected by a dense network of environmental regulations. We are already seeing how those heretics who do not adhere to the proper orthodoxy in the liturgy of the yellow bin can be fined. Once again, the ritual becomes the norm , with its corresponding sanctioning regime, as Gaia commands. A ritual whose practice is not without its difficulties, and which is already beginning to become a full-fledged religion, in the image and likeness of older ones, but without the transcendental component. As a Marxist,
it pains me to say this, but this false environmentalism is becoming the new religion of materialism. Hasn't anyone thought of going back to buying and selling products in bulk? Probably so, but such an idea would be an unbearable blow to the plastics industry, and we can't allow that. While they torture us with regulations that are materially impossible to comply with, supermarket chains continue to sell sliced Serrano ham with plastic dividers, "so it doesn't stick together," of course. The plastics industry continues to enjoy surprising vigor despite everything. It's the economy, stupid.
The Carbon Market Fraud
But without a doubt, for the Church of Calentology, the industrial sin par excellence is CO2. It's surprising that this gas is precisely the one chosen by the leaders of climate catastrophe as the perfect villain, given that it is a gas whose function in the process of life is so essential. According to climate "experts," CO2 is a greenhouse gas that acts in the atmosphere like glass in a greenhouse: it absorbs the energy and heat from the Sun radiating from the Earth's surface, traps it in the atmosphere, and prevents it from escaping into space. The often overlooked issue is that it is precisely this greenhouse effect that allows life on our planet. To contextualize the paradox with data. According to this study , the sum of all active volcanoes emits between 270 and 219 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. How have we been able to survive with such levels of emissions? Experts will tell us that human activities emit 70 times more CO2 than volcanoes, and I have no doubt they're right, but... how do they calculate it?
Calculating emissions at a global level is not without a certain amount of faith, as you may have guessed. Estimates, models, and other scientific nonsense are available to any company wishing to label itself green, eco-sustainable, and resilient, for a fee. Thus, we have recently seen companies as unenviable as Shell or Repsol (to name the first that come to mind) proudly parade their new green company status around
the global arena. And if your carbon footprint is excessive, don't worry; the Church of Calentology always offers a wide range of redemption opportunities, as creative as they are lucrative, to achieve the longawaited Net Zero . See the paradigmatic example of carbon credits, which enshrine the right to pollute for a fee. The carbon offset market has emerged as one of the most notable niches of corruption in recent decades, piling up scams that, incomprehensibly, haven't made the media headlines. It would be impossible to share them all in this article, but here they are. You can read some of the most significant ones . Over time, due to recurring fraud, the lucrative carbon credit business has needed a facelift. That's why we've recently heard news about blue carbon, those mangrove restoration projects around the globe through which large companies atone for their misfortunes by paying indigenous people a pittance to restore mangroves, which are supposedly capable of absorbing carbon. Thus, the major polluters pay their penance so they can continue polluting, indigenous people can abandon undesirable businesses like poaching or drug trafficking, and the mangroves are left beautiful. Long live biodiversity!
Models for the Apocalypse
As we said, emissions calculations, as well as their future projections, are based on models. During the COVID pandemic, we already saw how the overuse of modeling could lead to false perceptions of risk or completely implausible benefit assessments. A paradigmatic example of the use of models as propaganda is the claim that the so-called mRNA vaccines would have saved 14 million lives—to give an example we've all heard—based on a model by Imperial College scientist Neil Ferguson. The claim repels the most basic epidemiological logic, since accepting its plausibility would imply assuming that the terrible zoonotic bug would have killed twice as many individuals in its second year of life as it supposedly did in its first. It would undoubtedly be the first virus to behave in such a way, and yet no honorable official doctor has dared to question this figure. And Mr. Ferguson already had a
recent prediction to his credit, in which his purported modeling expertise turned out to be scandalously inaccurate. Such was the case with Ferguson's model , which predicted 100,000 deaths before the end of 2020 in Sweden if the famous lockdowns were not implemented. Ultimately, Sweden decided not to implement lockdowns, and the COVID death toll did not exceed 5,000. We have no news of Mr. Ferguson losing his job due to such an error. A lucky guy, no doubt.
Every branch of science has its own Neil Ferguson. In the case of climate science, global warming has its own Neil Ferguson, the paleoclimatologist Michael Mann, who presented his famous "Hockey Stick" model in Nature magazine in 1998. The ominous graph of this model now serves as the illustration for this article, and which became the icon of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The power of the graph drove the approval of the Kyoto Protocol practically without debate, despite the fact that various studies had consistently shown by then that Michael Mann's models, based on the study of tree rings, were completely unreliable. Some time later, thanks to email leaks in the context of what became known as Climategate, it was revealed that good old Michael—who was a fanatic about the global warming theory—had used a mathematical trick (Mike's trick) to discard all the results that did not fit his model. Despite the full exposure of the fraud, a large portion of academia continues to defend Mann's "discoveries" tooth and nail, even though he himself won't vouch for them. You can find Mr. Mann prominently featured in Al Gore's famous documentary, " An Inconvenient Truth."
Manufactured Consensuses Against Scientific Evidence
Much of academia tries to sell a consensus around anthropogenic and reversible climate change. Needless to say, talking about “scientific consensus” is almost as unscientific as saying the hackneyed “I believe in science.” It is perhaps the simplest way to distinguish science from scientism. Just as there never was a “scientific consensus” around the
measures imposed during COVID (as evidenced by the overwhelming support for the Great Barrington Declaration ), there is none regarding climate change either. Thousands of authoritative voices throughout the scientific community have risen up against the “climate emergency,” led by Nobel Prize winners John F. Clauser and Ivan Giaver . More than 1,600 scientists claim that warming is occurring much more slowly than reflected in the IPCC models, and that warming is perfectly normal, given that we are coming out of the “Little Ice Age,” which ended in 1850.
Aside from the questionable beliefs and purported science underlying the alarming predictions of the Church of Calentology, even more worrying is the undisguised disdain they show toward more plausible scientific hypotheses backed by reliable data. Such is the case with the work of paleoclimatologist Ian D. Clark , a professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa, whom I had the privilege of interviewing recently. His studies of carbon records captured over hundreds of thousands of years in Arctic ice debunk much of the climate narrative. Clark's findings, replicated by another University of Ottawa professor, Dr. Jan Veizer , and his isotopic techniques for determining Earth's climate cycles, resonate very precisely with the studies of physicist Nir Shaviv , a professor at the Racah Institute at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who has studied the impact of solar activity on Earth's climate over the past 540 million years and the variation in cloud cover due to cosmic rays and its relationship to changes in Earth's surface temperature. Their work establishes a direct relationship between solar activity and climate change, so that graphs of Earth's temperature and solar activity fit together like a glove, and yet such illuminating data do not enjoy the same media coverage as the ominous narrative of global warming. Why? The answer is, as always, business as usual . But without politics, there is no business.
The Cold Drop and the Political Instrumentalization of False
Science
With the memory of what happened in Valencia still fresh in their minds, and with its judicial consequences still lingering, the government and opposition are meeting for another mud-slinging fight, blaming each other for the deaths. A mire of moral indecency in which a considerable number of Spanish citizens have not hesitated to wallow, emulating their leaders. In this context, from the self-perceived most progressive government in history, the climate fallacy is hammered home in all its media outlets, time and again. If climate change is anthropogenic and necessarily catastrophic, and government policies combat climate change, anyone who opposes government policies denies climate change and is therefore a climate change denier. Twisting the argument a bit further, we obtain, more concisely and effectively, "denialism kills . " The point is that the argument is fallacious, and historical data does not support those who seek to subject us to a perpetual state of alarm.
It's quite obvious that the Valencia catastrophe was due to a set of factors that have little or nothing to do with the alleged climate change. Let's start with the basics. Knowing as we do that the entire flooded area had suffered 14,500 floods since 1035, one might ask whether continuing to build in that area is a good idea. An average of four floods per century should be enough to be considered in future urban planning, and yet, greed has sought to continue optimizing profits by building in areas that, sooner or later, will end up suffering similar floods. Poor urban planning kills. It's also difficult to argue that the poor communication between the agencies responsible for warning the population of the impending flood prevented an effective evacuation of the area, with the dramatic loss of human lives. To this day, we officially do not know how many dams were relieved in those fateful hours and how this opening of dams affected the floods.
Perhaps it was a result of a climate of tension that dragged on President Mazón's after-dinner conversation with the relentless journalist he supposedly intended to appoint as director of Valencian television. Perhaps this climate prevented the Minister of the Interior, now prosecuted for her manifest incompetence, from making the decision to sound the alarm that would have saved so many lives. Perhaps this same climate clouded the government's judgment when, ignoring its powers, it decided not to declare a state of emergency of national interest, as stipulated in Article 28 of Law 17/2015 of the National Civil Protection System , abandoning tens of thousands of affected people to their fate, out of pure political calculation. Days later, President Sánchez said, "If they need more resources, let them ask for them." In the end, this was the State of the Autonomous Communities: hundreds of incompetent politicians, for whom office is an end in itself, passing the buck. Thus, the trenches in public debate have once again been drawn up, allowing everyone to occupy their natural place, and between them, the house is left unswept. False trenches that cost lives.
Rockefeller and Global Governance
It would be childish to assume that the false climate syllogism simply serves to hide one's own incompetence. It is a global issue, involving many economic benefits, and opens the door to establishing all sorts of social control measures, as we will see below. Originally, we should be suspicious of the fact that the history of this climate change industry runs parallel to and is funded by the network of foundations of the Rockefeller family, whose fortune is paradoxically due to the lucrative oil business. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, as well as the Rockefeller Foundation, and all the NGOs dependent on their philanthropic generosity, are founders or funders of all globalist initiatives to control and direct the climate narrative. To avoid boring the reader with lists and names, I recommend to anyone interested in delving deeper into this issue the exhaustive work of Swedish researcher Jacob Nordangard in his book "Rockefeller: Controlling the Game" (2019) , whom I had
the privilege of interviewing a few months ago. This book traces the history of the Rockefellers' neo-Malthusian impulses, whose ideas on depopulation and demographic control resonated with the social Darwinism and eugenics advocated by the illustrious members of the Royal Society of London at the beginning of the 20th century.
Depopulation is one of the main themes of this friendly group of magnates. They are not the only ones. In recent decades, almost all the official philanthropists of the postmodern neo-feudal regime in which we live have joined the depopulation apostolate, followed by a herd of scientists in need of funding for their work. Their usual meeting place is the Club of Rome, founded from David Rockefeller back in 1968 and closely linked to all the global think tanks, such as the Bilderberg Club, the World Economic Forum, and the Trilateral Commission, among many others. If one considers it coldly, from the position of individuals seeking a world government tailored to their interests, depopulation is a very desirable goal. But of course, this requires people to accept this fate without raising too many objections. Therefore, a brilliant strategy has been developed to dress the eugenicist puppet in ecology and public health. It's not eugenics, it's solidarity.
One World, and Open Society Totalitarianism
Diving into the transparency reports of the NGO universe set up by our philanthropists is an arduous task that I don't recommend, but there are some keys that will allow the reader to intuit where some initiatives come from. You can consider it an author's signature if you wish. Just as George Soros has a predilection for the word "Open" (Open Society, Open Government etc.) in honor of the concept of "open society" developed by philosopher Karl Popper, the Rockefeller dynasty loves to use the word "One" for its initiatives. "One World ," for example, is not only a tear-jerker by the Irish band U2; it is the parent initiative of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, launched in 1983 as "a response to the global situation (...) in which nations had become economically and
ecologically interdependent, and that resource consumption, environmental degradation, and international security needed to be addressed at the regional and global levels." In short, One World is the gradual creation of a world government. It's no coincidence that the United Nations General Assembly meetings are held in a building constructed on land purchased ad hoc by the Rockefellers.
Similarly, the Rockefeller Foundation had a significant influence on the development of international public health during the 20th century, including financial and technical support for organizations that preceded the World Health Organization, such as the League of Nations Health Agency in the 1920s and 1930s, on the basis of which the current WHO was established. The Rockefellers' influence on global health in recent history is also notable, and will undoubtedly be the subject of a separate article in the near future. However, we cannot talk about One World without mentioning the One Health initiative. According to its Spanish website , the One Health platform "promotes activities aimed at advancing the effective implementation of the One Health strategy to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems." I don't think it's necessary to explain how this relates to the topic at hand in this article. This isn't the time to talk about pandemics, but this One Health complex also offers us a good catalog of false axioms that hide a monumental network of interests connecting the military, pharmaceutical, and environmental spheres, making the boundaries between them all inscrutable.
Time for True Environmentalism
After all that has been said, it is quite evident that the powers that control the narrative have no real interest in protecting ecosystems, improving people's health, or, of course, avoiding catastrophes like the Valencian Cold War. If this were the case, other types of measures would surely be proposed, foresight would be sought, urban planning would be adapted to the alleged emergency, etc. The climate narrative
consists simply and plainly in presenting these powers as a sort of benefactors whose intentions are forbidden to be doubted, so that acting otherwise becomes a purely seditious act, forcing society to become the police that ensures the smooth running of their ambitions. Therefore, in these times when market totalitarianism, entrenched behind the supposed science it possesses, is especially virulent, countercultural movements, reactionary if you will, that fight to restore the meaning of things are more necessary than ever. It's time to look again at the countryside, at agriculture, at our fishermen, and ask them how things are done. We must forget the siren calls of those who only theorize from the cities about realities they ignore and vehemently despise urban ecologists and other apocalyptic saints. A good way to begin to prepare for the necessary paradigm shift I believe we should promote is to watch the documentary "Cattle or Desert ," directed by my esteemed colleagues at Metáfora Visual, and embrace, along with its protagonists, the principles of true ecology, one that treads the earth it speaks of, one that understands that true biodiversity begins with repopulating those places that power has abandoned. Connecting with nature means disconnecting from the induced misanthropy that has colonized our minds, infecting them with the virus of guilt and contempt for our own existence. It's time to reconnect with ourselves, it's time to flee from false science.
