Climate catastrophe? Follow the money

Because of the importance of the claim that CO2 has the potential to cause considerable damage to the planet we all share, it is little wonder that the media, knowing that peddling disaster sells newspapers, constantly invoke doomsday scenarios. But what happens when the mainstream media have become so corrupt that they want no debate at all about whether such claims are actually true? What do you think of major media sources that flatly refuse what we actually need – to explore with serious investigative journalism this vitally important, but contentious issue? Sadly, because of the intellectual laziness of so many of our MPs, our political parties have bought into this climate canard lock, stock and barrel.

At all levels of our society now we are being taxed; new policies laid down; fossil fuels attacked as a major source of pollution; farmers’ livelihoods threatened; and first-class New Zealand farmland now being removed from food production. Sold to foreign buyers taking advantage of the carbon credits nonsense, they are being planted in more and more pine forests, not to be processed for up to 30 years. Their eventual removal will leave what was once prime land useless for crops and pasture. Given such important issues, wouldn’t you think that any media purporting to present to the public the important issues of the day would have enough integrity (given that so many top scientists with worldwide reputations have repudiated the global warming climate, disaster scenario, as a total scam) to ensure that both sides of this important debate are aired?

New Zealand’s own Dr Gerrit van der Lingen, for example, views with incredulity our scientifically illiterate politicians (not just the deluded and fanatical Greens and their coalition partners – but even the leader and deputy leader of the National party) endorsing the ridiculous claim that Cyclone Gabrielle, recently causing widespread devastation to the North Island, occurred as a result of CO2 emissions. Moreover, as he states, ‘The belief that human-related emissions of CO2 are causing dangerous global warming is the biggest scientific scam in human history.’ However, our mainstream media totally refuse to publish material from any of the thousands of well-qualified scientists rejecting the climate change dogma. The third-rate Stuff, the country’s largest news website, owning nine daily newspapers, determinedly refuses to allow any of these highly respected scientists to challenge the propaganda it publishes, pejoratively calling them ‘deniers’.

No wonder so many of our politicians are so under-informed and plain ignorant. But as Dr van der Lingen points out, this is by no means the case elsewhere. For example, in his own country of origin, the Netherlands, there are two political parties that openly challenge the climate change hysteria, ignored by the government spending billions of euros to solve a non-existent problem.

Those questioning why the complete fabrication that 97 per cent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change is being bruited might profitably begin thinking about that age-old question, Cui bono? Who stands to profit from the scaremongering – even culpably promoting it to brainwashed children in schools, contributing to their feelings of anxiety, and mental health issues?

‘Follow the Finances for Climate Boosterism’ is a well-researched article in the Australian News Weekly, an excellent publication, that, together with The Spectator Australia, covers important issues which our now trashy media simply ignore. Both well deserve our support. The ANW’s author, David James, points out, ‘It is customary to assume that the principal actors in the climate change drama and the push for zero carbon are Green and left-wing politicians. They may be the public face, but are no longer the main force, as it is in fact being driven by much more powerful players in the financial markets and large corporations controlling the really big money, hundreds of trillions of dollars, seeing it as one of the best money-making opportunities they will ever have.’

For example, the Bank of America has estimated that ‘fighting climate change’ would require $US150 trillion ($A234 trillion) over a 30-year period, with Goldman Sachs putting the figure at a more modest $US72 trillion. As David James points out, ‘Now that the financial markets and corporations have got the scent of such large sums they will find them hard to resist.’ Institutional investors such as BlackRock and Vanguard dominate the share registers of the world’s biggest corporations, and fund and corporate managers have teamed up with senior management in government bureaucracies. The executive branch of governments, using methods such as outsourcing and public-private partnerships, have merged with, or been captured by corporations.

For example, James gives us the health sector where the United States Food and Drug Administration gets almost half its revenue from the companies it is charged with regulating – as with the defence sector, where almost all the money for the production of weaponry goes to corporations. ‘In the US finance sector, the world’s biggest, there is a lucrative revolving door between government and the private sector.’

In short, groups of managers are pushing the climate change agenda with Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, the world’s biggest fund manager, writing that climate change would be a defining factor in its investment assessments. The mechanism they use is called ESG, Environmental, Social and Governance, the seemingly harmless lever being used to push net-zero carbon. Companies which fail to meet his criteria regarding climate change could lead BlackRock to sell its holdings in that company.

In Australia, local stockbrokers whose clients are mainly institutional investors routinely produce reports rating corporations on their climate credentials. Even organisations such as the United Nations and the World Bank are reportedly extremely important with regard to helping to turning climate change alarmism into an allegedly global issue.

James’s highly informative article notes that what is certain is that the climate change issue is no longer about the earth’s climate, if it ever was – or the science of understanding it – but about brutal matters of money and power.

Buying into this catastrophic scenario hugely disadvantages both Australia and New Zealand. It’s time to ask whether our media’s refusal to allow important questions to be raised indicates that they have their fingers in the till of this well-financed movement. One way or another, it is certainly a case of media corruption.