Climate activism - Is it really what we’ve been told?

I’m not writing about ‘viruses’ this time, although the underlying theme is pretty much the same, which is that we are presented with 2 alternative narratives to choose between, yet neither side portrays the ‘truth’. (I use the inverted commas advisedly).

According to a 29th March BBC article entitled Has the UK's most loathed protest group really stopped throwing soup?

“The climate action group Just Stop Oil has announced it is to disband at the end of April. Its activists have been derided as attention-seeking zealots and vandals and it is loathed by many for its disruptive direct action tactics. It says it has won because its demand that there should be no new oil and gas licences is now government policy. So, did they really win and does this mark an end to the chaos caused by its climate protests?”

Although seeming to be objective reporting, it’s interesting to note that the article includes reference to this group as ‘attention-seeking zealots and vandals’ and that they are ‘loathed’ for their ‘disruptive direct action tactics’.

I would point out that I’m not at all supportive of Just Stop Oil (JSO) for reasons I’ll explain in this article, however, it’s worth noting how their activities are being reported by the MSM.

And just to be clear, I am not at all in support of the MSM view either! From my research, I’ve realised that they are not on ‘opposing sides’. We are being gaslit to believe that this is the case on the basis of the idea that we need to ‘take sides’, which is all part of the divide and conquer strategy, a topic I’ve written about before - the link to my article on that topic is at the foot of this one.

The purpose of JSO, it would seem, is to highlight the idea that oil and gas are ‘bad’ and so protesting against it must be ‘good’ - unless you’re on the receiving end of their tactics, of course. An example of such tactics was on display recently and involved the disruption of a performance of The Tempest featuring Sigourney Weaver in January, as the BBC article describes,

“As Weaver's Prospero declaimed "Come forth, I say," Hayley sprang from her seat and rushed the stage with Richard Weir, a 60-year-old mechanical engineer from Tyneside. They launched a confetti cannon and unfurled a banner that read "Over 1.5 Degrees is a Global Shipwreck" - a reference to the news that 2024 was the first year to pass the symbolic 1.5C threshold in global average temperature rise, and a nod to the shipwreck theme in the play.”

Within that statement, is a link to a 10th January 2025 BBC article entitled 2024 first year to pass 1.5C global warming limit that warns,

“The planet has moved a major step closer to warming more than 1.5C, new data shows, despite world leaders vowing a decade ago they would try to avoid this.”

The problem is that there is no evidence that, even if the ‘global climate’ has warmed, which is a highly dubious claim, this would be ‘bad’ for us. Additionally, the idea that humans can change the climate to reduce the temperature is similarly lacking in any supportive evidence.

In common with all the narratives to which we are exposed, we need to be discerning with this one too.

One key question is: What do we know? Another important one is: What can we know about the ‘climate’ of the world?

The first point to make is that the climate DOES change - that is undisputed.

What is debatable is whether a changing climate is a ‘bad’ thing or not.

Although the narrative promotes the idea that climate change is ‘bad’, we nevertheless need to ascertain why this is the case and ask: Is it actually true?

The January BBC article cited above states that,

“The Met Office, Nasa and other climate groups are due to release their own data later on Friday. All are expected to agree that 2024 was the warmest on record, although precise figures vary slightly.”

It must be emphasised that just because they all agree and have allegedly reached a consensus, that does not mean that they are all ‘right’. Science - real science that is - does not proceed by consensus; progress, including scientific progress, is acknowledged to occur through innovation.

The article proceeds to highlight what is believed to be the reason for the increased warmth,

“Last year's heat is predominantly due to humanity's emissions of planet-warming gases, such as carbon dioxide, which are still at record highs.”

And this is where the demonisation of oil and gas enters the picture.

And this is also where the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy is meant to take hold.

First of all, I’m not saying that oil and gas are ‘good’. What I am saying (or, to be precise, writing) is that we need to step back and look at the bigger picture and ask the deeply penetrating questions of what this is actually all about.

The starting point is the idea that carbon dioxide is causing the climate to warm. This has been shown by many scientists to be incorrect. As I state in my previous article on the topic - link at the foot of this article,

If no one understands the climate, how can they state with any degree of certainty that carbon dioxide is responsible for the increased warmth?

The point is further emphasised in my co-authored book, What Really Makes You Ill?

It’s important to emphasise the point that carbon dioxide is essential for photosynthesis, which is a vital aspect of plant growth. This, in turn, means that carbon dioxide is vital for all life, because many living organisms, including us, depend on plants for their food, either directly or indirectly.

In other words, high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide is beneficial for plant growth and is therefore responsible for increasing the food supply.

So the question needs to be asked: Is there an agenda to decrease the volume of food production by attempting to reduce the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide perhaps?

My response to this is: That would seem to be the case.

However, this leads to an obvious followup question, which is: Is a reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide actually achievable through the efforts of man?

I’d suggest not. The reason being that I don’t believe that ‘man’ (as in the whole of mankind, not just the male of the human species) is capable of overpowering nature, despite the increasing number and intensity of efforts to do so.

Furthermore, records show that increased temperatures precede increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which means that carbon dioxide cannot possibly be the cause of those temperature increases.

On the Climate Depot website is an August 2024 article entitled MIT & Princeton Scientists: ‘More carbon dioxide cannot cause catastrophic global warming or more extreme weather’ – Net Zero Policies Will Have Disastrous Effects on People Worldwide, co-authored by Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University.

Below is an extract from the beginning of this article.

There are also serious questions over the collection of data about the ‘climate’, especially with respect to the placement of weather stations used to collect temperature data for the purposes of calculating the ‘global temperature’. A significant number of these stations are located in urban areas, where it is widely acknowledged to be warmer than in the surrounding countryside, as the following shows.

Back to JSO.

In a further attempt to portray them as problematic, the March BBC article states,

“JSO is a UK-based environmental activist group that aims to end fossil fuel extraction and uses direct action to draw attention to its cause. It has been called a "criminal cult" and its activists branded "eco-loons" by the Sun. The Daily Mail has described it as "deranged" and says its members have "unleashed misery on thousands of ordinary people though their selfish antics".

This is clearly intended to portray a particular image of these ‘protestors’, one that makes us feel ambivalent because on the one hand they are making us aware of problems and at the same time they are being ‘anti-social’ with the tactics they employ.

Yet interestingly, JSO was not a newly created group, as the article shows,

“Just Stop Oil was born out of Extinction Rebellion (XR). XR – founded in 2018 - brought thousands of people onto the streets in what were dubbed "festivals of resistance".

Although claimed to be a ‘grass roots’ activist organisation, XR would seem to be nothing of the kind. According to Wikispooks, these are their donors,

If you’d like to take an even closer look at XR, here’s a very interesting article,

EXTINCTION REBELLION: you're not a grass roots movement if like all other psyops you're funded by Rockefeller Soros et al.

It seems clear that, although these groups may appear to be challenging the agenda, they are financially supported by the establishment that is promoting the agenda.

We need to remain discerning and focus on the issues, not the people and/or groups involved.

It’s important therefore to highlight one of the aims of JSO, which is to ‘end fossil fuel’.

So let’s look deeper into this concept.

There is ample evidence that supports the idea that ‘oil’ is not actually a ‘fossil fuel’. Instead, it has been shown to be ‘abiotic’, which means it does not originate from any form of biological matter; in other words, it is not compressed dinosaur bones (which is a whole other story). The reason oil is promoted as being a ‘fossil fuel’ is to foster the idea that it is a finite resource, which gives rise to the claims that it needs to be ‘managed’ - and this inevitably leads to those who own and therefore control this resource to be able to increase the price and continually put financial pressure on ‘the people’.

For those who are new to this idea, I’d recommend reading William Engdahl’s September 2007 article entitled Confessions of an ‘ex’ Peak Oil Believer, in which he explains that, in the late 1940s, Russian scientists had begun to conduct investigations into the nature of oil and ‘natural gas’ and concluded in 1956 that,

“Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth.”

Here’s another extract from What Really Makes You Ill?

So where does this all leave us?

The main purpose of these narratives is to make us fearful, so the solution is to find ways to not be afraid - especially of things that are not ‘true’

I’d suggest it also leaves us in a place of empowerment, because we can stop allowing ourselves to be made afraid of CO2 as the cause of ‘climate change’, and even of ‘climate change’ itself.

Dawn 🌹