Climate alarmism is key to the Globalists’ plan to install the agentic state

 Climate change catastrophe is a manufactured crisis used by powerful families, especially the Rockefellers, to push a global surveillance and digital‑control agenda, Jacob Nordangård says

“Elites” are funding and controlling environmental groups, think‑tanks and media which shape environmental narratives and drive policies to bring about an agentic state or “digital world brain,” where everyone in the world is ruled over using AI agents.

The lies about global warming go back a long way, largely to one family: the Rockefellers. Nordangård takes the view that the Rockefellers, as far as they’re concerned, aren’t doing it for evil reasons but instead view themselves as responsible for making the world a better place, to create a utopia as designed by them, “almost like they have this religious quest,” and they “think it’s okay to actually lie to achieve this.” ...<<<Read More>>>...

Throne Climate: Are the stories true?

 Recent online narratives describe “Throne Climate” as a purported secret network of 22 atmospheric modification stations allegedly operated for nearly 47 years (since 1979) to control hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes.

Theories suggest funding via carbon credits, non-governmental organisations (“NGOs”) and a Geneva-based family office, often linked to the Rothschilds.

Social media posts claim the final station was seized by a joint operation of six nations, effectively ending the programme.

But are the stories true? Not likely....<<<Read More>>>...

Who’s funding the campaign to push the ruinous net-zero agenda in the UK?

 A network of foundations, research groups and policy shops, often funded through foreign channels, is behind the push for net zero in the UK.

The Spectator calls this network the “Dark Green lobby.”

“[The Dark Green lobby] has been astonishingly successful in shaping policy, controlling debate and overruling elected governments in the courts. It has prevented the exploration of oil and gas in the North Sea, kept energy prices high and made us ever more dependent on Chinese technology,” the outlet said.

The Dark Green actor with the most influence is the Netherlands-based European Climate Foundation (“ECF”), which supports “700+ partner organisations” to “broaden political and public support for net zero.”

“The ECF hopes to ‘embed climate action in robust, future-proof frameworks that withstand political change’. In other words, sod the voters,” The Spectator said.

To this end, it spent €171 million (£146 million) last year to support climate action across Europe and beyond and has donated significant amounts of money to various British thinktanks, including...<<<Read More>>>...

Climate change is big money: UN demands $1.3 trillion per year to fight “climate chaos”

If you were ever in doubt that the catastrophic climate change narrative was about money, masses of it, wonder no more.

António Guterres, the UN’s Secretary-General, has called for governments and financial institutions to massively increase their spending on climate change effects.

The obvious question is: Where do governments get the money to spend on climate change projects? From those in the developed world who are productive and pay their taxes. This fact seems to have escaped Guterres. Instead, he feels he can issue a diktat, governments will ignore the will of taxpayers whom they serve and simply hand over the money.

Where does Guterres want taxpayers’ money to be distributed to? Amounts that are left over after the UN has taken its slice (for expenses incurred, of course), should be distributed to undeveloped countries, such as in Africa, Gueterres said. Africa, where most governments and officials are so corrupt that little to no money will be used to the benefit of ordinary Africans.

Climate change is a money-making scam.....<<<Read More>>>...

£900,000 – The Price of An A-rated Energy Performance Certificate

 A well-heeled homeowner, who no longer has to work, has spent £900,000 converting his home so that it could achieve an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) with an ‘A’ rating. This effectively means it generates more energy than it uses. The Telegraph has the story.

On the day Simon Buck exchanged on his home in New Malden, south-west London, he stood across the road with a notepad and started to draw.

“I literally sketched the design of a new house that was in my head,” he says. “Then I spent the next two years going about researching and working out how I was going to do it.”

He had a clear goal: to upgrade the property into the ultimate eco-home that could generate more energy than it consumed.

This would be no easy feat. The house – which was built in the early 1950s – had an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of ‘E’, placing it within the bottom 14% of English homes for energy efficiency.

EPCs aim to measure the energy efficiency of a property and are calculated based on the amount of energy used per square metre. Not only are more energy-efficient properties cheaper to run, they can also command higher house prices and may be eligible for ‘green mortgages’, which can come with preferential rates.

For Buck, it took almost two years from buying the home for a “bargain” £1 million in July 2023 before work on the project could begin.

“We ended up blowing the budget massively in pursuit of the best possible score,” says Buck, who spent £900,000 on the renovation. “There’s £100,000 worth of tech sitting in the plant room. I went over the top with everything.

“I could’ve built the house for a third of the price but it wouldn’t be the house that we have.”

Included in the exorbitant price were the solar panels, which – alongside a 20-kilowatt battery to store some of the electricity they produce – cost around £15,000.

Buck also installed a £30,000 state-of-the-art heat pump.

His home remains at a steady temperature throughout the year, with the thermostat hovering at a pleasant 23 degrees Celsius. The 46 year-old says he is able to walk around the house in the winter wearing only shorts and a T-shirt.

Obviously, that was well worth the £900,000 price tag. Buck is 46. Assuming he lives at least another 40 years that works out at £22,500 per annum to be able to wear shorts indoors in the winter. That’s roughly 10 times or more than the average household energy costs in the UK according to British Gas.

Unfortunately for the Government and its plans, Buck’s project only serves to demonstrate that the Net Zero dream is just that, way beyond the means of both most of the population and the public purse, especially given the age of most of Britain’s housing stock. As for Buck, he plans to sell up and start on a new-build project to create an even more efficient home. Whatever lights his fire, so to speak....<<<Read More>>>....

Sudden calls to return to hydrocarbon-generated energy expose the climate crisis hoax

 In a monologue about artificial intelligence, which he describes as a metastasising cancer on societies, Neil Oliver highlights how Net Zero rhetoric has gone a bit quiet now that technocratic elites need dependable energy for massive data centres, which are the building blocks of a digital cage.

Tony Blair’s calls to return to oil and gas, after years of global elites promoting wind and solar energy, expose the climate crisis hoax for all to see, he said.

We need to talk about cancer, by which I mean the metastasising cancer that is artificial intelligence, AI. Cancer is the multiplication of cells that have gone wrong, failed and should have died. Instead, the process gets out of control, dangerous, unwanted, rogue cells multiplying faster and faster.

I say the hard tumours of the cancer of AI are the data centres, popping up everywhere, almost always where they are least wanted. Like malignant tumours, data centres demand and monopolise more and more of the world’s precious resources. As the tumours grow and the cancer spreads, that malign hunger leaves less and less for that body, so to speak, that the body finally dies. Malignant cancerous tumours take more and more without giving.

Blackrock CEO Larry Fink says everyone must invest in AI, whether they want to or not. Eventually, all the water, all the energy, all the nutrients, if you like, will be co-opted and diverted to more and more data centres.

According to figures published by the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland, the country where I live, projected energy requirements for data centres already planned or proposed for Scotland are between 4,450 and 4,950 megawatts. That’s more than peak demand for the whole country of Scotland in the depths of a typical winter. That is a doubling of demand for electricity before so much as a single kettle has been boiled....<<<Read More>>>....

The Climate Cult

 Many people with inadequate scientific knowledge are convinced that Planet Earth is in mortal danger from global warming due to humans. If Planet Earth were really in great danger from humans, any means to protect it would be justified. Some extremists propose reducing Earth’s eight billion population of people to no more than one billion. How this is to be done has always been a bit vague. Genghis Khan made a good start by slaughtering some 40 million people in the 13th century. In our day, Prince Philip, father of King Charles III of the United Kingdom, opined that: “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

The climate alarmism of our time is a malignant alliance of ignorant fanaticism, like that mentioned above, and opportunism: the lust for power, fame and wealth. Like all fanatical movements, climate alarmism is doing great collateral damage, most notably to the reputation of my own profession of science. Generous research grants from governments and private foundations have created a new discipline of ‘climate science’. Traditional, rigorous disciplines like atmospheric physics, atmospheric chemistry, meteorology or palaeontology were quick to cash in by renaming themselves with some variant of ‘Centre for Saving the Planet’. They were generously rewarded with research grants, new laboratories, professorships, elections to learned societies, prizes and other tokens of gratitude....<<<Read More>>>...

Massive Curriculum Changes Required for UK School Geography After Met Office Climate Projections Ruled “Implausible”

 The world of geography teaching in the UK is in crisis following guidance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that a collection of assumptions used in climate computer modelling known as RCP8.5 is “implausible”. The ruling has effectively trashed the Met Office’s 2018 climate projections report (UKCP18) which only used this scenario to produce a variety of always ridiculous forecasts. To widespread mainstream media acclaim at the time, it was said that summer temperatures could rise by over 5°C in 50 years. Since 2018, UKCP18 has been embedded in UK school geography teaching as a core forecasting source. Its predictions are assessed, used for impact studies and underpin public examinations. The “implausible” ruling means that geography teaching materials particularly at A-level now require a major rewrite of core textbooks involving the removal of all the junk predictions.

Preferably by the start of the Autumn term in September.

It’s not as if teachers can argue that only the ‘high emissions’ pathway of RCP8.5 can be ignored. At the time, the Met Office only ran RCP8.5 assumptions through its super-computer, the results of which it then described as “plausible” as it promoted them in bold type. Using only RCP8.5 was justified on cost grounds since it enabled the available computer time to produce results – guesses might be a more accurate description – down to 2 kms. School resources do note that lower emissions results are available, but these were statistically derived by the Met Office from the RCP8.5 results. This means that all the Met Office projections are compromised and a thorough cleansing needs to be undertaken of all the flawed information wherever it occurs in the teaching environment....<<<Read More>>>....

The Justification for Net Zero Has Vanished with the Demise of RCP8.5

 Any justification for Ed Miliband’s Net Zero climate policy, whether real or imaginary, has vanished with the official abandonment by the IPCC of the scariest concentration scenario RCP8.5. Even Tony Blair can now perceive that the pursuit of Net Zero is unwarranted and harmful to Britain.

It’s now 20 years since the publication of the ‘Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change‘ in 2006: a review commissioned by Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a Labour government led by Prime Minister Tony Blair. This review began the UK-drive towards the crazy carbon-phobic policies which are helping to impoverish the nation, aided by unrealistic scenarios. There is some irony that Blair is now calling for the abandonment of Net Zero: when the Review was published he warned about the disaster that would come from inaction. It was his government that helped to pave the way for the excessive climate policies we have today, and scaring people was a tool of risk management, as Lord Giddens noted in the Lords March 1st 2005.

The Stern Review claimed that the risk from global warming was such that there was imminent danger to international standards of living. But in reality, the review made totally unrealistic claims in its assessment of warming and economic impacts. It brazenly asserted that there was more than a 50% risk of global temperatures rising by 5°C by the end of the century. Given that scenario, the cost of inaction would be 5% of global GDP per annum. The review called for nations to spend between 1% and 2% of GDP as a matter of urgency to reduce carbon dioxide emission by 80%. It was effectively a call for economic self-flagellation. The scary scenario outlined by Stern’s review was based on the ‘Special Report on Emissions Scenarios’ (SRES) strong A2 pathway, which morphed into the RCP8.5 which is familiar to us. The Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) were first proposed in 2007 and adopted by the IPCC’s ‘Fifth Assessment Report’ (AR5) of 2014. While RCP8.5 was an extreme and unlikely scenario, like its forerunner SRES A2 it was widely treated as the ‘business as usual’ case by climate alarmists....<<<Read More>>>...

Trump says “good riddance” to the implausible IPCC future climate change scenario

 “Good riddance,” Trump declared in response to the admission that the scenario used by the UN’s IPCC to model future climate change was “implausible.”

The Heartland Institute reacts to President Donald Trump’s remark.

Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (“RCP 8.5”) is a high-emissions climate scenario used by the United Nations’ (“UN’s”) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) to model future climate change. It was formally adopted in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014.

RCP 8.5 has been used by corporate media for years to push unfounded claims of catastrophic global warming due to “emissions” from human activity. However, a recent study has concluded that RCP 8.5’s scenario is “implausible.” The study is notable because it is being used to establish the new scenario framework for the upcoming IPCC Seventh Assessment Report due in 2029.

That RCP 8.5 was b*ll*cks has been known for a long time. But, despite this being pointed out by many – including by believers in anthropogenic climate change alarmism – the misinformation and disinformation propagated by corporate media and others continued.

On hearing the “implausible” admission, US President Donald Trump said, “Good riddance!” A comment which corporate media and “fact checkers” have been busy debunking and demonising him for. In the following, The Heartland Institute gives its reaction to President Trump’s remark....<<<Read More>>>....

IPCC Admits Apocalyptic Climate Scenarios Are “Implausible” – Meaning Most Media Scare Stories Over Last 15 Years Are Officially Junk

 Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed politicians are in shock following an official admission from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key assumptions promoting a climate ‘crisis’ since 2011 are “implausible”. The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5 ‘pathway’ assumptions which fed into computer models trying to measure an unmeasurable climate are no more. Since around 2011, these ‘business as usual’ assumptions have produced outlandish claims of future climate catastrophe which have been lapped up by lap dog journalists and politicians. The influential writer Roger Pielke Jr. called RCP8.5’s demise, “the most significant development in climate research in decades”.

Others might observe that we have not heard the last of RCP8.5. Its gross misuse is likely to be given a starring, central role when the history of the Great Climate and Net Zero Scam comes to be written.

Pielke lays it out clearly what has happened:

What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.

He goes on to note that tens of thousands of research papers have been and continue to be published using these scenarios. In addition, a similar number of media headlines have “amplified their findings”, while governments and international organisations have built these implausible scenarios into policy and regulation....<<<Read More>>>....

Climate change and biotechnology agendas merge, as promoted by Associated Press

 On 10 April, the Associated Press made the ridiculously false claim that “climate change” is outpacing evolution, putting 1 million species at risk of extinction.

The claim was made to promote their “solution”: Genetic engineering of the natural world.

Conservation genomics, AP said, will help species adapt faster than evolution normally allows. And of course, so AP claimed, reducing emissions and protecting habitats is also necessary.

Anthony Watts explains why AP is talking a load of baloney.

The Associated Press (“AP”) claims in ‘Climate change is outpacing evolution. Scientists are using DNA to catch up’ that climate change is moving so fast that species cannot adapt quickly enough, forcing scientists to intervene genetically. This is ridiculous and false. The dramatic comparison between evolutionary timescales and modern warming is rhetorically powerful but scientifically shallow, and it ignores how evolution, ecological adaptation and climate variability actually work.

The article opens with the declarative line, “Evolution works over millennia. Climate change is moving far faster.” That framing sets up the entire scare narrative. It suggests an unprecedented mismatch between biology and climate that will inevitably result in ecosystem collapse.

But the time comparison AP made is completely irrelevant.....<<<Read More>>>...

Miliband Expected to Block North Sea Oil Drilling

 Ed Miliband is expected to block fresh oil drilling in the North Sea despite growing pressure to resume production to combat the energy crisis sparked by the Iran war. The Telegraph has the story.

The Energy Secretary is understood to be resisting the development of Rosebank, the UK’s largest untapped oil field, estimated to contain up to 300 million barrels of oil.

He is against new drilling licences despite concerns over impending fuel shortages, surging oil prices and diminishing stocks.

Despite growing pressure from opponents and his own Cabinet, including Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, Miliband has also delayed a decision on a licence to drill at the Jackdaw gas field, which it is estimated could produce the equivalent of 6% of the UK’s future gas supply.

The move delays the decision until after the May local elections, which could trigger a Labour leadership battle where he has been mooted as a potential contender. On Friday, Miliband’s aides dismissed as “unfounded” suggestions that he was minded to approve Jackdaw.

Any block on North Sea drilling puts him at odds with not only Kemi Badenoch, who this week launched a “Get Britain Drilling” campaign, and Nigel Farage’s Reform, but also the SNP, whose leader, John Swinney, on Thursday reversed the nationalist party’s opposition to further oil and gas exploration in the North Sea....<<<Read More>>>...

Food for Thought #1022

 

Europe is Finally Waking Up to the Fact That China Has No Intention of Letting Climate Action Harm its Industries

 “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe,” said German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on his return from China. No, wait, that was the ‘replicant’ android Roy Batty played by Rutger Hauer in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner. 

In no less a tragic scene, however, Merz might just as well have been recounting his experience of galactic travel. He hadn’t seen attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion, but he had seen a synchronised robot combat-dance and the eastern industrial rival’s advanced manufacturing capabilities. “We are no longer productive enough,” he told other European policymakers ahead of his trip. “If you come from China, ladies and gentlemen, then you have an even clearer feeling that with work-life balance and a four-day week, prosperity in our country cannot be maintained in the long-run.” 

In another universe, and not one governed by implausible sci-fi premisses, it could now be Germany hosting impressive displays of robotic prowess.

The Energiewende – high-tech industries powered by Gaia’s Providence – was the less plausible science fiction plotline Germany chose for itself. It turns out that you can’t have nice things if making nice things becomes too expensive a process, and other makers of nice things have lower costs, such as labour and energy. 

And it turns out that if you don’t make nice things, then you can’t do nice things, such as maintain “work-life balance” and fund public services. For too long, and across Europe, the concepts of values and principles have been estranged from all that has made them possible. Armies of numpty wonks in London, Brussels, Paris, Berlin, Rome and beyond, never stopped to wonder, ‘What is the relationship between those cooling towers and our social-democratic, progressive, liberal outlook?’ Instead, they claimed that the next stage in human development required blowing them up....<<<Read More>>>...

When Climate Data Don’t Match the Climate Story

 For decades we’ve been told a simple story: more carbon dioxide means higher global temperatures. That simplicity proved politically convincing and underpins the most expensive set of policies in modern history, covering Net Zero targets, taxes and vast subsidies to decarbonise industry, energy and transport within a generation. The world is effectively betting trillions that the temperature dial can be turned down by squeezing CO2 emissions.

But what if that core assumption is far less robust than advertised?

My answer came in an analysis published last month in Science of Climate Change that used my background as a finance academic the way a financial analyst would interrogate a market hypothesis. In finance, no matter how elegant a theory looks, you still test it against hard data. If the numbers don’t confirm the model, the model gives way, not the other way around..

The starting point is uncontroversial: since the 19th Century both CO2 and global temperatures have risen. The correlation is visually potent. But anyone who has worked with time series knows how deceptive such correlations can be. Ice-cream sales and shark attacks rise together in summer; that doesn’t make one the cause of the other. Two trending variables will often appear tightly linked even when the relationship is entirely coincidental.

Econometricians therefore strip out time trends and examine how annual changes relate to each other. Does each year’s increase in CO2 reliably produce a corresponding nudge in temperature? When we look at the data since reliable measurements began around 1960, the answer is awkward. CO2 has risen sharply, yet the rate of temperature change has not moved in lockstep. In fact, the annual changes diverge. If CO2 were the master control knob, you would expect accelerations in CO2 to march closely with accelerations in temperature. They don’t.

I stress-tested this across multiple temperature and CO2 datasets. The result was the same: the neat, linear linkage between CO2 levels and temperature weakens once you look beneath the headline trend. The famous correlation appears, at least in part, to be a statistical mirage...<<<Read More>>>...

The decades-long “climate change” plan to strip away personal freedom, wealth and property

The Rockefeller family and the Trilateral Commission have been orchestrating a sinister plan under the guise of “climate change.” This scheme raises serious threats to individual freedom, personal wealth and property rights. What’s really at stake in this agenda and how might it impact our way of life? Jesse Smith dives into the implications and uncovers the truth behind the headlines.

Smith describes how the Rockefeller family and the Trilateral Commission have been instrumental in advancing a new international economic order and global governance, aiming to establish a technocratic dictatorship.

They co-opted the environmental movement, using fear and misinformation to shift the blame for ecological damage from corporations to individuals, and promoting the concept of Sustainable Development as a means to control resources and populations.

The Rockefeller family has created and funded various organisations, including The World Bank, the United Nations and the Club of Rome, to promote the theory of anthropogenic global warming and push for a sustainable future.

The United Nations’ Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 are key plans to implement a technocratic system, to inventory and control all aspects of human life and nature, ultimately leading to the annihilation of individual rights and national sovereignty.

The ultimate goal of the “green economy” is not environmental protection, but a wealth redistribution scheme that benefits multinational corporations and private banks, while stripping away individual freedom, wealth and property....<<<Read More>>>...

Trump EPA moves to scrap greenhouse gas regulations, declares end to “climate hysteria”

 The Trump administration plans to revoke the EPA's 2009 "endangerment finding," which classified greenhouse gases (CO?, methane, etc.) as pollutants under the Clean Air Act—a move that enabled strict climate regulations for over a decade.

The administration argues that climate regulations are economically burdensome, stifling industries while having minimal impact on global temperatures. Officials claim this deregulation will reduce energy costs and promote domestic energy production, including coal.

The administration dismisses CO2 as an existential threat, calling climate change a natural cycle influenced by solar, oceanic and geological factors—not human activity. Trump has mocked climate activists, particularly during extreme cold weather events.

The move is framed as a rejection of globalist climate policies pushed by the UN and World Economic Forum, which the administration sees as tools for centralized control over energy, food and transportation systems. Supporters argue CO2 is essential for plant growth and warn against "net zero" mandates as a path to economic destabilization and surveillance.

The EPA's proposal eliminates automaker emissions tracking and paves the way for further deregulation. Critics warn of ecological harm, but supporters hail it as a victory against bureaucratic overreach and a return to energy independence.

In a sweeping reversal of Obama-era climate policies, the Trump administration announced plans to strip greenhouse gases from the list of federally regulated pollutants, dismantling the legal foundation for nearly two decades of environmental regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), led by Administrator Lee Zeldin, will formally revoke the 2009 "endangerment finding"—a landmark ruling that classified carbon dioxide and other emissions as threats to public health.

The move, hailed by the administration as "the largest act of deregulation in U.S. history," aligns with President Donald Trump's long-standing skepticism of climate alarmism and his push for energy independence. Critics warn of ecological consequences, but supporters argue the policy shift liberates industries from burdensome red tape and rejects what they call "dubious science" fueling globalists climate agenda...<<<Read More>>>...

The Man Who Invented Climate Change – Maurice Strong

 According to such Great Reset luminaries as Bill Gates, Prince Charles, Michael Bloomberg, Mark Carney and Klaus Schwab, humanity is expected to solve the dual threat of Covid and global warming in one revolutionary sweeping reform.

We plebeians have been told that all we have to do to restart the economy is rewire everything about our behaviour, value, finance, and ethics to decarbonise civilization under a new world regime of central bankers and new green digital currencies as outlined by the Green Horizon Summit held on 9-10 November 2020.

 The Summit was hosted by the City of London Corporation, in collaboration with the Green Finance Institute, and supported by the World Economic Forum (“WEF”): “It’s time to reset the relationship between finance and the real economy. It’s time for public and private finance to get behind the transition to a sustainable and resilient future for all.” ...<<<Read More>>>...

Major Climate Grooming Course Shuts Down as World Turns Away from Constant Media Gaslighting

 In a further sign of declining interest in the Net Zero fantasy, a major climate grooming course has shut up shop. The terminated six-month indoctrination was run by the Oxford Climate Journalism Network (OCJN) and was funded by a number of tax-efficient billionaire foundations. Over the last four years it has hosted around 800 journalists from over 100 countries. Described as a “flagship online course”, it will be “halted” from January 2026.

As regular readers will recall, the OCJN is one of a number of grooming operations that ensures a regular media drum beat of Greta-inspired climate BS. It is particularly keen on promoting the idea that extreme individual weather events can be tied to humans fiddling with the climate. Attribution Queen Dr Freiderike Otto sits on the OCJN Advisory Board and is a frequent speaker on this exciting new alchemical branch of pseudoscience. Another past speaker Climate and Society Professor Saffron O’Neill from Exeter University has speculated on the need for “fines and imprisonment” for expressing scepticism about “well-supported” climate science.

The market for mainstream climate journalism is falling off a cliff. An OCJN suggested essay around the theme of less tasty mangoes due to climate change can be easily farmed out to AI. In fact, all journalism written to a set political narrative can be entrusted to an AI programme. Given a recent essay published by the OCJN entitled ‘Newsrooms should develop a mental health strategy to help climate journalists’, there are likely to be a number of delicate flowers looking for future employment. They might wish to avoid other journalist areas of interest such as conflict and riot. Even local court reporting might tax their nervous dispositions.

The world has tired of clickbait, centrally organised climate claptrap, whether it be computer-generated tipping point tittle-tattle or sandwich board warnings of imminent Sodom and Gomorrah destruction. Forty years of the Gulf Stream still streaming, the coral reefs not disappearing and extreme weather not getting more extreme have all combined to generate cynicism about the real political/Malthusian reasons for the orchestrated gaslighting....<<<Read More>>>...