Article by Charles Rotter.
Excerpts (more links in the original):
In yet another chilling example of Orwellian overreach, the G20 Summit in Brazil has unveiled a new international effort to stifle dissent under the banner of “fighting disinformation.” This latest scheme, dubbed the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, is spearheaded by the United Nations and UNESCO. With a financial war chest provided by nations like the United Kingdom, France, and Sweden, this initiative isn’t about “truth” or “science”—it’s about control.
According to their public statements, the Initiative seeks to fund nonprofits for “research” and “public awareness campaigns.” They’re also creating what they call an “international research network” to identify and suppress so-called disinformation. In other words, they’re building an apparatus to label opposing viewpoints as dangerous lies and to justify censoring them into oblivion.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres, with his characteristic paternalism, declared disinformation a threat to climate action and even democracy itself. The not-so-subtle subtext? If you dare question their dogma, you’re the problem.
“We must also take on climate disinformation,” Guterres said. “Our climate is at a breaking point.”
This isn’t the first time climate skeptics have been targeted. As far back as 2010, Google began manipulating search results to demote skeptical voices. A French study highlighted how skeptics dominated online search rankings at the time, leading to a concerted effort to bury their views beneath mountains of alarmist propaganda. Blogs like Pensée Unique and works by Claude Allègre drew enough attention to provoke the ire of the establishment.
The global elites are terrified of one thing: losing control. Despite decades of propaganda, public skepticism about catastrophic climate change has grown. Every failed prediction—from the “ice-free Arctic” to collapsing polar bear populations—chips away at their credibility. And with each new report showing the astronomical costs of Net Zero policies, more people are asking whether the so-called cure is worse than the disease.
Rather than answer these legitimate questions, the climate establishment resorts to silencing its critics. They know their models are flawed, their data cherry-picked, and their policy prescriptions ruinous. Yet instead of reevaluating their position, they double down on censorship.
Make no mistake: this is a battle for the soul of free inquiry. If the climate alarmists succeed in silencing dissent, the consequences will extend far beyond climate policy. The precedent being set is clear: disagree with the elite consensus, and you will be erased.