The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

The Most Revolutionary Act

Climate Change Hysteria Won’t Solve the Planetary Crisis

Climate change and carbon emissions have become the catch cry for everything that’s going wrong in non-human nature, despite the fact we know the environmental problems facing planet Earth go far beyond either of these complex processes.


A natural paradox

In this piece, I’m going to take you on something of a personal journey that includes perspectives I have developed over the last 40 years of my professional life, trying to understand and figure out solutions to some of the biggest environmental, agricultural and health challenges of our era.


There are many die-hard natural health supplement users out there — many of whom I have a great deal of respect for and regard as my friends — who think most of the hype around climate change and an impending environmental catastrophe is hogwash.

They see it as a vehicle for more fearmongering and a construct born out of scientific data manipulated by paid-for academics, corporations, governments and international agencies, in turn controlled by a globalist, ruling elite.

The vehicle has appeared in various guises, most conspicuously as the United Nation’s Agenda 21, now replaced by Agenda 2030, and of course the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

The intent of this, say the climate change skeptics, is not just to make the corporate perpetrators of environmental and social devastation appear like saviors as they clamor towards their Sustainable Development Goals, but rather to wrestle away ever more autonomy and control from the enslaved masses — yes, us.


The problem with binary

I won’t be arguing here that this view is wrong.


I’d like to highlight instead the grave predicament we face if society continues to tolerate only simplified, binary perspectives that we’re increasingly being coaxed and coerced to adopt by governments, the media and others who control the nature and quality of information.

For example, it is facile to assume that the current evidence of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels or global warming are either entirely linked to human activity or are wholly part of a natural cycle that is in no way affected by human activity.

It would be much more pertinent to understand how much of these processes are driven by natural cycles and how much by human (anthropogenic) activity.

The multi-dimensional nature of existential threats, from the current COVID-19 pandemic, climate change and food shortages, to migrations and now a war in Ukraine, has created a perfect storm for authoritarianism, tyranny and the disbanding of individual liberty and freedom of expression.

We are increasingly being forced to accept a particular narrative that defines both the nature and causes of the problems we face, as well as proposed solutions. Shades of grey are replaced by black and white.

The narrative is delivered by slick, global public relations and media systems. Any dissent is quickly ‘fact-checked’ against the narrative (which may omit readily available facts) and the inevitable consequence is a polarization of views.

Viewpoints, and messengers of those views, that are not 100% in accord with the narrative are marginalized, stigmatized or scapegoated. This polarisation generates a pro-narrative, “in-group,” and a dissenting “out-group.”


This very process incites social instability, which gives the power brokers ever more justification to impose centralized, systems of control on the populace.

In a binary world, any view that is not 100% compliant with your own must be met with complete rejection. No part of the argument, however rational it may be, can be accepted.

Further discussion with the bearer of the alternate view is typically also terminated. Without discourse, opportunities to refine or modify your own viewpoints are denied, so the progression of thinking on complex matters is curbed.

Whether we’re talking COVID-19 or climate change, the powers-that-be have set a narrative and determined what represents medical or scientific misinformation, disinformation or malinformation (now abbreviated to MDM by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security).

Polarization is absolute and alternate viewpoints are ditched as worthless simply because they don’t coincide fully with the mainstream narrative.

In many other areas of society, we have long recognized and appreciated value, even when there is deviation or error.


So rather than trying to identify which of the many prevailing viewpoints or theories are likely to reflect reality (a very challenging task given the quagmire of great scientific uncertainty surrounding us), I have instead attempted to reframe, beyond the limits of climate change, the current environmental issues faced both by our planet and our species.

Complexity yields many shades of gray

Many of the overriding challenges we face are intimately interconnected. Unpicking and resolving them first requires identifying the nature and complex causes of the problems with a high degree of accuracy.

In figure 1 below we’ve identified 56 different factors that are associated with the environmental catastrophe that is all around us. We’ve deliberately omitted contributions from natural processes such as changes in the location of magnetic poles and solar flares. Even this list of human-related factors is incomplete.

The factors fall into five distinct groups:

  • Habitat destruction and degradation
  • Biodiversity
  • Climate change
  • Pollution
  • Human challenges

Despite this, most of the narrative issued by the mainstream media about the state of non-human nature (“the environment”) is related to just one aspect – climate change – that we’re told is mediated largely by excessive global emissions of greenhouse gases, determined as carbon dioxide equivalents.

You’ll see in our graphic that we’ve listed greenhouse gases as one of many different sources of pollution, this one being primarily the result of our continuing reliance on fossil fuels.

planet in crisis climate change
Figure 1. Planet in crisis – looking beyond climate change in a world that is at the cusp of environmental catastrophe. Image credit: Alliance for Natural Health International.

There is no doubt that human-induced carbon emissions are a big problem. But they are far from the only problem. Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 or earlier, equally, is a very important objective.

But there are a multitude of other factors we need to also address if we are to avert a cataclysmic tipping point. And the solution to excessive carbon emissions isn’t just about reducing emissions.

It’s about increasing the capacity of carbon capture, which also isn’t just about new-fangled carbon capture technologies that create yet another multi-billion dollar industry. It’s also about capturing more carbon in living, organic matter-rich soils and plants.

That’s of course what regenerative or agroecological farming is all about, as espoused by our colleagues at Regeneration International, the U.K. Soil Association and many others.

Yet regenerative farming gets low billing in terms of funding, political support and mass media coverage compared with technology-based systems of high, synthetic input, and agricultural intensification.



9 thoughts on “Climate Change Hysteria Won’t Solve the Planetary Crisis

  1. I really appreciate a lot of your articles. I see an issue in this one:

    You state: “It would be much more pertinent to understand how much of these processes [rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels or global warming] are driven by natural cycles and how much by human (anthropogenic) activity.”

    Then you go on to conclude: “Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 or earlier, equally, is a very important objective.”

    My question is why, when the first question has not even been answered? This conclusion appears to be derived on the assumption that climate change is both real and also controllable or at least enough of it. This appears contradictory and does not flow from your premise.


  2. Pingback: Climate Change Hysteria Won’t Solve the Planetary Crisis — The Most Revolutionary Act – Free Citizens

  3. Firstly the all or nothing argument is an old fallacy which in my day teachers at school warned us against.

    I live in a town in a rural area beside a National Park. The air is clean as evidenced by the growth of moss on walls. I live in an area surrounded by extensive woodland. I have a balcony garden which at this time of year is usually busy with insects – honey bees, solitary bees, bumble bees, wasps, wasp flies, hoverflies, and those midge like insects that birds feed their young on, and fill spiders webs. (To name some). Now when I look out I might see one fly, or one small bee. The balcony railings are usually festooned with cobwebs. There are only tatters, no new webs, so it looks as if their food supply has died out. On a recent walk in woodland, about 4 miles I saw no insects. Usually the air is filled with them.

    There is virtually no pollution, little spraying of the fields most of which are used for livestock.

    I have seen some articles – which I can’t access being academic – studying how EMR affects insect life. This seems the most likely cause, but the MSM is turning a blind eye.

    In the 10 years I have been here, we have lost starlings and the populations of small birds has gone from plentiful to scattered. There used to be swifts flying round the house until 3 years ago.

    If insect life collapses, we have lost major pollinators and there is serious damage to nature’s resilience. But all we ever hear about is climate change. Climate change may come. the causes and even if it’s happening is still open to (honest) debate. But someone once said, if the bees die, we die ( within a few years).

    Given the proven recklessness of those in charge, perhaps ignoring this issue and the grand-standing of irrelevancies is deliberate. They know what is coming, but by the time the rest of us realise it will be too late for us.

    Thanks for posting this relevant article.


  4. Thanks for your very thoughtful comment, con. I have a somewhat different take on the issue than the author of the article. I wish he would have emphasized the WEF and 4th industrial revolution more as these areas provide proof of the agenda the corporate elite are pushing in promoting climate hysteria – namely profiting off high tech solutions to the environmental problems they themselves have caused. I also wish he would have mentioned industrial agriculture and the continuing ablation of our tropical rainforests – as they play a far bigger role in the carbon cycle than fossil fuels. I consider “net zero by 2050” yet another facet of the Wall Street scam – by itself it will accomplish very little.

    Liked by 1 person

    • SO TRUE! It is a show of misdirection… look over here, but not over there.

      One point I contend with though is the term “fossil fuels”, as that carries many unascertained claims and assumptions. I prefer the simple term “carbon-based fuels” to avoid confounding and potentially misdirecting the issues.


    • “profiting from high tech solutions to the environmental problems they themselves have caused”.

      The Glob (global elite) are power freaks and monopolists. And monopolists ruthlessly destroy competition/alternatives. Food concocted in a lab is cheap and easy to produce. The competition is natural food production, which everyone can engage in to some extent. If insect life/pollinators collapse we will all become dependent on artificial food – production can be totally controlled, a monopoly, and they can put anything into it they want, like medication. It answers all their objectives. High profits, monopoly, complete control, and controlling food means controlling everybody.

      All for profit and control. Never mind if they wreck the world’s eco-system in the process. If the pollinators are lost what happens to trees?
      Take another angle. Our govts are clearly following agendas which lead to total global tyranny. Where in the world are the most tyrannical nations, and which the freest? In Europe even under Hitler some people opted out by living in the woods. This environmental option to be able to just walk away limited the power of tyrants. Trying to walk away in a desert is not an option.

      Turn the world into an effective desert and no-one can escape.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: