(Minghui.org) [Editor's Note] This series is a reprint of The Epoch Times' English translation of the book How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World by the editorial team of Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party.

Table of Contents of the Book

How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World: PrefaceHow the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World: IntroductionChapter One: The Specter’s Strategies for Destroying HumanityChapter Two: Communism’s European BeginningsChapter Three: Tyranny in the East Chapter Four: Exporting RevolutionChapter Five: Infiltrating the WestChapter Six: The Revolt Against GodChapter Seven: The Destruction of the FamilyChapter Eight: How Communism Sows Chaos in PoliticsChapter Nine: The Communist Economic TrapChapter Ten: Using the Law for EvilChapter Eleven: Desecrating the ArtsChapter Twelve: Sabotaging EducationChapter Thirteen: Hijacking the MediaChapter Fourteen: Popular Culture – A Decadent IndulgenceChapter Fifteen: The Communist Roots of TerrorismChapter Sixteen: The Communism Behind EnvironmentalismChapter Seventeen: Globalization – Communism at Its CoreChapter Eighteen: The Chinese Communist Party’s Global AmbitionsHow the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World: Conclusion

What is Included in This Part?

Chapter Sixteen: The Communism Behind Environmentalism


1. The Communist Roots of Environmentalisma. The Three Stages of Environmentalismb. Environmentalism and Marxism: The Same Rootsc. Ecological Marxismd. Ecological Socialisme. Green Politics: Green Is the New Redf. Eco-Terrorismg. Greenpeace: Not a Peaceful Story

2. The Myth of Consensus on Climate Changea. A Brief History of ‘Consensus’ in Climate Scienceb. Establishing Dogma in the Scientific Communityc. Scientists Disagree Regarding ‘Consensus’d. Why Environmentalist Scientists Push Catastrophe Scenarios

3. Environmentalism: Another Form of Communisma. Political Infiltration: Building a World Governmentb. Blaming Capitalismc. Media Suppression of Opposing Voicesd. ‘Civil’ Groups Manipulated for Street Revolutione. A New Religion of Anti-Humanism

Conclusion: To Escape Environmental Crisis, Honor the Divine and Restore Tradition





The earth is the living environment of mankind, providing food, resources, and conditions for development. It has allowed humanity to prosper for thousands of years.

Humanity interacts closely with the natural environment. Both traditional Chinese and Western culture emphasize the benign symbiotic relationship between man and nature. As the ancient Chinese philosopher Dong Zhongshu wrote in Luxuriant Dew of the Spring and Autumn Annals, “Everything on earth was created for the benefit of man.” [1] The meaning is that the purpose of the Creator was to offer conditions for humanity to live, and all things on earth may be used by man. At the same time, people must follow the principles of heaven and earth in their lives, and thus use everything in moderation and proactively maintain and safeguard the natural environment in which human beings are to live.

Western traditional culture states that the Creator provides the natural environment for human beings and asks them to manage it. Thus, man should cherish and make good use of the natural environment. In the philosophy of traditional Chinese culture, there is a balance between everything, as well as the imperative to avoid harm. The Confucian Doctrine of the Mean states: “It is this same system of laws by which all created things are produced and develop themselves each in its order and system without injuring one another; that the operations of Nature take their course without conflict or confusion.” [2]

The Chinese ancients valued protection of the environment. According to historical records, at the time of Yu the Great: “In the three months of the spring, people didn’t take axes to the forest so the forest could flourish. In the three months of the summer, people didn’t put nets to rivers so fishes could breed.” [3]

Zengzi, a Confucian scholar, wrote, “Wood could only be cut down in the right seasons and animals only slaughtered at the right time.” [4] These show the traditional Chinese idea of moderation in all things and of cherishing and protecting the natural environment.

After the Industrial Revolution, pollution caused severe ecological damage, and Western societies began to become aware of the issue. After environmental protection laws and standards were implemented, industrial pollution was effectively treated and the health of the environment greatly improved. In the process, public awareness of environmental protection grew enormously, and it was widely acknowledged that protecting the environment is a proper goal.

We must distinguish between several ideas: environmental protection, environmental movements, and environmentalism. Environmental protection, as the name indicates, is the protection of the environment. Since the beginning of human civilization, people have understood the need to do this, and it had nothing to do with any particular political ideology.

The environmental movement is a social and political movement around environmental issues. Its primary goal is to change environmental policies, and public thinking and habits, through mass movements, political agitation, and media influence. Environmentalism is a philosophy and ideology emphasizing the need for protecting the environment and the harmonious coexistence between human society and the natural ecology. The motivations behind environmental protection and environmentalism are not the same as communism’s — but communists excel at hijacking mass movements and manipulating them to their advantage. Thus we see that from the beginning of modern environmentalism, communists have systematically gone about co-opting the movement.

The issues surrounding environmentalism today are extremely complex: The movement has used sensational rhetoric and people’s genuine desire to protect the environment to create a global political movement. Many participants are well-meaning, have a sense of justice, and truly care about the future of mankind.

However, what many don’t recognize is how communists use environmentalism to claim a moral high ground for the purpose of promoting their own agenda. This is how environmental protection becomes highly politicized, made extreme, and even turned into a pseudo religion — but one without traditional moral foundations. Misleading propaganda and various mandatory political measures have become dominant, turning environmentalism into a kind of “communism-lite.”

This chapter will focus on how environmentalism as an ideology has come to be related to communism, and how the environmentalist movement was hijacked, manipulated, and co-opted into serving the goals of communism, as well as the impact this will bring if it remains unchecked.

1. The Communist Roots of Environmentalism

Communism has made intricate preparations in many fields for the destruction of humanity. Originating in Europe, communism launched violent revolutions and seized power in the two great powers of the East — Russia and China. The communist camp and Western society entered into a long confrontation in the Cold War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European communist bloc, communists began sowing their factors in both Eastern and Western societies and also sought to establish a tightly controlled global government.

In order to achieve this goal, communism must create or use an “enemy” that threatens all of mankind and intimidates the public around the world into handing over both individual liberty and state sovereignty. Creating a global panic about looming environmental and ecological disasters almost appears an inevitable route to achieving this goal.

a. The Three Stages of Environmentalism

The formation and development of the environmental movement is inextricably linked to communism. Specifically, its development has gone through three stages. The first stage is the theoretical gestation period, which can be counted from the publication of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848 to the first Earth Day in 1970.

At the beginning of this stage, Marx and his disciples did not regard environmentalism as the focus of their theoretical discourse, but Marxist atheism and materialism were naturally consistent with the main tendency of environmentalism. Marx declared that capitalism is opposed to nature (that is, the environment). Marx’s disciples devised the term “ecosystem” and quietly included environmentalism in certain subjects where it was set to ferment.

In the last decade of this phase, from 1960 to 1970, two best-selling books — Silent Spring (1962) and Population Bomb(1968) — appeared in the United States. Environmentalism entered the public arena under the guise of “environmental protection.”

The landmark event at the beginning of the second phase was the first Earth Day held in 1970, with the United Nations shortly after, in 1972, holding the first U.N. Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. At this stage, a battery of organizations were rapidly formed and their activities increased. In the United States and Europe, they pushed governments with propaganda, protests, and activism under the guise of scientific research, legislation, meetings, and so on.

At the macro level, the counterculture of the 1960s functioned almost like a military parade of communist elements in the West. They took the stage by co-opting the civil rights and anti-war movements, then quickly spread to other forms of anti-capitalist battles, including the feminist movement, the homosexual movement, and more.

After the 1970s, after the anti-Vietnam War movement ebbed, communist ideas began their process of institutionalization called “the long march through the institutions,” while also flooding into feminism and environmentalism — and this is the root cause of the upsurge in environmentalist ideology and agitation.

One of the most important forces that shouldered the banner of environmentalism in the 1970s were the hippies, the backbone of the counterculture. In fact, communism was in the process of repackaging itself under the banner of environmentalism after its failure in the Cold War, with the intent to introduce global communism under any other name.

The third phase began on the eve of the end of the Cold War. In 1988, the United Nations set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the concept of global warming began to enter the political realm. [5] On the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, an international environmental conference was held in Moscow. In a speech, the general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, advocated the establishment of an international environmental monitoring system, signed a covenant to protect “unique environmental zones,” expressed support for U.N. environmental programs, and called for a follow-up conference (held in June 1992 in Brazil). [6]

Almost all Western environmentalists accepted these proposals, and at this stage, came to view global warming as the main threat to mankind. Propaganda that used environmental protection as an excuse for heavy-handed policies suddenly escalated, and the number and scale of environmental laws and regulations proliferated rapidly.

Environmentalism has become the main tool for restricting the freedom of citizens around the world, depriving nations of sovereignty, and limiting and fighting against the free societies of the West. The result was that after the end of the Cold War, the former communists of the Soviet Union, as well as the communists and their fellow travelers in the West, all started afresh to join the environmental protection movement. Environmentalism emerged as a force on the world stage and increasingly began to take on a communist color.

b. Environmentalism and Marxism: The Same Roots

In the understanding of believers in orthodox religions of both the East and the West, human beings were created by God in his own image, and human life is thus endowed with a higher value, purpose, and dignity than other forms of life on earth. Likewise, the natural environment is created by God. Man has the obligation to care for nature, which exists for man — not vice versa.

In the eyes of atheists and materialists, however, human life has no such special quality. Engels wrote in one of his essays, “Life is the mode of existence of albuminous [i.e., proteinous] bodies.” [7] In this view, human life is no more than a unique configuration of proteins, no different in any essential manner from animals or plants — thus, it is only logical that humans may be deprived of freedom, and even their lives, in the name of protecting nature.

In 1862, in a book on organic chemistry, German chemist Justus von Liebig, Marx’s colleague, criticized British farmers for using imported bird droppings as a fertilizer. British agriculture had benefited from bird manure, an efficient fertilizer, and crop yields had significantly increased. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the British had ample high-quality food sources. The bird droppings business had benefited businessmen in various countries, as well as British farmers and the public.

Why did von Liebig want to condemn this practice? First, he said, the process of collecting bird droppings damaged nature; second, merchants exploited workers with low wages; third, high yields of food stimulated population growth, which, in turn, required more food, exceeding what nature could supply; and fourth, more people and livestock meant more manure and garbage. [8]

At the time, while writing Das Kapital, Marx carefully studied von Liebig’s work. He praised it for having “developed from the point of view of natural science, the negative, i.e., destructive, side of modern agriculture.” [9] Like von Liebig, Marx regarded any effort to create wealth by using natural resources as a vicious cycle, with the conclusion that “a rational agriculture is incompatible with the capitalist system.” [10]

After Lenin and his Bolshevik Party launched a coup in Russia, they quickly promulgated the “Decree on Land” and the “Decree on Forests” to nationalize land, forest, water, mineral, animal, and plant resources, and prevent the public from using them without authorization. [11]

American meteorologist and writer Brian Sussman wrote in his book Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America that Marx and Lenin’s ideas were highly consistent with those of today’s environmentalists. In their view, no one has the right to profit from natural resources. “Whether it’s saving the forests, whales, snails, or the climate, it all comes back to a deep-rooted belief that the quest for such profit is immoral and will ultimately destroy the planet unless ground to a halt,” Sussman wrote. [12]

This global environmental movement has involved a large number of thinkers, politicians, scientists, social activists, and media personalities. This text does not have sufficient space to enumerate their thoughts, speeches, and actions in full, but one figure cannot be ignored: Maurice Strong, the founder of the United Nations Environment Programme. Strong, a Canadian, also organized the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Human Environment and the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development. He is the nephew of Anna Louise Strong, a well-known pro-communist journalist who settled in China. Strong, who was deeply influenced by his aunt, described himself as “a socialist in ideology and a capitalist in methodology.” [13]

Strong has come to occupy an important place in the global environmental movement. “He shares the views of the most radical environmentalist street protester, but instead of shouting himself hoarse at a police barricade at a global conference, he’s the secretary general inside, wielding the gavel.” [14]

The views espoused by the U.N. agency led by Strong appear almost identical to Marxism, as Sussman writes: “Private land ownership is a principal instrument of accumulating wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.” [15] Strong chose to settle down in Beijing after retirement and died in 2015.

Natalie Grant Wraga, a late expert on the Soviet Union, conducted an in-depth study on the issue and wrote: “Protection of the environment may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to undermine the industrial base of developed nations. It may also serve to introduce malaise by lowering their standard of living and implanting communist values.” [16] In fact, environmentalism does not originate only from the former communist bloc. It goes deeper and relates to the overall goal of communism to undermine the cause of freedom around the world.

c. Ecological Marxism

At the juncture of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, British scientists Ray Lankester and Arthur Tansley developed the idea of the ecology and the ecosystem. Both were Fabian Socialists, a variation of Marxism. Lankester was a zoologist and, at a relatively young age, became a friend to an aging Marx. When Marx was in his senior years, Lankester frequented Marx’s house and was among the few who attended Marx’s funeral. Lankester once wrote to Marx saying that he was studying Das Kapital, Marx’s 1867 text, “with the greatest pleasure and profit.” [17]

Tansley was the most important figure in ecology and botany during that period in England, and as the first chairman of the British Ecological Society, he was the inventor of the term “ecosystem.” While attending the University of London, Tansley was deeply influenced by Lankester. [18]

The originating links between ecological ideas and Marxism appear to emerge in this connection between Lankester, Tansley, and Marxism — though, of course, ecology and environmentalism are not the same thing. Ecology is about the relationship between living things and the environment, while environmentalism is concerned with ecological disasters. Ecology, however, is closely related to environmentalism because it provides the theoretical basis for defining ecological disasters. Ecological Marxism, which was derived from ecology, is a further step away from these ideas. 

Ecological Marxism adds the concept of ecological crises as an augmentation to Marxian arguments about the economic crisis of capitalism. It seeks to expand the supposed conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat by adding an inherent conflict between production and the environment. This is the theory of double crisis or double conflict. In Marxist theory, the basic conflict of capitalism is between productive forces and the relations of production, which is called the primary conflict. The secondary conflict happens between the environment of production (the ecosystem) and the productive forces and relations of production together. In this theory, the primary conflict leads to economic crisis, while the secondary conflict leads to ecological crisis. [19]

The century-long development of capitalism proved Marxism wrong after the failed prediction that capitalism would collapse due to economic crisis. On the contrary, capitalism continues to prosper. In response, the notion of ecological crises became a tool of communism as leftist scholars discovered that Marxism could be a theoretical basis for environmentalism, thus radicalizing the environmentalist movement and worldview.

d. Ecological Socialism

As its name suggests, ecological socialism is an ideology combining ecology and socialism. Critics have called it a “watermelon” — green on the outside and red on the inside — for adding typical socialist demands, such as “social justice,” to ecological concerns in an apparent attempt to advance socialist ideology by new means.

A good illustration of ecological socialism is An Ecosocialist Manifesto, published by Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy in 2001. Kovel was unsuccessful in his campaign to become the U.S. presidential candidate from the Green Party. Lowy is a member of the Trotskyist Fourth International. The manifesto states that capitalism cannot resolve the ecological crisis and will be replaced by ecological socialism. They do not view ecological socialism as a branch of socialism, but rather as the new name of socialism in the new era. [20]

In 2002, Kovel published a book titled The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? The book detailed the theory of ecological socialism, harshly criticized capitalism, and suggested a change to the current situation with radical new directions. [21] 

e. Green Politics: Green Is the New Red

When environmentalism enters politics, green politics, or ecopolitics, is born. The Green Party established in many countries around the world is a result of green politics, which typically extends beyond environmental protection to social justice, feminism, anti-war activism, and pacifism. Global Greens, for instance, is an international organization associated with the Green Party, and its 2001 charter is heavily inflected with Marxist ideology, including a heavy emphasis on a supposed equality between man and animals. [22] 

Environmentalism is usually propelled by socialism and communism. After the fall of communist regimes in Russia and Eastern Europe, many former communist party members and remaining communist forces joined or established green parties, resulting in the leftist ideology of the Green Party, hence the term Green Left.

After the fall of Soviet Communist Party, former Soviet Union leader Gorbachev tried and failed to re-enter politics. He then became an environmentalist and established the Green Cross International. Obviously, Gorbachev would be likely to introduce communist factors into his environmental pursuits, and he often promoted the establishment of a world government in order to stop environmental crisis. [23] 

Many communist parties in the West are directly involved in environmental-protection movements. Jack Mundey, one of the founders of Australia’s green ban movement, is a member of the Australian Communist Party. His wife is the national chairwoman of the Australian Communist Party. [24]

f. Eco-Terrorism

Due to its leftist influences, environmentalism has been relatively radical from the start. There are many radical branches, including Deep Ecology, Ecofeminism, Social Ecology, Bioregionalism, and the like. Some of these branches are extremely radical. The most well-known include groups like Earth First! and Earth Liberation Front. They utilize direct action (like use of explosives and arson) — known as Eco-Terrorism — to stop activities they consider damaging to the environment.

The Earth First! group was started in 1979, and its slogan is “No Compromise in Defense of Mother Earth!” The group utilizes direct actions against main targets like logging, dam construction, and other projects. One of the group’s well-known tactics is called “tree sit,” where they sit under or climb up trees to prevent logging. These operations of Earth First! have attracted many new members, including leftists, anarchists, and others seeking to rebel against mainstream society.

In 1992, some of the more radical members started a branch called Earth Liberation Front and adopted arson as their tactic. Around the end of 2000, nine luxury mansions on Long Island were burned to ashes overnight. The main justification was that these mansions were built on a natural forest. After committing the arson, the Earth Liberation Front put out the slogan “If you build it, we’ll burn it!”

In 2005, the FBI announced that the Earth Liberation Front was the largest terrorist threat in the United States, was suspected of involvement in over 1,200 criminal incidents causing tens of millions of dollars in property damage. [25] Their actions have long since exceeded the limits of normal political protest or differences in views. Communist ideology has exploited hatred to turn some environmentalists into eco-terrorists, no different from any other terrorists.

g. Greenpeace: Not a Peaceful Story

Greenpeace was established in 1971 and is the largest environmental organization in the world, with offices in forty countries and income of over $350 million. Greenpeace is also one of the most radical environmental organizations.

Greenpeace cofounder Paul Watson, who left the organization in 1977, said: “The secret to David McTaggart’s [the former chairman’s] success is the secret to Greenpeace’s success: It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true… You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth, and a myth-generating machine.” [26]

Patrick Moore, another co-founder of Greenpeace, was committed to environmental protection. He later quit his position because he found that the organization “took a sharp turn to the political left.” [27] It developed into an extremist organization with a political agenda, such as including hostility toward all industrial production and reflecting an agenda based more on politics than sound science. [28]

The strategy employed by radical environmental organizations such as Greenpeace is to use any means necessary to achieve their goals. On this point, radical environmentalism is highly consistent with communism. In 2007, six Greenpeace members broke into a British coal power plant to cause disruption. They were sued for causing around 30,000 British pounds of property damage. They admitted their attempt to shut down the power plant, but claimed that they were doing this to prevent even larger damage (an environmental crisis due to greenhouse gases). The court eventually agreed that their actions were innocent.

Before this, Greenpeace already had many such records of court wins, including damaging nuclear power plants, automotive companies, and fighter-jet manufacturing facilities. [29] The boundary between legitimate and illegitimate tactics is simply erased with such logic.

Traditional Marxism-Leninism uses the promise of an eventual utopia to legitimize killing, arson, and robbery. Similarly, under the banner of environmentalism, communists warn of environmental crises in order to legitimize violent and illegal tactics.

In the above example, Greenpeace members successfully persuaded the jury to accept their criminal motives as legitimate, demonstrating that a large group of people in society can be misled into accepting specious and groundless arguments. All of this is part of the abandonment of universal values, and is a sign of the moral downslide of society.

2. The Myth of Consensus on Climate Change

Climate change is a hot topic in today’s society. Public debate about this issue is unusually active, with different opinions from the media, among the general public, and in politics. The most frequently heard argument is that the emission of greenhouse gases by humans has caused global warming that will lead to dangerous climate disasters. Advocates claim that this conclusion is reached through scientific consensus or is already settled science. To some environmentalists, people who reject this conclusion are not only considered anti-science, but also anti-humanity.

The aforementioned Greenpeace members who damaged the power plant were acquitted of their crime because a famous expert who was a proponent of this “consensus” testified for them, claiming that the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the power plant each day would lead to the extinction of up to four hundred species, and so on.

Has the scientific community really reached a consensus? Retired Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorology professor Richard Lindzen wrote an article in 2007 expressing his view that climate science isn’t, in fact, settled. [30] Steven Koonin, former U.S. Department of Energy Under Secretary for Science and professor at New York University, wrote in a 2014 article “Climate Science Is Not Settled,” “We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy.” [31] In another article, Koonin reminded readers: “The public is largely unaware of the intense debates within climate science. At a recent national laboratory meeting, I observed more than 100 active government and university researchers challenge one another as they strove to separate human impacts from the climate’s natural variability. At issue were not nuances but fundamental aspects of our understanding, such as the apparent—and unexpected—slowing of global sea-level rise over the past two decades.” [32]

The surface temperature of the earth has risen on the whole since 1880, and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere by humans have a warming effect on the world. Regarding these basic questions, scientists do not differ in their opinions. However, the more important questions, which are questions that are hotly debated by scientists, are these: Is warming primarily caused by human activity or by natural factors? How warm will the world be by the end of the twenty-first century? Does humanity have the ability to predict how climate will change in the future? Will warming cause a disaster?

From another perspective, however, the scientific community does appear to have achieved some sort of consensus or to have settled the science of climate change to a certain extent, since the voices of those who oppose the so-called consensus seldom appear in the media or academic journals.

Physicist Michael Griffin, a former NASA administrator, said in an interview with National Public Radio in 2007:

I have no doubt that global—that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change.

First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings—where and when—are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take. [33]

Although Griffin was trying to express the humility that people should have regarding science, he immediately encountered severe criticism from the media and some climate scientists, who even called his remarks ignorant. The next day, under immense pressure, he was forced to apologize. [34]

A few months later, in another interview, Griffin commented: “I personally think people have gone overboard in the discussion of climate change, to the point where it has become almost not legitimate to view it as a technical subject. It has almost acquired religious status, which I find deplorable.” From Griffin’s view regarding “scientific consensus,” we see that the so-called consensus regarding climate change wasn’t, in fact, part of the scientific process. He felt scientific progress is the result of debate: “You develop your theories, publish your data, advance your concept, and others shoot it down, or try to. Scientific consensus evolves in that way.” [35] The use of all manner and means to stifle scientific debate itself violates the spirit of science.

Due to his stellar reputation and standing in his field, professor Lennart Bengtsson, a fellow of the British Royal Meteorological Society and former director of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a think tank that challenges global warming theories. As a result, he faced intense scrutiny and pressure from his peers around the world. Two weeks later, he was forced to resign.

In his letter of resignation, Bengtsson wrote: “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. … Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship, etc. … I would never have expect[ed] anything similar [to the time of Sen. McCarthy] in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.” [36]

Bengtsson’s observation was correct: This “transformation in recent years” was the result of communist ideology and struggle tactics hijacking the field of meteorology.

In reality, the alleged scientific consensus regarding climate change has transformed climate-change theory into dogma. Climate change is also a crucial tenet of today’s environmentalism — sacrosanct and inviolable. The scientists, media, and environmental activists who accept this tenet work together in spreading fear of an imminent disaster. This doctrine is an important tool used by the environmentalist movement to frighten the public into obeying a political agenda. Through the process of establishing and solidifying this dogma, the techniques of communist-style political struggle, including deception, mobbing, public shaming, call-outs, and open conflict, are all apparent.

a. A Brief History of ‘Consensus’ in Climate Science

In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established. One of its important missions was to evaluate the existing scientific research about every five years and release an authoritative statement on climate change. It was supposed to establish a scientific consensus on climate issues and provide a scientific basis for policymaking. [37] The IPCC’s report often encompasses a list of thousands of first authors, co-authors, and reviewers. Hence the conclusions in the IPCC reports are often described as the consensus of thousands of the world’s top scientists.

In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) stated that its goal was to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. One must note that it was already assumed that climate change was caused by humans and was dangerous. Later on, the IPCC was tasked with identifying “human influences on climate” and “dangerous environmental and socio-economic impacts of climate change.” [38] The UNFCCC’s assumption that people are the culprits of dangerous climate change has restricted the scope of what the IPCC should identify. Also, if climate change wasn’t dangerous or wasn’t caused solely by industry, then policymaking wouldn’t be needed, and there would be no reason for the IPCC to exist. Such conflicts of interest have also restricted the focus of the IPCC’s inquiry. [39]

IPCC Reports Removed Statements of Uncertainty

Right before the IPCC released its Second Assessment Report in 1995, Frederick Seitz, a world-renowned physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, and president of New York’s Rockefeller University, obtained a copy of the report. Seitz later discovered that the content in the report was largely altered after it passed scientific review and before it was sent for print. All of the uncertainties about human activities affecting climate change were deleted.

Seitz’s article in The Wall Street Journal stated: “In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, … I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.” [40]

The deleted statements include the following: [41]

* “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”* “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”* “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

Though later the IPCC claimed that all the modifications were approved by the authors, the alterations reveal how the IPCC’s reporting was influenced by politics. The evaluation report doesn’t contain any original research, but mostly summarizes existing research. Because the existing research contains so many different views, in order to “reach consensus,” as it set out to do, the IPCC simply got rid of the opposing views.

In April 2000, the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report said in its draft, “There has been a discernible human influence on global climate.” The version published in October that same year says: “It is likely that increasing concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to observed warming over the past 50 years.” In the final, official conclusion, the statement was even stronger: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

When the U.N. Environment Programme’s spokesman, Tim Higham, was asked about the scientific basis of the rhetorical changes, his answer was honest: “There was no new science, but the scientists wanted to present a clear and strong message to policymakers.” [42]

Put another way, the UNFCCC gave a homework assignment to the IPCC, making the answer they wanted clear. The IPCC then delivered what was required.

IPCC Report Overstated ‘Disaster Consensus’

Paul Reiter, a professor at the Pasteur Institute in France, is a leading expert on malaria and other insect-borne diseases. He disagreed with the IPCC report, and had to threaten to initiate a lawsuit against the IPCC in order to remove his name from the list of the top two thousand scientists who are said to have endorsed the report. He said that the IPCC “make[s] it seem that all the top scientists are agreed, but it’s not true.” [43]

In his testimony to the U.S. Senate on April 25, 2006, Reiter said: “A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious ‘science’ is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of ‘experts.’ I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this U.N.-based organization publishes a ‘consensus of the world’s top scientists’ on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. ” [44]

Environmentalists have been promoting the notion that insect-borne diseases such as malaria will wreak havoc when climate warming continues, which is also the main argument of the IPCC. As Bloomberg stated on November 27, 2007, “Global warming will put millions more people at risk of malaria and dengue fever, according to a United Nations report that calls for an urgent review of the health dangers posed by climate change.” [45] But Reiter does not acknowledge this simple correlation between climate warming and the spread of infectious diseases.

He pointed out that malaria is not confined to tropical areas. A massive outbreak of malaria occurred in the former Soviet Union in the 1920s, and another one in the city of Archangel (Arkhangelsk) near the Arctic Circle, where there were thirty thousand malaria cases causing ten thousand deaths. [46] According to a 2011 report in Nature, scientists found that, contrary to the previous assumption, malaria transmission from mosquitoes slows with rising temperatures. [47] This confirms Reiter’s opinion.

Another scientist’s withdrawal from the IPCC also shows that it has used alleged “disaster consensus” as part of its operational culture. Christopher Landsea, a hurricane researcher at the U.S. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and one of the leading authors of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report, withdrew from the IPCC in January 2005. In an open letter, he stated, “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.” He urged the IPCC to confirm that the report would adhere to science rather than sensationalism. [48]

Landsea disagrees with the lead author of the IPCC report regarding the relationship between hurricanes and climate change. The IPCC lead author (who is not an expert in hurricane research) stressed that climate warming would cause more intense hurricanes, without solid factual data to support his claim. Landsea pointed out that past studies have shown that historical records could not verify such a correlation; theoretically, even if there is a correlation, it is insignificant and negligible.

David Deming, a geologist and geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma, obtained the 150-year historical temperature data for North America by studying ice cores, and published his research article in Science. Consensus advocates then regarded Deming as an exponent of consensus. In a U.S. Senate hearing, Deming said that an IPCC lead author sent him an email saying, “We have to get rid of the medieval warm period.” [49] The medieval warm period refers to the climate warming of the North Atlantic region between around A.D. 950 and 1150. Erasing this period in the historical curve of climate change would strengthen the claim that today’s warming is unprecedented.

There are many such incidents. In his book Red Hot Lies, How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, Christopher C. Horner, a senior American researcher at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, listed many of the original IPCC authors who oppose the IPCC’s conclusions and its politicized operations. [50] They have raised reasonable questions with supporting data and have challenged the IPCC’s so-called consensus. However, in the current academic and media environment, their voices have been marginalized.

b. Establishing Dogma in the Scientific Community

The establishment and consolidation of the alleged consensus on climate change is a main step in the use of environmentalism to manipulate the public, amplify the sense of disaster, and distort human values. If carried to its conclusion, the natural trajectory is the establishment of a global super-government — that is, communism. While this has mainly played out in the scientific community, it has been helped along with the joint strength of the media, government, and academic institutions.

No matter the academic reputation of a scientist, once he publicly expresses doubts about the consensus dogma, he immediately faces tremendous pressure from his peers and academic institutions, forcing him to submit. People who have lived in a communist totalitarian society have had similar experiences, the only difference being that they have questioned communist party dogma.

David Bellamy is a well-known British environmental activist and chairman of the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts. But when he publicly stated that he did not believe in the consensus dogma of global warming theory, the agency issued a statement expressing dissatisfaction. [51] He then ceased to serve as the chairman, and environmentalists who previously respected him began to suspect he’d lost his senses or was taking money from Big Oil. [52]

Henk Tennekes, former director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society, was dismissed because he did not support the consensus dogma on climate change. Similarly, World Meteorological Organization official Aksel Winn-Nielsen was slandered by IPCC officials as “an industry tool.” After Italian researchers Alfonso Sutera and Antonios questioned the theory of anthropogenic climate warming, they were no longer able to obtain research funding. [53]

In his book Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know, Patrick J. Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and a climatologist at the University of Virginia, listed numerous examples of environmentalists suppressing scientific dissidents in order to reach their alleged consensus. Because he insisted that changes in the climate would not lead to disaster — and this optimistic stance was inconsistent with the consensus dogma — he was told one day by the governor of Virginia that he could not speak on global warming as a state climatologist. He ultimately chose to resign.

George Taylor of Oregon State University, another state climatologist, encountered the same trouble and was eventually forced to resign. David Legates, former director of the Center for Climate Studies at the University of Delaware and a state climatologist in Delaware, was told by the governor that he could not speak as a state climatologist on the issue of global warming. Washington state climatologist assistant Mark Albright was fired because he emailed an inquiring journalist and citizens of the state about the entire snowfall record for the Cascade Mountains, instead of selecting partial records (which appear to show warming), despite having been warned by his boss. [54]

The focus of debate here is on the climatologists’ area of expertise — climate science issues rather than state-policy issues. In communist countries, crude political interference in science is common. In Western countries, environmentalist politics are being used to interfere with academic freedom.

Academic research that casts doubt about the consensus dogma is rarely seen in academic journals, a phenomenon that began in the 1990s. Michaels said in UK Channel 4’s 1990 documentary The Greenhouse Conspiracy that if a person’s point of view is politically unacceptable, then there will be trouble. His paper was rejected by more than one academic journal. When he asked a journal editor why, the answer was that his paper must pass a higher evaluation standard than others.

According to the 1990 IPCC report, the understanding at the time was that the extent of global warming was equivalent to natural changes in climate. Therefore, although Michaels’s point of view was different from that of many others, it could not be regarded as particularly heretical. However, the goal of establishing a false consensus had already been set, and everyone had to get on board.

The tilt of government funding has greatly contributed to the formation and consolidation of the alleged consensus. The hypothesis that humans cause global warming and have brought on natural disasters has led to climate-change research gaining influence over policymaking. Therefore, research supporting this hypothesis will naturally receive a large amount of research funding, and a large number of academic articles will be published. Conversely, enforced consensus hinders scientists from exploring and researching in other possible directions.

William Gray, a renowned professor, was a pioneer of American hurricane research. Because he criticized the consensus dogma in climate theory, he suddenly found that his applications for research funding were repeatedly rejected. [55]

In March 2008, many scientists who doubted the consensus dogma on climate issues held a private academic event in New York. These scientists said that they encountered various obstacles when trying to publish their research results in academic journals. Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, said that some of his colleagues dared not attend the meeting because of fear of being fired. He believed that there was “very likely a silent majority” of scientists in climatology, meteorology, and related sciences who did not support the “consensus” position. [56]

Professor Judith Curry, former dean of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, stated in a Senate testimony in 2015 that a scientist employed by NASA said to her, “I was at a small meeting of NASA-affiliated scientists and was told by our top manager that he was told by his NASA boss that we should not try to publish papers contrary to the current global warming claims, because he (the NASA boss) would then have a headache countering the ‘undesirable’ publicity.” [57]

Curry further said in her testimony: “A climate scientist making a statement about uncertainty or degree of doubt in the climate debate is categorized as a denier or a ‘merchant of doubt,’ whose motives are assumed to be ideological or motivated by funding from the fossil fuel industry. My own experience in publicly discussing concerns about how uncertainty is characterized by the IPCC has resulted in my being labeled as a ‘climate heretic’ that has turned against my colleagues. … There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists and advocates. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.” [58]

Curry is a member of the American Meteorological Society and a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee. Despite her academic success, she chose to retire early because she was unwilling to continue to live under such pressure. Because she has challenged the IPCC’s “consensus” in recent years, she has been stigmatized as “anti-science,” a “denier,” and so on, both by media, other scientists, and a senator. A member of Congress even sent a letter to the Dean of the Georgia Institute of Technology to question Curry’s motives. [59] She said that another reason for early retirement was that she felt that she could not tell students and postdoctoral researchers how to “navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science.” [60]

Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado, has worked with Curry on climate-change issues. He was originally at the university’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Although he agreed with most of the IPCC “consensus” conclusions, he was subjected to similar pressures because he pointed out that data does not support the idea that extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and droughts are influenced by climate change. He eventually moved to the University of Colorado’s Sports Governance Center. [61]

Pielke pointed out that Curry’s experience shows that “having a tenured position isn’t a guarantee of academic freedom.” [62] It is no wonder that Joanne Simpson, an academician of the American Academy of Engineering and an outstanding former NASA atmospheric scientist, declared her skepticism of the “consensus” after retirement: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly.” She said, “As a scientist, I remain skeptical.” [63]

c. Scientists Disagree Regarding ‘Consensus’

As mentioned earlier, scientists have differing views on whether human activity is the main factor affecting climate change, as well as how climate change will play out in the future. There are many reasons for the wide range of opinions. First, climate change is a very broad and complex subject, involving many fields, such as astronomy, meteorology, ecology, photochemistry, spectroscopy, oceanography, and more. Climate involves many interacting subsystems, such as the earth’s atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and lithosphere. There are many physical, chemical, and biological processes that are still far from being well-understood.

Looking at geological history, the earth has never stopped undergoing climate change, including frequent episodes of global warming. More than 3,000 years ago, during China’s Shang Dynasty, the Central Plain (part of the North China Plain) was a subtropical landscape. People hunted elephants, as recorded multiple times in the oracle bone script of the period. The average annual temperature is estimated to have been around 2 degrees Celsius higher than it is now. In the Tang Dynasty (626–907), there was another period of warming. Citrus could be grown on the grounds of the imperial palace of Chang’an in today’s northwestern China. [1] In the West, medieval Europeans undertook the construction of exquisite cathedrals during a time of warming lasting from about 950 to 1250. [2]

According to geological records, the northern hemisphere experienced a rapid warming about 11,270 years ago, when the average temperature rose rapidly by about 4 degrees C within a few years. Another famous warming occurred near the end of the Younger Dryas period about 11,550 years ago, when the temperature soared by about 10 C for decades. [3] The causes of these climate changes are still the subject of debate among scientists.

Naturally, if we are unable to explain the reasons for climate change in history, then we also are hard-pressed to explain the causes of climate change in modern times. Historical causes for climate change in the past may still be at work. Many scientists believe that we should treat the issue with humility and be willing to admit the limits of our knowledge.

Distinguished scientist Freeman Dyson, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the Royal Society, believes that modern science does not understand climate change:

“The most questionable of these beliefs is the notion that the science of climate change is settled and understood. The biggest of all climate changes have been the ice ages, which have covered half of North America and Europe with kilometer-thick sheets of ice. Ice ages happened repeatedly in the past, and we are about due for another one to start. A new ice age would be a disaster far greater than anything we have to fear from climate warming. There are many theories of ice ages, but no real understanding. So long as we do not understand ice ages, we do not understand climate change.” [4]

Due to the complexity of climate issues, it is impossible to conduct experiments and verify theories under controlled laboratory conditions. Scientists doing climatology research now rely on digital climate models.

The key evidence provided by the IPCC report to support the conclusion that humans are the leading cause of global warming comes from climate-change simulations. Speculation about how much the temperature will increase at the end of the twenty-first century is also the result of such simulations. The catastrophic consequences predicted to result from climate change are also based on speculation using the computerized models.

But these models come with their own limitations, and many scientists have reservations about their reliability. Professor Judith Curry believes that natural factors not accounted for in climate-change modeling play a major role. [5] In an article published in the Bulletin of American Meteorology Society, she wrote that the IPCC had largely ignored the uncertainty of model calculations. [6]

Either because of a lack of understanding of the key processes in climate change, or for want of computing power, some of the facts cannot be represented realistically in climate models. Researchers adopt parameterization, which simplifies the model by using incomplete data for processes such as the formation of clouds (including their interaction with water vapor), precipitation, interactions between clouds and solar radiation, the chemical and physical processes of aerosols (the liquid or solid small particles in the atmosphere), and the like. [7] All of this introduces significant uncertainty to the model.

Water vapor is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, but because it varies greatly by period and location, the corresponding uncertainty is also large. [8] At different altitudes, the greenhouse effect of water vapor varies, and satellite measurements of the vertical distribution of water vapor can be up to 40 percent inaccurate. [9]

Clouds at lower altitudes have a strong cooling effect caused by reflecting sunlight, and semi-transparent cirrus clouds at higher altitudes have a warming effect. Some aerosols, such as those from volcanic eruptions, block sunlight and induce cooling, while others, such as soot particles, absorb radiation and create warming. Meanwhile, aerosols are likely to seed clouds, causing indirect cooling. The spatial and geographical distribution of aerosols and clouds, and their optical properties, vary greatly across the planet. Other factors also affect changes in the albedo (solar reflectivity of the earth), such as the growth and death of terrestrial vegetation.

Either due to lack of sufficient observational data or to insufficient understanding by scientists at present, these important processes lead to a large degree of freedom (that is, arbitrariness) in the parameterization of climate models, which greatly increases their uncertainty. These uncertainties fuel much of the skepticism surrounding the validity of the models. For example, greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide give the earth a direct radiative forcing of about 2.5 watts per square meter, [10] while the earth receives about 1,366 watts [11] of radiant solar energy per square meter. The two one-thousandths in albedo change caused by the uncertainty in modeling cloud or aerosol activity is enough to exceed the claimed role of greenhouse gases.

Harvard University scientist Willie Soon and others believe that climate models are not suitable for speculation about future climate change. [12] Princeton physicist Dyson called the parameterization in the model a “fudge factor” because these parameters can be artificially adjusted. He thinks we can learn from the model, but we can’t use it to predict: “So then you have a formula. … But if you are using it for a different climate, when you have twice as much carbon dioxide, there is no guarantee that that’s right. There is no way to test it.” [13] Dyson also criticized the IPCC for largely ignoring the role of the sun in the climate system. He believes that the sun, not man, is the main determinant of climate change.

Starting in 2002, Israeli scientist Nir J. Shaviv wrote a series of papers arguing that based on the correlation between the extent of cloud cover observed by satellites and the amount of cosmic radiation, the earth’s ice ages were related to cosmic rays. He concluded that the latter has led to climate change. At the same time, he said that changes in solar radiation played a similar (if not a greater) role as human activities did in the rise of average global temperatures in the twentieth century. He believes that man-made greenhouse gases play a smaller role in global warming than is said to be generally believed. [14]

There are some internal changes in the climate itself that are yet to be fully understood and thus defy correct representation in the digital climate models. The existing climate models cannot describe the El Niño phenomenon correctly, let alone predict it. [15] Since the highest temperatures in the Holocene between 7,000 years and 9,000 years ago, the global temperature has dropped by 0.5 C to 1 C, but the calculations of the model show that it has increased by 0.5 to 1 degree in the past 11,000 years. The fact that carbon dioxide content has been rising in the past 6,000 to 7,000 years shows that the model is only sensitive to the warming effects of greenhouse gases. [16] In general, among the various factors affecting change in the climate system, the models can only reflect the effects of warming caused by greenhouse gas, while the cooling caused by other factors is not accurately reflected.

In addition, the observed increase in temperature between 1998 and 2013 was almost stagnant. Hans von Storch, a German climate scientist and professor at the University of Hamburg, said in 2013: “We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero.” Storch thinks this means that the model has probably overestimated the role of carbon dioxide or underestimated the impact of natural changes in the climate. [17]

There are also differing opinions among scientists about how to look at the internal processes of the climate system. Richard Lindzen, the American Academy of Sciences member previously mentioned, believes that there is a self-regulating mechanism in the climate system that greatly lessens the warming effects of greenhouse gases. He wrote in his 2001 paper that according to observations, tropical high-altitude cirrus clouds (which allow sunlight to pass through, but block the infrared rays emitted from the surface and have a greenhouse effect) are negatively correlated with sea-surface temperature, and when the temperature increases, cloud cover decreases. This allows the surface of the earth to dissipate heat to outer space unimpeded by infrared radiation. This self-regulating mechanism is compared to the pupil of the human eye (which adjusts according to light exposure) and greatly offsets the greenhouse effect. [18] Lindzen’s theory is still a matter of discussion.

Former NASA scientist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama summarized satellite observations and presented different insights into the role of cloud cover. He pointed out that the existing climate model treats the observed cloud formation and dissipation as a function of temperature changes, but the actual situation is exactly the opposite. It is the change in cloud volume that causes temperature changes, which leads to the conclusion that the effect of greenhouse gas warming is much smaller than what is predicted by the existing climate model. [19]

Scientists hold different views on how the observed meteorological data is interpreted and the reliability of the data. Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth Science Systems Research Center at the University of Alabama, is one of the leading IPCC authors. He analyzed the perturbation of urban surface gas reservoirs (atmospheric boundary layers) near the meteorological observatory by urban expansion and surface development (such as agricultural activities). Increasing human activity is believed to have increased the recorded surface temperature.

In the past one hundred years of records showing the increase of surface temperature, the lowest temperature in the night has increased faster than the highest temperature in the day. Christy believes that expanding human activity on the ground, rather than the increase in greenhouse gases, can explain this phenomenon. [20]

There is also controversy among scientists about the effects of a warming climate. For example, David Russell Legates, director of the Center for Climate Studies at the University of Delaware, testified in 2014 in the U.S. Senate: “My overall conclusion is that droughts in the United States are more frequent and more intense during colder periods. Thus, the historical record does not warrant a claim that global warming is likely to negatively impact agricultural activities.” [21]

William Happer, former Princeton University vice chancellor, testified in the U.S. Senate that the current level of carbon dioxide is at a historic low and that higher carbon dioxide levels will benefit plant life, including agricultural crops — a fact ignored by the IPCC. Happer was the founder of the climate model when he was the head of the Energy Research Office of the Department of Energy in the 1990s. He believes that the temperature increase predicted by existing climate models is much larger than that observed because the model overestimates the volatility of the climate system. [22]

d. Why Environmentalist Scientists Push Catastrophe Scenarios

A principal scientist at the IPCC once said: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accident.” [23] Though he later explained that he wasn’t advocating the fabrication of data, his message was clear: Disaster is the main driver of action and policymaking.

Linking global warming to instances of extreme weather has become a popular method to exaggerate the severity of climate problems. Scientific hypotheses that agree with the popular trend have also been appearing continuously.

In early 2014, North America experienced an extremely cold winter. One theory about the causes of the harsh winter is that global warming resulted in melting in the North Pole, which, in turn, altered the route of the jet stream. As a result, the extreme cold air mass from the North Pole was moved south, creating more frequent cold weather toward the south. Such a counter-intuitive hypothesis was supported by the media and environmentalists: Even extreme coldness is caused by global warming, they claimed. In fact, meteorological records over the long term show that the occurrences of extreme cold weather in North America have been decreasing rather than the other way around.

In 2014, five prominent meteorologists published a joint letter in Science magazine to illustrate this fact. They stated that in the early 1960s, late 1970s (especially 1977), and 1983, when the ice layer in the North Pole was much thicker and wider than it is now, there was much more severe cold weather than in 2014. Within the last fifty to one hundred years, what is certain is that occurrences of extremely cold weather have decreased. [24]

John Wallace, a professor of atmospheric science, said: “Establishing a linkage between extreme weather events and climate change is not as easy as it might seem. The power of statistical inference is limited by sample size. … Even when the linkage is statistically significant, as in the case of heat waves, the more extreme the event, the smaller the relative contribution of global warming to the observed anomaly. … The limitations imposed by sample size would not be such a serious issue if the mechanisms that link extreme weather events to climate change were well understood, but unfortunately, they are not.” [25] 

In November 2017, Steve Koonin, the former U.S. Department of Energy’s second Senate-confirmed undersecretary for science, published an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal titled “A Deceptive New Report on Climate.” He criticized the U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report for reinforcing the disaster mentality with its misrepresentation of rising sea levels. [26]

The Climate Science Special Report stated that since 1993, the sea level has been rising at a rate twice what was recorded throughout the rest of the twentieth century. But the report ignored the fact that the recent speed of rising was comparable to that of the early twentieth century, when human activity had little impact on the environment. This is misleading by omission. The executive summary of the report said that since the middle of the 1960s, heat waves in the United States had become more frequent. However, data buried in the report showed that the frequency of the current heat waves was no more than that in the 1900s.

Similar scare tactics also appeared in the U.S. government’s 2014 National Climate Assessment report, which emphasized the increased intensity of hurricanes after 1980, but ignored records kept over longer periods of time. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently stated that it could not find evidence for any impact on the severity of hurricanes resulting from human activity. [27]

In fact, the heat waves occurred most frequently in the 1930s, not in the twenty-first century. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s heat wave index shows that four years in the 1930s had an annual heat wave index of 0.45, while the hottest year in the twenty-first century so far has an index of around 0.3. [28] Greenhouse gas emissions in the 1930s were only 10 percent that of the twenty-first century. [29]

Professor Mike Hulme, director of the United Kingdom’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said: “Over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country — the phenomenon of ‘catastrophic’ climate change. It seems that mere ‘climate change’ was not going to be bad enough, and so now it must be ‘catastrophic’ to be worthy of attention. … Why is it not just campaigners, but politicians and scientists too, who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging which surrounds science’s predictions?” [30]

The late Stephen H. Schneider was an advocate of climate theory “consensus” and the coordinating lead author in Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. In a 1989 interview with Discover magazine, he said: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” He believed that scientists must choose between “being effective and being honest,” though he added that he wished to have both. [31]

The climate crisis has received much hype. Behind it are sinister forces that intend not only to pave the way for a global government, but also to destroy research ethics in the scientific community. Climatology is a young subject with only a few decades of history. Yet the hypotheses surrounding global warming have been prematurely taken as fact. The media has been keeping global warming in the headlines to cover up the inaccuracies in the underlying science. Governments pour funds into researching the global warming hypothesis while marginalizing other findings. In the process of establishing and reinforcing the “consensus” and strengthening it, communism’s nature of struggle and hatred are exposed.

While scientists are building “consensus,” the media and politicians label the “consensus” of catastrophic climate change as “scientifically proven” and spread it worldwide as unassailable doctrine. Thinking on the matter has been largely unified and has planted convoluted notions of good and bad in people’s minds.

The aforementioned dismissal of eco-terrorism crimes committed by Greenpeace in Britain was based exactly on the supposed consensus that greenhouse gases are causing a climate catastrophe. The multitude of regulations and policies based on this doctrine stand to throw the world into chaos. Destroying the old world by any means is a basic strategy of communism. These measures are all to pave the road to a false solution — a global government — to a fabricated crisis for the ostensible purpose of saving the earth and mankind.

3. Environmentalism: Another Form of Communism

In the past decades, with the communist forces in retreat, and the political and economic problems of communist regimes exposed, communism has latched onto environmentalism to further its agenda. 

a. Political Infiltration: Building a World Government

One important method communism uses to establish control is to use government to deprive people of their property and freedom and to infinitely expand state power. It is very hard to put such a method into practice in the democratic Western world. Environmentalism, however, offers communism a magic weapon. People are deprived of their rights in the name of “environmental protection.”

First, environmentalist ideologies are used for redistribution of wealth. Traditionally, communist states reallocated wealth through revolution. Over the years, however, this approach became increasingly difficult. Therefore, environmentalists adopted indirect strategies, forcing people to quietly give up their freedom and property in the name of preventing environmental tragedy. A campaign organizer for the group Friends of the Earth once stated at a U.N. conference, “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.” [32] A leading green thinker at the University of Westminster once told a reporter that carbon rationing “has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not” and that “democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it.” [33]

In the “battle” against climate change, Great Britain was the first to float the concept of individual carbon-ration coupons. One British scientist regarded this as “the introduction of a second currency with everyone having the same allowance — wealth redistribution by having to buy carbon credits from someone less well off.” [34]

Those who have lived in the Soviet Union or communist China can easily see this kind of carbon rationing as another method to construct a totalitarian system. In China, food coupons were once used for buying essentials such as cooking oil, grain, and cloth. Through food rationing, on the one hand, wealth was redistributed; on the other, the central government was given supreme control over wealth and freedom.

Environmentalist ideologies are also used to curtail individual freedom. In the countries of the West, which pride themselves on a tradition of personal liberty, it is extremely hard to have people automatically give up their rights and accept numerous limitations in private life. Imagining an environmental catastrophe became a convenient means of forcing people to give up their freedom and rights. “Global warming’’ and “last days on Earth” became the best slogans for environmentalists. The Australia-based Carbon Sense Coalition compiled a list of proposals that had been aimed at using the country’s laws to force people to modify their behavior in the name of solving global warming:

*Ban open fires and pot-bellied stoves*Ban incandescent light bulbs*Ban bottled water*Ban private cars from some areas*Ban plasma TVs*Ban new airports*Ban extensions to existing airports*Ban standby mode on appliances*Ban coal-fired power generation*Ban electric hot water systems*Ban vacationing by car*Ban three-day weekends*Tax babies*Tax big cars*Tax supermarket parking areas*Tax garbage*Tax second homes*Tax second cars*Tax holiday plane flights*Tax electricity to subsidize solar power*Tax showrooms for big cars*Eco-tax cars entering cities*Require permits to drive your car beyond your city limits*Limit choices in appliances*Issue carbon credits to every person*Dictate fuel efficiency standards*Investigate how to reduce production of methane by Norway’s moose*Remove white lines on roads to make motorists drive more carefully. [35]

Third, environmentalism can be used and is used to expand the size and authority of big government. Various Western countries not only have huge environmental protection agencies, but also use the environment as an excuse to establish new government agencies and expand the authority of existing agencies. All agencies have the bureaucratic tendency for self-preservation and expansion, and environmental agencies are no exception. They abuse the power in their hands to spread the narrative of environmental catastrophe to the general public in order to obtain more funding and to secure their positions within the government structure. Eventually, it is taxpayers who foot the bill.

The city of San Francisco established a position for a city climate chief with an annual salary of $160,000. One of the poorest boroughs in London, Tower Hamlets, has fifty-eight official positions related to climate change. [36] The logic is the same as that used by universities and companies for hiring “diversity” officers.

Environmentalism can be used to suggest that democracy is outdated and to push for the establishment of a multinational or even a global totalitarian government. Environmentalists claim that democracies cannot handle the coming environmental crisis. Instead, to overcome the challenges ahead, we must adopt totalitarian or authoritarian forms of government, or at least some aspects thereof. [37]

Author Janet Biehl accurately summarized this mindset as holding that “the ecological crisis is resolvable only through totalitarian means” and “an ‘ecodictatorship’ is needed,” [38] with the obvious reason being that no free society would do to itself what the green agenda requires.

Paul Ehrlich, one of the founders of environmentalism, wrote in the book How to Be a Survivor: A Plan to Save Spaceship Earth:

“1. Population control must be introduced to both overdeveloped countries as well as underdeveloped countries;

2. The overdeveloped countries must be de-developed;

3. The underdeveloped countries must be semi-developed;

4. Procedures must be established to monitor and regulate the world system in a continuous effort to maintain an optimum balance between the population, resources, and the environment.” [39]

In practice, except for a global totalitarian government, no government or organization could possibly accumulate this much authority. In effect, this amounts to using environmentalism to advocate for the creation of a global totalitarian government.

Ultimately, the environmentalist program suggests that the communist system is superior and glorifies communist totalitarianism. Since population growth leads to more resource consumption, more carbon emissions, and more waste products, environmentalists advocate for population control or even population reduction. This has led many Western environmentalists to promote the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) population control.

Reuters estimated in one report that because of the one-child policy implemented in the 1980s, the CCP regime was able to cap its population at 1.3 billion; without the cap, the Chinese population would have reached 1.6 billion. The author of the report noted that the CCP’s policy had the side effect of contributing to a reduction of global carbon emissions. What it ignored was the erasure of the hundreds of millions of young lives and the great suffering visited upon the affected families.

One of the biggest issues affecting the environment is pollution, including that of the air and water. The CCP’s economic model consumes energy at a prodigious rate, making China the world’s biggest polluter, with the worst big-city air pollution and severe water pollution. The majority of rivers in China are no longer safe to drink. Dust storms from China blow across the sea to Korea and Japan, even crossing the Pacific Ocean to reach the American West Coast.

Logically, genuine environmentalists should make communist China the main target of their criticisms, but curiously, many environmentalists praise the CCP, even viewing it as the hope for environmental protection. The Communist Party USA news website, People’s World, has reported extensively on environmental news. The main theme of its reports is the claim that the Trump administration’s environmental policies will destroy the country and even the world, while the CCP is the force for its salvation. [40]

Former president of the Czech Republic Václav Klaus, an economist, wrote in the book Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?: “Environmentalism is a movement that intends to radically change the world regardless of the consequences (at the cost of human lives and severe restrictions on individual freedom). It intends to change humankind, human behavior, the structure of society, the system of values — simply everything!” [41]

Klaus believes the environmentalists’ attitude toward nature is analogous to the Marxist approach to economics: “The aim in both cases is to replace the free, spontaneous evolution of the world (and humankind) by the would-be optimal, central, or — using today’s fashionable adjective — global planning of world development. Much as in the case of communism, this approach is utopian and would lead to results completely different from the intended ones. Like other utopias, this one can never materialize, and efforts to make it materialize can only be carried out through restrictions of freedom, through the dictates of a small, elitist minority over the overwhelming majority.” [42]

“This ideology preaches Earth and nature, and under the slogans of their protection — similarly to the old Marxists — wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning of the whole world.” [43]

For these reasons, Klaus strongly opposes attempts to use the cause of environmental protection in order to build a national or a global government to subjugate the general public.

b. Blaming Capitalism

One of the objectives of communism is to overthrow capitalism. Environmentalism treats capitalism as the enemy of the environment, so it shares a common foe with communism. When communism suffered setbacks in the workers’ movements in developed Western countries, it shifted gears and hijacked the environmentalist cause. Normal activism for environmental protection morphed into activism aimed at vanquishing capitalism.

Communist doctrine originally described a utopia, a “heaven on earth,” in order to incite revolt and overthrow the existing social system. Under the cover of environmentalism, communism adopted a similar approach, but the vision it described is the exact opposite: In place of the wonderful workers’ utopia is instead a frightening dystopia, a vision of a “hell on earth.” According to this scenario, in a hundred years’ time, humanity’s very survival will be at risk due to global warming, landslides, tsunamis, droughts, floods, and heat waves.

The target recruits of this movement are not the poor, but rather the wealthy, who are expected to abandon their current lifestyles. But government intervention is required to force people to give up their lives of comfort and convenience. One government is obviously not enough, so an empowered United Nations, or some other global government is in order. If the movement is unable to take off, the vision of an imminent ecological crisis can be played up further, whipping up the panic and fear necessary to influence the public and governments to accept the forceful implementation of environmental policies, and in so doing, achieve the goal of destroying capitalism and imposing communism.

By the original doctrines of communism, after acquiring power, the first step is to strip the affluent of their wealth with the supposed purpose of redistributing it to the poor. In reality, the poor remain poor while all the wealth ends up in the hands of the corrupt officialdom. The second step entails the establishment of a state-controlled economy and the abolition of private property. This destroys the national economy and reduces everyone to a life of hardship.

Let’s look at the objectives of environmentalism. First, it calls for wealthy countries to give aid to poorer countries—that is, to redistribute wealth on a global scale. In reality, poor countries remain poor, as the money that was intended for their development usually ends up in the hands of the corrupt officials of those countries.

Second, environmentalism advocates expanding government and replacing market mechanisms with command economics, using all sorts of draconian environmental policies to obstruct the normal functioning of capitalism, forcing businesses to close down or relocate overseas, thus tanking the country’s economy. Through these market-focused methods, the environmentalist movement seeks to cripple capitalism. In this sense, environmentalism shares a distinct similarity with the doctrines of classical communism. To put it plainly, environmentalism is but communism by another name and would wreak havoc in the world.

The focus of environmentalism is to spread fear of future disasters and to hold the public and governments hostage to this fear. But among those who actively promote this doomsday panic, many live luxurious lifestyles, using lots of energy and leaving a big carbon footprint. Clearly, they don’t think disaster is imminent.

In order to make use of a crisis mentality, especially using the “common enemy” of “global warming” to unite different forces to oppose capitalism, it has become imperative for environmentalists to emphasize and exaggerate the nature of the alleged crisis.

The simplest way is to create a huge, mass fear of using the cheapest sources of energy, that is, fossil fuels — coal, oil, natural gas — and also nuclear energy. Environmentalists succeeded in making people fearful of nuclear energy decades ago, and now, they are trying to make people afraid of using fossil fuels by claiming that fossil fuels lead to catastrophic global warming.

Draconian environmental regulations have become important tools of combating capitalism, especially capitalist economies, and have become known as job killers. Green stimulus programs, clean energy programs, new power-plant regulations, stricter vehicle regulations, the Paris Agreement, and so on, all are promoted under the name of preventing global warming.

However, in reality, climate science hasn’t concluded that global warming is caused by human activity, or that global warming will definitely lead to disaster. If natural causes are behind climate change, then all these government policies only serve to impede economic development while bringing no benefit to humanity.

Under the influence of environmentalism, people blindly raise the bars of emission standards for cars and ban various substances and chemicals without any scientific basis. This naturally means higher manufacturing costs and less profit, followed by greater unemployment and outsourcing industry to developing countries where costs are lower. Even the supporters of environmental protection have to admit that increasing the fuel efficiency of all cars to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 would at most cut the magnitude of global warming by 0.02 C by 2100. [44] This would do virtually nothing to help reduce global warming. Various restrictions of dubious effectiveness have cost millions of workers their jobs and dealt a heavy blow to the manufacturing industries, research faculties, innovative energy, and international competitiveness in Western countries.

Industries that stem from the needs of environmental protection are basically driven by government subsidies and do not follow market demand. To bring products into mass production before making real research breakthroughs is very impractical. These “green” companies can barely stay in business, let alone stimulate the job market. With globalization, many companies move abroad, causing losses for their countries of origin.

Proponents of environmental protection enthusiastically promote green energy and jump-started solar energy and wind-power generation. Unfortunately the pollution that comes with the generation of green energy is either underestimated or simply hidden from view. In the process of producing solar panels, the deadly poison silicon tetrachloride is created as a byproduct. A report by the Washington Post quotes Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University: “The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. … It is like dynamite — it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it.”[45]

The production of solar panels consumes enormous amount of conventional energy, including coal and petroleum. It’s fair to say that green energy in such cases leaves the earth not green but polluted.

According to the Paris Agreement, by 2025, the developed countries have to provide US$100 billion each year to help the developing countries improve their energy structure and industrial technology. The United States alone has to come up with 75 percent of the funding among the one hundred-plus signatory countries. At the same time, by the year 2025, the United States is required to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to between 26 and 28 percent less than the 2005 levels. This means that every year, the United States should cut 1.6 billion tons of emissions.

As for China, the country that has surpassed the United States to become the world’s biggest polluter, the Paris Agreement allows it to reach a peak in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030. [46]

In a statement on the Paris Climate Accord, President Trump said: Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates. …

According to this same study, by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal … down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that.[47]

With the rise of the environmentalist movement, communist countries caught a break in their struggle against the West. Unreasonable regulations and agreements choke industries, economies, and technology in the Western capitalist countries. This hampered America in its roles as world police and the bastion of the West in the fight against communism.

We do not deny that the environment needs protection. However the goal of environmental protection should serve mankind, the highest form of life. The need to protect the environment should be balanced with the needs of mankind. Environmental protection for its own sake is excessive and makes a sacrifice of humanity, while being co-opted by communism. Today’s environmentalism doesn’t care about balance and has become an extremist ideology. Doubtless, many environmentalists harbor good intentions. But in their quest to mobilize and concentrate the resources of the state for the sake of their cause, they are aligning themselves with communism.

c. Media Suppression of Opposing Voices

In June 2008, ABC’s “Good Morning America” (GMA) aired a special episode imagining the future and making predictions about the impact of global warming on the earth and humanity over the next century. In the program, an “expert” claimed that in 2015, the sea level would rise rapidly, causing New York to be inundated by the sea. One interviewee said that by that time, there would be “fire extending hundreds of miles,” a gallon of milk would cost $12.90, and a gallon of gasoline would cost $9. The viewpoints presented in the show were so exaggerated that a host of the show couldn’t help but question if all of this was really possible.

In actuality, this is not the main question that the media has to consider. Environmentalism uses “crisis awareness” to drive the public, yet crisis awareness and uncertainty are two different concepts. How can things not yet confirmed by science warrant a sense of crisis? Therefore, environmentalism uses the banner of protecting mankind’s future to suppress different voices and arrive at a public consensus under the pretense of a scientific consensus.

Danish economist Bjørn Lomborg wrote that climate warming was caused by human activity in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. However, he believed that human adaptability and technological advancement would ward off the occurrence of a cataclysmic disaster. As this did not conform to the environmentalist dogma of man-made climate change, he was subsequently criticized by people of many different professions.

The chairman of the U.N. Climate Change Panel compared Lomborg to Hitler. The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty announced after an investigation that Lomborg had committed “scientific dishonesty” (but subsequent government investigations proved that Lomborg was innocent). His opponents attempted to use the decision of the Committee on Scientific Dishonesty to revoke his position as director of the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute. At a train station, people were not even willing to stand on the same platform as Lomborg. One environmentalist threw a pie at him. [48]

In the book The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists, Roy Spencer, a climatologist and former NASA satellite expert, gave a list of fourteen propaganda techniques used by environmentalists, including causing panic, appealing to authority, promoting a herd mentality, making assurances of victory, using personal attacks, and creating rumors. [49]

In 2006, British journalist Brendan O’Neill wrote an article describing the suppression of opinion and derisive rhetoric faced by people in many countries if they dare doubt the theory of climate change. [50] For example, one British diplomat said in a public speech that those who doubt climate change should be treated by the media no differently than terrorists, and that they should not be given a platform to speak.

O’Neill points out that those skeptical of the theory of climate change have been labeled “deniers.” This includes various groups of people ranging from those who acknowledge climate warming but feel we are able to cope with it, to those who completely deny warming as a scientific phenomenon. The potency of the “denier” label is considerable. Charles Jones, a retired English professor at the University of Edinburgh, said that the term is designed to place skeptics on the same level of moral depravity as Holocaust deniers. According to O’Neill, some people even claim that skeptics of climate change theory are accomplices in a coming eco-Holocaust and may face Nuremberg-style trials in the future. A well-known environmentalist writer once wrote, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards—some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

O’Neill, in his article, commented: “It is usually only in authoritarian states that thoughts or words are equated with crimes, where dictators talk about ‘thought crimes’ and their threat to the fabric of society. … It’s a short step from demonising a group of people, and describing their arguments as toxic and dangerous, to demanding more and harsher censorship.” [51] This judgment is correct. Restricting the right to think is one of the ways communism divorces people from a concept of good and evil that is based on universal values.

A professor of astronomy at Harvard published a paper discussing the role of the sun in climate change based on historical temperature records in the earth’s past. Because this challenged the dogma of humanity being the culprit of climate change, an environmentalist website labeled him an “attempted mass murderer” and all other dissenters as “felons.” [52]

Such examples are too numerous to count. A senior official of a large environmental group warned that the media should think twice before broadcasting the views of climate-change skeptics because “allowing such misinformation to spread would cause harm.” [53]

The British foreign secretary said in a speech that just as terrorists are not allowed to appear in the media, skeptics of global warming should not have the right to air their ideas. [54] Mainstream columnists in Australia are beginning to promote the idea of prosecuting deniers of climate change on charges of “crimes against humanity.” At a summit attended by important politicians in Australia, including the prime minister, a proposal was made to deprive violators of their citizenship. One idea was to re-examine Australian citizens and reissue citizenship only to those who have verified they are “friendly to the climate environment.” [55]

Some have even tried to use legal force to extinguish the voices of opponents of the climate-warming hypothesis. In 2015, twenty academics sent a letter to the U.S. president and the attorney general requesting that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act be used to investigate companies and organizations with nonstandard views on climate change. This amounts to attempting to use the law to inhibit freedom of speech. [56]

In 2016, the attorneys general of several states formed a coalition to investigate whether traditional energy industries were misleading investors and the public on “the impact of climate change,” and if so, to prosecute. As pointed out by The Heritage Foundation, such allegations and investigations of those who hold different opinions violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and stifle the debate on important public policies. [57]

d. ‘Civil’ Groups Manipulated for Street Revolution

Starting mass movements is one of communism’s strategies to spread its influence across nations and the world. Many environmentalist organizations mobilize large numbers of people to wage environmental protection campaigns. They have lobbied and hijacked government institutions and U.N. organizations to formulate and enforce unreasonable agreements and regulations. They have also created violent incidents in order to silence the general public.

As the radical leftist Saul Alinsky stated, it is necessary to hide the true purposes of a movement and mobilize people on a large scale to act in support of local, temporary, plausible, or benign goals. When people become accustomed to these relatively moderate forms of activism, it is relatively easy to get them to act for more radical aims. “Remember: once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move. From there it’s a short and natural step to political pollution, to Pentagon pollution,” Alinsky said. [58]

On the first Earth Day in 1970, more than 20 million Americans participated in Earth Day-themed street protests. Population control has become the method of choice to deal with environmental degradation. At that time, many leftist organizations in the United States decided to go where the people were. They took part in the environmental movement and advocated socialism as a means of restricting population growth.

A variety of leftist groups use environmentalism as ideological packaging to carry out street actions advocating revolution. For example, if a country has a “people’s climate movement,” you can infer that it is a product of communist parties. In the United States, the organizations involved are the Communist Party USA, Socialism in Action, the Maoist American Revolutionary Communist Party, Ecological Society, Socialist Workers, Alternative Socialism, American Democratic Socialism, Free Socialism, and so on. They hosted the People’s Climate Rally and the People’s Climate Parade. Slogans at these rallies have included “System change, not climate change,” “Capitalism is killing us,” “Capitalism is destroying the environment,” “Capitalism is killing the planet,” and “Fight for a socialist future.” [59]

These groups, with a sea of red flags, have marched in many major cities in the United States, including Washington. [60] With more and more communist and socialist elements to strengthen environmentalism, “green peace” has made a full transition to red revolution.

e. A New Religion of Antihumanism

In addition to hijacking environmentalism as a political movement, communist influences have turned environmentalism into an antihumanism cult.

Michael Crichton, the author of Jurassic Park, once said that environmentalism is one of the most powerful religions in the Western world today. He believed that it possesses the typical characteristics of a religion: “There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature; there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions, there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment.” [61]

Crichton believed that all the creeds of environmentalism are a matter of faith. “It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or [be] saved; whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom; whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them,” he said. [62]

This view has been recognized by a number of scholars. William Cronon, an influential environmental historian in the United States, believes that environmentalism is a new religion because it proposes a complex set of ethical requirements with which to judge human behavior. [63]

Dyson, the renowned scientist and quantum mechanist quoted earlier, said in a 2008 article in the New York Review of Books that “a worldwide secular religion” of environmentalism has “replaced socialism as the leading secular religion.” This religion holds “that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible.” The ethics of this new religion, he elaborated, “are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.” [64]

Many environmentalists do not shy away from this subject. Rajendra Pachauri, former head of the IPCC who resigned following a sexual harassment scandal, said in his resignation letter that environmentalism “is my religion.” [65]

As environmentalism becomes more ideological and religious in nature, it has become increasingly intolerant of different views. Former Czech president Klaus believes that the environmental movement is now more driven by ideology than science, becoming a quasi-religion aimed at destroying the existing society. This new religion, like communism, describes a wonderful picture of utopia, one reached by using human wisdom to plan the natural environment and rescue the world. This “salvation” is based on opposition to existing civilization. For example, the chairman of the council of the U.N.-affiliated University for Peace and the architect of the Kyoto Protocol said, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?” [66]

Klaus summarized his views: “If we take the reasoning of the environmentalists seriously, we find that theirs is an anti-human ideology.” He agreed with biologist Ivan Brezina that environmentalism is not a rational, scientific answer to ecological crises, but rather boils down to an overall denial of civilization. [67]

Environmentalism foments hatred between people by attacking people of different opinions — all in the name of protecting the environment. Evident in this hatred and extremism is a radical anti-humanism. Canadian political critic Mark Steyn says that according to the environmentalists, “We are the pollution, and sterilization is the solution. The best way to bequeath a more sustainable environment to our children is not to have any.” He gives the example of Toni Vernelli, a British woman who had an abortion and was sterilized because she believed having children is bad for the environment. [68]

This thinking regards man as the chief culprit in destroying nature. It places the natural environment as a supreme priority, far beyond the sacred position of human beings, even by means of controlling human fertility and depriving people of their very right to existence. This view is no different from that of communism, and is anti-human at its core. This new religion replaces the traditional belief that man is master of the earth. This combination of religiosity, totalitarianism, the coercive unity of ideas, and the anti-capitalist revolution, cannot guarantee the protection of nature by human beings. On the contrary, it will destroy existing civilization, freedoms, and order, and create unprecedented panic and chaos, leading humanity down a wrong path. This is the true design of the communist influences behind environmentalism.

Conclusion: To Escape Environmental Crisis, Honor the Divine and Restore Tradition

God created humanity and the beautiful and prosperous earth. This is an environment in which human beings live and multiply. People have the right to use the resources of nature, and at the same time, have the obligation to cherish natural resources and care for the environment. For thousands of years, human beings have heeded the warnings left by the gods in ancient times and have lived in harmony with nature.

The environmental problems that have emerged in modern times are ultimately the result of the deterioration of the human heart. This moral decay has been further amplified by the power of science and technology. The polluted natural environment is but an external manifestation of humanity’s inner moral pollution. To purify the environment, one must start by purifying the heart.

The rise of environmental awareness stems from the human instinct of self-preservation. While this is natural and understandable, it has also become a loophole to be exploited by the communist specter. Communism has mobilized to create large-scale panic, advocate a warped set of values, deprive people of their freedom, attempt to expand government, and even impose a world government. Embracing this alternative form of communism in a bid to save the environment threatens the enslavement of humanity and facilitates its destruction.

A compulsory political program is not the answer to the environmental problems we face, nor is reliance on modern technology a way out. To resolve the crisis, we must gain a deeper understanding of the universe and nature, as well as the relationship between man and nature, while maintaining an upright moral state. Humanity must restore its traditions, improve morality, and find its way back to the path set by gods. In doing so, people will naturally receive divine wisdom and blessing. A beautiful natural world full of life will be restored. The brightness and prosperity of heaven and earth will accompany man forever.


[1] Dong Zhongshu, Luxuriant Dew of the Spring and Autumn Annals, Images for the regulation of dress, 14.董仲舒:《春秋繁露·服制象》,第十四,https://ctext.org/chun-qiu-fan-lu/fu-zhi-xiang/zh. The line in question appears both as “天之生物也,以养人” and “天地之生萬物也以養人.” [In Chinese]

[2] Confucius, The Universal Order or Conduct of Life, a Confucian Catechism, “Being a Translation of One of the Four Confucian Books, Hitherto Known as the Doctrine of the Mean” (The Shanghai Mercury, Limited, 1906), 68. https://bit.ly/2T74Dsb

[3] Lost Book of Zhou. Da Jujie.《逸周書·大聚解》, https://ctext.org/lost-book-of-zhou/da-ju/zh. [In Chinese]

[4] The Classic of Rights. Zhai Yi.《禮記·祭儀》,https://ctext.org/text.pl?node=61379&if=gb&show=parallel. [In Chinese]

[5] Rupert Darwall, The Age of Global Warming: A History (London: Quartet Books Limited, 2013), Chapter 1.

[6] Wes Vernon, “The Marxist Roots of the Global Warming Scare,” Renew America, June 16, 2008, https://web.archive.org/web/20100724052619/http://www.renewamerica.com:80/columns/vernon/080616.

[7] Frederick Engels, “Notes and Fragments,” Dialectics of Nature, 1883, accessed December 28, 2018, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch07g.htm.

[8] Brian Sussman, Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America (Washington, D.C.: WND Books, 2012), 8–9.

[9] Ibid., 10.

[10] Ibid., 11.

[11] Ibid., 14–15.

[12] Ibid., 11.

[13] Grace Baumgarten, Cannot Be Silenced (WestBow Press, 2016), Available: http://j.mp/2HgHJ0q

[14] Wes Vernon, “The Marxist Roots of the Global Warming Scare,” Renew America, June 16, 2008, https://web.archive.org/web/20100724052619/http://www.renewamerica.com:80/columns/vernon/080616.

[15] Sussman, Eco-Tyranny, 35.

[16] Vernon, “The Marxist Roots.”

[17] Lewis S. Feuer, “The Friendship of Edwin Ray Lankester and Karl Marx: The Last Episode in Marx’s Intellectual Evolution,” Journal of the History of Ideas 40 (4): 633–648.

[18] John Bellamy Foster, “Marx’s Ecology in Historical Perspective,” International Socialism Journal 96, Winter 2002, http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj96/foster.htm.

[19] James O’Connor, “Capitalism, Nature, Socialism: A Theoretical Introduction,” Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 1, no. 1 (1988): 11–38, http://www.vedegylet.hu/okopolitika/O%27Connor%20-%20Capitalism,%20Nature,%20Socialim.pdf.

[20] Joel Kovel and Michael Löwy, “The First Ecosocialist Manifesto,” September 2001,http://green.left.sweb.cz/frame/Manifesto.html.

[21] Joel Kovel, The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? (London: Zed Books, 2002).

[22] Kevin Andrews, “The Ideological Drive Behind the Greens,” ABC News, November 11, 2010, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-12/the_ideological_drive_behind_the_greens/41010.

[23] Mikhail Gorbachev, “We Have a Real Emergency,” The New York Times, December 9, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/opinion/10iht-edgorbachev.html, and “What Role for the G-20?” The New York Times, April 27, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/opinion/28iht-edgorbachev.html.

[24] “Jack Mundey,” Sydney’s Aldermen, http://www.sydneyaldermen.com.au/alderman/jack-mundey/.

[25] Noel Moand, “A Spark That Ignited a Flame: The Evolution of the Earth Liberation Front,” in Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth, eds. Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II (Oakland, Calif.: AK Press, 2006), 47.

[26] Leslie Spencer, Jan Bollwerk, and Richard C. Morais, “The Not So Peaceful World of Greenpeace,” Forbes, November 1991, https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/the_not_so_peaceful_world_of_greenpeace.pdf.

[27] Ted Thornhill, “Humans Are NOT to Blame for Global Warming, Says Greenpeace Co-founder, as He Insists There Is ‘No Scientific Proof’ Climate Change Is Manmade,” Daily Mail, February 27, 2014, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2569215/Humans-not-blame-global-warming-says-Greenpeace-founder-Patrick-Moore.html#ixzz2vgo2btWJ.

[28] Patrick Moore, “Why I Left Greenpeace,” The Wall Street Journal, April 22, 2008, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120882720657033391.

[29] John Vidal, “Not Guilty: The Greenpeace Activists Who Used Climate Change as a Legal Defence,” The Guardian, Sept 10, 2008, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamp.

[30] Richard Lindzen, “The Climate Science Isn’t Settled,” The Wall Street Journal, November 30, 2009, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.

[31] Steven E. Koonin, “Climate Science Is Not Settled,” The Wall Street Journal, September 19, 2014, https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565.

[32] Steven Koonin, “A ‘Red Team’ Exercise Would Strengthen Climate Science,” The Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579.

[33] “NASA Administrator Not Sure Global Warming a Problem,” Space Daily, May 30, 2007, http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Administrator_Michael_Griffin_Not_Sure_Global_Warming_A_Problem_999.html.

[34] Alicia Chang, “NASA Chief Regrets Remarks on Global Warming,” NBC News, June 5, 2007, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19058588/ns/us_news-environment/t/nasa-chief-regrets-remarks-global-warming/.

[35] Rebecca Wright, Sandra Johnson, Steven J. Dick, eds., NASA at 50: Interviews with NASA’s Senior Leadership(Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2009), 18.

[36] “Lennart Bengtsson Resigns: GWPF Voices Shock and Concern at the Extent of Intolerance Within the Climate Science Community,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, May 5, 2014, http://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-gwpf-voices-shock-and-concern-at-the-extent-of-intolerance-within-the-climate-science-community/.

[37] Judith Curry, “Climate Change: No Consensus on Consensus,” CAB Reviews Vol 8, No 001, 2013, 1–9.

[38] Judith A. Curry, “Statement to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the United States House of Representatives,” Hearing on Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method, March 29, 2017, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20170329/105796/HHRG-115-SY00-Wstate-CurryJ-20170329.pdf.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Frederick Seitz, “Major Deception on Global Warming,” The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB834512411338954000.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Larry Bell, “The New York Times’ Global Warming Hysteria Ignores 17 Years of Flat Global Temperatures,” Forbes, August 21, 2013, https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/.

[43] Christopher C. Horner, Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008), 319; quote attributed to Brendan O’Neill, “Apocalypse My Arse,” Spiked Online, March 9, 2007, https://www.spiked-online.com/2007/03/09/apocalypse-my-arse/, accessed January 19, 2019.

[44] Paul Reiter, “Malaria in the Debate on Climate Change and Mosquito-Borne Disease,” Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, April 25, 2006, https://www.commerce.senate.gov/pdf/reiter-042606.pdf.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Zoë Corbyn, “Global Warming Wilts Malaria,” Nature, December 21, 2011, https://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-wilts-malaria-1.9695.

[48] James Tylor, “Climate Scientist Quits IPCC, Blasts Politicized ‘Preconceived Agendas,’” The Heartland Institute, April 1, 2005, https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/climate-scientist-quits-ipcc-blasts-politicized-preconceived-agendas?source=policybot.

[49] Horner, Red Hot Lies, 108; David Deming, “Statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,” Full Committee Hearing on Climate Change and the Media, December 6, 2006, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rj00BoItw.

[50] Horner, Red Hot Lies, 329.

[51] Jonathan Leake, “Wildlife Groups Axe Bellamy as Global Warming ‘Heretic,’” Times Online, May 15, 2005, https://web.archive.org/web/20080906161240/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article522744.ece.

[52] Christopher C. Horner, Red Hot Lies, 110–111.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr., Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know (Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2009), x–xiii.

[55] Christopher C. Horner, Red Hot Lies, 73.

[56] “Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression,” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Press Releases, March 6, 2008, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=865dbe39-802a-23ad-4949-ee9098538277

[57] Judith A. Curry, “Statement to the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness of the United States Senate,” Hearing on “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Climate Change,” December 8, 2015, https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/curry-senate-testimony-2015.pdf.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Scott Waldman, “Judith Curry Retires, Citing ‘Craziness’ of Climate Science,” E&E News, January 4, 2017, https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798.

[61] Rich Lowry, “A Shameful Climate Witch Hunt,” National Review Online, February 27, 2015, https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/02/shameful-climate-witch-hunt-rich-lowry/.

[62] Waldman, “Judith Curry Retires”

[63] “U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008,”  U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Minority Staff Report (Inhofe), Dec 11, 2008, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8/3/83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9/01AFD79733D77F24A71FEF9DAFCCB056.senateminorityreport2.pdf.

Below are references for parts c and d in section 2 and section 3.

[1] Zhu Kezhen, Preliminary Research on Climate Change Throughout Five Thousand Years of Chinese History(Kaoguxuebao, First Issue, 1972), 168–189. [In Chinese].

[2] Martin Durkin, The Great Global Warming Swindle (documentary film, 2007), Channel 4 (U.K.), March 8, 2007.

[3] Takuro Kobashi, et. al., “4 ± 1.5° C Abrupt Warming 11,270 Years Ago Identified From Trapped Air in Greenland Ice,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 268 (2008): 397–407.

[4] Freeman Dyson, “Misunderstandings, Questionable Beliefs Mar Paris Climate Talks,” The Boston Globe, December 3, 2015. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/12/03/freeman-dyson-misunderstandings-questionable-beliefs-mar-paris-climate-talks/vG3oBrbmcZlv2m22DTNjMP/story.html.

[5] Scott Waldman, “Judith Curry Retires, Citing ‘Craziness’ of Climate Science,” E&E News, January 4, 2017, https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798.

[6] J. A. Curry and P. J. Webster, “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster,” Bulletin of American Meteorology Society 92, no. 12:1667–1682. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1.

[7] IPCC, “Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis,” IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007.https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-2-1-3.html.

[8] Ibid, https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html.

[9] Mark W. Shephard et al., “Comparison of Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer Nadir Water Vapor Retrievals with in situ measurements,” Journal of Geophysical Research 113, no D15S24, doi:10.1029/2007JD008822.

[10] “Climate Change,” APS Physics, American Physical Society Web Page. https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/climate.cfm.

[11] “Solar Constant,” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/solar-constant.

[12] Willie Soon, et al., “Modeling Climatic Effects of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Unknowns and Uncertainties,” Climate Research 18 (2001): 259–275.

[13] Michael Lemonick, “Freeman Dyson Takes on the Climate Establishment,” Yale Environment 360, June 4, 2009. https://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment.

[14] Nir J. Shaviv, “Celestial Driver of Phanerozoic Climate?” Geological Society of America Today 13, no. 7: 4–10, July 2003. https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf.

[15] J. Emile-Geay et al., “Links between Tropical Pacific Seasonal, Interannual and Orbital Variability during the Holocene,” Nature Geoscience 9 (2) (2016): 168–173.

[16] Zhengyu Liu et al., “The Holocene Temperature Conundrum,” PNAS 111, no. 34 (August 26, 2014).

[17] Hans von Storch, “Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?” Der Spiegel, June 20, 2013. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html.

[18] Richard S. Lindzen et. al., “Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82 (2001): 417–432, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082%3C0417:DTEHAA%3E2.3.CO;2.

[19] Roy Spencer and William D. Braswell, “Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration,” Journal of Climate, 21 (21): 5624–5628, November 1, 2008.

[20] John R. Christy, Written Report to Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, November 14, 2007. https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/users/john.christy/christy/ChristyJR_CST_071114_written.pdf.

[21] David Russell Legates, “Statement to the Environment and Public Works Committeeof the United States Senate,” U.S. Senate, July 3, 2014. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a/a/aa8f25be-f093-47b1-bb26-1eb4c4a23de2/01AFD79733D77F24A71FEF9DAFCCB056.6314witnesstestimonylegates.pdf.

[22] William Happer, “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate,” Hearing of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness (U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation), December 8, 2015. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c8c53b68-253b-4234-a7cb-e4355a6edfa2/FA9830F15064FED0A5B28BA737D9985D.dr.-william-happer-testimony.pdf.

[23] Sir John Houghton, “Moral Outlook: Earthquake, Wind and Fire,” Sunday Telegraph, October 9, 1995.

[24] Jason Samenow, “Scientists: Don’t Make ‘Extreme Cold’ Centerpiece of Global Warming Argument,” The Washington Post, February 20, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/02/20/scientists-dont-make-extreme-cold-centerpiece-of-global-warming-discussions/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3600e477f052.

[25] John Michael Wallace, “The Misplaced Emphasis on Extreme Weather in Environmental Threat Communication,” The Washington Post, March 14, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/03/14/the-misplaced-emphasis-on-extreme-weather-in-environmental-threat-communication/?utm_term=.bf84802d4613.

[26] Steven E. Koonin, “A Deceptive New Report on Climate,” The Wall Street Journal, November 2, 2017. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deceptive-new-report-on-climate-1509660882.

[27] Ibid.

[28] “Climate Change Indicators: High and Low Temperatures,” United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures.

[29] Judith A. Curry, “Statement to the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness of the United States Senate,” Hearing on “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Climate Change,” December 8, 2015. https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/curry-senate-testimony-2015.pdf.

[30] Mike Hulme, “Chaotic World of Climate Truth,” BBC, November 4, 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm.

[31] Roy W. Spencer, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor (New York: Encounter Books, 2008), Chapter 5.

[32] Christopher C. Horner, Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (Washington. D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2008), 214.

[33] Horner, Red Hot Lies, 215.

[34] Horner, Red Hot Lies, 211.

[35] Horner, Red Hot Lies, 212–213.

[36] Horner, Red Hot Lies, 227.

[37] David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith, The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2007).

[38] Horner, Red Hot Lies, 219–220.

[39] Paul Ehrlich, as quoted in Václav Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?(Washington, D.C.: Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2008), 14.

[40] John Bachtell, “China Builds an ‘Ecological Civilization’ While the World Burns,” People’s World, August 21, 2018. https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/china-builds-an-ecological-civilization-while-the-world-burns/.

[41] Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, 4.

[42] Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, 7–8.

[43] Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, 100.

[44] John Fund, “Rollback Obama’s CAFE Power Grab, Give Car Consumers Freedom,” National Review, May 23, 2018. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/fuel-standards-cafe-epa-rolls-back/.

[45] Ariana Eunjung Cha, “Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China,” The Washington Post, March 9, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html?referrer=emailarticle&noredirect=on.

[46] The Paris Agreement on Climate Change, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), December 2015, IB: 15-11-Y. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/paris-climate-agreement-IB.pdf.

[47] Donald J. Trump, “Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord,” The White House, June 1, 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/.

[48] Horner, Red Hot Lies, 117.

[49] Roy W. Spencer, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists(New York: Encounter Books, 2010), 31.

[50] Brendan O’Neill, “A Climate of Censorship,” The Guardian, November 22, 2006. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/22/aclimateofcensorship.

[51] O’Neill, “A Climate of Censorship.”

[52] Horner, Red Hot Lies, 64.

[53] O’Neill, “A Climate of Censorship.”

[54] Ibid.

[55] Horner, Red Hot Lies, 107.

[56] “Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,” September 1, 2015. http://web.archive.org/web/20150920110942/http:/www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf

[57] Hans von Spakovsky and Nicolas Loris, “The Climate Change Inquisition: An Abuse of Power that Offends the First Amendment and Threatens Informed Debate,” The Heritage Foundation, October 24, 2016. https://www.heritage.org/report/the-climate-change-inquisition-abuse-power-offends-the-first-amendment-and-threatens.

[58] Saul Alinsky, “Tactics,” Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals (New York: Vintage Books, 1971).

[59] “Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda,” PJ Media, September 23, 2014. https://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/9/23/climate-movement-drops-mask-admits-communist-agenda/.

[60] “People’s Climate March: Thousands Rally to Denounce Trump’s Environmental Agenda,” The Guardian, April 29, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/30/peoples-climate-march-thousands-rally-to-denounce-trumps-environmental-agenda.

[61] Michael Crichton, “Crichton: Environmentalism Is a Religion,” Hawaii Free Press, April 22, 2018. http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/2818/Crichton-Environmentalism-is-a-religion.aspx.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Robert H. Nelson, “New Religion of Environmentalism,” Independent Institute, April 22, 2010. http://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=5081.

[64] Joel Garreau, “Environmentalism as Religion,” The New Atlantis, Summer 2010. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20100914_TNA28Garreau.pdf.

[65] Damian Carrington, “IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri Resigns,” The Guardian, February 24, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/24/ipcc-chair-rajendra-pachauri-resigns.

[66] Michael Whitcraft, “A Lot of Hot Air: A Review of Václav Klaus’ Recent Book: Blue Planet in Green Shackles,” Free Republic, June 13, 2008. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2030948/posts.

[67] Vaclav Klaus. “An anti-human ideology.” Financial Post, October 20, 2010. https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/vaclav-klaus-an-anti-human-ideology.

[68] Mark Steyn. “Children? Not if you love the planet.” The Orange County Register, December 14, 2007. https://www.ocregister.com/2007/12/14/mark-steyn-children-not-if-you-love-the-planet.