(Editor’s note: This post was originally run under a different headline by LeJeune in RVIVR on September 10, 2023. Given the latest stories surrounding LNG and Biden’s EPA, including a story we ran last week out of Sulphur, we are hoping this provides a little adjacent context for our readers. More to come from The Hayride on this very important issue.)

What you’re going to read here is quite the confession. What you will find is prime information to finally help your friends understand what media-driven paranoia really means.

Of course, as most any patriot knows, the whole climate change hysteria is somewhere between a total hoax and a total catastrophe waiting to happen. Most situations like this have a little bit of truth mixed in to the full-fledged panic campaign the government-media apparatus hits us with.

The Hegelian Dialectic is alive and well in America, which is why so many of us are recognizing the problem-reaction solution pattern in everything, it seems, including the politics behind “climate change.”

An adjacent problem with the Hegelian is the binary trap the government-media apparatus has, over decades and decades, trained the American people to fall into. The Greeks called this phenomenon the either-or fallacy of argument. Put overly simplistically, it is the efforts of the ruling elites to dwindle any complex conversation about a given issue into a single pair of arguments–a binary–forcing the people to choose sides and, ultimately, ignore key points worth considering from the opposition’s point of view.

It is a trap to keep us snapping at one another instead of turning our heads to the true enemy–

Them.

This is why so many people emotionally retreat immediately to their camps in debates like this. For a portion of the population, climate change is a total hoax. For another portion, it is a catastrophe in waiting.

Either-or.

How on Earth are people going to come to a true solution with extremes like that? This question is precisely what those in charge know and use to prey upon We the People.

It would be healthy to be able to engage in a more critical, more nuanced, more scientific, conversation about climate change, but as so many scientists and doctors are revealing, that is not possible with the fearmongering elites who mean to use and abuse the idea of “climate change” to affect sweeping, truly catastrophic policies onto the world.

You may have heard of the World Economic Forum (WEF). The World Health Organization (WHO). The United Nations (UN). These are just a few of the tyrannical organizational elites that work in conjunction to rule us.

One scientist, Dr Patrick T Brown, PhD climate scientist and co-director of the Climate and Energy Team at The Breakthrough Institute, confessed to what so many of us know–the world of academia and “journalism” is rife with corruption driven by compliance and the lust for prestige. In short, to keep your career going you’d better toe the establishment line and spew out its narrative with surgical exactness. Any- and everything else should be avoided. Here is how Brown’s article entitled “I Left Out the Full Truth To Get My Climate Change Paper Published” begins:

If you’ve been reading any news about wildfires this summer—from Canada to Europe to Maui—you will surely get the impression that they are mostly the result of climate change.

Here’s the AP: Climate change keeps making wildfires and smoke worse. Scientists call it the “new abnormal.”

And PBS NewsHour: Wildfires driven by climate change are on the rise—Spain must do more to prepare, experts say.

And The New York Times: How Climate Change Turned Lush Hawaii Into a Tinderbox.

And Bloomberg: Maui Fires Show Climate Change’s Ugly Reach.

I am a climate scientist. And while climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires over many parts of the world, it isn’t close to the only factor that deserves our sole focus.

So why does the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause? Perhaps for the same reasons I just did in an academic paper about wildfires in Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious journals: it fits a simple storyline that rewards the person telling it.

The paper I just published—”Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California“—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.

This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.

What a confession. Does this type of thing not change everything?

All of those articles he listed first, which eliminate the incriminating full truth, are prime examples of the establishment media–the Mockingbird media as I’ve been terming it. AP, PBS, The New York Times, Bloomberg.

In the aftermath of the Maui fires, I ran an article entitled “Right on Cue, the Establishment Shows What Maui Was All About.” And what was it all about?

The agenda. The fear porn. The propaganda. The submission of the people.

Climate change. Or cHaOs!

Yahoo was my victim in that article. Yet another Mockingbird megaphone.

This is not news to American patriots who know even a little of what information war is raging as we speak. You don’t have to be a fringe, mad researcher digging in the dark for conspiracy theories to be able to connect Hegelian patterns of problem-reaction-solution in every one of Mockingbird’s prepackaged narratives.

Maui.

Covid.

Vaccines.

Ukraine.

Gun control.

The list goes on and on.

Dare I say the obvious: Understanding the pattern in one of the above is a delicious gateway into understanding the others, and subsequently understanding a whole lot of everything concerning current world affairs. (It is called Teleology, a concept I would explore in a later article).

Be warned, though. Such logical cognitive skills will make you a conspiracy theorist!

Dr Brown listed four key “tricks” to getting published and remaining in the field, while–public be damned–lying the entire time. All four items are quoted from the article:

1. The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative—namely, that the effects of climate change are both pervasive and catastrophic and that the primary way to deal with them is not by employing practical adaptation measures like stronger, more resilient infrastructure, better zoning and building codes, more air conditioning—or in the case of wildfires, better forest management or undergrounding power lines—but through policies like the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
2. The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change. If deaths due to extreme heat are decreasing and crop yields are increasing, then it stands to reason that we can overcome some major negative effects of climate change. Shouldn’t we then study how we have been able to achieve success so that we can facilitate more of it? Of course we should. But studying solutions rather than focusing on problems is simply not going to rouse the public—or the press.
3. [B]e sure to focus on metrics that will generate the most eye-popping numbers. Our paper, for instance, could have focused on a simple, intuitive metric like the number of additional acres that burned or the increase in intensity of wildfires because of climate change. Instead, we followed the common practice of looking at the change in risk of an extreme event—in our case, the increased risk of wildfires burning more than 10,000 acres in a single day.
4. [A]lways assess the magnitude of climate change over centuries, even if that timescale is irrelevant to the impact you are studying.

So you see, this is all about stoking the flames of fear and paranoia in the public in order to enact a predetermined solution to the problem-reaction. That predetermined solution, of course, is hand-selected by globalist maniacs intent on enslaving us in their one world government system.

See Agenda 2030.

I’ll conclude with Dr Brown’s own words, a point blank confession–found in, of all places–the subtitle of the article:

“I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.“

If you remember nothing else from this article, remember that line. And spread it far and wide with any knucklehead friends who insist on continuing to believe everything the government peddles.

---

May everyone named directly or referenced indirectly ask forgiveness and do penance for their sins against America and God. I fight this information war in the spirit of justice and love for the innocent, but I have been reminded of the need for mercy and prayers for our enemies. I am a sinner in need of redemption as well after all, for my sins are many. In the words of Jesus Christ himself, Lord forgive us all, for we know not what we do.

Jeff LeJeune is the author of several books, writer for RVIVR, editor, master of English and avid historian, teacher and tutor, aspiring ghostwriter and podcaster, and creator of LeJeune Said. Visit his website at jefflejeune.com, where you can find a conglomerate of content.