Full article from behind the paywall pasted below:

Herb Pinder Published on: 28 Mar 2026, 11:30 am No global organization has been more influential regarding public opinion and policies of governments than the United Nations (UN). Out of thin air, in an atmosphere of historically low carbon dioxide levels, it concocted a climate “narrative” with immense consequences.

What follows is an explanation of how this occurred.

At an Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, the UN incubated the structure that has facilitated the narrative of “humans destroying the planet.” It began with a protocol — the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed by all 150+ nations in attendance.

The Chairman was no other than Maurice Strong, the Canadian socialist, energetic, and influential regarding the environment and the UN over many decades. He was called back to Canada by then-prime minister Trudeau to head up Crown Corporation Petro Canada, one of the outcomes of the National Energy Program that confiscated Western oil revenues.

Section 1 of Agenda 21 laid out the radical plan “as a comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society” (a similar objective is found in Mark Carney's book “Values”). It addressed “current lifestyles and consumption patterns including meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air conditioning, and suburban housing,” none of which were deemed “sustainable.”

Other radical notions were discussed, such as redistribution of wealth, population control, and even “childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government licence.”

Section 2 established the environmental agenda, “The protection of the atmosphere, land, mountains, oceans, and fresh waters under the control of the United Nations” (emphasis mine).

Intent on eliminating national sovereignty and independent nations, the UN Commission on Global Governance (an associated endeavour necessary to make the Agenda successful) laid out the following, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle that will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” Except for Justin Trudeau.

Underlying this whole process is the assumption that anthropogenic (man-made warming) is “dangerous.” There is no research or support for that assumption made by the UN and its ideological politicians, then or now. Further from the enabling documents of Agenda 21, “effective execution of Agenda 21 will require profound reorientation of all human society” — again, very similar language by our Prime Minister in his book.

At this Earth Summit, the protocol also established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a brilliant way to support the initiative with the appearance of scientific validation. Every 5 years or so, the IPCC publishes the state of global warming, featuring credible scientists. The reports, called “Assessments,” are accurate and respected. In fact, the scientist who reviews my climate work was a reviewer for the Third Assessment and confirms its bona fides.

The correct assumption of the UN was that media and political folks are unlikely to review detailed scientific reports totalling sometimes thousands of pages. So, out of the goodness of its heart (cough cough), the UN pre-releases its Summary for Public Policy Makers. Claiming to interpret the Assessment reports, which follow sometimes months later, the Summary features provocative language, predictions of imminent catastrophe, demands for political action, and establishing UN leadership.

The subsequent media response achieves this insidious (but effective) manipulation of a valid scientific process. Think this is an exaggeration? The following is from a May 10, 2014, issue of the Economist magazine (which drinks copiously from the climate cocktail) in an article entitled “Inside the Sausage Factory.” It described the Summary as “an entirely different document full of opinion and hyperbole.”

The column went on to describe how every signee to the UNFCCC is entitled to have officials in attendance. In a large room with hundreds of political representatives from only signatory countries, but not the scientists, in attendance. The roughly 30 pages of the Summary are negotiated sentence by sentence. The impact and importance of this political document cannot be overstated.

By way of this subterfuge, the UN feeds the media, which loves impending catastrophes, and establishes itself as the saviour. Ergo, the constant proclamations by UN Secretary General Guterres that CO2 is “burning up the planet.”

The climate crusaders openly celebrate the success of the illusory truth effect, defined as the more often you see or hear something, the more likely you are to believe that it is true, even if it’s not.

Just a few confirming comments.

Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and former cochair of an IPCC working group, said in an interview in 2010 that “one has to free oneself in the illusion that the international climate policy is environmental policy — this is almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore … We distribute the world's wealth by climate policy.” He then went on to admit that “in order to get rich, one has to burn coal, oil, or gas.”

Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UNFCCC from 2010 to 2016, stated at a press conference in Brussels in 2015, “This is probably the most difficult task we've ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model. It is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves a task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, changing the economic development model reigning for at least 150 years since the industrial revolution … will not happen at a single conference on climate change ... it does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

Acknowledged on many occasions in these pages, despite failing in practice over history, socialists are not stupid people. Au contraire, like Mark Carney (a leading climate crusader), they are intelligent — that and their moral superiority justify creating narratives to direct the lives of others.

The United Nations, with the efforts of Maurice Strong and the ongoing leadership of Mark Carney, has effectively promulgated and popularized a false narrative. The outcome is more divisiveness between, among, and within countries, and could be a major factor in the breakup of Canada.

Is this not a form of attack by a foreign entity?

Can we kick the UN out of the US and relocate it in Belgium or the Congo. Easter Island would be a good choice, too, because of all the fossil fuels needed to get there.

I remember watching a video years ago, of AOC's assistant at the time, saying how their New Green Deal, had nothing to do with saving the environment - it was all about seizing control of the economy.

Conspiracy theorist don't get tired of dunking on normies.

Report: Why Does the UK Appease Tehran Despite the Dangers to Itself?

Why has the government of the United Kingdom pursued a policy of appeasement towards the Islamic Regime of Iran – no matter which party was resident in Downing Street – over the past 47 years despite the multitude of attacks committed by the Islamic Regime against UK citizens and institutions? After Tehran fired a missile at the UK-US base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, proving incidentally that the appeasers were wrong to state that Iran did not have the capacity to strike at Europe, one Iranian analyst produced a video offering an explanation – the UK has been earning money from dealings with the Islamic Regime.

Rhum Gas Field – The UK Earns Money Keeping Iran Sanctioned During the 1970s, when under the Shah’s leadership the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) not only regained control of Iran’s oil resources (in 1973) but also began oil exploration in other parts of the world in partnership with other oil companies, NIOC began drilling in the North Sea with British Petroleum (BP). In 1977, they discovered the Rhum natural gas field and agreed to share ownership 50-50. For technical reasons, it was not profitable to actually begin producing gas until 2005. In 2010, when the European Union placed sanctions on Tehran due to the Islamic Regime’s nuclear program, gas production was suspended. Three years later, however, Parliament passed a law allowing BP to resume production with the 50 percent that is Iran’s share of the profits held in escrow – minus “management fees” and what BP considered what would have “Iran’s share of production costs.” By the time sanctions were removed in 2016, £26 million of Iranian funds were earning interest for UK banks, including the £1.1 million in management fees. In 2018, sanctions were reimposed on Tehran and BP sold its half of the Rhum field to Serica Energy. Iran’s share of the earnings were reassigned to a Jersey trust supposedly not tied to Tehran – the Channel Islands are, incidentally, notorious hotspots of both tax evasion and money laundering – and by 2022, increased production and higher prices led to Rhum earning £1.2 million a day. Total data for earnings until 2026 are unavailable but the numbers indicate that the UK has earned quite a bit from Iran’s being controlled by an internationally rogue regime.

Source: thegatewaypundit.com

[they] intentionally poison out atmosphere and various ecosystems, and then gaslight us by saying climate change is real, so [they] can steal even more money and resources from us to help perpetuate the poisoning and gaslighting even more.