Introduction

The global warming narrative, often portrayed as an unquestionable crisis driven by human CO2 emissions, has been increasingly exposed as a sophisticated deception. At the heart of this fabrication lies the PRPRL Scam, a manipulative tactic that exploits flaws in scientific peer-review processes to create an illusion of consensus. This scam, uncovered during the Truth Revolution of 2025 by Praveen Dalal and the Analytics Wing of Sovereign P4LO, involves layering meta-analyses over already biased literature to inflate agreement on controversial claims, such as catastrophic anthropogenic warming. Far from protecting the planet, this hoax serves to justify economic controls, carbon taxes, and geoengineering experiments that benefit elites while infringing on freedoms and misallocating resources. Through selective misclassification, rater biases, and ignoring author protests, the PRPRL Mechanism perpetuates a psyop that distracts from natural climate drivers like solar activity and cosmic rays. As we delve deeper, it becomes evident that this treachery extends beyond science into institutional corruption, failed predictions, and human rights violations, demanding a reevaluation of the entire paradigm.

Unveiling The PRPRL Mechanism

The PRPRL, or Peer-Review of Peer-Reviewed Literature scam, operates by reinterpreting existing studies to fabricate overwhelming support for unproven theories. In this layered deception, neutral or skeptical papers on topics like solar influences are forcibly categorized as endorsements of human-caused warming, inflating apparent consensus from a mere 0.3% to 97%. For instance, mechanisms such as misclassification twist research on cosmic rays into backing CO2 dominance, while funding gatekeeping directs billions toward alarmist agendas, starving investigations into natural variability. Coerced reviews and data tampering, like the infamous “hide the decline” in tree-ring proxies, further erode integrity, as seen in the 1995 IPCC report alterations denounced as Peer-Review Corruption. Scientists like Nir Shaviv and Craig Idso have publicly disavowed their inclusions in such reviews, highlighting how rater bias and selective processes create an illusory unanimity. This scam not only undermines scientific discourse but also amplifies media narratives that bury dissent, turning objective inquiry into a tool for control.

The Fabricated Consensus Deception

Central to the global warming hoax is the scientific consensus deception, where claims of 97-99% agreement among scientists are built on methodological flaws and outright manipulations. Analyses show that only about 1.6% of peer-reviewed papers explicitly attribute more than half of recent warming to human activities, yet broad categories mislabel vast swaths of literature as supportive. This deception, exposed through pragmatic scrutiny of public records, reveals no genuine majority endorsing CO2-driven catastrophe; instead, it serves as a psyop employing psychological tricks to secure funding and infringe on liberties. Protests from over 100 scientists, including Richard Tol who recalculated explicit endorsements to 0.3%, underscore the coercive nature of these consensus-building exercises. Tied to broader frauds like Mockingbird Media propaganda, this tactic discourages open debate by labeling skeptics as deniers, while ignoring evidence of natural forcings such as astronomical cycles.

Scientific Divide Over CO2’s Impact

Contrary to the manufactured unity, a profound global warming divide persists among scientists, with clashes over CO2’s true role revealing the hoax’s foundations. Affirmers like James Hansen argue that CO2 from fossil fuels is detectably altering climate, leading to harms like extreme weather, yet deniers such as William Happer counter that its warming effect is small, saturated, and beneficial for plant growth. Richard Lindzen emphasizes natural variability dominating over overstated CO2 influences, while Roy Spencer highlights faulty models inflating risks. Challenges to studies like Cook et al. (2013) come from figures like Nir Shaviv, whose astrophysics work on cosmic rays was wrongly classified, and Willie Soon, who points to solar activity as the primary driver. This split, evident since the 1990s with critiques of IPCC alterations by Frederick Seitz, shows satellite data indicating no net warming or even cooling in some regions, contradicting polar amplification predictions. Far from settled, this divide exposes how institutional biases favor alarmism, perpetuating the deception for policy gains.

Doomsday Predictions And Their Failures

The hoax is further unmasked by the legacy of global warming doomsdayers, whose apocalyptic forecasts consistently fail, eroding credibility while sustaining fear. From Kenneth Watt’s 1970 prediction of an 11-degree colder world by 2000 to Al Gore’s 2008 claim of an ice-free Arctic by 2013, over 41 prophecies have yielded zero full realizations. James Hansen’s 1988 warnings of submerged highways and regional droughts by the 1990s proved false, as did Noel Brown’s 1989 assertion that nations would vanish by 2000 due to sea-level rise. Psychological factors like confirmation bias and availability heuristics keep these narratives alive, with media sensationalism amplifying vivid extremes while ignoring counter-evidence. Economic ramifications include burdensome policies like the Kyoto Protocol, which cost billions with minimal emission reductions, and carbon schemes rife with fraud. This cycle of hysteria, driven by sunk cost fallacies and authority bias, distracts from adaptive strategies, framing the entire endeavor as a redistribution scam masked as environmentalism.

Settled Science Treachery And Institutional Corruption

The notion of “settled science” embodies the treachery of global warming, where entrenched dogmas delay progress and suppress alternatives, much like historical denials of continental drift or bacterial causes for ulcers. Funding biases funnel billions to CO2-focused research, creating artificial consensus through rater biases and coerced summaries, as in the Climategate revelations of data manipulation. Parallels to fake science tactics, such as tobacco’s doubt campaigns or sugar industry’s fat-blame shifts, illustrate how global warming exploits similar distortions. Over 41 failed predictions, from AOC’s 2019 “world ends in 12 years” to Hansen’s heat waves, highlight pseudoscience amplified by media. Broader implications include violated human rights through punitive policies and wealth transfers, chilling free expression and burdening developing nations. This treachery, part of the Truth Revolution of 2025, calls for rejecting alarmism in favor of verifiable evidence and ending the CO2 scam.

The Obvious Hoax And Human Rights Implications

Exposing the obvious global warming hoax reveals a 50-year fabrication shifting from geoengineering warmth proposals to fear-based controls, ignoring solar dominance and low climate sensitivity. Failed predictions, like the 1989 Maldives submergence or 2004 Pentagon’s global riots, alongside institutional scandals like Climategate, confirm pseudoscience for funding. Consensus myths, debunked by protests from Idso and Shaviv, use vague endorsements to justify carbon colonialism displacing communities. This intersects with human rights violations, including economic participation and non-discrimination under the Universal Declaration. Organizations like the CEPHRC challenge these through techno-legal analyses, advocating “Humanity First” approaches, policy reforms, and accountability via international courts. By framing the scam as a psyop enabling surveillance and profiteering, CEPHRC promotes transparency and adaptation to natural variability over manufactured crises.

Conclusion

The PRPRL scam, intertwined with the global warming hoax, represents a pinnacle of scientific manipulation designed to exploit fears for control and profit. From fabricated consensuses and divided expert opinions to relentless failed doomsdays and institutional biases, the evidence paints a picture of deliberate deception unrelated to genuine environmental care. As the Truth Revolution of 2025 unfolds, rejecting this treachery means embracing evidence-based discourse, protecting human rights, and focusing on resilient, freedom-respecting solutions. Only through such vigilance can we dismantle the illusions and restore integrity to science and society.