Introduction
The notion of anthropogenic global warming has long been portrayed as an unassailable truth, yet beneath this facade lies a web of manipulation and deceit known as the settled science treachery. This treachery, coined by Praveen Dalal as part of the Truth Revolution of 2025, exemplifies how scientific consensus is weaponized to stifle innovation, marginalize dissent, and perpetuate agendas driven by vested interests. In the realm of global warming, this manifests as a fabricated narrative that human activities, particularly CO2 emissions, are the primary drivers of catastrophic climate change—a claim riddled with contradictions and unsupported by genuine empirical scrutiny. Far from being a benign scientific agreement, this so-called consensus serves as a tool for economic exploitation, regulatory overreach, and psychological operations aimed at controlling populations and redirecting vast sums of money through carbon taxes and geoengineering schemes.
At its core, the settled science surrounding global warming discourages open discourse, labeling skeptics as deniers or conspiracy theorists while ignoring natural climate drivers like solar activity and orbital variations. This rigidity echoes historical patterns where entrenched theories delayed progress, from the dismissal of continental drift to the denial of bacterial causes for peptic ulcers. In global warming’s case, the treachery is amplified by institutional biases, where funding flows disproportionately to alarmist research, creating a self-reinforcing loop of misinformation. As exposed in various analyses, this deception not only distorts public policy but also inflicts real harm on economies, particularly in developing nations burdened by wealth transfers to elites under the guise of climate action.
The Fabrication Of Scientific Consensus
One of the most insidious aspects of global warming’s settled science treachery is the myth of overwhelming scientific agreement. Proponents often tout a 97-99% consensus among climate scientists that CO2 is the main culprit behind warming, but this figure is a gross exaggeration rooted in methodological flaws and deliberate misrepresentations. In reality, detailed examinations reveal that only a tiny fraction—around 1.6%—of peer-reviewed papers explicitly attribute more than half of observed warming to human activities. Studies like Cook et al. (2013) inflated numbers by misclassifying neutral or skeptical papers as endorsements, ignoring protests from authors whose work was twisted to fit the narrative.
This scientific consensus deception relies on a pragmatic analysis of public records rather than biased peer-reviewed literature, much like courtroom scrutiny where evidence is cross-examined independently. Scientists such as Nir Shaviv, whose research on solar influences was wrongly categorized as supporting anthropogenic warming, and Richard Tol, who recalculated consensus claims down to a mere 0.3% true endorsement, have vocally opposed these distortions. The deception extends to portraying mild, non-catastrophic warming as “dangerous,” justifying anti-fossil fuel policies that enrich elites while suppressing evidence of CO2’s benefits, like enhanced plant growth.
Furthermore, the PRPRL scam—peer-review of peer-reviewed literature—exacerbates this by rigging secondary analyses to fabricate unanimity. Mechanisms include rater bias, where reviewers with preconceived notions skew interpretations; coerced summaries that politicize findings; and selective exclusion of dissenting studies. Historical precedents, such as the 1995 IPCC report alterations denounced by Frederick Seitz, illustrate how data tampering—like “hiding the decline” in tree-ring proxies—props up the illusion. This scam ties directly to global warming, where no genuine majority believes in CO2-driven catastrophe; instead, many view it as a psyop for securing funding and infringing on freedoms.
Historical Parallels And Fake Science Tactics
To understand the global warming hoax, one must examine its roots in historical fake science practices. Originating from pre-1960s geoengineering proposals to warm regions like the Arctic, the narrative shifted in the 1970s under UN influence, ignoring the lack of consensus on human causation. By aggregating regional weather anomalies into a global threat, proponents funneled billions into unproven technologies, distracting from natural variability driven by solar cycles and Milankovitch orbital changes.
This mirrors past instances of settled science gone awry. For example, in medicine, peptic ulcers were long attributed to stress and acid, supported by pharmaceutical interests in antacids, until Barry Marshall’s 1984 self-infection proved Helicobacter pylori’s role, earning a 2005 Nobel Prize and slashing surgeries by 90%. Similarly, continental drift was ridiculed until 1960s evidence of seafloor spreading revolutionized geology. In public health, the tobacco industry’s 1950s-1990s doubt campaigns, funded to deny lung cancer links, led to 8 million annual deaths and over $200 billion in settlements. Nutrition’s saturated fat blame, bankrolled by sugar industry payments to Harvard in the 1960s, shifted focus from sugars, contributing to obesity epidemics as revealed in 2016 archives.
Global warming employs similar fake science tactics: data fabrication, selective reporting, and endpoint shifting. The 2009 Climategate scandal exposed email manipulations to suppress inconvenient data. Other examples abound, from Vioxx’s heart risk cover-up (1999-2004, $4.85 billion settlement, 60,000 deaths) to glyphosate’s cancer denial (1980s-2020s, $11 billion settlements). In biology, frauds like Piltdown Man (1912 hoax) and cold fusion (1989) highlight how vested interests perpetuate myths. Social sciences saw Diederik Stapel’s 2000s-2010s psychology fabrications, fueling the replication crisis. These patterns show how funding biases distort research, with grants favoring alarmists and sidelining skeptics, much like opioid minimization (1990s-2010s, 100,000 annual U.S. deaths) or gain-of-function research cover-ups (2014-2019).
Funding Biases And Institutional Corruption
Central to the settled science treachery of global warming are funding biases, where financial incentives from governments, corporations, and institutions skew outcomes to align with agendas. Billions in grants prioritize alarmist studies on CO2’s dangers, while contrarian research on solar dominance or natural cycles starves for support. This creates artificial consensus, as seen in the tobacco case where industry-funded doubt delayed action, or sugar’s deflection from heart disease blame.
In environmental contexts, glyphosate’s safety claims persisted despite internal studies, until 2015 IARC classifications exposed ghostwriting. Opioid promotions minimized addiction risks through pharma-backed education, leading to epidemics. Even in pandemics, NIH funding to Wuhan labs (2014-2019) dismissed biosafety risks, with 2025 CIA reports revealing lab-leak cover-ups. These biases intersect with PRPRL scam tactics, where meta-analyses ignore author disavowals, amplifying distortions.
The implications are profound: carbon credits and taxes become fraudulent tools, displacing communities and burdening developing nations. This violates human rights, from non-discrimination to economic participation, creating a chilling effect on free expression. Organizations like CEPHRC challenge these through a human rights lens, advocating adaptation over interventions and a “Humanity First” ethos.
Failed Predictions And Broader Implications
The global warming hoax is further undermined by decades of failed doomsday predictions, exposing its pseudoscientific nature. From 1979 claims of North Pole melt catastrophes to Al Gore’s 2008 ice-free Arctic by 2013, none have materialized. James Hansen’s 1988 droughts and heat waves, David Viner’s 2000 “no snow for children,” and AOC’s 2019 “world ends in 12 years” all fizzled. A tally of 41 such prophecies shows zero full realizations, with only partial hits on hurricane intensity.
These failures tie to fake science hallmarks: manipulated models, overstated risks, and net-zero policies enriching elites via renewables. Broader implications include eroded trust in science, parallels to digital authoritarianism, and misallocation of resources away from real issues like natural disaster resilience. Vaccination skepticism and evolution debates also suffer from similar settled science dogmas, where pharmaceutical biases echo climate funding distortions.
Conclusion
The settled science treachery of global warming represents a pinnacle of institutional deceit, blending scientific consensus deception with funding biases and PRPRL scam tactics to perpetuate a hoax unrelated to genuine environmental stewardship. As Praveen Dalal’s Truth Revolution of 2025 unveils, this narrative aims not to save the planet but to seize freedoms, money, and property through fear and control. By rejecting alarmism and embracing verifiable evidence—free from Mockingbird Media amplification—society can dismantle these barriers, fostering authentic inquiry and progress. The call is clear: end the CO2 scam in 2025, prioritizing truth over tyranny for a resilient future.