Have you heard of the imminent threat to survival of the American pika? If you’re like most people, you’re quite familiar with the polar bear’s tragic plight due to climate change. A simple online search provides dismal images of the majestic aquatic bear: a polar bear clutching at what appears to be the last remaining jumbo ice cube in a vast and shoreless sea, mama bear with two cubs leaning against her side, a lean-looking bear prowling an unpromising onshore winter wasteland.

But the polar bear proved to carry little clout as a climate change ambassador. Apparently, the American public didn’t relate personally to the polar bear’s predicament. A study “concluded that most Americans still ‘lacked vivid, concrete, and personally-relevant affective images of climate change, which helped explain why climate change remains a relatively low priority...issue.’”i Another spokesperson was needed to drive home the climate change agenda to the American people.

God’s Creatures: Climate Change’s Ambassadors

The American pika has the perfect profile as a climate change ambassador: cute, American, and accessible. The photo accompanying Adventure Journal’s September 15, 2017 article ii on climate change features a pika posing on a slab of alpine rock. With turned-up face, long whiskers, short round ears and bunny-like appearance, the pika rates melt-your-heart status for cuteness.

The shocking headline above the adorable lagomorph reads, “Climate Change Responsible for Extinction of Pikas in Tahoe: These adorable high-alpine residents can’t handle the heat.” The polar bear, and now, the American pika are the hard-working, heart-tugging poster children of climate change propaganda. Perhaps Americans will now demand that their government take action against climate change.

It seems the rest of the world has already embraced the message: We must all do something now to stop global warming or we are all doomed to suffer the fate of the pitiful pika and the pathetic polar bear!

Climate Change: The Debate Rages On

What many people don’t know, however, is that the scientific community is far from being in consensus on whether global warming is actually even happening. Some have noted a cooling trend in recent years that does not support the global warming theory. It turned out “global warming” was not the best term to use. A switch to the use of the term “climate change” conveniently aided the persistence of the prophesied global disaster scenario. Even if there are record-breaking cold temperatures and extreme weather in many places, these irregularities are said to be the expected signs of Earth undergoing the convulsions of climate change. In this way, extreme cold and violent winter storms, against all reason and logic, are made to support the global warming theory.

Even more disturbing than a lack of scientific consensus or the creative use of semantics are accusations that pro-climate change scientists and organizations are less interested in real science than in forwarding a political agenda.

What’s really behind all the climate change hysteria?

The Basics

Climate change proponents claim that due largely to the combustion of fossil fuels, humans are causing global warming which will eventually cause life on earth to become extinct. The theory is that human-generated carbon dioxide production is provoking an unprecedented rapid rise in Earth’s temperature which will “harm all sectors of civilization— food, water, health, land, national security, energy and economic prosperity.”iii Unless carbon dioxide emissions are immediately reduced, climate change prognosticators predict that earth will be plunged into a serious life-threatening crisis within just a few decades.

That’s the Theory

Opposition to the theory abounds. Reputable scientists challenge climate change models and the conclusions of climate change scientists. “The pervasive hype that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis is based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions,” iv so says Forbes’ Larry Bell. Not only that, allegations of biased and fraudulent reporting are also numerous.

Falsified Data

In a January 2015 article titled “Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming,” the Telegraph’s Christopher Booker reported “wholesale corruption of proper science”v, citing evidence of “adjusted” temperature records where historical data are regularly adjusted downward, while more recent data are invariably adjusted upward to falsify a steeper temperature rise over time.

Booker adds that although up to 80% of earth’s surface is “not reliably covered” at all by temperature recording stations, the lack of real data is made up for by computerised infilling based on temperatures recorded elsewhere. Although a higher than proportionate number of recording stations are located in urban centres, which have been shown to have readings that are up to two degrees higher than in rural areas, these higher temperatures are used as representative of vast unmonitored areas, covering as much as 1.6 million square miles. The article’s author calls these not uncommon “distortions of data” “one of the most bizarre aberrations in the history of science.” vi

Funding Bias

Among popular scientists, there’s little motivation to come clean on the phoney science that’s being used to support international climate change policy. At stake for the scientists involved are cushy appointments and fat funding cheques. A National Review article states that “the overwhelming majority of climate- research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations” – to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989 – and that “the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda."vii The article’s author claims that top climate scientists who are not on the climate change bandwagon find it “much more difficult” to get funding for their work. In addition, he describes a shady “Billionaire’s Club… of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism…which in turn send staff to the EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups.” Understandably, he calls these relationships “incestuous” and “opaque.”

Carbon Tax

Another climate change money trail is the one that wealthy nations are, or soon will be, paying by way of carbon tax inputs to poorer undeveloped nations. In 2009 negotiations at Copenhagen, “Wealthy nations … agreed, in principle, to provide $100 billion by 2020 to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund.”viii That is, they’ve agreed to pay $100 billion annually. While many see this as a justified redistribution of wealth that will assist disadvantaged nations in developing without the use of “cheap” fossil fuels, some people find the idea a shocking one. After all, once wealthier nations start paying, when will enough be enough? When all nations are equally impoverished? More than that, what does this required payment to United Nations’ coffers really say about the relationship of the UN to its member countries? Canadian geologist Bill Bell observed, “If the United Nations can tell us what to do with our money and productivity, we will have lost our sovereignty.”ix

Club of Rome

In fact, climate change seems to be just the right vehicle for stripping nations’ sovereignty and sweeping the world under the control of a one world government.

Since its inception in 1968, the Club of Rome has been providing a road map toward the new world order. And it’s been using projections of a looming global environmental disaster as the impetus behind its takeover plans. In 1972 it published its first of many reports, "The Limits to Growth", in which it showed, by the use of computer-generated figures, that if allowed to continue growth in a “business as usual” format, “sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity"x would result by the year 2072. The Club of Rome’s solutions involve dividing the world into 10 regions to be assigned different roles in maintaining a limited human population under a single government.