In yet another blow to the choreographed deception that big money skews the climate change debate to benefit skeptics, the New York Times published an article last week documenting millionaire money funding disruptive climate activism.
Dubbed the Climate Emergency Fund, organized campaigns to disrupt society via climate protests have raised more than $1 million from Daddy Warbucks families like the Gettys and the Kennedys.
According to the Times, “The grants have been welcome, said Roger Hallam, a co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, in a telephone interview from England. ‘My understanding is, unsurprisingly, some of the rich people are intelligent enough to do the basic maths and realize we’re heading toward extinction.’ Climate change, he said, makes strong protest reasonable, even necessary.”
It is hard to decide which is worse. Is it worse that alarmists and their media lapdogs keep peddling the laughably false story that disproportionate funding benefits skeptics in the climate change debate, or is it worse that huge alarmist funding is promoting ridiculous assertions like the assertion that global warming is threatening imminent human extinction?
It gets still worse. Discussing law-breaking disruption perpetrated by the Extinction Rebellion group, the Times observes, “Mr. Hallam seemed to find these distinctions a bit fussy. The money the group raises doesn’t precisely go to someone to break the law, he said, but ‘it goes without saying that Extinction Rebellion is involved in civil disobedience, and civil disobedience involves breaking the law.’ But, he said, the group draws the line at destructive and violent acts.”
The Times adds, “The scale of the problem, he said, makes rebellion necessary. ‘Sometimes it’s common sense that you have to cause harm to prevent a greater harm.’”
Rich oligarchs give millions of dollars to promote climate alarmism and societal disruption. They admit they are causing harm, but justify causing harm under the assertion that the ends justify the means. And then the media vilify climate realist scientists and allege that big money is skewing the debate in favor of skeptics/realists.