Climate Alarmism's Dirty Secret

For decades we have been told to “trust the science.” It is a powerful phrase, designed to end debate rather than invite it. But science, real science, does not fear scrutiny. It welcomes it. And that is precisely why the growing evidence of weather and climate data manipulation should concern everyone — including those who genuinely care about the environment.

A recent YouTube presentation (linked below) lays out, in clear and troubling detail, how historical weather data has been altered, adjusted, homogenised, and in some cases outright rewritten to manufacture a narrative of accelerating climate catastrophe. The presentation is uncomfortable hearing not because it is radical, but because it is meticulous.

This is not a denial of climate change. The climate has always changed. It always will. The issue here is whether the data we are shown has been massaged to fit a predetermined conclusion, rather than conclusions being drawn from unaltered data.

---

From Measurement to Manipulation

Weather stations used to be simple, consistent instruments. Many were placed away from urban heat sources, measured manually, and maintained with care. Over time, however, measurement practices changed:

• Weather stations were relocated closer to urban areas

• Surroundings became increasingly built-up

• Measurement techniques changed

• Historical data was “adjusted” to align with modern models

Each of these changes introduces bias. Taken together, they can dramatically distort long-term temperature trends.

Yet instead of clearly flagging these limitations, climate authorities routinely retroactively cool the past and warm the present, exaggerating warming trends. There are multiple examples where raw historical data shows modest or flat trends — until it is “corrected.”

Corrected for what, exactly? Often, the justification is vague, opaque, or circular.

The Vanishing Past

One of the most damning aspects highlighted is the systematic disappearance of inconvenient data.

Stations showing little or no warming are quietly removed from datasets. Older records that contradict modern alarmism are re-interpreted or discarded. Meanwhile, newer stations — often located near airports, asphalt, air conditioners, and expanding cities — dominate the averages.

This is not how honest science behaves.

If the climate case is as overwhelming as claimed, it should stand on raw, transparent data. Instead, we see gatekeeping, obfuscation, and appeals to authority.

Models Over Reality

Another key issue raised is the elevation of computer models above observed reality. Models are useful tools, but they are only as good as their assumptions. When observations diverge from models, the models should be questioned.

Instead, what we increasingly see is the reverse: observations are “adjusted” to better match the models.

That is not science. That is narrative enforcement.

Why This Matters

This manipulation matters because it underpins policies that affect every household:

• Rising energy costs

• Reduced reliability of power grids

• Increased cost of living

• De-industrialisation and offshoring

• Reduced national resilience

If societies are being asked to accept economic pain, reduced living standards, and sweeping government intervention, the justification must be rock-solid. Not politically convenient. Not selectively curated.

When data is manipulated to scare the public into compliance, trust is destroyed — not just in climate institutions, but in science itself.

Skepticism Is Not Heresy

Questioning data is not denialism. It is the foundation of science.

The disturbing reality exposed in this presentation is that dissent is no longer debated — it is silenced. Critics are smeared rather than answered. Data is hidden rather than defended.

That should worry everyone, regardless of where they sit on climate policy.

Because once data becomes a political tool, truth is no longer the goal.

Watch the Full Presentation

I have included the full YouTube video at the bottom of this post. I strongly encourage readers to watch it in full and judge the evidence for themselves.

If the climate narrative is as robust as we are told, it should survive transparency.

If it cannot — then the real crisis is not the climate, but the corruption of science itself

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 7 of 2026

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• Iran has Lost All Legitimacy - The Free World Must Act
• Australia's Mass Immigration Causing Lower Living Standards
• Reality vs Gender Dogma
• "Towards Heaven or Hell?"
• It's Time to Say "Enough is Enough!"
  
• Climate Alarmism's Dirty Secret

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

It’s Time to Say “Enough Is Enough”

Every now and then someone says out loud what millions are thinking but feel pressured not to voice. This week, Rowan Dean did exactly that.

In his Sky News monologue, “It’s Time To Say Enough Is Enough,” Dean gives voice to a growing, simmering frustration felt by many Australians — not anger for its own sake, but exhaustion. Exhaustion with being told that the country you were born into, contributed to, paid taxes for, and loved somehow no longer belongs to you. Exhaustion with being lectured, shamed, and silenced for holding views that were once entirely uncontroversial.

Dean’s message isn’t subtle, and it isn’t meant to be. He speaks about the steady erosion of everyday Australian culture — the easy camaraderie, the larrikin spirit, the freedom to speak plainly without fear of professional or social punishment. He calls out the relentless indoctrination in schools and universities, where young Australians are taught to despise their own history and heritage rather than understand it honestly.

He rails against the hypocrisy of elites who preach tolerance while showing nothing but contempt for ordinary Australians. Against councils and institutions obsessed with symbolism while basic services deteriorate. Against mass immigration policies that demand cultural surrender in the name of “multiculturalism,” while insisting that long-standing Australian norms are somehow offensive or obsolete.

Most of all, Dean rejects the idea that free speech must be sacrificed for “social cohesion” — a trade-off no Australian ever agreed to. When did speaking your mind become an act of rebellion? When did loving your country become something that required an apology?

You don’t have to agree with every line Rowan Dean delivers to recognise the truth at the heart of his argument: a society that constantly tells its own people to sit down, shut up, and feel ashamed will eventually hear a collective response.

Enough.

The full video is well worth watching — not because it’s polite or carefully calibrated, but because it’s raw, honest, and reflective of a mood that Australia’s political and cultural class continues to ignore at its peril.

👉 Watch Rowan Dean’s full monologue below:

https://youtu.be/Vged8LF3s0Y?si=-rR48qv8PhEH7tc-

Reality vs Gender Dogma

For years now we’ve been told something that flies in the face of common sense: that men and women are essentially the same, and that any differences we observe are merely the result of “social conditioning”. If only parents, teachers and society behaved differently, boys and girls would turn out the same.

Anyone who has raised children of both sexes knows this simply isn’t true.

John Stossel’s recent video tackles this taboo head-on, and it’s refreshing precisely because it says out loud what most people quietly observe. From a very early age — long before schooling, media influence or “gender norms” can reasonably explain it — boys and girls behave differently. They gravitate toward different toys, different types of play, different levels of risk and competition. These are not moral judgements. They are observations.

The argument that these differences are entirely “learned” collapses even further when you look beyond humans. Baby monkeys, raised without pink aisles or toy trucks, display sex-based behavioural differences almost immediately after birth. If that’s “societal conditioning”, then society has extended itself remarkably into the animal kingdom.

Stossel revisits decades of research that has been quietly sidelined because it conflicts with modern ideology. On average — and averages matter at a population level — men are more risk-taking, more competitive, more drawn to novelty. Women, again on average, are better at reading emotions, more nurturing, and more risk-averse. There are, of course, exceptions in every direction. But pretending the averages don’t exist doesn’t make them disappear.

This matters because entire institutions are now being reshaped around the denial of these differences. Universities, workplaces and even schools are being redesigned under the assumption that unequal outcomes must be evidence of discrimination. If men dominate certain fields, it must be sexism. If women dominate others, it is celebrated as progress. The possibility that different choices, preferences and temperaments play a role is treated as heresy.

Stossel also highlights a deeper problem: the refusal to talk honestly about sex differences has consequences. Boys are falling behind in education. Merit and excellence are being replaced by quotas and “equity”. Academic freedom is sacrificed to emotional safety. And institutions meant to pursue truth increasingly shy away from it.

None of this is an argument for inequality before the law. Quite the opposite. Equal rights, equal protection, equal opportunity — these are pillars of a free society. But equality does not require sameness. And trying to force sameness, especially by denying biology, ends up harming everyone.

The video is worth watching in full, not because it offers a neat ideological answer, but because it restores something badly missing from the debate: honesty. You don’t have to agree with every point to recognise that silencing discussion about biological differences between men and women is neither scientific nor humane.

Reality, inconvenient as it may be, has a way of asserting itself. The question is whether we choose to acknowledge it — or continue pretending that chromosomes don’t matter, even as the evidence keeps piling up.

(Watch the full John Stossel video below.}

https://youtu.be/HFXRoKzWFR0?si=3OjAPr9S28WG5GiQ

Australia's Mass Immigration Causing Lower Living Standards

For years now, Australians have been told that record immigration is an unquestionable good. It boosts GDP. It keeps the economy “growing”. It fills skills shortages. It’s framed as both an economic necessity and a moral virtue.

Yet for ordinary households, the lived reality tells a very different story.

Both major political parties have quietly embraced mass immigration as a convenient lever to inflate headline economic numbers. More people means more consumption, higher aggregate GDP, and the illusion of prosperity. But GDP growth is not the same thing as rising living standards — and Australians are increasingly feeling the gap between the two.

Falling Behind, Even While the Economy “Grows”

While total GDP has expanded, household income per person has gone backwards. Australians are working harder, competing more fiercely for jobs, housing, and services, yet finding themselves worse off in real terms.

This isn’t accidental. When population growth far outpaces the ability of an economy to provide housing, infrastructure, and productivity-enhancing investment, the result is dilution. Wages stagnate. Bargaining power weakens. Costs rise faster than incomes.

An economy can grow while its citizens become poorer. That is exactly what has been happening.

Housing: The Pressure Point Everyone Feels

Nowhere are the consequences clearer than in housing.

Rents have exploded across the country. In many cities, the average rental cost now consumes around a third of the average weekly income. For younger Australians, single-income households, and renters with families, the burden is crushing.

This is not a mysterious market failure. It is basic supply and demand. When governments import hundreds of thousands of people each year while restricting land release, slowing approvals, and failing to invest in social housing, rents and prices were always going to surge.

Home ownership — once a realistic aspiration for working Australians — is drifting further out of reach. A generation is being locked into permanent renting, not because they are lazy or entitled, but because policy choices have stacked the deck against them.

Infrastructure Strained to Breaking Point

Housing is only one piece of the puzzle. Roads are clogged. Public transport is overcrowded. Hospitals are stretched. Schools are bursting at the seams. Waiting lists grow longer while service quality declines.

These pressures are routinely blamed on “unexpected demand”, yet the demand has been entirely predictable. What hasn’t kept pace is investment — or political honesty.

Instead of planning for population growth responsibly, governments have treated infrastructure as an afterthought, leaving communities to absorb the costs.

Social Cohesion Is Not Infinite

There is another cost politicians are reluctant to discuss: social cohesion.

Australia has been one of the most successful multicultural societies in the world precisely because immigration was historically managed, paced, and broadly supported by the public. That social contract is now fraying.

When people feel ignored, crowded out, and economically stressed, trust erodes. Communities retreat inward. Resentment grows — not necessarily toward migrants themselves, but toward a political class that appears indifferent to the consequences of its decisions.

Importantly, Australians have consistently said — through polling over many years — that immigration levels are too high. These views have been stable, moderate, and persistent. Yet they have been ignored by both major parties.

The Political Consequences Are Now Visible

It should surprise no one, then, that parties like One Nation are seeing a surge in support. When mainstream politics refuses to acknowledge a problem, voters will turn to those who at least name it.

This is not an endorsement of every policy or tone used by such parties. It is a warning sign. A signal that large numbers of Australians feel unheard, economically squeezed, and dismissed as morally suspect for raising legitimate concerns.

Suppressing debate does not make these pressures disappear. It simply drives them elsewhere.

A Choice That Didn’t Have to Be This Way

Australia is a prosperous country with abundant resources, strong institutions, and a history of successful immigration. None of this required the reckless population growth of recent years.

Immigration should serve the interests of the nation as a whole — not be used as a shortcut to pad GDP figures while households struggle. Sustainable migration, aligned with housing supply, infrastructure capacity, and wage growth, is not radical. It is responsible governance.

The real question is not why voters are pushing back.

It is why our political leaders ignored them for so long.