But a shocking whistleblower reveal suggests something very different: that the UN — in partnership with other global elites — is now actively trying to censor criticism of the climate agenda, shutting down debate rather than fostering it. (Gatestone Institute)
The claim comes from Desiree Fixler, a former member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Responsible Investing and a sustainability officer at a major bank. According to Fixler, during her time inside climate policy circles, she saw firsthand how dissenting views are not just dismissed — they are effectively suppressed. What’s more, she argues that power brokers within the UN and the WEF have no interest in debating the assumptions underlying climate policy — because the narrative serves broader agendas of control. (Gatestone Institute)
At the COP30 climate conference in Brazil in 2025, leaders pushed a “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change,” billed as an effort to fight misinformation. On its surface, that sounds reasonable — who could oppose accuracy in science?
But the problem is deeper than accuracy. According to the whistleblower, this effort is less about truth and more about controlling what people can hear, read and think about climate change at precisely the moment when some platforms like Meta are rolling back heavy-handed “fact check” censorship. (Gatestone Institute)
Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus, warned that when taxpayers are asked to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars on poorly conceived climate policies, there should be open debate, not suppression of dissent. Yet this is exactly what appears to be happening. (Gatestone Institute)
Fixler didn’t mince words in describing this environment. She said people who raise objections to the prevailing climate narrative are often dismissed as “denialists” without engagement with their arguments. They are not encouraged to present evidence; they are shut down. (Gatestone Institute)
She has argued that the global push for “net zero” emissions and the broader climate agenda is not merely about protecting the planet — it is also about consolidating power through mechanisms like stakeholder capitalism, a WEF concept that mixes corporate and state influence in ways critics say erode traditional free-market principles and democratic accountability. (Gatestone Institute)
According to Fixler, the people most affected by climate policy — ordinary citizens struggling with high energy costs and stagnant economies — are nowhere to be found in these discussions. Instead, the debates are dominated by elites who repeatedly claim authority based on consensus lines written into speaking notes rather than on robust, independent engagement with evidence from the real world. (Gatestone Institute)
Meanwhile, the UN continues to push the narrative that “the science compels climate action,” with leaders like Secretary-General António Guterres reiterating calls for dramatic emissions cuts and accelerated transitions — assertions that carry moral weight precisely because alternative views are being sidelined. (Gatestone Institute)
This is not a small disagreement among experts. It is a problem of incentives: when powerful institutions become arbiters not just of policy but of acceptable thought, dissent is no longer just unwelcome — it is excluded.
That’s not debate.
That’s censorship.
Whether one agrees with Fixler’s conclusions or not, the underlying issue she raises demands scrutiny: who gets to decide what counts as acceptable climate discourse, and why should a single international body have the authority to shape that decision for the entire world?
In a free society, even unpopular or uncomfortable ideas should be debated openly. When powerful institutions try to suppress questions instead of engaging them, the real casualty isn’t climate science — it’s trust in the institutions that claim to lead us.
No comments:
Post a Comment