George Orwell would have had the climate change crusade easily figured out.

Today’s Ministry of Truth is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Established in 1988 by the United Nations, the IPCC is the source of most of the supposedly authoritative warnings that man-made climate change is destroying the planet. The truth is what the IPCC says it is, and anyone questioning it is automatically guilty of thoughtcrime, which in Newspeak is definitely doubleplusungood.

As for HateWeeks, these are held from time to time when officials of the Ministry of Truth organise conferences around the world where the participants can declare their hatred for carbon dioxide (CO2) as the enemy of the people. Subsidiary enemies such as oil companies or coal-fired power stations also come in for some of the hate.

Hate is indeed gathering momentum as big money refuses to finance any more doubleplusungood investment in such ventures after Extinction Rebellion and others issue their atrocity pamphlets. Understandably, nobody in big money would wish to be targeted for hate in the way poor old Emmanuel Goldstein was back in 1984. Perhaps he was the first man to burn fossil fuels. Maybe he even invented CO2?

Mental disorder

As for Big Brother, he would have applauded how one British university got into the swing of things by holding a conference to discuss whether denial of climate change could be classified as a form of mental disorder. Perhaps they picked up the idea from the USSR.

Big Brother would also have been mightily impressed at the commitment of thousands of Little Sisters around the world. They think nothing of giving up their education in order to sniff out enemies of the people. He would have been immensely proud of how during hate week the most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren.

And he would have been highly chuffed to read an advertisement by a German company in a British newspaper inviting children to save the planet by becoming “climate cops” who would spy on their parents, relatives, and neighbours and catch them out in “climate crimes” such as leaving the television on standby, putting hot food in the fridge or freezer, or failing to use low-energy lightbulbs.

Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh?

Also impressed would have been Parsons, Winston Smith’s neighbour in Orwell’s celebrated novel 1984. Parsons was denounced by his own daughter. As Parsons told Smith, She listened at the keyhole, heard what I was saying and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh?

As for the memory holes, like the ones where poor old Winston Smith laboured night and day, they would also have to be in operation overtime. Among their biggest customers would be not only the IPCC itself, but also Al Gore (who did not quite make it to a big brother job but is nevertheless still watching and warning us).

He it was who needed a memory hole down which to throw information about periods of global warming and ice ages in days long gone by. This was because that information contradicted his graph in the shape of an ice hockey stick. The only way in which Mr Gore could perpetuate his view that two and two make five was – you guessed it – to consign to oblivion the data showing that two and two make four.    

Gore’s example

Unless you want to be guilty of thoughtcrime, you must follow Mr Gore’s example – and that of woke journalists, IPCC activists, politicians, and others – and recognise the mutability of the past. Accordingly all the evidence of earlier floods, droughts, fires, cyclones, sea-level rises, heatwaves, ice ages, and melting ice caps throughout history must be consigned to the memory hole because they happened before anyone started burning much fossil fuel.

Also made to disappear must be all the evidence that the Earth somehow survived with very much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than there are now. Along with that must go all the historical data showing that high levels of CO2 sometimes coincide with global warming and sometimes with global cooling. And vice versa. In short, every piece of evidence or argument that could encourage thoughtcrime must be dropped into the memory hole.

As Big Brother so wisely asserted, Ignorance is strength. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness. Not least of course, Who controls the past controls the future. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.

If you like what you have just read, subscribe to the Daily Friend


  1. Brave report. Thanks. The media generally overflows with the kind of nonsense like for example Daily Maverick’s “Burning Planet”

  2. What the Friend should be doing is analysing the scientific evidence out there for and against and not try and make a case using fiction in novels.

    if you claim that there is a cover up bring out the science to support the arguement and not try and confuse the issue by using children and novels

    • I found the article well worth the read. Accepting mass hysteria without question is very dark ageist and unenlightened. ‘Believers’ once pilloried and executed those who claimed that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa.

    • I fear you may have missed the gist of the article.
      And the science is widely available with a little bit of digging.
      If you don’t know where to start then try Lord Christopher Monckton who offers a good deal of research clues & trails to follow

      • That may be all true but to tackle a problem one cannot use fairy tales. If there is good science based evidence then it is that evidence that should be the challenger not unscientific stories.

        Lord Christopher Monckton is mentioned and this is my point, he is not a scientist, and has no scientific training. Eminent scientists have discredited his views as unscientific and these are on line. Furthermore he cannot point to any scientific review and support of his views. So I am afraid Monckton is not a credible witness as you believe.

        • Scientists are pressured to accept the prevailing orthodoxy if they seek to retain funding, so am not surprised some ’eminent’ scientists discredit Monckton’s views – which are not so much views as presentations of existing sets of collated science data & stats.
          He may not be a trained scientist (although he has written for peer reviewed publications), but a maths lecturer and journalist with a critical eye for analysis which while sifting through the science led him to change his mind about man-made climate change. That’s what caught my attention & directed me in my own search.
          Equally, thousands of scientists agree with his analysis as can be checked at the heartland institute

          See “Is Heartlands position on global warming ‘extremist’ or outside scientific mainstream?”

  3. Wow, so JKB has finally read ‘1984’! Please remember that is fiction, exactly the same as the bits and pieces put together in this article. No facts, just a whole lot of innuendos designed to confuse the ignorant.
    If you want to find out the truth, why not look at the the work and publications of the best universities and research laboratories all over the world. The people working there are top-class researchers (some even went to Oxford), and their collective opinion is that man’s activities – in particular burning of fossil fuels – is the main contributor to the increasing climate change we witness today. And make no mistake, climate change is negatively affecting humanity, the environment and biodiversity all over our planet – and it will get worse.

  4. Thanks for an excellent article John. Yes, 1984 was written in 1948 and thus “fiction”, but that is exactly the point it made: socialism is a dead-end street and will end up where the world now finds itself. Fiction has now become reality. There is no such a thing as climate change or global warming. All the science proves it unambiguously. Even the findings of the IPCC confirms it, but then what they publish in their summaries is exactly the opposite of the findings in the body of the lengthy reports! It is very well known and generally understood that any scientist who dares to challenge the fraud is immediately excommunicated from their position. So the silent majority remains silent until they retire. But then, science is never settled, nor decided by ballot. Real science is based on facts, regardless of how popular it is.

  5. I cannot tell whether climate change is true, whether humans are really all to blame and whether this planet is headed for a sweltering, future of fickle weather. That is because I cannot find the appropriate science to convince me. Believe me, it is not through lack of trying. Whenever I find some document or piece of writing that I think might now finally put the idea to rest, I stumble upon vast assumptions that are used to back up hat amounts to no more than claims, sophistically clothed in glib scientific verbiage. But, give the white coats their due, they are better at it than I, so I will keep my mind open. to a point. What really gets me though is that these high and mighty men and women of scientific substance are so quick to resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks against the people who differ from them, in stead of answering the opposing claims. And then you see them act much like their Jesuit forbears from way back – remove the sod from office! After all, he/she is ruining the consensus! So, I am open to the idea of climate change, but I truly find its proponents despicable.

  6. John you made your conspiracy theory about climate change much too narrow to only talk about the IPCC. You forgot to include the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA, etc. Plus of course the scientific journals like National Geographic, Scientific American, and others. I must say the thought has crossed my mind that NASA must be schizophrenic to be able to launch satellites to track our climate while at the same time be so wrong about the interpretation of the results. Alternatively, instead of this ad hominem tirade, you may like to comment on on the substance of the US National Climate Assessment Report. This is not by the IPCC so you should feel free to read it. Its 841 pages will keep you well occupied during this shutdown time, but if you want to skip to the nub I would recommend Appendix 3 which deals with Climate Science.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here