Climate Alarmists Go Silent: Turns Out Fossil Fuels Are Earth’s ‘Miracle-Gro’

By Vijay Jayaraj

Climate alarmists treat fossil fuels as the producer of soot and environmental damage, yet the record is more complicated and quite positive. New research shows nitrogen deposition from the burning of hydrocarbons has helped to expand plant growth and the greening of large parts of the planet.

A Nutrient Hidden in Emissions

A 2026 global analysis published in Ecography examined increased vegetative greening across major ecosystems and found that one of the strongest statistical links was nitrogen deposition, greater even than changes in climate and land use. NASA’s own Earth science material lists the second-largest driver of greening as nitrogen, accounting for 9% of the effect. Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, also from the use of fossil fuels, accounts for 70% of greening, according to NASA.

While often framed as a pollutant, reactive nitrogen, released primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels, has been quietly fertilizing our planet. Although 78% of the atmosphere is made up of nitrogen, it is not in the form that many plants can use. However, nitrogen oxides released from the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas act as a fertilizer that plant roots absorb and use to build proteins and chlorophyll.

Farmers pay good money for synthetic fertilizer built on exactly this chemistry. Nature, through the everyday byproducts of industrial civilization, has been delivering a diluted version of that fertilizer to forests, grasslands, and agricultural fields for more than a century.

You will not hear this from researchers who depend on alarming headlines to renew their next grant. Academic funding bodies do not reward scientists for reporting that industry has quietly fertilized half a continent’s worth of new leaf area. Instead, they reward papers that confirm a bogus crisis narrative.

Chemistry aside, much of the agricultural abundance of the modern world exists because the planet warmed out of one of the coldest periods in the last two millennia.

Warmth Feeds Us
Historians call it the Little Ice Age, a 600-year cold spell that gripped much of the globe until the middle of the 19th century. Harvests failed repeatedly. Grain prices spiked. Livestock starved in barns for lack of fodder. Rivers that had never frozen in living memory turned solid enough to walk across. Regions with already short growing seasons had them grow even shorter, and famine followed.

In contrast, warmth helps big time. Not just today, but in earlier warm periods that had temperatures comparable to today’s. During the Medieval Warm Period, European vineyards crept northward into England and Norse farmers grazed cattle on pastures in Greenland that today sit locked under permafrost.

These historical precedents underscore a crucial point: Climate is dynamic, and warmer periods have often coincided with human prosperity and thriving ecosystems. To ignore this historical context is to embrace a selective amnesia, driven by an apocalyptic agenda.

Undeniable Relationship Between CO2 and Plant Growth
Notwithstanding the extraordinary warmth enjoyed by Greenland’s Norse farmers 1,000 years ago, they did not have an advantage present today: elevated concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the very molecule falsely blamed for overheating Earth. The physiological benefit of a richer CO2 atmosphere for plant life is not a fringe theory. It is established fact, confirmed by government scientists and others.

A NASA-backed study using three decades of satellite data found that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide has been the dominant driver behind a surge in global leaf area equivalent to roughly two additional continents’ worth of green cover, with NASA reporting that carbon dioxide fertilization alone accounts for the majority of that effect.

Research of crop yields show that wheat increases by 20% to 30% under elevated CO2, rice by 15% to 32%, and soybeans by up to 46%. Greenhouse operators routinely elevate CO2 levels up to 1,000 parts per million to turbocharge tomato, cucumber, and lettuce production.

These facts have largely been concealed by the climate industrial complex that relies on fear for its continuation. Bureaucracies thrive on emergency declarations. Journalists, preoccupied with their predetermined agendas, repeat the apocalyptic script because it sells. This blindness carries real costs. Developing nations face pressure to abandon the fossil fuels that could lift their people out of poverty.

The question is no longer whether fossil fuels have greened the planet. The evidence is overwhelming. Will people in power have the courage to acknowledge it as a benefit?

Originally published at Washington Examiner, August 17, 2026.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.8 25 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
68 Comments
Scarecrow Repair
August 18, 2026 10:12 pm

I have a question for biologists. Why don’t plants collect nitrogen from the air like they do CO2? I can think of several reasons, but they all seem like they could have been overcome by several hundred years of evolution.

  • Atmospheric nitrogen requires an enormous amount of energy to break apart into the kind of nitrogen plants can use.
  • There’s way too much atmospheric nitrogen, and filtering out the excess is too energy intensive or complicated.
  • The bacteria some (all?) plants use to pick up nitrogen are very efficient and there’s no incentive to make a home-grown internal copycat.
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
August 18, 2026 10:30 pm

Soy beans fix nitrogen in their root nodules. Alder trees fix nitrogen. Why don’t you do this search using Bing: What organisms fix atmospheric nitrogen?

Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
August 19, 2026 1:10 am

The answer is in the article:

Although 78% of the atmosphere is made up of nitrogen, it is not in the form that many plants can use. However, nitrogen oxides released from the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas act as a fertilizer that plant roots absorb and use to build proteins and chlorophyll.”

MarkW
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
August 19, 2026 3:36 am

The question was, why can’t plants make use of the form of nitrogen found in the air?

Reply to  MarkW
August 19, 2026 4:06 am

Because it’s the OXIDES of nitrogen they need. You might as well ask why plants can’t use soot in the air, because that’s carbon too.

Junkgirl
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
August 19, 2026 4:38 am

Accidental down. Meant UPvote.

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  Junkgirl
August 19, 2026 5:46 am

You can change your vote. The buttons are toggle swiches.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
August 19, 2026 6:42 am

There’s a huge physical difference between lumps of carbon you can feel and gases. Your analogy does not answer the question.

MarkW
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
August 19, 2026 4:45 pm

Still not responsive to the question that was actually asked.

Brian Mihura
Reply to  MarkW
August 19, 2026 2:18 pm

3 units of ATP are required per CO2 molecule in photosynthesis. It requires 16 units of ATP to convert a single N2 molecule to NH3 – ammonia.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
August 19, 2026 5:34 am

When I get a car to pass an emissions test, NO is one of the pollutants they look at.
Is this the nitrogen oxide that is good for plant life.
Is this another thing that we have to eliminate from the endangerment finding?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Brad-DXT
August 19, 2026 6:37 am

Yes and yes, except in cities where NO concentrations can be concerning as concrete does not green. Augmented levels of NO2, etc. are detrimental to those with asthma and other respiratory issues. That said, the current linear no threshold criteria are bogus.

RobPotter
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
August 19, 2026 1:46 am

Plants subject to natural selection don’t need to fix their own NO3 – there is plenty there in the soil. It is only since humans began to breed for increased yield that NO3 became a limiting factor. Todays crop plants are so efficient at converting sunlight into carbohydrate (especially with all that yummy extra CO2 in the atmosphere) that we need to supplement a lot of the other nutrients. Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium as the basics – referred to as NPK – but depending on your soils other minerals are also needed.

Legumes have evolved a symbiotic relationship with a soil bacterium called Rhizobium, which is often used as a seed treatment or otherwise supplemented in the soil. Rhizobium species and strains are crop specific so there is quite an industry around producing them. There are other cyanobacteria which can develop a symbiotic relationship with cereals (Azolla species), but I have only heard this occasionally being used for rice production.

Nitrogen fixation is one of the blue-sky metabolic engineering goals in plant improvement – utilising genes from nitrogen fixing bacteria in transgenic plants – but I haven’t heard of any success recently. Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) is a breeding trait that can be selected for and is of some interest, but is not likely to do more than reduce the need for NO3 by a small amount.

Reply to  RobPotter
August 19, 2026 5:56 am

all that yummy extra CO2 in the atmosphere) that we need to supplement a lot of the other nutrients. Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium as the basics – referred to as NPK – but depending on your soils other minerals are also needed”

There’s something I had not considered. Good comment. 🙂

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  RobPotter
August 19, 2026 6:49 am

Thanks. I hadn’t known about that. Two ways to get nitrogen, and because the soil path took root, ha ha, there was no need for the air path.

Any idea of how chancy this was? If there had been a hundred planet Earths, would any of them have started with the air path instead? And how much difference would that have made to subsequent life on Earth?

Reply to  RobPotter
August 19, 2026 9:58 am

If there is already plenty of nitrogen available for crop plants naturally, why do we see big tanks of ammonium nitrates in farm fields. If my lawn is any indication the soil for lawns and crops is rapidly depleted of nitrogen. The Haber-Bosch Process was a big part of the 254% increase in per acre crop yields between the 1950s and today.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  drhealy
August 19, 2026 11:50 am

As I understood what he said, that extra nitrogen wasn’t necessary until modern times because soil did have enough for life in the wild. It was modern farming and its higher yields which needed more nitrogen.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
August 19, 2026 4:05 pm

The element nitrogen is very inert. It takes a large amount of energy to bond other elements to the atom. Life arose in an environment with lots of nitrogen compounds available. There was a vast planet full of micro-organisms for many millions of years before the first plant ever appeared, so even if what was lying around was insufficient the more simple organisms were still alive and still fixing nitrogen from their own growth and reproduction.
And btw, nothing like evolution happens in hundreds of years

Lightening is so powerful that it has the energy to fix nitrogen and it does, ask Google how many fierce electrical bolts are going off in the atmosphere all around the world per hour.

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
August 19, 2026 6:49 pm

And btw, nothing like evolution happens in hundreds of years

All other things being equal, the rate of evolution depends on how fast a species breeds. That is to say, fecund organisms have the ability to evolve more quickly than long-lived creatures that produce one offspring every few years. What is important is the number of generations, not the number of years.

August 18, 2026 10:30 pm

Well, who would have thunk that desequestering old plants would release things that helps new plants grow.! 😉

Yes, there are some substances released that are not all that desirable, but humans have figured out to filter most of those out.

Bill Toland
August 18, 2026 10:40 pm

If you are waiting for climate alarmists to acknowledge the benefits of global warming, you will be waiting a long time. This is like expecting a member of a religious cult to admit that their entire world view is deranged.

Junkgirl
Reply to  Bill Toland
August 19, 2026 4:45 am

True. I was in a mild religious “cult” for 25 years and also a political one. Guess which political one? Begins with D and ends with rats. Believe me, you don’t see the crazy until you get out and look back into it. One thing pushed me out of both and my eyes opened to it all.

Reply to  Bill Toland
August 19, 2026 5:58 am

It’s like expecting suicidal Iranian religious fanatics to compromise on their delusions.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 19, 2026 8:22 am

Sad but true.

Rod Evans
August 18, 2026 11:27 pm

When the obvious and proven benefits of fossil fuel use is ignored and worse cancelled by group censorship wedded to apocalyptic imagination. We have to ask. Who benefits from ignoring the truth and who benefits from impoverishing the early adopters of fossil fuel wealth generation?
Why do the anarchists/Climate Alarmists who driving their misconception agenda in the West, feel superior and missionary? The unavoidable weight of scientific evidence tells them they are completely wrong.
It is similar to Galileo showing the established authorities in the Church of his day, they are completely wrong. They not only refused to allow the truth to be revealed, they incarcerated him to stop him spreading the word. He had the word, shown and confirmed to him through a telescope. He had the truth, but the establishment refused to allow people to follow him. That role was already allocated.
Their vested interests their religious dogma and their world construct had to be protected.
The Climate Alarmist religion, and we can refer to it as a religion, is no less focused than the pre enlightenment construct of the Catholic Church.
The take away is, we should be wary of all religions. They don’t have a very good record of presenting the truth. They are very developed in spreading the word. We must make of that what we will.
Perhaps the Climate Religion’s beatifications have already begun. Perhaps we are on the road to a new group of saints. St. Gore, St Thunberg, St. Mann, and heaven only knows maybe even St. Monbiot….

Reply to  Rod Evans
August 19, 2026 5:15 am

St. Moonbat, now there’s a name I’ve not heard in a long time.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Rod Evans
August 19, 2026 8:43 am

Galileo (1632) championed the Copernican (1543) heliocentrism system but got into serious trouble by satirizing Pope Urban VIII.   

Rod Evans
Reply to  John Hultquist
August 19, 2026 10:50 am

The moral of the events during the middle ages and later is, never allow religious organisation have control over matters of state and law.
Here in the 21st century we have the latest band of religious fanatics demanding rights and practices of nation be adjusted to suit their particular set of beliefs. They are also demanding their legal system be adopted and anyone not conforming to their belief system is deemed unfit to live as equals and ultimately unfit to even live.

August 19, 2026 3:34 am

Freeman Dyson pointed out two decades ago that climate science and its models are not nearly holistic enough to be climate metrics. They are temperature models and not climate models. Temperature is not even the most important climate metric, precipitation is. It’s why none of climate science’s predictions have ever come to pass (along with the models being inaccurate).

hiskorr
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 19, 2026 5:11 am

Spot on!

Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 19, 2026 5:20 am

Tim, I’m far from an expert on climate models but my understanding is that the only reason we hear about temperature and they bang on about temperature incessantly is that Temp. is the only thing they even get somewhat close to reality. Hence all the trolls and graphs and trendological record-setting comments whenever a post about temps goes up.

Reply to  Phil R
August 19, 2026 6:06 am

The issue is that they don’t even get the temperature close to reality. The use of mid-range temperatures cannot distinguish between climates at all. Two different climates can have exactly the same mid-range temperature, both at a daily granularity and at an annual granularity. Two similar climates can have different mid-range temperatures, again at both daily/annual granularity. And this is just the start of issues that temperatures present in the way they are used.

Reply to  Phil R
August 19, 2026 6:15 am

They don’t get temperature close to reality.

The actual historic, written temperature records show us it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today. This means that although CO2 has increased for decades, this input has not raised the net temperature of the Earth, and therefore, CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s temperature, weather and climate.

To hide this insight from the public, Temperature Data Manipultors created a completely different temperature profile in their computers called the Hockey Stick chart where they manipulated the past temperatures until they correlated with CO2 increases. Almost a perfect match, which is rather unusual.

Without this bogus Hockey Stick chart correlation with CO2 output, the climate alarmists would have NOTHING to show as “proof” that CO2 is noticeably affecting the temperature of the atmosphere. And this “proof” was all made up in a computer.

The Hockey Stick chart is the biggest scientific fraud in world history. If you believe in the Hockey Stick chart trendline, you are living a lie.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 19, 2026 6:54 pm

And the record high temperature has not changed in 113 years.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Phil R
August 19, 2026 6:50 am

With hindcasting and all of the “control knobs” the models can replicate the past data, especially if that data has been “processed.”

It is another self-fulfilling prophesy that does not extend into the future.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 19, 2026 6:49 am

In the initial days of UN sponsored climatology research, the charter was to understand the climate – both anthropogenic and natural factors.
Around the second/third report, it was changed to calculate how much temperature increase occurs with increasing concentrations of CO2.

Preceding all of this, back in the mid-70s, a UN Environmental official was asked about CO2 and the “impending ice age.” The response was that he did not know if CO2 was the cause, but CO2 could be quantified and taxed.

Next came Al Gore, the Kyoto Accords, The Chicago Climate Exchange (founded by Al Gore’s investment group), and Gore sponsored Cap and Trade legislation that failed to pass in Congress. The Exchange subsequently collapsed, but Al Gore became very rich.

The history of “climate change” has always been about money. Over the past several decades, UN officials have clearly stated it is not about the environment, it is about realigning the world’s economies (socialism under UN control) and, not explicitly stated, establishment of the One World Order, originally proposed by Wilson and reintroduced by Bush.

The biggest problem is the attention span of humans, via electronic communications starting with TV is now about 13 seconds. Therefore anything that happened yesterday did not happen.

oeman50
August 19, 2026 3:56 am

Vijay,

Nitrogen oxides are components of “acid rain.” Also, nitrogen oxides react with organics in the air to form smog. Are you positing that the benefits of NOx emissions outweigh their contribution to acid rain and smog?

Reply to  oeman50
August 19, 2026 4:30 am

Nitrogen oxides are products of lightning strikes, of which there are many thousands every minute somewhere on the planet.

oeman50
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
August 19, 2026 6:00 am

True about the lightning, but they are also formed by high temperature flames oxidizing N2 molecules in fossil fuel combustion.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  oeman50
August 19, 2026 5:14 am

The idea of pollution has mostly to do with the dose, as well as location. Water itself could be considered a “pollutant” considering the lives it takes plus $billions in damages it does. Should we try to limit NOx? Sure. Within reason. Should we also recognize that NOx has some benefits? Of course we should.

oeman50
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 19, 2026 5:59 am

Works for me.

Meanwhile regulations in the US require us to destroy NOx beyond the limits of technology.

4 Eyes
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 19, 2026 5:30 pm

“Within reason”. Spot on Bruce. But there is no reason in religion, just belief.

Reply to  oeman50
August 19, 2026 5:16 am

Acid rain was a hugely overblown scare.

oeman50
Reply to  Archer
August 19, 2026 5:59 am

It was overblown. A number of water bodies affected by “acid rain” were found to be naturally acidic or were affected by non-atmospheric acid sources.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  oeman50
August 19, 2026 6:54 am

NO is not part of SMOG.
SMOG is simply smoke (particulate carbon) and fog (water).

NOx emissions are concerning to those with respiratory issues.

CO2, by the way is also part of “acid rain.” CO2 dissolved in water is called carbonic acid.

Most of the acid rain concerns involved sulfur compounds (SO2, etc.).

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
August 19, 2026 7:11 pm

The original “SMOG” was indeed an acronym based on a simplistic understanding of its origin. However, the classic Los Angeles smog has important contributions from unburned hydrocarbons and NO, modified by photo-catalytic reactions. When I bought a 1965 Corvette in 1974, I had to have the timing retarded and some kind device added that was supposed to reduce NO. There was a time, at least up to the 1960s, when cars vented the crankcase directly to the air; this resulted in hot oil fumes wafting upwards to join the NO and unburned hydrocarbons emitted by the tailpipe.

Yes, SO2, from the ubiquitous pyrite and marcasite in coal, was responsible for creating sulfuric acid, which unlike carbonic acid, is a strong acid.

Reply to  oeman50
August 19, 2026 6:58 pm

The nitrogen oxides are probably not good for the corn and wheat grown in metropolitan Los Angeles or San Fernando Valley.

Bruce Cobb
August 19, 2026 4:13 am

If he existed, Satan himself could not have conjured up a more evil plan than for Man to attack life-giving and near-miraculous fossil fuels under the guise of “saving the planet”. I mean, it’s genius, really. Have those in power and with authority outright lie about what they call “carbon”, calling it a “pollutant”, when it is the exact opposite. Again, genius.
Fortunately, he doesn’t exist.
Or DOES he? Mwahahahahaha!

abolition man
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 19, 2026 5:04 am

Karl Marx’s favorite quote from Mephistopheles in Goethe’s “Faust” was “Everything that exists deserves to perish.” I doubt you can find a better description of the nihilism inherent in every sect of the Marxist Utopian Religion than that! All forms of Marxism, at their core, are envious attempts to destroy the happiness, liberty, and prosperity of others; truly sociopathic at a minimum!

4 Eyes
Reply to  abolition man
August 19, 2026 5:33 pm

envious attempts to destroy the happiness, liberty, and prosperity of others, but not their own” Fixed.

2hotel9
August 19, 2026 4:16 am

Really? They are still screeching and screaming, so no, they have not “gone silent”.

Ber Lazarus
August 19, 2026 4:18 am

Don’t you think it is time to retire the erroneous term “fossil fuels”? Oil is not and never has been derived from dead plant and animal remains. It is a product of the earth itself created in the deep, hot interior and making its way up through fissures in the mantle. The supply is endless. The late Thomas Gold showed that in his classic book The Deep Hot Biosphere. Why oil was considered of fossil origin is another story. But its not and it isn’t in short supply. Do WUWT give your readers the truth and stop with the fossil fuel nonsense. Story tip

Reply to  Ber Lazarus
August 19, 2026 8:04 am

Yeah, been dealt with many times.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Ber Lazarus
August 19, 2026 9:07 am

Petroleum is formed from anaerobic decay of organic materials from buried plankton and algae plus a few other things. [The multiple meanings of the word “fossil” confuses many.]
Ber L. writes at the end – – “story tip”.
David Middleton has posted numerous times regarding petroleum, one being . . .
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/23/abiotic-oil-realishthings-that-dont-matter-part-deux/

Note that one is 7 years ago. A link there goes back to 2017.
Story tips ought to refer to things that have not been covered at WUWT.
Just saying. 🙂

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Ber Lazarus
August 19, 2026 9:36 am

When first coined, in 1759, the phrase simply meant “dug from the earth”. It’s a bit of a misnomer, but not a big deal. Lots of things are like that, such as “greenhouse gases”.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Ber Lazarus
August 19, 2026 12:54 pm

Thank you.
Been pushing that myself.

Reply to  Ber Lazarus
August 19, 2026 7:19 pm

Why do petroleum geologists look for fossil conodont teeth to make drilling decisions if all petroleum is abiotic and is produced everywhere below sedimentary rocks? Not my area of specialty, but I think there is chemical evidence as well to support what John Hultquist says above.

August 19, 2026 4:51 am

Life on Earth is all carbon-based. Where does it come from?

We know animals get a lot of carbon from eating plants containing carbon. Where do the plants get their carbon? The only thing I can think of is: carbon dioxide.

Is this correct? Or is there another carbon source which does not come, directly or indirectly, from carbon dioxide?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Johanus
August 19, 2026 5:31 am

The process of photosynthesis is truly wondrous. And yes, that is correct. And the plants, if they could talk would be screaming “Idiots! Give us more, please!”

JoeG
August 19, 2026 5:18 am

Lightning converts atmospheric nitrogen into biologically usable forms, ie nitrites and nitrates.

Ronald Stein
August 19, 2026 7:37 am

Energy “REALITY” is that wind turbines and solar panels ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make any products or transportation fuels for life as we know it. 

The world economies run on the various transportation fuels manufactured from raw crude oil, AND the more than 6,000 products made from the oil derivatives manufactured from that same raw crude oil.

Wind turbines and solar panels make absolutely NOTHING for humanity.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Ronald Stein
August 19, 2026 8:25 am

Actually, WTGs and SVs produce absolutely NEGATIVE for humanity as they suck away resources that have much, much better uses.

August 19, 2026 10:06 am

Excellent post Vijay!! I would surmise that since nitric oxides have been present in our atmosphere for a long time, that this effect is already incorporated in the past studies of the effects of CO2 fertilization. However, it greatly increases our understanding of the entire phenomenon. Thanks

Robert Powell
August 19, 2026 12:26 pm

As an old, Forensic Historical analyst both Mil and Civ. a couple of things to get to the chase. Not sure this is a “story Tip” but anyway.
1917 – Rockefeller & other Fed Res. members gave $22, 000,000 dollars to the Russian
rebels, solidifying their success. ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, and charter members like
Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, were ardent Fabian Socialists identified with the Communist movement from the start of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.

Genesis of Today and the Climate fear porn

1928 – Origin or genesis of the Totalitarian New World Order. This through
Environmental mental fear application. At the Sixth Party Congress held in Moscow in
1928, Communists wrote and approved “The Program” to bring in the New World Order.
What most Americans cannot comprehend is the real nature of this diabolical criminal scheme.
The Program of the Third International called for a global environmental program for
transformation of all human beings on earth to accept the New World Order. These and
other facts are brought to light by General Benton Partin in his videotape, Globalism: The
Program. This through the above 1923-6 continuing Rockefeller Psychopolitics education
program
Next: UN. Not Known: http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/38199716

1946 – UNESCO Education is instituted. 1946 1948: 1948: UNESCO: Its Purpose and ItsPhilosophy by Sir Julian Huxley (the first director-general of UNESCO, 1946-1948) is
published, in which Huxley declares: “The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a
scientific world humanismglobal in extent and evolutionary in background... Political
unification in some sort of world government will be required…Tasks for the media division of
UNESCO (will be) to promote the growth of a common outlook shared by all nations and
cultures…to help the emergence of a single world culture… Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” Excerpts from this volume were reproduced under the title, “A New World Vision” (The Humanist, March/April 1979), and the Fabian Socialist Huxley, who was named 1962 “Humanist of the Year,” elsewhere said that humanism’s “keynote, the central concept to which all its details are related, is evolution.” 

1961 – Sir Julian Huxley creates the “World Wildlife fund” to coincide with his overt position on “Humanism”, “Globalism” coupled with “Eugenics” as the tree legged stool noted in “Psychopolitics”. Humanism, considers animal species equal or above man.

Last: Fake Global Warming: http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/28345505

There you have it – there is more, and I can provide, just desire return to find others who I can share other more foundational mateerials with. This is giant dysfuntioanl family and must stop. Raven6 1965 -1933 and on via oath.

Robert Powell
August 19, 2026 12:28 pm

As an old, Forensic Historical analyst both Mil and Civ. a couple of things to get to the chase. Not sure this is a “story Tip” but anyway.
1917 – Rockefeller & other Fed Res. members gave $22, 000,000 dollars to the Russian
rebels, solidifying their success. ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, and charter members like
Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, were ardent Fabian Socialists identified with the Communist movement from the start of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.

Genesis of Today and the Climate fear porn

1928 – Origin or genesis of the Totalitarian New World Order. This through
Environmental mental fear application. At the Sixth Party Congress held in Moscow in
1928, Communists wrote and approved “The Program” to bring in the New World Order.
What most Americans cannot comprehend is the real nature of this diabolical criminal scheme.
The Program of the Third International called for a global environmental program for
transformation of all human beings on earth to accept the New World Order. These and
other facts are brought to light by General Benton Partin in his videotape, Globalism: The
Program. This through the above 1923-6 continuing Rockefeller Psychopolitics education
program

1946 – UNESCO Education is instituted. 1946 1948: 1948: UNESCO: Its Purpose and ItsPhilosophy by Sir Julian Huxley (the first director-general of UNESCO, 1946-1948) is
published, in which Huxley declares: “The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a
scientific world humanismglobal in extent and evolutionary in background... Political
unification in some sort of world government will be required…Tasks for the media division of
UNESCO (will be) to promote the growth of a common outlook shared by all nations and
cultures…to help the emergence of a single world culture… Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” Excerpts from this volume were reproduced under the title, “A New World Vision” (The Humanist, March/April 1979), and the Fabian Socialist Huxley, who was named 1962 “Humanist of the Year,” elsewhere said that humanism’s “keynote, the central concept to which all its details are related, is evolution.” 

1961 – Sir Julian Huxley creates the “World Wildlife fund” to coincide with his overt position on “Humanism”, “Globalism” coupled with “Eugenics” as the tree legged stool noted in “Psychopolitics”. Humanism, considers animal species equal or above man.

There you have it – there is more, and I can provide, just desire return to find others who I can share other more foundational mateerials with. This is giant dysfuntioanl family and must stop. Raven6 1965 -1933 and on via oath.

Edward Katz
August 19, 2026 2:11 pm

Naturally the mainstream media, governments, academics and green product hucksters are going to downplay or conceal the above facts because they undermine their alarmist theories and excuses for higher taxes, prices and new restrictions. Fortunately WUWT and similar sources are willing to brind the realities to the public.

Bob
August 19, 2026 6:41 pm

Very nice.