A major rewriting of the science published on Wikipedia that is sceptical of the ‘settled’ climate narrative is being funded by a number of Governments from Scandinavia and the U.K. The operation is being directed by the green activist group, the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), under a project titled ‘Improving communication of climate knowledge through Wikipedia’.
The operation targets climate change pages that have significant daily page views. The SEI notes that Wikipedia articles usually appear at the top of internet search results, and the site plays a “key role” in helping promote climate change knowledge. “The improvement of the key articles making use of available scientific expertise is necessary,” it says.
The key word of course is “improvement” but, alas, a brief list of the “content experts” does not inspire confidence that rigorous dissemination of all climate science views will prevail. For instance, Kristie L. Ebi from the University of Washington has the curious notion that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are “affecting the nutritional quality of our food”. Poor old CO2 you might feel. It gets a shocking press these days but few doubt its role as the gas of life, whose 60% reduction in the atmosphere would lead to the swift removal of all plant and life forms on Earth.
Elizabeth Gilmore of Carleton University, another of SEI’s “content experts”, runs a class on inspiring young eco-activists. She recently wrote that after Greta Thunberg “admonished” delegates at COP24, “it has become increasingly apparent that university students feel the brunt of multiple and interlinked existential crises of climate change, biodiversity, persistent inequality, inequity and economic precarity”.
The SEI project includes academics who have “scientific and climate change expertise”. In fact the ‘expertise’ seems to tend towards the burgeoning world of eco bureaucracy, consultancy and green activism. All the parties collaborate by revising and cutting text, proposing new content and adding new references. There is also interaction with published experts, “who advise us on necessary content edits”.
The Stockholm Environment Institute was founded in 1989 by the Swedish government to “support decision-making and induce changes towards sustainable development around the world”. It claims to provide this by supplying knowledge that bridges science and policy in the field of environmentalism and development. Its green activism is well supported by governments and many interested parties including Left-wing billionaire foundations. According to figures publicly revealed, it received over £11 million in 2020 from Swedish government interests, and £1.5 million from Norway. The British government even supplied £326,000 of funding it says in its 2022 report.
SEI is closely connected with the United Nations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its Chairman, appointed by the Swedish government, is Lennart Bage, the former Co-Chair of the U.N. Green Climate Fund (GCF) that aims to raise $100 billion a year to pay for green boondoggles in the developing world. Signing off his chairmanship of the GCF in 2019, Bage noted that “we have moved from millions to billions but we need to move to trillions”. Some of the content experts for the Wikipedia re-education programme come from the U.N., the IPCC and the Conference of the Parties (COP).
Recently, the U.N. Under-Secretary for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, told delegates at a World Economic Forum ‘disinformation’ seminar that her organisation had partnered with Google to ensure only U.N.-approved climate search results appear at the top. In chilling tones, she explained: “We are becoming more proactive, we own the science and the world should know it.” In the context of this remark, the disclosure that a concerted attempt is being made to propagandise Wiki pages is unsurprising. Across all media, collectivist-minded operations funded by a wide variety of sources including governments, NGOs, foundations and wealthy individuals are rewriting the climate narrative with the help of mainstream media to suit a drive to Net Zero and economic and societal change. Advertising boycott campaigns face any individual media operation that steps out of line, academic careers are held back, fatuous ‘fact-check’ attacks are launched, school text books are rewritten and massive green scare campaigns are launched on an almost daily basis.
What is truly depressing is that the Conservative Party is often to be found at the front of the queue when it comes to handing out taxpayer cash to fund climate and woke campaigns. Providing money to alter Wiki pages is just the latest misuse of taxpayers’ hard earned money. In February, the Daily Sceptic reported that the British Foreign Office was helping to fund the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), which was circulating a ‘blocklist’ of conservative publications including the American Spectator and the New York Post.
As we noted at the time, one of the reasons the GDI posed such a threat to free speech was that its definition of ‘disinformation’ is unusually capacious. It doesn’t just mean information that is false and dissemination by people knowing it’s false. It has broadened the definition to include what it calls “adversarial narratives”.
Just weep for the death of science – “adversarial narratives” no longer required.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It is quite funny. I doubt that he even takes himself seriously. You have to remember that these big money celebrities have advisers telling them how to exert the most profitable persona possible. And the adviser will look at prevailing market tendencies. Gary Lineker is the perfect exemplar of this packaged product.
The author possibly hasn’t seen Kick Ass, Kick Ass 2 or Savages.
I haven’t seen them either but I will look into them.
Did someone put a gun to his head to make him say the things he said? He’s an adult and responsible for his words and actions. If he chooses to listen to “advisers” who advise him to chat rubbish he doesn’t believe in and he does it then he’s a waster in my book. You can be a successful actor and not do that. But all of this is conjecture and the most likely explanation is that he believes what he says, just like Lineker.
Unless he’s also the writer, director and producer, he’ll be turning up to present the character as imagined by others.
The last couple of Bond films were quite woke but is that being attributed to Daniel Craig?
The paradox is, of course, the more we give women the men the women want, the less the women want the men they wanted.
Well I think it’s hard to put your finger on what “men” and “women” “want” – given that it varies so much. I think one should be careful of setting too much store by what headline grabbing “extremists” say on the subject, on both sides. Most men and women I know don’t spend much time thinking about “sexual politics” and are just getting on with their lives, and there are lots of what you might term “traditional manly men” out there who seem to be appreciated at least some of the time by women. The women in my life are not the slightest bit interested in this stuff, and I am not sure they would even describe themselves as “feminists” because they just get on with life and stand up for themselves when necessary, as we all should do.
I wish we could all live in your parallel universe. If you could give me directions to the wormhole that will take me to your utopia – the one where men haven’t been bashed 24/7 for the last few decades, and where feminists are “headline grabbing extremists” – I’d be most grateful. It is interesting, however, that even in your paradise where men and women just quietly get on with things, with nobody being interested in “sexual politics”, that you describe the women closest to you as…
Not sure whether they’d describe themselves as feminists. Hmmm. Why “not sure”? “not sure” because if they did that would contradict your world where sexual politics doesn’t really exist? After all, if the women in your life are “not the slightest bit interested in this stuff” why the hell would they even consider describing themselves as feminists and, therefore, why would you be “not sure“?
Perhaps your wormhole just leads to a universe exactly the same as the one the rest of us guys have to live on, but one where all the men have to wear blindfolds and insert earplugs; and they do it because of feminist dictat which abolishes criticism of feminism because feminism doesn’t exist. Actually, thinking about it, please keep those directions to your wormhole, I’d prefer to see the reality of the world I live in.
I can only speak from personal experience. Perhaps your experience is different to mine.
My statement that I am “not sure they would describe themselves as feminists” is meant to be taken at face value.
I am certainly aware of the changes made in the portrayal of men in the media, and I think they are unhelpful and probably done with evil intentions in many case, but men have colluded in this. I am also aware that the balance of our direction has shifted to what one might term a slightly more feminine way of seeing the world which I think has also been unhelpful, but I just don’t think heaping more identity politics onto a world already full of them is the answer.
I know you think my posts are unhelpful. You’ve made the same point on a number of occasions: criticism of feminism is just sooo dull. But surely you’ve considered that the entire feminist ideology – one that directly pits one sex against the other – is built on a combative and dishonest message of “we are the oppressed, you are the oppressor” that’s been on rinse and repeat for over one hundred years. Repeated so often that most people don’t even think to question it. Well, I want to question it. I want to question it because I believe it sits as the foundation of everything that is wrong in society today: narcissistic, identity politics that myopically looks only at today and never tomorrow. An entirely inward-looking, immature, ideology that doesn’t consider consequences and refuses, point-blank, to accept any blame. It’s the elephant in the room that is so big it’s become invisible to most people as they cannot distinguish the elephant from the room.
Feminism is the single biggest threat to a balanced society, and continues to scream, bite, tear and rip, and so I’ll continue to point this out – no matter how many times I’m told to shut up.
I would certainly not tell you to shut up and I certainly don’t think “criticism of feminism” is dull. Everything should always be up for debate. I guess a lot depends on how you define “feminism” – seems like that’s another word that has become meaningless as people make it mean whatever they feel like. What’s your definition?
Well, to test your theory that the word has become meaningless, simply find any woman moaning/laughing about men (shouldn’t be difficult) and tell them you think feminism is meaningless. Take your earplugs with you.
My definition of today’s feminism? In its simplest, most benign, form, it’s championed as a movement to better the lives of women by removing inequality (it has far more insidious forms, but let’s be charitable and just stick with that one). Any sane person can see that goal was achieved decades ago, and done so whilst ignoring inequalities that men face. Even in its least harmful form it is divisive. It pits one sex against the other, and does so under the dishonest banner of oppression. It focuses exclusively on women’s issues and trivialises – or as one particular regular poster on here has proved, mocks – male issues. There is no definition of feminism that genuinely serves society as a whole. If you want to do that then call yourself a humanist or, better still, don’t give yourself a label at all.
Look, we disagree on this and that’s fine, but it is something that absolutely needs to be discussed publicly. There’s few men with access to your wormhole.
Last word on this, but it’s fine we disagree – I’ll never have any issue with polite disagreement.
I think impolite disagreement is fine too – as long as the debate is being engaged with sincerely. Though politeness is more likely to lead to people thinking rationally about the issues.
Thanks for your definition. I think the women I know personally would agree that goal was achieved decades ago in this country and others like it (though they may have concerns about blokes in their toilets/changing rooms/sports competitions – concerns I would share/sympathise with).
He doesn’t sound that bad really, bearing in mind the slightly bonkers world of movie people.
“Slightly”?
I think fans are a bit peaved, because the undisputed first choice for bond is Henry Cavill, so this appointment of a slightly weird stay-at-home little softy bloke seems a bit of a lefty choice, and doesn’t really fit the character.
But of course it’s 2024, the lefties rule the world, all traditions are turned upside down, and the customer is always wrong.
“Who cares if you all want Henry Cavill? We know he’s very handsome, cool, physically strong, competent, skillful, and classically British. But times have changed, and you must all be taught an important lesson in left wing politics.”
It is a fine thing to acknowledge the suffering and suppresion of women. It goes way back – you could look at the supressed gospels and what is revealed there. And the names excised from the English literature canon because they were female and speaking as such. Ther eis no doubt that in the realm of the spirit a harsh patriarchy started to exert itself about 6000 years ago which contained the seeds of its own destruction. Carl Jung said that the finding of the female is one of two things that might sustain the western mythos, along with the quest for the grail. T.S Eliot of course in Ash Wednesday – an old man in a dry season waiting for rain. But you don’t shout your mouth off about it. If you really care about women’s issues then give up your time to help abused and mentally damaged women. If you have character then you would never proclaim or advertise it because it would come from a place of love in your heart that doesn’t need to say anything.
I’m sceptical too, but let’s judge him on any potential output, not our preconceived assumptions.
After all, regarding your wife as an equal is ok isn’t it? And growing your own kale isn’t necessarily a crime, although it probably does correlate with a certain kind of mindset..
Kale was cherry-picked as there’s chickens, pigs and cows also. Perhaps a self-sufficiency mindset?
cherry-picked?
Kale?
Kale picked?
I agree. Seems perfectly normal to me that when an actor is out of work, he helps along. And growing your own kale? What’s wrong with that?
This is a decidedly snippy little story, isn’t it? So some bloke marries an older woman – not exactly unheard of – and looks after the kids because she can earn a buck load more cash than him – also not unheard of – plus he grows pumpkins and kale because he enjoys it – like a lot of us folk with gardens/allotments (me included). He might be as woke as hell for all sorts of other reasons, but these don’t exactly stand out as classics of woke ideology, do they? We should be very careful dumping everything we don’t agree with or consider outside our personal sphere of ‘normal’ into the woke wheelbarrow because it plays straight into the same narrowly defined and polarising Narrative™ narrative, as it were. I would also point out that gardening has been described as white supremacy and systemically racist…so not woke, then.
I was a bit confused when doing the housework and growing your own vegetables was considered woke!
He sounds alright to me, the world would be a better place if more men could bring themselves to do the housework. And I completely agree about women not having to take the man’s name. Fine if they want to, and I know it doesn’t really mean anything now, but in modern times it does feel a bit submissive to me. However he may well be properly woke in other ways, who knows. “Woke” is perhaps being overused as Wyrd Woman points out, just like “transphobic” and “far right”.
He may well endeavour to become more buff, hench, ripped – whatever they call it these days – before playing Bond, should he accept. Daniel Craig did the same per my comment below.
I think fans are a bit peaved, because the undisputed first choice for bond is Henry Cavill, so this appointment of a slightly weird stay-at-home little softy bloke seems a bit of a lefty choice, and doesn’t really fit the character.
But of course it’s 2024, the lefties rule the world, all traditions are turned upside down, and the customer is always wrong.
“Who cares if you all want Henry Cavill? We know he’s very handsome, cool, physically strong, competent, skillful, and classically British. But times have changed, and you must all be taught an important lesson in left wing politics.”
Agreed, Cavill would be an ideal choice but he walked out of The Witcher because he couldn’t stand their woke ideological corruption of the text. He’s got standards. Thus they’re concerned he’d do the same with Bond.
“the lefties rule the world”
Why does no one know who all these activists are?
A letter gets sent to a venue and a comedian gets cancelled.
Who sent the letter?
I would like to know. Wouldn’t you?
Right as he was confirmed as the new Bond, I saw Daniel Craig in a touring version of Joesph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat. He did NOT look or act like Bond material. Pretty weedy, crooning out rubbish about dreams and rainbows. But he obviously spent some time down at the gym and I think he made a good Bond.
Yes, I agree. Perhaps the first time since I started reading the Sceptic (lockdown) that my face screwed up and I found myself saying,”Whaaat?”
You make excellent points and I would add that if he’s the type of ‘self-declared’ feminist who believes in equal rights for women, well, don’t we all? What’s wrong with that?
I won’t be cancelling my donation quite just yet though;)
Different world entirely. That’s the issue. What is the common language these days? It is like watching things fall apart and trying to assert a position when you have a volcano and earthquake going on. There is no pathway or guidance you just have to listen hard and know how to respond. If you don ‘t know how to respond then find something that does. Doesn’t matter who you are or if you think you are useless. The times we are moving into ask for very different skillsets
Does it even matter? Who gives a flying fig over what these idiots do? If you’re upset about this now, you’ve only just woken up to what is happening around you
I speak to a lot of younger people and my impression that the depction of them as a generation of snowflakes is entirely wrong. In fact what I hear in their voices is trauma and a remarkable sense of hope tempered with an understanding of the importance of Stoicism. Much more than in my generaton or in generations before. There are certain realities that they have to be stoical about – knowing that you will never own your own house and regardless of you salary your rent or mortgage payments will wipe out any gains. This is a big difference knowing that your children will be worse off than you. It brings to mind notions of social contract because we all go along with a social contract whether we know it or not. These people are being pushed to breaking point on every level.
“Being a feminist is just believing in equal rights. Man, woman, gay, straight, black, white – we’re all in it together.”
Who knows what he means by this, though I suspect he doesn’t mean the same thing I would mean by those words. I would like him to explain what he means by it, and what rights he thinks those groups do not have or are under threat.
“Barbara
” though?!!
Well I’m not a Bond fan so all I will say is that I really hope he doesn’t get the Dr Who treatment. Dreadful, what they did to that show.
This article has a silly title though because why are they conflating the actor’s private life and a completely fictional role, which presumably is out of his hands in how it is to be portrayed? So we won’t know that he is indeed the “wokest Bond ever” until we see him on the big screen. I’m sure growing your own veggies wasn’t a prerequisite for attaining a film role
Cut the guy some slack. I heard he was Jewish too but that’s by the by and I don’t have a source, just something I read. Not interested enough to go fact checking. I wish this guy success anyway, but Bond will always be Sean Connery to me. You cannot improve on perfection.
I don’t think Will has got the hang of acting. The idea is that you play the character not yourself.
Who cares it is like the fashion for heroin chique. This does not represent a serious level of discourse. If they have convinced you that it does then you need to get out more because this is their typical fare and has been since the late 1960s. If you read Theodore Adorno he described this simulacrum of culture perfectly. All of that rock and roll and 1960s stuff. It was all deeply contrived as part of a managment system. I am not knocking it just like I don’t knock planned obscelscence. Because without it our system would crash completely. We need to know just how much of our reality is difficult to adjust. Otherwise we just talk in aspirations. Recognise the fragility of the Anglo-American world view in our time.
https://twitter.com/markhiggie1/status/1770559877955322192?s=48
Look at this.
“The number of staff earning six figure salaries in the London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime has risen from 80 to 301 over the past five years as the streets have become more dangerous – Philip Johnston in the Daily Telegraph
Telegraph article embedded.
There is no pathway b ck to power for these people or their purported adversaries. You need to understand the deartth of the situation. There is no populist movement that has the guile to extricate us gradually from a parasitic system whilst keeping us alive. We need to admit that we are at best a recipient of a transfusion and at worst an unfortunate vampire. We can’t do that and yet if we were to let go then we couldn’t possibly sustain our population. You have to admit the fundamental issues. I don’t like it but these things can’t be ignored or glossed over.
Medallion man, 1970s! Lapels, flares the lot!
Lord flashheart?
It doesn’t matter about him. Just look at world affairs. How much longer do you think you will be able to piss about? And even if you don’t just look at the fragility of your investments. I am just telling you that things are going to break down very quickly in the next few weeks. You might want to take a note of it.
I’m not entirely sure why you felt the need to have such a go at him Will. I expect better from The Daily Sceptic. Does he have to demonstrate Bond-like characteristics in his private life to be considered credible? He’s an actor; and a good one too from what I’ve seen. This casting is still unconfirmed so why not judge him on his performance if and when that time comes.
We know what’s coming. We are not going to escape this.
Go woke go broke.
Guarantees Daniel Craig will be remembered as the best Bond characterisation ever.
What a donkey.
Seriously? For me there was only one Bond and that was Sean Connery.
I was going to say ‘each to his own, its a free world‘, but it isn’t anymore.
“Woken not stirred”
A dick-with-an-(older)-chick.
A change from a chick-with-dick.
Haven’t seen a Bond movie for years and that is unlikely to change soon. What a drip.
As an actor, he’s probably “resting” for periods of time and when he says he likes being with his kids – I for one, applaud that.
“Mine is a wheat smoothie, shaken not stirred” he declared after a thrilling chase through the LTZ on his vintage Raleigh.
Its so important that we get THE MESSAGE, especially when its taugh to us by people who live in the world of the normal 9-5 ers with a mortgage. (not).
Another reason to avoid any films produced over the last 5 years. Goodbye Hollywood, I will plant some Kale on your grave
Best Bond ever was Pierce Brosnan.
I’d be quite happy to see Aiden Turner as Bond providing he takes his shirt off ….. just to make the film a bit interesting.
He’s got the face for it but sorely needs a haircut for Bond; but he’s already said he doesn’t want the gig so that’s it.
Don’t know why Bond had to be so athletic – the character should live on his wits, not his fighting skills.
The actor sounds like the sort to avoid at parties though, unless he’s got any good gardening tips. But the older wife? Hmm, let me think: young actor marries film director – what could possibly be the attraction?
The next Bond thriller, “Octopussy-whipped!”