Globalists Do Not Speak for the Globe

The arrogance of leftists
must be detected and opposed.
Here is a prime example.

 

Globalists do not and cannot speak for 8 billion people on earth. They speak only for themselves.

How do you detect an elitist? You watch their rhetoric. Public policy in a free society must allow for open debate, especially when there are competing stakeholders. Open debate requires steelmanning, not strawmanning: i.e., fight their Goliath, not a scarecrow effigy. A position must be able to withstand the very best and most knowledgeable opposition using reason, evidence, logic and experience.

Elitists don’t want debate. Here is the stance of the global elitist:

• We speak for science.
• We are objective.
• The science is settled.
• Our institutions are the only ones worth listening to.
• Anyone who disagrees with us is spreading misinformation.
• We are not a conspiracy. Our motives are pure.
• Our opponents have evil motives. Don’t listen to them.
• If you listen to our opponents, people will die.
• We must fight our opponents.

All of those attitudes can be found in a diatribe by two leftist globalists from the University of Copenhagen, who were given a platform to preach their hate today at The Conversation, which is rapidly becoming the Pravda of the Darwinians and elitists. To them, the United Nations and the Paris Climate Accords represent science, reality and truth. Everyone who disagrees with them is evil.

Can you trust climate information? How and why powerful players are misleading the public (The Conversation, 8 July 2025). Klaus Bruhn Jensen and Semahat Ece Elbeyi, both from the “Department of Communication” at the University of Copenhagen, display how little they know about communication. To them, communication is not winning friends and influencing people with evidence, logic and persuasive speech. It is about shaming and fearmongering. Their institution should be renamed the Department of Propaganda.

Our team carried out the most comprehensive review to date of scientific research on climate misinformation and disinformation. Climate misinformation is when people make mistaken claims about climate change and spread incorrect information. Climate disinformation is where false information is spread deliberately – for example, corporations that “greenwash” their products so that they can sell more. (Greenwashing is where false claims are made that products or services are environmentally friendly when they aren’t).

We reviewed 300 studies published between 2015 and 2025, all of which centred on climate misinformation. Our study found that the human response to the climate crisis is being obstructed and delayed by the production and circulation of misleading information.

This article goes on to illustrate all the bullet points describing elitists listed above. There is no debate or desire for debate by these two. The science is settled. The UN has determined that climate change is an existential threat, and the “world” agreed to the Paris Climate Accords, but our opponents (the purveyors of mis/disinformation) are putting the “world” at risk by not agreeing with us. We know; they don’t know. Stop listening to them. Fight them. Trust us. Since they are evil, you don’t need to hear their arguments.

The elitist stench in this article is overpowering. It’s the same smell that emanates from the Pro-Darwin science establishment. Put on your gas mask and protect your intellect by brushing up on the Propaganda Tactics from our Baloney Detector. You can find many of the tactics in the article. (See “How to Nudge an Elitist,” 11 June 2017).

Jensen and Elbayi can’t pin the “misinformation” label on CEH, because we read both sides and present (with links to  sources) the pro-global-warming science articles that cast doubt on the global consensus. “Hostile witness” testimony is a powerful method used by lawyers to undermine claims of a plaintiff or defendant. We have shown repeatedly that the science on climate change is not settled, and we do it by steelmanning. We do this not by quoting “climate deniers” primarily (although there are some prominent qualified voices critical of the consensus, like Judith Curry; John Stossel interviewed her recently here), but by quoting the true believers who keep finding anomalies or unknowns that cast doubt on the alarmist models. The elitists at The [Pravda] Conversation don’t want you to hear that science. We would listen to Jensen and Elbayi more respectfully if they cut the propaganda and followed our example of steelmanning. But instead, they completely ignore those who disagree with them, and use fear instead.

There is a small window of opportunity between 2025 and 2050 to avert a looming climate catastrophe for humanity and biodiversity.

See our previous examples about climate change and check our track record of presenting the evidence by peer-reviewed scientists who are not “deniers”—

• Models Are Not Facts (24 July 2024)
• Volcanoes Have Greater Impact on Climate than Thought (30 June 2023)
• How Earth Cleans Itself (21 April 2023)
• More Reasons to Doubt a Climate Doomsday (15 Mar 2022)
• How to Avoid Climate Screams (9 Aug 2021).
• Climate Science Has Huge Error Bars (29 March 2018)
• More Sources of Error in Climate Models (18 August 2017)

…and others by searching on “climate change” at crev.info.

Need more? Here are some newer sources to add to our collection:

More Bubbles Means More Variation in Ocean Carbon Storage (American Geophysical Union, 8 July 2025). The consensus climate models represent arbitrarily weighted composites of poorly-known processes. This article begins Tontologically, “A new model accounting for the role of bubbles in air-sea gas exchanges suggests that ocean carbon uptake is more variable than previously thought.”

Tiny creatures gorge, get fat, and help fight global warming (BBC News, 5 July 2025). The BBC is habitually boisterous on the climate change bandwagon, but has to admit that plankton are a significant natural force to “fight global warming” and have been all along. “The scientists say their new findings should be incorporated into climate models that forecast how much our planet will warm.” The phrase “should be” implies that they have not been incorporated into the models heretofore. The article claims that only about half of the benefit was found:

“If this biological pump didn’t exist, atmospheric CO₂ levels would be roughly twice those as they are at the moment. So the oceans are doing a pretty good job of mopping up CO₂ and getting rid of it,” explains Prof Atkinson.

Astute readers must wonder what other factors have been neglected or underestimated by the experts who are supposed to know what the global climate will do a hundred years from now.

Fig trees may benefit climate by turning carbon dioxide into stone (New Scientist, 5 July 2025). New Scientist is another pro-consensus media source, but look at this surprise:

“What was really a surprise, and I’m still kind of reeling from, is that the [calcium carbonate] had really gone far deeper into the wood structures than I expected,” says Rowley, who will present the work at the Goldschmidt Conference in Prague, the Czech Republic, this week. “I expected it to be a superficial process in the cracks and weaknesses within the wood structure.”

The researchers will need to do more work to calculate how much carbon the trees are storing, as well as how much water they need and how resilient they are in different climates.

Winter Jet Stream Was Erratic Before Climate Change (Dartmouth University, 26 June 2025). Here’s another challenge to expert beliefs. “A Dartmouth study challenges the idea that climate change is behind the erratic wintertime behavior of the polar jet stream, the massive current of Arctic air that regulates weather for much of the Northern Hemisphere.”

Understanding the Biases in Daily Extreme Precipitation Climatology in CMIP6 Models (American Geophysical Union, 17 June 2025). The models used by the consensus are biased, including the current CMIP6 model.

We evaluate the performance of CMIP6 models in reproducing the climatology of extreme precipitation, and further investigate the main source of biases in extreme precipitation. Our results indicate that the model biases in extreme precipitation are primarily driven by biases from dynamic processes, mainly vertical velocity, with limited contributions from thermodynamic processes. Using a decomposition method, we determined that the component related to large-scale adiabatic disturbances plays a crucial role in forming vertical velocity biases. Furthermore, in midlatitudes, these biases are highly correlated with biases in atmosphere baroclinicity, providing insights that could inform efforts to improve the simulation of extreme precipitation in climate models.

New technology reveals volcanic CO₂ emissions could be three time [sic] higher than anticipated (Univ of Manchester, 2 April 2025). Volcanoes cause global warming. UN, you need to build plugs for volcanoes to get them to stop emitting CO₂!

These are just a few such examples found on our news desk.

Although climate change is not our main focus here at Creation-Evolution Headlines, we find it instructive that the same elitist mindset pervades the Darwin Party, whose population is roughly coextensive with the Anthropogenic Climate Change community and with the Big Science Cartel. This calls for comparable steelmanning methods against those populations. Until and unless they stop the strawmanning and engage in honest, respectful debate about the arguments their opponents present, they deserve no respect.