Global Warming Collusion & Corruption Exposed

Oil Companies Actually Profit from Global Warming Policy

The global renewable energy industry, worth over $1 trillion, thrives off media-driven narratives, with outlets capitalizing on content creation, public funding, and eco-friendly advertising deals. This relationship between media and green industries highlights a profitable intersection between climate advocacy and business interests.

Over the years, powerful climate science institutions, especially the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), have faced serious accusations of manipulating data to push the global warming agenda. Closely tied to the IPCC, UNEP has been accused of inflating climate change risks by cherry-picking speculative data to serve political narratives. Their alarmist reports have been instrumental in shaping policies like the Paris Agreement, which many critics argue are built on corrupt science. These policies not only threaten to destabilize national economies and erode sovereignty but also pave the way for an unelected global governing body to exert dictatorial control over nations, all while masquerading as efforts to combat climate change.

---

Government-Funded Organizations Corrupting the Science

WMO - The World Meteorological Organization has been accused of emphasizing warming trends while downplaying natural climate cycles. This has led to fears that the WMO, in collaboration with the IPCC, manipulated the narrative by overstating the evidence of global warming. The organization’s focus on extreme weather events as proof of climate change continues to fuel suspicion. WMO is primarily funded by government contributions from its member states, including the U.S., China, and the European Union. Additionally, private sector funding comes from corporations in the renewable energy and environmental technology sectors, such as Siemens, BP, and Shell, which benefit from climate-driven policies. Supporting article: The Telegraph - "WMO and Climate Alarmism."

NASA - NASA was caught adjusting historical temperature data to make the warming trend seem more consistent. These adjustments downplay natural cooling periods and give the impression of a constant rise in temperatures, further fueling the global warming narrative. NASA receives substantial funding from the U.S. government, with additional contributions from private companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which have long-standing partnerships with NASA in aerospace and climate-related research. Companies in the renewable energy sector, such as Tesla and Google, also contribute to funding NASA's climate initiatives. Supporting article: The Australian - "NASA Alters Climate Data."

EPA - The Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. has been accused of inflating the role human activity plays in climate change, using models that overestimate the problem to justify strict regulations and more extreme policies, which have significant economic impacts. Critics argue that the EPA’s approach is politically motivated, favoring aggressive climate action over objective scientific conclusions. The EPA is primarily funded by the U.S. government, but it also receives support from private environmental advocacy organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), as well as from corporate backers in the green energy industry. Supporting article: National Review - "EPA's Green Agenda."

UK Met Office - The UK Met Office, responsible for climate predictions, faced accusations of manipulating data to show stronger warming than raw data supports and using overly alarmist models and projections that don’t match observed climate data to promote policies like carbon taxes. The UK Met Office is funded by the UK government but also receives financial support from private companies, particularly from the energy sector, including companies like National Grid and EDF Energy, who have a vested interest in promoting climate policies that favor green energy. Supporting article: The Telegraph - "Met Office and Climate Predictions."

UNFCCC - The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, responsible for negotiating international climate treaties, is accused of promoting a one-sided view of climate science to further the political agenda behind treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. The UNFCCC’s support for controversial policies like carbon trading overshadows the actual science. The UNFCCC is primarily funded by its member governments, but private sector support comes from organizations involved in carbon trading and green energy sectors, such as the European Investment Bank and major multinational corporations like Microsoft and Google, which invest in climate policy to reduce their carbon footprint. Supporting article: Financial Times - "UNFCCC and Climate Policy."

IPCC - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been at the heart of several controversies. One of the most famous was the “Hockey Stick” graph, which showed a sharp rise in global temperatures and CO2. Critics argued the graph’s methodology was flawed and its credibility diminished, raising questions about the integrity of IPCC data. The IPCC has faced further scrutiny over its reliance on questionable sources, such as the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, based on unreliable reports. The IPCC is funded by its member governments, with private sector contributions from corporations in the energy, technology, and finance sectors, including BP, Shell, and Goldman Sachs, which have supported climate-related policy initiatives. Supporting article: The Guardian - "IPCC and Data Manipulation."

NOAA - The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is accused of manipulating ocean temperature data to downplay what’s known as the global warming hiatus, a period when global temperatures appeared to stabilize. NOAA adjusted their data to make it look like there was no pause in warming. Critics argue this was an outright lie. A controversial paper in 2015 attempted to suppress natural climate variability and make the case for continuous warming. NOAA is funded primarily by the U.S. government, with additional private support from energy corporations such as ExxonMobil and Chevron, who are interested in shaping public discourse around climate change to influence regulatory decisions. This list only scratches the surface of the corruption. Supporting article: The Telegraph - "NOAA Accused of Manipulating Data to Downplay Global Warming Pause."

CLIMATEGATE - The Climategate scandal, involving the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, erupted in 2009 when emails were leaked showing scientists discussing how to hide data and suppress opposing viewpoints about climate change. This scandal raised significant concerns about bias and data handling in climate science. The CRU is primarily funded by the UK government and universities, with private funding from environmental and energy companies, including British Petroleum (BP) and the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI), which have a financial interest in promoting climate change agendas. Supporting article: BBC - "Climategate and the CRU."

Oil Companies Actually Profit from Global Warming Policy

Oil companies may fund green initiatives and global warming policies to align with shifting market demands and secure their position in the evolving energy landscape. By investing in renewable energy, carbon capture technologies, and other green initiatives, they can diversify their portfolios and prepare for stricter regulations. These companies also stand to profit from carbon trading schemes, government incentives, and subsidies for clean energy projects, while maintaining their dominance in the energy market. Additionally, promoting policies that regulate emissions can create a market for their own "green" solutions and allow them to shape the rules to their advantage, protecting their long-term profitability as the world transitions to cleaner energy.