Statement by WtD: let me state I do not equate climate change denial with holocaust denial. The term “denier” is used to refer to one who denies a consensus position in science. This includes climate change, evolution and Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. All three scientific theories continue to elicit opposition.
For some time I have been travelling the darker corners of the climate change “sceptic” movement, investigating the some times puzzling and absurd claims of the movement. I have posted extensively on the culture of conspiracy that permeates parts of the sceptic community.
I have stated that the Australian media has ignored the very public, and easily sourced, claims about conspiracies, international bankers and world governments by the likes of Lord Monckton, David Evans and Jo Nova.
However the media is now starting to became aware that this something not-quite-right about parts of the sceptic community.
To his credit Andrew Bolt has distanced himself from the extreme views of the Galileo Movement and Malcolm Roberts.
Bolt reproduces an email he sent to Roberts:
On now receiving an email from Malcolm Roberts, I’ve sent this reply:
Your conspiracy theory seemed utterly stupid even before I knew which families you meant. Now checking the list of banking families you’ve given me, your theory becomes terribly, shamefully familiar.
Two of the three most prominent and current banking families you’ve mentioned are Jewish, and the third is sometimes falsely assumed to be. Yes, this smacks too much of the Jewish world conspiracy theorising I’ve always loathed.
Again, I insist: remove me from the list of people you claim are prepared to advise you. I’ve never advised you, Malcolm, and would never want to. I am offended to be linked to you.
But Roberts is merely the tip of the iceberg Andrew… you need to spend far more time investigating the claims of the “sceptic” community to see who you have aligned yourself with.
Without doubt climate change scepticism is held by a variety of individuals, of different political views, religious beliefs, demographics and level of education. I respect that many sceptics are honest – if mistaken – in their scepticism. Ones values will shape the acceptance or rejection of scientific facts.
The climate denial spectrum
On one end of the spectrum we have “luke warmists” such as Bjorn Lomborg, who accept that humanity is having some impact on the climate and that “it won’t be as bad” or we’re better off simply adapting to changing conditions.
The middle position is taken by those like Andrew Bolt who think the science isn’t settled, and somehow its all just a fantasy of those on the left who love government intervention and tofu.
At the other end of the spectrum are the true outliers, the “super conspiracy” theorists like the Australian sceptic Dr David Evans, Monckton and Jo Nova.
If you want to understand how extreme parts of the sceptic movement is, then look no further than the paper published by Evans, “Manufacturing money and global warming” on October 27 2009 through the Science and Public Policy Institute.
This is the same institute that counts Christopher Monckton, Bob Carter and Ian Plimer as personnel. Another recent “convert” to the super conspiracy theory is James Delingpole in his latest work “Watermelons” (more on this coming).
It was this paper that alerted me to the fact that climate change denial had merged with the pulse of conspiracy culture. Indeed, climate change denial slots easily into the pre-existing fantasies of “super conspiracies” and hidden agendas.
New world order and the finance industry
For several decades’ conspiracy theorists have posited a mysterious “them” have been influencing events and shaping history through financial institutions such as banks and the United Nations. No doubt you would have heard of phrases such as “New World Order”: it is the belief that the world is about to be taken over a shadowy cabal that has been planning such a coup for centuries. They work behind “front groups” such as the media, academia, UN… and just about everyone else in the world.
Understanding conspiracy culture
In seeking to understand conspiracy culture I have been guided by the work of Michael Barkun (A culture of conspiracy), Mark Fenster (Conspiracy theories) and Robert Alan Goldberg (Enemies within: the culture of conspiracy in Modern America).
Much of what I will post over the next few weeks is rough drafts and research I’ve accumulated over the past few years. I had hoped to shape this into a more coherent – and published – form.
What is important to note about the work of these scholars is the links conspiracy communities make between banks and the coming NWO. According to the more extreme theorists “they” have been planning a “coup” for centuries.
Sadly, many aspects of this belief draw upon older, and more sinister forms of anti-Semitism.
Conspiracy belief defined
Barkun provides the following definition of what a conspiracy theory is:
“…a conspiracy belief is the belief that an organisation made up of individuals or groups was or is acting to covertly achieve some malevolent end.”
Attributes of conspiracy belief include (again Barkun):
Types of conspiracies
Barkun classifies conspiracies into the following classes:
Event conspiracies – limited objectives and a discreet event or set of events (i.e. the Kennedy assassination)
Systemic conspiracies – “the conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control over a country or region, or even an entire world
Super conspiracies – multiple conspiracies are linked together.
Thus, some sceptics see climate change as an event conspiracy, i.e. scientists are lying or fudging temperature records to obtain funding. Climategate is an example of an event conspiracy (allegedly) exposed by hackers. This event conspiracy grew in scope as the event merged into the greater conspiracy “narrative” of Evans et.al.
Without douht the writings and activities of Evans and Monckton indicate belief in a super conspiracy:
Manufacturing money and global warming: “gold smiths” and “international bankers control the world
I will state this: the tone and content of Evans paper is very similar to not only “New World Order” conspiracy theories but to the language of anti-Semitism.
It demonstrates all the attributes that Barkun describes: everything is connected in Evans world, and there are conspiracies within conspiracies.
Evans blends “New World Order” conspiracy theories with climate change denial to weave a pattern of events that has been centuries in the making. It would be funny if it wasn’t tragic, given Evans receives the support of the likes of Gina Rinehart.
The following extracts highlight what I regard as deeply concerning, in particular the repeated use of terminology used as “code words” by extremist right-wing groups.
Evans on the “goldsmith” and “international bankers” link
Evans on “gold smiths”:
“…In the Middle Ages, goldsmiths took gold deposits from individuals for safekeeping. The receipts for these deposits circulated as money, because they were more convenient than the metal itself. But the goldsmiths learned they could issue many more “receipts” than they had gold. They would typically lend out receipts for ten times as much gold as they had, on the assumption that not everyone would try to redeem their receipts for metal at the same time. Money was thereby manufactured, or created out of thin air. Furthermore, the goldsmith would charge interest on the receipts they lent out, to compensate for the risk of not being repaid and to make a profit.
For example, if customers deposited 200 ounces of gold with a goldsmith, then the goldsmith would issue them with receipts for 200 ounces. But he would also issue receipts for another 1,800 ounces to people as loans, and charge interest on them — for a total of receipts for 2,000 gold ounces. Notice that 1,800 of the gold ounce receipts that the goldsmith manufactured were for gold that did not exist. For a typical interest rate of 5%, the goldsmith is earning 90 gold ounces per year by lending out these receipts to gold he does not have — pretty profitable eh? If any customer came to the goldsmith with one of the goldsmith’s receipts and asked for “their” gold, the goldsmith would hand over some gold and destroy the receipt. In normal business, they knew from experience that keeping back 10% of the gold was enough to keep this scheme working and, if it wasn’t, they could simply borrow gold from another goldsmith. The only downside for the goldsmith was an unpaid loan—he owed gold on all the receipts issued, so he would ultimately have to pay any unpaid loan out of his own pocket.”
This quote in particular is alarming:
“…Over time the goldsmiths became bankers, governments introduced central banking, and finally, in 1971, the world financial system switched from using gold as its base money to using cash (paper money). The world financial system is now unpinned by cash, which governments can print at will. We have a fully paper system, with no hard constraints on how much money there is.”
In Evans reasoning is that “goldsmiths” from the medieval period – let’s be frank he is clearly talking about Jews – founded a “paper aristocracy” that secretly rules the globe.
Do I really need to spell it out? 
Evans use of the “banksters” term: they killed two presidents!
The term “banksters” came into vogue in the 1920s and 1930s at the height of the Great Depression when feelings against banks ran high. It was also a term used by the so-called “Austrian” economists.
However it also has darker connotations in that it is a code word used by anti-Semites for Jews (search Google for “bankster and Jew” for evidence if you must, I refuse to link to such sites).
We see Evans using the term:
“The paper aristocracy has overwhelming wealth. They own or influence all the media – if only because every media organization borrows from banks. They influence almost all the institutions that employ professional economists, by supplying the money for PhDs and providing most of the lucrative consulting jobs for economists. They buy politicians by the truckload. The banksters have even killed the occasional thorn in their side—including, probably, two US presidents, Lincoln and Garfield. If no one knows or objects to their activities, why shouldn’t the paper aristocracy do what they want? If they don’t flaunt it, and the system seems to basically work for most people most of the time, what’s so bad? (In southern Italy some people say the same about the Mafia.) If people don’t know that the system would run better if the paper aristocracy weren’t there skimming off their take, are they really being ripped off?”
Yes, the banksters killed two presidents. Come on really? These people are feted by conservative politicians and the Murdoch Press?
It gets better, as Evans explains just how “cunning” the banksters are:
“Bankers know far more about banking and its subtle ramifications than politicians, and have usually been able to persuade, con, or bribe governments to do their bidding. The politicians, our representatives, are the patsies here. The banksters have conned government big time, including when they talked US President Woodrow Wilson into setting up the Federal Reserve in 1913 (which, by the way, Wilson later bitterly regretted)…”
Climate change and the international bankers
For Evans climate change is a manufactured “crisis” created by the “paper aristocracy” as part of a conspiracy to control the globe. No really, that is what he states:
“Like fiat currency and all the games with money manufacture, this is another game brought to you by the paper aristocracy: you pay, they enjoy. Ultimately people who produce real goods and services will pay—because there be will another bunch of bureaucrats and financial smarties living off our efforts.
Controlling who can emit carbon dioxide gives the government and the paper aristocracy an excuse and mechanism for controlling every activity on the planet. We all breathe out carbon dioxide, and nearly all energy use emits carbon dioxide. Further, the whole world has to be involved for the emission restrictions to be effective, so this will be the start of world government—you will no longer be able to escape by moving to a different country.
Note the “parasitic” metaphors that are sprinkled throughout Evans paper. Clearly he is drawing on much older and darker analogies about “Jewish financiers”.
Paper aristocracy: the inheritors of the “gold smith’s” power
Evans is engaged in broadening and furthering the conspiracy culture in drawing together long-standing views on the roles of Jews, international bankers and the coming New World Order.
This is typical of conspiracy theories: in general they broaden pre-existing theories and reshape them to incorporate contemporary anxieties.
Evan’s chronology of world events posits the “paper aristocracy” as the literal inheritors of money and power from centuries ago and that they have been actively shaping history for centuries:
“There are a small number of families who, over the centuries, have amassed wealth through financial rent seeking. They are leading members of the paper aristocracy. For example, the Rothschilds are the biggest banking family in Europe, and were reputed to own half of all western industry in 1900. That sort of wealth doesn’t just dissipate, because unless the managers are incompetent the wealth tends to concentrate. The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible. Since they own or influence all sorts of media organizations, it isn’t too hard. There are unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, but nobody can really credibly say how much wealth and influence they have.
What are the paper aristocracy going to do in the aftermath of the current huge bubble? The course and end of the bubble are quite foreseeable, so they must have a plan.
There are unsubstantiated rumors that they influenced the system to make an almighty bubble, and intend to buy lots of real stuff, such as real estate and businesses, in the ensuing bust, when everything is dirt cheap. By the way, this is how the paper aristocracy has made most of its wealth over the last few centuries, and how those banking families originally became wealthy. Bankers would introduce excess bank money, then deliberately cut it back on it one day, watch prices plummet as businesses failed, then buy distressed assets cheaply. Earning interest was a second way of earning money but less important. Bank fees were just for pocket money and to keep customers distracted.
Perhaps today’s fiat currencies—the US dollar, pound, yen and so on—will go up in smoke in an inflationary crescendo in the next few years, perhaps as planned by the paper aristocracy. Maybe they will reintroduce an asset backed currency. And guess who has all the gold? Those banking families have been salting it away for years. Possibly a global currency, so one cannot escape the predations of the paper aristocracy. This is not just about money, but about power, of course. Anyway, these are only unsubstantiated rumors. We shall see.
Yes, we shall see. Nothing is at it seems, everything is connected…
As I and others have noted, the Rothschild’s have long been the favorite target of conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites for decades.
Evans and the conservatives: why such unqualified support for a conspiracy theorist?
What alarms me is that Evans is treated as a serious commentator on the climate debate.
In addition to written pieces in The Australian and The Age, Evans was one of the “experts” former Senator Nick Minchin took Anna Rose to meet in the show “I can change your mind about climate change”. Andrew Bolt often links to pieces on Jo Nova’s blog.
Let me stress, I do not believe Bolt and Minchin share these views: however I believe the claims of Evans and Monckton are glossed over and ignored because they have proven useful to vested interests and those fighting the culture wars.
Bolt and Minchin are culture warriors, they see AGW as a left-wing “belief” that should be countered in much the same way conservative Christians oppose Darwin’s theory of evolution. It is a case of values driving a world view and the acceptance – or rejection – of a particular scientific theory.
Quite frankly, on any other issue conspiracy theorists such as Evans would be ignored. However because climate change has become so politically charged that Evans scant qualifications (he has a PhD) and his seeming authority on the issue have made him a cause-célèbre in the sceptic community.
His claims are endlessly repeated throughout the climate sceptic echo chamber so by the time it reaches more “respectable” sceptics such as Bolt, Minchin and the pages of The Australian the ugly conspiracy theories are glossed over and weened out to make the climate scepticism of Evans more “respectable”.
Remember this as well: shock jock Alan Jones has been a vocal front man for the Galileo Movement. Jones nursed it into being… and that does my head in.
Think: some of the most powerful media players in the country have thrown their clout behind these people.
Unwittingly Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, Minchin and the conservative movement have helped the trojan horse of radical conspiracy theories distort public debate in Australia. One wonders how quickly they will come to realise just what they have done.
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Here Andrew, here Alan – here are your monsters.
 This is a bold claim, and thus will warrant further research and investigation. I’ll leave it in here because that is what I published originally, but I will expand on this point and a provide a far more nuanced explanation. At best the claims made by Evans parallel the language and claims made more more extreme forms of conspiracy theory. Mike @ WtD