Light and darkness in climate science

This message was given by Anika Sweetland at the World Prosperity Forum, which is a freedom-based, prosperity focused alternative to the World Economic Forum. Anika is a climate scientist who has worked for the Australian government in energy policy.

Introduction

When I was 19, I would lie awake at night trying to calculate how old I would be when the food shortages hit. Where I should live one day to avoid the sea level rise? Where would be safe to live in 20 years time? Whether it was even ethical to bring a child into the world I genuinely believed was going to collapse due to unavoidable catastrophic climate change. And the strangest part is that no one had made me think this with violence. No one had threatened me. All they had done is teach me.

My name is Anakah Sweetland and I trained as a climate scientist. And during my time in what was meant to be a world-class education, I learned the world was a fragile system on the brink of collapse and that we were practically doomed. What sets me apart from most climate scientists is this. I’ve realized I was indoctrinated. Going through my old lecture notes now, I see lie after lie after lie, painting a picture that does not and will not ever exist. I was that girl that ticked the box when booking a plane ticket to say, “Yes, I’m willing to pay a higher price to make this an environmentally friendly transaction and offset my carbon emissions.” Airlines saving polar bears. Sign me up. But of course, the consensus was always the same. There was nothing I could really do to solve the climate crisis.

So, let me take you through my journey from being a scientist in complete and utter despair to standing here before you today armed with the truth. Today, I’m going to be telling you about the realities of climate education. So, let’s start at the beginning of the climate merry-go-round, the indoctrination of school children.

The indoctrination of school children.

Do you realize the alleged consequences from climate change are actually similar to those of war? The child’s world is inherently unstable. After all, due to extreme sea level rise and extreme weather events, their lives are at risk. But this is what we’re teaching our kids. That the world they live in is no longer a safe and stable environment. That ecosystems are collapsing and their world is on fire. This is an outrage. They are told this is the truth. And if they question that narrative, the school will write to their parents. No debate is allowed.

I have been told my whole life that there is impending doom in the form of climate change. It was in the news every day. My teachers schooled me on it. My friends were talking about it. There were even degrees in it. I can be forgiven for believing it. Why wouldn’t you believe what your teachers are telling you? They’re the ultimate authority at a young age. But the most significant point is this. It is the effect it has on our children. They are scaring our children with these ghastly stories. They are shaping them to feel powerless because they can’t do anything about it. And they are molding them to be disillusioned and angry because the so-called people in charge don’t appear to do be doing anything about it either. This is how you get the Greta Thunbergs of the world. That girl honestly believes her world is burning. Imagine for a second what it truly feels like to believe that. I was at school in 1999 and this new emergency of global warming made me feel anxious and at that time 3% of school-aged children were diagnosed with anxiety. By 2023 this had escalated to more than 20% of school-aged children being diagnosed with anxiety. This is not a coincidence. The psychological impact of this story is crippling children’s mental health and it is simply unacceptable. It is wrong. It is socially irresponsible. And the minute they try and pedal that story on my child, well, let me just make this clear. Hell will have no fury like a mother who knows the truth and who is also a climate expert. And this is why I’m angry because I’ve seen the system from within. And what I found at university wasn’t a debate. It was a script. So when I call climate change a narrative, I’m not being edgy. I’m being precise.

Consistency is missing

If you want a quick test for whether something is solid science or nonsense, just look for consistency. And this consistency is exactly what’s missing. Firstly, the story keeps on changing. If it were a real story, I guess the general facts surrounding it would probably remain the same. But in the 1960s and 1970s, the majority of scientists were predicting global warming. But if you looked in the newspaper, you would think we’re heading straight into an ice age. In 1974, radio times ran the headline, “The ice age cometh.” American media followed suit. Every cold weather event was sold as proof that there was an ice age approaching. Sound familiar? It should. It’s how the media still works today. A flood, a heat wave, a storm, completely normal weather. Splash it across the front page, call it unprecedented, and blame climate change. Everyday weather is rebranded as an existential crisis. My point is this. It was never scientists telling the world an ice age was coming. It was the media with a use of selected experts.

But why? Let’s dig deeper. Newsweek warned governments were unprepared for climate driven food shortages and that planners were ignoring climatic uncertainty and that delay would make the coming crisis impossible to manage. This wasn’t just weather reporting. It was a script to create panic about hunger, and global instability. They pull the lever for sympathy for suffering in poorer countries. And even today we see images of flooded villages, failed crops, and desperate families, all offered up as proof of climate catastrophe and as justification for sweeping political action. Urgent action with no time to consider the consequences.

Data manipulation and false predictions

In 1988, there was a rebranding exercise. The New York Times headline read, “Global warming has begun, expert tells Senate.” I read this article. The evidence rests on five months of slightly warm weather. And in climate sciences, a trend takes 30 years to establish, not just a season. And worse still was the baseline they chose, 1950 to 1980. This is the very cooling period they had just used to scream ice age. This is a classic case of data manipulation. You take a cold reference point and everything after that is going to look unusually warm (also note that the reference point for “global warming” is 1850, which was in the little ice age!). This was never ever science. There was never ever a global warming trend. It was data manipulated to tell a story. The ice age never came. First wrong prediction.

But the story of the ice age did its job. The media succeeded in creating a generation of fearful believers. In a speech to the Royal Society in 1988, Margaret Thatcher talked about the fear that people were feeling. The fear that humans were creating a global heat trap that could lead to climatic instability. This fear was gas lit by an NGO, the National Academy of Sciences, who promised the warming would cause a sea level rise of a few meters (several feet) over the next century. The following year, another NGO, the UN, went on the record and promised entire nations will be wiped off the face of the earth due to climate change induced sea level rise by 2020. Well, we’re still here, aren’t we? Second false prediction.

None of this sea level rise has eventuated, and it’s exactly the same story they preach today. Extreme sea level rise and climate change refugees are nothing but a myth designed to scare people into whatever policy response is waiting in the wings. This is the first reason that the man-made climate change story is nothing more than a doomsday tale that has been evolving for the last 60 years. Think about it. These were two of the world’s most powerful organizations. They’d had access to satellite data for 25 years, the best scientists, the most comprehensive data analysis in the world, plus the mainstream media at their fingertips. Was it really a coincidence that their story never came true? We now know that they would have known via satellites that the sea level was always rising steadily at 3 cm (1.2 inches) per decade, just like it does today. Plus, this sea rise actually brings sediment with it and increases the land mass at the same time, therefore rendering it impossible for islands to sink due to sea level rise. However, because it was never a real story, they were never interested in the real data. They could clearly see that there was no unusual sea level rise, but they intentionally chose to mislead the public and put their fraudulent plan into action.

The IPCC

They advised the World Meteorological Organization, another NGO, to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Now, here’s where it gets juicy. The IPCC is structurally identical to the single world government model I was presented with during my studies as a prescriptive solution to climate change. My professors in global governance assured me that a global problem requires a single world government to fix it. And I admit it. I believed them. I respected my professors. Most of them were published authors in respected journals. And I was promised a world-class education. But the tragedy is this. They were never training scientists. They were training socialists to enact their agenda. And it’s been clear to me for a time now that there’s never been a problem with our climate system. Just a smoke screen to establish power and create control. Welcome to the only crisis where their solution is always the same – more control, more taxes, and less debate.

Let me make it clear how the IPCC benefits from maintaining and creating generations of climate change believers. To start with, they sit at the very top of the climate change establishment. And when I say establishment, I simply mean a stable network of institutions that fund, credential, and publish the urgency of man-made global warming. Climate finance reached a record-breaking $1.9 trillion in 2023 and last year saw a record $2.2 trillion in clean energy investment. That’s more than 4 trillion in a couple of years. Think about who are the main winners here. They are the unelected officials that sit at top the IPCC hierarchy. These are the people selling, building, financing, and certifying the global transition to clean energy. They are making billions. And the financial victims, the United Kingdom is a victim. Our economy is on the verge of recession after 30 years of being a signatory to international climate agreements. And what do we have to show for it? Not only are our energy bills the highest in the developed world, but the economy outside of London is closer to that of Bulgaria’s than Germany’s. Today, 18 to 30 year olds are the first generation to earn less than their parents. We are getting poorer both relatively and absolutely. My fellow countrymen are suffering. And this also makes me angry. Because of climate policy. Because the IPCC says so. We’re not allowed to drill our own gas fields which will make us completely reliant on others gas in the future. We have the best quality gas in the world and its exploration has just been made illegal.  For existing projects, for every dollar made, the company is taxed upwards of 78 cents due to unnecessary climate taxation.

Let’s take a really good look at just how much power the IPCC have created for themselves. They act as a global risk allocation engine. They determine which technologies receive subsidies, which activities become legally constrained, and which investments are encouraged or stranded. In the UK, we only have four oil refineries left. These are the basic building blocks of the modern industrial economy. But any company that comes in will not make a profit because the taxes are too high. The IPCC is making us poorer both as nations and as individuals. Recent blackouts across Europe are just a glimpse into the dystopian future which awaits us. As long as they continue to make us believe that man-made climate change is going to end life as we know it, we will keep filtering trillions of dollars throughout their organization without questioning a thing.

A socialist globalist agenda

So why do the IPCC have a conflict of interest with the truth? Let’s understand exactly how much power this unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, non-governmental organization are protecting with their lies. The IPCC produce assessments that 195 governments around the world use as an authoritative reference for climate policy. They use IPCC scenarios to set emissions targets, and justify carbon budgets. If countries argue for compensation or climate aid, they cite IPCC risk assessments. The IPCC projections define which regions are at risk and therefore where the money flows. And what they really don’t want you to know is that the most powerful leverage is in financial markets. IPCC scenarios are used in ESG scoring frameworks, climate stress testing for banks, insurance risk models, central bank climate risk assessments, and investment screening criteria. In practice, this means that a company’s ability to access capital increasingly depends on whether its business model is aligned with IPCC derived pathways. They have a monopoly not only on the success of entire countries but on individual business interests. In effect, their projections now sit upstream of policy, regulation, infrastructure and economic structure. And this is why they carry so much power. This isn’t just undemocratic, it’s anti-democratic. I never voted for them to make these decisions. These are people that cannot be held to account by the electorate and that is an unacceptable structure. It is a socialist globalist agenda that has been carried out right beneath our noses and it is the spitting image of the one world government framework that was prescribed in my training. So with the whole world relying on their projections with trillions of dollars on the line, you would agree that their utmost priority should be the accuracy of those projections. It’s why the believers say, “Look at the data. You can’t ignore the data.” Well, spoiler alert, the data is doctored. Just like it’s always been. Just like my textbooks were, just like my lecture notes were.

This whole thing is indoctrination. And here is the proof. Hackers leaked emails from IPCC assessment report authors which exposed them freely discussing their efforts in deleting and manipulating the real data because it didn’t quite fit with their doomsday story. and I quote, “I’ll maybe cut the last few points of the filtered curve as that’s trending down. They needed it to be trending upward to fit with their past projections.” Another email says, “I’ve just completed Mike’s nature trick to hide the decline.” These are real emails between the authors of the IPCC report. There are more than 2,000 emails like this showing corrupt behavior and they are still the lead authors today. They are unelected, corrupt, and have a conflict of interest with the truth. They deliver a pre-written narrative and nothing more. Trillions of dollars of spending rests on fabricated nonsense. In the UK, if we don’t allocate our national budget to their satisfaction, we’re taken to court. Most recently, we were taken to the European Court of Human Rights because of failure to adequately prepare for extreme heat and flooding. And this, they say, violates fundamental human rights because we are not protecting people against man-made climate change. It is an outrage.

Myth busting

So what can we do? Firstly, I believe that the average person is more than capable of seeing a situation for what it really is. So, please tune in carefully as I seek to disprove the myth of man-made climate change once and for all. Let’s bust the first myth. More carbon dioxide causes a warmer planet. Here’s the truth. A recent study by two of the world’s leading atmospheric scientists, both professor emiritus, one from MIT, one from Princeton shows that there is a limit to the amount of heat that is able to be trapped by carbon dioxide (Lindzen R and Happer W, 2025). And they call this the saturation point. We are at 99% of the saturation point. Relatively speaking, no matter how much carbon dioxide we pump into the air, it will not increase our global temperature. It is but a fallacy. Joe Rogan recently had those authors on his podcast, Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Happer. Joe Rogan also wants people to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Now, let’s bust the second myth that carbon dioxide is bad for the planet. Guess what? Carbon dioxide is actually good for the planet! Satellite data shows that plant growth has increased significantly over the last 35 years due to increased carbon dioxide. NASA measured a 10% greening of the Earth between 2000 and 2020 alone. Meanwhile, at university, I was taught that trees would starve due to climate change. They intentionally used the word starve to elicit an emotional response. What actually happens is that when there’s more carbon dioxide available, not only do plants grow faster, but they use less water. We know this because commercial green houses pump carbon dioxide to 1,400 parts per million because it grows the best plants. It’s called carbon dioxide enrichment. Come on. Carbon dioxide enriches the earth.

And the third myth, carbon dioxide has a direct relationship with temperature. Al Gore was the person responsible for demonizing carbon dioxide and he said carbon dioxide is the highest it’s ever been. It’s just another lie. It’s actually the lowest it’s been in the last 320 million years (in the secular timescale; 4,500 years in the biblical timescale). Not only that, but some of the highest levels of carbon dioxide occurred during an ice age 340 million years ago (after Noah’s flood), which just proves that carbon dioxide and temperature have no direct link whatsoever. Of course, in my training, carbon dioxide and its rise or fall could explain everything that happened in our climatic history through some sort of feedback loop or time lag mechanism. And this is the whole basis of their argument that more carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere, the more the temperature will increase. The most important takeaway from this today is that is a lie. The truth is the earth is just getting greener and we are simply uneducated as to why the climate actually changes. Indeed, all of us are completely brainwashed to never question it.

Reclaiming our sovereignty

So, what can nations do? It’s time to reclaim our sovereignity. And we do this by formally leaving all agreements governed by the climate establishment. Repeal the climate change act. Withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. Withdraw from the UNFCC. Leave the Paris agreement. America withdrew from all United Nations architecture this month. It’s time for the rest of the world to follow suit.

I can already hear the objections. But if we don’t act, aren’t we doomed? As a climate scientist, let me reassure you. The climate is meant to change and it’s meant to change drastically. I like to use an analogy when I talk about the climate’s natural propensity to change. Imagine no one had ever seen an ice cream before and people were at a car racetrack and the ice cream was unveiled. People are amazed. It’s perfect, they say, until it starts to melt. They panic and they decide it must be the cars racing around. Stop. Stop the cars. But the ice cream keeps on melting. They change the cars to electric, still melting. They build wind turbines and replace the power stations. The ice cream is still melting. But what no one at that racetrack has been taught is that ice cream was always going to melt. It is just its natural state. And this is very much like the earth. We are in a natural period of warming called the holocene. We’re still coming out of the little ice age which was between 1400 and 1900 and our earth’s climate gets warmer and cooler in 1500 year cycles. There is also an ocean pattern called El Nino southern oscillation which drives huge temperature changes and most global warming is in fact driven by changes in the ocean currents. Other changes are driven by orbital forcings called Milankovitch cycles. These cycles change the position of our planet relative to the sun and historically produce an ice age every 100,000 years (this is speculation using the secular timescale). There’s nothing man-made about it. There is only natural climate change.

But training experts that the world will listen to and who will enact their agenda is a crucial part of the IPCC’s strategy to retain control. Well, I’m a climate scientist. I’m an expert. So, listen to me. All man-made climate education in schools has to stop. It is not science. It is consensus which is very different to objective scientific fact. Teach them natural climate change. Teach them about Milankovitch cycles, and the El Nino. Do not teach them lies that I have just proven wrong. I don’t want my child to gain an ideology. I want him to gain an education. The next generation must be clever. And for this to happen, they need to be learning factual information.

For anyone out there that has ever felt guilty or afraid due to climate change, I want to reassure you, you are not the problem. We have been brainwashed every day by the media. We are being lied to every day. And if we question it, we’re told we’re crazy. We’re told we’re in denial because the climate establishment is afraid. They will tell you that I’m the extreme one because I don’t believe the world is on fire. They will do everything they can to make us fearful. The world as we know it is ending, burning, boiling to maintain control, constrain us in regulatory burden and have us accountable to their courts if we spend our taxpayers money the wrong way. The climate establishment targeted intelligent people who genuinely loved the environment. They taught us the earth was dying and on the brink of collapse. And I believed it. That is not stupidity. That is programming. Because my university lecturers who I respected and the institution of university itself assured me this was the latest cutting-edge research. I’m thinking I want my money back at this point. They told you it’s settled. They told you it’s urgent. They told you to comply. Well, I’ve told you what they haven’t. The climate is meant to change. Man couldn’t affect the climate system even if he wanted to. Carbon dioxide is good for the planet and will not increase the temperature any further. And both children and university students are being brainwashed to blindly perform and enact their agenda.

Well, I am no puppet. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The choice of what to believe is now yours. But the establishment should be afraid because I am a climate scientist who knows the truth.

Acknowledgement

This message was given by Anika Sweetland, a former energy policy adviser with a background in climate science. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Climate Studies from the University of Western Australia and is a published author on Net Zero policy, with recent work released by the UK think tank Reform and Repeal.

References

Converting ancient secular dates to biblical dates
Lindzen R and Happer W (2025), “Physics demonstrates that increasing greenhouse gases cannot cause dangerous warming, extreme weather or any harm”, CO2 Coalition, June 7, 2025.
Sweetland A, 2025 “Rethinking Net Zero: How a 60-year climate doomsday narrative is driving Britain’s economic suicide”

Posted, February 2026

Also see: The benefits of carbon dioxide and fossil fuels