Yes, these people aren't superhuman and don't have predictive capabilities beyond what other humans do, though they do have insights into behaviour that most of us don't, so it is possible to predict more likely outcomes. Not always, but sometimes.

We don't need to dissect the munitia of the points being made when you are indirectly conceding that plans were made without the knowledge of the general public against the interests of the public. How high up the chain and across the world the organisation happens can be debated, but the fact that there are levels of coordination happening all the time is indisputable from what I can see.

The intent may not be exactly what we think it is, but the outcomes are largely aligned. Everyone that gets involved stands to benefit in one way or another.

Take the climate stuff for example. You have a handful of scientists selected as the mouthpieces to be the experts who are paraded around to tell everyone how bad things are and how we "must act now". Politicians now act to appease a brainwashed population, most of which (politicians) also believe the "experts" and therefore think they are acting in good faith. They get their friends who run net zero startups funding to create solutions. Then some attend a meeting of politicians from around the world to make further plans to tackle the crisis. They start receiving donations from corporations and they become wealthy, in exchange for offering them government contracts and grants to solve this crisis.

Now we have incentives to bend the truth to continue getting richer. Maybe trial a 15 minute city? Another tax on driving? Restrict what foods people can eat by limiting access by culling healthy animals? Have people buy the cars they give grants for, when it objectively solves nothing.

Eventually people including other experts start pushing back and challenging the basis for these measures. But now it's too late, it has already become a trillion dollar industry and a cult that cannot be questioned. Published papers are pulled, papers challenging the status quo are rejected from journals because the findings are uncomfortable. Those involved anywhere in the scheme now have an interest to protect, because they depend on the industry in order to put food on the table. Doesn't matter whether it's real or not at this point.

The overwhelming majority isn't involved in some mass conspiracy, even though an entire sector is a scam. The basis for this scam had to be planned at some point, and then human self interest did the rest.