Is Lying About Climate Change Okay?
By Alan
Caruba
Those of
us who have chronicled the global warming hoax, now called “climate change”,
know that it is based on decades of lies about carbon dioxide and other
“greenhouse gas” with predictions that the Earth will heat up and cause massive
problems unless those emissions are drastically reduced by not using coal, oil
and natural gas.
Two
American think tanks, The Heartland Institute and the Committee for a
Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) have been among those exposing those lies for
years. The lies have been generated and led by
the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“Despite
the panel’s insistence that the Earth is getting hotter, five different
datasets show that there have been no observable warming for 17 and a half
years even as carbon dioxide levels have risen 12%,” notes Christopher
Monckton, a science advisor to Britain’s former Prime Minister Thatcher. “The
discrepancy between prediction and observation continues to grow.”
Recently,
two Chinese assistant professors of economics, Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao,
were published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Their paper,
“Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, openly advocated lying about
global warming/climate change in order to get nations to sign on to the
International Environmental Agreement.
“It
appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations,” they noted,
“have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by
climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.”
Craig
Rucker, CFACT’s Executive Director, responded to the Chinese authors saying “They’re shameless.” Theirs and others ends-justify-the-means tactics reflects
the attitudes and actions of environmental organizations and serves as a
warning to never accept anything they say on any aspect of this huge hoax.
CFACT’s
President and co-founder, David Rothbard, noted that “Global warming skeptics
have long charged that alarmists are over-hyping the dangers of climate
change.” How long? Back in 1989, the late Stanford University professor,
Stephen Schneider, said, “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might
have. This ‘double ethical bind’ which we frequently find ourselves in cannot
be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
between being effective and being honest.”
There is
no “right balance” between telling lies and telling the truth when it comes to
science or any other aspect of our lives. Suffice to say that thousands of
scientists who participated in the IPCC reports over the years supported the
lies, but many have since left and some have openly denounced the reports.
As the
latest IPCC summary of its report has garnered the usual verbatim media
coverage of its outlandish predictions, The Heartland Institute has released
its own 1,062 page report from the “Nongovernmental International Panel on
Climate Change (NIPCC) called “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological
Impacts. An 18-page summery is available at http://climatechangereconsidered.org.
Among its
findings:
#
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
# There is
little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising
atmospheric CO2 levels.
# Rising
temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to
aquatic life.
# A modest
warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from
temperature-related events.
Based on
hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, the NIPCC report is free of the lies that
are found in the IPCC report whose studies have been, at best, dubious, and at
worst, deliberately deceptive.
In light
of the natural cooling cycle the Earth has been in that is good news and it
will be even better news when the planet emerges from the cycle that reflects
the lower levels of radiation from the Sun.
On March
31, CNS News reported that “The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s latest report estimates it will cost developed nations an
additional $100 billion each year to help poorer nations adapt to the
devastating effects of ‘unequivocal’ global warming, including food shortages,
infrastructure breakdown, and civil violence. But that figure was deleted from
the report’s executive summary after industrial nations, including the United
States, objected to the high price tag.”
The price
tag reveals the IPCC’s real agenda, the transfer of funds from industrial
nations to those less developed. It’s about the money and always has been. It’s
not global warming the planet needs to survive, it is the costly lies about it.
© Alan
Caruba, 2014
******************************
Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" and shared on dozens
of news and opinion websites. His blog recently passed more than 3.2 million page
views. If
you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. For information on his professional
skills, Caruba Editorial Services is the place to go!
You can find Alan Caruba on both Facebook and Twitter as well.
***********************
VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on
Freedom" Face Book Page!!:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Insight-on-Freedom/ (Just click on the link for more conservative
commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)
No comments:
Post a Comment