A deception is a deliberate act to mislead; and the misinformation being disseminated by the UN and this administration regarding climate change is the most extensive and expensive public relations campaign in the history of the world. True, mankind has experienced deceptions before, but never on the scale we’re witnessing regarding AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) – even Anthony Fauci with his denials about funding gain-of-function research in China, the necessity of school lock downs and the efficacy of wearing cloth masks does not compare to the egregiousness of the lies perpetrated by the apocalypstists.
Let’s start with the simple fact that if predications about climate are wrong, it stands to reason that the science generating those predications must also be wrong, and the history of climate predictions is replete with contradictions, inaccuracies and outright lies – here are just a few.
- “By the turn of the century, an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust”—Mostafa Tolba, Former Executive Director of the United Nations Environmental Program – 1982
- “Within a few years winter snowfall in the UK will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is. —David Viner, Senior Research Scientist, and expert reviewer for the International Panel on Climate Change, 2000.
- “European cities will be plunged beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020.”—Mark Townsend & Paul Harris quoting a Pentagon report in the Guardian, 2004.
What is most revealing about the matter is that in spite of the incessant propaganda, survey after survey shows the American people put climate change at or near the very bottom of the list of problems, they want the government to address. But Biden administration has chosen not to listen as they continue to attack virtually every aspect of public policy, including the kind of light bulbs we purchase, the types of cars we drive and where we live – with the latest intrusion into our lives being the elimination of kitchen stoves using natural gas in certain far left jurisdictions.
It is imperative to our well-being that this topic receives a full debate especially while the left seeks to silence and discredit anyone who dares question their assertion that the science is “settled.” But true science is never “settled,” legitimate scientists are eager to ask & answer questions irrespective of their individual positions on a matter. As Einstein famously opined, “A thousand experiments will never prove me right, but one, can prove me wrong.”
Surely even the apocalyptic are aware of Einstein’s words begging the question of “Why?” Why impose regulations that cost hundreds of billions of dollars, destroy livelihoods, and reduce the quality of life for millions while condemning the less fortunate to live in grinding poverty when all their machinations have virtually no public benefit?
Many, (like most American grade schoolers) support the regulations out of pure naivete; after all, they been told repeatedly that “97% of scientists” believe global warming is a crisis so great that huge sacrifices are necessary to stop it.
But truth be told, the leaders of the global warming movement know better. They know too that most scientists do not endorse their simplistic and alarmist narrative to a very complex scientific question. The reality is they support the regulations despite, not because of, what scientists believe because it affords them more power, more control over people’s lives, and most of all, more profit. The alarmist view of global warming is at the core of renewable energy mandates and the massive subsidies for solar and wind companies. Strangely, as more and more of these boondoggles are exposed for what they are (remember Solyndra?), i.e., massive transfers of wealth from the general public to small politically connected cabal of climate profiteers, their cries become louder and more insistent in an effort to drown out the truth of the failures.
The ultimate litmus test for a scientist is results, so here is a question not a single scientist on earth can answer. If all the agreements made by all the signatories to the Paris Climate Agreement were completed tomorrow, how much would it reduce the temperature of planet earth and in what time frame? So, the next time you’re in a kitchen table debate with an apocalyptist, be sure to ask that questions, but don’t wait for an answer because you’ll never receive one.
There are countless peer reviewed articles in scientific journals that disagree with the ridiculous 97% notion, which by the way, reminds me of elections in third-world countries where the reigning despot always receives 97% of the vote.
Energy is a pivotal issue of utmost priority, and it is tightly woven into the debate underway over global warming. Before you decide where you stand, be sure you understand the issue, do not just believe what you read in the NY Times or hear on CNN.
Quote of the day: “We (the UN-IPCC) redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” — Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC working group on Mitigation of Climate Change