Google

Climate Change Hoax Will End In Tears

Best When Listening To:
Comments are closed

Public distrust over supposed man-made climate change has heightened following the East Anglia University data falsification scandal.  Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, has now admitted that global temperatures have barely changed over the past 15 years – during which time we had been told repeatedly that global warming science had been settled.  Without such a major deception, could the climate change issue have mustered anything like the level of political support and institutional backing that most recently culminated in a high-level stand-off in Copenhagen?  And now that the data is known to be tainted, will this support actually start to wane? 

The climate change hoax will end in tears

The climate change hoax will end in tears

In the United Kingdom, acceptance of the phenomenon is so entrenched that there is a Department of Energy and Climate Change, with a cabinet level minister seemingly in charge of propagandizing on the subject.  The nation’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which marshals complaints about truth in advertising, recently upheld complaints against newspaper adverts being run by DECC to scare people into believing in the hoax.  More substantial elements in the government’s advertising campaign were cleared by the ASA. 

Using nursery rhymes, the adverts read: “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water.  There was none, as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.”    A second read: “Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub, a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change.” 

Some folks just have to take the fun out of everything.  Yet it was not the distasteful use of childhood nursery rhymes to advance propaganda  which curtailed the DECC advertisements but the explanatory wording underneath, that read:  “Climate change is happening.  Temperature and sea levels are rising.  Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense.  If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different.” 

Ed Miliband, the cabinet minister responsible, brushed off the ruling saying that it centered around just one word.  But it is a single word that makes a big difference, when “will” is changed to “could”.  The fact is that it is impossible to prove a link between man’s activities and changes in weather patterns. 

Justifying the campaign, Miliband told the BBC that the UK government has a duty to make people aware of the dangers of climate change.  It is Mr. Miliband’s duty to extract money from taxpayers to pay for political advertisements designed to extract more money out of taxpayers. 

In fact, the UK government is so keen on the idea of man-made climate change that for the past several years diplomats at its embassies around the world have been assigned to rally support for international measures to combat it.  Is this the best way to use taxpayer’s money?   

One has to wonder how it will all end.  Will historians look back on the global warming/ climate change political cheerleaders in the same way that we look at the pre- World War Two appeasers of the 1930s, as misguided if well-intentioned?  Or will future generations look at them in the same way we think of the orchestrators of the Salem witch trials?  How will school books characterize the issue when it all finally comes crashing down?  Will liberals be able to find new respectable vehicles for their relentless expansion of government controls?  What will Britain’s DECC be renamed?   Will people ever believe scientists again? 

Ironically, it is not doubts over the validity of climate change theory but a combination of economic uncertainty and fears over government spending that may force President Obama and Congressional leaders to delay their cap and tax climate change legislation.  In Australia, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd signed onto the global warming alarmism and then delayed his own measures due to similar economic concerns.   If the political proponents of climate change policies can so readily acknowledge the harm they will cause, why would they want to pursue them at all? 

Perhaps the toughest factor for British voters, however, is that all of its major political parties have enthusiastically bought into the hoax.  The Conservative spokesman criticized DECC not for propagandizing in its advertisements but for unnecessarily exaggerating the supposed fact of man-made climate change.  

With national and international bureaucracies vested in the theory of climate change, and political reputations tied to its existence, the hoax looks increasingly like the procession of another childhood character, the fabled emperor who wore no clothes.

3 Comments add one

  1. Dancer says:

    This is so right on! But when will the “institutions” start adjusting their attitudes? It’s as if they don’t want to believe that it’s not true! I guess too much money and power have poured into it. They’re using time in schools to indoctrinate our children rather than teaching them the basics. No wonder US children are falling behind in science and math. We don’t teach those subjects, advocacy and the “new religion” environmentalism have taken their place.

  2. JoeB says:

    “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” I don’t know who orricanlly made this statement but I think it applies to this situation. I think the scientists, whose livlihood is tied to funding from generous government grants, wanted this to be true so bad they forgot they were scientists and not politicians. This same agrument is used by the left in an attempt to taint research funded by the oil and nuc power industry ( may as well throw in tobacco and pharma) so logically this can be used to cast doubt on the interrity of East Anglia’s and other true believers research.

  3. Marlin says:

    I have researched both sides of the issue. I sat through Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, and I have just two things to say. If this is such an urgent issue then why did I have to pay $25 to be informed of it? Second, if the warming of the Earth is your main objective then why isn’t the film 100% science? I noticed that a few times through the movie, Mr. Gore goes on a rant about his personal life and his childhood. On a personal note, I don’t really care about his childhood unless global warming is caused my the hot air that spews out his mouth.