In the dogmatically blind worlds of liberalism and environmentalism, the truth is irrelevant

In the dogmatically blind worlds of liberalism and environmentalism, the truth is irrelevant
Two Lies Make A Truth In Green and Liberal Views on Climate Science
By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, September 9, 2010
In the world of green and liberal politics, where they practice extreme environmentalism, nothing bears examination: two lies make a truth. We now learn that Bjorn Lomborg, who was never a climate skeptic, has magically disavowed that status. As the entire mockery of human induced global warming collapses, it is a convenient conversion.



The Guardian tells us that Bjorn Lomborg, ”The world’s most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today” and “a challenge humanity must confront”, in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.” The problem is it is completely false. His message on climate in his new book is exactly the same as it has been all along.

Yes, But Is It True?
A few years ago in the late 1980s, professor Aaron Wildavsky published the results of a class project for graduate public policy students at the State University of New York (SUNY). Each was required to pick an environmental topic and pose the question, “Yes, but is it true?” The results were so interesting and uniform in their findings that Wildavsky published them in a book with the same title. Students could find little or no evidence to support the claims being made about the subject.

It is still a good question to ask and one I urged teachers to get their students to ask. They can begin with the book that became the book of genesis for the environmental alarmism, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. They can continue through the Y2K fiasco to the CFCs destroying the ozone. There never was a shred of evidence that CFCs were in the ozone layer or causing change. Interestingly, a major proponent of the CFC destruction argument was Susan Solomon who became Co-Chair of Working Group I of the IPCC.

Along the way they can visit several issues that drifted out of the public and mainstream medias view. Ironically, what pushed them aside was another overplayed, misrepresented environmental disaster. Desertification was the claim deserts were expanding at alarming rates because of human activity and global warming. The Sahelian drought brought images to increase the concern. A report by Swedish scientists, who had the audacity to use satellite images, showed the Sahara was actually diminishing. They can research claims that the rainforest was falling at alarming rates, but it turned out that two factors were the major cause. The numbers used were estimates by accountants at the World Bank who had to provide a budget to fight the problem. Their estimate was some 80 percent above the actual amount. Then it was disclosed the World Bank offered countries like Brazil financial aid to increase agriculture if they provided tax incentives for forest clearance.

More recently there was the false argument that bleaching due to global warming was destroying coral reefs. This was one claim in Al Gore’s movie, The Inconvenient Truth identified as false by the UK Courts. They said there was no evidence to support the claim. The movie also falsely claimed Kilimanjaro snow was melting and ice retreating due to global warming. The nine errors identified by the court extends the list of alarmist nonsense, including sea level rise, polar bears drowning, and Gulf Stream displacement throwing Europe into an ice age.

Global warming and climate change are the biggest scam of all
Almost overriding all of these are the ridiculous population predictions, particularly in Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb. One quote is enough to show the insanity of the claims. “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.” Amazingly, despite the inaccuracies Ehrlich and his co-author John Holdren continue to have influence.

Global warming and climate change are the biggest scam of all. This continues despite disclosures about the falsity of the science, corruption of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the manipulations of the people at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Now we have another fiasco presented as an attempt to show the official science has legitimacy.

Lomborg Milks The Message
A book that raised hackles and experienced personal attacks from the environmentalists was Bjorn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist. UN IPCC chief, Rajendra Pachauri, compared him to Hitler. It is typical of Pachauri’s lack of understanding and undiplomatic reactions, but he wasn’t alone. Almost everyone, including most skeptics, misunderstood what Lomborg was saying, especially about climate. People on both sides of the climate issue were fooled by Lomborg’s use of “skeptic” in his title. Too many people designated climate skeptics by the warming alarmists and those questioning extreme environmentalism were desperate for a public relations victory.

Lomborg is a statistician and was challenging the misapplication and misuse of statistics. He knew little about climate as evidenced in his book. In fact, Lomborg’s book was little different than Wildavsky’s because he proved that nothing in science, and especially environmental science, bears examination. He added the attention grabbing point that better priorities could be made and money better spent if research and analysis were improved.

Lomborg’s new book argues that, “Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century,” The trouble is there is no climate change problem. This investment proposal by Lomborg is precisely the type of misdirection of funding because of bad science, which is the main theme of his more famous book.

In the dogmatically blind worlds of liberalism and environmentalism, the truth is irrelevant. Lomborg was never a climate skeptic as they originally hysterically claimed. Now he continues with his views, but they are conveniently and falsely misrepresented as rejecting climate skepticism. Two lies make a truth in the dogmatically dark world of liberalism and environmentalism. The only truth is Lomborg, the liberals, and the environmentalists still know nothing about climate science.