By John Ransom
Monday, January 14, 2013
Here’s my challenge to all the global warming apologists:
Explain to me why the “settled science” of global warming
has to manipulate headlines to make information appear scarier and more threatening
than the actual data shows.
If global warming is so settled, why do you and your
friends take the opportunity to exaggerate, obfuscate and slant every piece of
news that comes out to make it seem relevant to today?
You can see an example of this in the headlines below:
“Climate Change Main Contributor to Corn Volatility,
Study Says” writes Bloomberg-BusinessWeek.
“Climate Change Has Outsize Effect On Corn Price
Volatility,” trumpets Climate Central.
“Warming set to make corn prices pop,” says Agence France
Presse.
“Climate Change to Affect Corn Prices, Study Says,”
echoes the New York Times.
Nature Climate Change, a journal for the care a feeding
of the climate change industry that masquerades as a peer-reviewed science rag,
has published a new study that warns that “US corn price volatility to increase
sharply in response to global warming projected to occur over the next three
decades.”
Projected to occur over the next three decades.
The study does not say that global warming is affecting
the corn prices that are making today’s news, but rather corn prices that will
be news in ten years or so.
But in another attempt to scare people into believing
that a crisis has burst upon us, the media is using a self-serving expert
study- a study that is expert mostly at
arguing propositions that are self-evident- to ratchet up the fear that global
warming is out of control and to blame for high corn prices today.
You don’t have to be a grammarian to catch the tense and
other tricks that the MSM is using to hype the results of the study.
The study says that if the climate change model predicted
by global warming alarmists comes to pass, that the warming will have a bigger
effect on corn prices than say, federal ethanol policies.
So in other words, the same dynamic- namely, crop yield
derived from weather conditions- will continue to drive the price of corn in
the same way crop prices have been affected for thousands of years.
Yet if you were to read the headlines, you’d think the
current trend of high corn prices are the result of global warming, not the
real culprit: mismanagement of monetary policy by Obama and the central banks
which has had an inflationary affect on many commodities including corn, oil,
gold and silver.
Certainly if temperatures in the corn-belt go up by an average
of ten degrees by the end of the century, as predicated in the study, I can
confidently say that, yes, corn prices will be affected more by warming than
any other factor.
But the summary of the Nature report come with a lot of
ifs, and, buts that add up to a great deal of uncertainty: “Closer integration
of agriculture and energy markets moderates the effects of climate change,
unless the biofuels mandate becomes binding, in which case corn price
volatility is instead exacerbated.”
Got it? Integrate agriculture and energy, whatever that
means, and you moderate volatility. Use agriculture as energy and you get more
volatility.
It’s this kind of reporting by the MSM that has climate
change skeptics like me increasingly convinced that much of the data is being
intentionally manipulated by a media elite that can not tolerate debate,
especially when they are really, really, really wrong.
We saw the same type of reporting lead to widespread
predictions that killer hurricanes were becoming more commonplace, as a result
of global warming. We had farfetched predictions every year of a dozen or so
tropical cyclones bearing down on humans who refused to stop messing with
Mother Nature. This continued until the results failed to materialize and the
adults in hurricane science finally put and end to the farce with a report
showing that no, global warming has had no affect on hurricanes.
We saw this same type of reporting lead to the hypothesis
that polar bear cannibalism was on the rise as a result of global warming by
the same discredited fools who predicted that polar bear populations were
declining, when in fact, the polar bear populations are growing.
Lately every weather event from a drought in Texas, to
cold weather in Europe, to hurricane flooding has been blamed on global
warming. This despite, um, little or no scientific evidence: “"This is not
the new normal in terms of drought. Texas knows drought. Texas has been toughened
on the anvil of droughts that have come and gone. This is not a climate change
drought. What we do anticipate from climate change is a situation where
temperatures progressively increase," said Dr. Robert Hoerling, a National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research meteorologist, who was a lead
author of the U.S. Climate Change Science Plan Synthesis and Assessment Report
and definitely a supporter of warming models.
We are at the point that we could have a record cold snap around the world for several years in a
row and global warming acolytes would work furiously on models to blame it
on…global warming.
That ain’t science folks. That’s reality TV.
And while the clown college that makes up the dwindling
media elite in this country continues to exaggerate, obfuscate and slant every
piece of news that comes out to make it seem relevant to today, expect the
folks at home to one day give them the Donald Trump treatment.
No comments:
Post a Comment