Failure to Explain Why the Global Warming Deception Occurred Continues



President Trump did the right thing by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. It was a bad deal for the United States. Despite this, polls claim a majority of Americans opposed his action. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Secretary Scott Pruitt is trying to take what appears to be a more balanced political and legal approach by allowing a debate presenting both sides of the science. It will have little to no effect because most of the public doesnt understand the science. The big problem is it begs the question; Why is it necessary to provide a forum for balance? Why does the global warming story not go away after exposure to the corrupted science of the major players behind the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) through leaked emails, exposure of bureaucrats deliberately adjusting the historic record, and worst of all, the failed forecasts?

The answer is simple and therefore profound and makes an answer essential. I know from experience that after you explain to an audience what and how the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deception was achieved the next question is inevitable. What was the motive? Unless you answer that question, people become a little more skeptical but remain, at best, undecided. They cant and dont want to believe that scientists would be involved in anything nefarious or even misleading. They cant believe that so many of them were misled, which is why the 97% consensus claim was so effective.

Attacks on people who try to explain the motive indicate how threatening it is to the perpetrators of the deception. It intensified as the challenges grew. For example, the charge of global warming skeptic is far less vindictive and isolating than climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations. Similar nastiness is inferred in calling people who identified the motive conspiracy theorists. Definitions of conspiracy indicate why that term causes problems.

  • An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act
  • An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

There is nothing illegal about the objective of proving AGW, so it was not a conspiracy. However, there was illegality in what some of those involved did, as the emails exposed. For example, a definition of conspiracy as a noun says

A conspiracy to manipulate the results: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge;

They even introduced a semblance of a conspiracy by calling themselves The Team.

 :  Our friendly EMAIL NEWS DIGEST is delivered per the frequency you choose.

Choose from: once an hour, every 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours, 12 hours, or once a day.

All we need is a few moments of your time, your email address (we send confirmation link you will click to activate), and a few clicks of the mouse to be enrolled.

The digest will always contain the easy unsubscribe link. We will NEVER sell your information.

For more info ... please click the ( Watts Up With That ) previous Hat/Tip link.