I have done multiple posts on the fraudulent nature of main stream climate science. Climate scientists fold, spindle, and mutilate data in ways that make politicians envious. But their deceitful nature does not always come from torturing lies out of data. Sometime what they don’t say is just as big a lie as what they do say. Sins of omission are still sins after all.
What climate scientists never do is present a full balanced picture. They rail on about climate change making wildfires worse without ever mentioning 80% of fires are caused by humans.
In an article for The Free Press, Brown likened the approach to the way ‘the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause’ of wildfires, including the recent devastating fires in Hawaii. He pointed out research that said 80 percent of wildfires are ignited by humans.
Taxing Carbon to lessen the impact of wildfires is a very inefficient. You would get far better bang for your buck by educating stupid people and imprisoning evil ones. But even if you could stop people from lighting fires a carbon tax is still not your next best option. Better forest management practices would have far more impact than taxes.
This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper: The authors should ignore — or at least downplay — practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change.
Climate will always change. Adaptation is always a cheaper option than grand polices designed to affect the weather. But, adaptation is never discussed is it? Neither are the enormous benefits of fossil fuels. Our modern society was only made possible by fossil fuels. It is childish to think that we can eliminate fossil fuels and still maintain our current standard of living.
If people were given the complete picture no one would vote to do what our governments are doing. Fossil fuels provide far more benefit than harm and there are solid strategies to mitigate any downside. Eliminating fossil fuels is a remarkably stupid policy that only survives because too many incomes depend on a one-sided analysis.
To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.
Climate scientists know they are lying by omission. They only publish climate porn because real science won’t get published and will torpedo careers. It is easy to produce a scientific consensus on anything. Pay people to say what you want and punish anyone who steps out of line. Can you spell “safe and effective”?