The White Lie of Climate Change

36

As a millennial, for over 20 years now, nearly my entire life I have seen the public bombarded with story after story about climate change and rising sea levels. Over the years Vice Presidents and Presidents around the world have promised “climate choas” and tell us we are “facing a planetary emergency approaching a point of no return” or that “the arctic will be ice free by the summer of 2013“. The men behind such remarks had set specific timelines for such catastrophe’s yet these dates have already come and passed seemingly without notice or publicity.

It is not the purpose of this article to “deny climate change” or anything like this. Anyone with any sense about them understands the globe is warming and humanity must take dramatic steps to clean up our world as we move forward. The purpose of this article meant to open people’s mind to the possibility that a white lie even if told for the right reasons is still a lie and to point out how many people/governments are directly benefiting from misleading climate change rhetoric.

Last week a study was released stating that a loss of antarctic ice could potential double the rate of sea level rise by the year 2100. This study also happened to get international press with nearly every major news source around the world covering the story. The fact that none of us walking on Earth today be around to ever verify such claims aside, I found the whole ordeal very strange. Even the publishers of the study admitted “these projections show Antarctica would be stable, if we can meet the goals of the recent Paris Agreement.” These statements are extremely telling.

What has not gotten international press is the fact that Antarctic sea has actually set all time, record high levels several times consistently this decade. In fact, did you know that antarctic ice has been growing relatively constantly since records began in 1979? I reference the statements of the scientist above, not only has the antarctic remained “stable”, it is actually growing. The “study” was simply researching a ‘what if’ scenario – ‘what if the antarctic ice started to melt’? The “study” was completely subjective, directly referenced the political agenda of the United Nations and had no basis in fact or current reality. Yet fear mongering headlines such as “Scientists nearly double sea level rise projections for 2100” swept across the globe. So the question remains, why do so many people hear about stories like this but almost no one publishes stories about sea ice growing? This is what I refer to as the white lie of climate change.

Yes it is true last year was the warmest ‘on record’ and yes it is true carbon levels are rising. We continue to pollute our planet at appalling levels, wildlife is being killed off and our climate is slowly changing. But it is also true that our Earth has been hotter than it is today, it has been colder than it is today and carbon levels have even been higher then we see today. Did evil corporations and big business/big oil cause all of this? Did a lack of tax revenue and lack economic sanctions cause this? No.

So while we would all like to improve our planet, reduce pollution, cut carbon emissions and save lives we have to ask ourselves a moral question. Is a white lie even if told for the right reasons still immoral? Is it unethical to over exaggerate and deliberately embellish climate change stories in order to spurn people to make a change occur faster? Perhaps as a journalist I see this differently then most but I happen to believe we can still change the world while presenting factual information in the process.

I view the climate change hype machine in the same way I view the protesters who will sink boats full of humans to save the whales or the “professional disruptions” who go to protests to start fights. They believe they are doing the right things, performing activism on behalf of a noble cause but the actions they use to do so are completely misguided and immoral. To all the authors out there: not every story has to be the most important thing ever happen, not every story has to make it seem like the sky is falling – we do not have to exaggerate everything to make a point. True information does good. We can change the world and not lie or manipulate people in the process.

Al Gore & David Blood’s Co-Founded Company Made 218 Million Dollars Marketing The Film “An Inconvenient Truth”  Between 2008 – 2011 Alone: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#6299fdcb3750

Al Gore’s Net Worth Has Increased From 700,000$ in 2000 to 173,000,000$ in 2015. Profiting From Climate Change: http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/what-is-al-gores-net-worth.html

John Coleman – Founder of The Weather Channel Steps Down, Reveals Climate Change Myths: http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/coleman.asp

Ten Global Warming Lies That May Shock You: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/#5f77f49823b9

Fact Check: 32.6% of Scientists Believe inAnthropogenic Global Warming66.4% Neither Supported Nor Dismissed This Claim | Obama Once Stated “97% of Scientists Agree” – Citing This Same Study: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427055/climate-change-no-consensus

Climate Change Being Used As Excuse To Increase Tax Revenue To Cover Budget Deficits In Countries Loaded With Debt: http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt228.pdf

30 Global Warming Myths & Facts: http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/30-global-warming-myths-facts.php


This article (The White Lie of Climate Change) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article using a creative commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.

Get Your Anonymous T-Shirt / Sweatshirt / Hoodie / Tanktop, Smartphone or Tablet Cover or Mug In Our Spreadshirt Shop! Click Here

Loading...

36 COMMENTS

  1. I think we’re getting a ton of research studies being thrown at us right now, because some groups are funding them to prove climate change is happening and others (usually corporations) are funding studies to prove it isn’t. I do believe that, as credible scientists say, a lot of the pollution in our atmosphere dates back to the industrial revolution. I also believe that the changes we are making now will slow down the process.

    But more than anything, I believe that a lot of the changes we are being asked to make will make our communities and our planet more liveable…right now, not some time in the future, maybe. Planting more trees and reducing carbon emissions makes it easier for everyone to breath. It also reduces acid rain, the main problem that kills lakes and rivers, and etches the faces off of statues. This shouldn’t just be about global warming though — we all need to be mindful of what we do that destroys our planet. Buy local, reduce waste, and stop littering — many forest fires are, by the way, started with a piece of broken glass sitting in the sun.

    • I wholeheartedly agree with you man. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that we are destroying ecosystems from the Amazon to the Great Barrier Reef, from the extensive unsustainable logging to the exploiting the worlds oceans, pushing them to the edge. However there are ways to rectify the damages, and these decisions need to be made by governments and enforced – better education in schools on conservation matters will probably go a long way.. and more unbiased coverage on actual environmental problems too.

      • “However there are ways to rectify the damages, and these decisions need to be made by governments and enforced” is such a terrifying statement in so many ways. Why do we need to appeal to the very people who can’t be trusted. Do the Panama Papers teach you nothing?

  2. Are you REALLY a journalist?
    So when you write “I view the climate change hype machine in the same way I view the protesters who will sink boats full of humans to save the whales” you mean it doesn’t exist? Cause NO ONE has EVER sink a boat “full of humans” to save the whales. Activism has its share of tragic incidents, but please, have a little decency. Activists are killed because of their fight, FYI. Pretty often. However, I have yet to meet one who kills humans to protect environment.
    Nice click bait BTW, your “White lie climate change”, oh, and your link to back it, “Ten Global Warming Lies That May Shock You”, by Forbes, wait, wuuuuuut? Forbes? Oooooh please.
    That’s it. It was my last clic for you guys. “AnonHQ”?! I love the anon battle, I believe in it, but this site harms it.
    If I want to read about old dead woman predictions or an article about the “White lie climate change” backed by forbes, I can go to buzzfeed.
    And I won’t.

    • please see comment below for proof of my statements. Also I notice you misspelled the word “what” several times. Judging by your vocabulary I can also gather you have never read many books. You can start by reading “The Whale Warriors” the source of my statements in the article. :thumbsup:

      • So, Let me get this straight. You are right but 99 percent of scientists are wrong? You quoting forbes killed it. I’ll trust the scientists thanks. With a name like righteous, one could reasonably assume you are one of those dip shit christians. A fact that makes you even less credible.

        • Have you ever heard of the straw man fallacy? You are pulling it off flawlessly. If you actually read the article I did not say anything you just claimed I said. And once again according to empirical, peer reviewed evidence….from the scientists who have studied this subject, 32.6% of scientist agree on the theory, not 99%. So literally nothing about your reply is factual and mocking anyone’s religions just goes to show how ignorant you really are.

          I did not realize so many people hated Forbes though, seems you should take that up with them. It interesting I included links from MIT, Polifact, Snopes and peer reviewed journals but you only read the Forbes?

          It is rhetorical question of course, I don’t really want you to answer. I understand you are simply a troll trying to get a rise out of me.

          • Can you tell us exactly where you get the 32.6% figure from, and why in your view that figure trumps the conclusions of the various other studies that have come up with figures in the 97% region?

            Thanks

          • … and it continues.

            The link below leads to a page on a popular science site that itself references, with links, the actual research. It also quite usefully reveals some of the sloppy (some uncharitable souls might say ‘downright dishonest’) methodologies that desperate deniers will utilise in their attempts to deny findings that can’t be denied by reputable or honest means. For example, by “conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent,”.

            http://www.iflscience.com/environment/there-really-consensus-among-climate-scientists

            Of course, the more paranoid types with conspiracist world-views will, if they haven’t already, just expand their conspiracy theory to include IFL Science, even if only as a willing dupe.

          • …. I should have made clear in that previous post that those ‘sloppy methodologies’ are used in the National Enquirer piece you link to. In fact the piece *relies* upon studies carried out using those dodgy methods.

            BTW, I don’t expect to persuade any unpersuadables (aka deniers) with these posts. But hopefully a few of the passers-by (even just one or two) will, as a result, be careful about taking the assertions in the article at face value.

  3. “I view the climate change hype machine in the same way I view the protesters who will sink boats full of humans to save the whales”- When has this ever happened and by whom? Please educate me if it has, but this sounds like hyperbole.

  4. It is starting to seem like climate change has been used as a distraction to our horrendous american economic system that the big corps and wealthy are trying to protect. Or for all we know anon has been posting propaganda articles for the FBI and/or other special (powerful) interests and climate change is real. Our society is confused by all the information and mis-information. Will truth ever be found?

  5. The size of the Antartic is not the only indicator of the Global Warming, but people forget this. The fact is that if you say “Finally the Antartic is growing !” some people will think “Ok ! So there’s no matter ! Just keep doing what we’re doing !!!”. But we have to make real changes if we want to protect our world, and publishing things like this in newspapers, even if it’s really interesting, is not helping us going in the right way.
    I think that journalist have to write it in a way that’s make people understand that there’s some good news BUT for all the others consequences of the climate change, we’re note done with it and we have to continue and make bigger efforts.

  6. “Anyone with any sense about them understands the globe is warming and humanity must take dramatic steps to clean up our world as we move forward.” Bollocks! The Earth has been in a cooling phase since 1998. FACT. Look it up and wake up. I suppose you think CO2 is a pollutant too. Psuedo-science-crap

  7. “Last week a study was released stating that a loss of antarctic sea ice could potential double the rate of sea level rise by the year 2,100.”

    Melting sea ice doesn’t raise the sea level just like melting an ice cube in a glass water doesn’t raise the level of the water.

    The study said the West Antarctic Ice sheet is melting which is based on land.
    Melting ice from the land will raise sea levels, and the ice sheets are most certainly melting.

    Also, antarctic sea ice extent has to do with other factors besides temperature, such as the speed of ocean currents and winds.

    I would recommend doing research and actually reading the study before making claims like this in the future.

    Sincerely,
    A Meteorologist

    • This is really disappointing from this site, the writer has completely misread and misinterpreted research done by meterologists like “Jon” and has instead sourced a piece of propaganda financed by those that would stand to lose the most if action was to be taken against polluters. I will be unsubscribing.

      Sincerely, a Scientist.

      • Ok I will concede you are right. However it does not change the fact whatsoever that the ice is not melting. The study remains completely hypothetical and it researched a scenario that even the authors do not think is going to happen. It changes nothing. You essentially found a typo, which I have corrected. So, thank you.

        • Yes it is melting. It is not growing,, it is thinning and the physical properties of ice dictates that it spreads as it thins so covering a bigger area

  8. As Jon points out, you are clearly confusing “sea ice” with “land ice”, only the latter of which contributes to sea level rise.

    The year 2100 is also not written as “2,100”.

    **FACEPALM**

    Sorry to say but this shoddy work calls everything you write into serious question. Which is too bad because in looking through your archives you are addressing important and interesting topics.

    It’s great to be skeptical, but an indiscriminate skeptic is as bad as a brainwashed ideologue.

      • Well it’s deserved, you have a lot of good things to say. Like I said, though, skepticism is a sharp tool that must be wielded with caution. In this case I don’t think you did. But keep up the effort, it is appreciated.

  9. One of the most idiotic articles ever written and the reason anonhq loses readers.

    Check the Nasa article on antarctic ice growing for example, the 3rd sentence on the page “…that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.” Same logic applies to “its cold in my refrigerator therefore its not getting warmer outside”.

    His juvenile logic and inability to read even one full paragraph of a reference article makes him unqualified to even write in a blog.

    • Another straw man fallacy argument. At least our meteorological friend a few quotes above advanced the discussion with facts and information.

      “Straw Man Fallacy: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.”

      I understand many people will disagree with my article, I understood very well it could be an especially unpopular opinion when presented within the context of Anonymous – a movement synonymous with global activism. But please do not impugn my intelligence while presenting fallacious arguments.

  10. interesting that no one is arguing the fact that lots of people are getting richer over this green propaganda.
    Government of Quebec and California are trying to buy us a good concience with a new tax on carbon.
    it will be payd by company’s, cost will be forwarded to customers.
    The extra $$$ to the government is still disguised taxes.

  11. Well full marks for intellectual honesty. But, like the infamous “hockey stick” it is not a white lie but a deliberate lie.

  12. I am waiting for the list to show that 99% of scientists agree with the potential destruction of mankind due to global warming (climate change?) . That statement has about the same credibility to me as “9 out 10 dentists who chew gum recommend dentyne to their patients who chew gum”.

  13. A characteristic of the pseudo-‘debate’ about the reality or otherwise of anthropogenic climate change is the extreme sensitivity of climate change deniers to being labelled, well, deniers. That’s easily solved: Science denialism is increasingly well defined – so it can’t be denied that denialism exists – and also well understood. There are, consequently, a growing number of great sources that are publicly available and that clearly describe the characteristics of anti-science denial. So swotting up on what constitutes denialism and then avoiding indulging in it will solve the problem of being labelled a denier, for anyone who takes offence.

    As a starting point I’d recommend a piece by Diethelm & McKee, published way back in 2009 in the European Journal of Public Health.

    http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2

    Yes, I know: ‘What’s a journal about Public Health doing talking about climate change?’.

    Well, it isn’t, specifically. It’s talking about science denial in general, of which climate change denial is only one manifestation. There are various denialist-style campaigns in the sphere of public health, all of which use the same set of rhetorical methods as climate change denial, to try to undermine findings that, for whatever reason, threaten the world view or beliefs of various groups. Hence the Public Health publication.

    The Deithelm & McKee article is a very useful introduction, but it’s both very brief and several years old, so for anyone genuinely interested it would be worth following up, both in the peer reviewed literature and elsewhere. The Skeptical Science website (anathema to deniers, of course) has excellent and extensive discussion of climate related denialism. There was also a recent, related, EdEx course on “Making sense of climate science denial”, which is worth a detailed look.

    (https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-0).

    Work by Lewandowski and others (again, anathema to deniers and very much in their sights for attack) adds another really interesting and revealing angle.

    http://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/443/html

    For an eye-opening account of denialism in a public health field Seth Kalichman’s book ‘Denying Aids’ is a must-read, and I at least found it genuinely disturbing in places. Unfortunately so far as I know that’s only available online in a very, very abbreviated form, so libraries or purchase may be necessary.

  14. Today, a war against North Korea is more than possible, so we all need to get ready for any consequences that could result from this.
    I wonder, why the U.S. let North Korea to have nuclear reactors inside their country because is known the fact that even the nuclear waste produced during the nuclear fission reaction that takes place inside a nuclear reactor is more than enough to build an atomic weapon.
    I read on https://www.alternative-energies.net/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-energy-aen-news/ that nuclear fusion could provide unlimited clean energy for humanity starting with the year 2050.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here