Commission and Omission into Submission
There are essentially two methods of deception, misleading or lying. One is commission and the other is omission – commission is executing or divulging a known falsehood while omission is disregarding or neglecting a known truth. Most advocate articles on climate change have a tendency to attract both – the one entitled, “Global temperature rise could see billions live in places where human life doesn’t flourish, study says” is twisted with several.
CNN the acronym for Cable News Network (but could be Climate News Network), purposely assigns a few in this article. For example, the first is “Scientists have long warned that warming beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius would result in catastrophic and potentially irreversible changes.” The truth is that the 1.5° global temperature rise was plucked out of the air by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) an Intergovernmental Organization of 39 low-lying coastal and small island countries. As a symbol of solidarity and unity, the 1.5° value was simply used by the Paris Climate Accord. The AOSIS stands to reap billions in climate reparations funding being funneled through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and paid by the taxpayers of Western nations.
The second is the statement, “As the areas within the climate niche shrink as global temperatures rise, a larger swath of the population will also be more frequently exposed to extreme weather events including droughts, storms, wildfires, and heatwaves.” Even though the major weather recording and statistic harvesters, namely the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and to a lesser extent the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), affirm there has been no increase in any of these weather events, bias news reporting seems to persistently and consistently demand the fraudulent allegation.
As well in this statement, it is not a guarantee that global temperatures are going to continue to rise. There was a lengthy pause in worldwide temperatures after 1998 and the last 9 years have actually produced a slight decline. The past couple of decades indicates that a rise in carbon dioxide does not coincide with a rise in temperatures.
The article contends that anything outside of the climate niche, which is from 13 degrees Celsius (55 degrees Fahrenheit) to around 27 degrees Celsius (81 degrees Fahrenheit), does not support “human flourishing”. According to a summary of several sites, and condensed and encapsulation by AI, “Human flourishing in science and technology refers to the rational use of one's individual human potentialities, including talents, abilities, and virtues, in the pursuit of freely and rationally chosen values and goals.”
The article goes on further to allege, “The study determined that while less than 1% of the global population is currently exposed to dangerous heat, with average temperatures of 29 degrees Celsius (84.2°F) or higher, climate change has already put more than 600 million people outside the niche”.
All of these numerical values used by the article’s scientists seem spectacularly arbitrary, or it would certainly give the impression that people in Canada’s upper latitudes, as well as the Russian Siberia, and all of the equatorial climes do not have a chance at “Human Flourishing”, yet the big omission, or ‘elephant in the article’ is the deficiency of energy. When humans have the ability to heat and cool, they constantly reside in any perfect niche.
Of course, the battle here is for the political and economic transformation through a modification in energy sources. The politically progressive want to achieve domination and control through the alarmism of climate change falsely claiming human emissions via the burning of fossil fuels as an agent of that change. With the consistency of traditional fuels, there is no intermittency, no shortage of energy, or a change required to the energy delivery infrastructure. The reason eco-politicians, bureaucrats, and the climate campaign community demand a massive change in human behavior is they readily understand the failures and weaknesses inherent in renewable energies.
