The first casualty of "climate change" rhetoric continues to be the truth.
Take, for instance, President Obama's speech to the United Nations on Tuesday. Myron Ebell, the noted director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, documents at least four misrepresentations:
• The president said the threat is "serious," "urgent" and "growing." But Mr. Ebell notes that global mean temperatures increased only slightly from 1977 to 2000 and have been "flat" since then.
• Obama: "Rising sea levels threaten every coastline." Not so, says Ebell -- "(S)ea levels have been rising on and off since the end of the last Ice Age 13,000 years ago. The rate ... has not increased in recent decades over the 19th- and 20th-century average."
• Storms and floods are "more powerful" and "threaten every continent," said Mr. Obama. Ebell: "(T)here is no upward global trend in storms or floods."
• Obama: "More frequent drought and crop failures" are exacerbating hunger and conflict where they already thrive. But Ebell says that's simply false.
To paraphrase 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat, "climate change" theologians need only a few words to set forth their half-truths whereas opponents are forced to resort to long and arid dissertations to expose their lies.
This is the sad state of the global warming debate. Much sadder is that the president of the United States is engaged in such misrepresentations.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.