How UN "Consensus" Propaganda Works
Here's a little insight into how the "global consensus" on climate change is formed. The Times of London reports that "tackling global warming need not cost the Earth, a panel of UN scientists said today. In the third in a series of reports, the IPCC said that keeping the rise in temperatures to within 2 degrees C would cost only 0.12 per cent of annual gross domestic product if governments exploited new technologies to cut greenhouse gas emissions."
So who authored this rosy, "scientific" scenario?
"It's a low premium to pay to reduce the risk of major climate damage," Bill Hare, a Greenpeace adviser who co-authored the report, told Reuters news agency after the culmination of marathon negotiations.
That's right - Greenpeace. One of the world's leading proponents of climate change. Would the MSM declare a report written by Exxon-Mobil to be the definitive report on global warming?
Needless to say, Greenpeace's - er, the IPCC's - conclusion is nonsense. As a Wharton Business School of Economic study found, implementing Kyoto would cost the US about 2.3% of its GDP - or about 20 times 0.12%. And that's just to comply with Kyoto, which doesn't come close to lowering emissions by the 85% that the IPCC claims is required to keep temperature increases below 2C.
Author & Source: Henry Paine at Politics Weblog.com
Peter C Glover
in Government & politics
|
Post a Comment
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments