Is There Anything Environmentalists Won't Blame On Climate Change?

Two days ago CNN claimed the reason those migrant caravan wasn't so much corrupt Central American governments, violence or lousy economic policies. Instead the real reason was ...wait for it...climate change.

This is just the latest attempt by environmentalists to a) claim climate is worse than ever; and b) to blame it all on climate change.

The CNN story claims "climate change is responsible" for drought in parts of Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua, and that these droughts forced thousands to try to get admitted to the U.S.

Except that part way through  the article--well below the inflammatory headline--the author admits that "Studies have not definitively tied this particular drought to climate change."  But by that time 99% of readers have bought into the lie.

The best the CNN reporter could come up with is that "computer models show droughts like the one happening now are becoming more common as the world warms."

Ah:  computer models.   How...interesting.  Because in the U.S.--where we have pretty damn good records of droughts and floods, there's been no increase in droughts since the 1890s.  Unfortunately playing fast and loose with the truth and printing wild conclusions is now standard operating procedure when it comes to claims of global warming. 

According to the lying mainstream media every adverse weather event is caused by "climate change" (formerly "global warming").  But at least a connection between weather and claims of global warming is superficially plausible.  These days the media blames virtually anything bad that happens on climate change.  A quick search found the following claims about climate change:

Time magazine blamed mental health problems on climate change. "Trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression all rank among the ailments linked to climate change," said the wizards at Time.

Another story argued that global warming was connected to sexual violence.

EcoWatch warned pet owners that climate change was causing their dogs to have more fleas, by "creating an ideal habitat for pests."  This despite record cold winters in the U.S.

The Denver Post claimed climate change was partly responsible for the decline in fertility rates.

Another article claimed that "various skin disorders such as acne scars are the result of global warming and climate change."  Not kidding.

If you want a list, a website has collected hundreds of examples of things claimed to be caused by GW:  A beer shortage, a building collapse in England, the creation of ISIS, rising insurance premiums, kidney stones, prostitution, teenage drinking and homelessness are but a few.

Why the avalanche of such claims?  One obvious reason: Reporters and editors know that claiming some alleged catastrophe is due to climate change guarantees more readers.

Yet despite these endless claims of woe--and the perceived benefits of signalling one's peers that one is implacably hostile to the eeeevil carbon dioxide--the public seems unconvinced.  Even voters in absurdly liberal Washington state overwhelmingly rejected a tax on carbon.  Countries that made solemn pledges to cut CO2 emissions three years ago as part of the Paris climate change agreement aren't remotely close to meeting those declared targets.

Most likely that's because "regular" people know that bad things have always happened.  There were devastating hurricanes, floods, droughts, starvation, deprivation, wars and other terrible tragedies — including acne — long before mankind started burning fossil fuel.

Also, most "regular" people realize that even if we accept the provably-false temperatures claimed by government--officially less than 1 degree Celsius increase in average global temperatures over the past 100 years--that change is vastly unlikely to have caused a measurable increase in disasters of any stripe.

Except maybe acne.

(H/T Investors Business Daily)