In a report on the unearthly negotiations going on at the latest U.N.-sponsored "climate conference" (see Reuters dispatch - "Draft U.N. climate accord emerges, debate turns ugly") we learn that negotiators are close to a deal that will transfer wealth from countries like the U.S. - which has a government that operates like it has wealth but is, in fact, the most bankrupt entity on the planet - to small countries that see a sweet deal when they can get it.
Don't get too worked up, though. Nobody at this grossly irrelevant shindig believes that any decision made over the next few days will be adhered to by its participating members. It's a show. And nothing more.
But this weblog post isn't about the conference. It's about Reuters. The article - get this - includes this set of "facts":
"A warming planet has already intensified droughts and floods, increased crop failures and sea levels could rise to levels that would submerge several small island nations, who [sic] are holding out for more ambitious targets in emissions cuts."*
To be charitable, if that is not a lie, it's certainly an untruth. There is no evidence that the planet, having warmed 0.6° C. over recent decades (after having cooled in previous centuries), has intensified droughts and floods or increased crop failures. None. There is only educated conjecture.
But the "reporters"** believe - or want us to believe - that it's fact.
Shame on them.
- - -
* A pet peeve: "Nations who"? How about "nations that." It's annoying, admittedly, because I catch myself using the wrong pronoun on occasion. "Who" always refers to people.
** Question: Why does it take six reporters to produce a 657 word article? More importantly, did all six reporters sign on to this embarrassment or did majority rule?