Who’s Really Lying About Climate Change?

Arnold Schwarzenegger really should be careful about calling people liars. Especially when he’s trying to pass off faith as scientific fact.

Maybe you saw the former governor and erstwhile action star berating conservatives the other day for refusing to accept his view that the answer to climate change is the heavy hand of government.

“Don’t those conservative Republicans get the message?” he asked. “And can’t they just think about it for a second and say, ‘Maybe we should stop lying to the people.’ Stop lying to the people. Stop it.”

Lying, eh? It’s a wonder he didn’t add, “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

Schwarzenegger was on hand Tuesday for Gov. Jerry Brown’s big cap-and-trade bill signing ceremony on Treasure Island in San Francisco. After months of wrangling and the eventual defection of eight Republicans, Brown and the Democrats succeeded in extending the program until 2030.

Read the rest at the Sacramento Bee


About Ben Boychuk

Ben Boychuk is managing editor of American Greatness. He is a former weekly syndicated columnist with Tribune Media, and a veteran of several publications, including City Journal, Investor's Business Daily, and the Claremont Review of Books. He lives in California.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

13 responses to “Who’s Really Lying About Climate Change?”

  1. 90+% of the experts and Exxon’s internal memos most likely aren’t.

    • All that drivel has been debunked long ago. Don’t get the news where you live?

      • Debunked by who? Take you head out of your Foxhole.

      • People who are not stupid enough to think science is based on consensus.

    • President Trump’s easiest accomplishment to-date, the one with your name on it:

      Democrats and Entitlement Monkeys – in utter disarray and covfefe’ing themselves daily.

  2. Who’s lying?

    During the 26,500 year processional cycle of the Earth, the entire solar
    system rises above and falls below the galactic ecliptic, as you view
    the Milky Way edge on.

    As of the 2012 furor, we’ve entered the exact plane of the ecliptic at
    zero point “c”, along the sine wave of the solar procession, above and
    below the ecliptic.

    Now, no one knows what happens as we traverse this *HIGHLY* energized
    field, that contains hi energy gamma/x-ray/microwave/neutronic beam like
    emissions from the center galactic black hole, and it is massive. We
    have NO idea how this will affect Newtonian physics, the sun, weather,
    the magnetic fields, solar system capacitance values, tectonics, fauna
    and such as we embark on this 5000 year passage.

    All we know for sure is that it appears there were once advanced
    civilizations and a completely different planet in regards to
    O2(prehistoric amber samples) and gravity levels(and flipping magnetic
    fields recorded magnetically in ancient lava deposits). An ice age also
    appears to have happened, extincted the (large)American fauna and this
    generated endless legends of gods, lightning bolts of gods, majik stones
    from heaven, dragons in the skies, and adventures of men.

    All around 10,000 years, or so, ago.

    Or, it could be humans simply oxidizing carbon and refining metals.

    • After the typical environut, you are undoubtably the most delusional human idiot on the planet.

  3. “Who’s Really Lying About Climate Change?”

    Well, let’s see … Which group keeps reversing it’s position on the environment every thirty years, you know global warming, then ice ages, then global warming, then ice ages, etc, etc, etc.

  4. IPCC Third Assessment Report

    Chapter 14


    Last paragraph:

    “In sum, a strategy
    must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should
    recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and
    therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not

    This information was not included in the Summary Report for
    Policymakers given to the press and public.

    If the climate is indeed a coupled non-linear chaotic system
    (who can doubt the IPCC) then there is no rational or scientific basis to make
    a definitive statement about a future state of the climate.

    At this point the coupled non-linear chaotic nature of the
    climate makes scientific observations academically interesting but individually
    they have no relevance in predicting the future state of the climate. The
    climate is a system which means the relationships among these
    observations are what is important not the observations themselves.

    All the public discourse regarding the future state of the
    climate has been based on the false premise that the current climate models are
    predicting the future state of the climate when in fact the models are merely
    projecting these states.

    Predictions are the purview of science. Model projections
    can only agree with predictions when the models duplicate the real world.

    To base public policy on an unknowable state of a system
    defies common sense. However, too much money and political power is at stake
    for the Central Planners to do otherwise.

    I would argue that the Climate Model True Believers are the
    ones taking an unscientific approach to the subject.

    In January 1961 President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address
    identified the situation in which we find ourselves today:

    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes
    in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution
    during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central; it also
    becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is
    conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has
    been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing
    fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead
    of free ideas and scientific discovery has experienced a revolution in the
    conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government
    contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every
    old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by
    Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
    and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and
    discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and
    opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a
    scientific-technological elite.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to
    integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our
    democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

    Other relevant publications from Eric Hoffer are: “The True
    Believer” and “The Temper of Our Times”

    From “The Temper of Our Times”: “Every great cause begins as
    a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

  5. Reading the rest of the article over at SacBee, I came across what seems like this pretty knowledgeable comment from Charlotte Glennie:

    “Well here’s an article from 2013 about the reductions achieved just in the first years of the [CA] program: http://blogs.edf.org/californiadream/2013/02/12/major-california-refineries-logging-big-pollution-reductions-under-ab32/

    Numbers: just 8 of the state’s refineries achieved a reduction of more than 1.2 million metric tons of greenhouse gasses, in a single year. They also reduced co-pollutants, for example “Valero’s refinery in Benicia, CA, which decreased covered GHG emissions by over 95,000 metric tons while also cutting ammonia emissions by 98%, sulfuric acid by 84%, and benzene by 49%.” Dunno about you, but I’m happy there’s less ammonia, sulfuric acid, and benzene in the air.

    More numbers: since 2000, the state’s GDP has grown by over 35%, while the GHG emissions have fallen about 8%. In 2007 (before AB 32 was implemented) GHG emissions in the state were 486.2 million metric tons. In 2015, we got down to 440.4 million metric tons. You can find that kind of info here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/graph/graph.htm

    California obviously can’t stop global warming on its own, but the state is proving that we don’t have to pick between economic growth and environmental protection. While gradually cleaning up our own air, we are leading the worldwide transition to an economy that doesn’t depend on fossil fuels. That’s the future no matter what you think about climate change.

    America prospered in the 19th and 20th centuries by leading the world in technological innovation (esp. industries like railroads, automobiles and airplanes). Along with countries like Germany and China that are taking climate change seriously, California will remain on the forefront of the clean tech economy – and thus will continue to prosper. What a shame that the rest of the country is falling behind.”

    • Except its premise that regulations lead to technical innovation is nonsense.
      Regulations lead to higher costs and moving industry to other states.
      Without silicon valley and hollywood, Cali would be in terrible shape as a state due to its crazy regulations – it would be Illinois with nicer weather.
      USA has done more to advance its energy position AND improve air quality AND reduce GHG emissions with fracking than with anything else. Cali had NOTHING to do with the real reason the country has reduced GHG emissions; that
      was texas and other states doing fracking.
      Cali wont allow drilling of gas offshore, closing off billions in valuable resources.
      They banned drilling because 40 years ago some oil washed up on a beach.
      Now tell me, how is it physically possible for methane to wash up on a beach? SO WHY IS GAS DRILLING OFFSHORE BANNED?
      The author claims … “That’s the future no matter what you think about climate change.” … well if it is inevitable, WHY DO THEY NEED REGULATIONS TO FORCE IT? Let it happen via natural technology and market developments.

    • Look at California’s energy consumption. I think you’ll find they’re buying a lot more electricity from Nevada. When I lived in Nevada in the ’80’s, they had 12 big locomotives running flat out providing the city with power. Seems when they built the Hoover Dam they contracted all the power to Los Angeles. With all the transmission losses in that political scheme.

  6. Arnold, go eff the help and leave us alone.

    Answer me this one question; Where is this year’s Danish summer? It hasn’t happened yet and the Danes are concerned.
    Okay two questions; Why are the Antarctica Glaciers growing at an unprecedented rate? And if so, why are the worriers still seeing global sea rise?
    Okay, a third question; Why are the fastest rates of sea rise along the New England coast. What’s up with that, give me a mechanism. Sounds like they’re finding what they want to find.