Wiener of the Week

When I named the WotW two weeks ago, I left a "Bonus Wiener" tease link to what is a classic example of intentionally misleading journalism. That link deserves more attention, especially in light of yet another intentionally deceptive story.

First, the older story. The premise of that story was that global warming was forcing women in some islands of the Philippines to work in hard-labor occupations or even as prostitutes. Global warming.

By the third paragraph "have driven" has softened to "could" and "possibly". And in paragraph eight the truth finally outs: the catastrophe forcing women to work hard-labor jobs or as prostitutes is overfishing. Overfishing. Not warming. In other words, the first half of the article was nothing but a lie, an intentional deception to pimp for the cause of AGW.

This story caught my eye personally, because, as one who suffers from asthma, I am keenly aware of how air quality affects my breathing.

Cutting global warming pollution would not only make the planet healthier, it would make people healthier too, newly released studies say.

Slashing carbon dioxide emissions could save millions of lives, mostly by reducing preventable deaths from heart and lung diseases, the studies show.

So we are led to believe that reducing carbon emissions will help prevent heart and lung diseases. Starting at paragraph three, the theme starts to implode.

The "life saving benefit" of reducing carbon is predicted by a computer model. Uh-huh. A computer model like the one that draws a hockey stick whether it is fed temperature data or the prices from the menu at Wendys?

Paragraph four contains the denouement.

Cutting carbon dioxide emissions would also reduce other types of air pollution, especially tiny particles that lodge in the lungs and cause direct health damage, doctors said. Other benefits could come from encouraging more exercise and less meat consumption, to improve heart health, researchers said.

So, the entire benefit of reducing carbon to improve health is not the carbon. No, it's the reduction of REAL pollutants. And, of course, exercise and meat reduction are also required in order to realize the reduced carbon health benefits. In other words, avoiding pollution, getting regular exercise, and reducing consumption of red meats - things already recognized by the medical profession as promoting good health - NOT a reduction of carbon, as posited in the first paragraphs, are the things that will result in improved health.

These stories are intentionally deceptive. They combine a grain of truth with a healthy dose of propaganda to link AGW to real issues that are related to AGW not at all.

To the authors of these flaming propaganda pieces, congratulations: you're the Wieners of the Week.