Brown's argument relies on framing AGW as a moral issue because he can't mention the "science" that even the biased US media is finally starting to report as--at least--flawed.
Brown's first mention of "science...?"
"U.S. emissions in Pennsylvania are causing floods in other areas," Brown said, but the mainstream environmental movement and the press do not raise awareness of this issue. Instead they operate within the debate framed by those who oppose action on climate change, he said. (Emphasis mine.)That's right, no one--not even the "mainstream environmental movement"--will back him up on this scientifically baseless claim. But Brown has an out...
It doesn't matter whether his claims are true, because if there's even a 16 trillionth of 1 percent chance that they might be, then we are morally obligated to act.
So when he spews absolute bullshit like, "I argue that 40 years ago we had enough evidence to have the ability to act," he gets a pass for lying to the uninitiated--because it doesn't matter that 40 years ago the consensus was about an onrushing ice age--it only matters that he says he cares.
And who might buy Brown's "ethical climate justice" tripe? How about an audience of religious students at the Lutheran Theological Seminary of Gettysburg? As I said, uninitiated.
He also, quite naturally, didn't tell this audience about United Nations Agenda 21's strategy to con Christians into pushing global environmental justice and unknowingly helping to shut down the American dynamo, and thereby ceding control to a UN-mastered government.
Why not? Because Brown is The Agenda 21 Guy--program manager for the United Nations Organizations at the U.S Environmental Protection Agency.
So, of course, he didn't look at the morality of Lewandowsky and Cook faking an online survey to paint AGW realists as conspiracy kooks, or the craptastically false Marcott Hockey Stick, or the ethics of AlGore getting $500 million from Oil Sheiks for his Thermageddon TV channel.
Oh, but that reminds me, I was not entirely honest in my introduction either. Brown did tell the truth--about his agenda, anyway--one other time:
"We will only solve this problem," he said, "when we have a social movement that demonizes the unjustifiable use of energy."H/T Junk Science