The heated rhetoric of the last 8 years, all courtesy of Obama’s disgraceful breach of any and all presidential decorum, took an even worse turn and degraded much further courtesy of Donald Trump. Trump’s “popularization” of the term “Lyin’ Ted” is deplorable, but I am going to use it to describe Obama because Obama is a liar—a repeated one—and because, in this cacophony, unless you use disgraceful terms no-one listens to you.

The attached article, On Overheated Climate Alarm, published by the WSJ on April 7th speaks for itself.

I have no independent way to verify that the claims contained in this article are correct but based on past experience I have found nearly invariably that the WSJ does not publish actually untrue facts in articles in its op-ed pages—contrary, by the way, to the NYT that does it frequently if such untruths fit its ideological bent.

Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which he heads, are NOT global warming deniers; contrary to what some in the theocracy of global warming may contend. He does demand rigorous analysis of the cost-benefit of the any claim made by the global warming crowd. They do not like it because most of the time any such analysis proves the fallacy of their whole argument.

That is exactly what I have been saying too. I never doubted that the world is probably on a heating cycle, but I have stated more than once that the accuracy of such predictions is highly unreliable, that the net effect of global warming is not necessarily negative, and that, even if it is negative, the proposed way of combating it—elimination of the carbohydrate economy society—is not the most effective way of handling it.

This article takes one such claim—increase in deaths due to global warming—and debunks it, pointing out that, while on its face the facts in that article are correct, it is only half, or actually less than half of the story. By omitting the fact that, while warming will cause more deaths it will also eliminate deaths due to cold and, in larger numbers, by far under all analysis that was ever taken, the report published by the Administration under the auspices name: “A Scientific Assessment” is anything but scientific; indeed it is a load of bullocks.

The point of this post, though, is different.

How can it be that an official report from the Obama Administration is so misleading as to be a lie?

However many times I repeat that this president is the most extreme ideological president that this country has ever had, I never fail to be amazed and shocked at the extent to which this Administration will go in terms of lying to try and make their case if they consider that it is for “good” . . . their definition of good, of course.

If we cannot rely on a supposedly scientific document coming from the Administration to be fair, balanced, and correct, what can we rely on?

Hence the term “Lyin’ Obama,” disgusting though it is. At least in the case of this administration it is true.

The ends do NOT justify the means!