Moonbat Madness: New Silly Claim Global Warming Is Causing Mid East Unrest

 Its time to add to the list of dumb things the global warming moonbats claim is caused by their hoax.  During the past two years the left has blamed global warming for Incredible shrinking sheep, Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean, Surge in fatal shark attack, Boy Scout tornado deaths, Severe acne, Global conflict, Beer tasting different, Suicide of farmers in Australia, Bigger tuna fish, longer days, shorter days, Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden, Cow infertility, UFO sightings in the UK, Rise in insurance premiums, and Heroin addiction and a rise in bear attacks in Japan and Frigid Cold Winters in Great Britain, and Cancer, Death from heart disease, diabetes, stroke, respiratory disease and even accidents, homicide, suicide, water -borne disease outbreaks, heavier, wetter snowstorms treacherous for travel and ambulation, Lyme disease, swarms of allergy-inducing, stinging insects, along with mosquitoes and devastating pine bark beetle infestations and the spread of forest and crop pests, 40,000 dead crabs just to name a few, the latest crazy claim is that the recent unrest in the Middle East is caused by their warming hoax.

In a speech given by Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the series of World-wide global warming treaties),  MS Figueres claimed that the recent unrest in Egypt was caused by rising food-prices which were caused by global warming

On a global level, increasingly unpredictable weather patterns will lead to falling agricultural production and higher food prices, leading to food insecurity. In Africa, crop yields could decline by as much as 50% by 2020. Recent experiences around the world clearly show how such situations can cause political instability and undermine the performance of already fragile states.

She adds that if we took part of our defense spending and invested it in  reducing carbon while standing on one foot and singing Kumbayah we could avoid the "horrors" associated with global warming (I added the one foot-Kumbauah part).

Decisions on future defence spending are intricately linked to decisions on immediate climate investment through the different future risk assessments.
What will be better?

• To continue to support a traditional global military budget that has risen 50 percent in real terms from 2000 to 2009 and continues to increase?  (Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute - SIPRI)

• Or to increase a preventive military budget investing into adaptation and lowcarbon growth and avoid the climate chaos that would demand a defence response that makes even today’s spending burden look light?

Even under current trends, the rate of defence spending growth could account for a major part of the money needed to cut global emissions and to help the vulnerable, often in the most unstable areas of the world, to protect their societies from crumbling under climate
pressures.

What she is saying is we should cut defense spending and give that money to other countries so they can solve their carbon problems.  In other words she is calling for world-wide re-distribution of income, a point made clear last year by United Nations' IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer:

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

The food shortage in many of these Muslim countries in the Middle East are not caused by "global warming" but by mismanagement of resources by oppressive regimes.  Funny how these climate "experts" never talk about the fact that plants use CO2 to grow, therefore in actuality there should be more food created by global warming--not less. 

The Global Warming hoax has very little to do with protecting the world from an environmental apocalypse, its all about globalization and redistribution of income (except for Al Gore who is getting rich from the hoax).