If you live in Virginia like me, chances are you’re buried under eight to ten inches of snow, an accumulation being hailed as the worst Virginia snowstorm in five years. If that sounds like damning with faint praise, well, welcome to the Old Dominion, where the schools open late just because it’s cold out.
Oh, well. The good news is that the brutal three-quarters of a foot of snow we received seems to indicate, yet again, that the whole global warming / climate collapse scenario isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Yes, yes, we know: scientists are 38% certain that last year was several hundredths of a degree Celsius warmer than a few years ago, and global warming really means an increase in frigid weather and record-setting eight-inch snowstorms, and really at this point anything’s possible but what we know for sure is that the climate is imploding on itself and we’ve only got a few short years to switch to a 100% kelp-based energy profile before disaster really strikes. But here in the real world, we have for years been listening to doomsday reports on the skyrocketing temperatures and how that means we’re never going to have cold weather ever again, let alone snowmen. A nice, solid snowstorm is a good indication that it’s okay—prudent, even—to ignore climate doom-mongers when they start wailing and gnashing their teeth.
Still, you can expect climate change fanatics to stridently hold on to their convictions for a while longer, if only because it’s just embarrassing to admit you were so very wrong. And it looks like we can expect a load of false equivalences along with the nonsense:
Well, no. It’s not that “one snowstorm” disproves climate change—it’s that the whole entire charade of climate alarmism is bunk, and a big snowstorm is a fairly handy reminder of that. It’s not, after all, as if “one ancient fossil” disproves the premise of creationism, say—many, many fossils have done that already. But the more fossils you find, the more you can feel certain that evolution is a strong scientific theory with a wealth of convincing evidence to back it up, and that creationism is ignoring the evidence in favor of faith. The difference, of course, is that a belief in creationism harms nobody; the “worst” that creationists have come up with is demanding that the first chapters of Genesis be taught in public school alongside the theory evolution. Climate change fanatics, on the other hand, want to upend the entire modern way of life in favor of junk environmentalist dogma. Which one is more threatening—literally threatening—to your well-being?
The juxtaposition of “a billion peaceful Muslims” is a telling one in this case, indicating that Jason Sattler is out of ideas and intellectually exhausted. So far as I know, the GOP platform doesn’t say anything about Muslims or Islam generally. Of course I can’t speak for all Republicans, but I think it’s safe to say that most of the GOP isn’t terribly worried about the vast majority of Muslims. Nevertheless, Islamist terrorism is a problem, and you can acknowledge its association with the Muslim faith without implicating the great bulk of the religion’s adherents. Notably, the problem of ISIS is several orders of magnitude more pressing than that of “climate change.” Even the most dire climate change predictions, were they to actually materialize, place its worst effects at some distant point in the future, anywhere from a few decades to hundreds of years hence. Islamist terrorism, meanwhile, is killing people right now; terrorists are beheading Coptic Christians right now, and executing innocent French satirists right now. Of course these terrible atrocities don’t implicate “a billion peaceful Muslims;” but then again it is foolish to understate or mischaracterize the problem, just as it is foolish to overstate and freak out about a lousy two-one-hundredths of a degree increase in temperature. The Left increasingly has no coherent perspective on anything at all: from terrorism to global “warming,” they’re left babbling incoherently in a desperate attempt to connect the dots.
Speaking of desperation, Bill Nye recently appeared on MSNBC with Joy Reid to try and salvage what’s left of global warmism:
“Why should we care that it is cold in the winter?” MSNBC’s Joy Reid said Monday after a report on freezing weather hitting a large portion of the country this week. “Well, for one thing the unusual nature of some of the temperatures does raise, or should raise questions about climate change.”
Joining her, Nye warned, “Let’s not confuse or interchange climate change with global warming,” noting that when the climate changes, “some places get colder.”
“What I would hope for, my dream, Joy, is that you all, you in the news business would say the words ‘climate change,’” Nye continued. “Just like, ‘It could be climate change,’ ‘It’s a possible connection to climate change,’ ‘Is it possible evidence of climate change?’ Can you just toss that in now and then?”
Just so we’re clear, then: “global warming” refers to the planet getting warmer, but “climate change” can refer to the planet getting colder. So your bases are covered either way. This is a phenomenon known as “unfalsifiability,” in which a theory is validated no matter what happens. You’d expect this from an MSNBC pundit, but not from someone who styles himself “the Science Guy.”