First it was “global warming.” When the Earth stopped warming they switched to “climate change.” That wasn’t good enough either. New memo to Libs suggests yet another name change is in the offing. Now it’s global “weirding.” To the Left, it’s all just about marketing gimmicks. It’s all about “framing the argument” and “redefining the terms” with these latent stalinists and deconstructionists. In a democratic society, they would be dead in the water without this kind of message control. It’s like we’re always chasing them from one word to the next. First they were “Liberals”. When that became a pejorative, they switched to “Progressives.” Always on the run! Fisk this one with me.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Of the festivals of nonsense that periodically overtake American politics, surely the silliest is the argument that because Washington is having a particularly snowy winter it proves that climate change is a hoax and, therefore, we need not bother with all this girly-man stuff like renewable energy, solar panels and carbon taxes. Just drill, baby, drill.
The climate-science community is not blameless. It knew it was up against formidable forces — from the oil and coal companies that finance the studies skeptical of climate change to conservatives who hate anything that will lead to more government regulations to the Chamber of Commerce that will resist any energy taxes. Therefore, climate experts can’t leave themselves vulnerable by citing non-peer-reviewed research or failing to respond to legitimate questions, some of which happened with both the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Literally hundreds of millions of dollars are flowing from government and private foundations to fund global warmist research. I would venture to guess the money from oil and coal companies to global warming skeptics is a fraction of one percent of that. But Libs push that ridiculous “big oil” meme nonetheless. Journalism!
Notice also, gentle readers, he’s apparently in the dark about the fact that one of the reasons the global warming industry has suffered such a collapse in confidence is precisely BECAUSE his climate experts have NOT been citing peer-reviewed research, but rather college term papers, popular magazines, anecdotal evidence, and such. This is the kind of evidence that has shifted hundreds of billions of dollars in funding to the global warming “prevention” efforts. They have even corrupted the oft-touted peer review process itself, threatening to blacklist and isolate any scientific journals that dared publish any dissenting views. Mr. Friedman is oblivious to all this because the U.S. media isn’t reporting it, and he hasn’t been reading the foreign press. Sadly, if the great Tom Friedman is oblivious, we can assume so are the drones who read him.
Although there remains a mountain of research from multiple institutions about the reality of climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What’s real? In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.
Here are the points I like to stress:
1) Avoid the term “global warming.” I prefer the term “global weirding,” because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous.
Except the hots haven’t been getting hotter, at least not since 1995. Nor have hurricanes been getting stronger, as they predicted. And they also predicted LESS snow, not more. Notice how they constantly change the goal posts? That’s because they keep getting it wrong. He also mentions nothing about “the colds getting colder” in his “weirding” litany. You know why? Because that’s something else they didn’t predict. They are using models to predict the future, the same models that have been proven unable to “back cast” the climate, certainly not without constant “tweaking” to ensure the proper results. And if these models can’t even backcast properly, even with all the data that hindsight provides, we’re supposed to believe they can forecast? It’s my opinion their climate models can’t predict Tom Friedman’s next bowel movement, let alone climate 70 years from now.
The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington — while it has rained at the Winter Olympics in Canada, while Australia is having a record 13-year drought — is right in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become drier than ever.
What makes that so “weird”? What makes that so exceptional? Nothing! For isn’t that their argument against the Medieval Warming Period– that it wasn’t global? This kind of localized weather is precisely how global warmists have been characterizing the Medieval Warming Period in order to dismiss it as evidence of prior warming. But now, according to Friedman, localized “weirding” is proof of warming. It seems their standards require more “tweaking” than does their modeling! Sorry, Tom, we aren’t buying the koolaid you’re selling.
Again, they want it both ways, gentle readers. Weird localized weather today proves global warming, weird localized weather in Medieval times proves nothing. See the switcheroo they trying to pull on you? But we aren’t going to let them have it both ways! Read the silly rest, here, if you like.