It is sometimes fun to watch liberals unravel which I was able to do a bit yesterday reading Tom Friedman’s attempt to resuscitate global warming theory by calling it, “Global Weirding.”
While I cannot disagree with the new moniker, he and I have different reasons for our satisfaction with this label. I of course think the futile attempts to justify this movement’s existence are getting pretty weird, and he, of course wants us all to know that really “weird” weather is in fact evidence of global warming. Even, if the weird weather is cold weather. In fact, virtually all weather is proof of global warming. Pretty soon normal weather will be weird for its absence of weirdness and hence, further proof of global warming. At that time we can call the crisis simply “Global Weather.”
The irritating part of Friedman’s letter begins with his condemnation of those who would point to record snowfalls as evidence against global warming. To him these are the ignorant fools who don’t know the difference between weather and climate. Weather, I am assuming, is a daily occurrence, and climate is the longer term patterns of weather, which is presumably changing due to man made activities. An isolated record snowfall, according to Freidman, cannot possibly impact the theory of global warming one way or the other (unless of course it interpreted to prove global warming).
But being called an idiot by a liberal is not sufficient to irritate me alone. The irritating part is threefold. First, Freidman does not mention that there is actually a 15 year period without any warming, versus a one day snowfall. (Actually, I think that mentioning the lack of warming in the last 15 years is a terminable offense at the New York Times. It falls just above plagiarism and making up stories on their disciplinary matrix.) But anyone who points to one snowfall as evidence against global warming is really pointing out the longer term trend of cold or at least “normal” weather. If we hadn’t had a snowstorm at all in the last 15 years, then pointing to one such snowfall would admittedly look silly.
The second source of angst is that when liberals chide conservatives for pointing out a cold day, they ignore the fact they have pointed to every weather phenomena from hurricanes to a mild breeze as confirmation that global warming exists. Remember when we were about to enter the age of horrific hurricane’s due to global warming after Katrina? (which was doubly idiotic as the damage from Katrina was not due to the severity of the hurricane as much as the breaking of the damn holding lake Ponchetrain in)? You may have forgotten the Katrina / global warming tie in, because it was written out of the history books when the age of horrific hurricanes did not in fact materialize.
Finally, and perhaps most irritating of all is that when liberals compare deniers who point out cold days with flat earther’s, or as Rahm Emanuel would say F..ing retards, they are doing so because we are taking a small piece of data and extrapolating a much broader theory, yet they completely ignore the fact that the entire theory of mad made global warming is based on taking an extremely small piece of data and extrapolating a much broader theory! Watching the self-destruction is fun, but the hypocrisy still manages to boggle the mind.
Unfortunately logic is not an honored science among liberals, so simply pointing out these logical inconsistencies will usually elicit a response similar to what I might get from my 13 year old caught playing computer games when he is not supposed to be.
Me: I said no video games
Him: Oh, I thought you meant just x-box.
Me: No as we have discussed 1000 times, computer video games are in fact video games.
Him: Everybody in my class gets to play as much as they want.
Me: I don't care, turn it off.
Him: Just let me finish this game.
Him: STOP FREAKING OUT ABOUT IT!
So, logic is out, but I thought it would be interesting, and perhaps more convincing to look at a few numbers that conservatives can throw out when snowbound liberals tease them about the definition of climate versus weather.
Age of Earth According to Wiki:
= 4.5 billion years
Time frame we as humans started warming the planet according to the Hockey Stick:
= 100 years (generous guestimate)
Time frame since we have seen significant warming:
= 15 years
Time frame of a snowstorm:
= 1 day
Some quick division tells us that the 100 years that refered to as the man made warming period is a time frame equal to .0000022% of the earth’s life.
The lack of warming in the last 15 years is exactly 15% of the 100 year period that warming has supposedly been caused by Humans.
The lack of warming on any given day is .0027% of the 100 year period that warming has supposedly been caused by humans.
Therefore, by comparison cold weather for one day is over 1000 times more significant to the period of warming, than the period of warming is to the age of the earth.
A period of 15 years without warming is an astounding 6,500,000 times more significant to the period of warming than the period of warming is to the age of the earth.
So the next time you comment about the freezing weather with a cute quip such as “Sure could use some global warming today!” and the token liberal in your group points out that one day of cold weather does not a trend make, you can look them straight in the eye and tell them, well it’s about 1000 times more of a trend than the theory of global warming and if you consider the last 15 years without significant warming then we have a trend that is 6.5 billion times more significant than the entire theory of global warming! - So put that in your Prius and burn it!