“Meet the global weirdos,” Michael Graham writes, though frankly, that doesn’t sound like quite an inviting introduction. “They’re the ones telling you that all the snow outside is proof that it’s getting warmer. Only, they don’t call it ‘warming’ anymore.”
So the new fall back is “global weirding.” The site thedailygreen.com has a “Weird Weather Watch” page. The uber-liberal Huffington Post ran a story in August headlined “Global Weirding”: Extreme Climate Events Dominate The Summer.”
“The extreme climate events all across the globe must say something about whether climate change is already upon us,” the HuffPo insisted. “Extreme is the new normal.”
They quote a professor of “environmental studies and politics” from Oberlin College who says, “More hottest hots, driest dries, wettest wets, windiest wind conditions. So it’s all part of a pattern.”
Gore is on board, too. He’s now merely claiming rising temperatures will “create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters.”
Not “warming,” but “weirding.” Not “heating,” but “havoc.” Which is how global warming can cause more snow, less snow, no snow, avalanches, heat waves, cold snaps, wetter wets, drier dries, gingivitis, delirium tremens and irritable bowel syndrome . . . all at the same time!
Global warming — is there anything it can’t do?
Well, the one thing it apparently doesn’t do is help predict the weather. The UK’s Met Office stopped giving seasonal forecasts last year after mis-predicting warmer winters three years in a row. Meteorologists without a warmist agenda like Piers Corbyn and AccuWeather’s Joe Bastardi, on the other hand, continue to pay the bills by making predictions directly contrary to the “weirdos.” Oddly, they don’t have degrees in politics.
For a theory to be scientific, it must be fallible — capable of being proven false. If every weather condition can be used to “prove” global warming simply by being declared “weird,” then it’s not science. It’s a joke.
Which is exactly what the environmental movement has become.
And the further its credibility is reduced, the more hectoring it becomes, particularly (but far from exclusively) when there are children involved:
Canada’s National Post has published a story that raised blood pressures in my household this morning. A six-year-old, kindergarten boy begs his mom not to wrap his sandwich – the one he’ll be eating for lunch at school – in a ziploc bag.
Which sparks a conversation in which his parents discover that he has been excluded from taking part in a draw (in which a stuffed toy was the prize) because an earlier sandwich had been similarly packaged in a supposedly environmentally unfriendly plastic bag. According to the news article:
When Mr. Lanciault questioned his son’s teacher, she confirmed the school had staged the draw at a lunchtime daycare and that any student with a plastic sandwich bag was excluded. “You know Mr. Lanciault, it’s not very good for the environment,” the teacher told him. “We have to take care of the our planet and the bags do not decompose well.”
As the news article goes on to make clear, there is a debate amongst people who might be considered environmental experts about whether the soap and water that is consumed by reusable lunch containers is really more environmentally friendly than throw-away plastic bags. Intelligent, reasonable people happen to disagree on this question. Which means that school teachers should be told point-blank by their superiors that they themselves are not entitled to be the supreme arbiters.
This is a case of teachers attempting to impose their personal lifestyle choices on vulnerable and powerless six-year-olds in their care. For shame. We send our children to school to learn to read, write, and do math. Nagging them about the environment was never part of the bargain.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member