Of course it was a cheap shot.

Paul, I’ve recently noticed that there’s a new crop of anti-nuclear types (especially since Fukushima) who are livid with AGW alarmists for promoting nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. It’s getting hard to tell the enemies from the friends without a program!

The “Independent”, the “I” and the “Independent on Sunday” are just ways for an ex KGB man to spend money (which came from?????) and bore everyone with his “liberal” left opinions.

I saw a man walking around yesterday in shorts. Perhaps he was a Warmist who refused to believe the evidence of his own eyes?

Nah. He was from Minnesota. They’re known for that. He was just enjoying the weather.

It is routine for the hard left to know that the issue (du jour) is not the issue, but the soft left may not get it. So there is some merit in attacking both issues at the same time. Or perhaps to attack one, and draw attention to the other. Which issue to attack, and which merely to draw attention to, will no doubt vary according to circumstances.

This is why I compare the environmentalist lobby with the architects of the Great Leap Forward.

As with the Maoists, everything they do actually makes things worse, because they are not interested in results, just the control of people, and they are incompetent, and they can always make endless five year plans.

There are perfectly rational and scientific arguments on how and why the climate is changing and the best way it can be challenged (including doing nothing at all), but the current batch of “watermelon” politics is not the answer.

What libertarians need to do is bring these infernal architects to book, examine their results endlessly, this isn’t a “cheap shot”, it’s a necessary reminder that we need to continue to challenge the ideology simply because it is wrong.

The great Jasper Carrot once commentated that the worst thing about the aftermath of a nuclear war would be the smug CND’ers running around in T-shirts saying “I told you so”.

I saw a man walking around yesterday in shorts. Perhaps he was a Warmist who refused to believe the evidence of his own eyes?

It doesn’t matter how often they’re wrong in their predictions—they just plow ahead.

It doesn’t matter how many of their computer models are shown to be worthless, or that the actual climate is not behaving like they project it will, or that any random set of numbers will be turned into hockey sticks—they just plow ahead.

The conspiratorial emails don’t matter—they just plow ahead.

The findings of their own colleagues that show warming has stopped, that co2 is a weak factor, that solar changes are much more significant than their models allow, that cloud cover has an enormous unaccounted for effect, and on and on—they just plow ahead.

Articles in the paper, reports from this or that group, lesson plans in the schools, books about all sorts of calamities from warming, endless regulations about co2, bills in the legislatures at all levels, day after day, week after week, month after month, the alarmists just keep going.

They don’t care about any of the data, any of the fine points, any of the problems, any of the world that doesn’t conform to their beliefs—they just plow ahead.

If it wasn’t in the service of such a perverse vision of how society should function, i.e., rule by fiat by the elites unencumbered by any limitations, because it’s an emergency, don’t ya know?, such relentless, indefatigable pursuit of their vision would be almost admirable.

Almost, but not quite.

They don’t care whether there’s snow or not. The claim got its headlines, and made the desired impression, and they have now moved on, plowed on, to a whole new set of alarms and warnings. And when those are shown to be false, they will just go on to the next, and the next.

Because the climate is not, has never been, the issue.

Control is the issue. It’s the only issue there has ever been.

And they are determined to have it, as much as there is, over everything and everybody.

That’s what you’re up against, whether it snows or not.

Nigel Sedgwick
January 19, 2013 at 9:00 am

You can’t really attribute the ice storm to a lack of global warming since it was right around freezing the whole time. Indeed, that’s why it was an ice storm.

It doesn’t prove global warming, either: it was just… weather.