Tom 'I, Me, Mine' Friedman Responds to the Global Warming Deniers, Hilarity Ensues
The New York Times' leading in-house global warming obsessive, Thomas Friedman, has quite a column today. It is more a tantrum, really, as so many of his offerings have verged on being of late, if one that I find, even for him, remarkably detached. Maybe it's that possible conflict of interest -- I'm not talking about the 7.5 bathroom Bethesda mansion with no visible signs of windmills marring the vista of Mr. "I am a clean-energy hawk. Green for me is not just about recycling garbage but about renewing America"...it's just about other people having to look at the eyesores -- but somehow he can't even remember his own hobbyhorses when offering the world one another iteration of what is increasingly his only note. Let's start there, with his favorite subject, "global warming."
Today, in telling us how to turn the tide swamping his and other soft-ish totalitarians' favored agenda, Tom says:
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.
While he has already been called out elsewhere for being a little repetitive on this, allow me to say...Of course, you do, dear.
Certainly now, in the face of yet another cold and confounding winter in the Mid-Atlantic, home to the world's most important weather -- as we have seen throughout the "global warming" drama rain and snow on the DC-NY axis is, like storms in the Atlantic Basin, far more important and -- until now -- indicative of global conditions even though they are no such thing. Except for really self-important political and New York Times types.
Now, about this preference-slash-complaint, ahem but, "global warming" alarmist, heal thyself. Seriously. Tom, stop saying "global warming". Sheesh. Only a dolt would dwell on that. And about that opening mewl:
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.
Yes. Hmm. Well, we already know how much Friedman really wants to bother about windmills and solar panels. But his point here is to express righteous indignation over those who disagree with him pointing with amusement to weather that, well, undermines his movement which, after all, made its bones telling us how one year's melt or a specific weather event made their case. He, however, would never stoop so low. Friedman would never invoke weather events as somehow able to prove his faith -- even, say, wondering aloud about but of course not pining for “'a perfect storm' — a storm big enough to finally end the global warming debate but not so big that it ended the world" -- or even just pointing to mere temperatures (so as to save time and space allow me to just point to his book, Hot, Flat and Crowded... warming means warming, except when it doesn't, you see).
So, let's just translate that one as "I'm working this corner." Read the whole thing, however, as something of an exercise in not losing overly well.