Trying to Follow MSM Logic On 'Global Warming' Is Enough To Make Your Head Spin by Christopher C. Horner 13 Mar 2010 post a comment Share This: In a lead editorial last month in the aftermath of the great Washington snowstorms, "Lessons from the Snow", the Washington Post took the stance that the inundation that plagued D.C. (like other points in the U.S.) was nothing but a freak weather event -- each time -- and not something we should expect in the future. That's really quite something, on the heels of WaPo's other outbursts of late.. Specifically, on the subject of whether to outsource or regularly manage snow removal duties, "we tend to agree with those who say that it doesn't make fiscal sense for governments to buy equipment that will be needed once or twice a century." Got that? These storms are nothing we should expect to continue. That's a rather incongruous line for a decidedly activist outlet, what with all of the moonbattery tossed around like Mardi Gras beads, in response to skeptic mockery of the alarmists' previous claims that winters are now a thing of the past thanks to man-made global warming. Not that it's inconsistent with the position the skeptics mocked, mind you. It's just that the Post had already come out to join the lunacy by asserting that such storms were, too, precisely what we should expect thanks to man-made global warming. Here's an excerpt from in-house columnist Eugene Robinson's tantrum of just two days prior against those having fun with all that that stuff falling from the sky which we had already been told in recent years by such grandees was a thing of the past: Among the anticipated effects of climate change are increased precipitation -- not just rain, but also snow -- and bigger storms. What we've seen this winter tends to prove, not disprove, the scientific consensus that warming is real. That is, we should expect much more of the same. Goodness, it must be tense in WaPo's editorial room these days. Or how about this piece, "Washington's snowstorms, brought to you by global warming," given prominent Sunday Outlook placement by WaPo precisely one week earlier by noted alarmist Bill McKibben: apparently there was some snowfall in the greater Washington area last week ...[well,] the weird and disruptive weather patterns around the world are pretty much exactly what you'd expect as the planet warms. Of course they are. Both this and Robinson's piece are representative of the alarmist dogma that has become, as George F. Will described, also in the Post: a tissue of assertions impervious to evidence, assertions that everything, including a historic blizzard, supposedly confirms and nothing, not even the absence of warming, can falsify. Any port in a snowstorm will do, it seems, for those too preoccupied by saying that everything affirms their worldview or belief system, or just saying whatever it takes to advance an agenda, to be bound by certain principles relating to intellectual rigor.