A new set of Wikileaks was recently loosed which revealed the fact that the Obama Administration has become a partisan to allied nuclear snitchery on a vast and unheard of scale under the terms of the new SALT treaty. It seems that every Trident missile manufactured in the US, which is subsequently transferred to Great Britain, will now be reported to the Russians. Experts say this will severely undermine Great Britian's security. Ultimately, as a result of American Glasnost, the Russians will be privy to the exact number and types of weapons the UK holds, and yet we cannot help but point out that the new treaty was passed in a bi-partisan manner within the Senate--not just by the Democrats. Is there a connection between nuclear glasnost and climate change? Many in fact. But the main connection is one born more of irony than anything else because the glasnost that we offer to our potential nuclear opponents abroad appears to be in increasing absence on most domestic policy issues here at home.
Unfortunately, the Administration's attempts at halting the proliferation of nukes, a proliferation of prosperity, and the proliferation of domestic liberties has apparently now spread into the proliferation of US energy production as well.
In fact, It now appears that Texas, along with other parts of the nation, have been subject to a series of rolling blackouts due to higher energy demands than normal as the result of colder temperatures. Global warming, again? Not exactly, in fact it's more like Obama "warming up" as the draconian regulations having been placed by the Administration have effectively blocked new power plant construction to the point of the current electric grid being shamefully inadequate. Texas was actually forced to go begging to Mexico for additional energy help, such is the nature of our growingly energetic discontent. This, not to mention, a northern Mexico zoo's having suffered a mass animal-kill of over 30 critters due to abnormally freezing temperatures, no joke, as strange as it may seem. So, should these particular events be indicative of global warming or cooling?
In partial answer, enter Texas, along with much of the nation. As most of America dug out from yet another "global warming snowstorm," we dubiously noted the small glacier that had miraculously appeared atop Texas Stadium at the height of the warmest trend yet according to "experts", no less. Unfortunately, the stately glacier chose to become a hazardous ice floe which predictably crashed down upon a number of unsuspecting workers injuring six, all of which will undoubtably be ascribed to "global warming."
This prompted us to note what Meteorologist Joe Bastardi exclaimed which leant a certain "gotcha" to the entire global warming crowd. Bastardi said, in essence, that no matter what happens in the world of weather, the global warming crowd will own each of the available positions--for example:
Too many droughts? Global warming.
To many floods? Global warming.
Too wet? Global warming.
Too dry? Global warming
Too hot? Global warming.
Too cold? Global warming.
No snow? Global warming.
Too much snow? Global warming.
Very well...why not also:
Riots in Egypt? Global warming* (Liberal Paul Krugman actually argued this unbeknowst to me when written)
Earthquakes? Global warming.
Michael Jackson's death? Global warming.
Dog ate your child's homework? Global warming.
Erectile Dysfunction? Global warming.
In fact, the obvious anti-scourge that is global warming appears to be responsible for virtually "everything under the sun." And it's all human civilization's fault according to the Left-eteorologists.
Unfortunately for the illusorial fanatics of the left, the media will continually try to sell a wholly Anti-capitalist agenda that asks us to accept facts that appear to be at total odds against one another at best. Then, when we argue against the remission of common sense while applying available data, we are oten held up to be simple laymen who are not trained in the arts of global climate dynamics and therefore are not qualified to question the "experts."
Indeed, they may be correct in the sense that global warmers tend to be very well funded by various organizations and Goverments in their mission to further the man-made explanation for global weather extremes. Rarely, if ever, do we find an equal amount of funding going towards the true scientific method of argument which would try to legitimately disprove the evidence proffered thus far.
But the actual truth in climate science is as simple as the fact that even the most expert of meteorologist cannot accurately forecast, even the local weather, beyond a five-day period. Yet the warming crowd will faithfully, if not fanatically, maintain the accuracy of their thirty year global warming predictions of doom as flawless science.
Comments