Warm­ing up to a cli­mate of doubt

The win­ter has been hard on warmist the­ol­ogy

The Washington Times Weekly - - Front Page - By Robert Knight

As much of New Eng­land con­tin­ues to dig out from late win­ter’s mas­sive snow­storms, the cli­mate change lobby is dou­bling down. When Bos­ton was in­un­dated with snow in Jan­uary and Fe­bru­ary, they were quick to blame — what else? — global warm­ing. That’s still the fa­vored ex­pla­na­tion.

Bean­town got nearly two more inches on March 20, the first day of spring, and has now recorded 110.3 inches, eas­ily shat­ter­ing the record. In the past 21 years, Bos­ton has had four of its top five heav­i­est snow sea­sons, ac­cord­ing to Weather.com.

But be­fore you sug­gest that this puts the ki­bosh on global warm­ing the­ory, think again. The big snow­falls are the re­sult of man-caused warmer ocean tem­per­a­tures, we’re told, which al­low more con­den­sa­tion and thus more mois­ture in the clouds to come down as snow.

Well, OK. I’m not an at­mo­spheric sci­en­tist, but when snow is scarce, don’t they also blame global warm­ing, since more pre­cip­i­ta­tion comes down as rain than snow? This is called hav­ing it both ways.

To be fair, Kevin Tren­berth, dis­tin­guished se­nior sci­en­tist at the Na­tional Cen­ter for At­mo­spheric Re­search and an ad­vo­cate of man-caused global warm­ing the­ory, does make an in­ter­est­ing case that Bos­ton’s re­cent snow binge, like Wash­ing­ton, D.C.’s Snow­maged­don in Fe­bru­ary 2010, is the re­sult of “Goldilocks tem­per­a­tures.”

That’s when you have a rel­a­tively warm ocean and mod­er­ately cold tem­per­a­tures in­land — per­fect con­di­tions for a big one. The good news for Bos­to­ni­ans is that Mr. Tren­berth pre­dicts that while global warm­ing may pro­duce more “ex­treme” pre­cip­i­ta­tion and thus heavy snow­falls, it is also pro­duc­ing shorter win­ter sea­sons. So the Penn­syl­va­nia ground­hog that pre­dicted that we were in for a long win­ter might be wrong, which would be nice. It would be a shame to see Fen­way Park or even Na­tion­als Park buried un­der an­other foot of snow just be­fore Open­ing Day.

Also in head-scratch­ing cli­mate news, Cal­i­for­nia Demo­cratic Rep. Bar­bara Lee on Wed­nes­day in­tro­duced a con­gres­sional res­o­lu­tion (H. Res. 29) pro­claim­ing that, “it is pre­dicted that cli­mate change will lead to in­creas­ing fre­quency and in­ten­sity of ex­treme weather con­di­tions, pre­cip­i­tat­ing the oc­cur­rence of nat­u­ral dis­as­ters around the globe.”

Women around the world are go­ing to bear the big­gest bur­den from th­ese dis­as­ters, the res­o­lu­tion says, and this will drive many more women and girls into pros­ti­tu­tion — that’s “sex work” in lib­er­al­s­peak.

The res­o­lu­tion warns that “food-in­se­cure women with limited so­cioe­co­nomic re­sources may be vul­ner­a­ble to sit­u­a­tions such as sex work, trans­ac­tional sex, and early mar­riage that put them at risk for HIV, [sex­u­ally trans­mit­ted in­fec­tions], un­planned preg­nancy, and poor re­pro­duc­tive health.” If you think about this, you have to con­clude that any­one crank­ing up a gas-pow­ered lawn­mower is cal­lously driv­ing poor women into “sex work.”

But there is a sil­ver lining. Although women will be the prime vic­tims, they have “a unique ca­pac­ity and knowl­edge to pro­mote and pro­vide for adap­ta­tion to cli­mate change.” That sounds like women can “evolve” to a higher life form than men to es­cape the worst of global warm­ing. Which makes sense, since fem­i­nists have long ar­gued the mu­tu­ally con­tra­dic­tory po­si­tions that men and women are iden­ti­cal and in­ter­change­able, ex­cept that women are far su­pe­rior.

Here’s the pol­icy take­away: Since “women of­ten have in­suf­fi­cient re­sources to un­der­take such adap­ta­tion,” the con­gres­sional res­o­lu­tion “en­cour­ages the pres­i­dent to in­te­grate a gen­der ap­proach in all poli­cies and pro­grams in the United States that are glob­ally re­lated to cli­mate change.”

Now, that sounds a bit open-ended for an ad­min­is­tra­tion that is ex­ert­ing new, un­con­sti­tu­tional pow­ers al­most daily, es­pe­cially over at the En­vi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency. It could mean any­thing from hir­ing more women cli­mate sci­en­tists to dep­u­tiz­ing goon squads to stomp out men’s cigars.

Since she is ad­mirably con­cerned about women be­ing forced into pros­ti­tu­tion, per­haps Ms. Lee might want to go across Capitol Hill and ask Se­nate Demo­cratic lead­ers why they are stalling a bi­par­ti­san bill aimed at stop­ping sex-traf­fick­ing.

Mi­nor­ity Leader Harry Reid doesn’t like the bill be­cause it con­tains a long­time pro­vi­sion that spares Amer­i­can tax­pay­ers from hav­ing to pay for abor­tions. If I were run­ning an op­po­si­tion public re­la­tions op­er­a­tion, I’d be point­ing out that Mr. Reid seems will­ing to sell out traf­fick­ing vic­tims in or­der to ap­pease Moloch. That’s the an­cient Canaan­ite god who de­manded child sac­ri­fices. If there’s one thing lib­er­als love to do even more than in­crease the size of gov­ern­ment and raise taxes, it’s to make the world safe for more abor­tions. It’s an in­te­gral com­po­nent of the global warm­ing alarmists’ par­a­digm that peo­ple are a can­cer on the planet, so the fewer of us who are around, the bet­ter.

Robert Knight is a se­nior fel­low for the Amer­i­can Civil Rights Union and a colum­nist for The Wash­ing­ton Times.

IL­LUS­TRA­TION BY GREG GROESCH/THE WASH­ING­TON TIMES

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.