The alarmists’ reaction to the suggestion of a trial (and, generally, a debate) over what “climate science” — meaning observations vs. theory and computer-model projections — tells us about global-warming claims calls to mind Winston Smith’s reaction to the rat face cage.
No doubt the widespread public rejection of climate alarmism, and the reticence in Congress to end so many of their legislative careers, is playing a role in the alarmists’ malaise. But this is starting to sound like the kid who swears he could start at quarterback but never manages to show up at try-outs, muttering that the coach doesn’t like him and everyone knows how good he is, anyway.
An amused Senate staffer passed along this long-winded thrashing from over at Climate Progress, which I pass along in turn to dear Planet Gore readers. And what a flailing it is, with the author going on and on, invoking in scattershot fashion as many names and prejudices as he can, as if he’s trying to one-up the Alec Baldwin caricature from Team America. His targets include Christianity — which, right on cue, Al Gore had oddly invoked just the day before as a rationale for accepting their shared agenda — and, in the fashion demanded by the obsessive-compulsive disorder of alarmism, “Exxon.” The latter cry is one side of the coin, the other being “even Exxon doesn’t support you!” (Get better soon, guys.)
This tic about Exxon funding is a touch odd for a group that is the brainchild and suckling pig of George Soros. There must be a better way to divert discussion away from the substance than that particular ad hominem, which is rather out-of-date and which so badly backfires on them. We’ll get cracking on finding our own Sugar Daddy Soros to fill the role and help you fellas out. But it’s helpful of Team Soros to remind everyone once again of their conviction — shared by the $300-million man Al Gore — that where you get your funding dictates your conclusions.
Still, read the deathless post and ask yourself what the author’s substantive point is. I submit there isn’t one, he’s just doing what they do — but maybe there’s one buried in there. The thing that stands out — as noted in my previous posts, and the e-mails from usual attention-needing suspects — is the terror they feel that climate science might just get an airing, not in a backwater court but in a high-profile panel, on which their regulatory threat will depend, from which they cannot run and no one’s attention will be diverted. The more we point that out, the more frantic they get.
So for fun let’s ask again. Guys, let’s say you join the call for a trial where you can prove to the world your overwhelming evidence that all of our lyin’ eyes refuse to see. That mean rat won’t make it through that second door. Really.