Warmists crank up propaganda machine as Irene bears down on the east coast

Rick Moran
At the moment, it looks like the most catastrophic scenario regarding Irene is no longer in play. The storm is weakening faster than expected and is not going to re-strengthen - hopefully.

That forecast is based on tried and true models, and scientific analysis. Then, there are the warmists who are out in full force today, cranking up the propaganda that the Hurricane's strength is the result of global warming:

Irene's got a middle name, and it's Global Warming.

As she roars up the Eastern Seaboard, everyone is doing what they should-boarding windows, preparing rescue plans, stocking up on batteries. But a lot of people are also wondering: what's a "tropical" storm doing heading for the snow belt?

Good question. Did they ask the same question in the 1800's when Nantucket and points farther north were slammed by hurricanes? Did they ask it in 1938 when a similar tracked storm caused extensive damage in the northeast? The fact is, there are a variety of reasons why a storm would move up the east coast despite the colder water - the size of the monster has something to do with it as does the unlucky winds that, rather than blowing the storm out to sea, can't influence the hurricane enough and the storm rolls up the coast.

But if you listen to warmists, the fact that we had no hurricanes make landfall last year was just "luck" and the explanation for strong storms this year is "global warming." Why when catastrophe doesn't strike isn't it proof that warming is not as serious as the hysterics make it out to be, but when the worst happens, it automatically is the fault of global warming?

If we're talking cause and effect - and we are - the lack of storms should carry just as much weight against serious effects of warming as a plethora of storms "proving" warming this year. Warmists conveniently ignore their own criteria for sounding the alarm when the evidence - or lack thereof - goes against them.

These warnings about killer storms slamming one after another into the US has never materialized. Hurricane activity has actually been less than the 100 year average over the past 5 years. But if you ask a warmist what that proves, no doubt you'll get a song and dance about the dangers of conclusions using anamolous data.

But one storm in one year that is out of the ordinary and all of a sudden, we have further "proof" that global warming is "real" and we better destroy our economy in order to save the planet.


At the moment, it looks like the most catastrophic scenario regarding Irene is no longer in play. The storm is weakening faster than expected and is not going to re-strengthen - hopefully.

That forecast is based on tried and true models, and scientific analysis. Then, there are the warmists who are out in full force today, cranking up the propaganda that the Hurricane's strength is the result of global warming:

Irene's got a middle name, and it's Global Warming.

As she roars up the Eastern Seaboard, everyone is doing what they should-boarding windows, preparing rescue plans, stocking up on batteries. But a lot of people are also wondering: what's a "tropical" storm doing heading for the snow belt?

Good question. Did they ask the same question in the 1800's when Nantucket and points farther north were slammed by hurricanes? Did they ask it in 1938 when a similar tracked storm caused extensive damage in the northeast? The fact is, there are a variety of reasons why a storm would move up the east coast despite the colder water - the size of the monster has something to do with it as does the unlucky winds that, rather than blowing the storm out to sea, can't influence the hurricane enough and the storm rolls up the coast.

But if you listen to warmists, the fact that we had no hurricanes make landfall last year was just "luck" and the explanation for strong storms this year is "global warming." Why when catastrophe doesn't strike isn't it proof that warming is not as serious as the hysterics make it out to be, but when the worst happens, it automatically is the fault of global warming?

If we're talking cause and effect - and we are - the lack of storms should carry just as much weight against serious effects of warming as a plethora of storms "proving" warming this year. Warmists conveniently ignore their own criteria for sounding the alarm when the evidence - or lack thereof - goes against them.

These warnings about killer storms slamming one after another into the US has never materialized. Hurricane activity has actually been less than the 100 year average over the past 5 years. But if you ask a warmist what that proves, no doubt you'll get a song and dance about the dangers of conclusions using anamolous data.

But one storm in one year that is out of the ordinary and all of a sudden, we have further "proof" that global warming is "real" and we better destroy our economy in order to save the planet.