Darn it! Warmist hysterics disappointed hurricane Matthew wasn't a cataclysm
This is pretty sick when you think about it, but there are apparently some global warming alarmists who are actually disappointed that Hurricane Matthew wasn't the epic disaster that some were predicting before it hit the U.S.
Billions in damages, massive flooding, and 30 Americans dead is hardly enough to get the blood circulating in these global warming ghouls. They crave catastrophe the same way I crave coffee in the morning.
All the better to "prove" their thesis that unless we return to the good old days of the 1850s and swear off fossil fuels, we are doomed, doomed I say.
Before Matthew made landfall Saturday in South Carolina, it had been more than 4,000 days since the last hurricane hit the U.S. That's 10 years, 11 months and about a week.
The alarmists were itching for a large-scale disaster because every day that went by without a hurricane, especially an epic one, meant that their predictions than man-made global warming was going to cause more and bigger storms was another day that made them look like the cons and hopelessly conned that they are.
Their impatient craving for a crisis was summed up well two years ago in August when a fellow named Greg Blanchette tweeted that he "kind of" hoped that North America "gets its ass kicked this hurricane season. It would motivate us on climate action."
Is this the same Greg Blanchette who proposed that service stations be forced to placefrightening global warming warnings on gas-pump nozzles, an idea that's now law in North Vancouver, British Columbia? Maybe not. But it doesn't matter. If they're not the same person, it simply means there are two climate cranks running loose out there with the same name.
A couple of years before Blanchette was wishing for wreck and ruin, British naturalist David Attenborough said that "disaster" was needed to wake people up to the threat of climate change.
The "disasters" the U.S. had experience up to that point "with hurricanes and floods", he said, "doesn't do it," so the crisis he was been hoping for must be truly cataclysmic.
On Friday, as Matthew barreled up Florida's coast, Marshall Shepherd, a professor in atmospheric sciences at the University of Georgia, tweeted about the "ridiculous complaining" he was seeing about the hurricane being less severe than expected.
"Some seem disappointed there isn't tragic loss of life/apocalyptic," he said.
Maybe he was addressing those who were upset because they thought the storm was overhyped by forecasters. Or could he have been addressing those who were thinking like Blanchette and Attenborough? Who, by the way, are not alone.
The environmental movement is filled with haters who yearn for a planet without man. After all, Attenborough himself lamented to the British press that humans are a "plague on the Earth." He was probably looking forward to Matthew the way a child looks forward to a trip to the amusement park.
Nothing like a catastrophically devastating hurricane to get a warmist in a good mood. They must positively swoon as TV pictures of hurricane force winds whipping through the palm trees elicit shouts of "go, go, go!"
These cheerleaders for death and destruction couldn't gin up much concern for those who lost their homes or lives.
Actually, I'm surprised they didn't claim that the hurricane track, which took it up the coast of Florida rather than hit the state head on, was proof of global warming. After all, anything that happens is due to climate change, so a hurricane that misses is as good as one that smashes ashore.
And they want to lock up skeptics?