If You Don’t Believe the Constantly Changing Climate Change Truths, You are One Evil Hater. Apparently.

Polar Bear on Ice

Leaving off foreign policy for a moment — and there is a lot going on with that right now — let’s keep Friday light by visiting our favorite propaganda machine, the Fox-news hatin’, lefty marchin’ order spewing, modern political broadsheet known as Media Matters.

Disclosure: I love Media Matters. It’s a fascinating look at how the accidentally transparent swim in their own lack of self-awareness. (Hey guys — we’re on to you…)

Anyway, one of their favorite topics is, of course, climate change. Or, more to the point, the insanity of the climate change denier who, bless his/her heart, actually wants their data to match their hysteria. Anyway, Media Matters felt the need to clean up after all the hand-wringing over (with love and thanks to The Daily Show) The Storm of the Century of the Week that didn’t actually happen. Of course, for MM, the conservatives — sigh — just don’t get that just because the storm didn’t happen, it doesn’t mean climate change isn’t a real thing. Jerks.

Blizzard Forecasts For New York City Proved Inaccurate; But That Doesn’t Affect Climate Science. New York City experienced less snowfall than weather forecasters predicted, but this does not affect the legitimacy of climate models or the scientific consensus on global warming. The New Republic’s Rebecca Leber explained how despite conservatives’ “jump[ing] at the opportunity to compare weather forecasts to climate change models,” climate science and weather forecasting are different because they use different models, examine different data, and operate on different time scales:

Weather is not climate. The weather is immediate conditions — rain, snow, sunshine, etc. — while the climate is long-term trends. A blizzard or a cold snap doesn’t disprove climate change. It doesn’t cancel the fact that ten of the hottest years on record have occured [sic] since 2000, with 2014 as the the warmest yet.

Weather forecasts are also not the same as climate projections, because weather predictions are short-term by nature. And despite improved forecasting over the last few decades, weather forecasts are only as accurate as meteorologists’ initial data, like atmospheric conditions, ocean surface temperatures, and how well real-world physics is represented in their models. Imperfect knowledge of those conditions makes weather predictions highly variable.

Climate models, on the other hand, can’t predict the weather on a specific day, but they do show trends and averages. They deal with different data, including conditions of the deep ocean, vegetation, and the sun, and how greenhouse gasses impact the system. [New Republic, 1/27/15]

This after starting the piece with a list of conservative talking heads that had dismissed the role of climate change in a storm that proved less damaging than originally projected (likely using those same climate change models mind you. Maybe. Who knows? Climate scientists will never tell…).

My favorite part of this is the assertion that the blizzard being a bust in NY doesn’t affect climate science. Well…uh…that’s actually the problem. Or is that something too difficult to understand genius climate scientists? Your inaccuracy at predicting disastrous weather as a result of your models actually SHOULD affect your assertions. It might mean you’re doing something wrong. I mean, maybe…

But it never will because politicized climate science isn’t so much about being correct and offering helpful information to humanity about its role in changes in the ecosystem and how that might affect our weather patterns but about something else entirely:

The Obama Administration released a new report on global cooling global warming climate change this week, and its findings and recommendations are about what you’d expect: conservatives are stupidheads who hate Science™, so give us eleventy trillion dollars…

The global warming alarmists aren’t attempting to shut down debate because they’re worried the dissenters are wrong; the alarmists are attempting to shut down debate because they know their models are wrong, and they’d rather nobody focus on that inconvenient little fact.

As the old legal adage goes: When you have the facts, argue the facts; when you have the law, argue the law; when you have neither, just accuse your adversary of hating science and hope that nobody will listen to what they have to say about your consistently wrong forecasting models. And if that doesn’t work, blatantly manipulate and torture the English language and hope that nobody will notice.

And that pretty succinctly sums it up. And, as a result of this misinformed activism, we are suffering under the weight of the tyrannical do-gooders who are really just huge pains-in-the-butt in sheep’s clothing:

It doesn’t help that bicyclists have decided that the aforementioned physical limitations of their conveyance mean that they have no need to follow the law while riding. “Of course I blew through that stoplight,” the bicyclist will rationalize to you. “Don’t you understand how much energy I have to use to fully stop and then start again? There were no cars coming. Who cares?” Imagine, as a driver, explaining to a cop that you rolled through a stop light because you didn’t think any fellow drivers were coming to T-Bone you; I’m sure he’ll just let you off. But hey, the bicyclists should be allowed to treat the rules of the road as optional. After all, they’re doing all of us a favor by biking—by slowing drivers down and endangering pedestrians. No, really, that’s what they think!

Uh, thanks? But one question…Since when does being a do-gooder actually mean doing the opposite of good and making your fellow man feel bad (or even endangering them in your pursuit of self-righteousness) about themselves for lifting an eyebrow at the crap data you call truth? Because that seems like an inconsistency. But then, everything about climate science today seems like an inconsistency. So, at least that’s consistent.

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.